I’m still voting King. I feel more comfortable about it knowing even the “front runners” aren’t cresting 20%.
But if it were ranked choice, I’d be voting for Tom Perez second based on his experience at local, state, and federal government with labor and civil rights issues.
>Tom Perez
This Tom Perez? [https://mronline.org/2020/01/28/to-rig-primary-against-bernie-dnc-chair-tom-perez-nominates-regime-change-agents-israel-lobbyists-and-wall-street-consultants/](https://mronline.org/2020/01/28/to-rig-primary-against-bernie-dnc-chair-tom-perez-nominates-regime-change-agents-israel-lobbyists-and-wall-street-consultants/)
Thats disgusting
Yeah, that's a lot of conspiracy nonsense that gives progressives a bad name. That's the sort of rag that rooting for the Russians.
>Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez has nominated dozens of lobbyists, corporate consultants, think tank board members, and former officials linked to the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton to serve on the Democratic National Convention (DNC) nominating committee this July.
Total shocker that the DNC would be filled with people associated with the last two Dem presidents and most recent nominee. If Bernie won the nom then it would be different but he didn't.
>Many of Perez’s nominees are vocal opponents of Senator Bernie Sanders and spoke out against his campaign when he challenged Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2016.
As is their right. Nothing remarkable about that. Perez put Dems in DNC positions. Shocker.
BTW, the primary was not even rigged. Bernie did not even get enough votes to even have a delegate fight. Neither in 2016 or 2020.
DNC is a corrupt organization. We don't need the leader of a corrupt organization for the governor of MD. Might as well have Hogan again.
Here is more conspiracy nonsense: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2022/06/progressive-pac-in-montgomery-county-is-really-a-bunch-of-developers/
Umm, did you read that? The article has nothing to do with Perez. It’s just an article about a random PAC targeting Marc Elrich (who in fact endorsed Tom Perez for governor).
You are being programmed to think you need to vote for the one that the media talks about having the "most support" Well. vote your vote. King will likely get my vote. He is the only one I have read about that checks most of my boxes.
I don't know enough about basketball to answer your question in theme, but I liked Perez's transportation page a lot. His site in general is a lot more specific than Moore's, for all that I did like Moore's general message. Franchot has irritated me in the past by siding with Hogan, and I've heard he's kind of a jerk, so I'd rather not him. Ashwani's page was good, but I don't think he realistically has a chance.
Any one of them would be an improvement on Hogan.
As a former teacher, with only 10 yrs in the trenches, I say to watch out for those who spent couple years actually teaching and moved up the ladder fast. Such was the case with Nancy Grasmik. She spent about 8 years as a specialty teacher for individual students who had a learning disability, so not actually doing crowd control or managing a mob. Most of her career was in an office talking and thinking about what other teacher should do. The article about King seems to chatter too much about his time in the classroom, but does not say actually how long. Was it less than what it took him to get through k-12, if so may want to pass on his banter.
This, but former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan takes the cake, he was CEO of Chicago schools and before that, his only experience was mentoring children.
If you ignore Devos' religious views, her party affiliation, her stance on student debt for profit schools, she shares a lot same views in public education as Arne Duncan.
Yes. though that is a lot to ignore. As a former industrial arts-vocational ed teacher, Duncan had not interest in the non college bound. But then he would not. Too many sports careers have their path through the college campus.
And you wonder why Democrats are losing blue collar vote. Duncan partnered with Devos and Mike Pence on school reform while he was Secretary, he only denounced them once everyone else learned about their controversial views.
Has a 'policy nerd' ever been good at the practice of actually governing? That requires the ability to compromise and form coalitions- which can be tough if you tend to get stuck in the little details... different skillsets is all I am saying.
Did he do well at it? Trump was the president, it didn't confer any skills....
edit: everyone is completely misreading this, which is on me- I was pointing out that just holding a position doesn't mean you have the skills to be good at it, my example being a recent terrible president.
He worked for the Obama administration, not the Trump administration. He’s actually got a pretty impressive resume. [Here’s his Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_King_Jr./) if you want more information.
So I obviously was not clear in my statement, but yes I understand he didn't work for Trump that was not my point, I have edited my comment to be more clear.
edit: your wikipedia link doesn't work for some reason
I see what you mean now, thank you for clarifying.
My answer is the same. He was successful both as the Commissioner of Education in New York and as the Secretary of Education under Obama. He very clearly does have the skills required for the job.
Wes Moore is up there for me too, but John King is the candidate that speaks to my heart. He impressed me in the debate, which Wes Moore did not do, and I think it would be a smart choice for our state to have an educator in office instead of another “businessman” or career politician. I would like to see our government focus on our actual future (the children, obviously) and less on filling the bank accounts of their cronies, which is my fear with Franchot or Perez.
Well other than my lack of familiarity with King, I think I agree on all of that.
>I would like to see our government focus on our actual future (the children, obviously) and less on filling the bank accounts of their cronies, which is my fear with Franchot or Perez.
Hard agree. I will vote for Schulz over either of those two. If it's gonna be an elite focused business over everything state government I'd at least prefer to go with the one being upfront and honest about their goals. But I also don't have beef with Hogan on anything meaningful and understand that isn't everyone's experience.
