I really liked him.

I was all on the O'Malley train until the day he dropped out. My transition to Clinton was extremely easy.

Webb would have been an option had I only cared about reforming the criminal justice system. Guy has some great thoughts in that area.

He was very likable, intelligent and funny but Hillary was anointed the candidate all along. He didn't stand a chance unfortunately. We need someone charismatic and to move beyond name recognition.

The party establishment couldn't prevent Bernie from winning. And they only endorsed HRC because of her strong early poll numbers. That's the way endorsements usually work.

They had no problem going after people like Tulsi Gabbard who supported Sanders instead of Clinton. Even threatened not to raise money for her campaign.

All because she didn't toe the line...

From:mkives@caa.com
To: ha16@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com
CC: darnell.strom@caa.com
Date: 2016-02-29 21:31
Subject: FW: Disappointed

Hammer dropped!

From: Darnell Strom
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Tulsi Gabbard (tulsi.gabbard@gmail.com<mailto:tulsi.gabbard@gmail.com&gt
Cc: Michael Kives
Subject: Disappointed


Representative Gabbard,

We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the undeserved.

You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign.

Or at least very open to the idea
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/why-democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-met-donald-trump-n686976

And any Democrat or Independent that aligns as Dem who can work their way in to be an effective firewall is necessity.

which is why she was chosen by Bannon/Trump for a 'special' visit to meet with Trump.

Anyone who doubts it either wasn't paying attention, or was willfully blind.

LBJ threatened to reveal JFK's illness, when Bush and Reagan almost destroyed each other, etc.

If Sanders couldn't beat the wimpy, overly-scrupulous modern day Dem party, then he certainly wouldn't have beaten the GOP slime machine.

There's always an establishment candidate who is favored by the establishment, and it is up to challengers to mount a challenge and overcome them, like Reagan did in '80, like Bill Clinton did in '92, like Obama did in 2008, or Trump did this year.

The main reason Sanders had no chance is he had no appeal to PoC/women/metropolitan areas, who in many ways are the base of the modern Dem party, not the alt-left activists, who only think they are.

that controls the mechanisms, and keeps candidates other than it's chosen one from success.

but of course the difference is that Obama is a Democrat, from a diverse state, built alliances, worked to get the votes of PoC, women and other elements of the Dem party.

If the Dems had any stones, they never would've let some alt-left independent like Sanders to even step on the stage with a 40 year long Democrat like Hillary Clinton, who was disrespected by them, IMO, for even allowing that to happen.

Senator Obama surprised the heck out of your 40 year long Democrat in 2008.

or a Russian hacker.

Jus saying. Altered???

Explain why Democrats should have welcomed with open arms a man who only joined the party last year and set about criticizing Democrats whose support he would need?

Why is there no acknowledgement that Bernie approached this the wrong way?

Joining a party and treating it as a host for your presidential ambitions without paying your dues to the party and then acting surprised the Party Establishment and many dyed-in-wool democrats have no time for you? No Bernie disappointed me.

He needed to take a leaf out of Obama's playbook. Obama raised his profile in the party 4 years before his presidential run at the DNC convention. By 2008 after he learned his debate lessons as a result of Hillary showing him up in the first set of primary debates of 2007, his built a reputation as a change agent and developed gravitas so much so he emerged a serious contender and a match for Hillary. He proceeded to outfox her and win the primaries.

Sanders, on the other hand, barged into the party at the last minute, threw criticisms left right and centre and expected people to warm up to him, even after filling a lawsuit against the DNC for silly reasons and then withdrawing it.

So even though the Democrats played favorites and preferred a woman with 30 years service to the party, and the understandable concern about her "baggage" , it is also not surprising Sanders could have only remained competitive with caucuses and lost delegates AND the popular vote. He could have been a contender if he were less belligerent and more strategic in his approach - like maybe joining the party years ago instead of deciding a year before a general election that he's a democrat.

Even after it was clear Sanders would lose the primary, he stubbornly persisted, of course Democrats were pissed.

He did present a decent balance between the various wings of our party, but you're right about the party establishment. They were unwilling to consider anyone but Hillary, and they thought it was a useless waste of time to even have primary contests. Their resentment will last a long time, as evidenced by many of the posts here. O'Malley doesn't receive much criticism because he dropped out so early.

The party establishment couldn't do anything to prevent Bernie from reaching out to black voters more successfully, and to a lesser extent Latinos.

Bernie was more than capable of winning, if he had won more people over. Elizabeth Warren almost certainly would have won more people over than he did.

And HRC got all the endorsements because of her strong early poll numbers which seemed insurmountable. That's it. Nothing unusual about that.

that Sanders people cry about, which is a nothing compared to the old time Dem party that really played hardball politics. Even when Bill Clinton ran in '92 he had to overcome the establishment, as he was a maverick outsider who broke with establishment liberal orthodoxy on many issues.

If Sanders couldn't beat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, he sure wasn't beating Trump/Stone/Comey et al.

We needed enthusiasm and charisma. I never quite got "it" about Bernie but clearly a LOT of people did, and a LOT of young people did. I don't think O'Malley had that charisma. We can grumble and complain all we want about style over substance, or we can make sure we back charismatic people who inspire voters. Obama did this, clearly. It should be obvious now that shouting at voters about pragmatism and saying "You'll never get any of that stuff done!" was a losing approach. And as Trump's victory shows people don't even give a shit if you deliver or not as long as you tell them you will and given them something they can hope for (even though in Trump's case what his voters were hoping for was reprehensible).

And as Bernie pointed out again and again, speaking loudly and proudly about progressive economic policies helps EVERYONE across all racial, gender, and whatever other lines we want to draw. And again, Obama showed that you can be clearly progressive on civil rights and civil liberties (at least on the campaign trail) and still win a lot of working class votes.

Unfortunately knowing how the Democratic party works, the message they are going to probably take from all this is to hide their support for any identity based politics, but without any emphasis on the economic.

The only one who could have stole my choice of Hillary

In a small field he did not do well at all. And he had started early on also.

He was a true fighter and knew how to put the other guy on the defensive quickly.

I voted for Sanders in the Primary but liked Hillary also. The thing that bothered me most about Hillary is she did not have that natural go for the blood instinct. She tried to let reasoning win the argument when the other guy was being totally unreasonable.

Bernie held back his attacks on Hillary. I think he knew he did not want to destroy her totally in the primary and likewise I felt Hillary held back about attacking Bernie also.

But I do not think Bernie would have held back on Trump. I think Bernie would have made it about the working class and made Trump look like a rich imposter.

Trump would have won without any effort at all.

Trump would then have spent more time and money and effort contesting PA and the rust belt states. More Republicans who were #NeverTrump would have felt required to support him earlier due to the alternative being a Socialist.

With VA a lock in his column as well as FL & NC, Trump would have only needed one of PA, MI or WI. Of those three states I think PA would have been easiest. To win PA requires a lot of African Americans coming out and they were not enthusiastic for Sanders. Hillary beat Sanders in PA by 10 points in the primary on the strength of AA support. Trump crushed Cruz and Kasich in that primary besting his nearest competitor by 25 points.

Trump does better against Bernie in PA than he did against Hillary and that is the election. I think Trump also beats Bernie in WI and MI based on being able to concentrate a lot of effort in the rust belt states that against Hillary he had to expend in FL, NC and to some extent VA and GA.

Yeah, all those African American voters would definitely have turned out and voted for Trump.

What a bunch of nonsense.

The only argument you can honestly make is:

It is very difficult to say because the polls where Bernie was outpolling Trump by 10%+ were four months out from November and a lot could have happened.

The correct answer is: I don't know. Maybe and maybe not. But since you feel like your preferred candidate failed then the other candidate would have HAD to fail too.

Personally, had Bernie won the primary and lost the general I would have probably chewed on my lip a bit and admitted that maybe we should have gone a different direction.

A national poll with someone who didn't participate in an election doesn't mean anything.

We can easily tell what would have happened on a state by state basis based on which groups supported which candidate and their relative performances in the primaries.

Bernie would have had no ability to contest VA, NC, SC, GA, or FL. That's a big deal in terms of Trump being able to allocate resources and time. And for the same reason, Sanders would have done worse in PA than Hillary. That's enough for him to lose.

Yeah, cause South Carolina and Georgia so frequently go Democratic in the general election.

Again, your answers are nonsense.

The only answer is:

It is very difficult to say.

