General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSaw this man on cable earlier today. What is the deal with Martin O'Malley? Could he be
a possible candidate for Democrats in 2020? He seemed impressive. Anybody here had first-hand experience with him as governor?
Kingofalldems
(38,419 posts)elleng
(130,712 posts)Was a good, capable governor here in Maryland.
Check this out:
Martin O'Malley (Group)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281
Funtatlaguy
(10,862 posts)He ran in 2016. Must have been forgettable for you
PatSeg
(47,239 posts)Maybe he'll be more seasoned come 2020.
jpljr77
(1,004 posts)In 2020, however, with things a bit more wide open, he might gain traction.
RobinA
(9,884 posts)I was fairly impressed by what little I saw of him. I was wishing he could have gotten more traction, but I suppose it wasn't his time. I hope he tries again, because he seemed quite viable as a candidate at the time.
greymattermom
(5,751 posts)so maybe he needs to be in the cabinet in 2021.
PAMod
(906 posts)after the sh*t show of the last 2 years...
vlyons
(10,252 posts)I don't need a reality star rabble rouser. Had my fill of that already.
CrispyQ
(36,413 posts)Says a girl who is a sucker for a man who plays a musical instrument.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)world wide wally
(21,734 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Ohiogal
(31,895 posts)2016 Dem debates. You didn't see them?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,905 posts)as governor. Enough so I'd have a hard time seeing him out of the primary.
drray23
(7,615 posts)Especially when he said Hillary was wrong to have said that many Trump supporters were deplorables. O'Malley said that they are just scared people because of economic conditions and the like. That is nonsense. There is more than overwhelming eviidence that they voted for Trump because they are devoid of morals and embrace xenophobia, mysoginy.
better
(884 posts)The point about some Trump supporters just being scared because of economic conditions and the like was actually made by Secretary Clinton herself in the very same paragraph of the infamous "deplorables" speech in which she defined the deplorables:
I know there are only 60 days left to make our case and dont get complacent, dont see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think well hes done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumps supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?
[Laughter/applause]
The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket and I know this because I see friends from all over America here I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas as well as, you know, New York and California but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and theyre just desperate for change. It doesnt really even matter where it comes from. They dont buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They wont wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like theyre in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
You are correct, as was Secretary Clinton, that there are those who voted for Trump because they are deplorable, but there are also those who are not deplorable at heart, that voted for him as a result of either ignorance or being misinformed. And as I have emphasized in bold, Secretary Clinton herself went out of her way to make that very distinction.
Those remarks of hers were a mistake politically, in my opinion. Not because the observations she was making were invalid, but because it exposed her to what should have been a predictable manipulation / selective reporting of what she said, and made it too easy to portray her as having painted the opposition with a much more broadly accusatory brush than she was actually trying to.
I've had that very discussion with people for whom the perception that Trump supporter automatically equals deplorable was quite insulting, and pushed them toward Trump. And I could see the recalculation happen when I showed them the full context that their "news" outlets had withheld from them, wherein Secretary Clinton explicitly called for understanding of and empathy for people like them.
I won't try to tell you that you are wrong to not support O'Malley, but I will suggest that your calculation could plausibly change if you evaluate the subject more carefully. The deplorable remarks do not have to have been without merit to have been a political mistake, and as noted, Secretary Clinton herself tried to lead us to recognize both ends of the Trump supporter spectrum, and to deal with those on either end of the spectrum appropriately.
drray23
(7,615 posts)If he was the nominee I would of course vote for him over any GOP. Still, I dont think pandering to trump voters by saying they are poor disenfranchised people who did not know better is a good thing. But now, if these people still support trump, they are deplorables.
better
(884 posts)But even so, I do also think that there is merit to considering the difference between pandering to trump voters or making excuses for them and messaging to us on the left that we should be mindful that we should not assume that everyone who supports trump is deplorable.
I could agree with the idea that anyone who supports him despite knowing all of the terrible things he has done, and that he actually has done them is deplorable, but that still leaves a number who may support him only because they either don't know about the terrible things he has done, or don't realize that it's actually true despite how outlandish it may seem.
