Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? #5
February 17, 2012 - 12:51pm
;;
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Just over a month away so the next few weeks are going to be incredibly exciting as we approach V-Day on March 24th.
So at this point in time, a bit of a change and my first three choices for Leader surprisingly are:
1 - Ashton
2 - Mulcair
3 - Topp
ah, didn't see this new thread. to repeat:
1) mulcair
2) topp
3) nash
4) ashton
1. Mulcair - Because of Quebec and his performance in the House
2. Topp - Second-most likely to connect with Quebec
3. Nash - Strong progressive record, solid French
4. Ashton - Positive messaging, intelligent, strong French
No one else remains in consideration for me.
1) Dewar
2) Cullen
3) Nash
4) Mulcair
5) Topp
Good luck to all the candidates!
Now that American Idol is down to its top 40, well 42 I guess actually, I'm getting closer to having a favourite, although there are a few I really like. Oh wait wrong site. Sorry
Now that American Idol is down to its top 40, well 42 I guess actually, I'm getting closer to having a favourite, although there are a few I really like. Oh wait wrong site. Sorry
If the candiates start singing I joining another party;p
Babble Declared Preferences: Final Ballot Mulcair 27, Nash 14, Cullen 10
1st Ballot: Mulcair 24, Nash 9, Cullen 8, Topp 5, Ashton 4, Dewar 2, Singh 2.
2nd Ballot: Mulcair 25, Nash 9, Cullen 9, Topp 6, Ashton 4
3rd Ballot: Mulcair 26, Nash 11, Cullen 9, Topp 7
*First run without Saganash, (does anyone know if his name will be on the ballots that go out in March?) Unionist, laine lowe, stevebrown, peterjcassidy, and GOD had no secondary preferences listed after Romeo, everyone else's list was just shifted over. CanadaApple's vote was removed because he professed to be truly undecided between Topp/Mulcair and I can't ballot that.
Duplicate
for me -
1) Ashton
2) Cullen
3) Dewar
4) Mulcair
Now that American Idol is down to its top 40, well 42 I guess actually, I'm getting closer to having a favourite, although there are a few I really like. Oh wait wrong site. Sorry
It may be off topic, but isn't it true that Jack used his singing and piano playing to charm the press on all those long campiagn tours? So maybe we should have an "NDP Idol" audition to determine the candidate best prepared to entertain the press and make guest appearances on Entertainment Tonight?
Saganash was my top candidate, though I'd be happy with either Mulcair or Nash. There's something intabgible about Mulcair that strikes me as effective as leader and in the house and in person, though I personally love Peggy Nash.
Beyond that for me the stack up:
Topp (some interesting ideas, good French, but I get a sense of entitlement, doesn't strike me as leadership electable)
Ashton (I want to like her but find her grating, not leadership electable, well spoken but when I hear her I turn off the sound)
Singh (not serious)
Dewar (not serious)
Cullen (as an individual he's tops, would be my third preference as leader if not for disastrous candidate-co-ordination policy which would hand Cons majorities for the next two decades)
So I just joined the NDP two days ago! I've been lurking on the babble threads here for the last while and, as of this moment, my vote will be going to:
1. Nathan Cullen
2. Tom Mulcair
Or possibly vice versa.
I think Mulcair is the best leader for the party if it wants to form government. I actually think he's the only candidate who can lead the NDP to government in the next election.
I like that Cullen brought forth a controversial plan (regardless of what I think of it), was attacked/criticized by every other candidate and many grassroots NDP supporters for it, but continued to advocate for and defend his plan. Many times, politicians immediately back track on things like that. They don't have the guts to stick by their principles so I was impressed that he did.
Romeo Saganash was my other fave and would have been ranked had he stayed in.
I can't wait to see who wins!
Watched 2 debates (Ottawa and Quebec City) and here is my list for now:
1. Mulcair (best opponent to Harper in a debate or in the House, knows his files, best chance to form the government)
2. Nash (not firm yet, looks good on paper but haven't been impressed by her performance in debates)
3. Ashton (moved up a lot, impressed by her energy during debates)
4. Either Topp or Cullen (not too sure yet, will need to watch the debate in Montreal before. Topp has better French but Cullen is more likeable.)
6. Either Dewar or Singh
I've decided to only rank four of the candidates:
1. Mulcair
2. Ashton
3. Cullen
4. Nash
Ashton and Cullen have moved steadily up for me, Nash down. The rest won't rank as I don't want to see any of them leader under any circumstances...
