Appealing to the “middle?”
This morning, a certain Arizona Senator (who shall go unnamed) has decided to leave the Democratic Party, and formally be an Independent. Is she capitalizing on a significant movement in her state? I think not.
As George Lakoff has frequently noted, there is a misunderstanding about there being a distinct group with positions in the middle ground between left and right. Nowhere is the potential importance of such a group more apparent than in Arizona, where over a third of the voters are unaffiliated with either major party. While this is a large number, this category comprises less than a third of those who actually vote. As noted by Sam Almy in a recent tweet about the midterm that just concluded, many fewer Maricopa County independents voted than did those with one or the other major party affiliation, either in raw numbers or by percentage. If we had to pick just one characterization of this group, it might be that they are, on average, less engaged than are partisans.
And most independents hold actual opinions about issues that matter to the state and country. They can have a mixture of views that are promoted by one party or the other, but many agree strongly on policy with one party or the other. They have no organization, no field efforts, and no consistent platform that is touted on TV or on digital media.
What it takes to win
Don’t get me wrong, these folks are important for electoral success. Neither major party has a clear majority in the state, and it is pretty much impossible to win statewide office without getting support from independents. But it is also hard to win without grassroots support. And it is the work of committed activists that drives the turnout that comes from their actions.
In reality, on issues that matter for the state, there are strong majorities in favor of policies like reproductive freedom, civil rights and justice, the transition to renewable sources of energy, gun safety measures, and more. Candidates shouldn’t eschew policy positions just because some might label them as progressive. But treating people of all political persuasions with respect is critical, particularly when many prospective voters are not deeply researching issues or candidates and are instead largely voting based on visceral impressions of candidates (to the extent that they are not just voting for a preferred party).
Winning elections requires positive efforts, not just care to avoid offending less committed voters. It also needs the concerted actions of many, many determined volunteers who promote a campaign. And those folks are not in some mythical middle. They are, by definition, activists.
As Nils Bohr purportedly said, “It’s hard to predict, especially the future.” And I’m not about to predict the future for that unnamed Senator. But it will be hard to win any office here without the support of people who care deeply about that future.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Friends of mine tried to run as independents for the legislature in Repub leaning districts, after losing as Dems. They had hoped their center candidacies would attract enough. They were great candidates and all lost. The Dems didnt really support them, even though it was more practical (see the odious Tom Horne for pure blind voting). It is hard to see how Sinema cares one iota for the average Arizona voter, not withstanding her Alito like op-ed (BS). It is hard to see how she benefits, other than eluding a primary (one she would lose). Her running would only split the vote and hand the election to the next billionaire lapdog. (See Blakey boy). Oh, she IS one herself! Disgusting.
Let’s not forget the origin of the problem. That is to say when little Chucky Schumer tries to pick Senate nominees for state parties for them he should be told to piss off but he’d better unconditionally support whoever the Democratic nominee is. She was the worst Democrat in the House and for that reason was hand picked by him & he cleared the primary for her.
Saw this comment on Talking Points Memo & is perfectly apt:
Kyrsten Sinema is the Tulsi Gabbard of Joe Liebermans.
I’m just waiting for AZBlue’s hair-on-fire post about the newly minted independent senator from Arizona.
I called all three of her offices this AM suggesting that she resign.
She won’t resign. There’s still some gold in them hills.
Perhaps President Biden could offer her a choice Ambassadorship after Governor Elect Hobbs is sworn in? I’m sure an ex-Ambassador/Senator would have greener pastures for grifting & a better no-show sinecure in Corporate America.
Or she could be running a marathon and get accidentally shot by Claudine Longet.
Given the example that Arizona just voted to establish a lieutenant governor specifically to prevent a successor of the other party, it’s for me hard to imagine the Third Way idea getting much traction among voters. If anyone were asking I’d recommend spending those 70 million clams to help establish ranked-choice voting in the states, and maybe throw in a separate federal-ballot line for vice president, to gradually get where they say they want to go in a more practical way.
The lady herself seems sufficiently self-regarding to go this way — as they say, every senator wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and sees the next president — but at the same time a bit too canny to pay more than lip-service to it.
I agree with AZ BlueMeanie. I think she doesn’t give a hoot for improving life in AZ. She is after a high paying job in one of those companies, or from one of those wealthy individuals, she refuses to tax.
She’s clearly calculated that this will give her leverage for advancing her ideas, and we can’t really call this unexpected following her performance over the past two years. I have to say I rather doubt that this will put her in a position of trust among either Republicans or Democrats, and expect that rather than between the parties, as she wants to be, she’ll just find herself shut out unless she can prove useful to a party agenda. All she’ll have is a spoiler vote, so this doesn’t much change the calculus from last term other than that Dems don’t have to pretend she’s a member.
I imagine she understands that she would lose next year’s anticipated primary against Rep. Ruben Gallego, but could win a three-way general election. I expect that instead she’ll just be turning the seat back over to whatever Republican candidate emerges from what will surely be a primary race to the extreme right. There will be no more John McCains for us.
An independent candidate has never won an election in Arizona. She can only be a spoiler. Sinema should take my advice and resign so that she can take that sweet highly paid lobbyist job she has been angling for. This is the only future in politics that she has now.
