and is setting himself up as an alternative.

I think he's positioning himself as the understudy for Hillary, ready to grab the top slot if anything happens to her or her chances, regardless of cause.

Another scandal might erupt, a serious health issue may arise. From this perspective, plus just mounting something of a Primary campaign to maintain party enthusiasm, it's not a bad idea to have someone in the wings. And that's the only way he'd get the nom, i.e. if Hill's campaign falters in a big way.

Now, as to his acceptability as a candidate, I have yet to be convinced, although I see that some around here are drifting his way.

Unless she is just very cynical and intends to let the VP, if she runs and wins, just sit around and do nothing that would counter her corporate ideas.

Perish the thought...

She for prez and he for vp. They would make a super attractive ticket. The only drawback as I see it is that they are both East Coast.

him for very long, he comes off as more of a manager than a politician.

For people unaware of O'Malley, here's his resume:

http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/gov/former/html/msa13090.html

Last edited Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:35 PM - Edit history (2)

Hillary Clinton if she does run will sounds like a Democrat liberals love (well possibly not since that obviously the electable, her credentials, why she is strong to withstand Republican attacks it will be a lot of fool's gold we'll be mainly the focus on the reasons to vote for her).

I don't know enough about O'Malley in this area specifically to say one way or the other but saying this now I'm more "wait and see", if O'Malley does run & Hillary runs, the best & probably the only to defeat her in a D primary is to run to the left of her. Everyone, especially the Hillary camp are well aware of the "Warren supporters" but its not just her fans. I like how the article points out that it sounds like Elizabeth Warren but its O'Malley sounding like Elizabeth Warren.

If it came down to him & Hillary Clinton I'd choose O'Malley but I'm rooting for more options at this point. Don't really trust either.

With some of the things he has done in Maryland. He spearheaded the whole effort to bring casinos to Maryland in an effort to overcome state revenue gaps.
Casinos prey on the poor and lower-income and exacerbate an already dramatically awful income inequality issue.
You don't get into bed with Big Gambling and not wake up with an STD.

mainly I think because of jobs.

I never really considered Omalley a strong liberal while governor here in MD. I think he is moving left to fill a gap.

Hillary must be worried.

A big test came late in O’Malley’s first year, when he called lawmakers back to Annapolis to resolve a long-standing “structural deficit” in the budget, namely the state’s practice of planning to spend more money than forecasters expected it to collect in revenue.

O’Malley offered a package of tax increases and budget cuts, as well as a plan to raise additional revenue by legalizing slot machines — a poisonous issue for much of Ehrlich’s term.

Legislative leaders cautioned against holding such an ambitious special session — particularly with no guarantee of success. But O’Malley pushed through his entire package, with some bills squeaking by after debates that stretched into the wee hours. He had established himself as a force to be reckoned with, even though some efforts — such as repealing the death penalty — didn’t succeed right away.

In the end, there was no major O’Malley initiative that didn’t make it across the finish line. In some cases, he showed a willingness to compromise that frustrated his allies — like slowing the pace of pay increases in a minimum wage bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/in-defining-omalleys-legacy-liberal-successes-compete-with-tax-hikes/2015/01/19/5b951d4c-9d81-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

Trying to solve your budget and job gaps by getting into bed with Big Gambling is short-sighted and shortcuts like this are not in the long-term best interest of any state: increased crime, pawn shops, payday lenders and domestic violence to name just a few long-term consequences.

"increased crime, pawn shops, payday lenders and domestic violence to name just a few long-term consequences."


You asserted, now back up your claims.

You can't, you pulled that out of your ear.

Almost every study done on the subject shows a wash, in some instances crime increases, in other places it went down. Statistically, the net increase/decrease was almost zero.

