tends to be changeability. Instability due to personality. Changeability to suit political situations. Not all are prone, of course. But without a strong party with a stable ideological base, shifting to maintain relevance and take advantage of the various current passions and issues is necessary.
Also, and extremely common, the farther from the big mainstream voting bloc of a party, the more pols find it necessary to..."fudge" what they believe -- or to actively deceive -- to sell themselves to more people.
On the people side, a minority frustrated for attention and influence tend to be suckers for pols who agree with them. Minority factions or movements offer a route in for people who aren't gaining traction among all the competition for the large mainstream vote.
I think it's likely all these may apply in some way to Sinema. But changeability and all this weaseling with progressive voters especially, though it suggests lack of integrity, doesn't have to mean lightweight. She seems very strongminded to me.
And while she actively deceived out the left side of her face to get elected, she seems to be coming through with what she promised indies and people more right. She also promised everyone she wouldn't be a good, go-along Democrat; "progressive" groups might have liked what they thought she meant by that but misunderstood.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read