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.
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: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Trying to counter innuendo and speculation with more innuendo and speculation doesn't really help.
In fact, for people who really have an agenda against Mulcair, they'd easily dismiss your speculation for reasons you mentioned (generalizing, no actual knowledge of their Palestine position, or why they endorsed Mulcair). Then they'd claim victory, that your best defense of Mulcair failed, ignoring that they never accounted for his policy letter agreeing with the NDP on I-P in the first place. Hopefully no one is so disingenuous as to try that kind of tactic.
Again, nothing would be better than a simple question to Mulcair "We understand you support the NDP policy. Other candidates have gone further and have come out in support of Palestine's bid to become a member of the UN. Do you agree?"
Sure - your comment is racist, stereotyping, and deeply offensive.
ETA: Full disclosure - I've flagged your disgusting comment.
Unionist, you need to dial back on the aggression and hostility. I'm not disputing your POV necessarily, but rather your method of expressing it.
Thank you.
I got the robo poll too.
It was the second time I've been robo polled in this leadership race.
And it was the second time the call was disconnected (not by me) before I could express a preference.
Make of that what you will.
I was impressed by these figures too, also by the fact that over 16 percent have no professed religion. There are a number of different strains of Judaism and Islam of course.
It seems not unreasonable that he has 28% combined first and second choice support. But that second choice support may be moot because those who have him as a second choice have as their first choice someone who is ahead of him on all of the counts/ballots he is on. This is just speculation though.
It's more important that candidates are clear about where they think the NDP is, and where they think it should be, and not just on a left-right spectrum.
From the press release they put out along with that 28% figure it was clear what they were talking about was the results of a phonebank canvass. In other words the polar opposite of a scienitific poll. They no doubt have their own scientific polls but either because they don't want to disclose or don't entirely want to advertise the results (or most likely both) they just put out a meaningless number. There's nothing really wrong with what the Topp team did the difference between a silly show of hands poll and a statisticaly rigorous study by a polling forum is just a matter of degree, and any internal poll is likely to be suspect.
That's why I called it speculation.
I got the same call from the same phone number at around 3 p.m. Eastern. I did try calling the number back after I finished the poll. However, I got a quick busy signal.
I got the same call at about five pm pacific time, and was able to vote.
I did place Paul Dewar as my first choice and Peggy Nash for 2nd. I had placed Thomas Mulcair as 2nd choice the first time I was robo-polled. However, his campaign has not replied to any of my emails. I will be placing Thomas Mulcair last on the preferential ballot until I get a decent response from his campaign by email. I would appreciate a "Thank you Mr. [Dipper] for your email. Thomas Mulcair supports X, Y, and Z. He looks forward to your support." I'm looking forward to Mr. Mulcair's campaign response to Mr. Mulcair's position on proportional representation.
I think Mulcair is the key to the NDP keeping Quebec, very unlikely, now that Saganash is out of the race, that I'll place anyone before him. And I don't see anyone on the campaign trail that can as effectively debate Harper from now until the next federal election. It's an excellent - nay, outstanding - slate of candidates, but in my view, Mulcair stands heads and shoulders above the rest. He has faults, but also significant positives.
I will agree with you BB in that it is essential we keep our eye on our Quebec base as we deliberate about who to vote for in the upcoming NDP leadership race.
I'll try to do dial back, Rebecca, and I know it's counterproductive. But one poster said Mulcair may be so pro-Israel because of all the Jews in his riding, while another retorts that no, the four Arab MPs are endorsing him, so he can't be an arch-Zionist. Those comments may be made in a polite and dignified fashion, but they have no place here. They are stereotyping of people's political opinions based on their religious or national origin. And it seems that when we're talking about polls and votes and winning, such stereotyping suddenly becomes acceptable in these threads. This is a plea to listen carefully to what is being said and to reject such phony analysis.
I got that same robocall poll today, too. Whoever it is, I wasn't impressed that they didn't identify themselves.
I don't mind the odd robocall, but it's getting ridiculous. I think I've received only one live call, from the Topp campaign.
