babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

NDP Leadership 82

NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

;;


Comments

NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

There is obviously a systemic campaign to either minimize NDP coverage or attempt to discredit the NDP in the mainstream press.

http://www.straight.com/article-593976/vancouver/stop-presses-new-poll-s...

This weekend, I expect the corporate media will have some fun ridiculing the federal NDP, thanks to a new poll by Ottawa-based Abacus Data.

The company, which has done a lot of work for the Quebecor chain (owners of Fox News North), has reported that 40 percent of Canadians don't know who is running for leader of the federal NDP.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I'm impressed that 60% of Canadians DO know who is running for NDP leader - that is more than the % of canadians who can name our head of state.


nicky
Online
Joined: Aug 3 2005

Returning to the issue of electability, I think the Abacus poll deserves more attention than it is getting. I am reposting below something I sent in late on the previous thread which met with scant discussion.

This is is first large poll (1000 sample) which deals solely with the NDP leadershio. The previous polls, mostly by Forum, used a small subset (about 300) of nationwide polls to get a read on the leadership race. Some discounted Forum for this reason. Abacus, however, can't be sloughed off so simply.

Anyway, in the hope of engendering some discussion here is what I posted last night:

 

 

The news reports on today's Abacus poll have focused on name recognition. Mulcair has a small lead in this category.

 

The more significant results are in the cross-tabs:

 

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01367/Abacus_Data_Poll_1367631a.pdf

 

When the public as a whole is asked which leader will make them most likely to vote NDP the results are:

 

Mulcair 21

Topp 10

Dewar 9

Nash 6

Saginash 2

Cullen 2

Ashton 2

Singh 1

 

Amongst NDP supporters the numbers are

 

M 30

T 16

D 11

N 11

Sag 1

C 4

A 2

Singh 1

 

Lest there be any doubt who is best to hold Quebec, the Quebec numbers are unequivocal:

 

M 62

T 8

D 2

N 0

Sag 1

C 0

A 0

Singh 1

 

I am not surprised at Mulcair's strength. The biggest suprise for me is Peggy Nash's poor showing.

 

Unfortunately Abacus did not ask simply "which leadership candidate do you favour?" But the other numbers make it pretty clear how that question would have been answered.


dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011

But do they know all of the candidates?

We should elect the best individual as leader, not the one with the most name recognition.

 

If only the media covered this like the american media covers the republimorons race...


dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011

Thanks for the link, there is something that should be quoted....

Quote:
Methodology
The survey was conducted online with 1,000 respondents in English and French using an internet survey platform. A random sample of panelists was invited to participate in the survey from a larger internet representative panel of 150,000 Canadians. The survey was completed from January 16 to 19, 2012.
Steps were taken to ensure that the survey respondents were representative of the population over 18 years of age. The sample distribution was balanced to match the distribution of actual census data for age, gender, education, and province. Moreover, statistical weighting was applied to the data after the completion of the survey for age, gender, education, region, and previous federal vote.
Since the online survey was not a random, probability based sample, a margin of error could not be calculated. The margin of error for a survey of 1,000 respondents using a probability sample is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.


nicky
Online
Joined: Aug 3 2005

I don't think we can keep using "name recognition " as an excuse much longer for discounting the polls.

Roughly 50% across the country were ablle to state a preference. Given that turnout in an election is only about 60%, that is reasonably high.

Secondly, name reconition in Quebec was about 75%, much higher than the rest of the country, so the Quebec figures are not so subject to this consideration.


NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

What would it take to get the candidates to talk about a "made-in-Canada" defence plan? What they say would be a big voting issue for me.


nicky
Online
Joined: Aug 3 2005
A REMINDER The Toronto Mulcair campaign is hosting a debate watching party Sunday starting at 12:30 The Windmills 303 Augusta Ave (just south of College)Toronto Everyone welcome regardless of leadership preference

KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Howard wrote:

What would it take to get the candidates to talk about a "made-in-Canada" defence plan? What they say would be a big voting issue for me.