1. Mulcair - Because of Quebec and his performance in the House
2. Topp - Second-most likely to connect with Quebec
3. Nash - Strong progressive record, solid French
4. Ashton - Positive messaging, intelligent, strong French
No one else remains in consideration for me.
A small revision: because of the Topp campaign's misrepsentations and general nastiness, and what an untested leader's protracted absence from the House would mean, I'm bumping him to third, and raising Nash to second.
The close we get to the day, the less firm I've become in what was once a pretty firm ranking. I'll be the guy at the convention you don't want to be in the lineup behind at the voting booth.
My top 3 in alphabetical order are Mulcair, Nash and Topp. I haven't decided on their relative order yet.
1. Mulcair (might bump up Ashton because I didn't see her winning)
2. Ashton
3. Cullen
4. Nash
5. Singh
6. Brian Topp
7. Paul Dewar
You may have noticed Brian Topp dropping on my list and that is a side effect of his massively broken promise of not going negative. Mixing it up was fine, lying about your rivals is not.
Mine are:
I saw Cullen's recently released tax proposal, and I liked it, so he's moved up (in spite of his ridiculous open nomination proposal). Mulcair's tax proposal was pragmatic but too vague for me. Topp's is the most thoroughly laid out. Nash is very competent, and has very good knowledge of running an economy efficiently from a left wing egalitarian perspective. I had previously put Singh on my list because I like his focus on pharmacare, but realistically I don't think he's leadership material at this point. The four I've listed are.
When has Topp personally "lied" about his rivals? I have heard him criticize Dewar for his inability to communicate effectively in French. I suppose some may debate just how bad his French is, but it is certainly not a "lie" to say that. He has also criticized Mulcair for wanting to move the party to the centre. OK, its true that Mulcair has not explicitly said "I want to move the NDP to the centre" and has instead said "I want to move the centre to us", but it is fair to say that the broad themes of Topp's campiagn with his emphasis on income inequality and more progressive taxation sounds more "left" to my ears than the themes that Mulcair is stressing. I don't think Top is "lying" by saying he thinks Mulcair is more centrist than he is...he is expressing his opinion. Nothing wrong with that. I agree that saying Saganash could not speak French was totallly untrue, but I think its been clearly established that this was an isolated incident with one rogue volunteer.
Frankly, I thought the e-mail from Dewar's campaign with the veiled implication that if anyone other than Dewar was elected leader, there would be some sort of "purge" at party HQ to be much more negative than what I've heard from Topp.
I think candidates can and should contrast themselves with one another - that's part of the process, as long as it doesn't veer into ad hominem personal attacks.
Actually, I don't know if what people suggest as "hearsay" is true. I would dislike if what is put up as "fact" is in fact "strategy" to discredit a candidate. I have had no bad calls with any of the candidate's teams and nor have those in my circle of NDP friends stated that either. Interesting about that....
Maybe its just Rogue callers, and I did not recieve them myself so maybe its an over reaction on my part, but I would like to see Topp distance himself from this conduct. Although I've seen zero evidence of Mulcair moving towards the centre.
I don't think its a "lie" for someone to say that they think Mulcair is more of a "centrist" in the race. Its a matter of opinion. The media are certainly depicting him as wanting to move more to the centre - whether that is true or not.
Actually Brachina, he has already come onto this cite once and done so but more to the point, by doing so also than becomes an appearance that someone in his team is doing this. I just so find that hard to believe.
And incidently, he is the only candidate who has ever come to babble and actually engaged in conversation and thanked us for our support during campaigns. I also find it interesting that it was someone from the Mulcair camp who responded to my post and yet I did not mention any particular candidate or camp. Interesting that is.
I really hope that no candidate's camp of phoners or any individuals is purposefully misrepresenting themselves and pretending to be from another camp as a way to depress another candidates' support. That would be so unethical.
Topp has repeated a number of times that Mulcair has said he wants to move the party to the centre and purports to be quoting him verbatim. Would "mendacity" describe this blatant misquotation better for you Stockhom?
Topp has repeated a number of times that Mulcair has said he wants to move the party to the centre and purports to be quoting him verbatim. Would "mendacity" describe this blatant misquotation better for you Stockhom?
He keeps saying he's not planning on moving the party towards the centre many times, his platform supports this, and yet Brian Topp keeps saying this, that Tom is moving the party to the centre. What's his justificatian that Mulcair hasn't promised to increase income taxes, something Jack wouldn't offer?
