I hope you get well quick writer. Romeo, regardless if this is true, is going to be a big factor in the leadership and future of the party.
NDP Leadership #89
Thu, 2012-02-09 22:19
#52
RevolutionPlease
Thu, 2012-02-09 22:51
#53
From that Globe story:
Mr. Saganash, a Cree leader who was first elected to the House of Commons on May 2, was close to joining the team of strategist Brian Topp before he decided to launch his own underdog bid last September, NDP sources said.
I remember hearing that too. Something more or less like that. Which means exactly nothing other than it was a rumour around at the time.
Dont read anything into it being in the story now other than the obvious: stirring the pot with a rumour that a reporter filed away months ago is 'good copy', and who knows what it might turn up. It's their stock in trade.
Yes well, my understanding of what happened was Saganash was leaning towards Topp but hadn't decided and then the boneheads on Topp's campaign leaked that he was supporting Topp. Saganash rightly took offense that his support was assumed to be forthcoming and then told Topp to stick it and ran himself.
I can't imagine he would endorse Topp, especially after all this nonsense over Topp people saying he can't speak french.
I hope he can take a breath for a moment and then endorse, if he feels compelled, some time after the cut-off.
Thu, 2012-02-09 23:01
#54
Maysie
I just heard.
Thu, 2012-02-09 23:18
#55
Boom Boom
Darn. I just get back from a few days off and heard this news.
Thu, 2012-02-09 23:27
#56
We are way too white and no longer representative of the communities in which we live. Maybe we need some affirmative action plans in this area.
It's one more reason why we need a fair voting system. Winning FPTP candidates tend to be those of the same or similar ethnicity as the false majority of voters doing the choosing in many ridings. White, male, well educated and a lengthy resume is a trend in too many ridings across Canada. We need a voting system with party lists to even out this FPTP effect by making voters colour blind and oblivious of gender etc.
Thu, 2012-02-09 23:50
#57
yeah, howard, things are looking good for mulcair. his competion for that final ballot slot should be much more clear after the french language debate. singh and ashton have no chance to win, and dewar is almost at that level. i'm thinking that this debate is where wildman cullen (whose french is relatively poor) and nash (whose french is weird) will either propel themselves into contention in quebec (feels like both have some decent momentum) or sink utterly. i don't see much in between to be had there. also bear in mind that this will be quebec's introduction to brian topp - if nash somehow overperforms, topp will have that much more trouble reaching the final ballot for the face-off with mulcair.
if more candidates do drop out, i'd hope that singh is the next to go. now that most of the members have been signed up and the arguments presented, he doesn't really add anything to the race. i'd say the same about ashton but i'm guessing that people on here would jump all over me. dewar, by contrast, needs to stay in the race as the generic white guy from ontario, as does cullen to keep on with his role as the kooky western populist.
Sorry for this, everybody, but who's wild and kooky?
Tom actually confuses "Osama" with "Obama" at 1:44.
Fri, 2012-02-10 00:09
#58
I can't imagine he would endorse Topp, especially after all this nonsense over Topp people saying he can't speak french.
One Topp person. No hostile spin among friends, please.
Fri, 2012-02-10 00:09
#59
[
Sorry for this, everybody, but who's wild and kooky?
There was a lot of crosstalk and mix up of what pictures were being talked about. Read the entire transcript. I even had a CBC reporter say that interview confused him. But hey, it's Evan Solomon so should we actually expect clear journalism?
Fri, 2012-02-10 00:10
#60
dewar, by contrast, needs to stay in the race as the generic white guy from ontario, as does cullen to keep on with his role as the kooky western populist.
This makes sense to me. The false consensus, Ontario=Canada crowd need someone to vote for and Dewar is the perfect "white bread" (sorry for the inane Ontario lingo) candidate to give comfort to the blindered crowd. I'm sure he has signed up plenty.