It shouldn't be hard to find. I live pretty close to Casinos, I never got the appeal especially since there is no sports gambling nothing really winnable except for maybe some card table games but the couple times I was bored dragged to a Casino by someone who has fun at Casinos lost $20 or $40 or more. I know a lot of people who go to the casinos a lot, I don't know why do know sometimes someone has a good day at the casino but know a lot of money is lost. I was kinda mad they just didn't give the money to me since it was practically given away quickly.

It is better than the bullshit computer labs they have in Phoenix. A big one is on Indian School. As soon as you can come in there are signs everywhere pointing out THIS ISN'T GAMBLING. You're purchasing "Computer time" but they have casino-like that increase or decrease money used to "purchase internet time". No odds-posting, all these signs telling you what they aren't but very little in explaining in what they are, no idea how the games are set-up. I didn't want to go but a woman I was with wanted to, eventually I relented on her offer for $10 because i was bored for at-least a hour. All I did was basic strategy with Blackjack, I actually gained over a little over $20 strategy but after some bad luck I became desperate in simply getting to the point where I gained & retire the card but while basic strategy is good for winning hands it is betting strategy I don't have any idea what a good system is. I realized as my count was getting smaller so were my bets so I didn't much for a lot of hands won so I started increasing the bets, increasing the risk I ended up losing it all.

Whatever the hell that was, was worse than gambling I was the only one "winning", when I said I was 10+ what I made it came across as a surprise a few accused me of being dishonest in my claim. I was tired, I realized I now longer had more card info (money at $0 by the time I was done with it) when I remember I left it on the table I realized it was stolen so someone stole my "computer time".

But regarding showing your work or backing up claims. Losing money creates debt, therefore crime, payday loans & pawn shops enter the picture because they usually enter the picture when debt does as well. Whenever I sold something at a pawn shop it was very rare and I was very desperate. Payday loans, the interest rates scare me but I don't have the two weeks in check stubs & a lot of what they require so the one time I tried to use one they rejected me which I'm glad they did, the interest rates are crazy but for the loans they provide something normal would only bring a few bucks in profit.

There is plenty of data out there, studies done by impartial third parties that all show the same thing, there is no verifiable correlation between legalizing gambling and increased crime.

The break is almost exactly 50/50, in some areas crime went up, in others, it went down.

Statistically 0% increase overall.

We know people lose money, we know for the most part the odds are stocked in the house's favor, unless they are like Charles Barkley who can "afford to gamble" creates problems. We know for a fact gambling is very much an addiction -- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-gets-addicted-to-gambling/?page=2

Very thick adult diapers are sold because some hardcore addicts need them because of her unwilling they are to risk what happens if they leave the machine to go to the bathroom. -- http://www.aproundtable.org/news/newsindividual.cfm?ID=1798&issuecode=casino

Certainly there are those who gamble, do so responsibly. Casual, don't do too much on the weekends. This shocked me but Thanksgiving was one my best days, especially Thanksgiving. I ended up south or in Chandler most of the time caused by the large amount of fares I had picking people up from the big casinos South from here, off the I-10. I think its Wild Horse Pass. I live close to Casino Arizona. Talking Sticks is very high end Vegas style casino & resort. There certainly is a lot of that.

Increasing or decreasing crime is certainly hard to measure & directly relate because anecdotally, most of the people I know that are big fans of going to Casinos are criminals but the 2 isn't directly related to their love except for the money used to give away to the House. Whether it is the rent money or black market income, blowing it at the Casino does anger & cause money the money helps support. My mom told me stories of my dad would blow the rent money at the dog track. Why someone would bet money on some random dogs I racing I really don't get it.

However, after they were divorced I'd still see him at the Summer. I remember he'd drop me off at the day care center at Central City while he went inside to gamble quite often. Scratch tickets he bought all-the-time though that is a pretty consistent thing with gambling addicts, always grab a few scratchers at the 7-11 or whatever. I never buy them except for one time I needed money started with a $1 or $2, tried to listen to my gut managed to turn it into $20 in the end. Only time I ever, I mentioned this to my life who gave me some money specifically for me to try to "re-enact" this but all I was doing was trying to guess correctly more but I don't get 1 out 4.35678 means I'm more likely to lose overall long-term.

