Will O'Malley pull more votes from Sec. Clinton or Sen. Sanders' supporters?

[FrodosPet]

Will he get more votes from the "Anybody But Hillary" group, or the "I am voting for Hillary because I cannot support Bernie" bloc?

[leveymg]

1. Neither. He may simply be angling for a VP nod. n/t

[FrodosPet]

3. Don't count him out

He's got that "presidential" look, ideas that resonate, and he is not stuck with the socialist label (except from the RWers who stick that label on everyone to the left of Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz).

I give him a better shot than I do Sen. Sanders for getting the nomination.

[leveymg]

9. We need a Plan B Pill. He might as well be it.

O'Malley just doesn't seem to really stand for anything that isn't vanilla flavored. Wish he did.

[Koinos]

12. The more people know him...

I predict that the more people know O'Malley, the more they will like him. I hope he has the resources and the opportunities to get his message out.

He is headed to Iowa to do a lot of hand shaking.

It really makes a difference once a candidate has announced. It isn't real until he or she actually does so.

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. this O'Malley?

that is some mighty high (read hypocritical) praise for a Sanders supporter...

O'Malley


Clinton


Sanders

[ablamj]

33. Where did these graphs come from?

And how did they calculate where to put them on the graph? I'm not sure of the accuracy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. same place Nate Silver gets them...

Ontheissues.org

so yeah I am tickled at the Sanders supporters giddy over Martin O'Malley!

[ablamj]

39. glad you added the site

because "same place Nate Silver gets them" means nothing to me because I didn't know Nate Silver had them (1) and have no idea where Nate Silver is at these days (2)

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. You don't know where Nate Silver is?

Google is your friend...Nate Silver uses them as a source in his reporting statistics..

[ablamj]

53. don't know where he is

and don't really care

Also looked at that site and saw where they put Obama. That is enough to let me know those graphs have little to no relation to reality.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. Statistician...

Of course you dont....you wanted to believe those images were not legitimate...

[ablamj]

59. I know WHO he is

I just don't care WHERE he is...

[ablamj]

63. Also

statistics can lie

[VanillaRhapsody]

70. hahahaha...yeah...right...

tell it to Nate Silver...

[ablamj]

77. He of all people

knows how to lie with statistics. I learned how to do that in high school.

[ablamj]

69. I believe they are legitimate images

I just don't believe they are really accurate as to where the candidates actually are on the scale

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. They are accurate enough for a Statistician to quote them...

are you a Statistician?

Your are not a Statistician....but you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night?

I am not a scientist...but....

sounds familiar...

[ablamj]

75. BFD

As I said statistics can lie and statisticians know how to use statistics to lie...

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. rioooght!

BFD indeed!

( I don't like those pictures....so I will just pretend that they are not an accurate depiction...even IF a statistician who prognosticates election results does)

[ablamj]

82. not pretending

they are not accurate

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. Yes they are....I will take Nate Silvers opinion over yours...

[ablamj]

89. not sure

what predicting election results has to to withe where the candidates fall on these graphs, but what I said is still true: Statisticians can lie with statistics. they can get them to show whatever they want them to show. They are no more trustworthy than anyone else. You need to do your own i investigating, not rely on someone else.

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. Oh right...."its just numbers" right.....and anyone can CLAIM they are fake statistics too

I guess you really did stay at Holiday Inn then! but an ACTUAL statistician who made his bones ACCURATELY predicting elections.....can't take his word for their legitimacy...I just am suppose to accept YOUR take because they don't line up with YOUR narrative!

[ablamj]

101. i didn't say

you had to agree with me. I believe i said you should investigate for yourself. But if you don't believe people can lie with statistics then perhaps you were at that holiday inn. (Not sure what's wrong wirh holiday inns either)

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. And I can continue to laugh at YOUR stances....

You can deny all you want....till the cows come home...doesn't make the truth any less truthful just because it doesn't suit YOU! Its HIS job....its what HE does for a living. HE is the expert on this...

[ablamj]

104. go ahead and laugh

I can laugh at you too. As i said BFD

[VanillaRhapsody]

105. Yeah and "BFD indeed" was my response!

I am not a statistician...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...and I think those numbers are bad Nate Silver!!!!

[ablamj]

106. and

I still don't know what is wrong with staying at Holiday Inn...

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. oh really?

[ablamj]

110. never

Saw that before, but it still doesn't tell me whats wrong with Holiday Inn

[Sancho]

111. I happen to be a social science researcher (and I teach statistics and measurement)...

The rating grids are not bad for a description representation. Of course, the "points" awarded for each stance that put you as more "populist" or "liberal" are a version of a semantic differential scale, with an ordinal rating for each issue.

It's likely that the scale lacks "precision" as the the exact amount of "liberalism" (or whatever) that a candidate values is not measured accurately, but as a comparison of candidates it's quite useful.

Chances are that Bernie really is the "most liberal" for example. All three candidates are more homogenous (similar) as Democrats than the Republicans candidates (for example) who are less similar to each other.

You probably wouldn't use the numbers from these ratings for a scientific study of a new drug, but they seem to be as objective a way to describe candidate positions as anything else. Certainly the rating would be better than a seat-of-the-pants opinion.

