This is very good news for Sinema, what just happened in the last couple minutes. Kirsten Sinema has been declared the winner. This is the first time that a Democrat will have won a Senate seat in Arizona since 1976. The first woman ever to serve as senator in Arizona. So it's a very big deal.

Censured by the Arizona Democratic Party, Kirsten Sinema announcing she's leaving the Democratic Party. She's going to be leaving the Senate. If you ever meet someone with whom you agree 100 percent, either they're a liar or you're not thinking for yourself. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Senator Sinema. Thanks for coming.

Absolutely. Thank you for being here. How are you? Hey, it's good to see you. Alright, well I think you heard J.D. I listened to some of it. You listened to some of it? Yeah, I listened to the whole thing. What's your take on J.D. and, you know, if he were to be called on to be president, which is the nature of that job, God forbid, for whatever reason, how do you think he would do as president?

Well, first let me say J.D. and I have been friends for quite some time. You know, we served together in the Senate. We have a great relationship. We don't agree on everything. What I really appreciate about J.D. is that it doesn't bother him that we don't agree on everything.

Right? I know that sounds strange, but... Not here. Right. I mean, yeah, obviously, you guys. There's this thing that I think is kind of disturbing that's happened in American politics, and it's this idea that you either have to agree with someone 100% of the time, or they are your mortal enemy and must be destroyed.

Right. And the two parties actually talk about each other in this, like, existential threat way, right? Like the only way the country will be safe is if we completely eliminate the existence of the other party. But if you think about that, that's actually incredibly dangerous, right? Yeah. It's incredibly dangerous.

To have one party? Yes. It's called China and Russia. Exactly. That's exactly right. So, what we really want in this country, what I really want, is a robust marketplace of ideas, and not only the idea that you can tolerate that someone else has an idea different than your own, but that you can welcome the idea that someone has a different idea than your own.

Because you might, I know this sounds crazy, learn from that other idea, and over time change or grow your opinions. It's an opportunity. And so, that's one of my favorite things about J.D., is that he and I have areas where we share opinion very closely, and we have areas where we don't share the same opinion.

And it's not a problem at all. Like, we're both comfortable with the idea of difference of opinion. I think that's core to the idea of who you want in a leader. Why has that happened? So, why have we found ourselves in a place where we are intolerant of the other party's ideas and we are intolerant of members of the other party?

Well... What's driven this change? I will say that the term "we" doesn't apply to me, obviously, because when people told me to do that, I was like, "Yeah, no, I'm not going to do that at all," and they were like, "You're excused." Right. Right. And for those who don't know your background, you left the Democratic Party.

That's right. And as a sitting senator. Yes. Right. Yes, that's right. Yeah. Because I think you should have your own opinion. I'm... Pretty straightforward. Yeah. And so... How does that... How does that phone call go? Do you call Chuck and say, "I have something to tell you," or actually, more importantly, joking aside, how did that evolution happen for you?

Ah. So, you started out... You're in Arizona. You start out as a clear Democrat. That wins you the... Actually... So, "Turn Back Time," great song. When I first ran for office, very young, like in my 20s, I ran as an independent. Right. And then I ran dead last. Yeah.

And then I re-registered as a Democrat, ran for the same office, came in first. And then you fast forward... Changed nothing. It... Meaning, in terms of what you said? My hair changes all the time. But apart from that, nothing changed. Nothing changed. Right? Right. So, re-registered as a Democrat, came in first.

Served in the state house for six years, served in the state senate for a term, ran for the US Congress, won a competitive district, slightly more Republican than Democrat. I won. I served in that seat for six years, ran for the Senate, became the first woman ever to win a Senate race in Arizona.

More importantly, I was the first member of, at the time, the Democratic Party in over 30 years to win a Senate seat in Arizona. But I was never a traditional Democrat. And those who've known me for a long time have always known that, that I just am not interested in fitting into a box and never have been.

And so, I've always been me. There came a point where me being me no longer fit within the Democratic Party. And they were really uncomfortable having me in the party. And so, I made it easier for them by leaving. And it made everyone happier. I was a lot happier because I was being more genuine.

