May blames everyone and everything else but Herself

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

 Good point, the fundies are pretty much against all that astrology witch craft nonsense. Laughing

 

"watching the tide roll away"

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

In the aftermath of the election, I am left feeling that the best debrief about Ms. May would be performed by a psychologist, not a political scientist. I wish her luck in ministry studies... it would be an excellent Sunday job for someone quite so self-absorbed as she has revealed herself to be.

Benoit

ElizaQ wrote:
Benoit wrote:
Palin was Miss Alaska 1984: A factual statement.

 LOL!  No she wasn't. You might want to go a recheck your 'facts' on that one.  

 

Envious? Sarah Palin won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant in 1984.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Benoit wrote:
ElizaQ wrote:
Benoit wrote:
Palin was Miss Alaska 1984: A factual statement.

LOL! No she wasn't. You might want to go a recheck your 'facts' on that one.

 

Envious? Sarah Palin won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant in 1984.

 Ah so now we get some even more of it. What a dig, ouch, ouch of course it MUST be jealously.  Too funny.  At least you got your facts straight now. ;)  

madmax

janfromthebruce wrote:

Ex Green Strategist adds his thoughts to May's - everybody else is to blame post-election analysis: Elizabeth May's post-mortem analysis; off the mark!

Baril

"Simple enough, you prepare a plan anyway and when the person chiefly responsible for executing the plan refuses, over-and-over, to do so, you execute the chief. Or in my case, resign.

There was a plan, a discussion, and a strategy:"

I read this, and read this, and didn't realize, all I had to do was wave the mouse around the text, and surprise, a link appears.

Is there a different way, where the text is underlined if there is a link attached, without have to be a mind reader?

Btw, this has got to be the most self serving debriefing I have ever read. I would feel very uncomfortable if I was part of the election planning committee. Did they have an election planning committee? Its hard to tell from the debriefing.

 

Benoit

Beauty is in large part hereditary. Heredity in politics is called Monarchy. Ms May is contributing to democracy.

remind remind's picture

Benoit wrote:
ElizaQ wrote:
Benoit wrote:
Palin was Miss Alaska 1984: A factual statement.

LOL!  No she wasn't. You might want to go a recheck your 'facts' on that one. 

Envious? Sarah Palin won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant in 1984.

Good grief, get a grip!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Benoit

Comparing Palin and May is like comparing the lightness of a snow flake and the power of a wave.

remind remind's picture

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, is this her herself speaking or what????

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Benoit

Or comparing Palin and May is like comparing the sunset and the sunrise.

janfromthebruce

I'm so glad and feel so priveleged for Benoit to engage us all with all this enlightment and all. Thanks, your posts make my day in one big LOL. I will just put you on my ignore list.

Benoit

Allow me to add one more analogy: Palin is to the superficiality of evening what May is to the seriousness of morning.

wage zombie

there's an ignore list?  where is it?

Stockholm

There is a fantastic article about E-May's pathetic delusions in the National Post today. The one thing that paper is good for exposing the truth abouther.

 http://tinyurl.com/5h8jdl

 

"Elizabeth May has prepared an analysis of what went well and what
went badly in the recent election campaign for the Green Party.  I'll
summarize it for you.

What went well: Elizabeth May.

What did not go well: Anything that wasn't Elizabeth May"

 "No
campaign planning document?  Why didn't she write one?  Why didn't she
make certain once was written?  And what was she waiting for?  That
document should have been written right after the 2006 election.  And she
should have made certain it was ready for her to review.

In any
other political party, being prepared for an election would be
considered the responsibility of the leader.  It would be a lack of foresight by
the leader that would have allowed the party to get target-locked on
by-elections to the detriment of national preparedness.

But not in the Green Party.  Elizabeth May seems to be suggesting that the Green Party owes her an apology."

 

 

remind remind's picture

I notice that Janke points out that May says "any riding" as that had caught my eye too, does this mean she is looking at other ridings to insert herself into and is going to walk away from CN like she did in LNC?

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

janfromthebruce

It appears that all is not well in Greenland. Just reporting the news as it appears. Again another post by Janke in NP, but this time Election post-mortem pits Elizabeth May against Fellow Greens

As a result of this analysis, Ogilvie says, a lot of stuff is happening behind the scenes in the Green Party:
This report isn't that confidential. Many Green candidates and members saw it last week. I even blogged about it last week. It's not news. The reaction to this document on the GPC Candidates email list was so critical that EM withdrew from the group a few days ago. (The previous week, the discussion was so critical that Sharon Labchuk, EM's enforcer, actually shut the list down. Sunday night GPC council ordered it to be re-opened.)

So what is the other side of the story? According to Ogilvie, May has been using the party as a vehicle for her personal success, and as a means of doling out favours and benefits to her supporters:
The framing of critics is that she spent 2/3 of the campaign in her own (unwinnable) riding, ignoring the needs of the other 306 candidates. She siphoned party cash, media and staff into this riding. The federal campaign team did indeed run the worst campaign in GPC history (given the unprecedented staff and money). But, as I pointed out in my previous post, Elizabeth has arranged for her friends and 2006 campaign staff to take over the key paid-staff roles in the party.
Is this about the environment? Doesn't seem like it. Seems to be a fight over power and money.

Like you see in any other party from time to time.
The Green Party. Just another political party. Elizabeth May. Just another politician.

janfromthebruce

So I thought I'd wonder over to John Ogilvie's blog and read it - title and link This the GPC leadership Review

 

"I am the designated hitter for the remove-Elizabeth-May campaign. This is fine. There are many veteran Greens out there waiting for the deed to be done, before they recommit to the GPC. It's best if they don't get involved in divisive projects like this

The fact is that if GPC had a constitutional leadership review after an election - the way other mature parties do - then I would be devoting my energies to that campaign. But our constitution is a bit immature, and we don't have an internal review process.

So, Elizabeth knows we will conduct the leadership review in public.

Ugly, yeah. Necessary, oh yeah."

Anyway, John's blog provides insight into how all is going in the party and in another blog posting and in reference to May's analysis post-election document said this:

"Wednesday, November 05, 2008

*
Counterspin
Next Saturday in Quebec City the GPC council will spend the whole day doing a review of the past election. It's an open session if you're a GPC member. I won't be attending myself. I was elected to council this year, but resigned because it was a Waste of Time. GPC Council is a rubber stamp for the party leadership.

In anticipation, Elizabeth has issued her own analysis of the campaign. Again, if you haven't seen it, why are you wasting time reading this blog?

One local and successful campaign manager read her analysis and described it as "complete bullshit".

Elizabeth is blaming our poor showing on 1) biased media 2) the financial downturn 3) our incompetent campaign team.

1) The media is always biased. Many pundits felt that the media was biased IN FAVOUR of the GPC in this campaign. As a past candidate, I can say that you can never blame the media for making you look stupid. They work with what you gave them.

2) Yes the financial meltdown was a challenge. But it was also an opportunity. A good Green politician would have used this crisis to get voters thinking about alternatives.

3) You hired this team, so take the hit. The campaign Communications Director is your long-time friend from the Sierra Club. The Director of Organizing is your 2006 leadership campaign manager. The press secretary is her daughter. Take the hit."

remind remind's picture

Wow, that was some  reading there, I would say it is an understatement that things are not well in "Green land".  And I wonder who is going to win May, or the GP?  This throws a completely different light onto her future actions doesn't it? She is not a "dumb girl" wonder if this is just another ploy to able her to leave the GP with a following to take elsewhere? 