Many voters are focused on one issue (like immigration), or belong to a peer group (teacher's union) or like a certain personality (like Kennedy and Reagan had). As such, when candidates are alike on most issues, the voter rationalizes why they defend their particular issue and expand the differences with the ones they don't like as well.

[ablamj]

116. if you go to that website

You'll see that most of the Republicans are plotted very close to each other as well. My issue is that Obama and Clinton are not as far left as that. The whole spectrum has shifted so using what is REALLY the old time left, they would not be that far left. They are considered left by today's standards only.

And yes, Statisticians, of all people, know how to lie with statistics. I'm not saying they all do, but they certainly know how. If someone as dumb as me knows how (i learned it in high school), then they most certainly know how.

I feel sorry for someone whose only argument for or against someone are these graphs.

[Sancho]

120. If you go to Jeb and Rand Paul, they are not close to each other...

and I said - this is "ordinal" data. What that means is that it's relative. If you run in a race and get 2nd, that may or may not be the same thing if I run in a different race and get 2nd. If you want to compare Obama from 2008 to Obama from 2015, you may get different ratings because it's a different context.

I said, there is no "precision" as to how "liberal" those type of ratings are as shown. They are good for descriptive comparisons.

I don't see evidence the spectrum has shifted. I've been active in politics since the 60's. I met VP Nixon, campaigned for Carter, etc...all the way up to Charlie Crist in Florida this last election.

The biggest value changes in the US historically (after the civil war) that were rapid changes likely happened in the 60's. Since them, I've only seen the small incremental battles that go back and forth.

I would be VERY left - hippy, anti-vietnams, pro legal drugs (even from back then), pro ERA/women/gender freedom. I'm probably more liberal than you - because I would support international efforts (along the lines of Peace Corps-Clinton Foundation-Carter Foundation). I'd limit military spending to some GDP cap; about a quarter or third of what it is now. I'd support universal health care and free education for life (now that's where the money should come from, not a tax on transactions). The rich wouldn't be rich if we didn't buy from them.

I think my "hippy friends and generation" are more liberal than current college students. Anyone who focuses on "economic" issues like Bernie or Warren cannot be progressive to me. The are correct that banks need to be regulated, but incorrect that it's the underlying value of helping people that is most important. I actually think it's a false rationalization that the current "democratic socialists" are anchored to the left while many Democrats are "centrists". I think some of our younger Democrats are too focused on the economic part of life as "social justice", when it's really a small component. My "old left" friends get it.

The graphs are useful as snapshot comparisons. If you want to evaluate changes over time, that's a different issue. Until I see DUers calling for immigration path to citizenship (#1 issue), equality for women (#2 issue), and child care (#3 issue), I don't even listen. Those are people issues back to the days of LBJ. Why attack the TPP? If you talk to other countries, they see the US as a bully whose corporation raid their resources, support dictators, and send in the military (or spies). Maybe other countries really need a way to defend themselves in a world court? I don't know enough about the TPP exactly, but I'm not against it just because of rhetoric. We don't need jobs from trade agreements (or not). We can easily put all Americans to work tomorrow if we just quit building weapons!

Again, everything should not be about MONEY. The Old Lefties know it, and it would be a good lesson for 2016 if we could get that message across. Maybe we disagree.

[ablamj]

148. there's no way in hell

You are farther left than me!

Also i said most of the Rs were around tge same place on the chart, not all.

You are 100% wrong about the spectrum.

[Sancho]

157. I just looked at Jeb and Rand...you should do so...

and you are a lightweight liberal to me....

Sorry you don't understand what I'm saying.

[ablamj]

158. i looked at Jeb and Rand and...?

you have no idea how liberal i am.

i understand everything you said, except for asking me to look at Jeb and Rand (which i had already done because i looked at everyone they had listed, both D and R)

[Sancho]

160. Jeb and Rand were in different quadrants...

at any rate, I think that the three Democratic candidates so far (Hillary, Bernie, and Martin) are more alike than different on many values. Bernie has a harsh, in-your-face style. Hillary is more witty like Obama or Bill. Martin seems a typical reserved politician, but we don't see him much down here. Warren is clearly academic, emotional, and pretty confined to economic issues. Don't confuse style with values.

I can tell you that Jeb, Rand Paul, and Rubio are very different from each other on some major issues. When you get into Santorum and Fiorino, etc., you get some non-politicians with no track record and I'd bet the ratings would be more variable than the Democrats.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I'm opposed to the attacks on any candidate that is based on speculation that they "might' hold some value, or they did something years ago, or they haven't revealed a specific position on something yet. I don't like some folks who post one attack after another with anything they can think of about the opposing candidate. That bashing to me, and most of the posts are of minimal real importance. I have argued with a few, but not all.

We should look at information about the candidates that's as current as possible, and most importantly listen over the next year to see who can win and GOTV. I'm not a one issue voter, because that's unrealistic.

[ablamj]

167. yes

i know they were in different quadrants. thats why i said "most"...

i too will vote for the D as I'm in a State where i have no choice. Clinton, however would be my last choice (of those currently running.

This all started because one person posted O'Malleys graph as the one and only rebuttal to several posters here. i happen to think they are not plotted accurately according to today's spectrum. we disagree on that and that is fine. i don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, but i will push back if i feel i am being disrespected for my opinions.

