Why Not Martin O'Malley?

[Raine1967]

X-posting from the MO'M Group. A member of DU asked me to post some more here in this group.



http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/martin-omalley/
(snip)

So why have political pundits come to the consensus that Elizabeth Warren is the only one who could give Hillary a run for her money in the Democratic primary? Perhaps it is O’Malley’s lack of name recognition. He is currently polling at around 0.3 percent in the Iowa Democratic Caucus, compared to Clinton’s 58 percent, and Warren’s 17 percent. But that number is increasing, and O’Malley received a warm reception in recent trips to New Hampshire and Iowa.

Perhaps it is because O’Malley is not a woman. While a first female president would certainly be a symbolic victory for women, it is unclear that a Clinton presidency would produce many tangible benefits for women. In fact, in terms of policy, O’Malley seems to have proposed just as many, if not more, policies to help women as Clinton has. At the Harvard Institute of Politics, O’Malley declared, “We must recognize that policies that are good for women and families, like paid leave and safe and affordable child care, are also good for our national economy, and for economic growth, because when women succeed, our American economy also succeeds.”

O’Malley also proclaimed his support for a federal $15 minimum wage, which would give a much-needed raise to the 3 million Americans who work at or below minimum wage, 62 percent of whom are women. Clinton has voiced her support for fast food workers striking for a higher wage, but she has yet to establish how much of an increase in the minimum wage she would support. Despite his gender, O’Malley could be the candidate that would make the biggest difference for women.

(snip)

[elleng]

1. Good to see it here, Raine.

[Peacetrain]

2. I met Gov O'Malley last summer when he was campaigning

for Hatch for Gov in Iowa... My husband and I were EXTREMELY impressed with him.

[Raine1967]

3. I met him this spring, and he impressed me as well.

Peacetrain! I really believe that he's going to be a candidate that should not be overlooked.

He can be called populist — however his record is solid with what people look for in a candidate for the Democratic party. So many people I talk to from NY to friends in Georgia really like him once I give them some links about his record.

He will become a household name in the very near future.

[Peacetrain]

4. I hope so Raine!

The day after we met him.. I posted in here what a great speaker he was. And we had a few moments to just talk to him in private.. he has some great ideas. I asked him right up front.. would you consider running for President.. we were that impressed with him.. of course this was a very small venue.. I would have gone out and started passing our signs that afternoon..

[msongs]

5. because he is not an announced candidate for anything? nt

[Raine1967]

7. He will be announcing on May 30. HE has leased space as a campaign HQ.

[Jester Messiah]

6. My question would be, what does he bring to the table that Bernie doesn't?

Is there a compelling case for him, specifically? The article touts support for a $15 minimum wage, but I don't think that's a uniquely O'Malley position.

Also, who backs him, money-wise? The donor list is high on my criteria for whether a candidate is trustworthy or not.

[Raine1967]

8. here is a good article about him:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

[Koinos]

9. If you want to find out more about O'Malley, go to the O'Malley Group.

His speech at Harvard is especially informative. But there is a whole lot of information to look at there.

[Jim Lane]

10. He has executive experience, which the voters seem to value.

The election of 2008 was unusual in this regard. From the beginning of the twentieth century forward, only three Senators have been elected President: Harding, Kennedy, and Obama. All the other winning candidates had significant executive experience. Many had, like O'Malley, been governors, including four of the last six winners (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush43). The others had served as President or Vice President (which also covers Gore if you count him as the winner in 2000), plus the two unusual cases of Hoover (head of World War I relief efforts and then running a Cabinet department) and Eisenhower (Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe).

So, although it's not a requirement, it does seem to help. (Also note that, when Obama won as one of the three exceptions, both major-party candidates were Senators without such executive experience.)

It helps get votes and it also probably helps the winner do a good job. A governor has experience in making appointments and in dealing with a legislature to get things done. (In O'Malley's case, however, he was dealing with a friendly legislature, so his experience won't carry over perfectly to what a Democratic President is likely to face in 2017.)

[merrily]

19. Republicans put a lot of emphasis on having been a Governor and/or a member of the military.

And, for some reason, Republican values seem to spread.

