NDP Leadreship SIXTY

Really, you should leave these complicated matters up to the moderators.  Here's what we'll do.  We'll pretent the 59th thread was entirely filled with spammers from money marts and essay writing services (a while ago that wouldn't have been too far fetched) and I deleted it all.

Happy 60th.

Boom Boom wrote:

I like the idea of thread 59 being the Phantom thread. It may become legendary!

That's true. 

"Remember that thread 59 where we all agreed on everything? Wow, that was amazing! Will we ever be like that again? Sigh."

This is how myths are created. Good one, Boom.

As you were KenS, sorry for the last bit of drift.

I also like Saganash.  My next choice has yet to be carved in stone.  I also have a sinking feeling about Mulcair, who has not moved out of ninth place in my heart.

I might change that spelling in the title.

Here's to hoping that by number 69, there will have been brought about the sort of discussion that these threads have long been calling out for.

personally, i'm very much in mulcair's corner, for all the reasons we've all poured over.  but i'm not convinced that he's leading at this point, i'm not convinced he'll win, and i'm not convinced that if he is indeed cruising to victory, there is anything the other campaigns can do about it.

i'm sort of with akin on his assessments, but i'd say that dewar is one debate away from dropping to the third tier.  he's just painful to watch at times, and provides a dramatic contrast with the masterful mulcair and car salesman-like nash.  topp too, yeesh.  he was my second pick until i spent a couple hours after the debate watching videos of his speechifying, he's just squirmy and shrinking and kind of a bit creepy.

essentially, the only real route to victory that i see for mulcair is that it simply becomes the consensus that we need his particular leadership skills at this juncture.  i'm firmly convinced that we do, and i think people are starting to come around to the real dangers that we face in quebec and that we face with a weak opposition leader (and that i predicted months ago).  if mulcair doesn't complete the sale in time for convention, then, barring any changes to the complexion of the race, it seems very very likely that nash becomes the leader.  if mulcair does complete the sale, then it really won't matter how much other campaigns strategize and snipe, he'll roll to victory as the consensus candidate.

finally, my guess is that once mulcair has his teams in place in eastern canada, he'll spend virtually all his time in ontario and bc, and that these will be where the contest turns.  topp's minions can organize all they like in the indo-canadian community, the numbers wouldn't be nearly enough to overcome a plurality party consensus, which - again - is what mulcair would need not to lose out on the preferred ballot.

not really clear what your points were in all those posts.  anyway, noone is talking about mulcair as inevitable, not least myself.  indeed, if i were to lay money on the race at this point, i'd guess that nash would take it after 5 or so rounds.  and if you're convinced that mulcair's "plan a" is to promote himself as inevitable, we're watching two different ndp leadership campaigns.

Myself, as the campaign's progressed, I've unexpectedly become more comfortable with the idea of almost any credible candidate as leader. (Chisholm was never credible, IMO, and neither is Singh due to his fixation upon entrepreneurs and zero national profile until now.) Even Topp, who began the race pushing a wheelbarrow of negatives as far as I was concerned, has come to impress me with the depth of his policy proposals. Dewar is the one credible contender I believe would be a disaster. But perhaps after another debate or two he'll have shed his credible status.

Overall, though, I'm upbeat at the end of an awfully mixed year, and I think the race is proving a credit to the depth of talent in the party.

I know of several women supporting Mulcair. Definitely more men, but plenty of women.

Endorsers are a different story.

Outside of BC and Saskatchewan connections I can't think of many women supporting Brian Topp.

Outside of Ontario and Manitoba connections I can't think of many women supporting Paul Dewar.

You can't exclude Quebec supporters for Mulcair unless you do the same for other candidates.

The only candidate with a large number of women endorsers outside their power base is Peggy Nash. And that's only a "large" number relative to her small number of endorsers overall. Given that she's the most prominent woman in the race, it's not exactly a surprise that she'd have more female support.

flight from kamakura wrote:

finally, my guess is that once mulcair has his teams in place in eastern canada, he'll spend virtually all his time in ontario and bc, and that these will be where the contest turns.  topp's minions can organize all they like in the indo-canadian community, the numbers wouldn't be nearly enough to overcome a plurality party consensus, which - again - is what mulcair would need not to lose out on the preferred ballot.