Are they accurately plotted in relation to each other? possibly. i don't know enough about O'Malley yet to say for sure. i do believe Clinton and Sanders should be further apart.

i agree with your point about learning and listening more about each and every one of them. that's why I suggested to the other poster to not rely on those graphs and research for herself.

I'm not a one issue voter either. if i was, I'm not sure what that one issue should be as there are so many important ones. I do agree with those who say Sanders should talk about racial and gender equality more, but i don't believe he wouldn't work for those were he elected.

anyway, i enjoyed our civil conversation with no snark. its refreshing.

[Sancho]

185. even though some probably don't believe it...I don't have a personal issue with other DUers

I have gotten close to insults at times over the last decade, but I try to avoid the open hostility.

I suspect that Sanders has survived this long because he may be the "socialist" representative, but on substantive issues he may not be as far from any Democratic President after the election that it mattered.

I'd bet Sanders would vote for 90%+ items Hillary wanted as President, and Hillary would sign virtually 100% of the bills Bernie sponsored (if they passed). I suspect that the same would be true for Hillary as a Senator if Bernie was President.

The ratings are based on what record is available and a rating scale with "points". It is possible to create a scientific "ruler" to measure "liberalism" so we could get an precise number, but it would take a pile of effort. The less accurate simple count of "points" on a grid is not too bad assuming the data used for the points are representative of the candidate. We'll see what happens.

[ablamj]

191. votes don't always

represent someone's true positions. Sometimes you have to compromise.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

208. I try to avoid those infernal debates but you will never get some people to abandon the eye test.

I thought we had this battle in academia in the 70s and 80s and the empiricists won.

[pangaia]

127. Ok, OK ,OK.

Statisticians can lie with charts.
You are right.

Now. lets move on.

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. OK Ok OK....that is NOT what this man said.....

you are misrepresenting what he just told you....I won't move on about that...He just said it was a pretty good representation of the candidates positions and YOU want to continue on this track that these graphs are lies...BUNK!

[pangaia]

144. LOOK, I did NOT say those graphs are lies !!!!

I said that statisticians can lie.
I didn't even take a side in the discussion/argument.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. Yes you did....

that was where this all began....and I pointed out that a POLITICAL statistician quotes the data on this site....and you went on trying to call Staticians liars to prove your point....and then a real-life Statistician not only called you on that...they also said these graphs are fair representations of the politicians positions....and instead of accepting that...you continued calling staticians liars...

[pangaia]

152. I think you are confusing me with somebody else.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. Oh yes they are....

and you are saying this man who IS a Statistician is a liar...because of ALL the people YOU know (anectdotal as if you know alot of statisticians)they know how to lie...

[pangaia]

146. AHAHAHAHA

You are a riot. :&gt

I didn not say the graphs lie AND I did not say " this man who IS a Statistician is a liar."
What I was saying was ok ok some charts can lie, sure.. and some statist..(I can't spell that word any more times) can lie..

I was not saying ANYTHING about this particular case.

[VanillaRhapsody]

150. No I am honest....

YOU DID say that.....

"I just don't believe they are really accurate as to where the candidates actually are on the scale"

and we now have two statisticians supporting them....imagine that!

[pangaia]

153. You have lost me.

Back to the ball game.

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. You just don't want to admit....

You stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

"I don't believe those graphs.....I am no Statistician....but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!"

paradigm shift!

[pangaia]

156. You are a little mixed up here.

You are totally confusing with somebody else's posts.

How said anything about a Holiday Inn?

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. You too qualify...

[ablamj]

159. no

i said that...

[pangaia]

170. Whew! Where have you been?

Get 'her/him' off my back.
Thanks,

[VanillaRhapsody]

173. We have now 2 actual statisticians opinions

And 2 guys that "just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night" opinions...

[TheKentuckian]

202. Why do you think statisticians are experts on political ideology? I'm not clear on what you think

the connection even is at all much less what makes them the end all be all on the subject.

I took statistics and my major was political science they aren't the same thing.

Your argument (to the best of my knowledge being made for the first time ever) at least requires some fleshing out to even be coherent much less true.

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. So only one person can be guilty of it?

They do have many commercials and with various important positions being trolled by a guy whose only justification for having the skills is the fact he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express....I noticed there are many characters in the ads...its not just one guy..

[ablamj]

175. but you used one of my quotes

and said that they said it. so there's that...

[VanillaRhapsody]

177. Sorry...but that person WAS defending YOUR

position....and that was it...

[ablamj]

179. not really defending

just agreeing with one small point. And truth be told, i really thought they wanted me to move on, not you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

181. Thats defending your position

Textbook example

[ablamj]

182. agreeing with one small point?

OMFG

[VanillaRhapsody]

184. How is that one snall point?

Its THE point!

indeed

[VanillaRhapsody]

183. The point being that you said the graphs were false

And that person said yes because in their opinions "most statistcians lie on graphs....which prompted the response of the actual statistician defending his profession and these graphs and what they represent.

[ablamj]

186. i said i didn't believe the graphs and that some can lie with graphs

they agreed that it is possible that some can lie, but made no comment on these specific graphs or Nate Silver specifically. And then told me to move along. that is far from defending!

