It is altogether possible that Governor Martin O’Malley –
Hillary or no Hillary - will receive a good look from Democratic activists in
the early states, most notably Iowa and New Hampshire.
Far from being a Celtic rock Dukakis, he has both a record
of accomplishments and, importantly, a personality that could appeal to
Democrats of varying ideological stripes.
This is important because, since 1976, the Democratic Party has tended
to nominate candidates who are, at the very least, acceptable to the
progressive and moderate constituencies who dominate the action in the
presidential primaries and caucuses.
Looking at the recent Democratic nominees who went on to
become President:
1) In 1976, then-Governor Jimmy Carter cobbled together a
coalition that included many liberal voters (who might have otherwise voted for
Mo Udall or Fred Harris, to name a couple of the more prominent progressives in
the field) as well as a number of moderate and conservative Democrats, despite
the candidacies of the hawkish New Dealer Scoop Jackson and Governor George
Wallace, among others.
2) In 1992, then-Governor Bill Clinton welded together a
campaign narrative that highlighted progressive solutions while using populist,
and at times rather conservative, rhetoric.
With Brown firmly positioned on the left and Tsongas pushing a message
of fiscal responsibility…and aided by the lack of serious alternatives (No
Cuomo, No Nunn, No Gore, no Gephardt, No Jackson, etc…), Clinton crafted a winning
coalition that was in a commanding position by March 17 (the date of the
Illinois and Michigan primaries) and was on a virtual glide path to the
nomination by April 28 (the day of the Pennsylvania primary).
3) Senator John Edwards, on paper, was best equipped to
occupy this space going into the 2008 cycle.
However, Mr. “Two Americas” never quite got on-track. Crushed between the Clinton machine (which
was running closer to the political center) and the Obama movement (a
conventionally left-of-center effort), he suspended his 2008 campaign by the
end of January. The progressive/populist
energy that might have fueled an Edwards candidacy was largely absorbed by then-Senator Obama, whose positioning (and superior understanding of the Democratic
delegate selection process) enabled him to defeat Senator Clinton and secure
the nomination.
So what is my point?
It is simply this:
1) If Hillary runs, voters in the early caucus and primary
states are still going to consider alternatives. Manchin is too conservative and Sanders is
too liberal. That leaves two possible
Clinton alternatives in the “sweet spot”
– former Senator Webb and O’Malley. And
Webb is out there already. Of course the
entry of a Biden (unlikely if Hillary runs) or Warren (a possible game-changer)
could disrupt this equation.
2) If Hillary doesn’t run, the floodgates will open and
there will be multiple candidates rushing to fill the progressive/populist (but
with centrist appeal) void. O’Malley will be one of many such aspirants.
So O’Malley, by saying that he is “very seriously considering
running in 2016” (a statement equally true if he uttered it in 2009) but also
indicating that he will decide in the spring, is putting himself in a position
where he will more likely be reacting to events, rather than shaping the world
around him. Which doesn’t seem very
Presidential, if you ask this author.
In short, he should be viewed as ramping up his efforts,
rather than adopting what feels like a “let’s-wait-and-see” approach. I know he says that Clinton’s decision will
not impact his choice…but it sure seems like it.
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