And I wonder what the dissidents in the GP are going to do if she does not leave?

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

janfromthebruce

Well it appears she controls the purse strings and the budget and who gets hired. I don't see that fitting with grassroots democracy.

remind remind's picture

 I was reading some of the comments in Janke's blog, about how EMay got into Dalhousie, and her actions in respect to the Spruce beetle out east, and got seriously pissed off all over again at her, if I was not already from way back in the late 80's and early 90's.

When we here in northern BC were trying to get action on the pine beetle infestation, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations went ahead furiously blocking all our efforts and lobbied the government not to do anything, as according to them, all we were doing was advocating for clear cuts. They would not not come have a look to see what we were saying even. And thus today, we have an environmental catastrophe, that I personally lay at the feet of the environmentalists, Dosanjh for listening to the environmentalists and it was furthered by the BC Liberal government that took away the ties of timber to the community it was harvested from.

But what did they do, after the fact, when the realization was finally made that nothing could now be done, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations blammed climate change specifically, failing to take into account their own damn actions of blocking something being done when it could have been.  My angst at EMay goes back a long time before she became a politician.

And now we are facing a whole province which will be laid to waste!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

janfromthebruce

remind wrote:

I was reading some of the comments in Janke's blog, about how EMay got into Dalhousie, and her actions in respect to the Spruce beetle out east, and got seriously pissed off all over again at her, if I was not already from way back in the late 80's and early 90's.

When we here in northern BC were trying to get action on the pine beetle infestation, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations went ahead furiously blocking all our efforts and lobbied the government not to do anything, as according to them, all we were doing was advocating for clear cuts. They would not not come have a look to see what we were saying even. And thus today, we have an environmental catastrophe, that I personally lay at the feet of the environmentalists, Dosanjh for listening to the environmentalists and it was furthered by the BC Liberal government that took away the ties of timber to the community it was harvested from.

But what did they do, after the fact, when the realization was finally made that nothing could now be done, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations blammed climate change specifically, failing to take into account their own damn actions of blocking something being done when it could have been.  My angst at EMay goes back a long time before she became a politician.

And now we are facing a whole province which will be laid to waste!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

 

Where on his blog where you reading about how she got into Dalhousie and also the pine bettle. Could you provide a link. Thanks

Politics 101

As May puts it "with a few deletions" she has posted her election post-mortem here:

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/8515

she's allegedly offering an autographed photo to the first who can catch the deletions from the her original post-mortem posted above. :) 

Left J.A.B.

If anyone is suprised that May would behave this way then they have not been paying attention.

(My first new post after having to search out my password)Cool

janfromthebruce

Welcome back left jab. At least you are not listed as a newbie like that BA. Cool

janfromthebruce

Looking for the comparison in what May did different in the 2 documents. This stuck in my crow the first time I read it, and still does:
"Most pundits declared that I won the English debate and there was a very favourable impression in Quebec based on the French debate."
I don't remember pundits saying she won the debate, in fact I rmember pundits suggesting Layton won the debate in English as in opposition. Harper won with just standing up.
Can someone expand on this for me cause I sure don't remember pundits saying this.

Politics 101

I remember a morning after poll in Quebec that said 1% felt May won the French debate, less than their actual vote.

remind remind's picture

Jan, I read a snippet about it in Janke's blog comment responses Angry in the Great whatever,  and as I noted found the comements regarding the eastern spruce beetle valid because of whay happened here in BC with the Pine Beetle and the Sierra Clubs poo pooing of it, and lobbying against clear cut actions in the surrounding infested areas.

 In respect to May's rewrite of her rewrite of 2008 election history, with a quick observation only, I see that she removed the nasty comments about the NDP and Hedy Fry. What a bunch of crap will be my first comment until I read both of them together and make notes.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

janfromthebruce

remind wrote:

Jan, I read a snippet about it in Janke's blog comment responses Angry in the Great whatever,  and as I noted found the comements regarding the eastern spruce beetle valid because of whay happened here in BC with the Pine Beetle and the Sierra Clubs poo pooing of it, and lobbying against clear cut actions in the surrounding infested areas.

In respect to May's rewrite of her rewrite of 2008 election history, with a quick observation only, I see that she removed the nasty comments about the NDP and Hedy Fry. What a bunch of crap will be my first comment until I read both of them together and make notes.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

I think I missed the NDP and Heddy Fry but I did put them side by side. Thanks

Left J.A.B.

That is very interesting about Morrow, who likes to paint himself as the paragon on non-partisan analysis.

janfromthebruce

Here goes for the contest: italics for what was deleted. Interestingly, it appears that Greg Morrow from Democraticspace works for the Greens, as twice his name was mentioned. Further, the second time his name was omitted, she replaced him "with experts", so his opinion became plural. 

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Leader's Report on the 2008 Election (revised by May: words:
3506)
Elizabeth May
November 5, 2008


1. A Watershed Election

The 2008 election marked a number of important watersheds
for the Green Party of Canada.  It was essentially our first federal election campaign
to make any real impact in the national consciousness.

It was our first
election campaign with fully funded campaigns in a
number of ridings.
It was our first campaign with national
television ads.
It was our first election campaign in which
we had a full and well
researched policy document (Vision Green) available well in advance, with a tight and well written platform (Looking Forward).
We were the first party to release our
platform and we were the only party to release a full and costed program  -- out over the next three
years --  demonstrating fiscal responsibility.
It was our first election with a national
leader's tour to which
media signed on to join the leader on tour.  We had CBC National TV,
Global National, A Chinese TV network, Canadian Press, Macleans and the Toronto Star on board as we pulled out of Vancouver, with the National Post, Globe and Mail, TVA and others joining as we traveled to the East Coast.
It was our first election campaign in
which the leader participated
in the debates. Most pundits declared that I won the English debate and there was a very favourable impression in Quebec based on the French debate.

As I sketched it out in speeches across the country, the
campaign period worked in four waves.  We dominated the first week in the protest over my exclusion from the debates.  The second wave was our national leaders "whistle-stop" tour. In all, I participated in events in 41
ridings.  We had events (some in off-shoots from the main rail tour) in more than 80% of the ridings that broke 10%.  The third wave was the focus on the debates themselves.  The fourth wave (as I anticipated it) did not work with the media.  Our story was "Greens in close races."  My own
focus was the close race in Central Nova in the hope national media would come to the riding to cover the neck in neck race.  Sadly the media was stuck in their old story line. Despite polls to the contrary, the media story was that Peter MacKay
was unbeatable. This certainly hurt our last stretch messaging.

Given the reality that this was our first major national
campaign, and my first as leader, we did a remarkable job. The impression of our campaign to the general public and media was of a positive and creative campaign. Nevertheless, there are many lessons to be learned based on what we all observed from the inside.

We accomplished a great deal.  In late August, we made
history when Blair Wilson became the first Green MP in Canadian history.  The announcement of that coup was flawlessly executed and positioned us well for the campaign. The metrics of our election successes have been measured in reports from Jim Harris and others.  We were the only party to increase the number of votes received.  In relative terms, we did better than any other party.

This is hugely significant in the context of a major
financial crisis
dominating the campaign, combined with low voter turn out.

