May blames everyone and everything else but Herself

Good! At least she didn't mention "electoral reform"  Next thing we know she'll demand the NDP lend them some seats in parliament. 

 Greens were just a hair shy of the minimum threshold for Russian parliament, if we can hold that country's democratic gold standard in higher regard. First-Past-le-Ghost in Canada more repressive than Russian elections?   

I asked a former colleague whether they could get their hands on the full report and here it is.

Leader's Report on the 2008 Election
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, 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.

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, 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.

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.)

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.

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

E. May wrote:

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.

And, in so doing, May and the Green Party will decline
together.  Voters, including protest voters, will stop voting for a
party that doesn't win seats.  After a while, voting Green doesn't mean
anything.

double post

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I wonder if it is some kind of cosmic connection that both Sarah Palin and Elizibeth May ran in elections within weeks of each other.  Somehow I see them as very much cut from the same cloth in terms of hubris and arrogance.

Hey i don't like May but that hardly seems fair. 

wage zombie wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I wonder if it is some kind of cosmic connection that both Sarah Palin and Elizibeth May ran in elections within weeks of each other.  Somehow I see them as very much cut from the same cloth in terms of hubris and arrogance.

 

Hey i don't like May but that hardly seems fair. 

Well they seem pretty simular to me.  They portray themselves as one thing, really are another, expect the world to revolve around them and accept no responsibility for their actions.   I actually see a lot of simularity between them.

Benoit wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Well they seem pretty simular to me.  They portray themselves as one thing, really are another, expect the world to revolve around them and accept no responsibility for their actions.   I actually see a lot of simularity between them.

In the French debate, May was complimenting her opponents; Palin has never done something similar.

Uhh no she didn't she was decidedly ungracious in response to that question.

Also your comment about the beauty pagent was extremely sexist and has no place in this thread.

wage zombie wrote:

I don't think May would abuse power the way Palin has.  I don't think May would try to foment hatred at rallies the way Palin has. 

I don't buy 1 and I think she would do 2 in a heartbeat if she thought it would bring her 1.  There is enough in her public record to suggest given the right circumstances she would do both of those. 

Benoit wrote:

remind wrote:

You are not seriously trying to tell me I do not know what sexism, is are you?

no and yes

Good grief.  You're making a poor attempt at humour I hope.  A bit of advice my father gave me years ago.  You rarely fill up a hole by digging it deeper.

That's right there was no evidence of this phenomena in that last Canadian election.  That whole strategic voting on and off support just never occured eh?

Be more cunning next time you want to bully me.

Benoit wrote:

To me, the main problem the Greens met was to have a leader who felt a desire to stay close to her aging father even though that means running against Peter Mackay.

Well she could have run in the riding where her aging father lives thus been closer. The one she moved to as a teen at age 17 before she went off to higher learning. Oh, I forgot, it was a liberal held riding by a lower profile one. 

On a low note, if I had ever received a follow-up evaluation of a campaign, like May just wrote, from a leader of the NDP I would be out of that party and ripping my card up. 

She oozes "allaboutme.com"

Benoit wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Benoit wrote:

To me, the main problem the Greens met was to have a leader who felt a desire to stay close to her aging father even though that means running against Peter Mackay.

Well she could have run in the riding where her aging father lives thus been closer. The one she moved to as a teen at age 17 before she went off to higher learning. Oh, I forgot, it was a liberal held riding by a lower profile one. 

On a low note, if I had ever received a follow-up evaluation from a leader of the NDP I would be out of that party and ripping my card up. 

  

The main problem can become then the knowledge of French language of May.

Funny, I thought it was about her getting over herself and not believing her own bullsh_t.

I just want to thank Politics 101 for posting that debriefing.

remind wrote:

Benoit wrote:

remind wrote:

Why? I think it is a pretty damn accurate comment considering that Palin stated pretty much the same damn things, "its not fair", 'its the medias" fault and "I am perfect how could it be my fault"

Contrary to Palin, May has never won a beauty contest.

Well now, I have no fondness for May and I deeply resent having to stick up for her, but that was a bullshit sexist comment if there ever was one. 

Palin was Miss Alaska 1984: A factual statement.

If natural environment is taken for granted more in the West than in the East, it is certainly because the New World colonization is a westward phenomenon. Palin is from the West, May from the East.

Benoit wrote:

remind wrote:

Benoit wrote:

remind wrote:

Why? I think it is a pretty damn accurate comment considering that Palin stated pretty much the same damn things, "its not fair", 'its the medias" fault and "I am perfect how could it be my fault"

Contrary to Palin, May has never won a beauty contest.

Well now, I have no fondness for May and I deeply resent having to stick up for her, but that was a bullshit sexist comment if there ever was one.

 

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.  

remind wrote:

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!

"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:"

Oh that was a funny read ty jan.

Quote:

Elizabeth May flew - or rather took the train - by the seat of her
pants because that's how she works, not for lack of advice she do
otherwise.

It was not the Green Party or mesmerized inexperienced minds on
Council who insisted upon waiting until
"Mercury
was no longer retrograde" before deciding that, wait for
it, Central Nova was a better idea over say London. Beyond a
reliance on stellar constellations, scientific polling data was also
never able to replicate the mysterious premonition Elizabeth May
claimed she experienced whereupon Peter McKay would go down to
defeat.

Maybe God was speaking to her too, much like Palin?

 

"watching the tide roll away"

   Not Palin's God.  He'd through that Pastor Guy, likely label May a witch for using stuff like that as reasoning.     Must be a different God.  :P