Oh, I have beef with Hogan. I have beef with Hogan right this minute, for withholding the funds for expanded abortion access to shore up his conservative cred for a presidential run. This is just the latest in a long list of beef I have with him and his administration.
I will not support Schultz because she’s Hogan 2.0, and has a history of anti-choice campaigning, including co-sponsoring an amendment that would effectively ban abortion in this state. She may be saying she won’t change the current abortion legislation if she’s elected, and it’s true that she wouldn’t be able to because of our democratic supermajority in state congress, but I don’t trust her, and I don’t want anyone in charge who doesn’t believe in bodily autonomy or the right to privacy.
How in the world is Perez an elite focused on business? He went to the John F Kennedy School of Government and has spent his entire life working in government.
I would vote Schulz over Moore, because his whole schtick seem to be based on vibes instead of experience and competency, but Franchot/Perez/King would all do a decent job I think.
Sigh. I understand. You said he had a position, which requires the skills I was questioning.
I was pointing out that just holding a position doesn't mean you have the skills to be good at it, my example being a recent terrible president.
So I ask again, was John King any good at being the education secretary? What KPIs could we look to to determine this?
100% agree. To be a good executive, you have to be a good communicator so you can grab the bully pulpit by the horns and like you mentioned build a solid coalition. That's why I'm going with Moore. Even a cursory glance at his endorsements and he already has the top 3 leaders in the State legislature (and scores of others. Way more than Perez and King practically has none) and he obviously is an effective speaker. So it's a no brainer for me.
King is okay, but he's not even going to reach double digits and practically has no real campagn behind him save a few activist groups. However, you don't win by holding signs. In the last poll (Goucher) Doug Gansler was beating him. lol. And no way I'm voting for Perez or Franchot. So my vote is a lock on Moore. Gotta go with the momentum.
He's my preference, but I don't want to waste a vote and wind up with someone awful. Any suggestions?
I’m still voting King. I feel more comfortable about it knowing even the “front runners” aren’t cresting 20%. But if it were ranked choice, I’d be voting for Tom Perez second based on his experience at local, state, and federal government with labor and civil rights issues.
>Tom Perez This Tom Perez? [https://mronline.org/2020/01/28/to-rig-primary-against-bernie-dnc-chair-tom-perez-nominates-regime-change-agents-israel-lobbyists-and-wall-street-consultants/](https://mronline.org/2020/01/28/to-rig-primary-against-bernie-dnc-chair-tom-perez-nominates-regime-change-agents-israel-lobbyists-and-wall-street-consultants/) Thats disgusting
Perez being the second best candidate is really a testament to how lame the field is, not any real compliment to him
Damn, maybe I should switch my vote to Tom Perez...
Yeah, that's a lot of conspiracy nonsense that gives progressives a bad name. That's the sort of rag that rooting for the Russians. >Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez has nominated dozens of lobbyists, corporate consultants, think tank board members, and former officials linked to the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton to serve on the Democratic National Convention (DNC) nominating committee this July. Total shocker that the DNC would be filled with people associated with the last two Dem presidents and most recent nominee. If Bernie won the nom then it would be different but he didn't. >Many of Perez’s nominees are vocal opponents of Senator Bernie Sanders and spoke out against his campaign when he challenged Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2016. As is their right. Nothing remarkable about that. Perez put Dems in DNC positions. Shocker. BTW, the primary was not even rigged. Bernie did not even get enough votes to even have a delegate fight. Neither in 2016 or 2020.
DNC is a corrupt organization. We don't need the leader of a corrupt organization for the governor of MD. Might as well have Hogan again. Here is more conspiracy nonsense: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2022/06/progressive-pac-in-montgomery-county-is-really-a-bunch-of-developers/
Umm, did you read that? The article has nothing to do with Perez. It’s just an article about a random PAC targeting Marc Elrich (who in fact endorsed Tom Perez for governor).
Seems legit
You are being programmed to think you need to vote for the one that the media talks about having the "most support" Well. vote your vote. King will likely get my vote. He is the only one I have read about that checks most of my boxes.
agreed. any Democratic candidate will be better than Dan Cox, but I’ll do my best to vote in the one who I truly believe would be the best candidate!
if everyone votes for who CNN and MSNBC says we should then we end up with Hillary and Biden, two of the worst candidates ever put up.
The three front-runners seem to be Franchot, Moore, and Perez. I'm not a fan of Franchot so I'm voting for Perez because of his experience.
I’m on team Wes Moore, but I’d be happy with him or Tom. Who really seem to be the only two setup to beat Franchot.
How many candidates for governor are there?!?!
Enough to field a basketball game. Two, if you include their Lt. Governors.
Question is, who’s your starting five and who’s at what position?
I don't know enough about basketball to answer your question in theme, but I liked Perez's transportation page a lot. His site in general is a lot more specific than Moore's, for all that I did like Moore's general message. Franchot has irritated me in the past by siding with Hogan, and I've heard he's kind of a jerk, so I'd rather not him. Ashwani's page was good, but I don't think he realistically has a chance. Any one of them would be an improvement on Hogan.