2. Regional analysis:

One aspect of our success that has been omitted from other
reports has been the big gains in Atlantic Canada.   I had always said that by running
in Nova Scotia,
the party would make gains in the region.  In fact, we had two Atlantic ridings above 10%  -- Central Nova and Fredericton.  Mary Lou Babineau in Fredericton
got over 10% of the vote with a modest campaign, spending approx $6,000.   The popular vote in both New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia doubled, with increases in PEI
and Newfoundland and Labrador.
We grew in almost every region of Canada. 
Particularly stunning was John Streicker's great result in the Yukon.

Our only seriously worrying result was in Quebec. As a party, we need to put special attention into determining why our vote did not grow in Quebec. Our national results would have been much higher if not for our vote stalling in Quebec. 
One key factor may be that the provincial Parti Vert is not as supportive of federal Greens as is the case between other provincial parties and Greens federally.  We are also less visible in Quebec, although we were beginning to get more "buzz" after the French debate.  Clearly,
there needs to be an overhaul of the organizing efforts.  There were two full-time Quebec
organizers before the campaign.  Both are no longer working for GPC.

Regionally, we now have more and better data to determine the
best strategy to increase growth.

3. Reflections:

The results were disappointing because our hopes were so
high.  I reflect on my own sense of imminent seat wins. I cannot say we were wrong to be optimistic. You can never win seats if you downplay expectations. On the other hand, it seems a bit masochistic to beat ourselves up for failing to meet our best projections. As my leadership is being criticized by some, I think it is fair to point out that the other major leadership candidate had a strategy of not trying to win seats in the near term.  It is due to my leadership that we were doing so well, raising our expectations.

In 2008, given the steady work over the last two years to
build the party's public profile, it was reasonable to anticipate wins.  Our closest result was in my own riding.  (Over 32% of the vote with over 12,600 Green
votes.). The Central Nova team believed that victory was likely based on polls and the "word on the street."  There was panic in the local
Conservative ranks. They leaked an email calling for their members to get friends and neighbours to the polls -- tellingly including the claim that there was a major surge by the NDP.  The email even said that the Greens were not a threat. This
was deliberate disinformation, which, of course, the NDP played up in local
media. In fact, we were very close and the NDP was running a distant third.An additional fairly large factor in Central Nova was the number of people turned away at the polls.

There are many lessons to learn, but top of my list was that
our vision and aspirations were not matched by a machine on the ground to deliver the vote

a) Factors out of our control:

In reviewing election results, we should not ignore a number
of large
external factors.

First, as noted, the economic melt-down in the US took the
campaign focus off areas of our traditional strength. Our release on immediate steps to stabilize and protect the Canadian economy did not receive any media coverage -- none.    The fact that we held on to the vote at nearly
7% in those circumstances is truly remarkable.

Low voter turn out was in the Conservatives' interest and
the election was orchestrated to deliver low voter participation.  Several deliberate
aspects of this election call were designed to reduce the vote:
As Angus Reid poll results demonstrate,
the impact of the
Conservative attack ads was to depress the vote, encouraging Liberals to stay home and others to be "turned off" politics;
The snap election, when the Canadian
public did not want an
election, reduced voter engagement;

The fact it was the shortest election
campaign in Canadian history
gave little time for issues to gain traction;
The short campaign meant there was only
one leaders debate in each official language;
The fact the Canadian election campaign
competed for attention with the politically aware section of the electorate with the US election
campaign;
The new Elections Law had the effect of
denying thousands of
Canadians who actually showed up at polls and wished to vote, their right to vote.

In my opening campaign speech on September 7, I tried to
inspire a movement to increase voter turn out. It was always clear that Greens would benefit from higher levels of public participation.  I still believe this was the right message, but the media in Canada
was not ready for a message for change.  Our national media was working from an old script. 
Ironically, the media agenda and partisan bias was more fixed in Canada
than in the U.S..

Media bias was clearly a major factor in this election. By
this, I mean more than the usual media bias against the Green Party. There is no question that our policies were either ignored or misrepresented. Our policy announcements were often completely ignored. If not for a telegenic whistle stop tour, I do not think we would have had any major coverage once the "debate over
the debates" was resolved.   The times we did the more traditional
major photo op media event with a big policy announcement attached, we received nearly zero coverage.

What did get coverage was repeated efforts to throw us
off-stride, generallyoriginating in the blogosphere, then in major papers and to scrums and media questions. For the most part, the communications team did a great job shutting these down.  There were stories alleging I had called Canadians stupid (the strange mis-hearing of the TVO show from last year), the accusation of Green Party anti-Semitism, the charge I had attended a pro-Hezbollah rally, charges that there were secret agreements, and then the charge around strategic voting. The reason that last story did not get laid to rest effectively was the unfortunate intervention of dissident Greens calling media and keeping the charges alive.  If people alleging they represented the Green Party had phoned reporters to call for my resignation for attending a pro-Hezbollah rally, it would not have mattered that I never
had done so. The dissident accusations cemented the story for the media
.

Media bias went beyond deliberate distortion. I believe the
Conservative Party let their favourite media mouthpieces know that they wanted the Greens marginalized by treating me as a "bizarre" or "off the
wall" (both Mike Duffy and the Macleans piece last year have tried this spin). It is clear to me that CTV orchestrated the situation so that I would be informed on Mike Duffy Live that the consortium had decided to keep me out of the debates.
About one minute before being on Mike Duffy's show I bumped into the chair of the consortium, CTV news head Robert Hurst, in the hallway.  I shook
his hand and asked if there was any news. He managed that encounter without saying a word, with something between a shrug and a nod.  Within seconds I was in the chair in Mike Duffy's studio to be told  -- live on air  --
that the consortium had decided to exclude the Green Party from the debates.

So it was a deliberate ploy to spring the news on me in hopes of having a television clip of me over-reacting, being angry or tearful.  They could have used such a clip to confirm my unsuitability to participate in the debates - thus letting Harper and Layton
off the hook.  Thankfully, I stayed very calm and explained why the decision was anti-democratic and avoided larger questions in the public interest -such as who controls the public airwaves.

My comment about media bias is, however, than biased
treatment of Greens.There was a concerted effort by many large outlets, not to report the story, but to drive the story. The media willingness to play clips of Stephane Dion asking for clarification of an unclear question (and it was unclear in either language) was the low point for media interference in the election.It was no accident that it was again CTV displaying an intrusive role in assisting Mr. Harper.

b) Factors in our control:

Although we waged a really strong campaign, there is a great
deal of scope
for improvement.

We were clearly unprepared.  There were very good
reasons for this as the call of four by-elections in mid-summer, particularly Guelph where we saw our best ever chance for winning a seat, distracted our attention.  Greg Morrow has already reported to the FCC his view that it was a mistake to suspend general election planning due to the by-elections (and re-circulating of memos demonstrates he argued this same point at the time and not only from hindsight).

There is no question that the exact scenario of Stephen
Harper deciding to break his own fixed election date law was not in anyone's list of hypothetical scenarios. Still, we did know a fall election was likely.  
We should have had a campaign plan.

No campaign planning document was ever prepared that I
saw.  No campaign discussions and strategies calls took place during the campaign. My feeling throughout the campaign was that I was flying by the seat of my pants. 
Some of this was inevitable.  As the story of the decision about the consortium being delivered live and on air demonstrated, there was no way that a better plan or team effort could have helped much of the time.  My reaction to
the news is what sparked the protest.  We did a great job prompting the demand
for me to be in the debates, but the level of public outrage certainly
exceeded anything we orchestrated.

