;;
Issues Pages:
NDP Leadership 82
Sat, 2012-01-28 11:08
#1
NDP Leadership 82
Sat, 2012-01-28 11:14
#2
There is obviously a systemic campaign to either minimize NDP coverage or attempt to discredit the NDP in the mainstream press.
http://www.straight.com/article-593976/vancouver/stop-presses-new-poll-s...
This weekend, I expect the corporate media will have some fun ridiculing the federal NDP, thanks to a new poll by Ottawa-based Abacus Data.
The company, which has done a lot of work for the Quebecor chain (owners of Fox News North), has reported that 40 percent of Canadians don't know who is running for leader of the federal NDP.
Sat, 2012-01-28 11:48
#3
I'm impressed that 60% of Canadians DO know who is running for NDP leader - that is more than the % of canadians who can name our head of state.
Sat, 2012-01-28 11:56
#4
dacckon
But do they know all of the candidates?
We should elect the best individual as leader, not the one with the most name recognition.
If only the media covered this like the american media covers the republimorons race...
Sat, 2012-01-28 11:59
#5
Returning to the issue of electability, I think the Abacus poll deserves more attention than it is getting. I am reposting below something I sent in late on the previous thread which met with scant discussion.
This is is first large poll (1000 sample) which deals solely with the NDP leadershio. The previous polls, mostly by Forum, used a small subset (about 300) of nationwide polls to get a read on the leadership race. Some discounted Forum for this reason. Abacus, however, can't be sloughed off so simply.
Anyway, in the hope of engendering some discussion here is what I posted last night:
The news reports on today's Abacus poll have focused on name recognition. Mulcair has a small lead in this category.
The more significant results are in the cross-tabs:
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01367/Abacus_Data_Poll_1367631a.pdf
When the public as a whole is asked which leader will make them most likely to vote NDP the results are:
Mulcair 21
Topp 10
Dewar 9
Nash 6
Saginash 2
Cullen 2
Ashton 2
Singh 1
Amongst NDP supporters the numbers are
M 30
T 16
D 11
N 11
Sag 1
C 4
A 2
Singh 1
Lest there be any doubt who is best to hold Quebec, the Quebec numbers are unequivocal:
M 62
T 8
D 2
N 0
Sag 1
C 0
A 0
Singh 1
I am not surprised at Mulcair's strength. The biggest suprise for me is Peggy Nash's poor showing.
Unfortunately Abacus did not ask simply "which leadership candidate do you favour?" But the other numbers make it pretty clear how that question would have been answered.
Sat, 2012-01-28 12:04
#6
dacckon
Thanks for the link, there is something that should be quoted....
Methodology
The survey was conducted online with 1,000 respondents in English and French using an internet survey platform. A random sample of panelists was invited to participate in the survey from a larger internet representative panel of 150,000 Canadians. The survey was completed from January 16 to 19, 2012.
Steps were taken to ensure that the survey respondents were representative of the population over 18 years of age. The sample distribution was balanced to match the distribution of actual census data for age, gender, education, and province. Moreover, statistical weighting was applied to the data after the completion of the survey for age, gender, education, region, and previous federal vote.
Since the online survey was not a random, probability based sample, a margin of error could not be calculated. The margin of error for a survey of 1,000 respondents using a probability sample is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.
Sat, 2012-01-28 12:07
#7
I don't think we can keep using "name recognition " as an excuse much longer for discounting the polls.
Roughly 50% across the country were ablle to state a preference. Given that turnout in an election is only about 60%, that is reasonably high.
Secondly, name reconition in Quebec was about 75%, much higher than the rest of the country, so the Quebec figures are not so subject to this consideration.
Sat, 2012-01-28 12:27
#8
Maybe this is old news, whatever.
Sat, 2012-01-28 12:46
#9
What would it take to get the candidates to talk about a "made-in-Canada" defence plan? What they say would be a big voting issue for me.
Sat, 2012-01-28 12:53
#10
A REMINDER
The Toronto Mulcair campaign is hosting a debate watching party
Sunday starting at 12:30
The Windmills
303 Augusta Ave (just south of College)Toronto
Everyone welcome regardless of leadership preference
Sat, 2012-01-28 13:07
#11
What would it take to get the candidates to talk about a "made-in-Canada" defence plan? What they say would be a big voting issue for me.