However is the areas of the brain that become simulated when the bets are in play that create the gambling addiction, it isn't so much winning or losing. This addiction is very problematic because it is directly related to money. This creates problems, not just with themselves but with others, I can't count the angry "because gambled all the money" but a criminal who normally acquires income with criminal activities is more likely to turn to acquiring income from those sources following a bad night or blowing rent money or money needed for something they needed it for. But that is only 1 problem that directly relates to, a lot addicts are hurting themselves with their own money being lost at Casinos or gambling suppliers but the demand is there which someone will be out there providing the supply need so it is what it is. It doesn't mean it is without its problems.

Most of the data, at its core, is 20 or more years old. Even most of the data that would support my point in this discussion. The fact that it has "worked out" for some does not mean, in the long-term, it will( See: Atlantic City). If you don't think it doesn't have serious, foundational impact to the the health and prosperity of a city or state to base its economic success on gambling I dont know what else to say. I can think of a lot of jobs I'd like to see in my state but gambling industry jobs are not on my list. No more than I would want a mining company to come in and strip mine my state for coal or setup a bunch of fracking wells or oil refineries.
Again, no desire to see more money go into the pockets of Adelson or The Hair.

While your point about "it depends" is not without some merit. Most existing studies heavily rely on information from the 80's and 90's, very little material exist from this decade. Due to the nature of my job I've been to and seen the impact these places have on people and the surrounding communities in Mississippi, Washington, and Alabama. The power and influence that gambling organizations have in local communities and state governments cannot be understated. Big money talks louder than a group helping battered women.
All that aside, more so than anything else, I despise that efforts like this put money in the pockets of people like Sheldon Adelson and Trump.

given that it is about the only industry the reservations can attract is more of an indictment on the extreme poverty that exists that outweighs whatever benefits the casinos bring in terms of employment & economic activity. There are a wide variety of factors that contribute because for example a car loan or financing are less unwilling because of how difficult it is to repo a car or enforcing judgments in reservation land. Ownership of property in addition to the many number of problems which includes nuclear testing.

But in how it relates to Casinos I found studies and it is basically true. I live very close to Casino Arizona which is next door to Mesa. Talking Stick is next door to Scottsdale. Wild Horse Pass is somewhat southwest of Chandler but there are many signs letting you know which exit to take to find "Wild Horse Pass"

Also, it briefly mentions the outside investors. This relates to the money & influence point you made, a lot of people unaware of outside investors regarding reservation casinos, I don't mean outside by outside the reservation. I across the Pacific ocean investors

---

Casinos also provide much-needed job opportunities on reservations. In 1989, average levels of unemployment on reservations was above 30 percent. In the next decade, that rate dropped to 13 percent on reservations with casinos, while remaining stagnant on reservations without casinos.[57]

Casinos' impact on overall economic conditions, however, is limited. Through the 1990s, the number of reservation residents eligible for public assistance programs increased across on most reservations. Although the rate of increase was slightly less on reservations that had casinos, the casinos were unable to reverse trends of worsening poverty.[58] There are a number of factors explaining why casinos have done little to change living conditions on many reservations, despite the income they bring in. First, a relatively small number of casinos bring in the majority of casino income. In the 1990s, ten casinos brought in more than half the earned money, and 20 percent of casinos brought in more than 80 percent of earnings.[59]

Those that are most financially successful tend to be small reservations with relatively few inhabitants located near metropolitan areas that do not have as high poverty rates as larger, more rural reservations, which hold a much greater portion of the nations' reservation inhabitants.[60] Many of the reservations facing the most dire poverty also are the most geographically isolated, meaning outside tourists rarely travel to the casinos. Instead, they are visited by reservation residents. Depending on the profit distribution plan of the tribe, this can result in a redistribution of income from many to a few,[61] and a factionalization of the reservation population between those who spend at casinos and those who earn from them.[62]

