How would Martin O'Malley have fared in the GE?

[LonePirate]

I haven't seen this question asked so let me do it. Would O'Malley have won the GE? He would not have any scandals or Washington insider reputation taint him nor would he have had any of the same biases voters held against Clinton and Sanders. However, his strong gun control support would have almost definitely been used against him. Would he have been able to hang on to Rust Belt voters? Would he have lost some of the Republican and suburban women who voted for Clinton?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. Not sure. I like him but the entire playbook

Against him was not revealed, so it's hard to know.

Eichenwald saw the oppo research on sanders, but as far as I know no one knows what the oppo on o malley was.

[Kentonio]

2. I'm not a big fan personally, but I think he'd have had a good chance.

Pretty much a new face and with little national baggage.

[Yavin4]

3. He would've lost bigger than Hillary

Both the popular and the electoral vote.

[mtnsnake]

5. And you know this how?

[mtnsnake]

4. I think he would have had an excellent chance of beating the likes of Trump

[Orsino]

6. We never get to know.

I couldn't see him ever generating a tenth of the electricity his primary opponents did, but if he had, and if the opposing campaigns ever forgave him, and the candidates were out stumping for him. Maybe, but until he gets beyond "Martin who?" I wouldn't bet on his chances in a general.

As for 2016, the TV clearly decided to promote Trump no matter what, and tens of millions obeyed.

[LonePirate]

9. You're certainly correct about the media promoting the same candidate.

The biggest questions for me are how many would back O'Malley if the voted for/against Clinton because of her gender and how many would vote for him in the absence of Comey/FBI interference.

[JudyM]

10. People who wouldn't vote for Clinton because of gender wouldn't be voting for a dem, anyway,

IMO. I get that a lot of people here think otherwise, but I think it was far more an issue of personality aversion than gender rejection. And then the other issues, of course, but on the personal qualities, that's my view.

Re:your larger question, I think O'Malley's great, but up against tRump's vivid personality he would've appeared far weaker, and that would've had an impact. I think tRump would've chewed him up and spit him out on that front. A lot of people rallied to Hillary and we might've lost some of that enthusiasm, as evidenced by his thinner support in the primaries.

[Garrett78]

13. I think there are some Dems or Dem-leaners who didn't vote for Clinton because of her sex.

But I agree that there's a larger number of people who would have voted for a woman had it not been Clinton, who has been victimized by 25+ years of hate.

[JudyM]

17. What are you basing that view on?

[Garrett78]

22. The fact that sexism is alive and well.

And I watched the Sanders post-election town hall in Wisconsin, during which a Democrat said as much.

Clinton's been under attack to a greater extent and for a longer period of time than any other politician, much of that attack rooted in sexism, so it's not at all hard to believe some people opposed her primarily due to her sex.

[Kolesar]

27. Some voters were not going to let a woman have that power

They probably never thought it through, but they did have that bias.
I think that is why she was attacked on that "judgement " question when her opponent got a pass: emails and all that.
I have a "gut feeling".

[Hoyt]

7. It would have been interesting. But truth is, he didn't do well in Primary, so it's kind of moot.

[WhiteTara]

8. He would have fared the same as in

the primaries.

[blue cat]

11. I think he would have done well

with the benefit of hindsight.

[lake loon]

12. He's a great candidate

... too bad the M$M ignored him, Bernie and everyone who wasn't Hillary or Donald J. Shitler.

[duffyduff]

14. Not nearly as well as Clinton.

He stammers in debates, and this plus being rather dull would have sunk him.

Clinton won the popular vote.

[hollowdweller]

15. Media wasn't interested in him so it came down to Clinton and Bernie.

I think there were any number of possible candidates that might have done better than Hillary or Bernie.

I think Biden could have brought along more men, more working class voters. He also was better at taking the high road while debating his opponent.

When I saw Clinton, in the one debate, attacking Trump sounding harsh with a scowl on her face, really pretty much getting in the dirt with him I thought of the contrast how Biden debated Ryan and Palin. He took no shit, atttacked them, but looked jovial and with a smile on his face.

[dsc]

28. Yes women must always smile

What horse crap

[Garrett78]

16. If he had won the nomination, he probably could have won the general election.

If we're talking about a last minute substitution for whatever reason, I'm not so sure. The bottom line is you must have the support of the base, particularly persons of color and women. Clinton had the support of the base and no other candidate really did.

The person who had the best chance at winning the White House was Joe Biden, but he opted to not run. And it's far from certain that he would have beaten out Clinton for the nomination.

[StevieM]

18. I like O'Malley, and I think he could have beaten Trump, but this question misses a HUGE point.

If O'Malley had run for president we would love learned that he was a miserable human being. The GOP no doubt had several fake scandals waiting for him, ones that they had been preparing for years. Don't forget, O'Malley had been talked about as a possible future president for 15 years.

