Election 2016

Martin O’Malley: The Man Who Would Be Vice President

Why is Maryland's former governor looking at a longshot presidential run?

|

For well over a year now, former lame-duck Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has been testing the waters for a presidential run. The National Journal's Shane Goldmacher just filed a report on how that's been going; as far as I'm concerned, the heart of his story is here:

a better O'Malley
Crockett Johnson

O'Malley hasn't outlined, at least publicly, what his candidacy is about, other than being a progressive not named Hillary Clinton. "What are you passionate about?" one Democratic activist in Iowa City asked him back in October. "If you were king of the world, what would you do first thing?"

His answer was directionless. "I'm passionate about my kids and their future," O'Malley began. "I'm passionate about climate change. I'm passionate about public safety. Having been mayor of Baltimore, I learned a little something about that and drug addiction along the way. I'm passionate about educating our people at higher and better levels. I'm passionate about health and improving outcomes. The bottom line is for you, Tom, all about jobs, right? How do we restore the balance for jobs?"

This works in so many different contexts.
Center for Libertarian Studies

Most of Hillary's other potential challengers have ideological reasons to embark on a longshot crusade. Jim Webb (who appears to be running), Bernie Sanders (who's thinking about running), and Brian Schweitzer (who at the moment seems to have stopped thinking about running, though who knows?) are critics of Clinton's stances on war and Wall Street, albeit from somewhat different positions. (Sanders is a self-described socialist, Schweitzer is a so-called "libertarian Democrat," and Webb is a sort of left-wing paleoconservative, if that makes any sense.) Elizabeth Warren, who insists she isn't running but keeps getting treated as a contender anyway, is a step or two to Clinton's left on economics.

But O'Malley does not have any glaring policy differences with Clinton, a figure he has backed in the past. His campaign looks more like an exercise in personal ambition than a policy crusade, but it's a funny sort of ambition, since his chances of getting the nomination are vanishingly small. My working theory is that he's actually gunning for Clinton's vice presidential slot. But then, I've been idly predicting that O'Malley would one day be the Democrats' veep nominee for at least eight years now, going back to when O'Malley was mayor of Baltimore. So that might just be my idée fixe.

Bonus link: Longtime O'Malley critic David Simon bumps into the gov on a train.

Free Minds and Free Markets aren't free! Support Reason's annual Webathon with a tax-deductible donation and help change the world in a libertarian direction. For details, go here now.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

77 responses to “Martin O’Malley: The Man Who Would Be Vice President

  1. I think Joe wants to stay on as Veep.

  2. O’Malley is Team Blue’s answer to Mitt Romney. He’s there to appeal to people who enjoy club soda and unsalted crackers.

  3. “I’m passionate about my kids and their future,” O’Malley began. “I’m passionate about climate change. I’m passionate about public safety. Having been mayor of Baltimore, I learned a little something about that and drug addiction along the way. I’m passionate about educating our people at higher and better levels. I’m passionate about health and improving outcomes. The bottom line is for you, Tom, all about jobs, right? How do we restore the balance for jobs?”

    He’s as coherent as your average homeless mumbler.

    1. You gave him more credit than I would have.

      1. Look, he had the courage to stand up and say he agrees with families, jobs and fairness. Who else is taking such a firm stand?

        1. “I’m against those things that everybody hates!”

          1. Now I think Hugh is a good man, but frankly, I agree with everything he said.

            1. Sometimes Futurama is so accurate, it’s scary.

    2. All that’s missing is the rainbows and the unicorn farts.

  4. Elizabeth Warren, who insists she isn’t running but keeps getting treated as a contender anyway, is a step or two to Clinton’s left on economics.

    Which is something like saying she’s just two steps further in the horrible scale than Medusa, the Gorgon.

    1. Why all the Gorgon-hate, OM? 😛

      1. The mere sight of them turns me into stone.

        1. Enough with the erection metaphors, already.

  5. His campaign looks more like an exercise in personal ambition than a policy crusade[…]

    Which makes him different to not any other presidential contender in history with the exception of William Jennings Bryan and Ron Paul.

    1. G. Washington.

      1. Yeah, but he was 6’8″ and weighed a fucking ton.

      2. Well, good old general Washington wasn’t really a contender. He was elected almost by default.

    2. It used to be the office sought the man, not the other way around.

      1. ^ I really do think that this is the issue.

