May blames everyone and everything else but Herself

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 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. ;)  

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

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

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

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

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."

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.

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. :) 

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

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

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

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

Actually, it goes back to this blog post

http://democraticspace.com/blog/2008/09/dear-jack-strength-is-more-than-a-slogan/

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."

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?

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 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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.