But what does that mean? Can you just double-click into you being you? What is it that made them so uncomfortable? Well, I'll give you an example. My first vote in the United States Senate was a vote on the issue of Israel. And I got a call from, at the time, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

And he asked me to vote no on the measure. And I said, "Well, there's zero chance I'm voting no on this measure. This is a vote to stand with Israel. The chance I vote no is a hard zero." He was like, "Ah, this is partisan, and we got to be a unity." And I'm not going to share the details of that conversation, but it was a partisan conversation.

And for me, I was like, "I'm confused about the nature of this conversation because the idea that I'm going to change my vote because someone else wants me to is never going to happen." Right. The only thing that would cause me to change my vote is to get new information that changes the calculus for my decision.

Right? The only sign of growth and learning is if you get new information, right? There was no new information. It was just a party vote. And I said, "Yeah, well, I don't need to go to the party. Like, I'm going to vote the way that I believe." And for me, that didn't seem like a particularly important moment.

It's just how I am. But that was problematic for other people. Is there a lot of pressure in the way that politics happens on the ground, which is a lot of you in the Senate may come to a conclusion or an opinion, but before that vote is cast, there's just...

On both sides. Yeah. Tremendous pressure to reassign whatever you underwrote. It almost... Hey, it doesn't matter. Now, we got to toe the party line. Is there a lot of that? Yes. Yeah. I mean, the biggest example of that would be what I think is the most important vote I've ever taken in my entire life.

And that was the vote to protect the filibuster. The pressure around that vote was severe. Let me want to explain that to folks just... Yeah. So the filibuster is a provision in the United States Senate. It's a rule. It's not constitutional, but it's a rule that requires that any major piece of legislation, any policy-related legislation requires the approval of 60 senators rather than 51, so a super majority, in order to move forward to debate, discuss, and pass the piece of legislation.

Now, there's some people who hate the filibuster because they like to have all the power when they have the power, and I think it's very dangerous to eliminate the filibuster. The filibuster is like a control mechanism that keeps the Senate from ricocheting back and forth between the wild edges of the political pressure from either party.

Now, some people will say, "Well, the filibuster's new. It wasn't always around." Well, that's true, because when the Senate was founded, it took 100 senators to move forward on a piece of legislation, right? 100. And it's eroded down to 60. I believe it would be very dangerous to eliminate that and allow it to be a simple majority.

The Senate would become the House, and for God's sake, I served there for six years. There's a reason I went to the Senate, right? The idea is that the Senate is a place that represents all of the views of the country, including areas that are rural or small or had been left behind.

Minority opinions must be protected and celebrated in the United States Senate. But there was intense pressure, intense pressure, to eliminate the filibuster. Now, the thing that's interesting is that pressure had zero impact on me, like zero, none. And people thought it was going to. They were like, "Oh, we're going to get her.

We're going to get her." And I just was like, "Sure, I'll go to every meeting you'd like." I went to every single meeting. I listened to everyone. No one ever gave me any information that led me to think it would be a good idea to get rid of the last vestige of bipartisanship in the United States Senate.

Is there a... Knowing what you know now, is there a path out of this? And how much more toxic has it gotten over the years? And why? And why? We didn't get to the why. What's driven the extreme partisanship, the inability to have dialogue, the lack of the idea, the cauldron?

Well, it has gotten a lot worse. I've been doing this for 20 years and obviously started in elementary school, but I've been doing it for a long time and it has gotten much more severe, much more partisan. There are a number of factors for that. But I think a large part of it is that we as Americans, we, all of us, are choosing people who agree with us 100% of the time because it feels good.

Even if those individuals don't get shit done, they don't return any results, but they will make a TikTok telling you how your view is so right. And it's now become out of favor to support someone with whom you agree with only 60% of the time. When the reality is, is that if you find someone with whom you agree with only 60% of the time, they're thinking for themselves and so are you.

But if you find someone with whom you agree with 100% of the time, either they're lying to you or you're not thinking for yourself. And those are two very dangerous things, both very dangerous. So it has gotten more and more extreme because our political system rewards those who say the things that are not true in order to get the applause and the likes and the support, money, et cetera, and punish those who say the things that are true but are not everything you want.