        I heard a quote a long time ago, but I’m not sure who said it. It was something along the lines of: You don’t run for President; you stand for it.

        1. It was considered unseemly to seek nomination, because that showed that the person had bad moral character. As far as I’m concerned it still does.

          1. I’m only going to agree with you.

            I liken the Presidency to a nudist colony: the people who want to be there are never the people you want to be there.

            1. Go on……..no wait, please don’t.

    3. And arguably Santorum.

  6. As John Nance Garner 32nd Vice President said about the Vice-Presidency its “not worth a bucket of warm piss”.

  7. “I’m passionate about climate change.”

    NO.

    1. Re: Suthenboy,

      “I’m passionate about climate change.”

      That sentence alone explains the attitude of Warmists: it isn’t really about the science, it is about the feeling that comes with belief.

      1. It’s about the science and the policy, and you should do yourself a favor and stop outing yourself as someone who thinks science is optional when you don’t like the policy implications.

        1. Which climate model has been the most predictive?

          1. The most recent ones using the best computers, presumably. Climate modeling with respect to global climate change has been impressively accurate for over 100 years, from primitive predictions about warming in the 1890s to Hansen in the 1980s to cutting-edge GCMs. The IPCC modeling has been accurate but on the conservative side.

            1. Really?

              Cause I’m still waiting on that ice age that was predicted back in the 70’s.

              Also, shouldn’t Florida be underwater by now?

              Fuck you, shithead.

              1. I’m impressed you can even breathe through those stale talking points.

            2. Climate modeling with respect to global climate change has been impressively accurate for over 100 years,

              That’s a lie.

              The IPCC modeling has been accurate but on the conservative side.

              Another lie. No warming for you!

            3. It’s really funny seeing someone claim to have a scientific position, and then procede to blatantly fabricate information in order to claim he’s correct.

              The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that their models were inaccurate in predicting the extent of global warming in 2013. Claims made in 2007 about the Himalayas melting away by 2035 have been admitted to be unfounded. The IPCC modeling has never been ‘on the conservative side’, they themselves have admitted to having made the opposite approach.

              1. You have got to get your info from somewhere besides the Telegraph.

                1. Or, you know, you could read the actual report, rather than just parroting what a website tells you.

                  I do enjoy how the site you link deliberately rejects the scientific experimentation as a means to model. Yeah, Tony, that’s totally ‘science’.

            4. The most recent ones? You mean the models looking at past data and adjusting the model to fit history?

              http://www.theguardian.com/env…..al-warming

              You see if I make 15 random guesses and then adjust my numbers after the fact, I’m 100 percent right.

              1. You clearly either didn’t read or didn’t comprehend the very article you’re linking me to.

                Where did you idiots get your science education?

                1. FTA:We can’t yet predict ahead of time how these cycles will change.

                  Translation: we can’t predict dick but give us total control over the economy.

                  Also from your article: IPCC doesn’t claim to be able to predict future climate.

                  Again: just because our models/prediction are useless doesn’t mean you shouldn’t shut up and do what you are told.

            5. Re: Tony,

              Climate modeling with respect to global climate change has been impressively accurate for over 100 years

              So those models have been very accurate predicting the past?

              Do you even see the implications of what you post? No, wait, you don’t have to answer that.

        2. Re: Tony,

          It’s about the science and the policy,

          Here we go again.

          and you should do yourself a favor and stop outing yourself as someone who thinks science is optional when you don’t like the policy implications.

          Science is one thing and policy is another. There is NO relation between the two when it comes to AGW, precisely because the predictions have not come to pass. If your predictive models cannot predict future events, then there is NO way your policy KPIs can be measured to assure the targets.

    1. A man who can speak at length without saying anything of meaning.

      1. A politician?

  8. I don’t follow the Game-of-Thrones-esque political maneuvering of the inner Democratic Party, so I have to ask someone more knowledgeable on the subject: what, exactly, are Bernie Sanders chances of getting the nomination? From what I’ve seen he appears to be a more stupid version of Elizabeth Warren, and it seems like his ideals would only appeal to the extreme left of the party (i.e. the part that is killing the rest of it by doubling down on their stupidity).

    1. Is he even a Democrat? I thought he was a commie independent.

      1. He is a socialist, but caucuses with the democrats. They like him because he can say the things they wish they could and not suffer any electoral blowback. The good people of Vermont keep sending him to Congress, first as their sole congressman, then as their senator.

    2. [W]hat, exactly, are Bernie Sanders chances of getting the nomination?

      Effectively zero, barring some sort of epidemic that left only him and a commune of hippies alive. The guy is straight-up socialist, and he flaunts that.

      1. Good to know. I didn’t think anyone who called themselves a socialist directly and has video of him declaring a housing crash impossible days before it happened would have a chance.

    3. None. He appeals to the Naderites, the ones who think that someone who is not tenable outside of Vermont has a shot in hell at winning over the rest of the country.

      It is tough being a realist Democrat and having to cope with winning elections at the expense of purity. How nice it must be to be Republican and be concerned only with making sure you’re at the cutting edge of extremism.

      1. Canadian genius. Not on either side of your pissing contest.

        And your postings here do not show any kind of ‘realist’ interpretations of politics, rather they show a habit of doubling down on delusions in order to maintain your rather sad sense of identity.

  9. Brazil’s Joke Candidates…still a better bunch than the 2016 Democratic field.

  10. is a step or two to Clinton’s left on economics.

    Who recently came out as slightly to the left of Karl Marx.

  11. I’ve said this before, but the hardcore proggies I know neither like nor trust Clinton. Their real standard-bearer is Warren. The people in charge of the party are not going to let Warren get anywhere near the nomination because she’s unelectable. But she will run to keep Hillary from moving too far right during the primary.

  12. OT: Obamacare makes your insurance company pay for a checkup. But if you ask the doctor a question, it’s no longer a checkup, it’s an “office visit”, and you will be billed.

    Found this out the expensive way. Should have known.

  13. Hillary/O’Malley would be a great ticket.. FOR ME TO POOP ON.

    /triumph

    1. Ok. I laughed. I have the maturity of a 12 year old, I guess.

  14. “having been mayor of Baltimore:”

    You’re kidding me.

    THIS is something you put on your resume?

    Detroit = Newark = Baltimore = Chicago

    SHOWING AMERICA WHAT DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP CAN DO

    1. Detroit = Newark = Baltimore = Chicago Camden

      nevar forget

      1. er, greater than.

    2. Having been mayor of Baltimore, I am one of the world’s leading authorities on picking what doesn’t work and implementing it anyway.

      FIFH.

  15. So he’s going to do for the country what he’s done for Baltimore?

  16. Having been mayor of Baltimore, I learned a little something about that and drug addiction along the way.

    Duh, everyone’s passionate about their drug addictions.

    1. My Gandalf-esque pipe broke the other day. I’m not ashamed to admit I held a memorial/funeral service for her.

        1. Sure… It’s the leaf that’s slowed my mind.

  17. “If you were king of the world, what would you do first thing?”

    Set about destroying the power structures that allowed one person to rule the world. Only acceptable answer.

    1. “If you were king of the world, what would you do first thing?”

      Anybody who thinks they are qualified to be king of the world needs beaten or shot or institutionalized.

      Unfortunately, one of the people who believes most firmly that she is qualified to be king of the world is the frontrunner for the 2016 Dem Presidential nomination.

      1. *Anybody who thinks they are qualified to be king of the world needs beaten or shot or institutionalized.*

        So delusions of grandeur are worse than selling loosies or strong-armed robbery? Who knew?

        1. Clearly Reason has a fuckhead shortage, and jmomls came back out of the woodwork to remedy that fact.

  18. My money is on Julian Castro for VP.

    1. That means he’s also gay, just like his brother before him.

  19. Martin O’Malley: so horrible that a republican no one had ever heard of got elected to take his place.

    He’s kind of like a reverse George W. Bush in that regard. For a republican to get elected to statewide office in Maryland is practically impossible now!

    1. In all fairness the Democratic candidate was really weak. His entire campaign message was basically “I’m black!” maybe that works in better times but this year voters needed more.

      1. And if that didn’t work in Maryland then it’s truly the End of Days.

        (It’s probably Obama’s fault as much as O’Malley’s to be fair to that doofus)

  20. Governor of Maryland. Yeah, that worked out well the last time we had one of those for VP.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.