With intra-party voting, the perfect way to make lots of enemies, and swing few votes. So its one of the things you are least likely to hear about.

Ot, to put it another way. An issue on which it is virtually guaranteed that none will say anything different than the party policy/positioning. So why bother in a leadership race?


NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008
DaveW
Online
Joined: Dec 24 2008

NorthReport wrote:

There is obviously a systemic campaign to either minimize NDP coverage or attempt to discredit the NDP in the mainstream press.

The chances of orchestrating the Canadian media in any such "campaign" = herding cats.

The race is by most accounts pretty quiet, and the candidates do not have a single big-issue lightning-rod, ie the economy, Quebec, to draw sparks and attention. They basically agree on major policy.

Contrast that with the no-punches-pulled brawl the US Republicans have been having, loaded with loud policy differences and personal attacks. Now THAT draws media attention.

 


NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

I know it's just a coincidence, eh. LOL

DaveW wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

There is obviously a systemic campaign to either minimize NDP coverage or attempt to discredit the NDP in the mainstream press.

The chances of orchestrating the Canadian media in any such "campaign" = herding cats.

The race is by most accounts pretty quiet, and the candidates do not have a single big-issue lightning-rod, ie the economy, Quebec, to draw sparks and attention. They basically agree on major policy.

Contrast that with the no-punches-pulled brawl the US Republicans have been having, loaded with loud policy differences and personal attacks. Now THAT draws media attention.

 


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

KenS wrote:

Howard wrote:

What would it take to get the candidates to talk about a "made-in-Canada" defence plan? What they say would be a big voting issue for me.

With intra-party voting, the perfect way to make lots of enemies, and swing few votes. So its one of the things you are least likely to hear about.

Ot, to put it another way. An issue on which it is virtually guaranteed that none will say anything different than the party policy/positioning. So why bother in a leadership race?

Because it's an issue that a lot of NDPers care about and if I wanted to support a party for political cowards I'd join the Liberals.


writer
Offline
Joined: Apr 11 2002

Quote:

Distinct from defence of a nation and its territory or citizens, belligerence without the legal and moral authority of a United Nations resolution can only divide peoples and inflame passions against the aggressors.

Like its cousin colonialism, aggression will never lead to a better result. As a fundamentally destabilizing force, it cannot contribute to greater peace in the world over the longer term. We must rise above knee-jerk reactionary emotion and understand the longer-term objectives that will serve us all.

International Policy, Romeo Saganash


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001


In the discussion of contributions by candidates to the party, Wilf was musing about their contributions to their campaigns and riding associations.

I picked what admittedly are probably the two polar opposites: Mulcair and Ashton.

In his 2007 by-election Mulcair contributed 1,060. To the 2008 and 2011 campaigns: zero. To the Outremont Riding Association over the course of 4 years: 1,281 from himself and Catherine Mulcair.

Ashton also has three campaigns, included the one she did not win in 2006.

To the 3 campaigns: 5,600 from herself and 1,100 from obvious family member. To the Churchill Riding association: $10,700 for certain from herself and obvious immediate family members.

The Ashton campaigns also raised 80% more than the Mulcair campaigns. And the Churchill Riding Association raised an impressive $29,000 over the 4 years from a LOT of contributors.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

It's a combination of reasons we haven't received a lot of media coverage.

The first is that they just generally ignore us, and they're used to covering the Liberal-Conservative battles.

The second is the race IS kind of boring. I certainly wouldn't have much news to tell to my less politically engaged friends.

The third is the media looks for high-profile conflict. You can see it by how much they tried to inflate Topp's accusation of centrism at Mulcair, or the battle over reinstating affiliated members, or pretty much any lame scandal (Topp's loans from credit unions, Mulcair's passport)... And our party doesn't really do inner conflict, unless a few communists try to do something stupid.

In the end, the lack of media coverage is a good thing.

Before the "Orange Wave" I was checking for NDP coverage every single day. There were virtually no stories, except (perhaps ironically) a few stories about Jack Layton's health, and (sadly unironically) the media asking why Jack Layton was having such a hard time getting the media to stop focusing on his health.