You know? Does that mean that democracy eventually dies? No, I don't think so. Our country has been through much worse. I mean, we had a civil war. I do think it gets worse for a while before it gets better, you know? And to Jason's question, how does it get better?

Well, I think it gets really bad. And then when it gets pretty bad, people are like, "Oh, shit, we've got to do something. Like, this is our only country." And then, you know, it kind of comes back. Is that this moment now? Yeah. No, I don't think we're there yet.

What play out the scenarios here, Kamala wins, Trump wins, we spend another eight trillion in debt and how many more cycles can we do that? Neither party cares about debt. Tell me about it. Let's be honest about that. Well, but- Big spenders on both sides. Yeah. Which means it's going to happen.

So we're sitting here maybe two more cycles from now and we've put another 15 trillion down, you know, on this. And then when does it break? What is the impetus to make that change? When does it break down? When do we hit rock bottom? What concerns you? I'm not sure I know the answer to that.

And anyone who tells you they do is probably lying. But what are the possibilities that you see from inside the machine of this really breaking? Yeah. There are some challenges ahead, right? I mean, Congress spends like a drunken sailor with no thought for the future. We are running to the tape on being able to fund things like social security and Medicare.

And Congress is doing nothing to solve it, right? There's actually a little coalition of us who are trying to solve those problems. Cassidy, Senator Cassidy, Senator King, myself. And when we went to go talk to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, they were like, "No, let's wait till after the election." Yeah, that's totally going to make it better, right?

Things are going to be totally good after the election. They're just putting off that which is uncomfortable because the solution to those fiscal problems require sacrifice in the short term. And elected officials are not willing to sacrifice anything in the short term because it means that they may not get reelected.

And if their number one goal is to survive, then they're not going to make the hard decisions. Can we talk about that for a second? Yeah. Can you just explain to us the underbelly of politics, the money in politics, the people that you have to spend time with, how the money cycle works, how did you feel that pressure, if at all?

Even if... I'm not saying you responded to it, but maybe just to explain to it. Well, it does take millions and millions and millions of dollars to run for office. I mean, a Senate seat in Arizona is like, what, $150 million? So you do need a lot of help.

Sorry, to win a Senate seat, it's $150 million in Arizona. Yeah, in Arizona. But there are some states in which it probably costs way less because it's not competitive. But in a competitive state, it's going to be very, very expensive. But look, there is always pressure to raise the money, but you can go about it however you want to go about it.

Most people go about it the easy way, which is to just kind of follow the line that the party is given, and then the machine lines it up to give you the money. If you choose not to follow the line, which is the path that I took, then you have to find folks who are also unusual and don't fit easily into a party line to help and support you.

But that's a very important thing you're saying. So essentially is, if you conform, which means that in those times where you get the phone call, you have to basically toe the line, otherwise the money spigot stops. Yeah. Is that right? Or no, is it not that drastic? I mean, it was that drastic for me.

After the filibuster vote, everyone was like, we hate you, clunk. And I was like, right, but I am protecting democracy, so call me back later, click. They have not called back. That day's coming, guys. So the way you're framing it, though, I think is maybe not exactly correct, because what you're saying is you have to do the party line thing in order to stay in.

The thing that I think it's important to remember is most people want to do the party line thing. It's not like they're sitting around going like, oh, I really don't want to vote this way, but I really feel like I have to, to save my career. There's this thing about being part of the club.

People want to be part of the club, and so it's not like the thumb is being pushed down on lots of people to get them to do a certain thing. They're doing it because they're part of the club. Does that make sense? Right. It makes sense. I don't understand that.

Me either, obviously. But I get it. So, first of all, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need to have a free marketplace of ideas where people can debate these issues without any fear of reprisal. And I think it's sentiments like that that made me support you as when you were a senator and a Democrat.

People may be surprised to find out that actually we co-hosted an event with you a few years ago because I look for opportunities to support Democrats when I can when they're independent minded. And look, I wrote that one for you, David. I've always appreciated that. I've always appreciated that about you.

