>

Remind him what happened to palpatine; dead twice. I doubt he’s got the force powers to survive another 10 years.  
He’ll go down in infamy like all the other corrupt evil right wing non-presidents tho. The weird nose guy, the stupid kid with the bad economic plan that he couldn’t pass, the one who cheated on his wife, uh, this empty suit who had to give away all the power to get the position, hmm… now turtle man with the neck and the voice. 
That’s something?
Seems like he could have been rich af and helped the people in his state and in his nation and had a hero’s funeral. That’s a lot more work than just saying whatever the top bidder tells you too tho. 
Anyway, yeah, the US democracy hasn’t aged well and the number of bad actors like sinema and whoever the rupublican drag Queen is are just symptoms. 
Expect more as you pivot away from “communism” in to “idiocracy”.
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 >

Wishful thinking by Mitch.
Are there really any democrats left in Arizona that support her? I doubt it. >

The answer is No.  There are not. >

Enema is not even a democrat anymore. I dont think there is any debate at all. >

Sin -enema. Juvenile and offensive … it fits her perfectly >

I don’t know, enemas are usually used to clear up a blockage, but here she IS the blockage.
Follow that train of logic and I think you’ve got a fairly accurate representation of her character. >

We got no dilemma we got someone to replace her and her entire base hates her so we don’t even have to worry about her stealing votes.
Edit: I will throw a littile bit of the blame here at our head of senate, he should just have come right out and said we are replacing her. Sounds like he was beating around the bush when it’s clear if she did run on the democrats ticket she probably wouldn’t even win. >

Democrats in the Senate aren't going to comment on something like that because they still need to work with her for the next two years.
But mark my words, she's done. There's no way she gets re-elected. And I don't see the Democrats supporting her independent bid; that would be stupid.
The upside for the GOP is that her independent run pulls votes from the Democrat. She only won by 2.4% in 2018. If she spoils by at least that much, then she likely gets the Republican nominee elected.
The best thing for the Democrats that can happen is that she sees her polls numbers have no chance of winning and she drops out. But I think she'd have to be bought off with some cushy job offer for that to happen. >

Really? The man who has George Santos and Marge as the epitomy of the GOP is gloating? >

Lol how? She isn't a Democrat and has opposed almost every major policy push, hell they don't even have to primary her now. Good riddance. >

People in this thread saying 'Just replace her' are, I feel, really overconfident in the electoral leanings of Arizona. She won in '18 because she built a moderate, pro-business, track record that allowed her to combat a horribly run McSally campaign. 
An orange fascist and a dwarfish authoritarian only lost statewide by less than 15,000 votes while downstream races fared well for Republicans. 
Arizona is still a slightly red state - It's just that Goldwater / McCain Conservatives don't play well with Trump-era Republicans. Her splitting the ticket can (and probably will) revert the seat back to Republican hands. 
Worst part? She legit used to be a great advocate for people and issues here in the State. Going to Washington changed the hell out of her. >

When Mitch says: 

"I think it is a big dilemma for the Senate Democratic majority to decide whether to support her or to support somebody running on the Democratic ticket," 

And the reporter comments: 

he added, visibly smirking.

I can’t help but think the only dilemma will be who they back to run against her. >

She's not a democrat, she abandoned the party, Arizona Democrats will pick one of their own to replace her.  Whats the dilemma? >

She will run as a third party, that will split the liberal vote and the GOP gains a seat and the majority. >

Liberals won't vote for her--she's an independent now. Liberals are pissed at her! >

That’s some destructive overconfidence there. >

But this poll shows that she's unpopular with everyone. >

Ah yes. The everlasting accuracy and dependability of polls. How’d that work for Clinton in ‘16 >

What dilemma?
If he thinks she'd be some kind of spoiler candidate, siphoning votes off from the Democrat OR Republican, then he must be imagining someone who would see three options and think Sinema was the best choice.
That person does not exist. >

Dilemma? Nope, just vote her treacherous ass out of office. >

What dilemma? I'm sure Democrats in AZ can't wait to replace her. She's probably the biggest fraud politician outside of someone not named George. >

McTurtle fever delirium. Time to retire Mitchie. >

Isn’t she an Independent now? Where’s the dilemma? She’s not going to be running as a member of her former party, is she? >

The very reason she switched to independent was to create the aforementioned ‘dilemma’. The dilemma being Democrats risking a 3 way race in which Democratic voters spilt their vote between Gallego and Sinema, flipping the seat to the Republicans. >

What are the pros of Democrats supporting her in the next election?  Help me out here. >

None at all. Helping her would be like handing a loaded gun to your kidnapper and saying "don't shoot me too many times". >

