Plausibly. She doesn't individually have much power without cooperation from others, who could potentially stop cooperating, though. That is likely a better use of resources than railing against her individually.
That is likely a better use of resources than railing against her individually.
As the face of hypocrisy, its (perhaps) actually worth rallying against her individually. Does she really represent you (or by extension CA, SF, SV...etc?). Human nature has very strong instinctual aversion to public demonstrations of hypocrisy of one's own activity. This is true because political power is power rested in delegated authority. That is rooted in trust. And duplicity and hypocrisy mark such an agent as untrustworththy. This reduces their eventual political tenebility. Its one of those experiments, ironically derived from cognitve science about why people don't <change their mind> on a publicly revealed preference or bet. In this case, it (perhaps) makes sense to use the result in a constructive way.
That itch is your problem, not hers. Everyone operating in the public sphere should be honestly trying to pursue the policies they think will lead to the best results (for everyone, for their constituencies, and to some degree for themselves). They should not be trying to live up to labels whose definitions are different at different times, which are useful only when speaking in pretty broad terms, and which largely refer to coalitions with varied individuals of varied personal philosophy.
A ton of the "most Conservative" politicians in American politics aren't anything like "conservative" - changing a slew of things to the way they were 200 years ago, with no eye to the things that have changed technologically, demographically, &c, may still be the right thing to do, but it's not "conservative". I would even argue that opposition to abortion is ceasing to be a "conservative" position - it has been legal for longer than most of the population has been alive. That doesn't mean that people who oppose it on whatever grounds, and consider themselves conservative overall, are necessarily wrong or "hypocritical" to do so.
Its more a problem for the people that she was elected to represent. The fact that once that power is accrued, the game is to keep it, is not a partisan one. But that creates more cognitive dissonance for some ideologies that it does for others.
As you had phrased it it is not a problem for them. It's a problem if she's misrepresenting herself, but she has an awfully long voting record at this point, and when she talks what she says is not radically different than what she does.
Many of her particular positions I consider a problem, but that has nothing to do with any discrepancy implied by "(conservative, Liberal)".
