I do think that if he got the nomination he would be hammered for his record on taxation. He raised the income tax, the sales tax, gasoline tax, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, highway tolls, property taxes, etc. Many of these raises were regressive in nature and so disproportionately hurt the less economically well-off.

I initially had major misgivings & have no idea where I'll end up at this point.

Even 2012 polls showed Obama losing to every Republican whose name was out there and Mr. Generic Republican. They were not meaningful, either.

This far out, polls are more to drive public opinion than to predict it.

But if a person fails to operationalize his terms he will forever be arguing things on parallel tracks with his interlocutor and meaningful conversation and resolution of conflicts become impossible...

To use a colloquialism you will just have people "talking to each other's hand" which accounts for the lion's share of all internet discussions.

(whatever operationalizing a term means to you) and I am not. Is that the gist of your comment? If not, what does it mean? And what does it have to do with whether a poll is meaningless or not?

I cited a site that attempts to systematically compare candidates:

https://www.crowdpac.com/elections/2016-presidential-election

BTW, I was merely sharing information with a fellow member of this board, Jackpine Radical. I regret it is the source of so much consternation.

Insult
Demean
Inflame
Enrage
Upset
Ridicule
Confront
Provoke

come to mind.

I keyboard corrected.

NT

NT

NT

Not for nuttin, but NT in a subject line is helpful in that it eliminates the need to click. I don't understand it in the body of a post though.

Your link does reflect things like info from polls, currently meaningless, and the even more unreliable what their "supporters say" about them.

NT

I clicked on the comparison between Hillary and Warren, which is the one that came up when I clicked on your link. It was heavily or exclusively based on what "supporters say."

I just had the temerity to share it with a fellow member of this board, meal culpa.

I just had the temerity to share it with a fellow member of this board, meal culpa.

It will take time to sort it out.

The objective is basically to help people find candidates they most agree with, using paired comparisons. It doesn't seem to be a popularity measure at all.

Just one more tool.

It provides cover for the meme that Democrats belong to the party of "tax and spend." Although it won't fool an informed voter, it at least gives the likes of Fox a talking shouting point. And, it is regressive, hurting the poor far more than the rich, so win win for a Republican.

Isn't that Federal? Did you mean the State Tax?

It's never popular when someone raises taxes but it depends on why he did so.

As for issues, he is way to the left of Hillary from what I have read about him, and heard from him so far.

Not sure if I would support him, but he sounds interesting as a candidate so far.

I know he opposes the TPP and wants to raise SS so that's good to know.

He did a good job on that one because he made the state income tax more fair by making the rich pay more. But he also raised a lot of taxes and fees that disproportionately hurt the middle class and the poor.

I don't like that he called critics of his misuse of the police when he was mayor "leftwing ideologues." He obviously doesn't care much about the fourth amendment and basic freedom from police intrusion.

He has no official position yet on war, which is one place I would definitely like to see someone left of Clinton. On social issues he is a follower and not a leader but he and Clinton both support right to choose, marriage rights, etc. So where is he to the left of Clinton?

All Democrats support the issues you mentioned at the end of your post. I expect that goes without saying, so my concerns are where they stand on issues like SS, minimum wage, the TPP and our Foreign policies which are draing billions of dollars, maybe more, out of this economy.

So far so good re O'Malley except on FP.

Can you explain what you mean about the police? I've noticed, during both the OWS and Ferguson demonstrations that Democratic mayors and governors were just as supportive of the police brutalizing and arresting peaceful protestors, as were Republicans. That shocked me at the time. Eg, Ferguson, the Governor is a Democrat, he sent out the National Guard to back up the police there. We know from leaks now that the NG viewed the protesters as 'the enemy' and approached them militarily.

So if O'Malley's policies are no different than most of the other Democrats who oversaw the destruction of the right to protest, then that would be a huge negative for me.

Like you, I see Clinton as unacceptable because of her hawkishness. I really want a good alternative to her in the primary, but as a Maryland resident who saw what O'Malley did in Baltimore when he was mayor, I have never liked the guy. The thing about the police is disputed, but I agree with David Simon (before making the HBO series "The Wire" he was a police reporter for the Baltimore Sun). To quote him:

challenges from the left force her to run more to the left. (The draft Warren movement, I believe, has already pushed Hillary's campaign.) While I don't put a lot of stock in how candidates run anymore, forcing her to run more to the left is better than having her win a primary based on running to the right. Besides, a coronation really smells, IMO.

As far as the DLC, people really need to stop being so literal about it. After Bubba's two Presidential wins, the DLC/New Democrat philosophy permeated the Democratic Party. Most of the Party's think tanks are either literally DLC offshoots or pushing the DLC philosophy. Either way, a Democrat need not have had a literal connection to the non for profit entity called the DLC in order to have been connected to its philosophy.

Also, this author seems like quite a DLC/"centrism" fan, even as he claims he is not. So I don't know. I am also not a fan of "savvy" politicians who bend their political rhetoric to whatever they think will further their personal ambition--and this author seems to be. So, I really don't know what weight I personally can give this author.

That said, I am not wondering or trying to parse where Sanders stands on the DLC or anything else.

Keep in mind that O'Malley raised state income taxes for the top 15%, but did not raise state income taxes for the bottom 85%.

O'Malley's main pitch is that he wants to strengthen the middle class, which he believes is the foundation of our democratic system. The health of the middle class requires living wages above the poverty line, health care that is affordable and adequate, and education that empowers. In my opinion, a healthy and educated middle class is not going to vote against its own interests and the common good. It is not going to be dumbed down by media funded by billionaire corporations or by education dismantled by rote-learning. A healthy, hopeful, and well educated middle class would be able to see through dark clouds of misinformation and ignorance that the billionaire class uses to keep people down and too busy fighting among themselves to see who their real enemies are. An informed middle class with common sense would be able to see through the rhetoric that TPP cheerleaders are using to con people into believing that secret corporate negotiations aimed at increased profits are in the best interests of "we the people."

Did we really know Obama when he ran for president? Or were we taken in by his fine-sounding rhetoric and liberal-sounding promises? Unlike Obama, O'Malley has a history of executive leadership as mayor and governor that we can examine. We may not like all of it, but it has been pretty darn consistent as a progressive agenda meant to make Baltimore and Maryland better places to live. If he can provide that sort of executive leadership, loaded with specifics on a larger scale, to make our country a better place to live, that will go far in solving many of our other problems. As a healthy body is more able to rid itself of disease and drive off toxins, I believe that a healthy middle class can shake off a cultural syndrome of greed, hatred, and ignorance brewed and fostered by an unsavory sociopathic class of ethically challenged, but obscenely wealthy overlords.

I did ask about STate Taxes. I understood from that post that he raised taxes on everyone.

Good that he imposed the most taxes on the top earners and no state taxes on the bottom 85%.

I always have a problem with non-means-tested sources of revenue like sales taxes & user fees, but I also know that state government has to have money. There has been a strangling of Federal support for state & local functions in the last several decades, and most of the services that really help people, including vital services for those at the margins of society, are provided for & funded at that level. Therefore I would count this, on balance, a point in favor of O'Malley.

1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders
9. Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.

So while crappy 3rd rate "journalists" work to get page clicks by playing a big game of who is more liberal than who, O'Malley has a track record of liberal success.

but, one hopes, without the baggage.

I could maybe see him happening.

of indiscretions, but his smear campaign (helped along by Lt Gov Michael Steele) ultimately failed.

For the record, Ehrlich and Steele are sleaze and why those smiling crooks end up on MSNBC so much is beyond me.

As a Senator he had a record similar to Evan Bayh's - he was a very conservative Democrat, who voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill (that failed to become law then). No excuse that he was very junior, Elizabeth Edwards was a bankruptcy lawyer - he had to know what the provisions would mean.

In addition, in 2004, he used almost Republican language in declaring that Dean's and Kerry's healthcare proposals were too expensive - the government could not afford anything but expanding coverage for kids.

It was only in 2008, when he moved left - as there was no opening for a centrist given that HRC was sure to monopolize support there. In fact, where you could point to things both Obama and Clinton did just out of school that showed support for the poor and disadvantaged, Edwards went straight into corporate law, then into a very lucrative private practice that made him millions. (It is true that he did get large sums for clients who were harmed, but it is silly to see this JUST as altruistic.)

Here, if you see similarities, note that this time the candidate's positions match what he actually has done. That ALONE means that he more likely really is a real deal. I have not learned enough about O'Malley to know if he would be a good (or strong) nominee. The first hurdle will be very very steep as Hillary Clinton really is in a very strong position to get the nomination.

I had not particularly liked Edwards in '04, & thought he came to his leftward focus on poverty a bit tardily. Maybe it's just hindsight, but I do not recall having had much trust in him; my only reason for bringing him up was his self-positioning to the left of the Big 2.

I had no trust him him after 2004 -- and the more that came out (a lot with Shrum's book, but some just from his own comments) the less I respected him. I also was influenced in 2007 when NONE of the many Kerry people - strategists and finance people - who stayed with Kerry until he dropped out went to Edwards. As they clearly got to know him in 2004 and they were mostly to his left, that was damning.

I remember him using the"throwing money at the problem" line against kerry .

We may see the same with Rubio where nobody else in the Senate likes him and may get no support from any of them.

It would actually be an insult to O'malley to compare him to Edwards.

On several occasions.. I even tossed in an extra $58 dollars to the Elizabeth Edwards 58th birthday presidential funding campaign that was promoted here on DU. I remember her postings here.

But then... that unbelievable ugly self-destructive disaster happened and it was all over.

Policies and Wall St corruption?

at least, restored. Since the media has been controlled by corporations, it is no longer credible. See how it helped sell the Iraq War, eg.

Thanks, so far of those most likely to run, he is definitely on my list.