NDP Leadership 53

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture
NDP Leadership 53

Take fifty-three...

Issues Pages: 
KenS

Wells:Quebec's not making it easier for the NDP to pick a leader

I dont think Wells puts the questions the same way we would. And his framed choices are all around dualistic. But he's not writing for us, and its a good piece anyway.

Shoon

I say HDs Quebec numbers are a fluke, no other recent numbers show it, so until thier is a poll to confirm it that is how I'll view it.

 

That being said the major effect of this will not be on the 2015 campaign, it'll be now during this leadership race. This will drive those uncertain or leaning towards Mulcair into supporting him. This coupled with his compaign picking up speed could lead to a first ballet win. At the very least it will raise him up higher on many lists. I also suspect that it'll push the ndp into working harder in Quebec.

 

Also I see no evidence Mulcair is a centralist. He supports pharmacare I believe I read somewhere and of course his cap and trade is very expensive restructuring of the economy. That's screams lefty to me and most people.

 

This is also not his whole platform which I suspect will be released some time in early January.

 

As to the other hopeful Niki Ashton there was Paul Dewar article where she got tacked in on the end. She has a policy announcement soon on housing which include a plan make buying a home for young people more affordable. Again I suspect the other platforms to be fully out in January so I cauten patience. I think she may be cutting back on the new politics repetitiveness. Also does no one see the resemblence to Jack's campaign style, high energy, confidence, and a slogan that is unleashed often enough to incite drinking games around it. Next time Niki says working families, er that was her mentor, I mean New Politics, take a drink. Should make the next debate waaaayyyy more fun to watch.

 

Btw why does she on her face book page have picture of her with the directors of the wheat board. Holding a teddybear? I know she reprsents youthful energy, but still that a bit too far. Unless this is the future mascot for the NDP:) A Diabolical plan I admit.

 

Piece of advice for niki, exploit your Greek understanding to show a greater understanding of the Euro crisis

 

Pual Dewar, Martin Singh, and Chisholm are wasting peoples time, Quebecers have made it clear fluency in french is a prerequiste for thier votes, it simply is to late to aquire it. It doesn't have to be right now, but if they are not fluent by the next french debate then they should resign from the race so as to no longer humiliate the NDP and if they don't it will make it more difficult to test those that remain. Its a slap to the face, especially chisholm, to Quebecers. We failed to tolerate Dions flawed english and at least he spoke english, unlike chisholm. If Dewar and Singh can't hit above dion they don't belong in this race either. Even Nash and Cullen should go if they don't make the standard by the second french debate. oh and the debate should be longer. If I was Turmel I'd even offer a refund of thier 15,000 for those too silly to realize on thier own that full french skills were required.

I won't lie, ideally at this point I'd like this race become between those who has the requiste language skills, Mulcair, Ashton, Topp, Saganash, and maybe Nash. Otherwise the debates will suck, because those who can debate in french and english will lose time to those who can't or at least not acceptably.

Also would like to see a national tv campaign recruiting for the NDP, while crowing about our accomplishments so far.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Anybody know what the holdup is in scheduling the January leadership debate? No one's really able to schedule any events until we know, which is frustrating both for the leadership campaigns and for local event organizers.

Unionist

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Anybody know what the holdup is in scheduling the January leadership debate?

Don't quote me, but I've heard everybody thinks somebody else is doing it.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Seeing as we're getting a new thread-chunk in this series practically every day, would it be too much to ask that people who start them link back to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-52]yesterday's thread-chunk[/url]?

[IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/1zme7x3.gif[/IMG]

Howard

To Shoon, I do hope we will see a narrowing of the field after the Halifax debate. It has been good to have a variety of candidates, their ideas, their organising, and their excitement, but I am getting tired of candidates that don't seem up to the task. Inadequate French is a very clear disqualifier but there are others too, like insufficient experience.