However, if you look at lists of the ten best Presidents in US history about whom historians from both sides agree, being a Governor (or executive in the private sector) is no guaranty of being a good President.

As for being VP, Truman, like a lot of Vice Presidents, was kept out of the loop. So far, in Truman's case that he did not know of the Manhattan Project until after FDR died--even though FDR was terminally ill and the nation was at war. LBJ, as huge and experienced a personality as he was, was kept out of the loop by JFK. And so on.

The two Presidents who faced the greatest challenges were probably Washington and Lincoln. Lincoln didn't even make it to U.S. I think he had a term as Congressman.

One Republican on another board argued that Lincoln had military service (militia). Googling led me to Lincoln's own account of his military service, the sum total of which had been standing in a field for three hours doing nothing, then going home.

I very much resist formulae. They may help get someone elected. However, the more important consideration for the nation is what happens after Inauguration Day. Yes, I know you have to get elected first.

But, rather than reinforce the validity of a formula, maybe we should reinforce that the best Presidents in history have not fit neatly into one category or another.

Truman, for example, failed at just about every career he attempted, except for President of the United States, where he makes both Republican and Democratic best lists. And, no, I am not advocating finding people who have failed at everything. I'm just saying, using a formula is no guaranty of a good President and may do us out of some great Presidents

I should note that none of the above is intended to detract from O'Malley. It's just a general point.

As things now stand, if for any reason, O'Malley is in the primary longer than Bernie, I may well support O'Malley.

[Jim Lane]

21. It's not just Republicans.

In 1988, I was supporting Senator Paul Simon for the Democratic nomination, but the supporters of Governor Michael Dukakis made the argument about executive experience. That's obviously not the only reason he won the nomination, but I'm sure it helped. Of course, in 2004, Governor Howard Dean lost to Senator John Kerry, and in 2012 Governor Bill Richardson finished behind several Senators, so I'm not saying it's an automatic formula for electoral success.

As for being a good President, there's also no automatic formula. In 1988, we in the Simon campaign were pointing out that a Senator acquires more familiarity with a wide range of federal issues, such as foreign policy, that a Governor just reads about in the paper, and the same could be said of Sanders as compared with O'Malley.

With regard to Truman and Johnson, their VP experiences don't matter much, because at the time each won his sole Presidential race, he'd been President for a while. Better examples would be the current or former VP's who hadn't been President (Nixon, Bush41, Gore). The extent to which they were in the loop might not be known, or even considered, except by politics junkies. For millions of voters, they had the image of having been in an executive position, instead of just voting Yea or Nay on bills (which is the oversimplified image many people have of what Senators do).

[merrily]

22. I know it's not just Republicans, but they tend to emphasize gubernatorial and

even private sector executive experience more than Democrats. From my perspective. Democrats tend to fall in love (speaking figuratively, not romantically) with a candidate.

Additionally, as far as Dukakis, I think there's a difference between setting out a set of criteria in the abstract, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, coming up with reasons why your specific candidate is the best one. I chose Obama in 2008. At first, I did so solely on the basis of who I thought had the best shot at winning the general. Then, as I was selling him to others, and defending him against supporters of other candidates, I fell in love (again, figuratively, not romantically). After that, I wasn't dispassionate at all. I was just knee jerk defending him, even when, in other circumstances, I would have conceded a point or two. Or at least just been silent.

With regard to Truman and Johnson, their VP experiences don't matter much, because at the time each won his sole Presidential race, he'd been President for a while
.

Yes, but you're mixing apples and oranges as to the reasons I mentioned them.

As you recall, you posted only about electability, whereas my reply added the issue of what kind of President people have actually made because both issues are important.

Johnson and Truman were both examples of why serving as Vice President doesn't necessarily add to one's ability to govern. My additional point about Truman, who appears on the ten best US presidents ever lists of both Republican and Democratic historians, was that he had failed at every other thing he'd tried, but still succeeded as President, so formulas don't tell us much. He did not even have a college degree. Today, he never would have made it even to Vice President.

Something just occurred to me that I did not mention in my prior post and, in fairness to the truth, should mention: Truman did have military service, World War I.

[CrispyQ]

11. Our media is such a huge part of the problem!

They will focus on the one dem candidate who has sucked all the oxygen out of the dem race, & the 16 jackasses that make up the GOP clown car.

