A sign of moderates running scared: What everyone is getting wrong about Sinema’s party switch  

On Tuesday, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) won reelection giving Senate Democrats their 51st vote and a clear majority in the Senate. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s announcement changing her party affiliation shouldn’t change that—she has vowed to, “vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate” and promised not to caucus with the Republicans. Still, the move does little to impact the Senate’s ability to conduct business—if Sinema stays true to her voting record, she will vote in favor of President Biden’s judicial nominees, and legislative business was already unlikely to go very far with a Republican-controlled House. Still, the move very likely hands the Republicans Senate control in 2024—but not for the reasons many assume.  

Those on the left were quick to celebrate Warnock’s victory as a means to avoid needing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the moderate senator from deep-red West Virginia, to vote in favor of the Democratic agenda. Manchin proved to be a difficult vote to gain leading conventional wisdom to dictate that Manchin was a “DINO” or Democrat-in-Name-Only—many went as far as to say Manchin was beholden to special interests or his own personal agenda. My research offers a much simpler explanation: moderates like Manchin, who represent states that tend to vote for the other party, are running scared. That is to say, to win reelection, they need to make a case to their voters that they represent them, not their party. In my analysis of roll call votes from 2002-2013, I found that moderates actively seek ways to vote against their party, especially on highly visible legislation. Overall, I found moderates to be among the least powerful senators in the chamber since they were always trying to avoid being viewed as their party’s most important member.  

To that end, Joe Manchin would have likely needed room to oppose even more of the Democratic agenda after being viewed as the pivotal vote that passed much of Biden’s agenda in the last legislative session. The problem is that the left didn’t have just one problematic senator but two. Indeed, Sinema carved out a similar lane for herself as a moderate senator from (what was, at least at one point in recent history) a red state. The case can be made that switching parties offers Sinema a stronger lane to vote against the Biden agenda (while still voting in favor of his nominees). Furthermore, without leaving the caucus, she effectively does nothing to impact Senate business.  

Still, the move is damaging for the Democrats looking to 2024. As an independent, Sinema will be viewed as a toss-up, at best, for anything the Democrats try to pass. This once again puts Manchin front and center. With all eyes on Manchin, he has to choose between making a case for reelection to voters in a state that no longer votes for statewide Democrats or killing his party’s agenda. For Sinema, she sets up a game of chicken with her party back home in Arizona. In Maine, where Sen. Angus King runs as an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, the Democratic Party abstains from running a candidate and endorses King for reelection. For Sinema this will by no means be a guarantee. With an angry and energized base (and young voters who have demonstrated they can turn out to vote), the Democratic Party in Arizona may run their own candidate. If they do, this will likely split the vote and hand the seat to Republicans.  

If these two scenarios do play out in West Virginia and Arizona, the Democrats are already down to 49 seats with little room to gain back on or two seats to get them back in control in 2024. They already face an uphill battle with 23 of the 34 seats for reelection held by Democrats. Sinema’s move to protect herself, likely solidified the chances of a Republican majority in 2024. 

Neil S. Chaturvedi is Interim Associate Dean for Academic Personnel and Resources and Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Administration at Cal Poly Pomona.