I'm not sure I would call him a non-factor. Corporate media are beside themselves to blow their trumpets and anoint him "the Texas Bobby Kennedy." His cult of personality is real -- I'm just very skeptical of it having staying power or momentum. IMHO, he's more like the Texas Rick Lazio, who benefited greatly from partisan hype, out of state fundraising, and overperformed by running against a polarizing candidate...and still lost. Almost winning against a candidate people hate is not a strong argument for him winning a national election. Neither is a presidential candidate that isn't a favorite to win their own state. Al Gore is an almost winner that couldn't carry his own state. Do you know what Americans call someone who almost wins? They call them losers, unfortunately. Swing voters in places like Wisconsin and Michigan are going to want a strong pro-labor progressive or populist. Unless Wall Street-friendly Beto reinvents himself as Jim Hightower, he isn't going to pick up those votes. And lets be fair, unless someone with blue collar and pro-labor appeal jumps in, neither is any other likely Dem candidate other than Sanders or Gabbard. As long as the Democratic Party insists on running virtue-signaling corporatists in middle America as if it were the Acela corridor, they are going to keep on losing.
Beto is really a middle of the road democrat, likely not progressive enough for the far left. My kind of guy. Right now we need a stable potus, not a loud, semi-craze orange man.
Seems obvious, he started running for president as soon as he was forced to admit his political stances in the senate race. His options were to admit his stances in the debates and essentially concede the senate race or lie about it and still have a chance. He chose to give up the senate race and focus on his presidential race.
