How Opportunists Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema Bullshitted Themselves Right Out of Office

By Michael Kelman Portney

Introduction: The Rise and Fall of Manchin and Sinema

Once considered pivotal players in the Senate, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema made headlines as "moderate" Democrats willing to buck their own party to wield outsized influence. But while this strategy brought them fleeting power and attention, it ultimately alienated them from both Democratic and Republican voters. Their reluctance to commit to core Democratic priorities, paired with their controversial alliances and perceived self-interest, turned their once-crucial leverage into a liability. This article explores how these two senators navigated themselves out of office by prioritizing personal gain over political vision.

1. Manchin and Sinema’s Brand of Opportunism

Manchin and Sinema’s political identities revolved around being contrarians. They positioned themselves as "moderates" or "independents" who refused to align fully with either party's policies, carving out a unique role as deal-brokers. However, their actions often appeared self-serving rather than ideologically motivated.

Manchin’s Coal Connections: Manchin's political identity was closely tied to his home state of West Virginia, where the coal industry is a major player. Rather than advocating for progressive climate policy, he frequently protected the coal industry, creating a conflict of interest that cast doubt on his motives.

Sinema’s Shifting Alliances: Sinema, once a Green Party member and progressive, pivoted sharply toward the center, aligning with corporate interests and big donors. This shift not only distanced her from her progressive base but also made her seem unpredictable and inconsistent.

This opportunism worked temporarily, as their positions made them indispensable votes in a split Senate. However, voters across the political spectrum began to see through the facade, recognizing that their "independence" was less about principles and more about personal gain.

2. Alienating the Democratic Base

Both senators repeatedly voted against core Democratic legislation, from voting rights reforms to climate action, which further alienated them from their base. While this brought them favor with certain conservative-leaning donors and constituencies, it burned bridges with key Democratic stakeholders.

Blocking Progressive Legislation: On major Democratic initiatives like the Build Back Better Act, Manchin and Sinema's resistance prevented policies that were widely popular with Democratic voters, including climate measures, healthcare reforms, and child tax credits.

Undermining Voting Rights Legislation: Both senators refused to support filibuster reform, effectively stalling essential voting rights legislation that could have countered restrictive voting laws in Republican-led states. For a Democratic base increasingly concerned with voting rights, this decision was unforgivable.

This alienation was not limited to their own states; nationally, Democrats grew disillusioned with their refusal to support key party values, ultimately eroding their political capital within the party.

3. Failing to Appeal to Republicans or Independents

Though Manchin and Sinema might have hoped their contrarian stances would win favor with Republicans and independents, their strategy backfired. Their refusal to fully embrace Democratic values left them without a clear base of support.

No Republican Support Base: While their obstruction might have resonated with some conservatives, it was unlikely to win over Republican voters who still viewed them as Democrats. In a polarized environment, Republicans often saw them as insufficiently conservative, dismissing them as unreliable allies.

Losing Independent Voters’ Trust: Independent voters, who often value consistency and pragmatism, were turned off by Manchin and Sinema's seeming unpredictability and self-interest. Rather than principled centrists, they came to be seen as opportunists lacking a true vision.

In a system where coalition-building is crucial, their inability to form genuine alliances with any group ultimately left them isolated.

4. The Political Price of Opportunism

By attempting to appease both sides without committing to either, Manchin and Sinema sacrificed their political credibility. The resulting backlash was swift:

Primary Challenges and Political Backlash: In response to their obstruction, Democrats in Arizona and West Virginia began to seek alternative candidates who could better represent their interests. Progressive challengers and frustrated party leaders made it clear that neither senator could rely on unwavering party support.

Reduced Influence and Relevance: As their popularity declined, so did their leverage. Once pivotal swing votes, they became increasingly irrelevant as their influence diminished and the party began to pursue other paths to achieve its goals.

5. Lessons from the Fallout: The Pitfalls of Self-Serving Politics

Manchin and Sinema’s downfall highlights the risks of political opportunism. Their tenure serves as a reminder that in politics, consistency and alignment with constituents’ values are essential. They failed to recognize that constituents, regardless of party, value authenticity and principled action.

Overestimating Personal Power: Manchin and Sinema’s belief that they could indefinitely play both sides led them to overestimate their own influence. In a rapidly changing political landscape, their approach left them increasingly out of touch with the needs and priorities of voters.

The Need for Vision and Consistency: Without a clear vision, both senators failed to connect with any one base. Their opportunistic tactics may have afforded them temporary power, but in the end, they failed to establish a legacy, leaving them politically homeless.

Conclusion: The End of the Road for Opportunistic Centrism

Manchin and Sinema’s political careers are cautionary tales of how attempting to stand above party lines without true principles or a clear vision can backfire. By bullshitting their way through office with self-serving motives and inconsistent stances, they ultimately alienated every potential base of support. Their story is a lesson for future politicians: in the long run, authenticity and accountability matter more than short-term power plays.