WaPo: Democrats become desperate for Hillary alternative, O'Malley dominating

[IceSpear]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-clinton-controversies-democrats-yearn-for-an-alternative/2015/03/04/f782ec4e-c279-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

So WaPo has moved on from trying to extrapolate based off a 13 person pro-Warren gathering, and has moved on to extrapolating based off random comments from random people. O'Malley is a contender despite polling at 0-2%!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm posting this so that we can all laugh at it in a year.

[136or142]

Republicans have been 2 of the last 3 governors of Maryland.  Bob Ehrlich was governor from 2002-2006 and he beat a Kennedy.

On the broader point, I fail to see how 'foreign donations' to a charitable foundation can be considered bad and a 'conflict of interest' but the Cock brothers planning to spend almost $1 billion on the election is 'free speech'.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If Hillary is defeated, it will be by Biden (or Warren if she has a huge change of heart). O'Malley and Webb are jokes, I'm very pessismistic with regards to Sanders, and Schweitzer/Cuomo/Warner will probably only run if Clinton doesn't.

That being said, if Hillary runs, which is still an if until she actually enters, she will start with about 90% odds of winning the primary. (I'm not comfortable going higher than that when there's at least 10 months left before Iowa)

[bedstuy]

Journalism is largely entertainment and web-journalism is click-based.

If you write an article stating the obvious, Hillary is almost certain to win the Democratic primary, 1.  it's not news, and 2. it will not elicit a reaction.

If you write an article with a new, outrageous take that gives relevance to recent stories, you create interest and clicks.  It gives people a reason to pay attention, even to say, "you're dumb!! Martin O'Malley!?  Are you serious!??."  It's like ESPN writing articles about NFL mini-camps.  It's irrelevant, but they're selling a product in the off-season and they want you to care about football all year long.  WaPo wants you to care about the 2016 Presidential race before anything truly relevant happens and follow each little nothing story as if it matters.  They're selling a product in the off-season, they have to try to make a porterhouse steak out of slim-jims.

Just don't pay attention to this stuff, it just encourages them.

[Vega]

If Sanders doesn't run, or runs as an Independent (which I would do if I were him), then I will get behind O'Malley for the Democratic primary.

Though, he's really giving up a huge opportunity in not running for the Senate seat.

[IceSpear]

Journalism is largely entertainment and web-journalism is click-based.

If you write an article stating the obvious, Hillary is almost certain to win the Democratic primary, 1.  it's not news, and 2. it will not elicit a reaction.

If you write an article with a new, outrageous take that gives relevance to recent stories, you create interest and clicks.  It gives people a reason to pay attention, even to say, "you're dumb!! Martin O'Malley!?  Are you serious!??."  It's like ESPN writing articles about NFL mini-camps.  It's irrelevant, but they're selling a product in the off-season and they want you to care about football all year long.  WaPo wants you to care about the 2016 Presidential race before anything truly relevant happens and follow each little nothing story as if it matters.  They're selling a product in the off-season, they have to try to make a porterhouse steak out of slim-jims.

Just don't pay attention to this stuff, it just encourages them.

That's true, these types of stories are a dime a dozen. But this one is particularly egregious and I felt it should be preserved for future comedic value.

[136or142]

Journalism is largely entertainment and web-journalism is click-based.

If you write an article stating the obvious, Hillary is almost certain to win the Democratic primary, 1.  it's not news, and 2. it will not elicit a reaction.

If you write an article with a new, outrageous take that gives relevance to recent stories, you create interest and clicks.  It gives people a reason to pay attention, even to say, "you're dumb!! Martin O'Malley!?  Are you serious!??."  It's like ESPN writing articles about NFL mini-camps.  It's irrelevant, but they're selling a product in the off-season and they want you to care about football all year long.  WaPo wants you to care about the 2016 Presidential race before anything truly relevant happens and follow each little nothing story as if it matters.  They're selling a product in the off-season, they have to try to make a porterhouse steak out of slim-jims.

Just don't pay attention to this stuff, it just encourages them.

