Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? 2

gunder wrote:

Nash (I think she can project the right mix of credibility, toughness and  commitment to an agenda to challenge and beat Harper.  Her emphasis on uniting the party really speaks to me, and I believe she's exactly the type who could - with a firm enough hand to keep the egos in check. I also think she could connect to voters, because she is not a prisoner of talking points and she means what she says.  Anyway, Stephen Harper is not exactly stern competition in terms of charisma, after all.)

Of all the candidates I've seein in Winnipeg thus far (which include Chisholm, Topp, Saganash, Nash, and Cullen), her visit had the greatest impact on impressing me even more. She had a strong answer to the question of how to connect people with post-secondary education to meaningful work, and she shurgged off the fear of being labelled "soft on crime" by basically saying "the Conservatives are going to call us lots of names, get used to it." Her campaign also paid for supper, so since all politicians talk about feeding the people, it's nice to see one who puts those words into action!

gunder wrote:

Cullen (The fact that he seems to have ballot strength - on rabble of all places!- is what's frightening to me.  Those saying he can't win and giving him sympathy-ish votes are making a dicey propostion.  It's all about late ballot support in these things - if he has enough 2nd and 3rd ballot votes, he's got more than an outside shot.  His promise to implement MMP right away is attractive, but it's a red  herring (no pun intended).  First of all, he'll never get the chance (nor will any NDP leader for the forseable future if he leads us into an election, but I digress).  Second of all, he'd have to cave in to the Liberal concensus: Study it forever and then push for AV, a poisoned challice for the NDP if there ever was one.  Third,  all of them support PR, of course it's going to be a priority for the first NDP government. Let's move on.

The joint nominations plan is a giftwrapped majority for the Conservatives.   It's the one strategy they are absolutely prepared for - as the last campaign demonstrated.  All it would take is to get the NDP defending the Liberal platform and vice-versa.  It's got "uncertainty" (Harper's favourite word) written all over it.  And to those of you who say it won't be a big deal - just try campaigning in a weak riding if this goes ahead.  Sure, the riding associations have a "choice."  The day-trader and the guy who works three minimum wage jobs have the same "choice" to start saving for their retirement...Who's gonna make it? And good luck if you do run!  I can't imagine knocking on all those doors and being asked why I'm running if even my own leader doesn't think I can win.  It would be the sme arguments from 2000 all over again.  What an insult to our activists. The same logic applies to the seats we've got: Why stick with the NDP if we're endorsing Liberals anyway?

Then you've got him fearmongering about how scary "these" Conservatives are, reciting this pro-business, "free enterprise" pap and answering questions about economic equality with jokes.. Good God. So he's a great constituency MP and he can make captain of the debate team, whoopee.  It's not as if he's the only guy in Canada who can make the case against Enbridge.  Folks, I won't tell you how to vote (that would be rather hypocritical, eh?)  but if you  feel his plan is an "anchor" or find it repugnant, then I reeeeeallllly wouldn't advise placing him above fifth or sixth on the ballot.  Every indication is it will be a long haul to the finish, and it's best not to take anything for granted.  He is aggressively signing up people (including erstwhile Liberal activists), using social media extremely well and getting favourable coverage from the MSM.  Better to put the whole Liberal business to bed now, so we can have full, necessary debates about the future of the country. )

Very eloquent deconstruction of his joint nominations idea. He also came across as being very full of himself when I saw him here.

gunder wrote:

Saganash (Like the guy, but he's a mumbler.  He's got a novel approach to politics, but he won't convince anybody who's not already firmly on board.  Needs more time on the federal stage.)

This is tough for me. I really like Saganash, I have a gut feeling about him, and I agree with every word of praise about him that has been written on these 2 threads. I think he's the most in tune with the spirit of revolution that is currently sweeping the globe, and I think that Saganash could inspire the same kind of hope in Canadians that Barack Obama inspired in Americans.

BUT

Thus far, he has not shown an ability to hold is ground in English during the debates, and this is a friendly crowd. How do you think he will do on stage against Harper or the Conservatives. And I'm not saying this to run him down, I want him to do well. He already has the potential, because he does very well in French, and one-on-one type conversations in English. And issues with communication can be worked on, unlike fundamental questions of character. But it is absolutely essential that he improve in the English debates, otherwise he will have a rough go of it.

JeffWells wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I was told some campaigns actually have specific people to respond and post on social media sites including babble.

Early on I was asked by a camp I'm not supporting to do just that. (And no, I didn't.) Of course virtually nobody is getting paid on these campaigns, so there's nowhere near the inauthenticity of races in other parties and places, but that's still duplicity. Nevertheless, I don't think it's too diffidult for us to separate the grassroots from the astroturf.

