ndp leadership thread #129
wanted to put this here, as it's unclear whether he/she'll get the response otherwise:
The other point I should make is that I think it's a lot harder for left-wing parties to be elected as "least unpopular" than for right-wing parties. This is because left-wing parties tend to benefit from higher voter turnout, while right-wing parties benefit from lower voter turnout. (Think about the Cons' voter suppression schemes.) An election where people are voting for the "least unpopular" party is not likely to be an election that will inspire high turnout.
New Democrats need to increase voter turnout to win. And we can't do that just by making people hate the Cons. We have to put forth a clear message about how we'll change the country and inspire Canadians not merely to vote against the Cons but to vote for the New Democrats.
see, i don't agree. quebec was jack, quebec was mulcair, quebec was the campaign, but quebec was also and as much 1) very unpopular government; 2) very unpopular opposition; 3) suddenly irrelevant regional party. the way that i see to power basically focuses on marginalizing the liberals, finishing off the bq as a major electoral force (and 4 seats is more major than the green party, mind), and going head to head with a deeply unpopular harper government. that's when we win power provincially, and that's how we'll win power federally. we will never have an obama-esque leader in canada, we don't have the same history or electoral system or even desire for a christ-like figure in our political system. and that's good, because if we won on that platform, we'd let everyone down and you're right that it would be difficult to get re-elected. i've been looking at old broadbent videos, and i was shocked to see how much his rhetoric lines up with that of topp. unless i missed something and we haven't already lost all those debates, i can't see how we win going down the garden path. no, we need to pummel them with truth and good ideas, expose to canadians how wrong these guys are, dish out our platform with the most credible possible messenger, and then marginalize all the rest by polarizing the argument as between our two parties. that's mulcair.
also thought i'd add that i think this argument is totally out to lunch and that i hope members know it:
Nash said she thinks Quebec voters also responded to the NDP's core messages about the need for a ``progressive'' federal government.
``They seem to represent similar values to our social democratic values - whether it's about social justice, environmental sustainability, human rights. So I think there is a natural affinity there that Jack was able to communicate very effectively.''
Nash counts herself as someone who can do the job just as well as Layton did.
and that chantal's evisceration of broadbent's most critical attack on mulcair (his truthfulness) is not at all compelling to high-info voters, or those outside of the ottawa/toronto bubble: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1147616--hebert-broa...