Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

Well that settles that then.
Yeah, I recall the press being flat footed in not even know who Cortez was when she unseated Crowley.
At the same time they seemed to be creating this battle for the soul of America narrative with Beto.
One wonders what else the press is missing in the crafting of narratives for public entertainment.

Speaking of the obtuseness of the media to catch whats going on out there, I try and follow those that have been calling it with more accuracy and bother to get out of the press briefing rooms and get in the street. We had a long history of those types of reporters and still have a remnant of that school. What I think seperates them from the rest of the infotainment types is their refusal to underestimate Trump and his canniness in reporting on him. Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges have been deadly serious reporting on Trumps political abilities.
Matt Taibbi has a timely article on the 2020 race just out today:
Trumps 2020 chances

The mainstream press hasn't been obtuse. The execs at the top liked the money coming in from the ratings. That plays a much larger role in determining what gets reported and what doesn't.
That's the folly of "cable news".

Since Hedges, Nader and Taibbi aren't tied to that mast, they don't have to point their sails in that direction.

Innumerable sums have been spent in educating and conditioning the American public to accept profit-driven political entertainment as "news" in the last thirty years. If you were to turn on any cable news channel and you could see a cash register total spinning while they are on the air, you'd see it spinning faster when Trump is on TV.

An awareness of that would probably undo a certain significant amount of that conditioning, I daresay.

I'm not disagreeing with what your saying about the profit driven market world that passes for news journalism Jeff.
What I was driving at is the ability of the media and their target markets to get high on their own supply.
The first, which is the basis of Taibbi's article, was the complete suprise of the prevailing narrative that Trump was a buffoon and that Clinton had the ultimate campaign machine that would, in the end, prevail.
The second was the Cortez primary victory that, much like Trumps, they didn't see coming and didn't understand what happenned.
Beto reminds me of that same obtuseness, willingly or not,for the realities on the ground. I see the same story telling going on with Beto's narrative. What really separates him from the centrist positioning that so many Americans are fed up with?

My guess is they will craft him as having some kind of Kennedyesque mystique since politics has now become entertainment branding for them to shape. Much like the 'Man from Hope' or 'Morning in America' commercializing. So long as he doesn't challenge the existing power structures and it's pipeline.

I don't think that head fake will cut it anymore. Time will tell.

Well, the neoliberal concensus is starting to weigh in and it looks like it's leaning Beto:
It's all bout the feelings y'all

I think Beto O'Rourke was a terrific Senate candidate and is a very talented, inspiring politician. I don't think he's ready to be President, but, then, I wasn't sure Obama was, either. Turns out I was wrong then, and could be wrong now.

Ironically NWP, I thought Obama was ready when he ran based on what he was running on and, I'll admit it, I didn't mind that he had minority status either.
Unfortunately, I was wrong in the sense that he wasn't what he projected but was very good at projecting.
His biggest failure was the housing crises. Instead of taking lessons from the past and using the crises to change the neoliberal trajectory, he showed many he was of that cut of cloth. By all measures he did very little for working class Americans. He talked the talk but the walk? Not so much... No hope, no change.
That would be my biggest fear with Beto. Is he an empty suit that conservatives will play off of as they did Obama?

Well yeah there's that...he's definitely a tabula rasa. But the other candidates don't look any more promising to me so I'll ride this horse until I see a better one. He's got charisma and is a natural leader. He's got a pretty face and the press loves him, donors love him too. As president he would do pretty much what any Democrat will do. He'll sign the bills I want him to sign, choose cabinet members for their abilities, appoint judges who think like I think, and try to get along with our allies and stand up to our adversaries.

Obama started out okay but he lost the senate in his first midterm election so whatever agenda he might have had went straight out the window after that. He could have been a truly great president if Republicans were interested in having a truly great president.
There was never a jobs bill brought to the floor. There was never an immigration bill, nor an infrastructure bill. Republicans were absolute assh*les the entire eight years. Then they elected the assh*le in chief and continue to do nothing for working Americans.

We'll have to disagree about Obama's start Gregor. I think he stumbled out of the gate with his refusal to go Keynesian and instead stuck with neoliberal policies. He stocked his administration with Goldman and Harvard. The results were catastrophic for the middle class.
I like Ojeda still. He's got some indignation going that's refreshing to hear and has an american populist tone. Some of that 'Raise less corn and more Hell' vibe.
Sounds like a fighter...