With intra-party voting, the perfect way to make lots of enemies, and swing few votes. So its one of the things you are least likely to hear about.
Ot, to put it another way. An issue on which it is virtually guaranteed that none will say anything different than the party policy/positioning. So why bother in a leadership race?
Sat, 2012-01-28 13:19
#12
Sat, 2012-01-28 13:25
#13
There is obviously a systemic campaign to either minimize NDP coverage or attempt to discredit the NDP in the mainstream press.
The chances of orchestrating the Canadian media in any such "campaign" = herding cats.
The race is by most accounts pretty quiet, and the candidates do not have a single big-issue lightning-rod, ie the economy, Quebec, to draw sparks and attention. They basically agree on major policy.
Contrast that with the no-punches-pulled brawl the US Republicans have been having, loaded with loud policy differences and personal attacks. Now THAT draws media attention.
Sat, 2012-01-28 13:32
#14
I know it's just a coincidence, eh. LOL
There is obviously a systemic campaign to either minimize NDP coverage or attempt to discredit the NDP in the mainstream press.
The chances of orchestrating the Canadian media in any such "campaign" = herding cats.
The race is by most accounts pretty quiet, and the candidates do not have a single big-issue lightning-rod, ie the economy, Quebec, to draw sparks and attention. They basically agree on major policy.
Contrast that with the no-punches-pulled brawl the US Republicans have been having, loaded with loud policy differences and personal attacks. Now THAT draws media attention.
Sat, 2012-01-28 13:32
#15
What would it take to get the candidates to talk about a "made-in-Canada" defence plan? What they say would be a big voting issue for me.
With intra-party voting, the perfect way to make lots of enemies, and swing few votes. So its one of the things you are least likely to hear about.
Ot, to put it another way. An issue on which it is virtually guaranteed that none will say anything different than the party policy/positioning. So why bother in a leadership race?
Because it's an issue that a lot of NDPers care about and if I wanted to support a party for political cowards I'd join the Liberals.
Sat, 2012-01-28 13:45
#16
writer
Distinct from defence of a nation and its territory or citizens, belligerence without the legal and moral authority of a United Nations resolution can only divide peoples and inflame passions against the aggressors.
Like its cousin colonialism, aggression will never lead to a better result. As a fundamentally destabilizing force, it cannot contribute to greater peace in the world over the longer term. We must rise above knee-jerk reactionary emotion and understand the longer-term objectives that will serve us all.
International Policy, Romeo Saganash
Sat, 2012-01-28 13:55
#17
In the discussion of contributions by candidates to the party, Wilf was musing about their contributions to their campaigns and riding associations.
I picked what admittedly are probably the two polar opposites: Mulcair and Ashton.
In his 2007 by-election Mulcair contributed 1,060. To the 2008 and 2011 campaigns: zero. To the Outremont Riding Association over the course of 4 years: 1,281 from himself and Catherine Mulcair.
Ashton also has three campaigns, included the one she did not win in 2006.
To the 3 campaigns: 5,600 from herself and 1,100 from obvious family member. To the Churchill Riding association: $10,700 for certain from herself and obvious immediate family members.
The Ashton campaigns also raised 80% more than the Mulcair campaigns. And the Churchill Riding Association raised an impressive $29,000 over the 4 years from a LOT of contributors.
Sat, 2012-01-28 14:15
#18
It's a combination of reasons we haven't received a lot of media coverage.
The first is that they just generally ignore us, and they're used to covering the Liberal-Conservative battles.
The second is the race IS kind of boring. I certainly wouldn't have much news to tell to my less politically engaged friends.
The third is the media looks for high-profile conflict. You can see it by how much they tried to inflate Topp's accusation of centrism at Mulcair, or the battle over reinstating affiliated members, or pretty much any lame scandal (Topp's loans from credit unions, Mulcair's passport)... And our party doesn't really do inner conflict, unless a few communists try to do something stupid.
In the end, the lack of media coverage is a good thing.
Before the "Orange Wave" I was checking for NDP coverage every single day. There were virtually no stories, except (perhaps ironically) a few stories about Jack Layton's health, and (sadly unironically) the media asking why Jack Layton was having such a hard time getting the media to stop focusing on his health.