The Orange Wave happened because we circumvented the media, both from the top-down and the bottom-up. Jack had his big performance on TLMEP and was the best (or the least unlikeable) performer at the debate. Meanwhile, we were naturally getting a second look from people frustrated with the supposedly two-party system, and we were directly engaging with sympathetic voters (a lot of it online).

I'm perfectly happy if the media ignores us, because it gives us an opening to define ourselves. Ignoring the leadership race also allows our next leader to define themselves.

Of course, this is both an opportunity and a risk. Which is why I'm watching so carefully for good communication/presentation/vision... not just the best resume/biography/policy (which are all important too).


NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Great comments by Saganash on defence policy - thanks writer


duncan cameron
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

In trying to make a point about how well Romeo Saganash speaks French, despite it not being his mother tongue, i said he had native fluency in French. This was taken by Wilf Day to mean I should have written native like fluency. I don' think so. Native like fluency is not the same thing, Another babbler with expertise in the area indicated that there was a difference.

I found the definition below of a natiive speaker here: http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa072701c.htm

By this defintion Romeo has more than native-like fluency. Native like fluency would be someone who learned a language later in life, speaks it very well, but does not pass as a native speaker. 

 

Someone who has spoken the language from at least the age of 5 (this age limit is subject to some debate: I've heard theories that a native speaker can have started learning the language as late as any time up to puberty). In theory, understands essentially everything in the language: all vocabulary, complicated grammatical structures, cultural references, and dialects. Has a native (i.e., invisible, "normal" in his/her region) accent.

 


Idealistic Prag...
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 2011

duncan cameron wrote:

By this defintion Romeo has more than native-like fluency. Native like fluency would be someone who learned a language later in life, speaks it very well, but does not pass as a native speaker.

No, Duncan. If you do not pass as a native speaker in a language, you do not have native-like fluency. If that's the case, you're just a good speaker. And passing as a native speaker of a language when you're not actually one is the very definition of the term native-like.

Seriously, that's the way the words are used in the field. Honest.

(None of which should be construed as saying anything about Romeo Saganash. I don't know how old he was when he learned French.)


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:
If you do not pass as a native speaker in a language, you do not have native-like fluency. If that's the case, you're just a good speaker. And passing as a native speaker of a language when you're not actually one is the very definition of the term native-like.

Seriously, that's the way the words are used in the field. Honest.

She's a professor of language and linguistics. She knows.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:
"Native-like fluency" means that you're not actually a native speaker, but you are proficient enough that you are able to fool people into thinking you are.

In practice, of course, it's a distinction that only matters to linguists and psychologists.

And to those hiring or otherwise dealing with scarce French Immersion teachers. Such as those with Franco-Ontarian backgrounds who turn out not to be native French speakers, and perhaps not even quite native-like. So it may also matter to those trying to assess bilingualism among the contenders.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

Are you guys the pettiest people alive, or just bored?


duncan cameron
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

Romeo learned French as a child. This would explain his native fluency.

Idealistic Pragmatic are you now saying there is no difference between native-like,  and native? They are synomyms ? That does not make sense to me. Someone can be Canadian-like in their love of hockey, or French-like in their appreciation of wine, without being either. Why not be native like fluent in French without being a native speaker?

Or do you disagree with my idea that after a certain age, you only get to be "native-like" in fluency.

 


Idealistic Prag...
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 2011

duncan cameron wrote:

Romeo learned French as a child. This would explain his native fluency.

If he learned French as a (young) child, then he can certainly claim native fluency. He might not choose to do so, though, for identity reasons. (A friend of mine, for example, is Welsh. She grew up speaking both Welsh--her home language, and English--the language of the wider community. She insists, however, that she has only one native language, and I wouldn't dare try to tell her otherwise.)

duncan cameron wrote:

Idealistic Pragmatic are you now saying there is no difference between native-like,  and native? They are synomyms ?

I certainly didn't say that, or mean that. If you look back at what I've said in this thread, I think you'll find that I've been consistent about saying that 'native-like' means "speaking exactly like a native speaker without actually being one", while 'native' means "being an actual native speaker." That doesn't suggest synonomy.

