Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why?

112 posts / 0 new
Last post

I was just about to recommend a good read for people who wonder at Conservative successes these days: Americas Right Turn, an account of how the Godly and the not so godly of America got together and gathered forces with the aid of the new IT world and focused on defeating the querulous forces of the left.


I agree that the Libby thing on Mulcair gets out of hand.

But it pushes the pendulum back the other way to spin his blast as merely stating party policy versus what Libby said, or that he was merely 'pointing out that he didnt agree with her,' etc. If only.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I am totally in agreement with Rebecca. Mulcair will be in last place or not even on my ballot. His treatment of Libby Davies and his stance on Israel make him a non-starter for me. Paul Dewar's foreign policy positions have not endeared me to him either.

My view for game changing politics has Romeo Saganash as leader. I think it would be a brilliant choice.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

As a staunch Saganash supporter, and in the interest of conciliation, and we still need more time, is it wise to totally write Mulcair off? In some ways, if Romeo can't raise his game, which I am still banking on, much as I loathe Mulcair's past deeds, I still find him somewhat compelling, in that male-white-centric kind of way.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture



Unionist wrote:

I do, in fact, back Saganash, although I have no idea whether he would have had, or would now have, the courage to stand up in the face of what was done. You see, no party figure to my knowledge defended her. She didn't even defend herself.


Well Libby essentially did go off script and screwed up but she didn't deserve the kind of treatment she received from Mulcair.




1. Nash


For those who are unsure about Nash's ability to engage and work a room or stage, she has been very feisty and passionate on the stump. For me, it's a no brainer. Nash has the best experience, with her long and deep involvement in various social and political activism, as a CAW negotiator, and as both Industry and Finance Critic. She respects and engages with the party membership, the grassroots, activist and union base, as she doesn't neglect nor spurn the base, and she is a uniter who can bring different factions together; she is extremely well versed in social, political and economic policy; is trilingual and speaks French fluently; she has been able to build good relationships with not only her NDP colleagues but also MPs from other parties (specifically, she brings members from the Liberals and Bloc to work on the legislation which we want passed at committee or in Parliament - this is how she stopped the sale of MDA/Canadarm in 2008, and how she got motions in Parliament passed such as the one in support of Tibet - she is very effective in negotiating with the other parties and getting them on board); as a former President of the NDP, she understands first hand how the party works and operates, she understands and strongly believes in just how crucial organizing is (she got a lead organizer for the Obama campaign in '08 - Marshall Ganz - to come to Canada to help with training people, as well as training and recruiting people herself to run in her riding for all different levels of government, and basically she took a 100% non-NDP riding to an Orange riding at all three levels of government in 5 years - she also won her seat back in 2011 as Nash organized the hell out of it, and really reached out and connected with people in her riding to the work that she and the party were doing); her environmental credibility: as a new MP in 2006, one of her first initiatives was a National Transit Strategy, and she worked with Peter Julian to pressure Harper to stop bulk water exports and introduced a motion proposing exactly that, and also won two awards from the Sierra Club for working with Greenpeace for a green cars strategy; she is ferocious in Question Period and displays tremendous poise in media scrums and when being interviewed; she comes across as a very caring and compassionate person, not like a slick politician but as someone who actually cares about you and the people; she is taken very seriously by the Ottawa/media elites/pundits/talking heads and not ridiculed nor marginalized et al; she is very telegenic/photogenic, pretty, slim and in excellent physical shape; and like Jack, no matter who you are, she will give you her utmost attention and respect, always looking you in the eye. She's got that folksy charm and Jack-like quality.


2. Ashton


This spot keeps flipping back and forth with Saganash, but for now Ashton is here due to her very strong communication and language skills. I admire her strength and resolve, she is fearless, as well as being a strong progressive or better yet social democrat, her history and record as an MP and commitment to workers. She is a tremendous rising star in the party.


3. Saganash


His qualifications and life experience are impeccable, and when I first met him he walked up to me and gave me a big hug. As others have previously noted, he is the direct opposite of Harper and has that Jack-like quality: very warm and compassionate. My only concern with Saganash are his English skills. Sometimes he is kind of hard to understand and almost mumbles, he has to clear this throat a lot etc. While watching him at the Toronto debate, I was concerned about him in a potential debate with Harper. Still, he could revert back to my number 2. He's incredible in French, and could easily hold and expand our new base of support in Quebec. I love his ideology and his closing remarks at the Toronto debate were very moving.