So thank you for that. We had breakfast. Yeah, exactly. We had breakfast. We went back to the first year of the Biden administration, 2021. And I don't know if people remember, but that whole year, domestic politics was roiled by a piece of legislation called Build Back Better. This is a four and a half trillion dollar spending package.

Actually, originally it was six, remember? Six. Six trillion. Six trillion. Which is like, woohoo! That's like bonkers. Yeah, they brought it down to four and a half trillion. What's the difference? Four, six? Whatever. Whatever. Yeah. And it eventually failed because every Republican voted against it, and two Democrats, you and Senator Manchin, voted against it, as I recall.

The thing that always seemed really crazy to me is, beyond just the sheer amount of the spending package, which now everyone looks at the deficit and the debt, and they're like, it's already crazy enough as it is without that having passed. Imagine if it did pass. Yeah. Our economy.

Can you imagine? Yeah. It would have been a total disaster, I think. But the amazing thing to me was that we had this yearlong debate in Washington, and they never just came to you and Manchin at the beginning of the process and just said, "What are you guys willing to do?" Because you were the swing votes, right?

And instead, they spent a year pushing for this thing, and then I guess they expected to kind of jam it through at the end, put enough pressure on you to vote for this. I actually had this discussion with Schumer in the White House in the summer of '21. So I'm sure all of you remember all of this, because this is what you do in your lives, is think about the work that I'm doing in the United States Senate.

But in February of 2021, after we passed a big COVID package, which we passed a pretty sizable COVID package, I was worried that it wasn't paid for. I was worried about the impact this would have on the economy. Turns out all that was right. I went to Schumer the day after that and said, "Look, I know that you want to do infrastructure next, and I want to do infrastructure, because infrastructure is really important for the future of economic growth and competitiveness in our country.

But I want to do it in a bipartisan way, because that's what we should be doing in the Senate." And he said something to me along the lines of, "We'd love to have the Republicans with us. If they'd like to come, that'd be great." And I was like, "Well, so my idea of bipartisanship is a little bit different.

It's more about the sit down and work together and create something together, and then have a product that you put up together, rather than just building it and asking someone to come and jump on your train." And so people just kind of patted me on the head. And I went out and started working with Rob Portman, who has since retired, but let me tell you what, super smart, very nerdy, great with a spreadsheet.

I was like, "That's my guy right there." And so Rob and I began working quietly, just the two of us, doing nuts and bolts of how to build an infrastructure plan. After we gained some steam, we began inviting others. So it ended up that we had a really carefully curated group of five Dems and five Republicans, all moderates and conservatives, working on infrastructure.

And we got to a place where our infrastructure bill was going to go. You all may recall, we actually got it done, and it was paid for. But while we were almost at the point of voting on the infrastructure package, that's when the White House unveiled Build Back Better.

And I actually put out a public statement, which is very rare for me, saying, "There's no way I'm going to vote for that package, because it cost $8 bazillion, and it was irresponsible." And, oh, they were so pissed off. They were like, "Why did you say that?" I'm like, "Well, I think it's important for everyone to know that there's zero chance I vote for that.

And I want to say it now so that I don't get jammed later, right? Because I would rather disappoint people today rather than disappoint them the day of the vote. I want them to know I will never vote for this." And the pressure just grew from there. Didn't work, obviously, because there was zero chance in which I was going to vote for $4.5 trillion of new taxes, many of which are being debated right now in the presidential campaign and which are bonkers.

And so I just, I said no. I said no early on. So I did start engaging with the White House after that. And they said, "Well, what would you vote for?" And I said, "Here." And I created a spreadsheet. And I said, "Here are all the tax policies that you're interested in.

Here are the ones that I'm willing to consider." It was a small list. And they just didn't believe me for a long time. It took a year. No, it took about 14 months. Fourteen months later, they believed me when I said, "Here are the policies I will support. Here are the ones I will not support." But it took 14 months before people believed that I meant what I said about tax policy.

When J.D. was up here, and thank you for that work, by the way, and that independence. It just strikes me before you move on, Jason, that we could have avoided so much rancor over the first one to two years of the Biden administration if they'd just listened to you.