[VanillaRhapsody]

187. EXACTLY

That is what ai just paraphrased....this whole convetsation was about graphs and statisticians....Jebus.and the person that built these graphs are likely also statisticians.....thats what we are talking about here....these arent paintings ..rhese are pictures of data points...also known as statistics....its computer generated by algorithm....or sid you think someone just made each one up out of whole cloth

[ablamj]

189. you

are making no sense. what i just said is not anywhere near "exactly" what you said

OMFG

[VanillaRhapsody]

192. I am making perfect sense....

These are graphs not art projects

[ablamj]

193. but

that person said absolutely nothing about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the graphs. that was me that said it. no one else. and no one defended me. that person was just trying to get me to shut up and move along.

[VanillaRhapsody]

200. they SUPPORTED YOUR position that the statisticians opinions are lies....

nuff said.

[ablamj]

209. no

That they CAN lie., not that this particular one DID lie.

[TheKentuckian]

198. Policy positions and the weighting of them are not statistics. How are you saying the discipline

even applies to the questions much less elevates a statistician to the know all be all of policy?

[VanillaRhapsody]

199. data points ARE statistics....

data points are HOW they made the graphs...

These are not artistic representations of someones opinions....they are based on an algorithm to compare using datapoints.

Statistics is the study of the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data.

[TheKentuckian]

203. So data points are statistics, so what?

[VanillaRhapsody]

204. No....the study of them IS statistics...

Statistics is the study of the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data.

And 2 if not 3 people who do this for a living....Statisticians....have said these are valid representations...one is a member of this forum the other of which is Nate Silver....who just so happens to study statistics for elections...

[TheKentuckian]

206. You are the one who said data points are statistics, I accepted that and moved on so now you are

arguing with yourself and using me as the proxy?

Come on now, it was just the previous post you made.

Bewildering.

[Koinos]

4. Naw, he's not running for Clinton's or anyone else's VP.

He burned that bridge with Clinton in his announcement speech. Did you hear his references to "Goldman Sachs" and Clinton?

[treestar]

115. They can work together after things like that

They are thick skinned and know what's going on. It's perfectly possible. Look at how vitriolic it got between Hillary and Obama. When it was over, they dropped it and worked together.

[Joe the Revelator]

10. Yeah, i don't get that feeling. He's in it to win it

[morningfog]

34. He's going to come out swinging against Hillary.

He's not running to work for her.

[HooptieWagon]

2. I'd guess equal.

He might draw some support from both, but Sanders and O'Malley will take support from Clinton. She might still hold a plurality, but eventually either Sanders or O'Malley will drop out and throw support to the other. It will be a two-horse race by the Convention.

[Johonny]

5. or will he pull no votes at all

impossible to tell this far out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. She has enough of a lead....she can afford to lose a few...

can he say the same?

[Thinkingabout]

7. There is a 22% undecided, he may get this portion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. Oh just the undecideds?

what about those that vote for REAL Democrats of which he is one...Sanders is a psuedodemocrat!

[Thinkingabout]

13. Oh, I think there will be more than the undecided, I also look for others to jump in also.

Good to see your posting.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Yep there will...

she has to decide who will be VP after all...

[Joe the Revelator]

24. Be careful with that pre-ordained stuff...

Hillary was picking VP's this time in 07 as well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. What pre-ordained stuff....

you mean public support....even with mud being slung from the Right and Far left...her support hasn't waivered...they just don't care...they want her!

[Joe the Revelator]

30. This is going to be fun.

[morningfog]

35. It is going to be so much fun.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. You damn straight it is!

[pangaia]

130. But until a few days ago there was no Democrat running against her.

It's pretty easy to win a race when you are the only one on the track.

Who knows what will happen.
Nobody.

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. baloney....everyone knew Sanders and O'Malley would run...

Democrats WANT her....you on the far left can lob your best shots.....it aint working any more than the faux scandals the Republicans have been lobbing for YEARS...

Face it...America wants a woman....

and she is 50 points ahead of the pack....only certain individuals on DU "don't know what will happen"....

[Joe the Revelator]

162. And when Obama announced in 07, she had a 33 point lead.

Whats your point?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

166. Obama was an anomally

A phenom.....that aint something you can count on....Bernie is no phenom...something wuild have to happen....and he aint it.

You seriously believe a guy like Bernie....a Socialist psuedo democrat running on the Dem ticket is somehow going to motivate enough low information voters into turning out for him in numbers so vast he makes up the 50 point deficit?

[Joe the Revelator]

188. Hillary was and is a flawed candidate.

She'll always have to look in her rear view, and she will always be the majority of the parties 2nd choice.

And no, I don't think Bernie is the answer. But O'Malley may be.

[pangaia]

129. Sanders is a psueodemocrat?

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. Yep...he said himself he is STILL not a Democrat.

[Joe the Revelator]

11. He'll certainly pull from Sanders, they are singing the same tune

I would suspect Bernie to drop out and endorse him early next spring as the anti-corporatist candidate.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. Martin O'Malley? Same tune you say?

Hardly! Sanders is closer to Clinton than he is to O'Malley!

[Joe the Revelator]

22. When it comes to campaign rhetoric, they are both going to woo Warren supporters

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. I thought Bernie got all the Warren Supporters according to his supporters...