That was one of many moments when staying calm kept the
party on an upward trajectory.  There was not a single day when we did not feel a disaster
had been narrowly averted  -- from angry homeless people in a walk through of the lower East Side of Vancouver, to press conferences where the press release was not available until I had finished the event, to wrong addresses for live media appearances.  There was a near constant sense of stress -- something akin to being in a control tower of a major busy airport and noticing an absence of air traffic controllers.  I am very proud of the
team for staying calm and holding together in a situation of intense stress.

 

On the Campaign as a whole:

Many of the failings of this campaign will be picked up by
others as well. It is clear that we need to learn from these gaps and build for a far more effective campaign next time.  Key to improved performance are the following:

We need a campaign plan
well in advance;
We need much better communication between
Leader, the Leader team,
the Ottawa office, the Campaign Chair and FCC during the campaign;
We must have good day to day contact with
candidates;
Candidates must receive embargoed releases
and clear messages of what will be the main media focus of the day;
We must have good communications pieces
(including templates for brochures and web sites, etc) ready to go within 24 hours of writ dropping..

The biggest problem area to sort out by the next campaign is
how I can win in my riding (any riding) when I am out of the riding more than half the time.  The push and pull is tough.  Can we have any kind of decision
that the Leader winning in her seat is a top priority? (*the* Top Priority?) 
If I had been in Central Nova the whole time (except for national debates), I would have won.

To compensate for the reality that the Green Party is the
only federal party without a seat for the leader in a safe riding, we need to be more creative. We need to have Deputy Leaders do events outside of their own ridings.  We should start work now to obtain commitments from Green celebrities (entertainers, writers, sports figures) to do events and media for us during the campaign.  We should be using our former leaders in campaign
events.  We should not ignore this reality by allowing the pressure on the leader to be outside their own riding interfere with actually winning the seat.


Lastly, I want to say a word on the issue of whether I let down the party
somehow by comments in response to media questions about vote
splitting/strategic voting.

First of all, I think the party internally is obsessing
about this in a way
that verges on dangerous self-destruction.  I have been clear that I did
not endorse strategic voting. I was under intense pressure -from people I respect (such as Nobel Prize Winning scientists) -- to do so.   The
media was relentless in exaggerating my comments about trusting in democracy and, in fact, stating the opposite of what I had said.  I have posted a long explanation and apology on the members list serve.

All of that said, Greg Morrow, experts now who is are the most accurate
predictors of the vote in the last two elections hasve been clear that strategic voting, if it had an effect, had an impact that was relatively small (less than one per cent variance from his projected result).  Moreover, the Green Party denouncing strategic voting will not stop people from voting strategically.It is what a lot of intelligent people will do.  Telling them they are
wrong will just alienate them from the Green Party.

I am very pleased that the messaging has allowed us to
escape a dangerous and devastating result.  Other than a few voices, such as Hedy Fry, s me columns and a Hill Times reporter, the Green Party is not being blamed for the electoral result of a Harper government.  Some say I am unreasonably concerned about being labeled with the "Ralph Nader effect." 
The truth is that Ralph Nader ran as a Green.  His vote in Florida resulted in Bush's victory.  Blaming Nader was wrong in principle. If Gore had carried his
home state of Tennessee,
he would have been president.  Gore made his own mistakes (campaigning as a wooden stick figure, distancing himself from Clinton and not allowing Clinton to campaign for him).  Nader's
mistake, and the reason the Green fortunes in the US diedfell so dramatically the day after the 2000
election, was that he said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. (It is certainly notable that as the candidate and members list serves light up with different views on the importance of an Obama win, I do not even see Canadian Greens asking how the US Green presidential candidate, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, did in the campaign.)

My concern is that I think there are some in the party who
would have wanted me to say just that (in the Canadian context - no differece between Dion and Harper).  I cannot do that. I
pledged
constantly, from my opening press conference seeking GPC leadership, to never say something I believed to be untrue. I pledged to never fail to differentiate between other parties and to give credit where credit is due.


When I was elected a little more than two years ago, it was for a four year term.  I intend to remain as leader of the Green Party.  My personal popularity with the Canadian electorate is something, speaking as objectively as possible, that the Green Party needs.  I did not become leader of this party to quit and, in so doing, watch it decline.
Nevertheless, while I pledge to be clearer that people should vote Green and more wary of media manipulation, I need Council to know that I cannot be expected to deny the reality that Stephen Harper's approach to the single most important issue of our time, global warming and the gathering risk of a run-away greenhouse effect, is wrong and dangerous.  If that is what is wanted of me, then we have a problem.

My primary allegiance is to the planet and to a livable
world for my
children and grandchildren and their grandchildren. Mr. Harper's unilateral power to direct our negotiators to block progress at the UN climate negotiations (without any review by the House, without a vote, and without even Cabinet consultations) is a direct threat to our future.  The best international scientific advice suggests that we must ensure that the global growth in GHG is arrested by 2015, and begin to drop from there.  We do
not have much time. The negotiations in Copenhagen
in December 2009 are basically our last chance for a workable global agreement.  Sadly, in the
UN system, even one country can block consensus. If emissions continue to rise
after 2015, the best science tells us that we will hit points of no return.
We will trip those "tipping points" in atmospheric chemistry through
positive feedback loops that make arresting an acceleration of global
temperatures impossible.  As long as I am leader, I will ensure the Green
Party of Canada is a beacon of truth in a sea of spin. I will not allow
partisanship to betray our children's future.

All of that said, we are well-positioned for the next
campaign.  We need to
capture what we have learned and maintain work in constant election
preparedness.  We have a great team of candidates, EDA executives and
volunteers across Canada.

Many thanks to everyone who worked so hard for our most
successful campaign
in history.

Elizabeth

KenS

Thanks for that comparison jan.

 

Looks like the spinners got her to cut the parts where she is most whiny and blaming others, or too self congratulatory.

 Plus taking Greg Morrow's name out. Bad for his cover.

adma
KenS

I don't think so adma. From that blogpost of Morrow's:

"The NDP once stood up and demanded that minority voices be heard in parliament. But I see now that this principle has given way to the search for a few more votes, afraid of what giving the Greens a voice might do to your bottom line. So as it stands today, in 2008, I will cast my ballot for the Green Party — a direct response to your decision to put petty politics ahead of principle."

That reads like someone who is just a voter not having decided until that moment. But May's post mortem makes it pretty clear that Morrow has been taking a partisan advisory role for longer than that.

Morrow's calls for the ridings can be judged on their own merits. But I think he has always been less then forthright that he has a horse in this race.

janfromthebruce

Now I would like to talk about Greg Morrow - site owner of democraticspace - and in conjunction with principle which he lauded on about about in an open letter Layton on Sept 9/08.

Dear Jack: Strength is More Than a Slogan

 Note in his open letter these comments:

In join forces with the Conservatives to deny the Greens a voice,
you have betrayed your principles and the principles of the New
Democratic Party.

In doing so, you have lost my vote. In 2006, I proudly cast my vote
for the NDP on principle. The NDP once stood up and demanded that
minority voices be heard in parliament. But I see now that this
principle
has given way to the search for a few more votes, afraid of
what giving the Greens a voice might do to your bottom line. So as it
stands today, in 2008, I will cast my ballot for the Green Party — a
direct response to your decision to put petty politics ahead of
principle. I am not alone.

So Greg Morrow, by appearances in May's document is working with the Greens behind the scenes, yet professes righteous indignation as an previous NDP voter and non-partisan, but is actually secretly partisan and working behind the scenes for the Green Party, and thus through May's outing is shown to be in unprincipled position when writing his tirade.

