He makes the point that she is the one who is in touch with her constituents, and her party is not, thus explaining all the votes that go against her party (universal background check, lost and stolen gun reporting, marriage equality, death penalty repeal). But that is not the reason for switching parties….
I was saddened to hear her Good Samaritan Bill (SB 116) was caught up in the maelstrom of Republican bills that must be shut out due to there just not being enough time to consider it. Had she been of the Democratic caucus, her bill could have been heard with majority of social legislation pieces that were vetted last month.
Indeed, as part of the vote tracking process, it is always amazing seeing Republican pieces of legislation getting assigned to the House Administration Committee or Senate Executive Committee or some other committee and never be seen again. Some bills are good ideas, like Cloutier’s SB 116, or the two year lobbying ban on former lawmakers instead of Rep. Kowalko’s one year ban (which was a cynical move on the GOP’s part as they know full well that Kowalko moved down to one year to attract more GOP and Dem votes).
So if Kavips is right, if Cloutier wants to see her bills move, it would help being in the majority party. And given some recent divergences from the Republican Party on key votes, you think she might be so inclined to switch.
But there are still some big disagreements on taxes and other issues between her and the Democrats. She could be another kind of Atkins, or she could be a Delaware Jim Jeffords or Arlen Specter and immediately change her voting habits and position on the issues. I think the key to this all will be how seriously is she challenged in the GOP primary in 2014? If it looks like she would lose a GOP primary, does she switch?