4. Topp


He's defintely improving in my view but the lack of electoral experience, praising the Greek austerity, and coming out of the gate so soon in his leadership bid are sticking points. Surely this race could have benefited with a Peter Julian candidacy. Not sure though if Topp will stay here or fall to five.


5. Dewar


I've always liked Paul a lot but his French is a major concern. There's also the Durban fiasco, but I suppose everyone makes mistakes. I'm not concerned about his love for Obama, as Jack also had the hots for Barack and Jack was hardly a "Third Way" proponent, but in fact the opposite. Paul's policies are great, and I really appreciate his strong support and advocacy for proportional representation. Not sure if Paul will stay in fifth or move up to four.


6. Cullen


If his French was stronger and he hadn't proposed that joint nomination scheme, I think he would be doing far better in this leadership race. In fact, he might even be in the top tier. He certainly shares a lot of the same qualities as Jack and has a strong progressive streak which resonates with me. His performance at the Toronto debate really stood out.


7. Mulcair


There really seems to be a significant portion of people, from undecided members, to campaign teams, to NDP MPs who have a real problem with Mulcair's personality, and it's a shame. One of Mulcair's strengths is that he can really hold his own in a fight with Conservative and Liberal bullies. However, it seems he still has a hangover from his internal fights with the Quebec Liberals and has carried that mistrust over to his NDP colleagues. I don't think we need a leader with those traits. We don't need to inherit the toxic infighting of the Liberals. This kind of aggressive and divisive approach is an old form of politics that people are getting very tired of. I'm much more in favour of candidates who practice a bridge-building and cooperative politics, who can unite different factions in the party, and not create them nor alienate them. His stance on NAFTA is appalling and I'm not sure I trust him on Israel/Palestine. I know he supports official NDP policy on this issue, but if here were party leader I'm not sure if he would allow caucus members to speak out against Israel if for example they attacked Gaza again and killed over a thousand civilians. And another big concern is his tentativeness on proportional representation. His social democracy is more technocratic than affiliated with the grassroots, but I don't view him as a "Third Way" proponent, as he supports National Childcare, National Pharmacare, progressive taxation and has a good CPP policy.


8. Singh


He seems like a friendly enough guy and certainly has some retail political skills, and appears to have good French skills. However, Singh is not doing himself any favours by regurgitating right-wing Republican talking points (ie "grow the economy") while suggesting that we can't afford everything. I think Singh is a fringe candidate and he is certainly too right-wing for me.


peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

I am voting ballot by ballot,  am tempted to cast my first ballot Romeo and would appreciate some sharing on that .

No problemswith anybody casting their first ballot for any of the 8 candidates and I would urge you to vote for your first choice for leader first ballot.

 But, assuming there is a second ballot, what do you do then?  If you have voted preferentially  you do absolutely nothing, your vote has allready been cast and locked. But Cool if you cast your vote on a ballot by ballot basis and there is a second ballot,  there may be valid reasons to  stick with your candidate or valid reasons to shift your vote. Best we chose what to do then, at the right time, with the right info.

Assuming I vote for Romeo on the first ballot and he is still around I would be tempted to stick with him.  Hell I would be tempted  to stick with him all the way to winning. I assume that is how most peopel feel about their first ballot choice.

But what if your first ballot choice finished seventh? or sixth? Even fifth and you have to consider unlikely your candidate will win and you will have to shift your vote if she is eliminated before a victor is named  and it might be a good idea to shift your vote before a victor is named. P.S.   If  someone gets so close to winning it would take an Anybody But Movment to stop her, I hope we would all have the decency to abstain from that negatitvity.

And what really interests me (pace Alice Funke) is if your first ballot choice drops out of the race to endorse someone else . Imagine if  the word went out that a signficant bloc of New Democrats were voting Romeo first ballot (or insert your first ballot choice) and then they would see. Makes you and your candidate  and your vision worth paying attention to. . 

This is what democrcy looks like.

Peace and power










Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Or if Mulcair was the one who phoned the Israeli ambassador to apologize instead of Jack, the same people would have gone apeshit at Mulcair... but it was Jack so it was no big deal.