 

If you're ok with it, inbox me... love to hear which campaign :)

"Inbox me" I always love a new verb, and that one sounds slightly naughty.  Or maybe I'm just slightly pervy...

But anyway, I'm not sure either as a moderator or a consumer that what you're describing would particularly bother me, as long as people were reasonably up front about it.  I would have a problem with someone using multiple identities of course, but I don't think that's happening.  Several people just hammering home the same message in some co-ordinated way would begin to feel like spam, and would probably alienate more readers than they would convince.  I don't see getting a message out using boards like this as being outside the realm of honest campaigning.

oldgoat wrote:

"Inbox me" I always love a new verb, and that one sounds slightly naughty.  Or maybe I'm just slightly pervy...

 

But anyway, I'm not sure either as a moderator or a consumer that what you're describing would particularly bother me, as long as people were reasonably up front about it.  I would have a problem with someone using multiple identities of course, but I don't think that's happening.  Several people just hammering home the same message in some co-ordinated way would begin to feel like spam, and would probably alienate more readers than they would convince.  I don't see getting a message out using boards like this as being outside the realm of honest campaigning.

I question those who may bash other candidates... while not being up front about it who they're working for or whether they may even be paid for it.

gunder wrote:

The NDP's allergy to any discussion on the Middle East is discouraging, to say the very least, but  this is the field we have before us.

That wasn't my point about Dewar's statement on Durban II. I would have been fine if the NDP had kept its mouth shut. But by congratulating Harper, he supported Harper's line that opposition to Israeli policy is anti-semitism. He supported the big lie that Durban I was anti-semitic. That's one of those inexcusable things in my book. Today, they're beating the drums of war against Syria - at least, Dewar's temporary replacement is. If this and Libya and Durban and the rest don't reflect Dewar's thinking on foreign affairs, then I need an explanation of how I'm seeing things all wrong.

Quote:

Still, I can't imagine Maher Arar endorsing somebody with a runaway interventionist agenda, can you?

I was outraged at U.S. and Canadian actions in the Arar case, and I feel deeply sorry for what he experienced. But I know nothing about Arar's politics. Do you? Maybe I just missed it all. Has he called for Canada to get out of Afghanistan (for example - one of those litmus test things)? I'm not saying he hasn't. I'm just saying that his endorsement of Paul Dewar means nothing to me. He said "I can see Paul Dewar as Prime Minister." Unfortunately, so can I - which is why it's important to warn people against him.

On Arar: He's criticized Obama for conducting raids in Pakistan and keeping GItmo open, and he's the editor in-chief  of PRISM magazine(http://prism-magazine.com)

gunder wrote:

Wow, I listened to that C'est La Vie interview with Romeo somebody posted.  What a great conversation (you can tell Bernard really wanted to connect with him.).  Now I feel slightly bad about dismissing him (had I known he was a poet...).  Love to see him in a senoir cabinet post where he can use his mediation skills.

Excuse me for the long tirade re Cullen..sufficed to say I feel rather strongly about the whole thing (and I'd just finished hammering out an op-ed on it), but mostly about the idea that he can't win, so it's "safe" to vote for him to give him a strong showing- there are so many X-factors and wildly varying perceptions involved, it's always the best poicy to vote for the people you'd most like to see leading, all the way down the ballot (or however many spaces you intend to fill in).  I'm voting ballot-to-ballot.  I assue they'll have instantaneous phone voting so you won't have to stand in line if that's an issue.

Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

They, like we are now, were spending all kinds of their precious resources on a futile battle, based entirely on organizational hubris, that was only serving to elect the very people they were fighting against.

No doubt it must have been a difficult pill for the Conservatives to swallow, but they took their medicine and look at them now.

Harper's worst-case scenario is that the Left will unite under a charasmatic, visionary NDP Leader.

Brian Glennie wrote:

gunder wrote:

Wow, I listened to that C'est La Vie interview with Romeo somebody posted.  What a great conversation (you can tell Bernard really wanted to connect with him.).  Now I feel slightly bad about dismissing him (had I known he was a poet...).  Love to see him in a senoir cabinet post where he can use his mediation skills.

Excuse me for the long tirade re Cullen..sufficed to say I feel rather strongly about the whole thing (and I'd just finished hammering out an op-ed on it), but mostly about the idea that he can't win, so it's "safe" to vote for him to give him a strong showing- there are so many X-factors and wildly varying perceptions involved, it's always the best poicy to vote for the people you'd most like to see leading, all the way down the ballot (or however many spaces you intend to fill in).  I'm voting ballot-to-ballot.  I assue they'll have instantaneous phone voting so you won't have to stand in line if that's an issue.

Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

They, like we are now, were spending all kinds of their precious resources on a futile battle, based entirely on organizational hubris, that was only serving to elect the very people they were fighting against.

No doubt it must have been a difficult pill for the Conservatives to swallow, but they took their medicine and look at them now.

Harper's worst-case scenario is that the Left will unite under a charasmatic, visionary NDP Leader.

Harper's worst case-scenario is that his fragile support among small businesspeople and the segment of the working poor who have traditionally conservative views will be shattered by a coherent, well-articulated defence of humane, accountable government that will actually keep them working long enough to raise a family and secure enough to live.    It almost happened in 2011, it could happen in 2015, it's  going to happen sooner rather that later.

Harper's best case scenario is his opposition running sepately, but  together on a vague promise of "cooperating", how and for what we don't know, on a mixed bag of policies from each that maybe we'll figure out after the election or maybe not except we know we want electoral reform, well one of us does, and so does the other one maybe but not really. 

Failing that, his opposition could merge and disenfranchise even more of the electorate!  How low can we go, turnout-wise? I bet we can get to 25% by the end of the decade if we "work together" to "change the way we do politics" (back to the way we did it in the 1910s!).

I'd love to unite the left under a charismatic, visionary NDP leader.  The NDP, half the Green Party, 10% of the Liberal Party, the remaining left-mationalists in Quebec who are still on the fence, and the people for whom voting was not an option because they had been pushed onto the margins.  Hell yeah.  Let's start after the next election. A parliamentary coalition or an accord government, or a majority government that brings everyone else on board.

I'm  shocked how easily some people choose to ignore whole swaths of history to justify ridiculously simplistic narratives.  Explain, if you can: As a socialist, why should I give a flying fiddlehead about the merger of a populist conservative party and a business conservative party? And yet, well meaning people always mention it  like it 's ab example of an immutable fact of life, like (some of) the same people talk about deindustrialization or wages going down. This idea that there must be lessons from everything the right does because the right is winning  is an old and ignoble fallacy.

But let's get down to brass tacks here: After we've "taken the medicine", when do we have that debate about amending the Investment Canada Act? CETA? Expanding Medicare instead of slashing budgets and contracting it out? Affordable housing that actually 1) exists and 2) is available? When do we use all of that nifty cooperation we'd be practicing as a guiding principle in our economy? You know, by encouraging unions, democratizing workplaces, and  fencing off the tax-free playground that the super-rich seem to enjoy? Ideological purity is one thing, but there are debates that need having right now, and the Liberals are not interested in havbing them.  Maybe the NDP isn't having them, but the opportunity is there, and may it always be.

We are a living, mature democracy.  We deserve to have at our disposal more than two ways of figuring things out, more than simply - how does he put it- ah yes, "winner-take-all" politics

I'd agree with that. His pension policy seemed a wee bit convoluted, and I'm still waiting on economic equality and foreign policy. Wouldn't mind chatting with him to get a better sense of the man. I like the staggered debates  (though I wish they were scattered more evenly) on dedicated subjects.  Provides a context you don't usually get, even when the candidates or the questions wander away from the topic at hand.

Stockholm wrote:

2. I'd like to get more of a sense of Mulcair as a person. Topp has had his family do a video and has spoken a lot about his personal story etc... Nash and Dewar have done some good videos as well that gives me more of sense of their personal narratives. I'd like to learn more about Mulcair. Why not an interview with his wife or grown up kids or with people who have known him all his life? Why not see more of what he likes to do in his spare time? what are his hobbies? I think its important that the leader of the NDP be a "HOAG" (hell of a guy/gal). It helps to see the prospective leader connecting with ordinary people and to see them in a more casual setting being "themself".

This old CPAC Beyond Politics video might help.

Brian Glennie wrote:

Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

Gunder did a good job responding to this foolishness, but there are a few more points to add. In the case of the Reform-PC, that was the case of a party that split, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been going at each other for decades. In fact, given how right wing provincial Liberal parties in BC, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick have been, that should put to rest any notion of the Liberals as a progressive entity. And just because the major news organizations keep talking as if the Liberal party is viable does not reflect what is happening on Main Street, and (except PEI) the Liberal brand is tanking everywhere in the country.