When reservation residents spend portions of their sometimes very sparse incomes gambling, casinos can serve to exacerbate rather than relieve conditions of poverty.[59] This is especially true when a casino's income is sent off the reservation, as is frequently the case when tribal governments must rely on outside investors to build casinos. These non-native investors often take substantial portions of the profits for years following construction to repay their initial contributions.[63] Beyond initial investments, some casinos rely on outside management companies for day-to-day operations. Currently, fifteen percent of casino revenues go to such management firms.[57]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_poverty

It makes sense, I doubt many people make the trip up the beeline highway to go to that Casino but I imagine it is more successful than those rest stop casinos. Though it mentions about the casino section that Arizona has one of the highest reservation poverty rates, Navajo nation is up there with Window Rock & the 4-corners, very isolated.

Very troubling indeed regarding casinos impact regarding the surrounding communities in my state but the state sponsored gambling has the "You can't win if you don't play" or commercials with money following from the sky with claims how much money the Arizona lotto industry is giving away this year but the reservation are more state-sponsored than people realize.

regard to their socio-economic status. They welcome any and all who are foolish enough to part with their hard earned or easily inherited money. No one is forcing anyone into casinos to contribute unwillingly.

If you wish to demonize an industry that intentionally targets the poor and lower income - fine, but I would look to the banking and insurance industries long before I'd point fingers at the gaming industry.

If your position is that government should be in the business of protecting us from ourselves, I'm afraid we'll part company on that score. I don't believe that's the role of government.

or like the example I describe of something the looks a lot like gambling where gambling (outside of the state lottery & scratch tickets) is prohibited whatever it was, was worse than gambling.

The off-shore sites are a gamble in more ways than one. I have no idea where to find bookies or know where to look where they are basically, I have 0% in gambling based on odds, probability, things like that but I do have an interest in sports gambling. Yards per pass attempt & d yards per pass attempt are highly predictive stats regarding the NFL though FGs instead of TDs, turnovers throw a wrench into it. Baseball I would never touch but someone from the banking industry wrote a book on how he invested into baseball gambling, he did so in a way you'd invest in a hedge fund. Created a system that begins with the baseball pythagorem theorem than sabermetrics with the lineups but there were things he paid attention into far more detailed than sabermetric-fanatic.

He follow lineup changes really closely because he developed a probability system regarding the match-ups based off the information related to the system. So "2% of the fund were used on the more favorable match-ups he went lower event into the lower probability because he explained in a way that made sense regarding the risks involved why it would be favorable to risk the much for someone who was 40% favored to win.

He only won barely over 50% of the time when it came to picking match-ups & with baseball odds you're basically picking who wins, but the interesting thing though it was a system based on profit.

Trading Bases: How a Wall Street Trader Made a Fortune Betting on Baseball

http://www.amazon.com/Trading-Bases-Fortune-Betting-Baseball/dp/0451415175

I read it, he knew what he was talking about. He said something very controversial very on in mentioning the public or someone like me avoid baseball gambling but he argued out of the professional sports it is the only one that is more of a sure thing. If you used Brian Burke's probability models in relation to the Vegas spread you can take advantage of bets based on public perception but there isn't a much better system in regards to prediction football. He mentions which I have a lot of Streak for the Cash experience In basketball, any system or 10+ lead accomplished when the winning team empties his bench & forfeits the spread victory. I remember a team that did that ran out the clock with an 8-point lead instead of trying to capture a 2 points that would have gave me back the victory.

In baseball, everyone lines up there is information how it relates to that individually, there is no running out the clock or how do you "stop running up the score" when you have to show up & bat. Very interesting thing I didn't catch regarding baseball gambling but I have to improve my mathematics education before I started with something like that.