It gave Jack an excuse to talk to a world leader and size him up. I honestly think that Jack wanted to see for himself a bit and did not fully trust Harper.

I saw the tape, the guy kept asking Libby about dates and she said she didn't know, she said she didn't know and he insisted so she basically said anything so that he would leave her alone. For Libby, it was never about dates, she is a housing activist and people being thrown out of their homes to join the homeless upsets her.

Jack had to put out the fire to make it go away. However, Mulcair fanned the flames because he could score points that way and there was also the fear factor - of facing his constituents if he did not make a fuss. As such, he put his own fortures ahead of the party and at the expense of another member. As a leader, Mulcair needs to put his party first and do his best to enhance the fortures of all elected members.

I think that it is only lack of experience (ie present ability) that keeps Topp from being as nasty as Mulcair can be at times. I like what he has to say, but he seems chomping at the bit to deliver a knock out punch.



vaudree wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Or if Mulcair was the one who phoned the Israeli ambassador to apologize instead of Jack, the same people would have gone apeshit at Mulcair... but it was Jack so it was no big deal.

It gave Jack an excuse to talk to a world leader and size him up.

An Israeli ambassador is a "world leader"? Duh?

Oh, and I hope when Jack sized "him" up, he realized fairly quickly that Miriam Ziv is a "her".

In any event, it was not Jack's best moment. That's about as charitable as one can be.




KenS wrote:

Not to mention that it probably wont be 6 rounds even if no one drops out. I have not heard the minimum threshold for staying in, but there will be one. Mind you, that's one of the disadvantages of the advance preferential: those rankings are locked in, while real time they shift a lot according to how candidates fared in the previous. I guess the existence of those pointless 'ghost preferences' might help convince a candidate who did poorer in the last round than expected to drop out.

Well there is one bit of simple math that could eliminate more than one candidate at a time:

If the number of votes for the weakest remaining candidate would not suffice to promote the 2nd weakest candidate above any other candidate... eliminate the 2nd weakest as well. If the sum of the two weakest would not suffice to promote the 3rd weakest, eliminate that one as well. Et cetera.

An example from Ontario Liberals 1996. Second Ballot was as follows:


KENNEDY, Gerard 775

CORDIANO, Joseph 570

DUNCAN, Dwight 474

McGUINTY, Dalton 440


CASTRILLI, Anna-Marie 122

The sum of Castrilli and Gerretsen's votes was insufficient to promote Gerretsen above McGuinty. Therefore both could have been eliminated without out any concerns of alterning the outcome. Ultimately Gerretsen chose to withdraw (probably for exactly that reason) but had no requirement to do so.

Similar situation for the federal PCs 1983. Round 1:


CLARK, Charles Joseph (Joe) 1,091

MULRONEY, Martin Brian 874

CROSBIE, John Carnell 639

WILSON, Michael Holcombe 144

CROMBIE, David Edward 116


GAMBLE, John Albert 17

FRASER, Neil 5

Fraser + Gamble could not have beat Pocklington, so both could have been safely eliminated. What actually happened was - Gamble, Pocklington and Wilson chose to withdraw. 

On the second ballot:

Clark 1085, Mulroney 1021, Crosbie 781, Crombie 67.

Crombie's votes could not have boosted Crosbie above Mulroney, so both could have been eliminated. In reality, for some bizarre reason Crombie endorsed Crosbie and Crosbie did not quit. Mathematically it made absolutely no sense for Crosbie to stick around for another vote, but he did.




After some consideration - don't kick me out of Club Lefty for this - but I think Cullen will be the parking spot for my first ballot. Out of all the not-considered-front-runners, I really think he is formidable enough to deserve a show of strength, and a signal to the winner that he should be a big part of the party going forward. Then Nash, and then Mulcair. I think we would all be shocked if none of those choices make it to the final round, so I think that's about all I need to pick at the moment.

I am honestly not at all threatened by Cullen's riding association proposals, and on balance I think it boosts my impression of him more than the contrary. I see political parties as a means to an end, and not a sacred end unto themselves. When I get too deep into being surrounded by the staunch supporters of a political party, I start to get nauseous and I need some air. Which is kind of why Cullen appeals to me in the first place. 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture



Topic locked