Based on the above traits and communications skills, I have a very clear picture in my mind of three tiers of candidates:

1st tier: Mulcair, Nash, Topp

2nd tier: Saganash, Ashton, Cullen

3rd tier: Dewar, Singh, Chisholm

I hope after the Halifax debate, whomever remains the third tier will drop off. I hope the second tier will also make clear what they need to happen, in subsequent months, to stay in the race. You shouldn't be in the race, if you can't do really well at convention. It goes against NDP tradition to ask leadership candidates to step off the soapbox and drop out, but I want the public to get a chance to know the next leader before they are elected and then defined (negatively) by the Conservatives. That is not possible right now, with so many candidates in the race, they suck up all the airtime.

While it remains to be seen, I think the party HQ really dropped the ball (again) on these debates. Here was an opportunity to expand the NDP base to a new audience by holding debates in new cities. Instead, it looks like they just went with NDP strongholds that would be "most able" to host the debates. What we are seeing now, is what a mistake this was. Places that have never hosted debates are clamouring to get in (e.g. Alberta, NFLD, Northern Ontario, others). With the raw energy we are seeing from these volunteers, a debate in these locations would be guaranteed to suceed, in fact some of these locations already have suceeded or would have suceeded if the HQ wasn't lumbering under the weight of these slow to spring up events in the NDP "strongholds." 

We also have to remember that some of these "strongholds" like Vancouver are getting two debates (i.e. the candidates town hall at BC NDP convention and one in March) and Toronto wanted two debates too (i.e. they already get the convention, two leadership campaigns running!). I have been watching how the leadership candidates respond to these debate scheduling issues and I would have to say that those candidates that accepted the invite to debate in Northern Ontario early (e.g. Mulcair) won points in my books and thus that issued calls for Toronto to have a second debate (e.g. Dewar) lost points.

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

Seeing as we're getting a new thread-chunk in this series practically every day, would it be too much to ask that people who start them link back to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-52]yesterday's thread-chunk[/url]?

[IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/1zme7x3.gif[/IMG]

Oh yeah? Well what if someone wants to check back to a specific thread? Out of sheer courtesy, I'm filling that need here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-52

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-51

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-fifty

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-49

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-48

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-47

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-46

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-45

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-43

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-42

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-41

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-40

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-39

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-38-0

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-37

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-36

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-35

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-34

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-33-...

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-32

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-31

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-30

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-forum-29

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-28

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-27

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-26

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-25

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-24

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-23

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-22

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-21

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-20

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-19

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-18

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-17

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-16-0

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-15

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-14

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-13

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-12

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-round-eleven

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-round-10

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-round-9

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-round-8

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-part-7

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-6

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-5

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-4

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-3

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-2

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-thread-part-1-many

For my next project, I'll be linking to each individual post. Stay tuned.

 

writer writer's picture

That Wells piece is simply stunning. As a commenter writes:

Quote:
 Wow, I can't beleive some of you know everything would dismiss Romeo Saganash as not Quebec.  I mean the Cree only go back tens of thousands of years on the land mass we call Quebec.  What kind of heritage is that?

Wells doesn't even bother to dismiss Saganash. Based on this article, he is a non-person, not even worth mentioning. Meanwhile, wasn't he considered by many to be the best French speaker in the debate?

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Howard wrote:

Places that have never hosted debates are clamouring to get in (e.g. Alberta, NFLD, Northern Ontario, others). With the raw energy we are seeing from these volunteers, a debate in these locations would be guaranteed to suceed, in fact some of these locations already have suceeded or would have suceeded if the HQ wasn't lumbering under the weight of these slow to spring up events in the NDP "strongholds." 

*smooch* Aw, shucks. *grin*

I still do think, though, that since the "raw energy" places are--as you point out--hosting other kinds of local events than official debates, party members in those areas will have plenty of opportunity to get to know the candidates before the convention. I mean, nice as it would have been to see an official debate in my city, it really wasn't necessary.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture
Howard

Howard wrote:

You shouldn't be in the race, if you can't do really well at convention. 

I think I'd like to go further than this and say, you shouldn't be in the race if you don't think you can finish in the top 3.