1.] Topp
2.] Cullen
If neither is on the last ballot, there is little point me guessing now who would come next on March 24 if I have to go there. I'll change my mind by then even if nothing new were to come up.
1.] Topp
2.] Cullen
If neither is on the last ballot, there is little point me guessing now who would come next on March 24 if I have to go there. I'll change my mind by then even if nothing new were to come up.
Feel free not to answer, but do you like Cullen in part because of the charisma factor? I am getting that impression from some of the NDPers I've talked to.
Actually, I don't know if what people suggest as "hearsay" is true. I would dislike if what is put up as "fact" is in fact "strategy" to discredit a candidate. I have had no bad calls with any of the candidate's teams and nor have those in my circle of NDP friends stated that either. Interesting about that....
Me either, although I have only been called by Topp's and Mulcair's teams. The guy from Topp's camp was very friendly when I said I was supporting Mulcair. He asked me why and then aked if brian could have my second-ballot support.
My dad's call with Topp's team was a little less friendly - the caller engaged my dad in a bit of argument about whether Mulcair was left enough for the NDP.
I think it comes down to the caller.
When Romeo dropped out I really only had one choice. And much as I obviously do not trust Mulcair, and Peggy was an early top choice for me, if it comes down t those two, I'm not sure what I'll do.
Having another choice doesnt solve that particular conundrum. But really only having one I guess made me uneasy. Which got me to thinking more.
I've always known that Nathan is a sharp and attentive cookie. I worked with him a bit when he was the Environment Critic and the NDP's climate change policy was being pretty rigorously developed. He was still a fairly new MP then.
Things he has done and said in the leadership race made me really wonder. It was his defence of his knuckle-bran plan as much as the proposing it. It made me wonder about his political judgement.
His personability and ability to connect and complete comfort on stage was a complete surprise. I only knew him as a fairly intense policy wonk and very astute political animal. Quite aside from not liking Mulcair's politics, I'm not the kind to be enaormed with the stuffed suit 'gravitas'. Its OK. It works. But its highly overated and does not at all work on everyone. [What any of them are like one on one is not very relevant in my opinion.] Anyway, I think Nathan's style will be much more effective with young people and women. I'm sure of that much.
But thats an assesment of him I came to when I still would not vote for him on any ballot. Period. "Political judgement is way too suspect." But since then I've decided he's really pretty saavy. Saavy enough that he'll have the sense to polish off his own rough edges. [And his bone head plan isnt going to be much of a challenge since it has little chance of going anywhere.] I still rate Topp easily in first, because I'm not 100% confident about Nathan on that score. But I think he is far ahead of all the rest, except Dewar... who is disqualified barring some amazing last minute miraculous performances in both languages.
I don't think its a "lie" for someone to say that they think Mulcair is more of a "centrist" in the race. Its a matter of opinion. The media are certainly depicting him as wanting to move more to the centre - whether that is true or not.
As josh pointed out in another thread: Every social democratic party that "renewed" itself over the past 20 years moved to the right. Mulcair says the NDP is the only social democratic party that hasn't "renewed."
I like Mulcair - you know, he's fought the right fights - experienced - knows the law...he's my front runner. Dewar and Topp are a close 2nd - I'm open minded about all the candidates - the one at the convention that gets my vote is the one that intellectually gives the most coherent and in my view, needed, dog and pony show. I want to hear about support for unions and the collective bargaining process, support for workers and worker rights, I want to hear that outsourcing has sucked for much of Canada and that corporate rapes like Nortel won't be happening on the Canadian landscape when our person is in office. I want to hear them defend the public health care system, OAS, CPP and other public institutions, and protect public funds generally. Most of all I don't want a centrist poseur - I prefer someone whose sentiments are clearly about the 99% and working people - left of centre and proud of it is best.
I don't think its a "lie" for someone to say that they think Mulcair is more of a "centrist" in the race. Its a matter of opinion. The media are certainly depicting him as wanting to move more to the centre - whether that is true or not.
As josh pointed out in another thread: Every social democratic party that "renewed" itself over the past 20 years moved to the right. Mulcair says the NDP is the only social democratic party that hasn't "renewed."
More evidence free character assassination. You don't think the Scandenvian parties have renewed themselves?
Look at the policies and ideas that Mulcair supports, it clear he's to ths left of most of the provincial NDP leaders, including including both Premiers.
He made it clear he was refering organizational and language. By hey don't let little things like the truth or facts get in the way of your evidence free conspiracy theory.
Evidence free? LP just gave you the evidence. From the horse's mouth.
