Senator Barbara Mikulski is retiring. Let the scramble for her seat begin.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
20 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Second or third bluest state in the Union.
The scramble will be the primary…
Would probably be an easy win for O’Malley.
An easy win, but a tough decision. Tough foe us as well. Should we hope goes for the Senate and joins Warren as a voice against the Right? Or should we want him to go for the possibly (probably?) quixotic shot at the Presidency? What he decides will tell us a lot about him.
I’d be more inclined to view O’Malley shifting to a run for the Senate as telling us more about the Democratic Party power elites, deep pocket, big donors, and most of the Democratic pundits and primary voters than about O’Malley. There simply isn’t enough space, time, and money for a challenger like O’Malley to be competitive when so much as been locked up and locked down for Hillary as the “can’t lose,” heir apparent.
Like a re-run of 2000, only worse. Bradley would have been a much better Democratic POTUS than Gore. But Gore “couldn’t lose” and that’s the principle criteria that the parties, the moneybags, and primary voters use to select who they’ll support. 2008 was unique for Democrats because it was almost guaranteed that the nominee would win the general election. The odds for a Democratic win were lower in 1988 but not by much which is why IMO Dukakis was the worst nominee in the past sixty years.
I was thinking more about “the fire in the belly”.
Agree with you on Bradley.
Gore did win, but wouldn’t get down in the dirt to fight for it. That’s a lack of “fire in the belly”. You can say many things about Bill Clinton, but he had the fire. If he needed to he would get in the dirt and bite and kick and gouge to win. That’s the mark of a winner. There not always nice guys (like Bradley), not even usually, but I wouldn’t say never.
They’re of course. Really need that editor.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but mostly disagree.
Plenty of politicians have “fire in the belly” for personal aggrandizement and ambition. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. For example, could the 2014 MS GOP Senate candidate, Chris McDaniel, have had any less “fire in the belly?” Don’t think so — and his GOP opponent had almost none in his belly.
Scott Brown had plenty of “fire in his belly.” Based on that measure, many Democrats advised against promoting Elizabeth Warren for the Senate because she didn’t have “fire in the belly.” What those Democrats missed is that when running for office isn’t personal to a candidate but he/she does have chosen mission in which she/he is knowledgeable, skilled, competent and can articulate that mission, she/he won’t burn as brightly — will be the tortoise in the race. And once she/he hits her/his stride, they just keep going.
Gore had enough “fire in the belly” to defeat Bradley. He used that fire in mean and nasty ways. Easier to do in primary elections than general elections. However, Bradley also has to be faulted for being to slow off the mark and not first developing an articulate message. Gore/Bradley would likely have easily defeated Bush/Cheney, but in 2000 there wasn’t much policy agreement between the two and Bradley rightfully had no interest in being anywhere near Gore. A reconciliation was in Gore’s court, and he treated Bradley as he did the the left.
Another Gore campaign failure that wasn’t strictly his and his team’s failure was having taken federal primary matching funds. He did so because his fundraising wasn’t robust, but didn’t fully appreciate the advantages his opponent would have by not taking those primary funds because it had never been done before. Gore’s campaign had to go dark for a month while GWB continued pummeling him and Clinton.
Once he was back up and running, his “fire in the belly” was obvious; without it he couldn’t have pulled even with GWB. It was never obvious to me that GWB had a personal “fire in the belly.” He came off more as one on a mission, but without the smarts and knowledge to articulate what it was. That may have been his team’s campaign strategy and GWB just followed their coaching. That gave him a veneer of likeability that effectively contrasted with the more knowledgeable but strident Gore.
Gore made one post-election critical error in filing for a public hand recount in heavily Democratic counties. Money (or the fear of being unable to raise enough) may have played a role if he lost and would be billed for the cost. From a PR perspective, that decision was deadly because it looked as if he was attempting to select his voters. In the same situation, Clinton and any GOP candidate would likely have tried to do the same, but none of them mind appearing to be sleazy if that’s what it takes to win. A decent person would have filed for a statewide manual recount because that was the only fair thing to do.