No wonder in May's original letter to the Green incrowd and later deleted for public consumption she said this in relationship to Morrow:

Greg Morrow has already reported to the FCC his view that it was a mistake to suspend general election planning due to the by-elections (and re-circulating of memos demonstrates he argued this same point at the time and not only from hindsight).

 It shows that Greg was involved with the Green party prior to the first week of the election, and prior to the writ dropping, since he had already reported to the FCC.... 

 Thus Morrow was a partisan, pretended he was not, and acted without principle - pot meet kettle.

Going to back to May's post-election analysis, she stated, "We did a great job prompting the demand for me to be in the debates, but the level of public outrage certainly exceeded anything we orchestrated."

Yes, and Morrow appears to have used his non-partisan position, without principle, to spout outrage on HIS very public and well-trafficed webpage in his part in "prompting and demand for [May] to be in the debates."

Bookish Agrarian

It is so very surprising to me that Greg Morrow and democraticspace are full of crap.  (Where`s that damn rolly eyed emoticon when I need it!)

pogge

Isn't it possible that Greg just honestly felt May should be in the debates?

I say this as someone who was regularly critical of Elizabeth May and just as regularly had Green supporters in my comments accusing me of spinning for the NDP.

You don't trust Elizabeth May. But on the sole basis of an oblique reference in a self-serving document written by someone you don't trust, you're going to condemn Greg Morrow?

 

janfromthebruce

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

It is so very surprising to me that Greg Morrow and democraticspace are full of crap.  (Where`s that damn rolly eyed emoticon when I need it!)

 

I don't know. But I want to have peace in our time now Surprised

I try to find you one as a image which you can keep on hand when the need urges you. Think of it like a peace offering. Cool

remind remind's picture

Jan:

 I had not noticed that you did a compare when I wrote my last comment, dang, as I too went away and did a compare, and made notes. My compare was almost exactly as yours, and beyond my general noting that she freaking blames everyone else, but herself, I found these observations:

1. On page 1 she talks about there being 4 waves (which in itself appears to be sort of a campaign plan), leaving the first 3 waves aside, and going to the 4th, she says it did not work in the media and that their story was "Greens in close races", we saw that bull shit play out hear, where we were being fed this nonsense, and we did not believe it for a moment. Yet she has the audacity to believe that the MSM should have believed the GP lies about close races and covered them as such and whines because they didn't?! Unbelievable.

2. May goes on to note, in her "regional analysis", though she did not give any analysis on anything outside of her immediate world and across Canada, other than to slam PQ, that Mary Lou Babineau in Fredricton got over 10% of the vote with campaign expenses totalling $6k, she came 4th with 4273 votes getting 10.13%, most of this vote appears to come from the Liberals. Though voter turn out was well below 2006. Having said that, May got 8437 more votes than Babineau, the spending limit according to the Pundits Guide for a CN campaign was $80,462.00, now seeing as how we have heard that EMay had syphoned off the campaign money from the rest of the ridings for hers, I would bet that she spent to that limit. Then of course salaries etc, were on top of that. So most likely she spent 74K, at minimum, more than Babineau to try and get herself elected, hardly something to crow about considering the implications for herself, me thinks.

2. May stated in her "Reflections" section: "The results were disappointing because our hopes were so high. I reflect on my own sense of imminent seat wins. I cannot say we
were wrong to be optimistic. You can never win seats if you downplay
expectations
."
but yet we heard from EMay and indeed here from GP members mocking Jack for stating he was running to be PM. Amazing the hypocrisy really! Moreover, her "imminent sense of seat wins" indicates that the MSM was right on target with how she claims they depicted her.

3.Then she goes on, in her section of factors out of the GP control that factored in to their poor showing, to make huge assumptions and speculations that indeed could be said for ALL the other parties as well. The notion that the GP was affected most by the new election laws is mind boggling. And the hugest BS factor was that the GP had media bias against it. Gawd a day did not go by that EMay was not front and centre, it was noted here over and over again that the GP got way more coverage than the NDP, so what did she expect, that they covered no one else but her? Seems so.

4. She re-worded this below from the first synopsis:

"There were stories alleging I had called Canadians stupid (the strange mis-hearing of the TVO show from last year)," 

 to read as this:

"the strange tape with missing comments to the side from mis-hearing of the TVO show from last year"

making no mention of the bull shit law suit launched against the blogger from SK. And why did she all of a sudden lie in the 2nd writing and try to assert there were portions missing, as when the full tape came out from TVO, it was found there were NO missing pieces.

 5. She took out Greg Morrow's and Robert Hurst's names from the second transcript as she did with Hedy Fry. Guess someone told her naming was a no no.

 6. What the hell was she doing whining about Stephane Dion's treatment by CTV, in her report on the GP actions and how they faired in the election? And  later she carries on about Nader and the the US 2000 election, and chastizes the GP members for not enquiring about how Cynthia McKinney faired in this election. Gawd she should be chucked as leader just for those non-pertinent remarks. Furthermore, instead of putting all that BS in she should have extended her report out across all the ridings. That she didn't indicates, there is no world outside of the E. May world, and that she is no leader for a national party.

7.  In the section factors in their control, (not mentioning the accusations against other GP members) though apparently to E. May there were not many, she makes a completely inverse statement, in the same paragraph even:

 "There is no question that the exact scenario of Stephen
Harper deciding to break his own fixed election date law was not in
anyone's list of hypothetical scenarios. Still, we did know a fall
election was likely."

First she says in was not in anyone's list of hypotheticals, but goes on to say still they did know a fall election was likely, which is it? It can't be both! Does the woman think that others cannot read and understand her BS double talk? And it seems like she was responding half assedly to accusations thrown at her.

8.  Then in the section On the Campaign as a whole, May states:"If I had been in Central Nova the whole time (except for national debates), I would have won." That is not even close to rational thinking and is actually delusional. There would have had to be no NDP candidate, and even then it would have been unlikely.  And she furthers this self-delusion by saying; "the Green Party is the only federal party without a seat for the leader in a safe riding," Layton had to fight for his riding he had no consessions from any party, unlike what May got from Dion. Moreover, he actually let other people have media exposure in the party, so that the party is more than him.

9.  May stated regarding her comments on strategic voting:

"First of all, I think the party internally is obsessing about this in a way
that verges on dangerous self-destruction.  I have been clear that I did
not endorse strategic voting. I was under intense pressure -from people
I respect (such as Nobel Prize Winning scientists)
-- to do so."   

WTH? She basically told the GP members she has no respect for them, and that a Nobel Prize winner trumps the whole damn party. Plus she was overtly "name dropping" without dropping the name in order to put GP members in their insignificant place in the E. May world.

Then, apparently not content with tearing them down, she basically calls non-strategic voters unintelligent. I guess that means those who voted for the GP, and not the Liberals too. And of course those in the GP, who were angry with her calls for strategic voting were a direct target of being unintelligent, as we can see with this comment: "Moreover, the Green Party denouncing strategic voting will not stop
people from voting strategically. It is what a lot of intelligent people
will do"

 However all that was not insulting enough towards GP members and their FCC, she goes on to state that the party is only HER, and will be nothing without her,  apparently she believes the increasing of their popular vote by 2.3% was done solely by her. If one only considers CN perhaps it was. But no worries on the strategic voting, she pledges to never to do it again, oh wait maybe not, as in the very next breath she recinds that, as we can see:

" My personal popularity with the Canadian electorate is something,
speaking as objectively as possible, that the Green Party needs. I did not become leader of this party to quit and, in so doing, watch it decline.

