I read with interest his criminal justice reform proposal laid out in a 9-page white paper.
Based on the reporting and the political circumstances, I was expecting an aspirational document that would seek to get to Hillary’s left on the issue. But it’s a much more workmanlike collection of modest reforms, all of which are politically feasible. For example, he calls for rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule II instead of Schedule I controlled substance. I could see that being proposed to the 2016 Congress, but it strikes me as sort of weak tea in a presidential primary.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s lot of good stuff in there. But I am hard-pressed to identify any policies in there that Hillary would not also support, which I would have expected to be half the point of putting it out.
It is nice to see the candidates raising the issue. It will be very interesting to see if it remains once we get to the general.
He was rejected by the voters when his hand picked successor suffered a defeat. It’s a typical usage of the term “rejected” in modern politics. For example Mccain’s defeat was a rejection of Bush.
It’s not just about “would support”, it’s also about priorities. If Clinton doesn’t have a criminal justice reform plan then it’s not a priority and nothing is likely to be done. O’Malley does have one, so obviously it’s important to him.
No. No one says so-and-so was “rejected by the voters” when they are referring to that person’s successor losing. You’re reaching and projecting that on RNATB.
More ad hoc standards from adaher. IME, written policies are not a good indicator of priorities. They are a good indicator of front-runner status (i.e., front-runners constrain themselves less because they have to).
That’s true also. I just wanted to point out that “would support” is pretty meaningless. Presidents only get to do a fraction of what they want to do. O’Malley, being an ex-governor, has written down a plan that can pass a Republican Congress. That’s a sign that a) it’s important to him, and b) he has the maturity to govern.
If this is a high priority issue for you, then O’Malley’s doable plan > Clinton’s “would support”.
Surely the equation is [likelihood that candidate will make this a priority as president] x [likelihood that candidate will win] x [likelihood that candidate will be effective at getting legislation through Congress].
Even if I thought the first variable went to O’Malley, it’s not clear that the other two would.
Mostly, I am surprised because usually the guy who is trying to win the primary from the flank would…well…outflank. But I guess with Sanders in the race, O’Malley is kind of boned on that front.
You can’t just make things up and call it “typical usage.” McCain’s defeat certainly had a lot to do with antipathy towards Bush, but nobody said “voters rejected Bush.”
And no, I’m not an O’Malley supporter. As I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, I’d never heard of him until now. Having said that, I am more likely to support almost any Democrat than almost any Republican, so if O’Malley is the nominee I will likely support him.
I hardly think McCain can be classified as Bush’s ‘hand picked successor’ either. My recollection is that the GOP was trying to keep Bush as far away from the campaign as they could at that point.
Anyway, we can debate an editorial turn of phrase or the gist of my post. Again, Marylanders do not like o’Malley for president. His legacy is inextricably tied to tax increases as governor, and book-cooking and failed schools as mayor.
Running against Republicans that’s no feat. Democrats beat Republicans even when they were fighting for segregation.
Beating ANOTHER Democrat, that’s where the test is, and O’Malley doesn’t look like he’s going to be very competitive among African-American voters against Clinton.