As if there were any doubt in anyone's mind...
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
We have got to get rid of this ... piece of work.
I also read today that Baltimore's mayor is going to run against Ehrlich for governor. Babs won't be gone until she retires since she continually receives over 60% of the vote in her reelection bids (but yeah opposition to Roberts seems to be rather misguided). I don't like her style a bit...she seems to be a better fit for the House of Representatives rather than the Senate.
Martin O'Malley has announced he is running against Governor Ehrlich and he should be the Democratic nominee.
Martin O'Malley has announced he is running against Governor Ehrlich and he should be the Democratic nominee.
donbarzini
Well-Known Member
2ndAmendment said:
The only way to do that is to say her real name:
Rumplestiltskin!!!
huntr1
.
I will be surprised if O'Malley can beat Duncan. It will be a BLOODY primary battle.rraley said:Babs won't be gone until she retires since she continually receives over 60% of the vote in her reelection bids (but yeah opposition to Roberts seems to be rather misguided). I don't like her style a bit...she seems to be a better fit for the House of Representatives rather than the Senate.
Martin O'Malley has announced he is running against Governor Ehrlich and he should be the Democratic nominee.
huntr1 said:
It should be a bloody primary, but polls show O'Malley with a pretty big lead so far and he starts out with higher name recognition. Plus, if you see O'Malley in person and compare him to Doug Duncan, the obvious choice is O'Malley...he is FULL of personality. Duncan would be a damn good governor too, but he is not as engaging and inspiring as O'Malley is. To me, it just seems that O'Malley has greater potential.
In Democratic primaries, I am going to go with Baltimore City and the suburbs over Montgomery County (in terms of who has the leg up).
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Two points...
1. Why is this in Current Events?
2. Duncans HAS to win for the Democrats to have a chance and a small chance at that.
Ehrlich has presided over a successful term and can hold his own in terms of political charisma on a national stage, not just a city. He's proven. O'Malley has run a crime ridden city with painfully bad schools.
Given a good job by Ehrlich, his personality and a robust, healthy Maryland economy, what's O'Malley's platform?
"Let me bring the drug violence to you!"
Without a big gun, O'Malley or Duncan, Steele wins the Senate seat and Ehrlich is likely to win re-election.
After his next term is up, Bob runs against and beats Mikulski!
1. Why is this in Current Events?
2. Duncans HAS to win for the Democrats to have a chance and a small chance at that.
Ehrlich has presided over a successful term and can hold his own in terms of political charisma on a national stage, not just a city. He's proven. O'Malley has run a crime ridden city with painfully bad schools.
Given a good job by Ehrlich, his personality and a robust, healthy Maryland economy, what's O'Malley's platform?
"Let me bring the drug violence to you!"
Without a big gun, O'Malley or Duncan, Steele wins the Senate seat and Ehrlich is likely to win re-election.
After his next term is up, Bob runs against and beats Mikulski!
PleaseLarry Gude said:
rayinghands:
MMDad
Lem Putt
vraiblonde said:
"The larger Democratic opposition to Judge Roberts represents a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092301541.html
I read this Saturday during a long wait for car service. I couldn't believe that this was in the Post!
Larry Gude said:
Wishful thinking at best. Ehrlich would have plenty to attack in either candidate's background as both Duncan and O'Malley can point to parts of Ehrlich's background. You gotta admit, even if it is right or wrong, that Maryland has a significant Democratic bent. You also have to admit that things are not looking too well for Republicans in the nation because of an anti-Bush backlash. Am I correct or am I not? 2002 is going to be completely different from 2006, and I really don't see Ehrlich getting out of this election with a victory...mark my words now, 2006 will not be a good Republican year unless something DRASTIC happens. I say that either Duncan or O'Malley win, with Duncan having a tougher time because he won't push into Ehrlich's Baltimore base near as much as O'Malley.
Huntr1, you are wrong about O'Malley having lower name recognition. He is almost as well known as Ehrlich, has a higher profile position as Mayor of Baltimore than county executive, and has national recognition as a rising star in Democratic politics. No polls show that Duncan has more statewide recognition, so I don't see any evidence that can prove your claim.