AnonymousMouse

Lou Arab wrote:

Wells is saying that in Quebec, there is no dispute that the candidate who can hold the province for the NDP is Mulcair. Obviously there is some dispute, since a number of NDP MPs are supporting other candidates. But outside the province, among the talking heads, they all think it's Mulcair.

I get your point, but let's remember that some of the Quebec MPs who have endorsed other candidates have explicitly said that they did so because they thought those candidates could win outside Quebec.

I do agree with your later point, though, that Mulcair would also have the best odds of winning more seats outside Quebec as well and I don't think Quebec MPs are the best judge of that anyway.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

KenS wrote:

Wells:Quebec's not making it easier for the NDP to pick a leader

I dont think Wells puts the questions the same way we would. And his framed choices are all around dualistic. But he's not writing for us, and its a good piece anyway.

It is an excellent piece.  Here's the crux in my opinion:

Quote:

 

The candidate of “holding Quebec” — the only candidate of holding Quebec, as Quebec opinion-makers see it — is Thomas Mulcair. I have been surprised, and then amused, at the unanimity with which my friends in the Quebec chattering classes assume that only Mulcair would be an acceptable NDP leader for Quebec voters — and that, since he’s on offer, the selection of any other candidate is ipso facto an affront to Quebecers.

This is odd, because if New Democrats chose a leader with roots in the province but residence outside it, instead of a Quebec-born-and-bred candidate, they’d only be doing what they did in 2003, when they picked the Hudson-born Torontonian Jack Layton over Pierre Ducasse. So theoretically Brian Topp, born outside Montreal, would sort of do. But I’m really not feeling the Topp love from the Quebec journalists and politics-watchers I talk to.

So: pick Mulcair to hold what the NDP already has, and then pray he can be made to appear warm and cuddly, or at least persuasive, in those parts of the country where he’s barely known. Or pick a Topp or a Peggy Nash (very popular among Toronto New Dems) or someone else, and hope Quebec quickly gets over the latest Historic Affront.

Wells is saying that in Quebec, there is no dispute that the candidate who can hold the province for the NDP is Mulcair.  Obviously there is some dispute, since a number of NDP MPs are supporting other candidates.  But inside the province, among the talking heads, they all think it's Mulcair.

Wells then frames the question as something akin to 'hold quebec and hope for the rest' vs. 'hold the rest and hope for the best in Quebec.' 

With respect to Wells, I think Mulcair can make a better case that he can hold the rest of the NDP's support while winning Quebec than the other candidates can do the opposite.  Impressive though Topp and Nash (and others) are, they are unknown quantities anywhere in Canada.  Mulcair is at least well known in Quebec. 

Mulcair supporters can argue that their guy has a decade and a half of experience in politics, he's been a Minister, he's a known, proven entity, while others (espcially Topp) are in need of more seasoning before they take over the big chair.  They can claim that while Mulcair has to learn to campaign in 9 provinces, the others have to learn to campaign in 10. 

Which is to say Ken that I don't think what you took from this column is what I took from it.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

@AnonymousMouse - I actually meant to write "but inside the province" in the last line of what you quoted.  Sorry.

Shoon

Howard wrote:

To Shoon, I do hope we will see a narrowing of the field after the Halifax debate. It has been good to have a variety of candidates, their ideas, their organising, and their excitement, but I am getting tired of candidates that don't seem up to the task. Inadequate French is a very clear disqualifier but there are others too, like insufficient experience.

Based on the above traits and communications skills, I have a very clear picture in my mind of three tiers of candidates:

1st tier: Mulcair, Nash, Topp

2nd tier: Saganash, Ashton, Cullen

3rd tier: Dewar, Singh, Chisholm

I hope after the Halifax debate, whomever remains the third tier will drop off. I hope the second tier will also make clear what they need to happen, in subsequent months, to stay in the race. You shouldn't be in the race, if you can't do really well at convention. It goes against NDP tradition to ask leadership candidates to step off the soapbox and drop out, but I want the public to get a chance to know the next leader before they are elected and then defined (negatively) by the Conservatives. That is not possible right now, with so many candidates in the race, they suck up all the airtime.

