I think O'Malley can keep the Democratic coalition together

[Recursion]

I'm not entirely convinced the other candidates can.

I know. Every primary season is ugly, it's early yet, etc. But it still worries me. We're an untidy coalition that often needs to be shepherded.

So, I'll add that to climate change, immigration, and justice reform as a reason I support O'Malley for the nomination.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. So do I ...

[ibegurpard]

8. course you do

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Yes ... I do.

[NaturalHigh]

19. It might help if most people had even heard of him.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Agreed ...

As I have said before, I wrote a check to the M O'M campaign with the message: Pump up the volume!

[TM99]

2. Yes, saying one of his opponents

is 'anger and divisive' is a great way to keep the Democratic coalition together.

[Ron Green]

3. Will he say, "Oligarchy?"

Will he say that word?

[ibegurpard]

7. no

He's Plan B

[Recursion]

9. Doubtful. About half of Democrats get turned off by that.

That's a big part of what I'm talking about.

[Armstead]

10. But we ARE an oligarchy. Might be helpful for someone to admit that.

Oh wait, someone does.

[Recursion]

11. Well, we'll see how it resonates

I predict that is not as effective a message among national Democrats as you seem to think it is. We'll see.

[Ron Green]

12. That's why 2016 is a test for American voters.

If they're not ready to at last hear and respond to the truth, we (and because of our size and strength, the rest of the world) are pretty much screwed.

[MH1]

16. So just throw in the towel?

I sincerely doubt that a majority of American voters are ready to "hear and respond to the truth" as you see "the truth".

Are you saying that if your guy isn't chosen, then whoever else is for all practical purposes "not a dime's worth of difference" from the republican? That's what it sounds like.

O'Malley is the strongest candidate on climate change / environmental destruction, which is the existential threat of our generation and the next several. He also knows how to get things done.

[elleng]

13. It's one of those words that, for many, requires a definition,

and while many probably agree with the principle, the word itself may not resonate. I agree with you.

[Armstead]

14. There are reasons "government doesn't work"

This is why we have to get beyond the same old stuff in the political dialogue.

It seems like every election, all politicians address how government is failing us. But they always skirt around WHY it doesn't work.

It DOES work for the wealthy and powerful. And the better it works for them, the worse it works for everyone else.

And a smaller and smaller number of people and business control more, and feed themselves and starve everyone else.

Hence the government continues to work better and better for them, and they have basically taken it over.

Hence, an Oilgarchy.

BUT when we call it a nebuluous "failure" without identifing WHY, we don't give a focus to actually begin to change that problem. And make it worse, by helping to advance the conservative message that government is incapable of constructive action.

Maybe oligarchy isn't a cool political buzzword - but we need to identify the real problem instead of ignoring it.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. I'm in agreement with you on this n/t

[BainsBane]

25. and will he throw out the name "the Kochs" as red meat to blame for everything under the sun

including border policy.

[think]

28. Koch is involved in influencing border policy as well as the many other things it is involved in:

Bernie Sanders explodes a right-wing myth: ‘Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal’

TRAVIS GETTYS
28 JUL 2015 AT 09:12 ET

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said the immigration debate is framed exactly wrong.

Republicans vilify President Barack Obama for supposedly opening the border to ever-increasing multitudes of immigrants, legally or otherwise, but the Democratic presidential candidate said blame is cast in the wrong direction, reported Vox.

“Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal,” Sanders said in a wide-ranging interview with the website. “That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.”

Sanders frequently targets the libertarian industrialists Charles and David Koch as unhealthy influences on American democracy — but he’s not the first to notice their support for an open borders policy.

The conservative Breitbart and the white supremacist VDARE website each blasted the Koch brothers for sponsoring a “pro-amnesty Buzzfeed event” in 2013, and two writers for the Koch-sponsored Reason — former contributing editor David Weigel and current editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie — have always been supportive of immigration reform.

Full article:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/bernie-sanders-explodes-a-right-wing-myth-open-borders-no-thats-a-koch-brothers-proposal/comments/#disqus

[BainsBane]

29. US border policy dates back 100 years

making it about the Kochs is beyond simplistic. It insults my intelligence. Perhaps he doesn't know about the Bracero and other similar programs, but he has a responsibility to learn.

The Kochs are at fault for sponsoring a pro-amnesty event? So now you all oppose amnesty?

[think]

33. I'm all for Amnesty. Are you for the Libertarian Open Borders? Are you defending the Kochs on this?

The article I linked to gave direct accounts of Koch Brothers involvement in border policy that contradicts the GOP candidates they plan to support who claim Obama is the one pushing open borders. The article I linked to was meant to show their involvement DIRECTLY.

Unfortunately to show how they are involved one must defer to the Koch brothers surrogate groups and publications which does the actual promotion of open borders. As it's not a direct connection they can claim that this is not their policy. Yet they still allow the magazine from their foundation to defend them as being Libertarians. The Koch brothers are both crafty and sleazy.

The Reason.com website run by the Reason Foundation is a Libertarian organization and David Koch is a board member. Reason.com supports open borders (Please note this article appeared April 31 2015):

Open Borders in America: A Look Back and Forward

Ed Krayewski | April 30, 2015

Reason magazine, in print since 1968, has long focused on immigration policy in general, and, specifically, open borders—the idea that people's movement across national boundaries ought to be free of government restrictions.

For much of its history, America had essentially open borders, both before the establishment of the United States and after. In 1921 the Emergency Quota Act, initially intended to be a temporary measure, imposed the first serious restrictions on entry into the United States.