Evidence free? LP just gave you the evidence. From the horse's mouth.
The only thing you guys ever get from Mulcair's mouth is that he once used the word "renew", which in itself has no centrist/conservative/rightist connotations until you imagine them there.
Renew is not all there was to it. It was tied to other social democratic parties. Since I am unaware of any social democratic party in the last 20 years that has "renewed" itself by moving left, the implication is clear. But the Mulcair supporters on here are determined to deny the obvious.
In positioning Jack Layton was a practicing centrist most of the time. But that qualifier at the end means everything. And Jack Layton didn't just mouth words about moving people towards us- in fact he never SAID it that I remember. He put the rubber on the road so it could happen.
Jack Layton knew where he wanted the NDP to go. And it was not only simplisticly to win more. One of the ways you would win more was by working away with a strategy to create and 'stretch' openings. Four big examples right off the top: actually WORK on a Quebec startegy even against the wishes of colleagues, Afghanistan, agrresive and politicaly smart climate change package, corporate taxes.
The last one was almost brilliant in an understated way. Looked like a no brainer for the NDP. But brilliant in its effects: not the substance of what was proposed, but an important start in breaking the evil charm of never talk of raising taxes. It is the credibility and political capital we got with that which Topp and Cullen are confident we can build on and win with.
Renew is not all there was to it. It was tied to other social democratic parties. Since I am unaware of any social democratic party in the last 20 years that has "renewed" itself by moving left, the implication is clear. But the Mulcair supporters on here are determined to deny the obvious.
Again show some evidence, show me some rightwing policies that Mulcair is supporting? Oh wait, got nothing? I thought so.
Mulcair supports such great right wing policies such as Childcare, Pharmacare, Healthcare, Peace Keeping (in the proper Lester sense of the word), fair trade, cap and trade, helping seniors, a fincial transaction tax, more money for tranportation, digital inforstructure, green tech, legal safe injections site, a much greater role for women in positions of power, and legalization of pot, and a focus on value added production, and the rebuilding of the manufacturing sector.
The truth is is that a Prime Minister Thomas Mulcair government would be the most radically left wing government, since the NDP backed Trudeu minority governments.
As for well over social democractic parties turned to the right,when they talked renewal, here's the thing about parties and renewal.
They have always talked about renewal, every single political party, from the beginining of political parties as a way to energize thier membership and recruit. All this long before third way. Thier is problem few less meaningful statements in politics. Its just shit politicians say. You read waaay to much into it.
Evidence free? LP just gave you the evidence. From the horse's mouth.
The only thing you guys ever get from Mulcair's mouth is that he once used the word "renew", which in itself has no centrist/conservative/rightist connotations until you imagine them there.
Exactly, on the other hand I have tons I can point to showing Mulcair as progressive left winger.
Evidence free? LP just gave you the evidence. From the horse's mouth.
The only thing you guys ever get from Mulcair's mouth is that he once used the word "renew", which in itself has no centrist/conservative/rightist connotations until you imagine them there.
Exactly, on the other hand I have tons I can point to showing Mulcair as progressive left winger.
yes can and it's where I want to go with the NDP. Thanks for writing it out. tah
In positioning Jack Layton was a practicing centrist most of the time. But that qualifier at the end means everything. And Jack Layton didn't just mouth words about moving people towards us- in fact he never SAID it that I remember. He put the rubber on the road so it could happen.
Jack Layton knew where he wanted the NDP to go. And it was not only simplisticly to win more. One of the ways you would win more was by working away with a strategy to create and 'stretch' openings. Four big examples right off the top: actually WORK on a Quebec startegy even against the wishes of colleagues, Afghanistan, agrresive and politicaly smart climate change package, corporate taxes.
The last one was almost brilliant in an understated way. Looked like a no brainer for the NDP. But brilliant in its effects: not the substance of what was proposed, but an important start in breaking the evil charm of never talk of raising taxes. It is the credibility and political capital we got with that which Topp and Cullen are confident we can build on and win with.
If the vote were held today, I'd vote for Topp. I suspect that's who I'll end up voting for in the first round during the convention (over the internet), but I guess I could change my mind again.
edit-wouldn't you know it, I've changed my mind again already. = P
Peggy Nash:
http://peggynash.ca/2012/vote/
If the vote were held today, I'd vote for Topp. I suspect that's who I'll end up voting for in the first round during the convention (over the internet), but I guess I could change my mind again.
edit-wouldn't you know it, I've changed my mind again already. = P
Welcome to the club. :P
Well I didn't change my mind and go Topp!