While it remains to be seen, I think the party HQ really dropped the ball (again) on these debates. Here was an opportunity to expand the NDP base to a new audience by holding debates in new cities. Instead, it looks like they just went with NDP strongholds that would be "most able" to host the debates. What we are seeing now, is what a mistake this was. Places that have never hosted debates are clamouring to get in (e.g. Alberta, NFLD, Northern Ontario, others). With the raw energy we are seeing from these volunteers, a debate in these locations would be guaranteed to suceed, in fact some of these locations already have suceeded or would have suceeded if the HQ wasn't lumbering under the weight of these slow to spring up events in the NDP "strongholds." 

We also have to remember that some of these "strongholds" like Vancouver are getting two debates (i.e. the candidates town hall at BC NDP convention and one in March) and Toronto wanted two debates too (i.e. they already get the convention, two leadership campaigns running!). I have been watching how the leadership candidates respond to these debate scheduling issues and I would have to say that those candidates that accepted the invite to debate in Northern Ontario early (e.g. Mulcair) won points in my books and thus that issued calls for Toronto to have a second debate (e.g. Dewar) lost points.

I agree. Although nothing is stopping other regions from organizing debates like Sudbury.

In fact I think its good to have regional debates and other formats along side national debates.

If its only HQ running things, then things will have an HQ bent to everything. This opens things up to new ways to run a debate, new formats, more focus on a regions prepectives, or even on issues.

It could really decentralize this leadership campaign and make the grassroots feel engaged in this campaign, even if they are currently unaligned. If a region or even a group like say WWF or clc wishes to run a special debate they can and most or all
Hopefuls will show up. If Chisholm's invitation is lost in the mail accidents happen.

An aside as if being unligual wasn't bad enough, Chisholm has been endorsed by Howard Hampton, a man whose idea of good campaigning was trying nail jelly to a wall and worst yet Chisholm bragged about his endorsement.

Look I like Hampton, a heart as big as his former riding and a great cabinate minister, but the man doesn't have the tactical sense the Gods gave a lemming. Best tactical decision he made was to let Andrea Horwath take over.

AnonymousMouse

Lou Arab wrote:

@AnonymousMouse - I actually meant to write "but inside the province" in the last line of what you quoted.  Sorry.

I got that. My only point was that the handful of Quebec MPs who have endorsed other candidates are--in some cases certainly, in other cases possibly--supporting other candidates even though they know Mulcair has an advantage in Quebec. There are other reasons to support a candidate.

AnonymousMouse

Shoon wrote:
If Chisholm's invitation is lost in the mail accidents happen.

An aside as if being unligual wasn't bad enough, Chisholm has been endorsed by Howard Hampton, a man whose idea of good campaigning was trying nail jelly to a wall and worst yet Chisholm bragged about his endorsement.

Look I like Hampton, a heart as big as his former riding and a great cabinate minister, but the man doesn't have the tactical sense the Gods gave a lemming. Best tactical decision he made was to let Andrea Horwath take over.

Wow, that got really mean, really fast. And not just Chisholm, Hampton too. I agree there is some chance of that Robert Chisholm's presence is being seen as an insult by some Quebecers (most of whom are not aware that historically plenty of people run for the leadership of the NDP without any intention of winning--maybe it would have helped to have a Socialist Caucus candidate this time), but we should all calm down about it. He will either improve his performace to date--enough that he is bringing something to the debate even if he can't speak French--or he'll drop out.

Polunatic2

 

Quote:
Wells is saying that in Quebec, there is no dispute that the candidate who can hold the province for the NDP is Mulcair.  Obviously there is some dispute, since a number of NDP MPs are supporting other candidates.  But inside the province, among the talking heads, they all think it's Mulcair.
Are these the same talking heads who didn't see the NDP surge coming in Quebec? How do they know? 

Quote:
It goes against NDP tradition to ask leadership candidates to step off the soapbox and drop out, but I want the public to get a chance to know the next leader before they are elected and then defined (negatively) by the Conservatives.
Interesting in theory but 40% of the public didn't even bother to vote at all. Do you really think they're paying attention to the NDP race? A lot of NDPers are still wrapping their minds around the race. No matter how it plays out, the new leader will have to let voters get to know them. 

