No term limits, but they have to be re-elected every 6 years. She kept voting the way the majority of the people in her state wanted to, so she kept getting re-elected (presumably).

Don't discount the huge advantage incumbents have, both in campaign contributions [0] and name recognition.

0 - https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/incumbent-adv...

I'm not. But do you think they'd still have that incumbent advantage if they consistently voted against their party's interests (I should also clarify that with "and were honest about it, not lying through their teeth and claiming otherwise").

And even then, they wouldn't keep getting major donor funding if they weren't voting in those people's interests, incumbent or no.

Yes.

There have been a few cases of incumbents changing party (ignoring the "I'm totally independent guys even though I caucus with one party incredibly reliably" ones) to follow their voters.

In general "I'll only ever vote X party" is the same as "I don't care who at all".

No they have six year terms

This is true, but they are also re-elected at a rate of ~80% with no term limits on re-election (2022 saw a 100% re-election rate for Senators despite congress having a 75% disapproval rating at the time).

Hooray for the 2-party system.

Everyone thinks their senators are working for them. It's just the other 98 that's they disapprove of :D

No, but yes.

For those downvoting this, Feinstein hasn't been functional for a decade, yet still got elected. Twice.

SF has 2% of the population of California and senate is a statewide election. The real problem for the democratic organization in California is that Feinstein cruised to reelection because the only challenger was Kevin De León, a career criminal. The state party needs to examine why it doesn't have a bench of credible candidates.