Reply #2: Forgot to mention: Scott Brown was no moderate. The number of times

[No Elephants]

he voted with Democrats when his vote would actually have made a difference was ONE. Count it, one. One in a row. ONE VOTE.

Ironically, it was to vote for Dodd Frank, which Warren had a lot to do with. However, before he voted for it, he made the bill a lot more favorable to banks.

And that was the full extent of his bipartisanship. Which is why Harry Reid correctly said that Brown's claims of moderation was a joke.

He did vote with Democrats on other occasions, but his vote was not decisive. Republicans often allow a Rep or Senator from what is considered a liberal state to vote with Democrats when his or her vote will be irrelevant. It changes absolutely nothing in the real world and has no consequences in the real world, but it does give the Republican something to run for re-election on. (And boy did Scott run on it.)

As far as this article saying that Warren "will be one of the most liberal members," this shows the extreme bias of the author of the story. Warren has never cast a single vote on anything and she used to be a registered Repubolican.

How do we know if she will be the most liberal, the least liberal or somewhere in between?

Besides, Sanders is actually the most liberal member of the caucus, but what does that matter? All he can do is vote yea or nay with his caucus, just like most Democrats. And that is the very most Warren will be able to do.