It's the same reason why the polling firms continue to include Elizabeth Warren although she's already endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[136or142]

If Sanders doesn't run, or runs as an Independent (which I would do if I were him), then I will get behind O'Malley for the Democratic primary.

Though, he's really giving up a huge opportunity in not running for the Senate seat.

As I've posted before, if Sanders wanted to run as an independent, he would have had to have started getting his name on the ballot in all 50 states about 2 years ago.

It's simply impossible for him to do that now.

[King]

Man, if the left and right wing media hate Hill this much, she must be pretty ducking great. Endorsed.

[RFayette]

Hearing Martin O'Malley on Crossfire against Rick Perry is a veritable cure for insomnia.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I bet that Schweitzer would be gearing up to run right now if he hadn't given that dumbass interview. Honestly there's a time where I thought Schweitzer would have been the type of Dem that could have rebuilt the New Deal Coalition (minus the south probably.)

[BaconBacon96]

The media is making me cringe.

[heatmaster]

Icespear!  You need to live in the real world! At this period in 1975, Jimmy Carter was barely registering,  Hubert Humphrey was the front runner etc etc and we all knew what happened there bud. So not to say I told you so, but I did and the scandals are beginning to climb out of the box; there are going to be more revelations coming down the track,  trust me...according to my source😉 no, if Hillary is the nominee,  she will be damaged goods by the time she's done, great commercial material come September and October 2016 and then Jeb can do a few rounds with her. So circle the wagons,  because the Indians are coming back to have another go at the Clinton's☺

[IceSpear]

Icespear!  You need to live in the real world! At this period in 1975, Jimmy Carter was barely registering,  Hubert Humphrey was the front runner etc etc and we all knew what happened there bud. So not to say I told you so, but I did and the scandals are beginning to climb out of the box; there are going to be more revelations coming down the track,  trust me...according to my source😉 no, if Hillary is the nominee,  she will be damaged goods by the time she's done, great commercial material come September and October 2016 and then Jeb can do a few rounds with her. So circle the wagons,  because the Indians are coming back to have another go at the Clinton's☺

The fact that you need to go back four decades to find a somewhat comparable example (and one that still doesn't really fit) is kind of telling. And weren't you just saying in the other thread that "everyone knows Hillary will be the nominee"? Can't you at least keep your story straight?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Icespear!  You need to live in the real world! At this period in 1975, Jimmy Carter was barely registering,  Hubert Humphrey was the front runner etc etc and we all knew what happened there bud. So not to say I told you so, but I did and the scandals are beginning to climb out of the box; there are going to be more revelations coming down the track,  trust me...according to my source😉 no, if Hillary is the nominee,  she will be damaged goods by the time she's done, great commercial material come September and October 2016 and then Jeb can do a few rounds with her. So circle the wagons,  because the Indians are coming back to have another go at the Clinton's☺

The fact that you need to go back four decades to find a somewhat comparable example (and one that still doesn't really fit) is kind of telling. And weren't you just saying in the other thread that "everyone knows Hillary will be the nominee"? Can't you at least keep your story straight?

Odds on getting the 2004 Democratic nomination on Dec. 13, 2003
Dean 74.6%
Clark 11.1%
Clinton 5.6%
Gephardt 4.9%
Kerry 2.6%
Lieberman 1.3%
Other 5.3%

[morgieb]

Icespear!  You need to live in the real world! At this period in 1975, Jimmy Carter was barely registering,  Hubert Humphrey was the front runner etc etc and we all knew what happened there bud. So not to say I told you so, but I did and the scandals are beginning to climb out of the box; there are going to be more revelations coming down the track,  trust me...according to my source😉 no, if Hillary is the nominee,  she will be damaged goods by the time she's done, great commercial material come September and October 2016 and then Jeb can do a few rounds with her. So circle the wagons,  because the Indians are coming back to have another go at the Clinton's☺

The fact that you need to go back four decades to find a somewhat comparable example (and one that still doesn't really fit) is kind of telling. And weren't you just saying in the other thread that "everyone knows Hillary will be the nominee"? Can't you at least keep your story straight?