Thanks for posting the links Unionist. But why not create a thread called "NDP Leadership Thread Index" or something which might be easier to find. Otherwise, we have to remember that the index is in thread 53.

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

WRT consolidating the gains in Quebec, I have never been convinced that the status quo is reasonably sustainable.  While there have been exceptions, the usual aftermath of an out of nowhere sweep is significant erosion in the next election.  Think the party's Atlantic seats post 97.

Certainl I'd work to retain every one of those seats and to gain a few more, but I'd hate to think that any potential leader - Mulcair included - would be stuck with an unreasonable benchmark for success like (just to pull a number from me arse) having to win 59 seats.

Brian Glennie

Howard wrote:

1st tier: Mulcair, Nash, Topp

2nd tier: Saganash, Ashton, Cullen

3rd tier: Dewar, Singh, Chisholm

 

Listen, If Topp had've stepped up to the plate and won a seat at any level for the NDP by now I bet tons of people would be supporting him but something, I don't know what, has stopped him from ever having done it and I'm pretty sure that is at least part of the reason why he got booed in Vancouver last Saturday.

 

KenS

Lou Arab wrote:

 

Which is to say Ken that I don't think what you took from this [Wells] column is what I took from it.

At least one of us knows what I took from it. Wink

Stockholm

While not having a seat is a liability for Topp, I don't see any evidence os "resentment" of him for that reason. I think the vast majority of NDPers acknowledge the great service he has done to the party behind the scenes. The booing you refer to I heard consisted of two people at most and it was essentially a "clac" by one of the other candidates.

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

While not having a seat is a liability for Topp, I don't see any evidence os "resentment" of him for that reason. I think the vast majority of NDPers acknowledge the great service he has done to the party behind the scenes. The booing you refer to I heard consisted of two people at most and it was essentially a "clac" by one of the other candidates.

I've wondered why Topp was such a latecomer to the elected politics game and then was pushed on the party so suddenly from above. He certainly doesn't look (or yet sound) the part. Even his "real world" experience is a pretty short skip and a jump from the NDP backroom. This is not to fault him for being a good servant to the party, but how much is his story going to resonate with the average Canadian? I'm also not 100% convinced that Topp will run for office if he doesn't get elected leader. He hasn't run to date and is still working on that connection with people, with very little time and tough circumstances under which to pull it off. Topp is smart though, so I would never count him out.

Stockholm

What does it mean to "look the part"? Looking like Willard "Mitt" Romney? Who knows if he would still run for a seat in 2015 if is is not leader. It an election that is almost four years away. Is there anything in Harper's "story" that is supposed to resonate with the average Cdn?? 

Pig you want to to talk about people skills (or lack thereof) look no further than Bob Rae. He can give a nice speech, but one on one he is just about the coldest, most aloof person I've met in my life.

nicky

Why should we assume that there will be a natural fall off of support in Quebec regardless of leader as Malcolm and others suggest?
After his breakthrough in Quebec in 84 Mulroney not only maintained his seats there but increased them in 89, And this was when he was losing over 50 seats in the rest of the country.
Recent events certainly show we can't take Quebec for granted. But remember the Angus Reid poll that shows Mulcair would increase the party's support in Quebec by TEN PER CENT. On a Uniform swing That would get us SEVENTY seats.

KenS

Its a very good question why Topp did not run before. Not only do I not know the answer, I dont have anything I would rate as a good guess.

Here's some 'shreds' on that topic.

I dont think there are many people who do know the answer, and probably most of them are in his campaign. Its as likely as anything to be something mundane.

Topps role in the party was not really someone who does others' bidding. He had a very good gig in the Layton leadership circle. And the fact he was in and out of every day intense roles probably had a lot to do with how long he was central. When Chiefs of Staff left the position, they moved on and did not come back.