It's not as simple as being stupid.

The anti-casino messages didn't really come out until after most liberals had already voted early. So I'll admit I voted for casinos because of jobs and money for schools well before Peter Franchot came out and told us not one penny of it would ever reach schools.



It did create jobs though. Marylanders constructed them and work there.

Maryland liberals bungled the recent governor election too where I voted for my neighbor Heather Mizeur in the primaries but hardly anyone showed up for the general election. I didn't have to wait at all to vote in my radical leftist precinct and that was a bad sign after standing in line for hours to vote for Obama 2 years before.

There are issues with O'Malley, as with any candidate. But I doubt that spearheading the effort to bring casinos to a state is a deal breaker for many liberals.

In my opinion. Big Gambling aka Big Business aka people like Adelson and Trump, are not where I expect a fellow liberal to look to to address a state's budget and jobs gaps. No more than I would want them to open up public lands to fracking or tar sands or mountain-topping for coal. There are better ways to attract employers and good jobs: strong public school system, strong commmunity and technical college and university system, higher minimum wage standards, well maintained infrastructure and roads and public transportation. Strong private and public employee unions. All of these things create a strong foundation for a healthy economy and create good jobs with good employers. Invest the time and money in your citizens, not kissing Adelson's or Trump's ass.

It's a very progressive state on the whole.

Personally, I think people ought to be able to gamble at casinos if they want to. I know some people want gambling to be illegal, but I continue to believe that it isn't a deal breaker for many progressives.

Not a big deal, IMO.

Hope this gets more attention here.

O'Malley is an unknown like Obama, and it hard to find good information about his actual record. O'Malley is a new democrat and when he was governor Maryland his top priority was a balanced budget, not progressive concerns. His supporters cite New Dem/Thirdway Thinktank Center for American Progress and austerian ratings agencies to show how competent he is. That to me, signals someone posturing to the left of Clinton rather than someone who is actually there. I would prefer someone with a track record working for progressives like Warren, or Sanders.

Also concerns me that most of the people promoting him are otherwise for Clinton.

and his successes.

None of his supporters have posted anything about Third-way ratings because they do not exist. O'Malley is not a member of the 3rd way.

I'd post his record of liberal successes, but his resume is posted elsewhere in the thread. Pretty weak attempt at bashing a Democratic candidate. Nothing but generic name calling and BS arguments.

cited ratings agencies and the Center for American Progress. Mother Jones was taken over by TNR rejects 20 years ago and is written and edited by liberal interventionists. It has become a magazine conservatives site when they want to show that even liberals support this or that right wing wackoism. The resume cites management skill, a third way value, not progressivism, but Obama mastered the art of sounding good to liberals and conservatives too.

Finally is he or is he not a new democrat?

in lieu of bashing everything with unfounded insinuations.

He embraced the Hyde Park Declaration of "Third Way" centrism:

Obama, in a carefully wrought lawyerly way, raised the hopes of good people all over the world with his wonderful soaring rhetoric and then came the march of the Clintonista's and Wall Street crowd into the WH as soon as he took office. Few will acknowledge his sleight of hand manuvering but I do recall Clare McAskill once referred to his "over promising" in 2007.
It will be hard for people, especially young people who pinned their hopes on Obama only to see them dashed, to believe anyone who is just a sweet talker - as they say "it takes money to buy whiskey" - lets see your money, candidates.

Mother Jones magazine considers him the best candidate on environment issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

For people unaware of O'Malley, here's his resume:

http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/gov/former/html/msa13090.html

reality of what's going. Good thing for the young people who have been helped enormously by the O Admin.. and they do appreciate it.. I've seen their faces.

Unlike those whose only purpose is to distract from the successes of President Obama and his Admin.

It is not hard to find information on his record.