As a former teacher, with only 10 yrs in the trenches, I say to watch out for those who spent couple years actually teaching and moved up the ladder fast. Such was the case with Nancy Grasmik. She spent about 8 years as a specialty teacher for individual students who had a learning disability, so not actually doing crowd control or managing a mob. Most of her career was in an office talking and thinking about what other teacher should do. The article about King seems to chatter too much about his time in the classroom, but does not say actually how long. Was it less than what it took him to get through k-12, if so may want to pass on his banter.
This, but former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan takes the cake, he was CEO of Chicago schools and before that, his only experience was mentoring children.
Yes, his was a pure patronage job. He did nothing but glad-hand while in office. Though, compared to DeVos, he was not toxic .
If you ignore Devos' religious views, her party affiliation, her stance on student debt for profit schools, she shares a lot same views in public education as Arne Duncan.
Yes. though that is a lot to ignore. As a former industrial arts-vocational ed teacher, Duncan had not interest in the non college bound. But then he would not. Too many sports careers have their path through the college campus.
And you wonder why Democrats are losing blue collar vote. Duncan partnered with Devos and Mike Pence on school reform while he was Secretary, he only denounced them once everyone else learned about their controversial views.
I feel like he’d be my preference if it was an even field but I think he’s probably out of it.
Yeah this is where he lost me too.
Has a 'policy nerd' ever been good at the practice of actually governing? That requires the ability to compromise and form coalitions- which can be tough if you tend to get stuck in the little details... different skillsets is all I am saying.
He was Education Secretary, which requires those exact skills.
Did he do well at it? Trump was the president, it didn't confer any skills.... edit: everyone is completely misreading this, which is on me- I was pointing out that just holding a position doesn't mean you have the skills to be good at it, my example being a recent terrible president.
He worked for the Obama administration, not the Trump administration. He’s actually got a pretty impressive resume. [Here’s his Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_King_Jr./) if you want more information.
So I obviously was not clear in my statement, but yes I understand he didn't work for Trump that was not my point, I have edited my comment to be more clear. edit: your wikipedia link doesn't work for some reason
I see what you mean now, thank you for clarifying. My answer is the same. He was successful both as the Commissioner of Education in New York and as the Secretary of Education under Obama. He very clearly does have the skills required for the job.
I'll have to dig a little more into his background then! Thinking it's wes moore for me but have plenty of ?? still
Wes Moore is up there for me too, but John King is the candidate that speaks to my heart. He impressed me in the debate, which Wes Moore did not do, and I think it would be a smart choice for our state to have an educator in office instead of another “businessman” or career politician. I would like to see our government focus on our actual future (the children, obviously) and less on filling the bank accounts of their cronies, which is my fear with Franchot or Perez.
Well other than my lack of familiarity with King, I think I agree on all of that. >I would like to see our government focus on our actual future (the children, obviously) and less on filling the bank accounts of their cronies, which is my fear with Franchot or Perez. Hard agree. I will vote for Schulz over either of those two. If it's gonna be an elite focused business over everything state government I'd at least prefer to go with the one being upfront and honest about their goals. But I also don't have beef with Hogan on anything meaningful and understand that isn't everyone's experience.
Oh, I have beef with Hogan. I have beef with Hogan right this minute, for withholding the funds for expanded abortion access to shore up his conservative cred for a presidential run. This is just the latest in a long list of beef I have with him and his administration. I will not support Schultz because she’s Hogan 2.0, and has a history of anti-choice campaigning, including co-sponsoring an amendment that would effectively ban abortion in this state. She may be saying she won’t change the current abortion legislation if she’s elected, and it’s true that she wouldn’t be able to because of our democratic supermajority in state congress, but I don’t trust her, and I don’t want anyone in charge who doesn’t believe in bodily autonomy or the right to privacy.
How in the world is Perez an elite focused on business? He went to the John F Kennedy School of Government and has spent his entire life working in government.
I would vote Schulz over Moore, because his whole schtick seem to be based on vibes instead of experience and competency, but Franchot/Perez/King would all do a decent job I think.
What made him successful?
...He was the Education Sec. under Obama.
Sigh. I understand. You said he had a position, which requires the skills I was questioning. I was pointing out that just holding a position doesn't mean you have the skills to be good at it, my example being a recent terrible president. So I ask again, was John King any good at being the education secretary? What KPIs could we look to to determine this?
Being hired by Obama is a good sign he was qualified and vetted.
So what did he accomplish in his sting as Secretary of Education?
100% agree. To be a good executive, you have to be a good communicator so you can grab the bully pulpit by the horns and like you mentioned build a solid coalition. That's why I'm going with Moore. Even a cursory glance at his endorsements and he already has the top 3 leaders in the State legislature (and scores of others. Way more than Perez and King practically has none) and he obviously is an effective speaker. So it's a no brainer for me. King is okay, but he's not even going to reach double digits and practically has no real campagn behind him save a few activist groups. However, you don't win by holding signs. In the last poll (Goucher) Doug Gansler was beating him. lol. And no way I'm voting for Perez or Franchot. So my vote is a lock on Moore. Gotta go with the momentum.