Chuck Schumer is somewhere in between Kirsten Gillibrand and Andrew Cuomo on being a liberal from New York.
Kirsten Gillibrand was a blue dog until she realized how unpopular it was to be a blue dog.
No. Members of the House are, theoretically, meant to be a delegate who serves on behalf of the interests of their constituency, hence serving/voting as a blue dog from 2007-2008 due to serving a very conservative district. Senators, however, are meant to be more autonomous from the will of the people (though still meant to serve them, of course), hence the 6-year terms and the original stipulation that Senators were appointed by the state legislature rather than elected directly. Incidentally, her constituency is also a whole lot more liberal now, but that's not the sole or main reason for her shift; Gillibrand, unlike most Americans, actually understands and subscribes to the difference in what it means to be a Representative and a Senator and did both of her jobs well. Any attempts by members of either party to categorize her as a Romney-esque flip-flopper will fail to gain traction.
Yawn.
BUT ROMNEY WAS RUNNING FOR A NATIONAL ELECTORATE, SO HE'S NOT A FLIP FLOPPER.
Hack.
You are the hack.
I'm not the one pretending independence when you endorse 99% Democratic candidates.
I'm not a Democrat, but I am hugely liberal, so obviously the Democratic candidates in upcoming cycles are the ones that appeal to me more. "Independent" does not mean "moderate." If you want to know the reasons I'm not a Democrat, then I will share them with you, but I'm not trying to call myself a moderate or deny that I'm very liberal by using a green avatar instead of a read one.
I am somewhere between you two and Abe Lincoln on hackishness.
