Tag Archives: Krysten Sinema

That Senator From Arizona

Just as Democrats were celebrating victory in Georgia, Senator Krysten Sinema from Arizona kicked off the 2024 election season by announcing that she was switching her registration from Democrat to Independent (or to use the Arizona terminology “Party Not Designated”).  With nothing else to talk about, barring any major developments in the lame duck session, here are my two cents on what is going on.

First, this decision will not change much in the U.S. Senate.  An old state representative from my area used to say that the most important vote that a representative cast was their vote for speaker on the first day of the session.  The party that won that vote would control the committees and the floor of the House (and, with them, would determine which bills would come up for a vote).  Similarly, for the Senate, that initial vote in January on the organization of the Senate is a big deal.  And Senator Sinema appears to still be intending to caucus with the Democrats and will support an organizational plan that reflects a 51-49 Democratic majority.  And, whether she is technically Senator Sinema (I-AZ) or Senator Sinema (D-AZ), her vote on individual bills is unlikely to change.  (And both due to the filibuster and the Republican majority in the House, the only thing getting through the next Congress will be consensus bills on which her vote will not matter.)

Second, one of Senator Sinema’s alleged reasons for the switch is that she is upset that the party leadership did not do more to protect her from pressure form progressives.  If that is true, Senator Sinema is too thin-skinned to be in the Senate.  The job of activists is to get the legislation that they want passed.  They are going to try to convince “friendly” or “persuadable” Senators to support that bill by any means available.  I’ve worked most of my adult life in various government offices.  Even though our decisions are not political (policy is made at other levels and we just apply it to individual cases), the electeds who I have served regularly get blowback over those decisions based on incomplete reporting of the facts.   To paraphrase President Truman, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of politics. Continue Reading...

Posted in Senate | Also tagged , Comments Off on That Senator From Arizona

Georgia Runoff

The last election of 2022 will conclude on Tuesday with the runoff election for U.S. Senator in Georgia.    While there are still some races that will go to recounts, all of the statewide and congressional races seem to be outside the margin at which a recount could make a difference.  (There are three races with margins between 500 and 600 votes — Arizona Attorney General, California Thirteenth District, and Colorado Third District.  In the Minnestoa Senate recount in 2008, the net swing from the original results to the recount results was 450 votes with an additional 87 votes gained in the election contest.  The closest of the three races going to recount is 511.   While other recounts have resulted in bigger swings, they were in races with bigger margins and Minnesota remains the largest swing that changed the results of a race.

The significance of the Senate race is not quite as big as it was in 2021 due to the Republicans apparently taking the House (but the Republican’s inability to reach a consensus on the next Speaker will be the subject of a future post) and the fact that the Democrats already have 50 seats.  But the result still matters for five key reasons.

First, the additional seat will alter the composition of committees.  With a 50-50 Senate, the committees are evenly divided.  While the rules currently allow a bill or nomination to proceed to the Senate floor on a tie vote, a 51-49 Senate would result in the Democrats having a majority on the committees. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, General Election Forecast, Senate | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , Comments Off on Georgia Runoff

Elections Have Consequences — Biden Agenda Edition

It is a phrase that we repeatedly hear — typically by the majority as a justification for the unjustifiable, but elections do have consequences.  But it’s not just who wins, but how they win.  In many parliamentary countries, there is another common phrase a “working majority.”  And the basic concept is that it is rarely enough to win by one or two seats.  When you have a one or two seat majority, it only takes one or two members deciding to walk to cost the government the majority.  And that’s in a parliamentary system where members risk forcing a new election if they defect from the government to the minority.  In the United States, there is no threat of an immediate new election hanging over members’ heads to encourage the majority to stick together.  As a result, the margin required for a working majority is somewhat larger in the U.S.

And that’s the problem that the current Democratic majority is facing.  Currently, the Democrats have a 220-212 majority in the House (which will go up to 222-213 in January when all of the vacancies are filled).  That means a mere four (now or five in January) defections means that nothing can pass.  In the Senate, the Democrats do not have an actual majority.  Even including the two independents who normally vote with the Democrats, the Senate is a 50-50 tie.  Given the Senate filibuster rules, a 50-50 Senate can only pass reconciliation bills or confirm nominees, and even that requires all fifty members of the caucus to stick together at which point the Vice-President can break a tie.

The current mess on reconciliation and election reform is the result of the lack of a working majority.  Needing every vote in the Senate requires getting the agreement of every Senator.  Thus, each Senator can insist on concessions from the rest of the party.  (It is a little harder in the House, but a group of five or more members have the same leverage).  And to be clear, the leverage is not equal.  When you need every vote, the ones who want to do less have a negotiating advantage over those who want to do more.  The reality is that something is almost always better than nothing.  So the  “moderates” can tell the “progressives” that we are willing to vote for some increased funding for child care and clean energy and expanding Medicare but not for as much increased funding as you want, and the progressives have the option of accepting some funding for needed programs or not getting those programs at all.  The only real limit to the moderates leverage is that, when it comes to needing to cut funding, progressive can counter by trying to trade off programs that they want for programs that the moderates want that progressives do not see as particularly useful.  But that is very limited leverage.  Thus, at the end of the day, the current numbers give a lot of additional power to Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Krysten Sinema of (suppoesedly) Arizona.  (The supposedly is that Senator Manchin’s positions flow from the politics of West Virginia and it is unlikely that Democrats could elect a more progressive Senator from West Virginia.  Senator Sinema’s positions on the other hand do not flow from Arizona’s politics as her fellow Senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly, who actually has to run in 2022, is not blocking current proposals.) Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, House of Representatives, Joe Biden, Senate | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Elections Have Consequences — Biden Agenda Edition

The New Senate

Based on where things currently stand, it looks like when the new Senate convenes on January 3, the Republicans will have a 51-48 or 50-49 majority (depending upon the results in Alaska).  First, a word on why there will be only 99 Senators.

At this point, it looks like both races in Georgia are headed to a run-off on January 5.  Senator David Perdue’s current term ends on January 3.  As there will be no winner in that race, the seat will technically be vacant as of January 3.   Senator Kelly Loeffler, however, was appointed to fill a seat.  The term for that seat ends on January 3, 2023.  Under the Seventeenth Amendment, until there is a winner of that special election, she continues to hold that seat.  (For Arizona, that means that as soon as the result is certified, Mark Kelly replaces Sally McBride as the new Senator.  So, if there is a lame duck session in December, the margin will be 52-48 rather than the current 53-47.)

The big issue is whether anything will be able to get through the new Senate.  The real question is whether there is a moderate caucus that could try to leverage both parties against each other to make some real reform to allow the Senate to function.  On the Democratic side of the aisle, Senator Joe Manchin (Senator from Coal Country West Virginia) has to walk a very fine line if he wants any chance at re-election.  Likewise Senator Sinema and Senator-to-be Kelly from Arizona represent a marginally swing state as would potential Senator Osser and potential Senator Warnock from Georgia.   And Senator King from Maine seems to be a true independent.  So, there is a group of four to six in the Democratic caucus that are not going to want to move too fast and might be open to reforms to make the Senate a more “collegial” body. Continue Reading...

Posted in Senate | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off on The New Senate