Setting aside the possibility that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is one of the rare politicians who takes contrary position purely out of principle, it seems clear that she’s modeling herself as a maverick in the same vein as former Arizona senator John McCain. That’s her brand– or theory for how she’ll get reelected, and it might not be delusional if she can somehow survive a primary from her left and get to a general election.

In that sense, she probably welcomes the decision by the Arizona Democratic Party to censure her for opposing changes in the U.S. Senate’s filibuster rule. It inoculates her thoroughly against any future charge that she’s too tied to the national party and give her a wide berth to run in the middle. Whether our hyper partisan age has an appetite for candidates with crossover appeal is debatable, but Sinema will be a test case.

But she’s not on the ballot this year. That distinction goes to her Democratic colleague, freshman senator Mark Kelly. Kelly voted to eliminate the legislative filibuster, at least for the limited purpose of passing voting rights legislation, and he has decided to defend Sinema by criticizing the censure. It’s really a professional courtesy, especially after Sinema promised to do everything she can to help win reelection. Political analyst Larry Sabato says that Sinema did Kelly no favors by opposing the filibuster change since it makes it easier for the right to cast him as a far-left radical. That theory will be tested, too.

I’m generally not a fan of purity tests and censure votes, and Sinema’s ostracism comes will several risks, including the potential for her to simply switch parties and throw power in the Senate to the Republicans and Mitch McConnell. Yet, in this case, I can see some value in using Sinema as an example. The idea isn’t so much that censuring Sinema will directly result in anything beneficial, but more that other Democrats will have some fear of backing the filibuster in the future.

Essentially, the existence of the filibuster can be translated to “Democrats can never have nice things, no matter how hard they try.” And that can’t stand or the party will have no purpose, no prospects, and eventually not much support. Sinema’s position on the filibuster has some merit in the abstract and I’ve made similar arguments in the past, but it can’t stand in the present.

If I were Kelly, I’d criticize the censure, too, but I still disagree with what he’s saying. I won’t attack him for it because he’s being strategic and collegial, but he’d be better off having a colleague willing to help his party achieve more successes and keep more promises. That’s his best avenue to reelection, and I suspect Sinema will discover the same was true for her.