Meanwhile Warren is going to end up backing Hillary Clinton...

[Joe the Revelator]

29. Is this satire? Am i missing something?

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. what satire?

Hang around...you'll see...

[Joe the Revelator]

32. I've been around a very long time, which is why I know how this song goes....

save these posts though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. apparently not...

They hate Hillary and call HER a Centrist and Republican....yet today they are giddy over M.O!

[Joe the Revelator]

42. You can post that graphic until you're blue in the face....

...but results and rhetoric are what matters at the moment. Most view Hillary as a corporatist and no graphic will change that perception.

[cali]

50. I've been telling people for years, that those charts are moronic

you just demonstrated that in your own inimical Vanilla way.

[cali]

57. I suspect he won't pull much from Sanders

He comes off as a mainstream politician- I'm talking about his presentation as much as anything else- and I think people who want a mainstream politician but are lukewarm about Clinton may very well gravitate to him. I also think he entered the race a little late to become the progressive voice. Also, O'Malley has a lot of work cut out for him as far as recognition goes. Bernie entered the race with a small national base. O'Malley has to create that.

[Joe the Revelator]

67. You think he's late? I don't think anyone is really paying 'real' attention yet.

Folks like me, and I'd like to think I'm pretty tuned in, were waiting for a fresh, young, exciting candidate. I don't know if Martin is my man or not, but I'm willing to give him a look.

I don't know if I agree he's too late to become the progressive voice. Some (obviously not all) write off Sanders from the jump. If O'Malley starts using the same type of Rhetoric, then maybe he can pick up that momentum.

[cali]

109. oh they're paying attention in Iowa and new Hampshire

[Koinos]

14. Some of Clinton's support is soft.

Many in Iowa and New Hampshire are interested in what other candidates have to say. It is still very early to say what primary voters will do or not do.

Heck, I'd welcome Webb and Chafee into the fray as well. All of the candidates will learn from each other.

[VanillaRhapsody]

18. she can afford to lose soft can't she?

she has a staggering lead...

[kenfrequed]

123. Unless...

If her polling ever drops below 50%, even if she has a significant lead, the "inevitable candidate" charm will be broken and then it cracks open the field wide.

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. HOW does that hurt her? She has a 50 point LEAD on the pack...not just above 50%

She isn't inevitable...she is WANTED by the Party members....87% approval rating...AND she polls ahead of EVERY Republican...AND she has the money to BEAT Jeb Bush's mountain of cash.

[ablamj]

169. She is wanted by party members.

Maybe so, but you don't have to be a party member to vote in a lot of the primaries. so there's that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

196. and that is not going to be a problem....

How do YOU figure?

You also don't have to be a Democrat to RUN in the Primaries....looking at YOU Bernie Sanders!

[kenfrequed]

195. Wait and see

Just wait and see. She was wanted when she was the only game in town and she has been running for president for like ten years now. People are fickle and when presented with options they start making their own minds up.

[Maedhros]

103. At this early juncture, I'd say much of Clinton's support is based upon name recognition.

Early polls always favor the better-known candidate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

210. She received roughly 50% of the primary vote in 08

She received roughly 50% of the primary vote in 08 against the political phenom who became a two term president .

So, wouldn't it be fair to assume those 50% or so are still with her now, they know her, and are voting on a lot more than mere name recognition?

[Maedhros]

212. It's a different election, under different circumstances, so direct comparison is problematic.

Of course Hillary has a base of support, but the big numbers she enjoyed early are based on name recognition (and she was the only presumed candidate). As time goes by those big numbers will revert to something more meaningful.

[Scootaloo]

15. Both.

We can't pretend that either sanders or Clinton's support is rock-solid at this point, and O'Malley's a good candidate on his own right - he's not going to rely on reflex opposition, as you seem to be asserting.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. A good Candidate? For a Sanders supporter???

[Scootaloo]

21. Welcome to reality VanillaRhapsody. Will you be visiting long?

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. I am the one that is STILL in reality...I am the realist not the idealist in this conversation...

O'Malley is no Far Lefty by ANY stretch!

[Scootaloo]

28. No, he's not. But he's still a good candidate

Not the best candidate in my opinion, but still solid enough to not be discounted.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. that is SOOO ridiculous....to say you support the policies of Sanders...

and then think He is a perfectly good candidate....when SHE is closer to Bernie than he is yet you will trash her mercilessly! I find it hilarious...to see the Sanders supporters thinking O'Malley is a "second best"or okay at all for that matter. Supposedly SHE is some Centrist Republican....lets compare and contrast shall we?

Clinton


O'Malley


Yet she is some spawn of satan corporatist war monger some seem to think...but HE is an alternative over her!

hahahahahaha!

[Scootaloo]

44. All three are good candidates, Nilla.

I support Sanders over Clinton because i disfavor her foreign policy and many of her economic positions, yes. But I won't say she's a bad candidate, she's nit not one I plan on casting a vote for in my state's primary.

As for O'Mally, i'm just now meeting the guy and don't really know where he stands in respect to issues that i consider important. but i know enough about him to see that he's a strong runner.

You do understand that a candidate can be acknowledges as good, without the speaker backing that candidate, right? it's not a zero-sum game.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. I will try to remember YOU feel that way...

the majority of Sanders Supporters....not so much....