I'm sick of this election already & we still have over a year to go.

[Raine1967]

12. When I think back to the 2008 POTUS campaign coverage (meaning even before 2008)

compared to no, I am amazed at the marked differences in coverage. It wasn't great then, but these days?

It is startling how poor the coverage is. We'll see what happens after O'Malley announces, I have a feeling that the media will start to pay attention more to him as well as Sanders.

And while I am a supporter of O'Malley, I want to see more coverage for Senator Sanders. O'malley entering the race could be a democratic primary game changer.

That can only be a good thing for all Democrats. We will not have a clown car of jokes. We will have people ready to discuss and debate real issues that matter to everyone.

[Koinos]

13. I don't think O'Malley will be ignored by the media.

The professional team he has assembled won't let that happen. And he himself is an amazing come-from-behind campaigner. It will be a textbook lesson to see how his strategy unfolds.

[RiverLover]

25. Case in point, CrispyQ - WSJ: "Hillary vs. 19 Republicans" 5/20/15

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-vs-19-republicans-1432161456

The media complains about Hillary's "coronation" as the Democratic nominee, but by ignoring the (admittedly few) other candidates, they're the reason for what they're complaining about!

Grrr. I hope O'Malley can get some attention. He'll need to have the courage to go negative against The Queen though, imo, in order for that to happen.

[demwing]

14. Thanks Raine!

Aside from executive experience, what I think O'Malley brings that Bernie (or any single candidate running against Clinton) cannot, is the legitimacy of economic populism.

The more populists running, the more mainstream populism becomes. Imagine Hillary, Bernie, and O'Malley in a three way debate...in that room, with those two competing voices, is there ANY way that Clinton looks like a true blue champion of the 99%?

[swilton]

15. To play devil's advocate

to your first paragraph, my concern is with so many populist candidates, that they cancel each other out and give the primary to Billary. After all, how many DLCers are foolish enough to compete with her....how many progressive candidates? multiple.

I lived in Maryland during O'Malley's first term as governor. Sad to say, I was busy retiring, relocating, finishing graduate school and taking care of end-of-life issues with a parent...paid little attention to him...I do note that he is anti capital punishment and pro-same sex marriage....I find it surprising that of the polls that I had seen (can't remember the specifics other than it was something about presidential candidates and Maryland voters) anyway the opinion of him by Maryland voters was very low....also given the problems in Baltimore where he was Mayor - to me this is evidence of the effectiveness of his executive experience.

[Raine1967]

16. Was that why he was elected twice as governor?

Also, as an O'Malley supporter, I find it really disrespectful to use the term *Billary* I shall quote you:

my concern is with so many populist candidates, that they cancel each other out and give the primary to Billary.

Hillary Clinton is running for president. Right now there are three, count them THREE people in the race.

And to be really technical, one. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-for-president.html

Mr. Sanders plans to hold a formal campaign kickoff on May 26 in Burlington, Vt., where he was once mayor, but he will hit the campaign trail this weekend, holding an event in Manchester, N.H., where the nation’s first primary is being held in February. And he is expected to make accessibility a hallmark of his campaign.

I am not very sure about what you say regarding the opinion of Maryland voters. He was termed out and could not run for a third term as governor. He was elected with a majority of voters.

I will say this, the term *Billary* is really not in step with the times as they are right now. Bill is not running and she is not running on his record.

Anyway, I would like to see where you think his popularity was low after he was elected twice to office.

[swilton]

17. The poll was recent - within the past couple of months

Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 10:00 PM - Edit history (2)

He may have been elected twice but I do know it was a lesser of two evils situation as his opponent Ehrlich was very unpopular. What happened was Ehrlich beat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (expected to win in 2002) and was governor until the election in 2006 when O'Malley won. Ehrlich, the only incumbent governor to be defeated in 2006 (against O'Malley), tried to go against O'Malley in 2010. It could be argued that O'Malley won because Ehrlich, having a track-record, was so poor as governor.

Baltimore remains an issue unanswered.

Sorry, if you don't like the term, Billary - it was used before I still think it is appropriate as despite her running on her own record it has yet to be clarified what role he would/will play. Furthermore she uses many of Bill's advisors.