Except in reality. Because you were trying to find- That's what I said. You were trying to find... It was close to a 50/50 Senate. Or I guess it was a 50/50. It was 50/50. It was 50/50. It was 50/50. Right. So it's not like President Biden had an LBJ-like mandate to push through massive new tax-spending programs.

I did point that out a few times. So in any event, it's always seemed crazy to me that they didn't listen to you, and they didn't try and find that bipartisan compromise very early on. We could have avoided so much of this, again, the rancor. But here's the thing, David, and then I want to get to your point, but look, both parties do this.

So I don't want it to sound like I'm just shitting all over Biden and Schumer. Because look, when Trump was president and he controlled all the chambers, he did the same thing. So there's no purity here, right? When one party has total control, they overuse it. That is what happens.

Because when a party gets power, they think they're going to have it forever, they overreach, and then the system corrects. And so one might suggest, just maybe suggest, that a small amount of humility would help here. To think that perhaps when you do have power, you may not always have power, and that it would be good and it would serve you well to always consider other people's positions, other party positions, even if they're not the same as your own, because there will come a time when those individuals have the power.

And that perhaps if you're interested in having some stability and predictability in our country, that finding that more moderate ground is always good, regardless of which party is in power. That's very unpopular what I just said. I'm curious, when we look at this two-party system, if there is a way out of it and to maybe create a little bit more choice for, and a little bit more competition, and have a viable third party.

Sachs, you explained in the last panel how Kennedy to Trump and Cheney to Kamala. It's very strange times we're living in, and most of us don't feel that either party represents us fully. Sachs doesn't believe with these neocons, starting wars everywhere, et cetera. So is it possible for us to have a viable third party, because you seem to be also party-less?

Which I'm fine with. Party of one is great, guys. I love it. Party of one, sit at the bar. Yeah. It's perfect. Yes, I love it. It's great. Yeah, me too. The nice thing about being a party of one is you get to have the entire platform to yourself.

If people are like, "What's your party platform?" Well, I made it up because it's all my ideas. It's wonderful. Yes. So there was an attempt this year to try and create a third party option. The group No Labels, with whom I have a great relationship with and a lot of respect for, worked on it.

The time is not ripe for that. That was obvious. Why is the time not ripe? I don't know that I can answer that for you. My assessment is that many people in America are so scared of what the other party represents and the potential overreach that comes from the other party's positions, and the story that has been created, that the existence of the other party is an existential threat to the future of our country.

That's a story that both parties tell. I think because of that, most Americans, they're dissatisfied with the parties, but they don't feel confident or comfortable enough to go somewhere else because they're not sure what it will bring. The fear of the other is at an all-time high. I'm curious in this audience, putting this election cycle aside, how many people would like to see us have a third or fourth option, a third or fourth party?

Raise your hand. Okay. That's like everybody in the audience. I don't... I mean, this is a unique audience. A lot of parties have won. What's that? A lot of parties have won. Yeah. I mean... I think more Americans... Ross Perot got 19%. It looked like Bobby Kennedy had, at the peak, what, 15, 20%?

Peak to 18? Peak to 18? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it does seem like... And people really wanted No Labels to put up Manchin, maybe yourself or somebody. No, no, no. I'm overqualified. Okay. That's... Well, what's... Would you... Would you... What's next for you? Are you going to consider running, or you want to be in the private sector, or you just want to party on it?

Yeah. I'm really excited about what's happening in the private sector right now. I mean, we've got industries in this country that are really pushing the edge on what's going to ensure that we're globally competitive and innovative for the future. And I'm really excited about it. And I believe that, regardless of what's happening in government, because, as I mentioned earlier, I do think it's going to get worse.

Gridlock's going to get tougher, and blah, blah, blah. People are not interested in solving problems. They're just interested in tick-tock. And so, there's a real opportunity to move our country forward, despite the gridlock in government, through private industry. And that's where I want to work. Why are the Democrats so anti-capitalist?

I don't understand, because that's where the money comes from. Yeah, I just don't understand Ms. Bent of being so... I don't either. I do not either. Yeah. And I'm fairly libertarian, I think, just at my base, most Arizonans are. I struggle with the idea of wanting to eliminate the private industry, because that is where the ideas come from, that's where the innovation comes from, and that's where the money comes from to fund the social programs that are important to protect the vulnerable in our country.