I am cracking up over here at their excitement of him....

[Scootaloo]

51. I think you should try talking to us rather than at us.

Knock off with the attitude and arms-flailing rage, and you might learn some interesting things about people who support a candidate you don't.

You might even figure out how to decouple the trolls from the trues. Both camps have these people. Recently the bermie camp scored some 64-post sock puppet yowling for o'malley to drop out. it's laughable, but they're there, and htey get kind of easy to spot onceyou train the eye.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. why....what difference would that make?

like playing nice will make them go away...why not enjoy them instead?

[Scootaloo]

64. if your goal is for Sanders supporters to "go away," then I'm afraid you're on a lost cause

And your, er, "efforts" don't do it anyway, so... ;shrug:

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. Oh were you talkiing about Sanders supporters...or the ridiculous sanders supporters?

you seem confused...

and guess what....he himself has maintained he is NOT a Democrat....

[Scootaloo]

73. I'm not confused in the least. Yes, I mean talk to sanders supporters

And that from that you can become familiar with what we really think, how we do stuff, and then you can figure out who's just a rolling nutsack posing as a supporter to be a problem.

if i can figure out the difference between Clinton supporters and "Clinton supporters," I think you can manage the same with Team Burnie. Or o'Malley, 'cause that's going to come up too.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. Why should I talk TO them? What good will that do? I am not

are they suddenly going to switch to Hillary if I do? I am a realist...(and a Democrat)

[Scootaloo]

83. Rather than AT them? Because they're people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. silly people...

who want to GAMBLE civil rights.....and my sovereignty over my body on it...I take that very seriously....

[Scootaloo]

86. Well, whatever. Keep doing as you do, Nilla.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. don't worry....

I will continue to remind them WHAT they are gambling in this...

[Scootaloo]

99. You have to start something before you can continue doing it

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. uh wut?

So now you decide what I have and haven't started doing? I have spoken extensively WHY its a gamble...many many times....he is the LONG shot....the longest shot....and what is at stake? My rights to my body....just for starters. They DO own 2 of 3 branches of Govt AND 4 of 9 Supreme Court Justices.....

[pangaia]

134. Why are you so negative and sarcastic about all this?

There are at least 2 good candidates. I don't know MM yet.

I am for Bernie as of now. That doesn't mean I can not believe Hillary is not highly qualified as well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. Because of how ugly and caustic Sanders supporters are...

[pangaia]

138. Pretty general statement, in my opinion.

There are some snooty Hillary supporters.
Why not try to be above it all..

That's what I am trying to do. As best as I can.

Maybe try it. I find I feel emotionally much better, also.

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. Snooty or confident?

Yeah I would try to call her supporters names too if I were you...and do what you like....I do what I like....and I feel emotionally quite well thanks just the same...

[pangaia]

142. I didn't call anyone names.

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. "snooty" isn't a name?

coulda fooled me...

[ablamj]

172. it wasn't used as a name,

but as an adjective

[VanillaRhapsody]

174. Do what?

So it only counts if its a noun?

Adjective...descriptive term...describes the noun.

[ablamj]

176. names are nouns

so...yeah

[VanillaRhapsody]

180. OmG

[Koinos]

20. Good point.

Nothing is solid at this point.

[elleng]

97. Quite right, Scootaloo.

[kentuck]

37. The more the merrier !

So far, I like Bernie.

[tritsofme]

41. With someone like O'Malley now in the race, Sanders support has probably already peaked.

He benefited from being the only non-Clinton candidate running, and this inflated his numbers. Now that a more viable non-Clinton candidate has arrived, much of that support will shift to him.

I think the non-Clinton vote has a collective ceiling of around 20-30% of the Democratic electorate, these guys might be fun to talk about, but they are going nowhere fast.

[Joe the Revelator]

45. Agreed, espessially with the new candidate appearing 'fresh' and rockstartish...

If you want millennials, all O'Malley needs to do is coopt some of Sander's message

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. this Martin O'Malley?

He has a huge problem with those "Millenials" back in Baltimore...they weren't very receptive of him there!

[onecaliberal]

48. Wrong, his support continues to grow and that is supported by polling.

Just because you say something doesn't make it factual.

[tritsofme]

65. You could take your own advice. Just because you want Sanders' support to continue to grow does not

mean it will, or that it is even likely. We don't have any polling data with O'Malley in the race at this point, but I think we will look back at right now in a few months as the high water mark of the Sanders campaign. My prediction may be incorrect, but I doubt it.

[cali]

78. what people seem not to know is that Sanders already had a small national base

and even before he announced he had higher name recognition that O'Malley ever has. Also Sanders excels at retail politics in a way that very, very few people do- much of it simply due to 40 years of intense practice. I suspect his support in NH and Iowa will continue to grow- It's beyond that that I think he runs into trouble and O'Malley's prospects pick up. But O'Malley may have simply entered the race too late.

[onecaliberal]

122. I don't need to take my own advice I see

Polls that show Bernie up each month. That would be called gaining support. It is tangible, not just words. Not just wishes.

[tritsofme]

124. Sanders has had the stage to himself for a few months,

now there will be other minor candidates getting the attention and fighting for the crumbs of the non-Clinton supporters.