However, like another babbler, I will still have to hold my nose while voting for Mulcair. Just so you know.
oh I decided that I changed my mind in posting here. sorry
My point with Thomas Mulcair is that I want his campaign to have a dialogue with me rather than just have Mr. Mulcair give a monologue. I know that Mr. Mulcair is very busy. I don't expect a personal email from him. I do expect at least one reply from his staff members thanking me for my email and provide a little bit of information responding to what I have written. Mr. Mulcair's campaign has not done that yet. I have been waiting several weeks. I would like some "customer service." Essentially, I want his campaign to recognize me as a fellow NDP member and Canadian. I want a "thank you." If Mr. Mulcair's campaign replies to at least one of my emails with a half-decent response, then I will place Thomas Mulcair 1st or 2nd on my preferential ballot. I don't hear from his campaign, I will place him last.
I do not agree that the original comment by nicky was "stereotyping" and I think her comment has been treated very unfairly, calling it "racist" and so on. Nicky took care to express hesitation, she expressed awareness that one should not generalise, and she invited comment on her observation. Her comment was not a blunt assertion, in the way that it has been paraphrased here, above. If there are concerns about her line of reasoning, then there are much friendlier ways to share those concerns; nicky certainly indicated that she was open to hearing it.
Previously in the discussion, another contributor was accused of "treachery". That was also extreme and hostile language.
As a new reader of Rabble and a new member of the NDP, I was enjoying these discussions of the leadership campaign and finding them quite helpful. I appreciate having other readers share their observations about matters that I wasn't aware of, such as Paul Dewar's French language abilities, and concerns about candidates' positions on Israel-Palestine.
Principled argument is important; but please, let's not have the discussions degenerate into personal attacks and very harsh accusations. In my experience, when that happens, then many people become afraid of being the next one to get accused of something horrible like "treachery" or "racism", and they stop participating. Only the people who like that style of argument end up sticking around. That kind of discussion is not very inclusive and, for my part, not at all enjoyable or useful.
Let's just try to be more charitable and assume that everyone's contribution is well-intended unless there's very strong evidence to the contrary. By all means, if we think someone has crossed a line (like stereotyping) let's raise the issue, but do so in a friendly way that assumes that the other person did not mean to offend, and remain open to the possibility that *we* may equally have misunderstood them as well.
Having said that, I am looking forward to reading further discussion by experienced party members about the candidates and the issues; it is much appreciated.
I've only received calls and e-mails from Nash, Topp, Dewar and Cullen. It's like Mulcair can read my mind ;-)
I am surprised about the radio silence from Ashton, especially being in Manitoba.
It was Thomas Mulcair who was accused of "treachery", not a "contributor". Why have you made this allegation, or was it just a failure to read carefully?
Can I just throw out there that I don't read the "quote unquote" as suggesting that Topp is quoting Mulcair verbatim? It sounds like he is putting quotations around "centrist" and "moving to the centre". "quote unquote" in these contexts would mean much the same thing as "so-called". Topp is rejecting a particular strategy and it is certainly a strategy that is widely associated with Mulcair. He is also implicitly putting in question whether "centrist" parties and "moving to the centre" really are "centrist" or "moving to the centre" -- a point which Mulcair actually seems to play to when he says (as quoted elsewhere in this thread) that he wants to move the centre to the NDP.
Your suggestion that because someone is an Arab-Canadian, they would recognize a Zionist, or not support someone who is a Zionist, is stereotyping - just as suggesting that because someone is a Jew, they would support Israel or Zionism. Or that because some politician is supported by female caucus members, they're not likely to be a misogynist.
Hoodeet, in a post above, was sensitive enough to retract and apologize for such an assertion. I'm kind of unclear why you would find this simple point confusing.
Most campaigns do not publish or 'leak' results they get. There are a large number of strategic reasons you do not do that- whatever the results are.
The Dewar campaign did it for a specific reason- going after Topp supporters. And I dont think it did or will do them any good.