This is in poor taste IMO.  We could just as easily talk about Mulcair's minions, or any other candidate's minions.

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with having supporters?  Is there some difference between a supporter and a minion?

I guess Topp has minions and Mulcair has fanboys.

As the term is commonly used, an "inevitablility strategy" would be a strategy based on a creating a sense that it is "inevitable" that a given candidate will win the current race.

The idea being to lock up supporters and endorsers who have a stake in choosing the winning candidate, discourage endorsers and supporters from actively working for other candidates because it seems futile and create a "bandwagon effect" by which people support the "inevitable" candidate because the appearence that that candidate seems to be winning makes them more attractive generally.

Mulcair doesn't seem to be doing that, but rather running on electability--the idea that there is a broad consensus in the party on policy and that what is needed is a leader who can win the next election.

I don't think that means people have to believe "We NEED Mulcair"--as if all the other candidates are unacceptable--but rather only that (a) Mulcair is the most electable candidate in a general election and (b) that electablility in a general election is more important than the other small differences that exist between candidates.

We probably should have a debate here on electability, with regard to the next federal election. Which of the eight leadership candidates has the best probability of winning against Harper in 2015, in other words - keeping in mind it's a group effort, not a solo performance.

Try as I might, I find it tough to get over what Mulcair did to Libby. I'd sure appreciate it if one of his supporters here could speak to what is, to me, one of the real low points in NDP history.

Malcolm wrote:

I'll go easy on you and simply write you aff as hopelessly naive on this point.

There is no way on God's green earth to build up the necessary political support for any Senate reform apart from abolition - and even abolition will take some doing.

Not to mention that the creation of a second chamber with democratic legitimacy is arecipe for the sort of legislative gridlock that effectively prevents the development of humane social policy in the UNited States.

A reformed Senate is at least even odds to be worse than the present monstrocity.  Fortunately, a better Senate is nigh on impossible.

Abolition will come.

The USA isn't the only example of an upper house. Australia has an STV-elected Senate and from what I hear it's highly functional. The STV system most recently allowed their Greens (who are genuiniely on the left compared to ours) to hold somewhat of a balance of power. Had we a similar STV Senate, the upper house would have likely been an enabler of humane social policy over the past 10 years (to whatever extent that non-Conservatives can agree upon). And perhaps capable of blocking Conservative excess in the face of a "majority" in the lower house.

Saganash (with an "h" there on the end) pretty much has a corner on hunting, enjoyment of the outdoors in all conditions, and endurance. The main narratives of the campaign – successor to Jack Layton and emulating him notwithstanding ... those are valuable qualities in this race too.

Sure, Saganash starts with more assets in that 'department'- but do those advantages explain no one challenging him on that turf?

For that matter, how can any candidate win without at least a degree of challenge on that front?

And oh! There's also that gravitas and the whole "deep cooperation ensuring that the job gets done so that no one is left behind" thing: see Plan du Nord, that UN Declaration Mr. Saganash played a central role in developing and handling, and seeing passed, despite Canada's best efforts to kill it.

ottawaobserver wrote:

And the problem for Mulcair's campaign is that his spinners keep saying "he has the most MPs". If, by the end of the race, he doesn't - that's going to be a problem for his momentum, isn't it. Either they're really sure he has the majority of them (I'm not), or it's a very short-sighted spin-line.

By my count, once you exclude the MPs who aren't endorsing anyone and the MPs who are running, there are about 30-35 left. In other words, it is nearly mathematically impossible for any candidate other than Brian Topp to get more MP endorsements than Mulcair and any candidate (including Topp) would need to get almost all the remaining MPs to do so.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Well, at the risk of throwing a monkey wrench into things ... I'm going to come right out and say it.

I don't know of hardly any women supporting Mulcair outside of Quebec. I know one who is working on his campaign staff, who went there because she was offered money. In my circle (it's pretty wide across the country) no women are supporting him. They are mainly supporting Dewar, Nash and Saganash. And some are supporting Topp.

Is it just me? Is there a different experience in other parts of the country? That campaign just seems to attract a lot of very type A and/or instrumental men.

Because women from Quebec somehow don't count?