I remain conflicted. Mulcair has more negatives than any of the other candidates, but I don't see anyone else that can do really well in Quebec and take on Harper as well as Mulcair can (and lead the NDP to a win in 2015). Talk about compromise!
Victory for the NDP will not necessarily take us to the Promised Land. One just needs to remember Ontario.
Some down ticket movement for me:
1. Mulcair
2. Ashton
3. Nash
4. Cullen
5. Topp
6. Dewar
I may vote Saganash on the first ballot if his name appears. Any word on that?
Some down ticket movement for me:
1. Mulcair
2. Ashton
3. Nash
4. Cullen
5. Topp
6. Dewar
I may vote Saganash on the first ballot if his name appears. Any word on that?
I seriously doubt his name would appear. He withdrew from the race some time ago. Why would his name be on the ballot if he is not running?
I seriously doubt his name would appear. He withdrew from the race some time ago. Why would his name be on the ballot if he is not running?
Ballots take a long time to print, and I honestly have no idea when the Party started the process. My guess is that his name won't appear but all the people I've asked don't know themselves.
1.Cullen
2. Ashton
3. Mulcair
Because I care about the people residing in this country and then the rest of the world.
I'm supporting Topp and Cullen, and that probably means I dont care about any of those things.
I remain conflicted. Mulcair has more negatives than any of the other candidates, but I don't see anyone else that can do really well in Quebec and take on Harper as well as Mulcair can (and lead the NDP to a win in 2015). Talk about compromise!
Mulcair has many positives beyond beating Harper and keeping Quebec. Mulcair is honest, so while he may have flaws you at least know what they are now, so you know what your getting with him straight up.
You also get affordable housing, cap and trade, more money for infostructure, some willing to fight war rape, someone who believes in fair trade, universal healthcare, a fincial transaction tax, who believes in, Kairos, and so much more and you know he stands up for what he believes in, he's been tested in government. The rest are unknowns in government we really,don't know what,all thier flaws are, because they've never been on,government, although Topp has been sort of apart of Romanows government, still that mighy not be a fair comparesion to Topp as he didn't decide policy, Romanow and his cabinate did.
I should say, that even though I'm inclined to support Mulcair or Topp, I don't have anything against the other candidates. They all seem like a fine people with their own sets of skills. I don't think it's "game over" if we end up with a leader who isn't Mulcair or Topp.
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Is that for sure?
I seriously doubt his name would appear. He withdrew from the race some time ago. Why would his name be on the ballot if he is not running?
Ballots take a long time to print, and I honestly have no idea when the Party started the process. My guess is that his name won't appear but all the people I've asked don't know themselves.
Most people are voting online. I seriously doubt there will be ANY printed ballots. And the idea that ballots take a long time to print is pretty silly. You can probably get them printed in less than a day. Seriously, anyone with a $100 inkjet could print off ballots and there are huge numbers of professional printers who do printing every day, even in Canada.
(emphasis mine)
That made me laugh!
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Is that for sure?
Yeah, I emailed and was told it wasn't going to happen.
Let's be fair here. This is a discussion forum. That's it. It's not some official party site. And how many New Democrats are active in the NDP leadership threads?
There are close to 130,000 members across the country. Let's keep this and "ourselves" in perspective.
Same here, Josh. Can't find the time, but will let us know if anything changes.
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Is that for sure?
Yeah, I emailed and was told it wasn't going to happen.
Okay, that's too bad. Though Hunkey_Monkey is right, in the grand sheme of things, we don't amount to much. = (
I seriously doubt his name would appear. He withdrew from the race some time ago. Why would his name be on the ballot if he is not running?
Ballots take a long time to print, and I honestly have no idea when the Party started the process. My guess is that his name won't appear but all the people I've asked don't know themselves.
Most people are voting online. I seriously doubt there will be ANY printed ballots. And the idea that ballots take a long time to print is pretty silly. You can probably get them printed in less than a day. Seriously, anyone with a $100 inkjet could print off ballots and there are huge numbers of professional printers who do printing every day, even in Canada.
I think there must be some provision for mail-in ballots.
Victory for the NDP will not necessarily take us to the Promised Land. One just needs to remember Ontario.
Defeat certainly won't.
Maybe I won't vote at all.
Maybe I won't vote at all.
Negativity and squabbling in political arenas can sometimes lead to discouragement, and then even to not voting. Anyway, best thing to do is not worry about stuff, and just go with your gut and vote. It should be an exciting convention, and there's a lot of good choices from all across the country.