Also, cut the "only 40% voted for Harper" crap. Yes, it sucks that Harper won a majority even though 60% of the people voted against him, but that's FPTP, it's the system the next election will be contested under, so that's what we have to work with. The problem isn't that people split their votes between opposition parties, it's that far more people supported Harper than any other party. You have to reduce the number of votes that Harper will get, and that takes work. Playing around with numbers and "60% voted against Harper" is basically trying to get around that work. You also cannot make assumptions about why people voted for the parties they did. A good number of Liberal voters would never support the NDP, and indeed many right-Liberals voted for the Conservatives because that was the only way to block an NDP government, since there was talk of the Liberals joining the NDP in a coalition. There's no reason that those voters wouldn't go back to the Conservatives.

Brian Glennie wrote:

Harper's worst-case scenario is that the Left will unite under a charasmatic, visionary NDP Leader.

I agree, and people are welcome to join the NDP to that end.

Thanks Aristotled.  The point about voting patterns is important, but I realized I glossed over it in both posts. 

Stockholm's post #70 got me thinking. 

There has been almost nothing in the media about the personal life of any of the candidates. It is hard to get a fix on any of them outside the political context.What are their hobbies? Their outside interests. Not even their webpages tell us much about the personal side.

I have met Mulcair half a dozen times, all but once I think accompanied by his wife Catherine Pinhas. She is an established psychologist in Montreal and is very conspicuous at his events.  My spouse likes her a lot. 

I am unaware of anything much about the other candidates' spouses or families apart form a few bare facts. What do they work at? Are they active in their campaigns?

writer wrote:

Personally, I despise the notion that spouses and chlldren are somehow obliged to be involved and public in a candidate's campaign.

Not to mention the hetero-normative patina such "messaging" often contains. Blech.

Thanks for that, writer. I can't believe that people here want to know about the candidates' personal lives. But that's America for you.

Although had I known that Mulcair's wife was an "established psychologist", I might not have voted for him...

Just kidding.

I am not clear what you are responding to, Gaian, but I'm responding to this: "I am unaware of anything much about the other candidates' spouses or families apart form a few bare facts. What do they work at? Are they active in their campaigns?"

Which has absolutely nothing to do with meet & greets. And has absolutely not a shred of anything to do with one individual.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Brian Glennie wrote:

Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

Gunder did a good job responding to this foolishness, but there are a few more points to add. In the case of the Reform-PC, that was the case of a party that split, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been going at each other for decades. 

Yup, and the NDP spent decades in the wilderness as a result. Now its the Liberal's turn but it could easily be our's again in 2015.  No doubt both Parties will run on the same platform just like they always do but we likely won't have a Leader as popular as Jack and they would have a hard time finding someone as bad as those last two duds they ran. Under somebody like Dalton the Liberals could actually rebound pretty nicely with their gains coming mostly, if not entirely, from us.

The Liberals and NDP going at each other is the gift that keeps giving for the Tories. There has to be a better way.

Brian Glennie wrote:

Now its the Liberal's turn but it could easily be our's again in 2015.  No doubt both Parties will run on the same platform just like they always do ...

Whatever else one many think of Brian's views, or Cullen's, there is an important point here. It would be nice if the NDP didn't run on the same platform as the Liberals for a change.

Brian Glennie wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Brian Glennie wrote:

Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

Gunder did a good job responding to this foolishness, but there are a few more points to add. In the case of the Reform-PC, that was the case of a party that split, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been going at each other for decades. 

Yup, and the NDP spent decades in the wilderness as a result. Now its the Liberal's turn but it could easily be our's again in 2015.  No doubt both Parties will run on the same platform just like they always do but we likely won't have a Leader as popular as Jack and they would have a hard time finding someone as bad as those last two duds they ran. Under somebody like Dalton the Liberals could actually rebound pretty nicely with their gains coming mostly, if not entirely, from us.

The Liberals and NDP going at each other is the gift that keeps giving for the Tories. There has to be a better way.

There are many differences between the NDP Liberal situation now and the Reform PC situation in the 90s. For one thing the federal Tories are in a much weaker state and the opposition is in a vastly stronger state now than was ever the case then. In the 1993, 1997 and 2000 elections the Liberals won virtually every single seat in Ontario and the COMBINED number of PC and Reform seats as 54, 70 and 80-something...on top of that when Paul Martin took over the polls were all showing the Liberals in the high 50s in the polls and headed for a 250 seat blow-out! In contrast right now the Tories have 166 seats and the NDP and Liberals combined have 137 (138 if we cound the EMay party). The opposition is no where near the sort of hopeless situation that the Reform/PCs were in in the 90s.

Another thing to consider is that there really aren't all that many Tory held seats right now that both the Liberals and the NDP serioulsy compete in where you could say that the Tories are winning on a so-called split vote. There are marginal Tory seats in western Canada (and to a lesser extent in Atlantic Canada) where the NDP is the main opposition and the Liberals are non-existent. There are also marginal Tory seats in suburban Ontario where in the last election the NDP really was not competitive. I could count on one hand the number of ridings that are true three way races.

