What do DC beltway pundits want more?

[IceSpear]

An extremely difficult choice.

[Maxwell]

The first one (normal)

They also want Wendy Davis to win in Texas, but that's beside the point.

[IceSpear]

The first one (normal)

They also want Wendy Davis to win in Texas, but that's beside the point.

These pundits are so damn weird, seriously. Opposing Hillary from the left, but then desperately trying to oust one of the most moderate Democrats in favor of some generic R hack? Of course, the former could be explained as just the beltway media's irrational and longstanding axe to grind against Hillary rather than any ideological stance, but the Wendy Davis cheerleading throws a wrench in that explanation as well.

[Maxwell]

The first one (normal)

They also want Wendy Davis to win in Texas, but that's beside the point.

These pundits are so damn weird, seriously. Opposing Hillary from the left, but then desperately trying to oust one of the most moderate Democrats in favor of some generic R hack? Of course, the former could be explained as just the beltway media's irrational and longstanding axe to grind against Hillary rather than any ideological stance, but the Wendy Davis cheerleading throws a wrench in that explanation as well.

Well, explaining Gillespie is easy - he's one of them. Meanwhile, Warner is an outsider who got elected based on his merits, which, in Washington, is awful.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Easily the first. Hillary's inevitability is a story about a presidential race that can be spiced up by both inevitability talks and challengers. Mark Warner is a popular Senator who should have no problem winning re-election against generic R (even if Gillepsie is a bit more than that). There is no reason for that to be talked up more than Al Franken's seat which was won by the narrowest of margins last time but is safer now.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The first one (normal)

They also want Wendy Davis to win in Texas, but that's beside the point.

These pundits are so damn weird, seriously. Opposing Hillary from the left, but then desperately trying to oust one of the most moderate Democrats in favor of some generic R hack? Of course, the former could be explained as just the beltway media's irrational and longstanding axe to grind against Hillary rather than any ideological stance, but the Wendy Davis cheerleading throws a wrench in that explanation as well.

Beltway pundits aren't interested in political ideology. They just think they are "players" in the game and root for the underdog against whoever is in power so they can go home and blow themselves. Want proof of this institutionalized journalistic arrogance? Watch Sally Quinn’s interview with C-SPAN’s Q&A last week.

[IceSpear]

The first one (normal)

They also want Wendy Davis to win in Texas, but that's beside the point.

These pundits are so damn weird, seriously. Opposing Hillary from the left, but then desperately trying to oust one of the most moderate Democrats in favor of some generic R hack? Of course, the former could be explained as just the beltway media's irrational and longstanding axe to grind against Hillary rather than any ideological stance, but the Wendy Davis cheerleading throws a wrench in that explanation as well.

Beltway pundits aren't interested in political ideology. They just think they are "players" in the game and root for the underdog against whoever is in power so they can go home and blow themselves. Want proof of this institutionalized journalistic arrogance? Watch Sally Quinn’s interview with C-SPAN’s Q&A last week.

Actually, that's a good point. The one common thread seems to be that they always root for the underdog.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The first one (normal)

They also want Wendy Davis to win in Texas, but that's beside the point.

These pundits are so damn weird, seriously. Opposing Hillary from the left, but then desperately trying to oust one of the most moderate Democrats in favor of some generic R hack? Of course, the former could be explained as just the beltway media's irrational and longstanding axe to grind against Hillary rather than any ideological stance, but the Wendy Davis cheerleading throws a wrench in that explanation as well.

Beltway pundits aren't interested in political ideology. They just think they are "players" in the game and root for the underdog against whoever is in power so they can go home and blow themselves. Want proof of this institutionalized journalistic arrogance? Watch Sally Quinn’s interview with C-SPAN’s Q&A last week.

Actually, that's a good point. The one common thread seems to be that they always root for the underdog.

With the rapid advances in communications and transportation, members of Congress spend more time in their districts. As times continue to change, the sense of community among Congress is gone, and as a result, the media establishment is no longer on the "inside" of Congress. As a result, their never ceasing desire to be part of the action has led them to take on the role of rabid attack dog and champion of the underdogs. I really can't stand journalists at all anymore.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If you're a DC pundit you want an interesting story to write about. This, for reasons this forum will understand, is much better being a political horse-race rather than the horror of actually debating policy, ugh.