Nevertheless, while I pledge to be clearer that people should vote
Green
and more wary of media manipulation, I need Council to know that
I cannot be expected to deny the reality that Stephen Harper's approach
to the single most important issue of our time, global warming and the
gathering risk of a run-away greenhouse effect, is wrong and
dangerous. 
If that is what is wanted of me, then we have a problem."

9. May's comments directly above are extremely stress inducing, as is the whole report, but she is not content with that level, as she then, in closing, goes on to yammer about other environmental things not pertinent to the GP election 2008 report,  which indeed are out the the GP's control and are only geared towards further increasing GP member stress levels. This is a basic propaganda strategy to dimish rational thought processes about what she has done, and indeed stated in her non-report. As stress levels go up, people's ability to think rationally diminishes proportionally. They are exactly inverse to one another.

10. All in all, the so called report is shameful, as are her words. If  any NDP leader ever sent something like that out, I would run from the party as fast as I could. One is left with the impression, that if May was the captain of a ship, which she caused the sinking of, she would jump ship before anyone else, and then blame everyone but herself.

What a leader! Moreover, if the GP keeps her as leader, it is shame on them, as we can see from point 8 she does not respect the GP membership, and that she would do nothing different in the next election.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

janfromthebruce

pogge wrote:

Isn't it possible that Greg just honestly felt May should be in the debates?

I say this as someone who was regularly critical of Elizabeth May and just as regularly had Green supporters in my comments accusing me of spinning for the NDP.

You don't trust Elizabeth May. But on the sole basis of an oblique reference in a self-serving document written by someone you don't trust, you're going to condemn Greg Morrow?

 

Hi Pogge,

It appears Pogge that according to May, that Morrow was working on the Green Party executive and giving behind the scenes advice for election readiness. Now this might be May spinning but she evoked him in two places, but particularly plants him within her party aparatus.

If what she says is true, he was providing advice and also in email contact with the executive and campaign, before the writ was dropped. 

To come out with a letter condemning Layton, but not declaring he was a partisan Green, but using his place of non-partisan, and his site as a launch for tirade, well yes, I condemn him. It was an illusion that he had been a supporter of the NDP, a party and leader with principle, but now the NDP is not those things, and the Green party and May are - principled. Remember, May has stated that she would like the greens to replace the NDP as the party of Tommy Douglas. 

I think that it's interesting that a week or so ago in the Torstar that May was quoted as suggesting that Layton and the NDP were at fault for Harper's increased minority win. I wondered where that came from or how she had the "nerve" to say that. Layton has said absolutely nothing negative about her post election. She does this sideswipe. 

But after reading her analysis it looks like she had heard loud in clear - from places - that media, for instance, were blaming May and the Greens for taking votes from the libs, for instance, and allowing Harper to win seats from libs. I think she did this to deflect critism, but more so, to let the lib party and executive know that she can be useful to them as the cat's paw in the future. Essentially tryig to curry favour.  

janfromthebruce

Remind, in the first copy I have, I did not have Robert Hurst's name. Can you send me the exact place that his name was in as I don't have that. So maybe there are more "revamped copies."

I think your rethinking what she wrote was good. I think that one of the modus operative of the Green party is to say that this a close race, and so on, and so in the future, it can be used to out them.

Naggy in the bi-election is a case in point. If folks are being told this a close race, they may tend to back a different person as they think they have a chance. We saw that happening in Guelph. It's a strategy that works but can now work against them - as they get outed. They use an internal poll done by an insider green poller to say that the Green has a chance of winning. How the polling was done and so on is not released. This is push polling. Note that during the election, they didn't use this pollster because that pollster in election time has to reveal the questions, numbers of persons polled, in other words, be upfront. 

Anyway, I didn't go into a big look at her contradictions, although I was aware of them as I read the report. But one thing that was interesting was her rant about being on Mike Duffy live, and how she imagined that they were setting her up to see her facial expression when she was told that the "consortium" had denied her a place in the debate. Wait a minute, didn't she blame Harper and Layton just before that. So yeah, she knew it was the consortium that made the final decision, and trying to frame Layton for a decision that was not in his hands. 

pogge

janfromthebruce wrote:

It appears Pogge that according to May, that Morrow was working on the Green Party executive and giving behind the scenes advice for election readiness. Now this might be May spinning but she evoked him in two places, but particularly plants him within her party aparatus.

If what she says is true, he was providing advice and also in email contact with the executive and campaign, before the writ was dropped.

From the front page of Greg's website:

Quote:
DemocraticSPACE Research (DSR) is our non-partisan research and
consulting arm. Put the power of DemocraticSPACE to work for your
campaign. Using our unique local and regional statistical modeling, we
are your one-stop-shop for campaign strategy. We partner with local and
regional pollsters to obtain data that is modeled at the regional and
local levels, giving your campaign the most up-to-date, detailed
spatial analysis available. Our modeling allows us to offer your
campaign detailed recommendations from communication strategies to
boots on the ground. Call or email us to discuss your needs.

It sounds like the Green Party hired him. And it sounds like any other party could hire him too. Whatever you may think about that, it's not exactly behind the scenes when he tells you on the front page that he's for hire as a consultant.

He indicated in that letter to Layton that he intended to vote Green so he didn't make a secret of that either.

But the real issue is this: to call his site crap is to suggest that his numbers are tainted. Got proof? Were all the pollsters -- or any of them -- so much more accurate that it makes Greg's numbers look peculiar somehow?

 

janfromthebruce

pogge wrote:
janfromthebruce wrote:

It appears Pogge that according to May, that Morrow was working on the Green Party executive and giving behind the scenes advice for election readiness. Now this might be May spinning but she evoked him in two places, but particularly plants him within her party aparatus.

If what she says is true, he was providing advice and also in email contact with the executive and campaign, before the writ was dropped.

From the front page of Greg's website:

Quote:
DemocraticSPACE Research (DSR) is our non-partisan research and
consulting arm. Put the power of DemocraticSPACE to work for your
campaign. Using our unique local and regional statistical modeling, we
are your one-stop-shop for campaign strategy. We partner with local and
regional pollsters to obtain data that is modeled at the regional and
local levels, giving your campaign the most up-to-date, detailed
spatial analysis available. Our modeling allows us to offer your
campaign detailed recommendations from communication strategies to
boots on the ground. Call or email us to discuss your needs.

It sounds like the Green Party hired him. And it sounds like any other party could hire him too. Whatever you may think about that, it's not exactly behind the scenes when he tells you on the front page that he's for hire as a consultant.

He indicated in that letter to Layton that he intended to vote Green so he didn't make a secret of that either.

But the real issue is this: to call his site crap is to suggest that his numbers are tainted. Got proof? Were all the pollsters -- or any of them -- so much more accurate that it makes Greg's numbers look peculiar somehow?

 

I didn't call his site crap and nor did I suggest his numbers are tainted. You need to reread the threads as I did not make that allegation.

What I suggested was that he was not upfront to his work with the Greens, and used his site, as a non-partisan space, to attack Layton.  I think that if someone in his capacity is working for someone, declaring that is principled. Not declaring that fact is unprincipled.

Other polsters were quite up front who they were working for. And people who work for certain parties often do have an affliation for those party politics. 

