So, there was some accusations of sexism recently in regards to how Sinema is treated compared to how Manchin is treated. I feel I've explained why I make a distinction between the two numerous times, but 538 just put out an article featuring some interesting stats that make my argument pretty clear.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kyrsten-sinema-is-confounding-her-own-party-but-why/

It's the first table in the article. It looks at how Democratic Senators voted during Trump's presidency and compares how often the Senator voted with Trump to the expected percentage based on partisanship of the state they are from. Manchin voted with Trump 50.4% of the time, but based on how red WV is that is a difference of 38.9% more blue compared to what would be expected. While he is frustratingly moderate, he is frustratingly moderate in a seat that should never be blue and him holding that position is significantly better than every reasonable alternative.

Sinema funnily enough, also voted with Trump 50.4% of the time. However, this is actually 10.6 percentage points more red than would be expected based on the partisanship of the state (a number that wouldn't be surprising coming from a Republican).

Now, you might be thinking "But she's in a purple state so she also has to play the moderate sometimes", but that 10.6 percentage points is the single greatest difference of any Democratic senator. Other moderates lean blue about 20 percentage points more than would be expected, but not her. That is what makes her actions so positively baffling and make it pretty clear that there are better alternatives for her seat.

What makes her even more baffling is the fact that she used to be a Progressive. When she was in the House, she was one of the most ideologically liberal members, but as soon as she got to the Senate, she flipped to being one of the most conservative members. This is also what makes her donors particularly interesting as a possible explanation for this significant flip. There could very well be other motivations, but her actions are incredibly strange and she deserves to be ditched by whatever progressive base she has remaining at this point.

It's cool dude, I don't wanna rebuke your points as I don't wanna get into an discussion.

But there's nothing baffling about Kyrsten behavior based on the article you linked.

"But when she was elected to the U.S. Congress in 2012, a switch flipped. She immediately became the most conservative Democrat in the House of Representatives"

She has been this way for a long time. Not since the Senate as you say but immediately once she was elected to the House.

While you're right that I got the timeline mixed up, that really just means that her behavior has been baffling for longer than I thought. It doesn't make her turn any less weird, and it certainly doesn't really explain how she votes. 

Boston cop gets a slap on the wrist for bragging on camera about running over peaceful protesters with his squad car:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/08/metro/boston-police-reinstate-sergeant-who-bragged-about-hitting-george-floyd-protesters-with-his-vehicle/

Arizonan here.

When Sinema was a Representative, she represented AZ-9, which covers central Phoenix (bright blue) and Tempe (which is Arizona's equivalent of Austin, Texas.) She was my Representative. That area is now represented by former Phoenix mayor Greg Stanton.

She won over Martha McSally by only a few thousand votes in 2018. As a Senator, she is no longer sheltered by her solid blue district. She also has to appeal to voters in places like Mesa (heavily Mormon and conservative), Scottsdale and Gilbert (wealthy and conservative), and the vast expanse of western Arizona, where the largest towns are Yuma and Prescott, and is also the area that keeps sending Paul Gosar to Washington. Gosar is pushing both the stolen election narrative and trying to make a martyr out of Ashli Babbitt and is the Congressman whose own family took out ads urging people not to vote for him. When Sinema only had to deal with Phoenix and Tempe, she was free to be as progressive as she wanted. 

Her voting history isn't consistent with other purple state Senators and burning your party and your base seems to be a very questionable strategy if electability was her primary concern. Among those in states with a similar lean, she stands alone as being more conservative than one would expect given the partisanship of the state. While I don't like the "they are basically Republicans" narrative, Sinema's voting tendencies look more like one would expect from a purple state Republican than what one would expect of a purple state Dem. 

Electability just doesn't explain her voting history, which makes it really weird to consider the final idea in your post. The idea that she used to be more true to her personal politics but has been pulled to the center by necessity is interesting, but it doesn't track with her voting record. As such, it makes me question whether she truly stood behind those progressive politics that she used to espouse, or whether there is some other factor guiding her hand beyond electability and personal political conviction.

Even Obama realises if the Dems don't get these popular and pragmatic progressive ideas through, the Dems have cooked their goose in 2022 and 2024, the people want more from their leaders, if it's business as usually they are done    

I thought this article was very interesting.  I expect to see a lot more of this going on or I should say its already going on but the intensity probably will increase.  Social media make delivering misinformation so easy that this type of ground warefare will be used a lot.  There is so much money to be made its going to be the new gold rush.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/10/hacker-x-the-american-who-built-a-pro-trump-fake-news-empire-unmasks-himself/

Good article. I must say I find it very difficult to sympathize with the subject even after he's supposedly tried to repent. It's funny how these people don't care who they harm until it affects them personally, like him inadvertently radicalizing his own father. I also found it interesting how this article and another linked in the comments mention how much more successful right wing misinformation is than left wing. I think most of us already knew this, but it's refreshing to hear it straight from the horse's mouth for a change.

"Sources also told Ars that Koala Media owners realized the massive potential for financial gain in pushing out the pro-Trump and anti-Clinton rhetoric after analyzing Trump's voter base and their emotional reactions to the fake news articles all adding to traffic. Had Clinton's voter base earned them more money, the pro-Clinton narrative might have been their focus, claim the sources."

"Coler says his writers have tried to write fake news for liberals — but they just never take the bait."

I also wouldn't mind Facebook blinking out of existence, either. I think they've objectively become a net negative to society at this point.

Top 1% of U.S. Earners NOW Hold More Wealth Than All of the Middle Class

The data offers a window into the slow-motion erosion in the financial security of mid-tier earners that has fuelled voters’ discontent in recent years. That continued through the Covid-19 pandemic, despite trillions of dollars in government relief

Both Rep the Dem Administrations have made this possible over decades of pandering to wealth individuals, wall street and Corporations, whilst simultaneously talking down various popular and pragmatic social benefits like M4A as being too costly a burden on society