>

Wishful thinking by Mitch.
Are there really any democrats left in Arizona that support her? I doubt it.
The "dilemma" he's referring to is the notion that Democrats might be better off not running a candidate and supporting "Independent" Sinema as the best chance of holding onto the seat.
This makes sense if you live in Washington. If you populate the real world, Sinema has a 0% chance of reelection whether the Democrats run a candidate or not. She's so incredibly unpopular, she cannot win, even heads-up against whatever fucking lunatic the Arizona GOP selects.
The only real question is whether Sinema will run as an independent and spoil the election for the Dems. >

You are correct.  I think she's delusional.  Her whole calculation is she tried to create this maverick personal, because she had presidential aspiration.  Turns out people fucking hate her.  Everyone.  Despite the fact that she is delusional, I think somehow she will be convinced not to run. >

That is not true George Santos likes her.  (A little humor) >

Santos valued the time he spent working with her to save the world from an asteroid. >

They really bonded when they saved the Tulkans from the sky people. >

Replace her, no dilemma. >

I guess unless she goes third party to fuck democrats? Would she do that? >

That’s the entire point of her only going independent.  That is the constant threat she’s using to try to hold the Democrats hostage. >

Funny thing is, even if Dem's don't run a candidate, as long as Rep's run a candidate, she'll lose her seat anyways. She's pissed off a TON of Arizonan liberals and moderates who supported and pushed hard for her. 
At the rate things are going, she's never going to win a second term. >

So she doesn't have a chance but yet is poisoning the well! How disappointing. >

She can go drink from a different well..... so she doesn't really care about that. >

Everyone hates her. I think they are hoping she splits the vote so significantly that a repub will win, but that’s pretty idiotic since she’s generated so much easy ammo for dems to use. I mean sh￼e was a paid speaker at many gop events, no dem has been doing that — she’s cooked. >

The problem is that she only won by a 2.4% margin last time. And the Green Party candidate also carried 2.4% of the vote.
If a relative handful of the voters stick with her, she's likely to fuck over the Democrats. >

I'm hoping the political climate has shifted enough since she was elected to eliminate her as an option in Arizona and Gallego will get a larger margin to win. A lot of things have changed in Arizona during this last election. Maybe she'll get an equal number of republican and democrat vote to offset each other. >

Without a party backing her, that means she has to pay for a statewide campaign all on her own. She might not be so eager to fuck over the Democrats if she has to sign a seven figure loan to do it. >

Probably not since it would dig into her sell out money... I mean her earnings as senator. >

What's the dilemma? She gets replaced at the soonest opportunity. It's not like any Democrat voters want to keep her. >

Because if she runs as an independent next year, she could split the vote. She's not likely to win, but she only needs a few percent to be a spoiler. >

Won’t make a difference. 
She’s so unpopular in Arizona that even if the Dems rolled over and let her run unchallenged from the left, any Republican candidate would still win. 
Her political career is over >

It makes a difference because it's not just a binary where Sinema either wins or loses reelection.
It's her choice whether she runs again or not, so the Dems have to plan for it. Let's say they go hard against her now and try to give her a knock out blow well before the election. So they'd be actively pushing away one member of their small minority. She's a shitty Senator, but it's better to have her and Manchin both kinda-sorta on side. And it doesn't even necessarily push her out of the election, she already has plenty of money and I'm sure lots of wealthy people will be happy to give her more.
Or Dems could embrace her (like they do with Sanders) or stay neutral (Durbin has signaled that's what the DSCC is doing for now). She'll be less likely to defect but more likely to stay in the race, and will probably draw a larger vote than if the Dems actively oppose her. Not enough to win, but she only needs a few percent to spoil the race and hand it to the GOP. Name recognition matters, and she'll get some amount of the vote purely because she's the incumbent.
Maybe Dems could buy her off. She gets something and in return she doesn't run again. But negotiating puts the ball in her court. And depending on what the deal is, it could potentially run into ethics issues or poor optics.
​
Arizona is far from lost. But the choices aren't as good as if Sinema stayed a Dem. If she had, Dems could've continued on as they have, watch Gallego win the primary next year, and then never have to think about her again. Ideally she just drops out on her own, but again that's up to her. >

And what about republicans bigger dilemma…George Santos >

Santos isn’t a dilemma for republicans as long as he votes with them. The second he breaks out of step, he is done. Lying isn’t breaking out of step for republicans. >

McConnell using the word dilemma is offensive . He had no dilemma about not allowing a vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee to happen claiming disingenuously that it was too close to an election but then ramming Amy Covid Barrett down America’s vote after voting had already begun in 2016.
Dilemma implies being torn between two choices to make the right one . 
McConnell has no ethics, no honor, no respect for common Americans and will always and has always chose whatever gives him the most power- consequences be dammed . >

What dilemma would that be? Dems hate her, want her gone, and will make it so when she’s up for re-election. Nice and simple, from what I can see. >

Even independents hate her lol. There isn't a single political affiliation that she has a positive approval rating with. Nobody likes a betrayer. >

No dilemma here. She lied and got elected to do things she won't do.  She's useless. >

Unfortunately she is worse then useless. She is an active saboteur of Arizona voters and her cynical craven antics and showmanship have served to further discourage voters from believing in anything or anybody.  She is a stain on the body politic,  a more smoothly executed Santos style stain