>

She's going to be voted out, but switching her affiliation to Independent means that she can get on the general election ballot, siphon votes from a Democrat that would have beat her in a primary and gift wrap the seat for a Republican. It's a shame but there's nothing Dems can really do about it. Kick her out of the caucus and she joins the Rs and they lose their edge on committees.
Everyone keeps thinking she would split the ticket for dems, but an ad campaign marketing her to republicans would do gangbusters, advertise her as the one who “stood up to the dems”, advertise her over the rep choice, split their vote more >

You have to keep in mind there are more registered R’s than D’s who vote in AZ. So, any DEM candidate does not win by just getting the DEM base. They need to win the moderate R’s who they’ve been able to win over in recent times when the GOP puts in crazies like Lake, Masters, etc. If those moderate all go to Sinema instead of the DEM candidate the DEM candidate will be in trouble. 
So, even if Sinema splits off the moderate R’s this is still damaging for the DEM chances. This is the pool of voters the DEMS used to turn AZ blue in recent times. If she happens to get some of the moderate leaning DEMS on top of that (she will) this is really bad news for the DEMS.
Credit to /bobsaget824 >

This seems like flawed logic to me. Even if she is taking votes from the Dem candidate, she is still taking votes away from Rep candidate. As long as Dems know not to vote for Sinema she should draw enough R votes to screw the R candidate over too. Let me know if this is a completely wrong take.
Edit: spelling error >

In Arizona voters are roughly split as follows: 34.5% R, 31% D and 33.7% I. The conventional wisdom for prominent Arizona races is that the I's determine the outcome.
I see no reason (at this time) why Sinema would siphon off enough D or R votes to win. I think a lot depends on the perceived positions of the D and R candidates. 
If the R candidate is a whacko (like Lake), and if the the D candidate (presumably Gallego) is perceived as too far to the left, then I think Sinema would be exactly where she would like to be and would have a shot at scraping I's as well as moderate D's and R's. In a three way race for US Senate in Arizona, the winner only needs a plurality of votes, not a majority. I think this helps Sinema. This scenario seems like a narrow window to me.
On the other end of the spectrum, if both the R and D candidates come off as moderate, then I think it will be a nail biter. Sinema probably wouldn't win but she could hurt the D candidate's chances.
Another factor is how Sinema morph's herself between now and the election. I wouldn't be surprised to see her start pulling away from the D's or at least threaten to do so. Why stay close to them if they are going to fight you in the primary? 
Basically it's too early to see how this is going to play out. Today I favor Gallego as the front runner. I think it's likely he will try very hard to appeal to moderates (even though he a self-proclaimed progressive). I also think the Arizona Rs are nut cases and won't be able to resist voting for a whacko in the R primary. >


I wouldn't be surprised to see her start pulling away from the D's or at least threaten to do so

Did she not literally go independent like a month ago..? >

She went independent but is still closely aligned with the Democrats, still holds all of her Democratic committee assignments and generally votes with the Democrats -- similar to what Angus King has done in Maine. The difference is King is usually unopposed by a Democratic candidate for his US Senate seat. Sinema, on the other hand recently became an I and already has a Democratic opponent for her US Senate seat. >

Thank you. I stand corrected. >

Keep an eye on Ruben Gallego.    A populist ex-marine Iraq war vet democrat.    This is a guy who could go well beyond the Senate in the next few years. >

Anti-war? That would be a nice change. >

His unit was in deep and he saw real sht.   You don't experience the hell of war like he did and not come out with a much clearer understanding of the realities of life and death and what war really means.   
I don't want war ever, but there are times when it comes to that and I would much rather have someone in a position of power that uses their experience to show caution and trepidation rather than a war hawk who has never seen combat rubber stamping bloodshed as if it's a game. >

George W. Bush really did lie about WMDs, and his aides are still lying for him >

Yeah I think at this point everyone knows they lied us into war.  Insane he got away with it.  Wasn't even impeached >

Pelosi is a chickenshit who was terrified impeaching W would have the same affect as the Clinton impeachment had on his popularity so she repeatedly blocked attempts. She shirked her duty because of political fear yet people on this sub will “yass queen” her terrible legacy because she ripped up some paper, clapped sarcastically and oversaw some genuinely disastrous electoral results. >

“Terrible legacy”. I agree that Bush should have faced impeachment but I don’t think you understand her career. She was the first, and second, female speaker. She got an incredible amount of legislation through the House including the ACA. Compared to contemporaries like Denny “pedo” Hastert, Tom “criminal” DeLay, John “Boner” Boehner and Paul “watch me listen to RAtM” Ryan, she’s pretty much a rock star. >

So then the criteria for being a rock star is “don’t be a Republican”. Nah. She has torpedoed so much progressive legislation to fuck workers, indigenous folks and poor people, all of whom need better healthcare. As for the the ACA (aka RomneyCare), calling it a victory for the people is incredible because of the individual mandate that doomed it from the get go. She and other machine dems like her will do anything they can to ensure nothing substantially changes in this country as we careen toward economic and climactic devastation, all while siphoning off wealth to those who least need it. >


She and other machine dems like her will do anything they can to ensure nothing substantially changes in this country as we careen toward economic and climactic devastation, all while siphoning off wealth to those who least need it. 

I don't see what the solution is?
How do you replace all of them AND the Republicans? >

Sigh I don’t either unfortunately besides organizing at the local level the way Rs have for decades. But we certainly can’t lionize milk toast wannabe reformers and gloss over their inconsistencies like they’re actually helping anyone but the ruling class >

She’s a useless sack of crap. Please vote her out.