There may have even been a bogus FBI investigation.

What if Wes Clark had been the nominee in 2004? The Swift Boaters would no doubt have had something in store for him too.

[Raine]

19. If he got the nomination I think he would've won, I also think Biden would've won

if he had run.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

20. A "Third Way" Democrat? He wouldn't get my vote in a primary, but...

... I'd have to vote for him against Trump.

I wouldn't have been excited by him.

He signed the Hyde Park Declaration.
http://archive.is/AfKSK

He seems boring too.

[FSogol]

24. Digging up the old 3rd way lie on O'Malley? He was asked to join, but refused. As for the Hyde Park

declaration, read it. There is nothing in it that any Democrat would disagree with. That's why every elected Democrat at the time signed it. It reads like the party platform.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

29. The platform places too much faith in businesses.

Public-private partnerships should become the rule, not the exception, in delivering services. Civic and voluntary groups, including faith-based organizations, should play a larger role in addressing America's social problems.

I even prefer the 1912 Bull Moose Party platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
The platform's main theme was reversing the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled the Republican and Democratic parties, alike. The platform asserted that:
To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

The "Third Way" is about cutting welfare for the economically vulnerable while also placing the burden of "new skills" on them. It places faith in free markets and capitalism, domestically and abroad, but expects individuals to adapt to any changes that result.

Does our military expect new soldiers to be fully trained when they enlist? Do they expect voluntary groups to keep them afloat in the meantime? Or does our military pay new enlistees right from the start and then do the training themselves?

Models that cater to wealthy business owners, that don't treat "new skills" as their ultimate responsibility since THEY are the ones making such demands, is a problem.

If we're going to continue down the path of decentralized, individually responsible education and training, then it needs FAR more government funding which should come mostly from higher corporate and ownership taxes... and many people will need a basic minimum income to survive as they tackle those endeavors.

EDIT: It also blows my mind how many times that I've seen supposed Democrats here on DU making statements like, "Rural voters should move because those jobs aren't coming back. Adapt or die." Do they not see how out of touch that is? That's like people flippantly saying, "People in poor ghettos should just move." Moving takes money! And making such a leap is frightening without better safety nets! Meanwhile, many of those rural voters are more likely to see their local churches as more helpful than government. Heck, it's even in the "Third Way" platform -- e.g., "voluntary groups, including faith-based organizations, should play a larger role in addressing America's social problems." It's no wonder to me that so many "Christians" in this country vote Republican! Some Democrats have been driving them away!

[FSogol]

31. Whatever the 3rd way became, they were not any of those things when the Hyde Park Declar was signed

in 2000.

Read the Hyde Park Declaration. Also look at O'Malley's proposals. None of them were in line with what you are describing.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

33. I read all of it.

And I cut-and-pasted an excerpt from Hyde that sums them up.

O'Malley was endorsed by Third Way as a Presidential candidate a few years ago and that bothered me.

On the other hand, I've read more about his policies in Maryland and many of them are in line with traditional progressive Democrats... so maybe I would've liked him more if I'd seen more of him in the primaries?

I still think he's boring.

I wasn't excited by Clinton either, but I still voted for her since a sociopath was her main opposition in the general election. And I'm certain that I would've voted for O'Malley too.

[FSogol]

34. Not True: "O'Malley was endorsed by Third Way as a Presidential candidate a few years ago"

They recognized him as an young upcoming star in the Democratic party by writing an article on his successes in Maryland during the time when they were actively recruiting him. From a 2012 Baltimore Sun Article:

O'Malley said he was recruited to join the DLC soon after he was elected mayor three years ago. He said that although he enjoys debating strategy with the organization, he doesn't subscribe to all the positions of its leadership.

He said he made clear his differences in discussions that included leaders such as Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Evan Bayh of Indiana and focused on what the council calls the "battle over the soul of the Democratic Party."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-12-04/news/0212040053_1_martin-omalley-democratic-leadership-council-democratic-party

Stop smearing Democrats.

[jfern]

25. He's certainly less of a 3rd wayer than Hillary

[JI7]

21. He might have won but with less votes than Clinton.

and turnout would have been low on both sides.

he would have gotten 2004 states plus colorado and Virginia .

i think most mainstream white male democrats (without baggage) might have won but with low turnout on both sides.

angry white men might have been less motivated to come out.


FBI might not have gotten involved since most of their issue was with a woman being in charge.

[aikoaiko]

23. He came off as smug and unlikable to me during the primaries.

He touted his anti-gun, anti-violence policies as producing major change in Baltimore, but most cities were seeing declines in gun violence at the same time. Baltimore is still in the top 5 or top 10 deadliest cities in the US depending on the year.

I saw him as closer to an HRC-style candidate compared to Bernie.

[bowens43]

26. Who?

No one knows who he is.

[coolbreeze77]

30. He could've won because he would've been hungry for it. Trump was beatable.