It's going to depend a lot on who the Republicans run in that race. If they throw out a MAGA candidate like Kari Lake, then Sinema may split at least as many Republican votes as she does Democrat votes, giving Gallego, or whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being, a fair chance at winning. That will be especially true if they Arizona Democratic Party and the DNC back Gallego and withdraw their support from Sinema, which I don't have a lot of faith will happen, but who knows. If the DNC and the Arizona Democratic Party back Sinema, and the GOP nominates a more mainstream Republican, then Gallego will struggle but may siphon off enough progressive voters to give the seat to the Republican.
Regardless, this is only a big dilemma if the Democrats make it one. It doesn't have to be. Gallego is a Democrat, has announced his candidacy, and his first ad is a banger. Assuming he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, the DNC and Arizona Democratic Party should put their full weight behind him. >

Well, I am gloating that I don’t let Trump routinely insult my wife in the press and I don’t look like a wilted turtle >

Really. Manchin and Sinema could vote in every republican bill coming Senates way and there is nothing Dems can do about it. >

That. Is. Rich. Get your own in order before you call the kettle black. >

Not much of a dilemma, really. Regardless of whatever party she’s in, she needs to go. >

No dilemma, she dropped out of the party, replace her >

Mitch is going with the assumption that the majority of AZ independents lean democratic and that GOP and DEM voters will vote for their party regardless of the candidate. 
If Lake runs for that seat, and wins the primary, can definitely say that that Senate seat is not a guaranteed flip, Mitch said it himself, candidate quality matters, and Lake isn’t the best. Gallego who is so far the only AZ, DEM announcing candidacy for that seat has been a strong critic of Sinema, and I think he’s already resonating in the minds of a lot of voters who have felt betrayed by Sinema both Dem and GOP, but he will also need to speak to the issues that are affecting the state. >

Too bad Arizona doesn't have a top-two primary. >

Isn't the dilemma on the republican side? They're going to run their own candidate and will need to fund her campaign too in an attempt to spoil it for the dems. >

McConnell might be misreading this.
AZ Dems won't vote for Sinema but AZ Reps will.  So if she runs she'll split the Rep vote and clear the way for a Dem win. >

Not necessarily guaranteed by any means. Sure some moderate R’s will vote for her, but don’t count out moderate D’s voting for her either. I mean, sure she is underwater with Dems but it’s not like she is completely in the gutter. She has never been below 15% in a primary poll. >

Sure.  She'll get the votes of a few Dems or DINOs.  But I don't think she'll split the Democratic vote any more than an unknown independent candidate would.  She could prevent other independent candidates from running, which would be a boon to the Dems.
More importantly, I don't think she'll raise funds for a reelection campaign from traditional Democratic donors quite like she did.  Also, she won't have the financial backing of the Democratic Party or the open support of the GOP.  So, her ability to mount a campaign will not be what it was.
EDIT:  To riff off a famous quote, I knew (of) Bernie Sanders and  Sinema is no Sanders. >

Understandable >

There's a big dilemma
'Bout Krysten Sinema, uh-huh, oh yeah
There's a big dilemma
'Bout Krysten Sinema, uh-huh, oh yeah
She used to knock me out
Until her face broke out
There's a big dilemma
'Bout Krysten Sinema, uh-huh, oh yeah
There's a big dilemma
'Bout Krysten Sinema, uh-huh, oh yeah
She was my steady date
Until she put on weight
Oh yeah.
Apologies to Frank Zappa >

Dilemma my ass.   This is not quite the four D chess move people outside the state think it is. Sinema is liar and a grifter . She scammed Arizona voters.   She may well have more in common with Kari Lake’s  voter base then Hardworking veteran Rueben Gallego or any other actual Democrat. >

I am an Arizonan independent (read as reluctant Democrat voter for practical purposes) and there is no dilemma for me. I have known that she is a fraud and a traitor from early on. HER ASS IS OUT! >

They've bought Sinema to run again as independent so the Republican wins her seat by splitting votes. That much is clear. Crimes like this should have at least some level of punishment, but here we are beholden to the whims of the owner class and their money. Unfortunately, her Democrat challenger will lose, and Sinema will get millions a year in compensation from the right and lobbyists that bought her. Our system is inept, useless and nothing short of a complete overhaul will help us. Those that say otherwise are delusional. We face a climate apocalypse and the only thing on our government's mind is profit. What a joke. >

Its likely she wont even split the vote. no one likes her. She has no support with democrats, she wont split that vote, and shes not polling well with independents either. >

All true but didn’t she look cool and edgy when she wore that bath mat vest to Davos . >

She voted down a minimum wage increase and celebrated the fact her political career is dead in the water. All she can do is cause a upset she has no real chance of winning.