She's 65, he's only 51. With demographic changes and our good turnout in prez elections, we could potentially sew up the presidency for 16 years

deliver some clear, unambiguous, detailed statements on issues. I can read his speeches there. Right at the top of the page, without even clicking on the whole speech, a line pops out that makes me shudder:

“What if we tackled our biggest problems by using data-driven strategies, instead of conventional wisdom, or the way we’ve always done it?”

While it's a great sound bite, it's also uses a phrase that has been used as a privatization weapon for public education...I know, because I've been dealing with the destructive policies that phrase drives in my profession for more than a decade, and it gets worse every year. "Data-driven strategies" is a phrase used to reduce students to test score data and teachers to numbers crunchers.

When I click on the speech itself, he begins promoting "data-driven government" in his opening lines.

Now don't mistake me. I'm not "anti-data." I'm anti-misuse and abuse of data for political purposes, and after being under attack by exactly that for more than a decade, I don't take the phrase "data-driven" at face value any more. It pushes all of my alarm buttons.

This from "on the issues" also concerns me; the bolding is mine:

No...he makes me very uncomfortable, also. His views seem Neo-Lib, Third Way...."Trust Me" kind of thinking.

Does sound like he's the back up for Hillary with those positions. Will give him a look as we go along...but, ugh.

I didn't know anything about him when I went looking, but the first look wasn't encouraging. I'll remain open, but I hope we can do better.

Looks like you're right.

For instance, you emphasize his words "the answer is . . . a third way" but leave unbolded what he actually means by that phrase:

But I agree 100% with your last sentence - people tend to be less careful about showing their warts before they decide to go public. When running for President, or considering it, they suddenly become much more careful to hide any iffy parts of their beliefs.

I'm still hoping for Maryland's Chris Van Hollen to come in as a Dark Horse. O'Malley not different from Hillary.

"fair to him." I simply bolded the code words that raise red flags. And make no mistake; they ARE code words. They didn't coincidentally fly out of his mouth.

As far as it being from 2010? The first quote is from a speech offered on the front page of his current website. Please note that I said I'd like to see more current information. The rest, from 2010, is from the "on the issues" site, and they don't have anything later than 2010.

When he offers up something more concrete and current, I'll be listening.

Mark O'Malley has yet to be vetted by DU's wisest ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774491

he did just "show up from nowhere" and all...

for those that don't live/know about Baltimore and/or Maryland (and possibly, East Coast politics).

A post like that belongs in Creative Speculation.

He just showed up out of nowhere! He arrived from another planet in a cloud of dust!

being brought to light ... someone alerted to my post calling it "divisive" "juvenile" and a "call out" (which gives me an idea as to the alerters identity ... they've been on a "call detractors, juvenile" thing of late.)

But in a sense it may have been a couple of those ... In that thread there are several previously acceptably and unimpeachable (progressive) voices folks getting excited about a Democrat and out of no where comes the "He's no pure enough", "He's a plant of the Oligarchs" claims and "yeps."

I love it when some DUer thinks another American state is "nowhere". I had to check where that poster was from, and it's the land of Scott Walker!

Who's on his team? I'm not asking you to answer that or even know that. You learn a lot about a candidate by seeing who's working directly with him or her, who's backing him or her, etc. Talk is cheap, but who's on the team will tell the truth.

When I find out more, I'll post it.

Hyer ran Obama's campaign in PA and also ran Kristen Gillibrand (2006 Congress) and Michael Nutter (2007 Philadelphia Mayor)'s campaigns.

I was just trying to make a point, but thanks! I didn't expect to get some info out of this, so this is a bonus.

I also bet that he'll back off of that sharp stance once the primaries begin and he talks to more voters in western states.

people in our country if he's to have any chance at winning. Voters want it legalized now and have lost our patience with backwards politicians!

I do agree that his opinion should change. I don't really see marijuana legalization as an important issue this election.

one issue with voters, but it is up there! A politician that vocally is against legalization hasn't a chance.

harmful activity? O'Malley has!

Thanks for posting.