Sorry, that answer makes no sense at all. If policy positions doesn't matter to you why have you spent six months convincing us that Beto was on the right side of every issue we've discussed? You were literally advocating for an unspectacular white man in an ill fitting suit. Was there something about his personality that was so unique from everyone else? Booker, Klokuchar, and Harris have polled along side of or ahead of Beto literally the entire race, why wait to jump on, their candidacies are just as hopeless as Beto's was. You cared so little about what he stood for that you seemingly won't vote for who he's inevitably going to endorse. What was the point of all of this?
This is more combative than I'm intending it to, it's confounding to me, I don't get it to the point of frustration.
i'll try to unpack (but not in the order you posed the questions or identified what you view as inconsistencies).
1. i don't think beto will endorse anyone in the primary. it would surprise me greatly if he did.
2. i didn't agree with all of beto's policies. i also don't think the differences between most of his policies and those of most other candidates are all that great, in general there is widespread consensus on policy between the candidates.
3. i don't think i spent the last six months arguing for beto's policies here. in fact, after you convinced me, probably in late april or may or so, that arguing for him was at best futile, at worst counterproductive, i think i've done very little of that.
4. i did very much agree with his policy priorities, at least as i saw them. that was somewhat less true after the el paso massacre when gun violence became a higher priority to him than it had been previously, but by then i was already completely bought in and he still was more focused on areas of concern to me than other candidates, so it didn't really matter.
5. yes, of course, i found him to be unique in terms of personality. honestly, that undersells it significantly.
6. re. my voting choice and my rooting choice. i tried to express in my last answer that if any one of the candidates that i perceive as more moderate than sanders/warren and that isn't buttigieg is in a position that my vote might conceivably matter to their chances of winning, i would probably vote for them. i didn't mention biden among them, but i should have since he seems right now to be the most likely to be in that position. if not, and my vote is purely expressive, i'll probably still vote for beto.
who i hope will win is a different question, beto has been eliminated from that consideration because while it is still possible for me to vote for him, it is not possible for him to win. right now, i don't know if any of the non-biden moderates will emerge to have a chance at winning. in my original response to michigancat, i mentioned biden and harris, i mentioned those two chiefly because they seemed to me to be the two with the best chances of winning (since then polling has not been kind to harris, but i haven't really thought about it enough to form an opinion about if her chances have deteriorated such to force her from 2nd on that list), not because i find them significantly better than say booker or klobuchar. i haven't really cared enough about any of them to put any thought into which of them i like or dislike minutely more than the others. as i said originally, compared to beto, they're all crap.