The restrictions were motivated by nativist sentiment, xenophobia, and fears over economic and social stability. Critics of liberal immigration policies wrote off America's open-border past as a product of the massive frontier the country had, which gave immigrants ample room to settle. But as Joseph P. Martino noted in "Two Hands, One Mouth," an article in the September 1984 issue of Reason, the idea that immigration didn't threaten America when it was a younger country because of the enormous frontier has never really been based in reality.

~Snip~

Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter. Is that a problem? I don't think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be.

Ed Krayewski is an associate editor at Reason.com.....

Full article:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/30/open-borders-in-america

The Kochs play games and spread their love around so who knows where they really stand except for the own financial interests.

Koch will be spending around $1 billion to support Republicans that don't support Amnesty or meaningful immigration reform and the 5 candidates they are looking at certainly aren't Libertarians. If they really wanted a Libertarian they'd be backing Gary Johnson not neocons. They did not back Gary Johnson in 2012 nor do they appear to be backing him in 2016. In 2012 they backed Michelle Bachmann.

The Koch brothers were also part of the DLC. (The Democratic Leadership Council.) They both help fund it and served on it's Executive Council. They play all sides to get their way.

So do you really want to defend the Koch Brothers just to slam Bernie? Really?

[elleng]

4. I agree.

He has lots of experience organizing and shepherding coalitions, AND he's stated and explained positions and PLANS on virtually ALL the live/relevant issues of the day whereas the other candidates have done so in haphazard manners (to the extent they have done so at all.)

[RobertEarl]

5. Not to worry

Bernie is bring the People together.

The party is trying like mad to keep the elite coalition in power, but the People will take back our government.

What a grand thing it is!!

[FSogol]

6. Gotta agree. n/t

[cali]

15. I just don't see him going anywhere this time around.

I think it's a shame, but I don't see that changing.

[Andy823]

21. Well

That's pretty much what they said about Obama and look where he went.

[cali]

22. obama wasn't polling in the low single digits at this point

He was raising tons of money, had been in several debates. Honestly, I think he O'Malley should have entered the race in late March or early April.

[Andy823]

27. Yes the debates helped him

And it really ticks me off that this election we have not had one debate, and that stinks! Debates help define each candidate, and it helps them explain their plans to fix the problems we face. I think once the people get to hear him things will get better, maybe not enough, but we can only hope it will. As for the timing, he seems to have a plan and I really hope it works.

[DanTex]

17. You may have a point. The problems with O'Malley, as I see them.

1) He doesn't really have a path to the nomination. Bernie has taken Hillary's left, and try as he might, O'Malley's not going to fire up the far left like Bernie is for a number of reasons. On the other hand, he doesn't have the stature to challenge Hillary with a mainstream campaign the way Joe Biden or Al Gore might be able to.

2) His pivot to the left might hurt his GE chances. It may not seem that way in primary season, where you can't possibly be far left enough, but the GE is a whole different thing.

3) If he wins the nomination, will he be able to raise money the way Hillary can? Like it or not, this is a big deal. Arguably, Hillary's donor base will shift to him, but it might not be that simple.

4) It's not just the Bernie people that need to be assuaged, it's also the Hillary people. In 2008 there were a lot of really upset Hillary supporters, but Obama (with Hillary's) help, managed to bring them into the fold. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination this time, a lot of those same people will be even more upset.

[Andy823]

35. The people might be upset

But I really think they would have problem doing over to O'Malley.

If he wins the nomination, I see no problem at all with him being able to raise the money.

I really don't see him having a problem bringing in not only all democrats, but also being able to draw independents as well. He has a great message, great plans for fixing things, and once people hear him speak they will be impressed by his agenda.

As for a path to the nomination, well it's really early, and anything can happen. Nothing at this point in time is set in concrete.

[elleng]

38. Right, Andy,

NO PROBLEM bringing in Democrats AND independents (and any rational repugs, if they exist,) once people hear him.

[DanTex]

40. Good answers, and I agree with you on many things.

I like O'Malley a lot, and I would have no problem enthusiastically supporting him if he wins the primaries this year.

I still don't see him getting the nom this year. But, I think he could be a strong candidate in years to come. He's still young, and he has a good message. And I don't mean that in any kind of dismissive or condescending way. I think he's great.

[BainsBane]

23. I think he's a good guy with good policies

But he's not getting any traction at all. I think it just isn't his time yet.

[elleng]

31. I disagree about his 'traction.'

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/08/13/martin-omalley-state-fair-soapbox-speech/31671345/

[BainsBane]

32. I mean in terms of support as reflected through polling

We'll see if that changes.

[elleng]

37. Polling means nothing at this point, imo,

and in the states where he's been on the ground, IA and NH, he's been gaining, which is what he (and we) expect.

[Romulox]

24. His campaign seems to be sputtering, if anything. nt

[elleng]

30. You missed yesterday, I guess.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/08/13/martin-omalley-state-fair-soapbox-speech/31671345/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251516353

[Stellar]

34. Sounds good to me. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

36. the masses have already taken to arms against tptb

I do not think anyone will stop it. Being a wage slave, I did not partake in OWS events because day to day survival of myself and my child required my constant energy. I can get behind Bernie and say what needs to be said and help to do what needs to be done within the traditional political routes. This is much safer for my continued, minimal as it may be, existence in this country.

[aikoaiko]

39. I'll think about this suggestion in April 2016 if necessary.

[calguy]

41. Right. Let me know when he polls above 3%

I can't wait to feeeeeel the O'Mnmmmmm

[elleng]

42. Here.

'On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton leads with 53% to 25% for Bernie Sanders, 5% each for Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb, and 1% for Lincoln Chafee.'

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/martin-omalley/

I saw one at 7%.

This is SO important now, of course.