Considering that Morrow provides advice, strategy and messaging, the Green's main strategy was to get May into the debates and messaging would need to be tailored to create public perception that she was a victim of entities who were unprincipled but she was principled. Sure sounds like Morrow's letter on his well-trafficed site sure fit with the strategy and messaging. And it should as he was "hired" by the Greens. No problem with that but his letter made no mention of it, and one of left to think he was a non-partisan who use to vote NDP until they went to the "dark side."  But wow, the Greens are all fresh and shiny and new - and on message - principled. 

nicky

I mistakenly sent this to the central Nova forum. it should be here in response to may's memo:

There may be a lot of harmles self-delusion in May's memo but there is one particularly dangerous mendacity as well. Her assertion that the Greens did not significantly split the vote is, "to be as objective as possible" (or whatever such phrase she uses) just not true.

Polls showed that the NDP and Liberals (and BQ in Quebec)  would have been the second and third choice of Green voters. The Conservatives were their last choice. The numbers were roughly NDP 35%, Libs 25% and Cons 10%. In ridings where the NDP was out of contention one might have expected a greater second preference for the Liberals among Green voters. Where the NDP were out of contentions the opposite might well be the case.

Using these fairly safe assumptions it seems reasonable to conclude that the Greens delivered about 15 seats to Harper.

From the Liberals,11 seats: West Nova, Egmont, St John, Kitchener Centre, Kitchener Waterloo, London W, Mississauga Erindale, Oak Ridges, Nunavut, N Vancouver and Saanich.

From the NDP, 4 seats: South Shore St Margaret's; Saskatoon Rosetown Biggar, Surrey N, and Vancouver Island North. (and perhaps Central Nova as well)

What is more frightenening is to contemplate the effect on the distribution of seats if the Greens had polled the 10 to 12% many polls gave them rather than the 7% they actually received on election day. Harper would almost certainly have a majority today.

 May does not want to acknowledge this harsh truth because it can lead to a large reduction of the Green vote in the next election. She wants her supporters to think naively and wrongly that voting Green does not help the Conservatives.

nicky

While Greg Morrow could have provided more transparency concerning his Green connections I don't think it can be said that democraticspace was unduly biased towards the Greens in its projections. As I recall, its predictions were quite objective and reasonably accurate. They were particularly accurate about the Greens in predicting they would not come close to winning any seat.

I remember Greg Morrow's righteous indignation about May's initial exclusion from the debate. Some transparency about his partisanship might have been useful here. I could never understand why a party that never has come within miles of winning a single federal or provincial seat should have got a seat at the table in the first place. Hopefully the next debate will be limited to serious parties.

pogge

janfromthebruce wrote:

I didn't call his site crap and nor did I suggest his numbers are tainted. You need to reread the threads as I did not make that allegation.

BA wrote:

Quote:
It is so very surprising to me that Greg Morrow and democraticspace are
full of crap.  (Where`s that damn rolly eyed emoticon when I need it!)

That's the comment immediately before my entry into the thread. It's the one that finally prompted me to respond.

 

KenS

nicky wrote:

 I don't think it can be said that democraticspace was unduly biased towards the Greens in its projections. As I recall, its predictions were quite objective and reasonably accurate. They were particularly accurate about the Greens in predicting they would not come close to winning any seat.

I think calling him not 'unduly biased' is fair enough. But I don't know about how accurate, and from my recollection- not without what sure looked like bias in the case of some ridings. Noatbly South Shore.

That he chalked most ridings up to the Liberals or NDP was a minimum for him having any credibility.

Wilf Day was keeping track of Morrow's predictions, and noted some of these individual cases despite apparently being favourably disposed to Morrow.

ottawaobserver

I think the more general problem with the prediction methodologies being used by many of the sites is that they're based on the last election's results as a starting point, and then modifying them based on national poll results.  Morrow does add some additional weighting based on incumbency and so forth, but was still overly influenced by how the riding voted previously.  Most pundits missed swings like the 2 Kitchener seats, for example, because previous margins had been so wide.  The problem is that most of these methodologies have been developed post-1993, which only represents one part of the larger electoral cycle in Canadian federal politics.

ottawaobserver

I think the more general problem with the prediction methodologies being used by many of the sites is that they're based on the last election's results as a starting point, and then modifying them based on national poll results.  Morrow does add some additional weighting based on incumbency and so forth, but was still overly influenced by how the riding voted previously.  Most pundits missed swings like the 2 Kitchener seats, for example, because previous margins had been so wide.  The problem is that most of these methodologies have been developed post-1993, which only represents one part of the larger electoral cycle in Canadian federal politics.

HeywoodFloyd

Here is a handy-dandy comparison of the two. Only the text differences are included by line, comparing the two versions (the one posted here and the one on the GPC website). The first number is the line. The bracketed number is the file version.

 

21 [ 1 ]  Our only seriously worrying result was in Quebec. As a party, we need to put special attention into determining why our vote did not grow in Quebec. Our national results would have been much higher if not for our vote stalling in Quebec.  One key factor may be that the provincial Parti Vert is not as supportive of federal Greens as is the case between other provincial parties and Greens federally.  We are also less visible in Quebec, although we were beginning to get more "buzz" after the French debate.  Clearly, there needs to be an overhaul of the organizing efforts.  There were two full-time Quebec organizers before the campaign.  Both are no longer working for GPC.
   [ 2 ]  Our only seriously worrying result was in Quebec. As a party, we need to put special attention into determining why our vote did not grow in Quebec. Our national results would have been much higher if not for our vote stalling in Quebec. We are less visible in Quebec, although we were beginning to get more "buzz" after the French debate. Clearly, there needs to be an overhaul of our Quebec strategy.

27 [ 1 ]  The results were disappointing because our hopes were so high.  I reflect on my own sense of imminent seat wins. I cannot say we were wrong to be optimistic. You can never win seats if you downplay expectations. On the other hand, it seems a bit masochistic to beat ourselves up for failing to meet our best projections. As my leadership is being criticized by some, I think it is fair to point out that the other major leadership candidate had a strategy of not trying to win seats in the near term.  It is due to my leadership that we were doing so well, raising our expectations.
   [ 2 ]  The results were disappointing because our hopes were so high. I reflect on my own sense of imminent seat wins. I cannot say we were wrong to be optimistic. You can never win seats if you downplay expectations.

45 [ 1 ]  What did get coverage was repeated efforts to throw us off-stride, generally originating in the blogosphere, then in major papers and to scrums and media questions. For the most part, the communications team did a great job shutting these down.  There were stories alleging I had called Canadians stupid (the strange mis-hearing of the TVO show from last year), the accusation of Green Party anti-Semitism, the charge I had attended a pro-Hezbollah rally, charges that there were secret agreements, and then the charge around strategic voting. The reason that last story did not get laid to rest effectively was the unfortunate intervention of dissident Greens calling media and keeping the charges alive.  If people alleging they represented the Green Party had phoned reporters to call for my resignation for attending a pro-Hezbollah rally, it would not have mattered that I never had done so. The dissident accusations cemented the story for the media.
   [ 2 ] What did get coverage was repeated efforts to throw us off-stride, generally originating in the blogosphere, then in major papers and to scrums and media questions. For the most part, the communications team did a great job shutting these down. There were stories alleging I had called Canadians stupid (the strange tape with missing comments to the side from mis-hearing of the TVO show from last year), the accusation of Green Party anti-Semitism, the charge I had attended a pro-Hezbollah rally, charges that there were secret agreements, and then the charge around strategic voting.