What I said was that there isn't any difference in practical terms (other than to a linguist or a psychologist) because unless you're actually looking at data on the way languages are stored in some individual's brain, you're going to be unable to tell the difference between a native speaker and a native-like speaker of a language.


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

I'd say there's a certain window period in one's childhood where your capacity to suck up a language like a sponge and become totally fluent is fully intact. Once you surpass a certain age, new languages require a lot more work and don't always take root ("second" language learning). As far as I'm concerned, if you learn a language before that window expires and you reach complete fluency, you may as well be a native speaker.


nicky
Online
Joined: Aug 3 2005

"Mulcair refutes reports that he doesn't give to the NDP"

 

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/01/28/mulcair-denies-report-he-hasnt-donated-to-ndp/

 

The MSM got it slightly wrong. He gave $4871.22 over 4 years which is more or less the maximum.

 

Will there be a correction?

 

Am I the only one thinking the MSM doesn't want Mulcair to be leader?

 


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Mulcair spins hard on the contributions thing:

EXCLUSIVE: Mulcair refutes reports
that he doesn't give to the NDP

Quote:
NDP leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair lashed out Saturday at suggestions he hasn't contributed to the party's coffers over the years, pointing out he actually overcontributed to the New Democrats in 2011.

Mulcair said prior to 2011 he contributed to his own riding association or election campaigns because it was the only way to ensure that the money would remain in Quebec and be used to build NDP support in that province.

"We've given thousands of dollars to the party since I was elected in 2007," Mulcair said in an interview with iPolitics. "Prior to the breakthrough (in the May 2011 election), most of the money I would give was to the riding association for obvious reasons - we were cash poor in Quebec and whenever we did fundraising, it went to the federal party.

First and probably lesser point: he's not refuting he gave nothing for the years 2010 and earlier. That is what the artcile was about, because that is all the public definitive information available. At ant rate, we have one contribution in 4 years, belatedly made sometime after the launch of the leadership race.

"We've given thousands of dollars to the party since I was elected in 2007," Thousands as in 2 ? [see post16 above]

When all the other MPs have given more to their own campaigns as well as max contributions to the party.

And crying cash poor for Outremont, give me break.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

The MSM hates the party. That means that they sometimes cheer for Mulcair because they think he represents a move to the center (even though he hasn't proposed as such), compared to the other candidates (Topp, Nash) who have been NDP rank-and-file members. It also means that they sometimes crush Mulcair, because no matter who we pick, they want them to lose.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

nicky wrote:

"Mulcair refutes reports that he doesn't give to the NDP"

 

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/01/28/mulcair-denies-report-he-hasnt-donated-to-ndp/

 

The MSM got it slightly wrong. He gave $4871.22 over 4 years which is more or less the maximum.

Thats up dated info from when I saw the article.

But its still hard spinning, at best.

That figure cobbbles together everything including non-monetary contributions to his campaign, and 2011 contributions, which were not reported for any of the candidates in the original article.

[And the max that could be given to all those campaigns and the party over 4 years would be something in excess of $15,000.]

[As this being the MSM after Mulcair. Glen MacGregor? Hardly. Glen is the consumate election financing nerd. Because he knows how to do it, he knows he could pull a comparison in about half an hour. Story done.]


dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011

Looking at Brian Topp's twitter and the explanation he gives, we can see that this is really a nonissue. People have donated their time to the NDP and I'm sure Mulcair donated his time and money in different ways. Mulcair was a deputy leader and in charge of QC, so he did travel alot and he did put in alot of effort.

 

Of all the things we could be debating, I think this issue is minor.

 

But there is one thing that should be stated, no matter how brutal and intrusive it is. All the candidates, so we avoid suprises/scandals later, should release their personal financial data like how they paid taxes and where they've been donating. Its better that the candidates get over this now before we are suprised later by any minor errors which the cons will spin out of control. Sweden's social democratic leader was destroyed by such scandals, even if they were small mistakes...


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments