Because a good representative represents their people. And as a Texan, I can assure you that his left-leaning constituents weren't always the majority he had to represent.
Any politician who blindly ignores a large segment of their constituents (even the ones that didn't vote for them) isn't someone you want in office. I don't have to name specific examples for you to know who I'm talking about.
This is definitely the case. It's interesting to watch Texas, as demographically it shifts from a traditionally conservative white voting block to a much more diverse state that will naturally vote democratic. Give it another election cycle or two and turning at least one Senate seat blue is almost assured.
(1) Having risen to national fame by being a not-Ted-Cruz candidate.
(2) How Texas culture works.
How do you contrast yourself with Ted Cruz? Well, Cruz is a very common type of character in Texas. Baptist, often wears a suit, a little stodgy and uptight but apparently earnest in his beliefs, probably watches football and has very innocuous / safe musical tastes, and casts his lot with the traditional Southern social fabric that exists here. I know a million guys like Cruz.
But as big as that cultural bubble is, there are also tons of people who live outside it. You could almost go so far as saying that every Texan decides at some point whether they're going to live in that bubble.
In the language of Texas culture, Beto is basically saying, hey, I'm not one of these traditionalists. I'm different than that. And he is, even if he has some conservative views. The message makes sense to a Texan.
Whether it will translate to a national audience is another question entirely, and I think it probably won't. He'll have to change his message. Also, he got a lot of momentum because people wanted to support whoever opposed Cruz, and he'll need something else to create that kind of energy now.
(In his defense, this vagueness can actually be read as strategic. Barack Obama took a similar tack in 2008, and it let people project onto him pretty much any profile they wanted. In politics, specificity can be a career limiter.)
In most polling (see https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democr...), if the poll includes O'Rourke he consistently pulls about the same amount of support as Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, and more than Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar or Kirsten Gillibrand. So there's definitely enough demand for him out there to make him worth covering.
Doesn't matter to his voting base. See e.g. Obama. Obama did very little of what he promised in the first term, got re-elected anyway (heck, even I voted for the guy). But unlike Obama, Beto is not going to be the president, not after losing the race to one of the least likeable candidates in his own state, and not with a DWI on his criminal record.
> he still only won by < 3 in a state Trump
> won by 9 and Romney won by 15
One can imagine at a national level his stance on issues would be more accepted, but he'll need to harp on them much more than focusing on who he's not. That "contrary image" is actually a positive and not a negative for many.
Issues make a much larger difference in the primaries than the general elections for two reasons. The policy gap between Cruz and Beto are vast compared to differences between any two democratic candidates. And independents tend to be less driven by issues and more by character and charisma.
Politics is all about image and appeal. And it's not just Beto. Every politician from Trump to Beto plays this game. People vote on their image of you rather than who you really are. I think Black Mirror had a great episode on how image and messaging defines a political campaign.
Meanwhile there is a crop of new-style politicians, all over the spectrum, that run via the new (AOC/Trump era) standard of use the social media+memes to build up brand and support.
AOC didn't really have a national brand until after she won, and she got there mostly through traditional retail politics. Trump had a media brand to begin with so he was able to create traditional media coverage whenever he wanted.
Old-school politicians use the news to try and drive social media and public sentiment, top down.
Right now Beto seems a lot like Hillary, using the traditional approach of PR driven puff pieces to try and capture attention. Meanwhile the AOC/Trump populists use a direct channel (Twitter) to bypass the media and have a conversation directly with their hardcore fans. And then that conversation works its way out into the mainstream media.
I'd also add that AOC is able to use social media now to build national support, but she won her primary with old-fashioned shoe leather politics. Even local NYC press didn't run a lot of stories until after she won the primary (I was closely tracking a race in a neighboring district so I think I saw most of what was out there.)
I love what he did for downballot dems in 2016 and he had that great speech on youtube. But c'mon. Mr GOP Lovefest is not who we need in 2020.
That indicates O'Rourke votes slightly conservative for a Democrat, but is still far more liberal than any Republican. The data cited there shows him pretty squarely in the "slightly conservative Democrat" range: https://voteview.com/person/21361/beto-o-rourke
Is that an inaccurate assessment? I'm wondering where "Mr GOP Lovefest" comes from.