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Is that for sure?
Yeah, I emailed and was told it wasn't going to happen.
Okay, that's too bad. Though Hunkey_Monkey is right, in the grand sheme of things, we don't amount to much. = (
Or, rather than us not amounting to much, maybe instead it's that he does not want to jeopardize his lead by subjecting himself to a possible faux pas under our brilliant questioning, since he realizes our absolute awesomeness.
In all sincerity, people have twisted his quotes to such absurd conclusions, I would see little point to answering questions here.
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates. He has engaged in more negative attacks on his opponents than all of them combined. Nash is inexperienced and has only sat in parliament a couple years. Dewar's French makes him unacceptable. Even Saganash was said not to speak acceptable French. Mulcair... well the litany is too long and familiar to get into here.
His telephone cnvassers also dwell on the negative.Several examples of this have been aired on Babble. I understand from two sources that his written talking points for his canvassers includes a series of negative statements against each of his opponents. If you say you are inclined towards Nash, for example, the canvassser will read out that she is lacking in experience, etc.
One of the things I applaud Brian Topp for is identifying "vote suppression" as a tool which the Conservatives have appropriated from the US Republicans. Negative campaigning he says correctly does two things:
1. It solidifies and energizes your base.
2. It discourages supporters of the opponent from even voting.
It is ironic that Mr Topp seems to be engaged in similar tatics in the leadershio race. I was puzzeled about his negative tactics since they seem to irritate many people. But I think there is an explanation. Topp understands "vote suppression" and is using it here. By saying Mulcair will turn the party to the right he is not simply encouraging a voter tending towards Mulcair to vote for him, he is also encouraging him not to vote at all.
The membership numbers, particulary in BC and Ontario, might also back up that interpretation. It has been speculated that the "Gerry Scott machine" in BC has signed up many new members for Topp. Perhaps the Ontario numbers reflect a similar effort on his behalf by some unions. Topp may be banking on expanding his vote with new recruits and suppressing his rivals' support among existing members.
I suspect the new membership numbers may mean that Topp is actually running significantly ahead of where he was in the two polls. Those polls would necessarly have sampled an outdated membership list.
Mark_Alfred writes
"Or, rather than us not amounting to much, maybe instead it's that he does not want to jeopardize his lead by subjecting himself to a possible faux pas under our brilliant questioning, since he realizes our absolute awesomeness."
If you hve been to any of Mulcair's events, you will know that his usual format is a 15 to 20 minute speech followed by taking questions for 45 minutes to an hour. The questions are not vetted and anyone can ask them. One of the things that attracted me to Mulcair in the first place is tha , unlike most politicians (and perhaps one or two in this race) is that he actually answers the questions and does not just rattle off some potted talking points.
Anyone can ask him the questions that you and others unfairly suggest he is avoiding.
I read on the other thread that the moderators have invited him on to Babble and have not yet heard back from him. I do not see where he has declined to participate.
There is no more reason to say he is avoiding questions here that there is to say he avoids questions at his own events. That is just not true.
I think there must be some provision for mail-in ballots.
There is. A physicial ballot will be mailed to every member allowing them the option of mailing it in rather than use the online service, especially necessary since apparently there is no telephone option (except on convention day?) this time unlike the B.C. race.
Victory for the NDP will not necessarily take us to the Promised Land. One just needs to remember Ontario.
Defeat certainly won't.
I wouldn't stress too much about the NDP experience in Ontario. After all, it merely proved that if you put a Liberal in charge of anything, including the Ontario NDP, s/he will screw it up.
Does anyone know if Mulcair has ever apologized to Davies for his comments? If he did, that would remove one of the taints in my opinion.
Can't find the time, but will let us know if anything changes.
Yes, because answering questions on a computer for one hour is just too time consuming.
Does anyone know if Mulcair has ever apologized to Davies for his comments? If he did, that would remove one of the taints in my opinion.
I'm not sure I get it. Wasn't the taint removed once Libby apologized, and Layton accepted it?
LMFAOROTFL
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates.
Conservative "vote suppression"? By Topp? Generally I find that most of his campaign, even when contrasting himself with other candidates, has been centred on experience, ability, and primarily policy (IE, see his post here on cap and trade), whereas Conservatives will try to remove one from policy and focus on character slurs and negativity. One thing I rarely see from a lot of Mulcair supporters here is statements about policy differences. Generally it's stuff about character (other candidates not being saleable, conspiracies about posters being hired staff of campaigns, allegedly evil tactics of other candidates, etc.). I'm learning to ignore such negativity, however. Best to be positive and focus on the issues.
