Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: How would Martin O'Malley have fared in the GE? [View all]Buckeye_Democrat
(15,332 posts)29. The platform places too much faith in businesses.
Public-private partnerships should become the rule, not the exception, in delivering services. Civic and voluntary groups, including faith-based organizations, should play a larger role in addressing America's social problems.
I even prefer the 1912 Bull Moose Party platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
The platform's main theme was reversing the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled the Republican and Democratic parties, alike. The platform asserted that:
To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.
The "Third Way" is about cutting welfare for the economically vulnerable while also placing the burden of "new skills" on them. It places faith in free markets and capitalism, domestically and abroad, but expects individuals to adapt to any changes that result.
Does our military expect new soldiers to be fully trained when they enlist? Do they expect voluntary groups to keep them afloat in the meantime? Or does our military pay new enlistees right from the start and then do the training themselves?
Models that cater to wealthy business owners, that don't treat "new skills" as their ultimate responsibility since THEY are the ones making such demands, is a problem.
If we're going to continue down the path of decentralized, individually responsible education and training, then it needs FAR more government funding which should come mostly from higher corporate and ownership taxes... and many people will need a basic minimum income to survive as they tackle those endeavors.
EDIT: It also blows my mind how many times that I've seen supposed Democrats here on DU making statements like, "Rural voters should move because those jobs aren't coming back. Adapt or die." Do they not see how out of touch that is? That's like people flippantly saying, "People in poor ghettos should just move." Moving takes money! And making such a leap is frightening without better safety nets! Meanwhile, many of those rural voters are more likely to see their local churches as more helpful than government. Heck, it's even in the "Third Way" platform -- e.g., "voluntary groups, including faith-based organizations, should play a larger role in addressing America's social problems." It's no wonder to me that so many "Christians" in this country vote Republican! Some Democrats have been driving them away!

I even prefer the 1912 Bull Moose Party platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
The platform's main theme was reversing the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled the Republican and Democratic parties, alike. The platform asserted that:
To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.
The "Third Way" is about cutting welfare for the economically vulnerable while also placing the burden of "new skills" on them. It places faith in free markets and capitalism, domestically and abroad, but expects individuals to adapt to any changes that result.
Does our military expect new soldiers to be fully trained when they enlist? Do they expect voluntary groups to keep them afloat in the meantime? Or does our military pay new enlistees right from the start and then do the training themselves?
Models that cater to wealthy business owners, that don't treat "new skills" as their ultimate responsibility since THEY are the ones making such demands, is a problem.
If we're going to continue down the path of decentralized, individually responsible education and training, then it needs FAR more government funding which should come mostly from higher corporate and ownership taxes... and many people will need a basic minimum income to survive as they tackle those endeavors.
EDIT: It also blows my mind how many times that I've seen supposed Democrats here on DU making statements like, "Rural voters should move because those jobs aren't coming back. Adapt or die." Do they not see how out of touch that is? That's like people flippantly saying, "People in poor ghettos should just move." Moving takes money! And making such a leap is frightening without better safety nets! Meanwhile, many of those rural voters are more likely to see their local churches as more helpful than government. Heck, it's even in the "Third Way" platform -- e.g., "voluntary groups, including faith-based organizations, should play a larger role in addressing America's social problems." It's no wonder to me that so many "Christians" in this country vote Republican! Some Democrats have been driving them away!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
34 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

People who wouldn't vote for Clinton because of gender wouldn't be voting for a dem, anyway,
JudyM
Dec 2016
#10
I think there are some Dems or Dem-leaners who didn't vote for Clinton because of her sex.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#13
It would have been interesting. But truth is, he didn't do well in Primary, so it's kind of moot.
Hoyt
Dec 2016
#7
If he had won the nomination, he probably could have won the general election.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#16
I like O'Malley, and I think he could have beaten Trump, but this question misses a HUGE point.
StevieM
Dec 2016
#18
If he got the nomination I think he would've won, I also think Biden would've won
Raine
Dec 2016
#19
Digging up the old 3rd way lie on O'Malley? He was asked to join, but refused. As for the Hyde Park
FSogol
Dec 2016
#24
Whatever the 3rd way became, they were not any of those things when the Hyde Park Declar was signed
FSogol
Dec 2016
#31
Not True: "O'Malley was endorsed by Third Way as a Presidential candidate a few years ago"
FSogol
Dec 2016
#34
He could've won because he would've been hungry for it. Trump was beatable.
coolbreeze77
Dec 2016
#30