The Orange Wave happened because we circumvented the media, both from the top-down and the bottom-up. Jack had his big performance on TLMEP and was the best (or the least unlikeable) performer at the debate. Meanwhile, we were naturally getting a second look from people frustrated with the supposedly two-party system, and we were directly engaging with sympathetic voters (a lot of it online).
I'm perfectly happy if the media ignores us, because it gives us an opening to define ourselves. Ignoring the leadership race also allows our next leader to define themselves.
Of course, this is both an opportunity and a risk. Which is why I'm watching so carefully for good communication/presentation/vision... not just the best resume/biography/policy (which are all important too).
Sat, 2012-01-28 14:16
#19
Great comments by Saganash on defence policy - thanks writer
Sat, 2012-01-28 14:39
#20
In trying to make a point about how well Romeo Saganash speaks French, despite it not being his mother tongue, i said he had native fluency in French. This was taken by Wilf Day to mean I should have written native like fluency. I don' think so. Native like fluency is not the same thing, Another babbler with expertise in the area indicated that there was a difference.
I found the definition below of a natiive speaker here: http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa072701c.htm
By this defintion Romeo has more than native-like fluency. Native like fluency would be someone who learned a language later in life, speaks it very well, but does not pass as a native speaker.
Someone who has spoken the language from at least the age of 5 (this age limit is subject to some debate: I've heard theories that a native speaker can have started learning the language as late as any time up to puberty). In theory, understands essentially everything in the language: all vocabulary, complicated grammatical structures, cultural references, and dialects. Has a native (i.e., invisible, "normal" in his/her region) accent.
Sat, 2012-01-28 14:56
#21
Idealistic Prag...
By this defintion Romeo has more than native-like fluency. Native like fluency would be someone who learned a language later in life, speaks it very well, but does not pass as a native speaker.
No, Duncan. If you do not pass as a native speaker in a language, you do not have native-like fluency. If that's the case, you're just a good speaker. And passing as a native speaker of a language when you're not actually one is the very definition of the term native-like.
Seriously, that's the way the words are used in the field. Honest.
(None of which should be construed as saying anything about Romeo Saganash. I don't know how old he was when he learned French.)
Sat, 2012-01-28 15:18
#22
If you do not pass as a native speaker in a language, you do not have native-like fluency. If that's the case, you're just a good speaker. And passing as a native speaker of a language when you're not actually one is the very definition of the term native-like.Seriously, that's the way the words are used in the field. Honest.
She's a professor of language and linguistics. She knows.
"Native-like fluency" means that you're not actually a native speaker, but you are proficient enough that you are able to fool people into thinking you are.In practice, of course, it's a distinction that only matters to linguists and psychologists.
And to those hiring or otherwise dealing with scarce French Immersion teachers. Such as those with Franco-Ontarian backgrounds who turn out not to be native French speakers, and perhaps not even quite native-like. So it may also matter to those trying to assess bilingualism among the contenders.
Sat, 2012-01-28 15:19
#23
Are you guys the pettiest people alive, or just bored?
Sat, 2012-01-28 15:23
#24
Romeo learned French as a child. This would explain his native fluency.
Idealistic Pragmatic are you now saying there is no difference between native-like, and native? They are synomyms ? That does not make sense to me. Someone can be Canadian-like in their love of hockey, or French-like in their appreciation of wine, without being either. Why not be native like fluent in French without being a native speaker?
Or do you disagree with my idea that after a certain age, you only get to be "native-like" in fluency.
Sat, 2012-01-28 15:34
#25
Idealistic Prag...
Romeo learned French as a child. This would explain his native fluency.
If he learned French as a (young) child, then he can certainly claim native fluency. He might not choose to do so, though, for identity reasons. (A friend of mine, for example, is Welsh. She grew up speaking both Welsh--her home language, and English--the language of the wider community. She insists, however, that she has only one native language, and I wouldn't dare try to tell her otherwise.)
Idealistic Pragmatic are you now saying there is no difference between native-like, and native? They are synomyms ?
I certainly didn't say that, or mean that. If you look back at what I've said in this thread, I think you'll find that I've been consistent about saying that 'native-like' means "speaking exactly like a native speaker without actually being one", while 'native' means "being an actual native speaker." That doesn't suggest synonomy.