1) Mulcair - He is the most Prime Ministerial, best performer, experienced and, in my view, quite progressive on a number of issues if you read passed the smears.
2) Cullen - He is also a good performer, very intelligent, saavy and has years of experience.
3) Nash - She has remained positive and dignified throughout the race, she is well-spoken and experienced.
I believe these will be my only choices. I may make Nikki #4, but not likely.
Best wishes to all.
[Frpm Mulcair] You also get affordable housing, cap and trade, more money for infostructure, some willing to fight war rape, someone who believes in fair trade, universal healthcare, a fincial transaction tax.....
We dont GET any of those things if Mulcair [or to be fair, anyone else] is Leader. We dont even necessarily get a fulsome commitment and political capability to do the most possible to ensure that we get them, or that we win government so we can get them.
What we get is Mulcair talks about them, says he likes this and that.
I'm not sure I get it. Wasn't the taint removed once Libby apologized, and Layton accepted it?
Not expressing an opinion on whether there should have been an apology from Mulcair, just explaining:
The issue is the opinion that whatever Libby did, Mulcair's attack on her was more than uncalled for, and she should be getting an apology from him.
My point at the time, and still, is that Mulcair publicly apologizing would undo the political damage control of Libby's apolgy, so it will not happen. We dont know whether he apologized to her himself. [I wouldnt guess yes or no- there is sufficient reason to guess either.] That said, there is nothing to stop him from doing a mea culpa now. And it would obviously calm the waters.
And please, lets not replay 'he was just correcting her', etc. No such thing, he did not 'just' correct her. And we have a critic or the Leader for doing that- and I'm sure one or both would have handled it had Mulcair not gone ballistic first. [And talk about giving the issue legs....]
No argument form me there: Mulcair was grandstanding, and not merely correcting her. But then you understand the dynamics at play: Libby apologized, Jack accepted it. And to apologize to her afterwards would do worse than re-open the issue. I'm actually really curious if Mulcair and Davies have put the incident behind him. I do think some kind of peace offering, short of an apology, would be a good idea. In the event that Mulcair does become leader, I hope she still plays an important role. It would be hard to stomach something other than deputy leader, but since these shakeups happen all the time, we can only hope she gets a role that she cares about and can be effective.
Is there somewhere that I can look see what Mulcair did to Libby that requires an apology? I don't know nothing about it and my only source outside of here is biased.
Maybe I won't vote at all.
Negativity and squabbling in political arenas can sometimes lead to discouragement, and then even to not voting. Anyway, best thing to do is not worry about stuff, and just go with your gut and vote. It should be an exciting convention, and there's a lot of good choices from all across the country.
Fair points. Guess I was just feeling a little down at the time.
Is there somewhere that I can look see what Mulcair did to Libby that requires an apology? I don't know nothing about it and my only source outside of here is biased.
First a disclaimer: I know nothing personally about the situation and have no opinion on it.
I did a search via http://duckduckgo.com/ (highly recommended if you're leery of being catalogued by big-brother Google), and found the following article on Rabble.
I dont know if anyone can do better than you googling it.
I really think this is a fair assessment, and I defended Mulcair at the time here:
I did not defnd what he said. It was worse than excessive. It was tearing a strip off a colleague. It alo also not the way to go about Libby backing up and making the issue go away, which is what the NDP including Libby wants [but babblers did not want]. Mulcair was unhelpful in every way.
I think its also fair to say that had it not been for the political pragmatics, Mulcair's attack might have normally been occasion for at least some mild words of disapproval from Jack. Although even without the issue pragmatics making that practically impossible, I'm not sure that there is a diplomatic way for the Leader of the party to diplomatically criticise the House Leader in public.
Those really have to be in-house Caucus dynamics. And we do not know what was said, how much was said, what it covered.... any of that. Even internally, its possible Jack mostly papered over the eruption of differences. Some people know. But I doubt that includes any babblers.
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates.
Conservative "vote suppression"? By Topp? Generally I find that most of his campaign, even when contrasting himself with other candidates, has been centred on experience, ability, and primarily policy (IE, see his post here on cap and trade), whereas Conservatives will try to remove one from policy and focus on character slurs and negativity. One thing I rarely see from a lot of Mulcair supporters here is statements about policy differences. Generally it's stuff about character (other candidates not being saleable, conspiracies about posters being hired staff of campaigns, allegedly evil tactics of other candidates, etc.). I'm learning to ignore such negativity, however. Best to be positive and focus on the issues.