And again I will say that if Bernie took the primary and lost in the general I would have the goddamn humility to say that I would prefer to win with the other candidate than lose with my own. But on this website humility of that variety is in very short supply.

meaning PoC, women, registered Dems, metro areas, etc - which he lost overwhelmingly to the supposedly 'flawed' Hillary, who easily got these voters, even in the general. The fact that she didn't match Obama (the first black president) with black voters is normal, she did as good as Gore and Kerry did, which is pretty good. Sanders' numbers would've cratered with these groups were he the nominee, and especially with moderate voters, who don't like the kind of high taxes and Euro-socialist policies Sanders was proposing.

I don't understand why he gets shown so little love around here.

I don't want to rehash THIS part, (What the Dems did/didn't do,) as folks around here probably wouldn't like it.

I hope he continues to speak out against the new Racist-in-Chief.

They wanted to put blood in the water and give us all
a huge shit show.

My goodness. Nothing this woman has ever done, she has earned, right...

something always given to her... I am so sick of that BS.

I'm just describing the dynamics of the primary. The establishment got behind her, and the anti-establishment got behind Bernie, this is pretty hard to deny. That doesn't mean she didn't earn it.

the establishment?

This is all so twisted.

But there is such a thing as the Democratic establishment, and it was behind Hillary.

What is so wrong with being for what Hillary was for??????

Ask yourself that question and you will see how twisted this all is.

When did I say there was anything wrong with that?

I'm for what Hillary was/is for. I'm not criticizing Hillary for having the establishment behind her. I think they were behind her for good reasons: she was the smartest, most experienced and capable candidate.

My criticism of Hillary is that she didn't have the same stage charisma as Obama or Bill. She would have been a great president, but she wasn't a great candidate.

effectively nullified by rewritten history.

Bernie had every opportunity to beat her. He even had the bonus of the caucuses. But he just couldn't get the votes.

I repeat, I voted for Hillary in the primary. She won fair and square, by getting (a lot) more votes than anyone else.

I don't get how my OP is "disgusting".

a lot of people, around the country and on-line, are taking the opportunity to say that HRC stole the nomination, call her "miss entitled," and claim that she was anointed by the party establishment.

I was not saying--or thinking--that your OP was disgusting. I actually enjoyed reading your comments.

I like O'Malley too, and I have ever since he was mayor of Baltimore. I agree that he would have been a good nominee.

I agree with you about the "miss entitled/anointed" crap. She won by getting more votes. A lot more votes.

Plus, this was an opportunity for O'Malley to witness what worked and what didn't. Not just in his campaign or for Dems but overall. He needs to do something big and get back on people's radar and start humping the rust belt states if he wants to be taken seriously in 2020. I think it would help to channel a little Bernie in his approach too -- the outrage and passion, for example.

REMEMBER Debbie Wasserman Schultz TIGHT hold on conduct of the party during the primaries, please.

REMEMBER the debates, wherein Governor O'Malley was minimized by the way debates were conducted, his time speaking was actually REGULATED by the tptb as well as the number of debates.

The PARTY kept him down:

Was O'Malley Snubbed At Democratic Debate?

Amid Gun Control Discussion, Former Maryland Gov. Interrupts Moderators, Says Clinton, Sanders Are 'Flip-Flopping.'

'Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is seemingly on the outside looking in when it comes to his chances of securing the Democratic presidential nomination, at least according to polling, but shortly after the party's latest debate kicked off Saturday night, it seemed that he had a similar problem when he tried to voice his opinion on the issues discussed. Early on, O'Malley constantly looked to get a word in edgewise, to no avail, and had to all but force his way into the conversation once the topic of gun control came up, despite admonishments from moderators Martha Raddatz and David Muir to patiently wait for his turn to speak.

"I'm the only person on this stage who has passed comprehensive legislation on gun control," O'Malley said while interrupting the moderators. He went on to blame Clinton's and Sanders' respective voting records on gun control. O'Malley charged that Clinton changes her opinions on gun control every campaign season. He also accused Sanders of "flip-flopping" on the topic of gun control.

“What we need on this issue is not more polls – we need more principles,” O'Malley said in reference to Sanders' citing a recent poll indicating that an "overwhelming" number of Americans are in favor of increasing background checks for people who try to buy guns. However, when O'Malley was asked if he would make assault rifles illegal, he balked, instead deflecting to talk more about the "flip-flopping" while he pointed to his right at his fellow Democratic presidential candidates. . .