47 [ 1 ]  Media bias went beyond deliberate distortion. I believe the Conservative Party let their favourite media mouthpieces know that they wanted the Greens marginalized by treating me as a "bizarre" or "off the wall" (both Mike Duffy and the Macleans piece last year have tried this spin). It is clear to me that CTV orchestrated the situation so that I would be informed on Mike Duffy Live that the consortium had decided to keep me out of the debates. About one minute before being on Mike Duffy's show I bumped into the chair of the consortium, CTV news head Robert Hurst, in the hallway.  I shook his hand and asked if there was any news. He managed that encounter without saying a word, with something between a shrug and a nod.  Within seconds I was in the chair in Mike Duffy's studio to be told  -- live on air  -- that the consortium had decided to exclude the Green Party from the debates. So it was a deliberate ploy to spring the news on me in hopes of having a television clip of me over-reacting, being angry or tearful.  They could have used such a clip to confirm my unsuitability to participate in the debates - thus letting Harper and Layton off the hook.  Thankfully, I stayed very calm and explained why the decision was anti-democratic and avoided larger questions in the public interest -such as who controls the public airwaves.
   [ 2 ] Media bias went beyond deliberate distortion. I believe the Conservative Party let their favourite media mouthpieces know that they wanted the Greens marginalized by treating me as a "bizarre" or "off the wall" (both Mike Duffy and the Macleans piece last year have tried this spin). It is clear to me that CTV orchestrated the situation so that I would be informed on Mike Duffy Live that the consortium had decided to keep me out of the debates. It was a deliberate ploy to spring the news on me in hopes of having a television clip of me over-reacting, being angry or tearful. They could have used such a clip to confirm my unsuitability to participate in the debates - thus letting Harper and Layton off the hook. Thankfully, I stayed very calm and explained why the decision was anti-democratic and avoided larger questions in the public interest -such as who controls the public airwaves.

55 [ 1 ]  We were clearly unprepared.  There were very good reasons for this as the call of four by-elections in mid-summer, particularly Guelph where we saw our best ever chance for winning a seat, distracted our attention.  Greg Morrow has already reported to the FCC his view that it was a mistake to suspend general election planning due to the by-elections (and re-circulating of memos demonstrates he argued this same point at the time and not only from hindsight).
   [ 2 ]  We were clearly unprepared. There were very good reasons for this as the call of four by-elections in mid-summer, particularly Guelph where we saw our best ever chance for winning a seat, distracted our attention. It was a mistake to suspend general election planning due to the by-elections.

61 [ 1 ]  That was one of many moments when staying calm kept the party on an upward trajectory.  There was not a single day when we did not feel a disaster had been narrowly averted  -- from angry homeless people in a walk through of the lower East Side of Vancouver, to press conferences where the press release was not available until I had finished the event, to wrong addresses for live media appearances.  There was a near constant sense of stress -- something akin to being in a control tower of a major busy airport and noticing an absence of air traffic controllers.  I am very proud of the team for staying calm and holding together in a situation of intense stress.
   [ 2 ]  

75 [ 1 ]  First of all, I think the party internally is obsessing about this in a way that verges on dangerous self-destruction.  I have been clear that I did not endorse strategic voting. I was under intense pressure -from people I respect (such as Nobel Prize Winning scientists) -- to do so.   The media was relentless in exaggerating my comments about trusting in democracy and, in fact, stating the opposite of what I had said.  I have posted a long explanation and apology on the members list serve.
   [ 2 ]  First of all, I think the party internally is obsessing about this in a way that verges on dangerous self-destruction. I have been clear that I did not endorse strategic voting. I was under intense pressure -from people I respect (such as Nobel Prize Winning scientists) -- to do so. The media was relentless in exaggerating my comments about trusting in democracy and, in fact, stating the opposite of what I had said.

77 [ 1 ]  All of that said, Greg Morrow, who is the most accurate predictor of the vote in the last two elections has been clear that strategic voting, if it had an effect, had an impact that was relatively small (less than one per cent variance from his projected result).  Moreover, the Green Party denouncing strategic voting will not stop people from voting strategically. It is what a lot of intelligent people will do.  Telling them they are wrong will just alienate them from the Green Party.
   [ 2 ]  All of that said, experts who have accurately predicted the vote in the last two elections have been clear that strategic voting, if it had an effect, had an impact that was relatively small (less than one per cent variance from his projected result). Moreover, the Green Party denouncing strategic voting will not stop people from voting strategically. It is what a lot of intelligent people will do. Telling them they are wrong will just alienate them from the Green Party.

79 [ 1 ]  I am very pleased that the messaging has allowed us to escape a dangerous and devastating result.  Other than a few voices, such as Hedy Fry, some columns and a Hill Times reporter, the Green Party is not being blamed for the electoral result of a Harper government.  Some say I am unreasonably concerned about being labeled with the "Ralph Nader effect."  The truth is that Ralph Nader ran as a Green.  His vote in Florida resulted in Bush's victory.  Blaming Nader was wrong in principle. If Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee, he would have been president.  Gore made his own mistakes (campaigning as a wooden stick figure, distancing himself from Clinton and not allowing Clinton to campaign for him).  Nader's mistake, and the reason the Green fortunes in the US died the day after the 2000 election, was that he said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. (It is certainly notable that as the candidate and members list serves light up with different views on the importance of an Obama win, I do not even see Canadian Greens asking how the US Green presidential candidate, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, did in the campaign.)
   [ 2 ]  I am very pleased that the messaging has allowed us to escape a dangerous and devastating result. Other than a few voices, the Green Party is not being blamed for the electoral result of a Harper government. Some say I am unreasonably concerned about being labeled with the "Ralph Nader effect." The truth is that Ralph Nader ran as a Green. His vote in Florida resulted in Bush's victory. Blaming Nader was wrong in principle. If Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee, he would have been president. Gore made his own mistakes (campaigning as a wooden stick figure, distancing himself from Clinton and not allowing Clinton to campaign for him). Nader's mistake, and the reason the Green fortunes in the US fell so dramatically the day after the 2000 election, was that he said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. (It is certainly notable that as the candidate and members list serves light up with different views on the importance of an Obama win, I do not even see Canadian Greens asking how the US Green presidential candidate, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, did in the campaign.)

81 [ 1 ] My concern is that I think there are some in the party who would have wanted me to say just that (in the Canadian context).  I cannot do that. I pledged constantly, from my opening press conference seeking GPC leadership, to never say something I believed to be untrue. I pledged to never fail to differentiate between other parties and to give credit where credit is due.
   [ 2 ]  My concern is that I think there are some in the party who would have wanted me to say just that (in the Canadian context – no difference between Dion and Harper). I cannot do that. I pledged constantly, from my opening press conference seeking GPC leadership, to never say something I believed to be untrue. I pledged to never fail to differentiate between other parties and to give credit where credit is due.


 

Bookish Agrarian

pogge wrote:
janfromthebruce wrote:

I didn't call his site crap and nor did I suggest his numbers are tainted. You need to reread the threads as I did not make that allegation.

BA wrote:

Quote:
It is so very surprising to me that Greg Morrow and democraticspace are full of crap.  (Where`s that damn rolly eyed emoticon when I need it!)

That's the comment immediately before my entry into the thread. It's the one that finally prompted me to respond.

 

 

Strong maybe, and he is no more biased than any of the other sites.  However, democraticspace pretends to be different and his gosh, golly gee I am a nonpartisan was clearly a front to me some time ago.  He clearly was working at a high level on the Green campaign BEFORE the writ was dropped, but pretended all through the election to being nonpartisan.  Strong to call that full of crap - maybe.  But it still stinks.

Pages

Topic locked