[demwing]

18. O'Malley was re-elected Governor in 2010 by a wider margin

than by which he was 1st elected in 2006.

As far as his approval rating is concerned:

Martin O’Malley’s approval rating improved in Maryland since October
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/martin-omalleys-approval-rating-improved-in-maryland-since-october/2015/02/10/9a6a5c7a-b169-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html

"In Maryland, O’Malley’s numbers have bumped up across demographic groups and among both parties, although the improvement is especially pronounced among voters in Baltimore County, which rings the city, and in Anne Arundel and Howard counties, where O’Malley’s ratings soared 15 points. O’Malley won Howard and Baltimore counties in 2010, but Hogan won both counties over Brown last year."

[merrily]

20. In this forum, posters discuss candidates, including Hillary, freely.

With all due respect, we actually don't know a whole lot yet about what she is running on or against yet, or what role Bill will play, and has been playing, in her campaign.

The Clintons have often expressly themselves as a two for one deal in the past. In fact, I've been thinking of doing an OP in this forum pointing that out.

It's not my personal preference to use Billary when referring only to her, but I have used it when referred to them as a couple or things they have worked on together, like "Billarycare."

[geek tragedy]

23. O'Malley's problem is finding space between Sanders and Clinton.

If someone wants a full-throated liberal/leftist/progressive, hard to beat Bernie.

He's also going to have a tough time going after Clinton, given that he was a Clintonite while in office.

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/l8vszfYfcZczu385fUmKSA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztpbD1wbGFuZTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/

FILE - In this May 9, 2007 file photo, then-Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley endorses Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for the 2008 presidency at City Dock in Annapolis, Md. More than a decade ago, Bill Clinton spotted a political star on the horizon, someone he predicted would go from a big-city mayor to a national leader _ maybe even to the White House. In the years that followed, Clinton and his wife, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, showed up time and again as their young ally rose up the political ranks, hosting fundraisers, headlining rallies, and connecting him with their sprawling network of political donors. (AP Photo/Kathleen Lange, File)

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/file-may-9-2007-file-photo-then-maryland-photo-153424316.html

Hard to square supporting 2008/Mark Penn Hillary with a vigorous argument why voters shouldn't like 2012 Hillary.

[Raine1967]

24. You make valid points.

But if you look at the team he has put together, I think he is ready to take on those issues. Bill Clinton likes O'Malley. He has for a long time. O'Malley has been a speaker at the CGI, and it was there that Bill Clinton said that he was a terrific Governor of the best run state:

(fast forward to 5:30 minutes in.)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clintons-nurtured-young-martin-o-malley-article-1.2228968And there is this.
]
I posted that link because I don't think people realize or remember that friends/acquaintances often run against each other for political office.

They are all dems. I really believe that he can find that space between Clinton and Sanders. We will see.

[swilton]

26. It's also hard to reconcile his support for Clinton in the 2008 Campaign

Last edited Thu May 21, 2015, 08:06 AM - Edit history (1)

with his statement to the effect that the presidency was not some crown to be passed between two families....(Mar, 2015)

If you were to ask me- the country needs a Bernie Sanders not a Clinton light...

I have no clue how the Democratic dynamics will play out...but my guess is that O'Malley is running mate material.

On edit: Matt Taibi has an interview on Democracy Now today (21 May). Apparently Taibi has a current Rolling Stone article and is working on a book on urban crime. He argues the Baltimore violence in reaction to the Freddie Gray incident was not surprising given policing strategies ongoing for decades. The article and book may be illuminating about O'Malley's tenure as governor and Mayor of Baltimore because O'Malley touts his governance credentials for lowering crime in Baltimore. Taibi's Rolling Stone article is going to be linked to Democracy Now. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll post it...

[INdemo]

27. Failed to mention Bernie Sanders

but an average Iowa polling of three pollsters has these results.

Pollster Trend
Hillary Clinton 60.2%
Elizabeth Warren 17.4%
Bernie Sanders 15.0%

I think voters that will start paying attention about January will have the same opinion about Hillary as they do Jeb B

We have had enough of Bush's and Clintons.

This happens every election cycle though where as a pollster has 10 people that are asked and immediately it is a scientific poll.