I don't dispute that he has modestly increased his position in the polls over the last few months, I'm saying I find it unlikely to continue much beyond this point. Current "tangible" polls don't say much about the future trajectory of a fluid race for a very distant second place.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. agree 100%!

[Romulox]

52. Hillary has the most to lose, and has failed to execute a strong campaign, thus far. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. No Hillary is the only one that has it to spare....

50 point lead....she can afford to spot O'Malley a point or three...

[Romulox]

61. She lost in 2008. I don't think she has anything to "spare". nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. She has plenty....she is far ahead of where she was then...

sorry...and a Phenom showed up....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Let me know if President Obama is running.

Then I will be very concerned.

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. I know right!!!

I haven't seen a phenom show up so far.....she is the phenom at the moment!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Barack Obama was an incredibly charismatic man with a great life story.

He was offered the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention which is reserved for rising stars and his Red State/Blue State speech was greeted with universal acclaim.


Once he beat Hillary in Iowa and demonstrated his crossover appeal African Americans flocked to him in droves and Hillary lost a substantial portion of our her base....

That is extraordinarily unlikely to happen again.


Barring an act of God she will be the Democratic nominee for president.



As they say, save the tape, errr thread....

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. and some can like it or lump it!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. I won't go that far./NT

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. LOL!

I meant on DU....not in general...

[workinclasszero]

56. OMalley splits Bernies vote

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[cali]

85. I don't think so. I think there are a lot of people who don't find Bernie a

palatable alternative (too old, socialist, etc) who will will gravitate toward an establishment politician- and O'Malley is one in a way that Sanders isn't. I also think a sizable chunk of HRC's support is quite tepid. A mile wide and... not so deep.

[Tikki]

163. I agree.

Tikki

[Renew Deal]

60. Neither

He has obvious support base

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

68. Niether

Don't think O'Malley will get much of anything.

Lawrence O'Donnell showed of video of O'Malley being interviewed a few months ago. He was asked what he thought the biggest foreign policy issue was. O'Malley hesitated for a bit then said, "The emerging power of Iran" or something to that effect. It didn't sound like he'd given much thought to foreign policy.

In my opinion both Hillary and Sanders have more on the ball.

[Joe the Revelator]

71. You gathered that O'Malley is running w/ no support off of one interview?

[aspirant]

112. And you dropped Bernie

because your 401k would lose millions from a single proposed HFT tax

[Joe the Revelator]

114. A better reason then assuming that a single interview on a station watched by .5% of...

...the country would have any consequence.

I also love the fact you think I'm a millionaire. Why does my not supporting your candidate bother you so?

[aspirant]

119. A single foreign policy issue (in a single interview)

and that .5% could be you

Why would an HFT tax that would pay for many Americans education bother YOU if it would only cost you pennies?

Was your support of Bernie truly HEARTFELT?

[Joe the Revelator]

161. I've said this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again....

I jumped the gun on Bernie in a desperate search for someone who wasn't Hillary. My bad, man.

[aspirant]

190. You see what desperation does over and over and over again?.

Are you related to "Joe The Plumber"

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

211. I gathered from that interview he was rather unimpressive.

Both Sanders and Clinton show more passion regardless of what one thinks of their stances on the issues.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Probably Hillary, since more of his voters prefer her as their 2nd choice

Though his vote may well stay below the margin of error, so we may never know.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_WA_52115.pdf

In a poll taken May 14-17th, O'Malley had 4% putting him as 1st choice (when he'd been unofficially campaigning for some time). Of those, 26% put Hillary as 2nd choice; 9% Bernie.

[aikoaiko]

88. I don't know enough about him yet.

[FSogol]

96. Here's a quick start:

Why I support Martin 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 (raised taxes on the rich).
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.

There is a lot more, but I'll only add that Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

More info at our O'Malley group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[aikoaiko]

117. Thank you. I really do need to learn more.

After reading what you linked I also went to On The Issues and scrolled down his positions and statements and it seems like he really is in between Clinton and Sanders.

Except for this part (albeit it is 15 years old now).

O`Malley adopted the manifesto, "A New Politics for a New America":
As New Democrats, we believe in a Third Way that rejects the old left-right debate and affirms America’s basic bargain: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all.
We believe:
that government’s proper role in the New Economy is to equip working Americans with new tools for economic success and security.
in expanding trade and investment because we must be a party of economic progress, not economic reaction.
that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.
that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.
the Democratic Party’s mission is to expand opportunity, not government.
that education must be America’s great equalizer, and we will not abandon our public schools or tolerate their failure.
that all Americans must have access to health insurance.
in preventing crime and punishing criminals.
in a new social compact that requires and rewards work in exchange for public assistance and that ensures that no family with a full-time worker will live in poverty.
that public policies should reinforce marriage, promote family, demand parental responsibility, and discourage out-of-wedlock births.
in enhancing the role that civic entrepreneurs, voluntary groups, and religious institutions play in tackling America’s social ills.
in strengthening environmental protection by giving communities the flexibility to tackle new challenges that cannot be solved with top-down mandates.
government must combat discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation; defend civil liberties; and stay out of our private lives.
that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
in progressive internationalism -- the bold exercise of US leadership to foster peace, prosperity, and democracy.
that the US must maintain a strong, technologically superior defense to protect our interests and values.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC0 on Aug 1, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Martin_O%60Malley_Principles_+_Values.htm

Of course 15 years ago, most mainstream, up and coming Democrats were sympathetic to the third way.