I'm a Mulcair supporter and I'd say that maybe half of my posts have been about policy (or strategy), including ones attacking Mulcair's policies. Would you care to claim otherwise?
In the unlikely event that Dewar and Topp are in the last round, do you really have no preference?
My point is, in a preferential ballot of seven candidates, there is nothing to be gained by ranking any fewer than seven (or six which amounts to the same thing.)
Murray Dobbin is far from a dispassionate observer on this issue, although I agree with him 85% of the time. Could we please move on? Neither Libby nor any of the other players are talking about this, why should we?
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates.
Conservative "vote suppression"? By Topp? Generally I find that most of his campaign, even when contrasting himself with other candidates, has been centred on experience, ability, and primarily policy (IE, see his post here on cap and trade), whereas Conservatives will try to remove one from policy and focus on character slurs and negativity. One thing I rarely see from a lot of Mulcair supporters here is statements about policy differences. Generally it's stuff about character (other candidates not being saleable, conspiracies about posters being hired staff of campaigns, allegedly evil tactics of other candidates, etc.). I'm learning to ignore such negativity, however. Best to be positive and focus on the issues.
I'm a Mulcair supporter and I'd say that maybe half of my posts have been about policy (or strategy), including ones attacking Mulcair's policies. Would you care to claim otherwise?
Nope. I'd rather just stick to the issues (policy, strategy, links to information, etc.). Also, might be good for us to stop cluttering up this thread with off-topic posts which should be in the leaderships threads and not in the "how ya gonna mark your ballot" threads.
Currently feeling so disenchanted I may cast a protest ballot for Rosemary Brown.
If I wasn't voting for Mulcair - then I'd be voting for Cullen or Topp - but my first choice, 'from the heart', is definitely Cullen, I just really like the guy.
Mine are:
[later edit] I had revised my position, but a new whim struck me, so I'm back to where I was.[/later edit]
I may have to take a break from the information here at Babble. While this race has been pretty tame compared to other comparable races of other parties, for the NDP (and my own personal sensibilities) it's been a wild knock-down drama of intrigue!! I'll be glad to be at the convention to find out who finally wins this long race.
Murray Dobbin is far from a dispassionate observer on this issue, although I agree with him 85% of the time. Could we please move on? Neither Libby nor any of the other players are talking about this, why should we?
They don't have to talk about it but this is among the reasons why so few of the pre- May 2011 caucus have endorsed Mulcair as leader. Mulcair's caucus endorsements are overwhelmingly from new Quebec MPs who in many cases are perceived as beholden to Mulcair for their election as NDP MPs in Quebec. The new Quebec MPs weren't around to see how this prior inter-necine battle went down.
Mulcair has alienated some players/factions in the NDP and combined with provincial, regional and sectoral loyalties the leadership is by no means in the bag. March 24 will be a battle not a coronation.
I may have to take a break from the information here at Babble. While this race has been pretty tame compared to other comparable races of other parties, for the NDP (and my own personal sensibilities) it's been a wild knock-down drama of intrigue!! I'll be glad to be at the convention to find out who finally wins this long race.
Well said, I'm feeling the same way. Objectively this is a pretty tame race but the anxiety is ratcheted up because I actually care about the outcome. I'm watching that Republican farce south of the border to relax.
I don't think anyone wants a coronation, just a lot of drama and nail-biting intrigue. Keeps us interested - and awake!
I don't think anyone wants a coronation, just a lot of drama and nail-biting intrigue. Keeps us interested - and awake!
Hehe, I agree. Who wants a snooze-fest. :)
have to talk about it but this is among the reasons why so few of the pre- May 2011 caucus have endorsed Mulcair as leader.
Mulcair is tied for first with Dewar for endorsements in caucus elected before last May. They each have 5 including themselves.
Well said, I'm feeling the same way. Objectively this is a pretty tame race but the anxiety is ratcheted up because I actually care about the outcome. I'm watching that Republican farce south of the border to relax.
So we have agreement all around on that one. I'm not just watching the farce to the south, I'm HERE, in Michigan, days away from the primary, and its wall to wall Santorum and Romney attack ads. Seeing slash and burn in action makes you realize that there aren't any blows that will last in our race.
And when its all over, and inevitably someone(s) of the contenders steps back.... remember that that is an inevitable and understandable consequence that at least some of the time its very tough for big egos not to win.... even when everyone played nice. It happens.
CFL