What I said was that there isn't any difference in practical terms (other than to a linguist or a psychologist) because unless you're actually looking at data on the way languages are stored in some individual's brain, you're going to be unable to tell the difference between a native speaker and a native-like speaker of a language.
Sat, 2012-01-28 16:49
#26
I'd say there's a certain window period in one's childhood where your capacity to suck up a language like a sponge and become totally fluent is fully intact. Once you surpass a certain age, new languages require a lot more work and don't always take root ("second" language learning). As far as I'm concerned, if you learn a language before that window expires and you reach complete fluency, you may as well be a native speaker.
Sat, 2012-01-28 17:19
#27
"Mulcair refutes reports that he doesn't give to the NDP"
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/01/28/mulcair-denies-report-he-hasnt-donated-to-ndp/
The MSM got it slightly wrong. He gave $4871.22 over 4 years which is more or less the maximum.
Will there be a correction?
Am I the only one thinking the MSM doesn't want Mulcair to be leader?
Sat, 2012-01-28 17:30
#28
The MSM hates the party. That means that they sometimes cheer for Mulcair because they think he represents a move to the center (even though he hasn't proposed as such), compared to the other candidates (Topp, Nash) who have been NDP rank-and-file members. It also means that they sometimes crush Mulcair, because no matter who we pick, they want them to lose.
Sat, 2012-01-28 17:36
#29
"Mulcair refutes reports that he doesn't give to the NDP"
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/01/28/mulcair-denies-report-he-hasnt-donated-to-ndp/
The MSM got it slightly wrong. He gave $4871.22 over 4 years which is more or less the maximum.
Thats up dated info from when I saw the article.
But its still hard spinning, at best.
That figure cobbbles together everything including non-monetary contributions to his campaign, and 2011 contributions, which were not reported for any of the candidates in the original article.
[And the max that could be given to all those campaigns and the party over 4 years would be something in excess of $15,000.]
[As this being the MSM after Mulcair. Glen MacGregor? Hardly. Glen is the consumate election financing nerd. Because he knows how to do it, he knows he could pull a comparison in about half an hour. Story done.]
Sat, 2012-01-28 17:37
#30
This is the consumate case of bad press best left uncommented on.
Instead, Mulcair and his campaign steps in and gives it real legs.
Sat, 2012-01-28 17:40
#31
Mulcair spins hard on the contributions thing:
EXCLUSIVE: Mulcair refutes reports
that he doesn't give to the NDP
NDP leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair lashed out Saturday at suggestions he hasn't contributed to the party's coffers over the years, pointing out he actually overcontributed to the New Democrats in 2011.Mulcair said prior to 2011 he contributed to his own riding association or election campaigns because it was the only way to ensure that the money would remain in Quebec and be used to build NDP support in that province.
"We've given thousands of dollars to the party since I was elected in 2007," Mulcair said in an interview with iPolitics. "Prior to the breakthrough (in the May 2011 election), most of the money I would give was to the riding association for obvious reasons - we were cash poor in Quebec and whenever we did fundraising, it went to the federal party.
First and probably lesser point: he's not refuting he gave nothing for the years 2010 and earlier. That is what the artcile was about, because that is all the public definitive information available. At ant rate, we have one contribution in 4 years, belatedly made sometime after the launch of the leadership race.
"We've given thousands of dollars to the party since I was elected in 2007," Thousands as in 2 ? [see post16 above]
When all the other MPs have given more to their own campaigns as well as max contributions to the party.
And crying cash poor for Outremont, give me break.
Sat, 2012-01-28 17:43
#32
dacckon
Looking at Brian Topp's twitter and the explanation he gives, we can see that this is really a nonissue. People have donated their time to the NDP and I'm sure Mulcair donated his time and money in different ways. Mulcair was a deputy leader and in charge of QC, so he did travel alot and he did put in alot of effort.
Of all the things we could be debating, I think this issue is minor.
But there is one thing that should be stated, no matter how brutal and intrusive it is. All the candidates, so we avoid suprises/scandals later, should release their personal financial data like how they paid taxes and where they've been donating. Its better that the candidates get over this now before we are suprised later by any minor errors which the cons will spin out of control. Sweden's social democratic leader was destroyed by such scandals, even if they were small mistakes...