As much of a guess as I will make is the fact that it was a good gig had at least a lot to do with why he did not run for office and join Caucus- that would be rocking the boat. Not to mention that while his boys were growing up he was only gone a lot for stretches. Being in Caucus would have ended that, and anyone who sees what that is like stops to think.

All of that and probably much more that is specific and personal that no one could guess at.

The reason I think he will run for office even if he loses this is that he has now turned a page. It is unlikely he could go back to something close to the role he had. I suppose there are a couple of the possible leadership winners who might want him to do something similar. But after that [possible] inclination they would bump up against the chemistry with other people they want in senior roles. You don't ust mix and match people for that sort of thing- least of all in a new operation.

While if he joins Caucus, he has his own base, to do with what he will and can. Mind you, bit of a wrinkle having to wait 3 years for the chance to join Caucus. Anything could happen in that time. But I doubt he is rigorously reflecting on all the possible permutations if he doesnot win this.

 

I think its funny how persistent is this notion that Topp was pushed on the party by the establishment, like he was their tool. Or even seeing it as a joint effort. I have no idea how he put it together, or even a guess any more about how far back he has been thinking about doing this. But make no mistake: Brian Topp has the skills and the gumption to drive himself where he is. And the people who believe in Topp the most who have been around him are not doing that just based on ambition and moxie they see.

Agreed: that does not say whether he has what it takes to be Leader. But it is what it is.

 

jerrym

The Leger poll of November 22 of 863 Quebecois showed the NDP at 37%  (a drop of 6%) with the Bloc at 27% and the Liberals and Conservatives both at 15%. With a larger sample size and a track record of predicting 20 -22% support for the NDP in the fall of 2010 when national polls showing the NDP at 10-12% or even in single digits in Quebec at the same time, I place more trust in Leger than this poll. I have no doubt the NDP have dropped in popularity in Quebec and could drop even more in the future. However, I doubt we dropped 11% in less than a month at a time when we are not undergoing the intensity of an election campaign and there are no NDP scandals. I think we have to consider the consequences of not picking Mulcair carefully. I am not saying one should vote for him, as I have not even decided on that, but we need to take it into account. 

 

KenS

I'm inclined to agree with Malcolm, and that our victory in May was more of a contingent fluke than was the Mulroney sweep. Not that it cannot be completely consolidated, and more added. But it is shaky gound, whoever is Leader.

But I also think these differing opinions do not matter. Pessimist or optimist starting point: we have to put our best foot forward in Quebec, and choice of Leader is a big part of that.

AnonymousMouse

Shoon wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Shoon wrote:
If Chisholm's invitation is lost in the mail accidents happen. An aside as if being unligual wasn't bad enough, Chisholm has been endorsed by Howard Hampton, a man whose idea of good campaigning was trying nail jelly to a wall and worst yet Chisholm bragged about his endorsement. Look I like Hampton, a heart as big as his former riding and a great cabinate minister, but the man doesn't have the tactical sense the Gods gave a lemming. Best tactical decision he made was to let Andrea Horwath take over.
Wow, that got really mean, really fast. And not just Chisholm, Hampton too. I agree there is some chance of that Robert Chisholm's presence is being seen as an insult by some Quebecers (most of whom are not aware that historically plenty of people run for the leadership of the NDP without any intention of winning--maybe it would have helped to have a Socialist Caucus candidate this time), but we should all calm down about it. He will either improve his performace to date--enough that he is bringing something to the debate even if he can't speak French--or he'll drop out.

My goal wasn't to be mean, just an honest opinion, I question thier tactal abilities, more so Howard then Chisholm who does have leadership ability, abet flawed Judgement at times.

I hope your right because if Chisholm can't be made to drop out and his ties to NS are too tight for Turmel press too hard on him to drop out. I pray it finally dawns on him he's hurting the party. He's a good man, but politicians have huge egos.

I'm hoping and parying Chisholm has a good hometown showing in the Halifax debate so he can get out of the race on a high note some time before Quebec City--where they will run him out of town on a rail unless he pulls off a lingistic Christmas miracle between now and then.