I wish someone could provide reliable, primary-source insight as to what she really wants. She has been relentless in moving up the political ladder, but I can’t imagine she’d really think this is a path to the presidency. I get that lobbying is lucrative, but my sense is that she wouldn’t be much good at working for someone else. Could ego-service really be enough for her? Maybe she really wants to be ambassador to France or something. That would be one way for a Dem president to get her out of the way.
I regret helping her get elected in ’18, though we didn’t have a better choice after the primary.
Yeah, I’ve come to deeply regret it too. OK, I’m just throwing this idea out there as a possibility because it fits the language she uses and the “bipartisan” persona she has been trying to establish in the media. The private equity hedge fund millionaires who are actually the No Labels group have been making noise about running a “Unity Ticket” in 2024. These are Sinema’s kind of people, maybe they are filling her head with notions of running for president/vice president under the No labels ticket?
“Group quietly mobilizing bipartisan 2024 ‘Unity Ticket’ as Biden, Trump move closer to announcing campaigns”, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/centrist-group-quietly-mobilizing-for-bipartisan-2024-unity-ticket-as-biden-trump-move-closer-to-re-electio
The group, “No Labels,” began work providing a potential alternative for voters and investigating a pathway to victory for a bipartisan presidential ticket in late 2021.
[No Labels] is quietly mobilizing a major bid to launch a bipartisan Unity Ticket in 2024 featuring both a Democrat and Republican for the White House as President Biden and former President Trump move closer to announcing re-election bids.
“We started getting a lot of questions from our No Labels members across the country about 2024 and the very real prospect that Americans could be forced to choose between two very divisive presidential candidates that a majority of them finds unacceptable,” No Labels co-executive director Margaret White told Fox News. “So we decided to start investigating whether there might actually be need for a unity ticket, and a path to victory.”
No Labels insists they are not actively considering any specific candidates for a Unity Ticket, nor are they running a campaign, but whispers in Washington and in political circles suggest political moderates are being eyed for the effort, including Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.
[And perhaps Kyrsten Sinema?]
Already, No Labels has begun work gathering 1.5 million signatures in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., to gain ballot access. The group has raised more than 60% of the $70 million needed for the effort.
No Labels officials told Fox News that their internal polling and modeling has shown that a unity ticket could win the Electoral College in at least 23 states, representing more than 270 electoral votes. The group is planning another round of extensive surveys after the midterm elections and throughout 2023, followed by a major convention in the first quarter of 2024 to potentially announce a ticket.
“Imagine it’s 2024, and tens of millions of Americans are clamoring for an alternative to the two major party nominees,” Clancy said. “If no one has done the work to create the infrastructure to make such a run possible, it’s too late because you can’t flip a switch and get ballot access.”
Clancy added: “That’s why we’re starting now.”
However, the way No Labels would select candidates to lead its potential unity ticket is less certain.
“We’re still in the process of developing a transparent and inclusive process for how a potential Unity Ticket would be chosen if the American people clearly want that choice,” White said, noting that the group is responding to polling that the public wants solutions that have not been offered by current elected officials.
[T]here is, however, a chance a unity ticket could have unintended consequences, by drawing support away from the 2024 Democratic or Republican nominees.
For that reason, No Labels told Fox News it will wait as long as possible for a final decision to offer a ballot lineup to a unity ticket.
“We have no interest in creating a Ralph Nader-type spoiler,” White said. “If this path outside the two major party candidates is not needed, No Labels will stand down.”
Asked if the effort has encountered opposition from the RNC or DNC, White said No Labels “hasn’t heard much of anything” from major party groups.
But see, Axios, “”Trump would prevail”: Dems alarmed by 2024 bipartisan spoilers”, https://www.axios.com/2022/12/08/democrats-2024-presidential-election-bipartisan
Democrats are trying to stop outside groups from forming a bipartisan presidential ticket in 2024, warning voters that the effort is political malpractice.
A third party could hand the presidency to Donald Trump, warns a new report from Third Way, shared first with Axios.
“If a third-party candidate blew past historic precedent and managed to win enough Electoral Votes to keep any candidate from getting to 270, then the outcome would be decided in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans and where Donald Trump would prevail,” the report says.
Over the course of this year, the bipartisan group No Labels has been working to build a $70M operation supporting a third-party option in 2024.
No Labels didn’t rule out boosting an alternative to Biden should he run again, but told Axios that they won’t offer a presidential ticket “if that choice isn’t needed,” per its spokesman Ryan Clancy.
“Our citizen leaders from around the nation have no interest in fueling a spoiler,” Clancy said. “But if the public urgently wants and needs another choice, we’ll make sure they have it.”
The report from Third Way, a center-left political think tank, leans on several data points from past cycles to argue that “anything but a staunchly conservative third-party candidate” would hurt Democrats.
Third Way’s analysis found that Trump voters are stickier — they like him more than Biden voters like Biden. So they’re not as likely to jump around.
Voters who say they don’t like either party’s presidential nominee tend to lean Democratic — “ideal targets for a credible third-party candidate,” said Aliza Astrow, the Third Way senior political analyst who authored the report.
-Food for thought.
Well, No Labels is funded by the financial industry, and She Who Shall Not Be Named has been in their back pocket for years, so maybe.
I have yet to see someone from Arizona explaining SWSNBN’s reasoning and the pundits from NYC and DC are all getting it wrong.
Gotta’ go to the store and get some throat lozenges, a bit hoarse, been screaming out lout every time someone calls SWSNBN a centrist or moderate instead of her preferred pronouns of crook/con artist.