The whole point is that there are some who supported trump that may well be worth educating and converting.
We do need to know the difference, and not waste too much time on the truly lost, but the merely unaware are another story, and we certainly won't convert the merely unaware by treating them as deplorable. We should reserve that treatment for those who actually do warrant it.
allgood33
(1,584 posts)Hillary, seemingly always to make her statements take on the worse meaning. Hillary is no fool and her statements are usually balanced, thoughtful, and when taken in full context enlightening and self-explanatory. I blame the media for allowing these misquotes on the airwaves without correction or challenge. I even find that many of the media will go out of their way to "explain" Trump's hateful, ignorant comments by tampering down his nasty rhetoric.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)Wintryjade
(814 posts)He is young'ish and a solid Democrat from a Democratic family that would serve him well. I didn't get hold in 2016, but he started late. Also, he is not a great speaker, but that does not bother me because he is smart, has well thought out plans and follow thru.
dsc
(52,147 posts)but he never broke single digits even in Maryland in the primary. I would be willing to take a fresh look in 2020.
elleng
(130,712 posts)'We are a nation of nations, united by our loyalty to this country.
The United States has always been open to those who have been oppressed or persecuted searching for a better life. The current situation on the border is not reflective of decency or our American values. When did a starving refugee child become a threat to our national security? Without immigration there would be no American dream and there would be no American future.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Delarage
(2,186 posts)I did one of those "which candidate best matches your beliefs" quizzes during the 2016 election and he was my match....even though I hadn't heard much about him. He wasn't given much time at the debates.
elleng
(130,712 posts)That was apparently decided by Dem 'higher-ups,' and he was not happy when he learned about it.
People here (and elsewhere) say things like 'he never broke through.' There were inherent problems due to other candidates who tended to take the oxygen out of the room, but with media agreeing to go along with Dem 'party' agreement to short-change him, he COULDN'T get much traction.
TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)Until it was obvious he wasnt getting out of single digits. Not sure why he'd do any better in 2020 but i still like the guy.
elleng
(130,712 posts)and limiting amount of coverage he's allowed, including miserable debate schedule and ## of debates.
He has great policies, the full spectrum, and the Dem party should applaud him. He's been all over the country this past year supporting Dem candidates.
TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)Good point- he, and obviously anyone,would do better with a wide open primary field instead of one where theres a heavy favorite.
Raine
(30,540 posts)DavidDvorkin
(19,465 posts)If he runs, he'll be my first choice again.
elleng
(130,712 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)but he was out so fast I never got to find out much about him.
Rhiannon12866
(204,644 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,781 posts)elleng
(130,712 posts)Though he'd be fine as a Senator, his talents wouldn't be used.
vlyons
(10,252 posts)I think he wants to run for POTUS in 2020. He is building bridges, winning friends, and influencing the shakers and makers by raising money for Dem candidates around the country. Earning his national spurs. He hasn't really broken out nationally yet. So just keep an eye on him for now.
CrispyQ
(36,413 posts)Clinton & Sanders sucked all the oxygen out of the room, though, so he was barely a blip on the radar.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)Voted for him in the primary. I was a little dissapointed in his debate performance, Clinton and Sanders ran circles around him. Felt like he just wasn't ready, but can see him being viable in 2020.
Also agree that the debate schedules and lack of airtime given to him did have their intended effect.
elleng
(130,712 posts)the built-in time limit in 'debate,' about which many were not aware, but was enforced by 'moderator,' instigated by Dem party and agreed to by tv. He is certainly able to respond to anyone, on any issues.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)and were much more compelling to listen to. They were more comfortable and it showed. I like O'Malley, liked his positions and was so hoping for a much better performance.
I'd have no problem voting for him again.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)And yet you never heard of Martin O'Malley?
elleng
(130,712 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,767 posts)I mean a lot.
elleng
(130,712 posts)AnnieBW
(10,409 posts)He was a decent governor of Maryland. Unfortunately, he raised taxes to keep our AAA bond rating during the Great Recession, and it pissed off a lot of people. The Repugs pounced on the "Rain Tax", which is shorthand for "taxing stormwater runoff from your property to help clean up the Bay." That, and racism, is how we got Hogan instead of Anthony Brown (who is now my Representative).