That's what the United States was built on. Yeah. That's what the United States was built on, 250 years ago, and the ability to innovate, the opportunity for entrepreneurs to build, and for people to partake in that created productivity gains and ultimately prosperity for everyone, and it makes no sense to stall it.

Yeah. It just doesn't make any sense. I don't understand it. Do you, when you look at the Israel-Palestine conflict, has any of this, is this expected, the way that there's this fissure that's built in America now, the fissure that's been created in Western Europe? It's been growing. It's been growing.

You know, I'm quite close with the pro-Israel community, not just in Arizona, but nationally, because Israel is our only democratic partner in the Middle East, and is one of the best partners to the United States, and has been since its inception. But anti-Semitism has long been a part of our country's history, and it has been growing.

The difference is, is that it was kind of quietish, you know, it was happening on campuses with the anti-BDS movement. It was growing in a number of circles on both the far left and the far right. And what we've seen, you know, in the last year, is that it's now okay to say the quiet part out loud.

What's boggling to my mind, and I don't talk about this very often because it makes me sound really nerdy, but I actually have studied genocide. Like I did a PhD on the Rwandan genocide, right? Which is super nerdy, I know, but the narrative that somehow Israel are the oppressors, and Hamas are the liberators, and then there are folks who are actually using the term genocide to talk about the Israeli government and the Israeli people is so insane.

Like, that's insane. I mean, talk about the worst form of gaslighting you can even imagine, right? Like, it's just insane. And yet, it's not a surprise because if you've been paying attention, it's been percolating and growing for years. And folks in the pro-Israel community know this, and they've been talking about it.

It's just that no one was really listening because it was all whisper, whisper, whisper, or just, you know, kids on campuses. But now, what we see happening, especially at these so-called elite universities where not only has the pro-Hamas movement taken over, but the faculty, the folks who are responsible for the educational environment, have shown an unwillingness to speak the truth, which I think is just incredibly disturbing.

Is there a path to find an empathetic solution for the Palestinians while also at the same time eliminating Hamas and just getting past this problem? The vast majority of Palestinian people are living in an environment in which they don't have control over their daily lives. They don't get access to the food and the water they need.

They're being used as human shields and political weapons and physical weapons by Hamas. And so, they are in just a horrible, horrible situation. And so, the work that we've been trying to do to navigate how to get relief or evacuation for those individuals is really important and should not be eliminated or cut off.

We also need to be much, much more careful about who we're giving the money and the food and the supplies to, because we know that the majority of it is being siphoned off by Hamas and used as a weapon of war. Is there a solution that can protect the innocent lives?

Absolutely. Is standing with Hamas that solution? No. That's like doing a rally for ISIS. What the hell? Al-Qaeda's like, "How did we not see this?" Al-Qaeda's like, "We could have just gone to Harvard." How are young people at Harvard and Columbia and Yale, how come they don't, all of a sudden that distinction isn't obvious to them?

It is hard for me to understand this. Now, I am lucky enough to live in Arizona, and we just don't have this. There's a very small amount of this, very small, on our campuses. But the vast majority of students in Arizona, these are like regular kids. These are not fancy kids.

These are regular kids. They go to regular schools, they live a regular life, and they go to a regular state school. And so they don't wake up in the morning and think, "I think I want to support those terrorists over there in the Middle East." And so I think there's one of the problems that I see in academia, and full disclosure, I have been a professor at Arizona State University for 21 years.

So I teach. I teach this semester. I've been teaching nonstop for 21 years. But I teach in a climate where my students are expected to be triggered or whatever that word is. I think that's a stupid word. But the bottom line is this. There's this whole thing moving across the country where we're like, "Oh, we can't have any triggering conversations.

We can't have conversations that make you uncomfortable." That is the whole purpose of college. The whole idea of the university is to go learn about the universe. You should be confronted with ideas that are different than your own. You should interact with people who have views that are different than your own.

You should be open to learning and listening and changing and growing. That is the reason that you go to university. And that is being taken away. Senator Sinema, thank you for being with us. (applause) (applause)