You are not, and because of what MM said - the "anti-Bush backlash" is a media creation. Based on their stories and predictions, Bush should have lost in a landslide to Kerry.rraley said:
Notice that that didn't happen?
And anyone Bush supported should have lost as well.
That didn't happen either.
There is a very small, highly vocal minority fringe element that is calling for Bush's impeachment, and that's who you're hearing in the news. Bush may have low poll numbers, but a lot of those bad numbers are people like me who think he's being a puss, not Democrats who think he's Hitler. And people like me may not approve of Bush's policies, but we're definitely not going to vote for some Leftists loose screw.
Honestly, I don't know where you get your weird ideas sometimes. Do you get any other news than Air America?
vraiblonde said:
Ma'am, I have never listened to Air America. I get my news from a collection of sources that includes, but is not limited to, all three cable news networks, the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Weekly Standard.
I didn't see an overwhelming tide in the media that suggested that Kerry would win in a landslide. Most everyone was saying it would be close, would come down to several "showdown" states, and that, if anything, Bush had a slight lead (none of the major polling organizations had Kerry ahead before the election, though all were in the margin of error). This "anti-Bush" backlash right now is not some falsehood that is created by some terrible liberal media. If you look at polls, you will see this: Democrats remain as against Bush's job performance as ever, Independents are moving into the mid-50s in their opposition to Bush's performance, and Republicans are nowhere near as solidly behind Bush as they were before the election. Bush's job approval is in the low 40s, which is where it was for Clinton when the Democrats were swept from power in 1994. Newsweek says that 50% currently would vote for a Democrat for Congress while 38% would vote Republican (these generic polls do not necessarily mean large, overwhelming pickups for the party in the lead, but anything more than 5 points is usually seen as significant).
News stories regarding scandals involving the GOP in Ohio, Kentucky, Tom Delay, and Bill Frist do not help and neither does the Katrina aftermath. Whether you see all of this as right or wrong is not the emphasis of this discussion. This discussion is about objectively looking at the dynamics in polling and the public mood...right now the public mood is against the Bush Administration and it is only conventional wisdom to believe that this will lead to negative effects at the ballot box for the Administration's supporters in the next elections, especially in a solidly blue state like Maryland.
If you can't see this (you can believe that dynamics will change once your leader stops acting like a "puss") in the current political environment, you are not seeing clearly.
All we need is one terrorist attack on U.S. soil and the Republicans are a lock.
SmallTown
Football season!
vraiblonde said:
I don't recall seeing any "mainstream" news agencies writing as if Kerry would win in a landslide. Some may have been hopefull for a win, but that is about it. I think this is just a classic example of you spending so much time at the DU. You really need to step back, and take a breathe. They are not a media outlet
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I agree, and it bothers me for two reasons.2ndAmendment said:
One is, we've become a nation with intolerably short memories. In Russia, you still have people celebrating the winning of the Great War against the Nazis. In the Middle East, they're still fuming over the Crusades, and call Westerners Crusaders as an insult.
I can't explain it, but I attribute it somewhat to self-indulgence - but here, we began singing "Have You Forgotten?" a mere six months after 9/11. I remember feeling angry every day for months - and wanted to never let it subside. But there were those around me who'd "moved on" much earlier than me. They reminded me of the Eloi in HG Wells' "The Time Machine" - humans indifferent to the suffering of others who essentially became the 'cattle' of the Morlocks. While they lived lives of play and leisure, they were indifferent to the obvious fact that they were the prey of the Morlocks.
I just can't think of a better reason - we're too self-centered. Katrina is going to affect people for *years* - what're the chances that people will still be concerned, a year from now? Haven't we forgotten all about the tsunami from only LAST CHRISTMAS?
The other reason - is more ominous.
As much faith as I put in this administration - I can't help but suspect that SOMEONE has the gall to allow a few bad guys to slip in - JUST SO they can succeed with another terrorist effort - in order to re-galvanize the nation's resolve. Before anyone replies with "oh my God, how can you THINK such a thing?", bear in mind, there are those who think our complacency is *far* more dangerous than allowing such terrorism to take place. And I'm not totally sure I disagree with it. I find myself almost wishing someone would *try* - and fail - just so people will remember the battle ain't over.