Odds on getting the 2004 Democratic nomination on Dec. 13, 2003
Dean 74.6%
Clark 11.1%
Clinton 5.6%
Gephardt 4.9%
Kerry 2.6%
Lieberman 1.3%
Other 5.3%

And what were the polls like?

[Mister Mets]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-clinton-controversies-democrats-yearn-for-an-alternative/2015/03/04/f782ec4e-c279-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

So WaPo has moved on from trying to extrapolate based off a 13 person pro-Warren gathering, and has moved on to extrapolating based off random comments from random people. O'Malley is a contender despite polling at 0-2%!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm posting this so that we can all laugh at it in a year.

I don't see anything particularly funny.

Some activists want an alternative.

The only way the claim would be ridiculous is if Hillary Clinton ends up being an immensely successful two-term President (or a tremendous one-termer followed by a successful Democrat.)

Unless that happens, a Democrat's decision to oppose her won't be seen as ridiculous.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Pretty obvious the MEDIA DOES NOT want Hillary to be the democratic nominee in 2016

[Brewer]

Pretty obvious the MEDIA DOES NOT want Hillary to be the democratic nominee in 2016

That's been the CASE FOR A while now.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Pretty obvious the MEDIA DOES NOT want Hillary to be the democratic nominee in 2016

They clearly don't, but their sabotage won't work. Their favorite Native-American isn't going to run no matter what they do.

[IceSpear]

Icespear!  You need to live in the real world! At this period in 1975, Jimmy Carter was barely registering,  Hubert Humphrey was the front runner etc etc and we all knew what happened there bud. So not to say I told you so, but I did and the scandals are beginning to climb out of the box; there are going to be more revelations coming down the track,  trust me...according to my source😉 no, if Hillary is the nominee,  she will be damaged goods by the time she's done, great commercial material come September and October 2016 and then Jeb can do a few rounds with her. So circle the wagons,  because the Indians are coming back to have another go at the Clinton's☺

The fact that you need to go back four decades to find a somewhat comparable example (and one that still doesn't really fit) is kind of telling. And weren't you just saying in the other thread that "everyone knows Hillary will be the nominee"? Can't you at least keep your story straight?

Odds on getting the 2004 Democratic nomination on Dec. 13, 2003
Dean 74.6%
Clark 11.1%
Clinton 5.6%
Gephardt 4.9%
Kerry 2.6%
Lieberman 1.3%
Other 5.3%

And what were the polls like?

IIRC, not a single Democrat ever led by double digits in the 2004 primary, much less the 40-50 points Hillary leads by.

[IceSpear]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-clinton-controversies-democrats-yearn-for-an-alternative/2015/03/04/f782ec4e-c279-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

So WaPo has moved on from trying to extrapolate based off a 13 person pro-Warren gathering, and has moved on to extrapolating based off random comments from random people. O'Malley is a contender despite polling at 0-2%!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm posting this so that we can all laugh at it in a year.

I don't see anything particularly funny.

Some activists want an alternative.

The only way the claim would be ridiculous is if Hillary Clinton ends up being an immensely successful two-term President (or a tremendous one-termer followed by a successful Democrat.)

Unless that happens, a Democrat's decision to oppose her won't be seen as ridiculous.

So you think finding a few random Democrat and Republican activists that say something is "news" when all empirical evidence proves that they're objectively in the deep, deep minority and not indicative of any trend?

[Panda Express]

O'Malley is a joke

O'Malley is NOT a joke. You're a joke.

[henster]

Hillary needs a serious challenger, she is clearly untested at the moment her responses to the email/foundation scandal is weak and she is avoiding the media as long as she can. If she was in a serious primary race she would not be avoiding the media and being so invasive on issues like Iran. I really hope someone like Deval Patrick reconsiders, he's an executive and could give Hillary a run for her money in NH and black support will help in SC as well.

[heatmaster]

Not four decades Ice Spear, thanks to morgieb, Kerry polling 2.6% in December 2003,  kind of telling,  that one has to go back 12 years: so under those circumstances,  O'Malley must be feeling pretty good; mark my words, Hillary is toast and the sharks are circling,  so good luck with that😊