On top of that we KNOW that 1+1 never ever equals 2 when people get into these vote tampering "win by gaming the system" schemes. A lot of NDP voters hate Liberals and will refuse to vote for a Liberal and a lot of liberal still think the NDP are a bunch of wild eyed socialists who they would never vote for.

I think the NDP should stick to its knitting and as for the Liberals - if they really want to dislodge the Tories so badly - i think they need to try to win back all those "blue Grits/Paul Martin Liberals" they lost to the Tories. They need to get a new leader who is a rightwing economist with liberal views on social issues and try to win back ridings like Oakville and Mississauga South and Don Valey West from the Tories.

gunder wrote:

I think Nash's record opposing imperialism is probably the best, but that's just by my lights.     I have Dewar as my second choice for the same reason Peggy is first.  I see them both as concensus-builders who aren't going to buckle under the strain of Conservative spin and can project a lot of competence as managers, without causing a lot of internal rancor.

The very fact that you have Dewar as your #2 choice is clear evidence that your views on many matters are vastly (VASTLY) different than mine... Therefore, I am at ease ignoring all of your negative diatribe against Nathan Cullen, who I happen to like very much as a prospective leader.

And you're the only person I've seen who has criticized Cullen's ability to use humour to hammer home his points - something I see as one of his strongest assets, and something which would be very useful in connecting with voters across this country.

Nor was that the intended point. Of course loved ones – whatever their connection – might want to be part of a campaign. It's the assumption that, for families, this is somehow part of their unwaged job description. That they should be obliged and pressured. That this should be a given. That prying is acceptable. It communicates all sorts of things I don't think the asker might not have thought through. That I don't want to see shift into some kind of cultural norm here in Canada.

This is so far from a desirable, I don't know where to begin. We all have our own lives. That simple fact needs to be respected, or we are lost.

Brian Glennie wrote:

... where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

They'd still be sitting on the opposition benches and Harper would probably be back with the NCC or maybe the Fraser institute or maybe a right wing institute in the US like the Caito Institute or the Hudson Institute.

gunder wrote:

I'd love to unite the left under a charismatic, visionary NDP leader.  The NDP, half the Green Party, 10% of the Liberal Party, the remaining left-mationalists in Quebec who are still on the fence, and the people for whom voting was not an option because they had been pushed onto the margins.

Using the UBC Election Forecaster you can actually do a simulation where half of the Green voters, 30% of the Liberal voters, and 60% of the BQ voters from the 2011 election all move into the NDP's column for the 2015 election. According to the forecaster, the results would be:

CON: 162 - Another phony FPTP majority government
NDP:  143
LIB:  3
BQ: 0
GRN: 0

gunder wrote:

We are a living, mature democracy.  We deserve to have at our disposal more than two ways of figuring things out, more than simply - how does he put it- ah yes, "winner-take-all" politics

We are an FPTP democracy. Meaning we're saddled with a two-party, winner-take-all system. If we want to move to a fair multi-party system, we will need to change to a PR system.

JKR wrote:

gunder wrote:

I'd love to unite the left under a charismatic, visionary NDP leader.  The NDP, half the Green Party, 10% of the Liberal Party, the remaining left-mationalists in Quebec who are still on the fence, and the people for whom voting was not an option because they had been pushed onto the margins.

Using the UBC Election Forecaster you can actually do a simulation where half of the Green voters, 30% of the Liberal voters, and 60% of the BQ voters from the 2011 election all move into the NDP's column for the 2015 election. According to the forecaster, the results would be:

CON: 162 - Another phony FPTP majority government
NDP:  143
LIB:  3
BQ: 0
GRN: 0

I could provide an even more dire (and more realistic) scenario where half the NDP vote bleeds away and the Bloc makes huge gains.  The (arbitrary) figures there were meant to suggest core support for a broadly-left NDP, not as an actual model for statistixal analysis.  As has been pointed out, key to victory will be contunuing to make inroads into the Conservatives' swing vote - small businesspersons, young professionals. etc,

JKR wrote:

gunder wrote:

We are a living, mature democracy.  We deserve to have at our disposal more than two ways of figuring things out, more than simply - how does he put it- ah yes, "winner-take-all" politics

 

We are an FPTP democracy. Meaning we're saddled with a two-party, winner-take-all system. If we want to move to a fair multi-party system, we will need to change to a PR system.

No disagreement there.  But to do that, the NDP has to get elected first, which won't happen unless we keep doing what we have been: convincing people we can be trusted to govern without adult supervision.