Sat, 2012-01-28 17:45
#33
Brian Topp, his main rival to replace the late leader Jack Layton, hasn't been much more generous. He gave the party only $2,114, which is less than five other leadership candidates. He didn't contribute in 2009 or 2010, but made three donations in May 2011 totalling $499. Topp also gave $500 to Nash's riding association in 2010.
Sat, 2012-01-28 17:52
#34
It's amazing how petty the "issues" in this race have been. And remarkably, people want to act as though these are going to crush a campaign, or catapult them to frontrunner status. Meanwhile, back in reality, most people still don't even know who the candidates are.
Sat, 2012-01-28 18:12
#35
I don't know if he wrote the headline but it's grossly misleading :[As this being the MSM after Mulcair. Glen MacGregor? Hardly. Glen is the consumate election financing nerd. Because he knows how to do it, he knows he could pull a comparison in about half an hour. Story done.]
Mulcair, Saganash fail to donate to federal NDP Other candidates gave up to $10,000, documents showThe only way to say Mulcair gave nothing to the NDP is if you only count donations to the Federal Party, but if that is the metric you're using then nobody gave $10,000 or even legally could.
It's not terribly suprising that Mulcair who was largely responsible for the Quebec campaign chose to direct his funding that way in the years before the breakout. It was a pretty good investment.
Sat, 2012-01-28 18:19
#36
dacckon
Sigh, its times like this that I wish that the NDP leadership race was covered by The Onion...
Sat, 2012-01-28 18:44
#37
"Mulcair refutes reports that he doesn't give to the NDP"
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/01/28/mulcair-denies-report-he-hasnt-donated-to-ndp/
The MSM got it slightly wrong. He gave $4871.22 over 4 years which is more or less the maximum.
Will there be a correction?
Am I the only one thinking the MSM doesn't want Mulcair to be leader?
I think you can give $1100 to each the riding and federal party. A small issue nontheless. Wish the mainstream media would actually cover the race.
Sat, 2012-01-28 18:52
#38
Nice drive by attempted smear.
Sat, 2012-01-28 18:54
#39
The donation issue is not a big issue, I passed right over it when I read it, headline about Mulcair and all. But apparently enough of an issue for people to spin so that it becomes nothing.
Use any metric you want in apples to apples comparisons:
Mulcair gave next to nothing to the federal party.
He's trying to say he was concentrating on his under-nourished campaigns- but he gave much less to them also. If his campaign had compared his donations to his own campaigns to the other candidates, they would have kept quiet.
That's it.
Sat, 2012-01-28 21:24
#40
dacckon
NDP debate in Halifax expected to focus on personality
I would hate to see another debate focused on feel-good statements...
Sat, 2012-01-28 21:53
#41
I'm going, but I'll be surprised if we get anything else.
Sat, 2012-01-28 21:56
#42
This is the consumate case of bad press best left uncommented on.
Instead, Mulcair and his campaign steps in and gives it real legs.
There's a sentiment in the party that he's not really one of us. We can be quite the clique. This inaccurate news report played into that. He sent out a release to clarify it. Now, the story is over. Not sure how it has real legs now...
Sat, 2012-01-28 22:00
#43
This is the consumate case of bad press best left uncommented on.
Instead, Mulcair and his campaign steps in and gives it real legs.
Said the chief local supplier of prosthetics. :)
Sat, 2012-01-28 22:09
#44
How many posts are u going to devote to this latest smear attempt KenS? Just curious.
Sat, 2012-01-28 22:17
#45
I think the story probably wont have legs, because its barely of concern to Dippers, let alone the broad public. There is nothing sexy enough in it for reporters.
Good thing, because the campaign's reaction is exactly the kind of thing that gives a story legs. Mulcair is a sitting duck for MacGregor or one of several other reporters to do a follow-up on Mulcair's clarification. It wouldn't take any of them long at all to stack his claims he was concentrating on his riding campaign against what the other candidates put into theirs'.
Sat, 2012-01-28 22:17
#46
It was the media report that said he "lashed out". He didn't. He simply sent out a release to clarify.