I won't hold this against him unless he reaffirms this stance.

[FSogol]

145. Here is what he said today about Wall Street, Glass Steagall, and the big banks...

We must put our national interest first, we must put America first.

But we cannot rebuild the American Dream here at home by catering to the voices of the privileged and the powerful.

Let's be honest. They were the ones who turned our economy upside-down in the first place. And they are the only ones who are benefiting from it.

We need to prosecute cheats, we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and if a bank is too big to fail without wrecking our nation's economy, then it needs to be broken up before it breaks us again.

Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest repeat-offending investment banks in America. Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he'd be just fine with either Bush or Clinton.

I bet he would.

Well, I've got news for the bullies of Wall Street.

The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

It is a sacred trust to be earned from the people of the United States, and exercised on behalf of the people of the United States.

The only way we are going to rebuild the American Dream is if we re-take control of our own American government!

[aikoaiko]

147. That is encouraging.

[TBF]

98. As much as I will argue up and down that age doesn't matter

Bernie and Hillary are both over 65. Reality is that health could force either out of the race. Castro is young enough that he can angle for VP and wait. O'Malley is right at that prime spot for running at age 52. I don't know that much about him but learning more & I don't blame him for throwing his hat in. We could do much worse.

[Koinos]

108. Age

Age, like a great many other things, is a factor; but it is only one factor. All factors have to be evaluated together. Poor health is a bigger factor than age.

In general, age is more of an issue when one judges the "other party's" candidate.

[TBF]

118. I agree -

and I'm usually on the other end saying the same thing. As a 40-something with a chronic illness I know there are plenty of folks 50+ that are much better candidates for anything than I am (I've got to pace myself - pain/fatigue issues).

[loyalsister]

131. If not the race- possibly the presidency

Declining health\function is inevitable for all of us as we age. Of course some of those changes interfere more than others, but it's kind of a silly risk to take when your talking about one of the most grueling and important jobs in the world.

Younger candidates usually win. It took an October surprise and a lot of bad luck for a significantly older candidate (who was showing signs of Alzheimer's before his presidency ended) to win in 1980. Not sure when it may have happened before then. The way the GOP field is shaping up tells me they learned a lesson after McCain and Romney.

Why someone who is at the age that others are wishing they could retire would want to take it on is beyond me, anyway.

I like the idea of O'Malley\Castro. Those names paired is slightly poetic.

[TBF]

197. O'Malley\Castro

Kind of has a ring to it & would be an amazing ticket

[treestar]

113. The anyone but Hillary crowd

would go over to O'malley. He is younger, a Democrat, and more electable than Bernie.

[KMOD]

121. Aside from the ABCers,

He is going to appeal to many average voters simply due to his age, and looks. That's reality.

[KingCharlemagne]

125. I'll bet the HRC campaign talked him into running as a stalking horse to poach

from Sanders' base. Hope Sanders' operatives are planting similar bugs in Jim Webb's ear.

Come to think of it, a Sanders-Webb ticket would be a mighty force, unifying the party around ideology and region. (Webb hails from Virginia).

[FSogol]

151. ALCOA!

If someone is going to all that trouble, why do it just to help a friend who already has 75% party support? He's in it because he wants to win. His campaign hires have been genius. That doesn't happen by accident.

[KingCharlemagne]

155. Wouldn't be surprised to learn that one of HRC's operatives offered O'Malley the VP

nomination in return for his entry into the race.

Sanders-Webb would mop the floor of any combination of Repigs one can imagine and maybe even bring back Dem majorities in House and Senate. (That would take some mighty long coattails, admittedly, but the electorate is surly, sullen and pissed off this year.)

[Thinkingabout]

126. I am a ABB person.

[MohRokTah]

128. There is no " I cannot support Bernie" bloc. eom

[orpupilofnature57]

178. People invent shit for their premise .

[Recursion]

164. A few from Clinton; mostly from undecided and Biden

Biden is still at about 9% despite his not running.

[cyberswede]

194. You have my Sympathy.

[Smarmie Doofus]

201. Looks like he's running for Clinton's VEEP, but I could be wrong. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

205. Neither

Kennedy from our silents.
Carter from our boomers.
Bradley from gen x < ---- JAG
Independents/unaffiliated from the millenials.

I'm going off a conversation on Main Street in my town last night at the car show. Everyone I spoke with (people who want me to run for council) asked me my opinion.

I was surprised at the Seniors in our community that are Republicans now - that are interested in O'Malley. Seven were Kennedy supporters - only one supported Nixon.

I think America's senior citizens are getting nervous about what they are leaving behind. At least in a small town in Central Nzj they are.

[JonLP24]

207. He's obviously fitting his campaign for those "Warren supporters" to capture those votes in the

primary. Normally he would be the guy Hillary Clinton supporters would vote for if not for Hillary there was the whole "The go-to guy in the Democratic Party on national defense" plus his tough on crime policies. A Sanders or Warren supporters that would vote for him need to do some research, I admire him on some policies certainly but not the guy meaningful change, just meaningless rhetoric.