With the national minimum wage a major campaign issue, O'Malley took to Twitter in the days leading up to the debate to tout his previous achievements in that arena for the state of Maryland, possibly offering a glimpse of what he has planned to discuss Saturday night.

As Governor, O’Malley raised the state’s minimum wage and signed the nation’s first living wage law.

The former Maryland governor has voiced his displeasure with the times at which the Democratic debates have been held, and he's been especially vocal about Saturday's debate taking place on the weekend before Christmas.

“They’ve scheduled it during shopping season, Dec. 19th,” O’Malley said, the New York Times reported. “I don’t know why that is. I think it’s out of a false sense that they have to circle the wagons around the inevitable front-runner.” O'Malley's campaign has said the Democratic National Committee, which sanctions its party's presidential debate, has taken steps to protect Clinton from national scrutiny by scheduling the debate on a weekend, suggesting viewers are more likely to tune in during prime time on a weeknight.'

http://www.ibtimes.com/was-omalley-snubbed-democratic-debate-amid-gun-control-discussion-former-maryland-gov-2232607



THEN he wrote: O'Malley Warns Dems: 2016 Is 'Not a Slam Dunk.'

'In his first public appearance since suspending his presidential campaign last month, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley warned that the general election is not a "slam-dunk" for Democrats even in the face of Donald Trump's polarizing candidacy and possible nomination by Republicans.

"I believe the level of anger in our country is such that, yes, this is not a slam dunk," O'Malley said at a forum hosted by the Georgetown Institute of Politics.

"There's a certain smugness inside the beltway in Washington. So I think we have our work cut out for us. This could be a very, very defining moment in the life of our republic."

O'Malley said that Democrats "have our work cut out for us, both in calling out fascism with clarity, without being shrill, without being angry ourselves," but also in offering a positive vision for the country.

"Just as importantly, we have to tell the larger story of how these decisions we make together will affect your lives and your kids lives," he said.

While he was sounding the alarm on Trump's potential strength in the general electrion, O'Malley also targeted the Democratic Party as partly to blame for the GOP frontrunner's rise. The erstwhile Democratic underdog sharply criticized Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, though not by name, for, he said, unilaterally deciding to delay the start of the Democratic debates until the late fall.

"It was a great disservice to the republic, actually, that we let that immigrant-bashing carnival barker, fascist demagogue Donald Trump have full run" of the media coverage of the election through the summer, O'Malley said.

Trump, he added, "grew into a phenomenon over those summer months, while we heard nothing from the Democratic Party," and when the Democratic candidates did debate, the events were scheduled at inconvenient times when Americans were unlikely to watch. That schedule did indeed draw criticism not just from O'Malley but also from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign, both of which charged that Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic establishment were trying to inappropriately protect Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton by effectively hiding the debates.'>>>

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/o-malley-warns-dems-2016-not-slam-dunk-n544276


Martin O'Malley's policies adopted by others are too lengthy to list; there are 281 of them.

This link will have to suffice:

https://www.politiplatform.com/omalley/all


We close tonight with this quote from Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley:

http://on.msnbc.com/1ApEYA2

'I'd like to say that Donald Trump is the most outrageous and unqualified person ever to run for President but really that's not fair to Ted Cruz.'

Martin O'Malley, January 6, MSNBC, The Last Word



NOT sorry for the long thread, but going out after this is over on the radio:

The media sure did. They completely made sure his campaign never stood a chance. Blaming it on the party when the media took care of eliminating him one hundred percent is completely rewriting history. Nothing in your op backs up you claim either.

If the party wanted to, they had no need to. The media saw their money was between Sanders and Clinton.

...the "woulda coulda shoulda" stops and we can start with the "will can should".

he had some big negatives in the blue state of Maryland after his tenure as governor there.

Plus, I'm sure they would have dug something up on O'Malley, even if it was something taken completely out of context. (Just like they would have dragged Sanders through the mud if he had won the nomination...)

seemed downright awkward at times. He wasn't ready for primetime at all in 2016.

He might be ready in 2020, we will have to see.

My mistake: I returned here. Going back to Cooking and Baking.

Not a popular opinion probably, but I believe it. I thought he did good in the debates all things considered and he's been absolutely steadfast in his opposition to Trump, both pre- and post- election.

Well done!

He said the right things but he was less inspiring than Hillary.