Seems the ones making a big deal of it are those who are saying it's not a big deal but that Mulcair thought it a big deal :)
Sat, 2012-01-28 22:18
#47
Ken, your main job seems to be to smear Mulcair at all costs by insinuating he is not a true NDPer. You keep insinuating this is the problem with Mulcair, ... that is the problem with Mulcair, ..., and then proclaiming that you did not actually use the words "...". After more than 40 years voting NDP, I am tired of the same old story of someone not being pure enough or a member of the party since God knows when. I have seen too many people quit over this kind of approach. I can remember too many constituency meetings where even at 50 I was the youngest member at the meeting. Bring on the new blood (Mulcair played a major role in recruiting the new Quebec MPs)! I have donated to the NDP for than 30 years, and in the vast majority of cases the local constituency office has tried to direct the money towards the provincial (BC) campaign rather than the federal campaign. I am pretty sure other MPs have focused on their own ridings and regions as well. Considering the dearth of memberships, the lack of Quebec MPs (none before Mulcair) before the last election, I do not blame him for trying to focus on Quebec. He played a major role along with Jack in establishing a beachhead and rapidly expanding it in the formerly forlorn NDP desert of Quebec.
Sat, 2012-01-28 22:20
#48
Look.
A bunch of people from the beginning have said its not a big deal.
But for some reason Mulcair and his supporters feel a need to say the story is untrue. And issue 'clarifications'. There is nothing in the story the less bit misreprentative. And I will continue to take exception with statements the story is untrue, they're just out to get Mulcair and so on.
Take people saying that its not a big deal, and leave it at that.
Sat, 2012-01-28 22:25
#49
Did something say something about smears?
You've compiled together everything nasty anyone says about Mulcair and attributed them to me. Too bad I've never said or even implied any of them. I've even argued strenuously against some of the slurs against Mulcair.
Sat, 2012-01-28 22:52
#50
Nice drive by attempted smear.
How many posts are u going to devote to this latest smear attempt KenS? Just curious.
Isn't this post also an example of a smear?:
Brian Topp, his main rival to replace the late leader Jack Layton, hasn't been much more generous. He gave the party only $2,114, which is less than five other leadership candidates. He didn't contribute in 2009 or 2010, but made three donations in May 2011 totalling $499. Topp also gave $500 to Nash's riding association in 2010.
If someone's going to get up in arms about "smearing", they probably shouldn't post a similar post to the one they are objecting to.
If it's not ok to "smear" Mulcair, it's not ok to "smear" Topp, or anyone else. [Although an exception might be made for Harper, the greatest purveyor of the smear campaign]
Sun, 2012-01-29 02:58
#51
KenS: I'm going to say this as diplomatically as I possibly can.
I actually wish you WOULD come out and just say what you mean and stop beating around the bush with vague language. You always post information that supports a negative conclusion you're trying to make about Mulcair (usually), without implicitly stating what that conclusion is.
All your posts read as "Now I'm not saying thing X, but here is some information i've construed, compiled, or otherwise implied that would quite possibly support this undefined thing X".
Followed by:
"Hey hey now Mulcair supporters, I NEVER said thing X"
If you don't like him, fine. Say it, back it up however you want to, and let those who think you're wrong tell you why we think you're wrong. But hiding behind vague language to insulate you from having to stand behind what you write, followed by scores of self-righteous, in my opinion, obvious baiting/trolling in denying saying what you've strongly implied gets very tedious.
Secondary to this, your argument in this thread regarding the donations story is so mind-twisting I can't even begin to comprehend it. On the one hand, you realize it is a relatively ineffective smear that doesn't mean a whole lot and should be ignored - but because a handful of Mulcair supporters feel like nothing he says or does, even short of walking on water will ever get a positive response from you and a few others on the board - that they have come to represent the entire campaign and thus Tom himself, somehow making an issue out of what you yourself call a non-issue.
You can't have it both ways, its either an issue to you or its not. Another example of how you make contradicting arguments to always cast Mulcair and his supporters in a negative light. The issue of whether Mulcair, his campaign, or his team and supporters should have commented on it is completely irrelevant to whether the issue itself is, for lack of a synonym, an issue of import.
All from me
Edit: As a PS - I would not have commented on it at all had you not fanned these flames. For me this is not about the donations issue. I like a good debate. The bending, but not breaking. Or even breaking if I'm proven wrong. But its hard to debate with a bendy overcooked spaghetti noodle, lol.