What's the difference, practically speaking, between...
... a Democrat and an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats?
tia
las
= new reply since forum marked as read
from both of the big powers in the senate, inevitably severely negatively impacting personal influence and ability to rise in committee and other assignments and carry out agendas. And of course, they're far less "in the know." Practically speaking, people do not go independent to establish a legacy of achievement.
Independents are typically far less involved, to sometimes not at all, in the work of the Democratic caucus, part of their choice, and so of course have much less say in what we do. Sinema reportedly already chose to be comparatively little involved in committee and other senatorial work, so stepping down even more will presumably suit her. It does give independents a lot more free time, though like others they have staffs of dozens eager to do what's allowed.
Sinema's famous way of being most impactful, by wielding her wrench in the previous 50-50 works, no doubt will continue. Some think there'll probably be little change. 
Occasional big drama, but little change.
ago he bitterly informed a brand-new congressman that being in congress was a waste of everyone's time. It certainly seems to have largely been for his quarter century or more as an independent socialist.
Inside congress, full of liberal Democratic believers in using the establishment to create progressive change and increasingly corrupt Republicans already committed to serving the very wealthy, was no place for him to pave the way for enlightened socialist revolution. His house-senate record after 30 years is outstandingly empty of contributions he can point to with pride. Yes, he served as a pretty consistent +1 to our caucus, but a Democratic senator would have done the same and more and valued the opportunities being in the center of power gave him.
Sanders has made it into the history books now, all right. He's no longer known mostly as the face above "I-Sanders" on group pictures when new sessions are sworn in, but, again, it's not because of his work in the house and senate.
He's made it into the books because of his actions outside congress during and after his time as a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination and as the LW leader of one of the two populist movements that arose out of this turbulent, dangerous period -- and not of the white nationalist authoritarian one that prevailed.
Now, I-Sanders is more committed to standing with the Democrats to fight off the giant RW threat. And after 14 years or so in the senate, and as recognition of his service to the Democratic caucus, the seniority system has also processed him into a minor leadership position. But as always, his role has been an Independent supporting the Democratic caucus with his vote. Still no signficant legacy as an independent.
Serious example of what rejecting membership in one of the two big power groups to isolate as a "caucus of one" means. I believe he was likely very sincere in saying his own quarter century plus was a waste, and the reasons self evident. No idea if he'd choose to serve differently or return to private political activism if he could go back.
The subject here of course is actually Sinema. No idea what she wants. Being a U.S. senator, extremely highly privileged, potentially extremely powerful, and the most important, lionized person almost everywhere you go, would be quite a golden ring to walk away from. 
believed Sanders is extremely sincere. His sincerity may be his most outstanding quality, and his ability to put his conviction across with great authority on the stump his greatest talent. Of course, that's proven not at all the same as not deceiving those who trust him as he pursues his righteous beliefs.
Sinema? I think she's obviously flawed and unstable; but how much? She could be an "independent Maverick" without the blatant deceit and betrayal of those who helped elect her so hopefully.
I think she understands and enjoys the enormous power and importance of being a U.S. senator. IF she's capable of maintaining enough that we're better off with the seat in her hands than the Republicans', those who want to burn her NOT-in-effigy will be asked to reelect her. And I think some would; she is a charismatic leader for those who want that and were willing to blow of huge signs of what she is before. Of course, for others she became the only crap shoot in town.
As an independent candidate she can't be primaried.
But she's so unpopular, she won't win re-election anyway, so there's that.