But setting aside the right thing to do, team Bush tipped their hand with the filing of Bush v. Gore in federal court. They knew they wouldn’t prevail in a statewide recount and were scrambling to shut it down. The significant vote rigging totals weren’t in the counties that team Gore had selected. The Florida Supreme Court decision to recount all the ballots was a gift to team Gore’s flub. When SCOTUS accepted the Bush v. Gore appeal (Bush had lost in the lower federal courts) and then decided in favor of Bush, there was nothing practical that Gore could have done. Demand that the GOP House make the final call? To what purpose other than relieving SCOTUS for its unprecedented and unlawful interference? Better to let Sandra Day O’Connor live with that big black mark on her record.
Clinton is ruthless — but his “fire in the belly” is about him and not us. He doesn’t hesitate to play the race card if that’s what he thinks it takes to win. He did that in 1992 and again for his wife in 2008. Got Hillary a win in NH and kept her campaign alive. The only problem was that SC was up next and others noticed what he was doing. Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama the day of the SC primary.
Hillary didn’t lack “fire in the belly” in 2008 and won’t in 2016. Nor did McCain. However, that personal “fire in the belly” is more obvious for what it is in an older candidate and as such is less appealing.
From what little I’ve seen of O’Malley, it doesn’t appear that he has a burning desire to be POTUS or is too polite to let it be seen. Too polite to reveal it was how Obama played it in 2008 and then with the weariness of GOP policies, he only had to hint/suggest that he was on a mission for us. That’s not enough this time around in the Democratic primary. Not only does O’Malley need a mission that he can articulate, he also has to exhibit passion for it. Doesn’t appear to me that he has the chops to do that. His persona is “too cool.”
Sounds like the Senate would be a better choice.
Assuming no change in the political landscape would agree. However, the information on foreign funding of Clinton’s charity and Hillary’s exclusive use of a private e-mail while she was SOS is just breaking. Neither looks good for her — even if like Bill’s dalliances there was nothing illegal about it, it still looks dodgy. Seem to recall Democrats flipping out about RoveCo using private instead of government e-mail service when they were in the WH. Do they now flip to “it’s no big deal” because it’s Hillary instead of Rove?
O’Malley has announced that he will not run for the Senate. Still thinking about running for POTUS. Wonder what his other career options are at this time.
Sounds like he has the fire. Or the fever if you prefer.
Perhaps some glowing embers or a better crystal ball in this instance than I possess. Not implausible that Hillary will be derailed, but it won’t be by O’Malley. Too many possibilities and my knowledge of him is far too limited to bother with further speculations.
I’ll go out on a limb and predict she derails herself.
Hope they let her appear on Meet the Press just once before she’s gone. (Can’t find the source offhand, but I once saw a database giving some kind of numbers for congressmembers appearances on Sunday TV and was startled to see she’d never been on one.)
No wait, found it.
If the Sunday talkies weren’t so lame with their softball questions and no follow-up, it would be great if all the GOP, deadwood, backbenchers were seen frequently. Let the nation see how they all blow. From Charlie
Afraid that makes him sound like a winner–exactly what Romney did over and over again.
Only to Bible-banging hayshakers.
There are a few things about the majority of Americans, a part of which is unconscious, that can be counted on and that most Democratic politicians fail to appreciate. For example, DC Democrats hid under their desks when the GOP elevated the Teri Schiavo matter to a national issue. Why couldn’t the Democrats recognize that it was an obvious loser for the GOP and could be an easy win for Democrats?
A majority doesn’t hate teacher or unions. At an emotional level they respect teachers. A majority does view unions as valuable — and large numbers wish they could join one. A majority supports higher taxes on those with higher incomes. They’ll follow if someone leads on that, but they’ll tune it out if the choice is between a Walker or a vacuum.
I’m not sure about unions. I think a majority hate unions because they are jealous. And mos5t people dislike teachers having three months vacation (jealousy again), a hold over from agricultural days that is actually detrimental to education.
Envy is a different emotional dynamic. It’s human to envy attractive people, but it doesn’t lead to wanting to maim or kill them.
The GOP has been effective in exploiting a mostly false narrative about teacher time off and the real wage differential for unionized workers along with the corruption in some unions. Both charges have gone unanswered by the left or rationalized instead of answered.
We do need to re-think education. Get beyond its 19th and early 20th century model. Too much down time for kids and the profession attracts too few of the brightest and most talented.