# Martin O'Malley for President thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 31, 2015, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241 "2015-05-31T05:33:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_wind\_of\_my\_soul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@The\_wind\_of\_my\_soul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_wind_of_my_soul)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/42 "2015-06-03T15:18:46Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > I also don’t get why so many people think it would make sense to “run for VP” if you have Presidential ambitions. I can get the argument a candidate might jump in to raise their public profile for a future run but accepting the Veep position has never been a good path to the Presidency. Since 1900 only two people, Nixon and Bush I, were able to translate serving as VP into winning election outright to the Presidency. TR, Coolidge, Truman and Johnson had already succeeded to the office when they ran for it. And as I mentioned in post #12, only one person has ever been the VP nominee on a losing ticket (FDR) who later ran successfully for the office. > > Having served as a Governor or member of Congress is the surest way to get to the White House. I haven’t looked at the numbers but being a Cabinet member or Ambassador would probably serve a person’s Presidential ambitions better than being Vice President. I agree that “running for VP” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if you have presidential ambitions. But, if you try your hardest to get the presidential nod and lose, I don’t really agree with your logic that becoming vice president is a bad next step. Obama is only the 44th president. Even if you include the VPs who run on losing tickets, you also have to consider that not all VPs even run for president afterwards. If 500 VPs subsequently ran for president and only one succeeded, that would be pretty telling, but I don’t think your sample size is large enough for your statistics to be very conclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/43 "2015-06-03T16:22:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > African-Americans, public employee unions, environmentalists, social liberals, economic liberals, Jews, gays, single women. Yup, about 35%. I’d ask you to show your work, but worry that anything pulled out of your butt like that is gonna be unsanitary. C’mon, dude, you can do better than that. Let’s get started: Social liberals: 31% Economic liberals: 19% African Americans: 13% In unions: 11% Environmentalists (sympathetic to movement, or activists): About 57% Single women: 22% There’s gotta be a whole lot of overlap, and a lot of environmentalists voting Republican, to get down to 35%. And that’s setting aside the ridiculous basis for your claim. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/44 "2015-06-03T17:48:11Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’d ask you to show your work, but worry that anything pulled out of your butt like that is gonna be unsanitary. C’mon, dude, you can do better than that. > Let’s get started: > Social liberals: 31% > Economic liberals: 19% > African Americans: 13% > In unions: 11% > Environmentalists (sympathetic to movement, or activists): About 57% > Single women: 22% You also have to take into account that those aren’t 100% for Democrat groups. So even with African-Americans, you gotta drop that number from 13% to 11.5-12%. For the other groups you have to take much larger chunks of regular defectors to the GOP out. Plus your environmentalists number is inflated. Very few people regard it as a top issue, so you’re dealing with a very tiny number. You don’t have to like my 35% figure, it is an estimate. Maybe it’s 45%. My core argument was that it’s impossible to elect a Democrat who is liked by every part of the coalition. That’s leaving aside the issue of conflicting priorities and issue differences between various factions, but even if you can thread that needle you’ve still alienating virtually everyone else. The same goes for Republicans. A pure Republican that all the factions think is awesome will never win the Presidency. So arguments like, “O’Malley was too tough on crime, he’s a bad progressive” or some such aren’t really a good excuse to not support O’Malley unless that’s like your top 1 or 2 issues. Rejecting a candidate because he’s wrong to you on an issue you prioritize below Social Security, the economy, staying out of wars, education, and health care, is dumb. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/45 "2015-06-03T19:21:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …You don’t have to like my 35% figure… Well, thanks for that. > [@](#): > > …it is an estimate… Mmmm. Yes. Quite. > [@](#): > > …Maybe it’s 45%… Maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/46 "2015-06-03T21:13:07Z")
Is it odd that I’ve basically never heard of O’Malley before? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/47 "2015-06-03T23:11:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is it odd that I’ve basically never heard of O’Malley before? Not really. If you had never heard of Hillary Clinton before, that would be odd. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/48 "2015-06-03T23:12:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > African-Americans, public employee unions, environmentalists, social liberals, economic liberals, Jews, gays, single women. Yup, about 35%. Plus everybody who is not independently wealthy and has to work for a living. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/49 "2015-06-03T23:27:09Z")
That would be a swing group, not a member of the Democratic coalition. That’s the group that decides every election. Tax them at your peril.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/50 "2015-06-04T00:11:39Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I think O’Malley’s taking the long view. **He knows he can’t win in 2016** , but if he finishes a respectable second or third he’ll get the name recognition or, even better, get tapped for veep. He knows if Hillary wins in 2016, the stable of big name Dems in 2020 or 2024 isn’t that large and he might as well start making a name for himself now. The section of your post I bolded is where we disagree. I don’t see anything to indicate he knows he can’t win. Frankly, I think this attitude that Hillary is the inevitable nominee so nobody should bother trying is ridiculous. She already managed to be the front runner once and managed to blow that. Considering how high her negatives are, even among Democrats, and the general lack of enthusiasm about her candidacy, I have a hard time buying she has it locked up at this point. > [@The\_wind\_of\_my\_soul](#): > > If 500 VPs subsequently ran for president and only one succeeded, that would be pretty telling, but I don’t think your sample size is large enough for your statistics to be very conclusive. You may very well be correct but I would argue there likely is more to pure statistics that explain this. Public perception of the loser and other things probably come into play as well. Bottom line, I have a hard time believing anyone who fully commits to running a national campaign for President isn’t intent on succeeding. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/51 "2015-06-04T00:58:31Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > …I don’t see anything to indicate he knows he can’t win. Frankly, I think this attitude that Hillary is the inevitable nominee so nobody should bother trying is ridiculous. She already managed to be the front runner once and managed to blow that. Considering how high her negatives are, even among Democrats, and the general lack of enthusiasm about her candidacy, I have a hard time buying she has it locked up at this point… Couldn’t agree more. See _Game Change_ to learn just how she blew her lead last time, and just how capable she is of doing it again. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/52 "2015-06-04T02:19:31Z")
Yup. O’Malley is the most credible of the declared Democratic candidates other than Clinton, unless Biden gets in. If Clinton can’t seal the deal, he stands to be the most likely alternative. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/53 "2015-06-04T02:53:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That would be a swing group, not a member of the Democratic coalition. That’s the group that decides every election. Tax them at your peril.🙂 All right, then, let’s put the whole tax burden on the 1%, they can afford it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/54 "2015-06-04T03:23:43Z")
Yeah, but then you can’t have a lot of the nice things you want. Most of the money comes from the middle and upper middle class. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/55 "2015-06-04T14:51:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yeah, but then you can’t have a lot of the nice things you want. Most of the money comes from the middle and upper middle class. :rolleyes: That’s why we need to tax the 1%. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/56 "2015-06-04T17:16:00Z")
> [@The\_wind\_of\_my\_soul](#): > > If you find a dead body and are 90% sure that it was homicide (but not 100% sure), it can be classified as a death by unknown causes rather than a murder. Or if someone’s killed in the process of another crime (like a carjacking, for example), there’s a way to classify it as an accidental death. True, but it’s more difficult to fudge murder figures. When you see other violent crime rates going down dramatically at the same time that murder rates aren’t budging, that’s a big red flag. > [@](#): > > Also, while I’m sure Martin O’Malley fudged the numbers, I would hardly hold it against him specifically. The government withholds grant money if you can’t demonstrate that grant money from previous years has resulted in a decrease in crime rates. It’s not a problem with him so much as a problem with the larger system. I’m going to disagree, although I don’t think your position is unreasonable. I think that abuse of police power is one of the most damaging things the government can do to its citizens. David Simon’s excoriation of O’Malley is damning and justified. He’s not getting my vote. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2015, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/57 "2015-06-04T23:16:01Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > :rolleyes: That’s why we need to tax the 1%. :smack: You can tax them at 90% and you won’t be able to pay for any new spending. You MIGHT eliminate the current deficit. Might. The CBO would have to be the judge of that. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2015, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/58 "2015-06-05T13:41:19Z")
As long as we actually tax all of their income, then we could. The problem is just that so much of the 1%'s income is in forms that are taxed lower or not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/59 "2015-06-05T16:22:59Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > …I’m going to disagree, although I don’t think your position is unreasonable. I think that abuse of police power is one of the most damaging things the government can do to its citizens. David Simon’s excoriation of O’Malley is damning and justified. He’s not getting my vote. He got the great majority of black votes in his majority-black city every time, IIRC, that he ran for mayor and then later for governor. Crime dropped - how much is obviously now the subject of some debate. Clearly _somebody_ liked what he was doing. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/60 "2015-06-05T16:25:54Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > A new poll is bad news for Hillary, and may be good news for O’Malley: [http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html) It’s obviously not great news for Hillary, but I don’t think it’s terrible either. For one thing, “favorability” is different than “will I vote for this candidate”. Also, I was trying to find more about favorability ratings. I’m pretty sure I read something a week or so ago about how candidates often start out with higher favorability ratings which drop as the people get to know them better. Even though everyone knows Clinton fairly well, that would still apply as people are reminded of specific platforms and things she did. I can’t find that article, but I did find [this roundup of favorability ratings for a bunch of candidates](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster#favorability-ratings). It looks like Clinton is the only one who consistently has higher favorable ratings than unfavorable. O’Malley isn’t on there yet, but I’d guess both his favorable and unfavorable ratings would be low, because most people would have to say they didn’t know him/have an opinion on him. I don’t think that Clinton is the inevitable nominee, and I don’t think that O’Malley is running for Veep, or that he has no chance at all. But the favorability ratings don’t really make me think that Clinton needs to be hugely concerned at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2015, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241/61 "2015-06-07T01:31:24Z")
I wouldn’t mind having O’Malley in the bullpen. Hillary’s not getting any younger. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-omalley-for-president-thread/721241.md?page=4)