Hogan got rid of the "Rain Tax". And we've had Ellicott City, a historic area at the bottom of a steep hill, destroyed twice by flood waters coming down from the top of the hill.
elleng
(130,712 posts)after having been mayor of Baltimore 2x.
Re Rain Tax, Its been inaccurately dubbed a rain tax by its opponents, but the stormwater fees that Marylands ten most populous jurisdictions are required to charge under the stormwater fee law are anything but. . .
Similar to a water or sewer fee, a stormwater fee is actually a user fee charged to property owners for the service of managing the polluted runoff coming from their property. When rain falls on hard surfaces such as roofs, roads and parking lots, it creates stormwater runoff and carries a veritable stew of pollutants such as bacteria, trash, nutrients and sediment with it to nearby streams and rivers. Stormwater fees are used to construct management practices in strategic locations in the landscape to slow down and filter pollutants from runoff in order to provide cleaner water, reduce flooding and erosion, protect infrastructure, and revitalize communities. . .
Municipalities that do not charge stormwater fees still incur costs to manage runoff, but the revenue must come from other sources such as the general fund, which means residents pay for stormwater management as a percentage of their property tax. Stormwater fees are a more equitable way to fund stormwater management because the fees are based on the amount of impervious surface on each property, which directly influences the amount of runoff pollution created. Says Stack: "A stormwater utility is an equitable solution for providing ratepayers services such as a greened landscape, reduced flooding, clean streams and healthy harbor."
In Maryland, the costs for local jurisdictions to manage polluted runoff are expected to increase substantially to meet new pollution control requirements to restore the Chesapeake Bay and local tributaries. The Maryland Department of Legislative Services reports that the estimated costs just for the ten jurisdictions subject to the stormwater fee law total more than $4 billion over the next five years. Maryland Department of the Environment records show that the jurisdictions are already behind their impervious cover treatment goals, while at the same time impervious surfaces continue to expand across the state with new development.'https://www.prlog.org/12276283-marylands-rain-tax-debunked.html#
Lots of people love to hate Governor O'Malley; too darn competent, I guess.
A former Governing Magazine Public Official of the Year, Governor OMalley was re-elected in 2010. His 2013 legislative successes were described in a Baltimore Sun editorial as without many parallels in recent Maryland history.
With a balanced approach of spending cuts, regulatory reform, and modern investment in education, innovation, and infrastructure, Governor OMalley and his Administration are making better choices that are delivering better results, including:
Fastest rate of job growth in the region.
#1 ranking for best public schools in America for an unprecedented five years in a row (Education Week).
#1 ranking for holding down the cost of college tuition (College Board).
#1 ranking for innovation and entrepreneurship for two years running (U.S. Chamber of Commerce).
Under the Governors leadership, Maryland also ranks:
#1 nationally in median income,
#1 in Ph.D. scientists and researchers per capita,
#1 in Research and Development, and
#1 in businesses owned by women.
https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/gov/former/html/msa13090.html
FSogol
(45,435 posts)FSogol
(45,435 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)okay, but not a banana split with all the trimmings..
US politicians at the presidential level need the "pizzazz" factor.
JFK had it
Bobby Kennedy had it
Bill Clinton had it
GW Bush had it (regrettably)
Howard Dean had it
Bernie Sanders had it
Obama had it
the Orange Menace had it (bigly regrettably)
Every cycle has the competent, hard working, pleasant-enough person, but that person usually does not win.
FSogol
(45,435 posts)would be like if Democrats like Al Gore, Paul Tsongas, and Martin O'Malley had been elected.
Americans seem to prefer showmen in lieu of hardworking executives.
elleng
(130,712 posts)oasis
(49,318 posts)O'Malley has that going for him.
however somehow seems not to appeal to many.
Omaha Steve
(99,488 posts)But he was dead in the water at the Iowa caucus.