What a completely jackass kind of comment and insulting to a lot of good people supporting Dewar. No wonder I have given up on this place. Dewar brings a lot of the table, unfortunetly a facility in french isn't one of those things, or he would be doing a lot better. But dismissing him is such a way is absoultely offensive.
Agreed. Not typical of either of those babblers, who can do much better.
What do babblers think of Leadnow's "Cooperate for Canada" campaign? "We asked if you would support political cooperation between the NDP, Liberals and Greens to defeat the current government in the next election, and then pass electoral reform. Almost 10,000 responded. 95% said yes, with an astounding 72% "strongly agreeing"."
Could be a real boost to Cullen's campagin if they mobile to sign up members.
It's a bit mystifying. They say on their website:
What do we mean by electoral reform?We think that Canada needs to have a national conversation to determine the exact nature of the electoral system that would best fit the needs of Canadians. The goal would be to ensure that the distribution of power in government closely reflect the distribution of votes by all Canadians. The current system does not allow for this.
"the distribution of power in government closely reflect the distribution of votes" = proportional representation. Right?
But they ask supporters to sign this:
During the next federal election, I call on the NDP, Liberals and Greens to work together in key ridings to defeat Conservative incumbents. After the election, I call on them to cooperate to pass electoral reform and make sure our government better reflects the values and priorities of all Canadians.
People who bait signers with proportional representation, and then switch to the vague "electoral reform," invite the question "are you running a bait-and-switch operation?"
A lot of people have asked them, on their Facebook page, to clarify. We'll see if they do. Don't hold your breath.
Fri, 2012-02-10 00:15
#61
Sad to hear that Saganash is dropping out. I thought he was really improving in terms of his english presentation skills, and it would have been great to see him in the Quebec City Debate. At least now I guess he can return to working in the HoC, where I'm sure he is also needed.
Fri, 2012-02-10 00:34
#62
There was a lot of crosstalk and mix up of what pictures were being talked about. Read the entire transcript. I even had a CBC reporter say that interview confused him. But hey, it's Evan Solomon so should we actually expect clear journalism?[
Sorry for this, everybody, but who's wild and kooky?
Our next leader will have to be able to take charge under exactly these kind of conditions and when Mulcair got his shot he blew it. Memorably. The last thing we need is a leader who makes Canadians feel uneasy.
Fri, 2012-02-10 00:51
#63
dewar, by contrast, needs to stay in the race as the generic white guy from ontario, as does cullen to keep on with his role as the kooky western populist.
This makes sense to me. The false consensus, Ontario=Canada crowd need someone to vote for and Dewar is the perfect "white bread" (sorry for the inane Ontario lingo) candidate to give comfort to the blindered crowd. I'm sure he has signed up plenty.
What a completely jackass kind of comment and insulting to a lot of good people supporting Dewar. No wonder I have given up on this place. Dewar brings a lot of the table, unfortunetly a facility in french isn't one of those things, or he would be doing a lot better. But dismissing him is such a way is absoultely offensive.
Both insults/putdowns seem to reflect that the discussion is getting nasty, petty and childish. Besides, speaking of "white bread", would I be mistaken to state that all the remaining candidates in the race are "white"? (so Dewar is certainly not the "token white")...
I think that Tommy Douglas was characterized by some as a "kooky" western populist. He probably just laughed off those putdowns.
Fri, 2012-02-10 01:48
#64
There was a lot of crosstalk and mix up of what pictures were being talked about. Read the entire transcript. I even had a CBC reporter say that interview confused him. But hey, it's Evan Solomon so should we actually expect clear journalism?[
Sorry for this, everybody, but who's wild and kooky?
Our next leader will have to be able to take charge under exactly these kind of conditions and when Mulcair got his shot he blew it. Memorably. The last thing we need is a leader who makes Canadians feel uneasy.
Are you for real?
Fri, 2012-02-10 02:44
#65
Interested Observer
What do babblers think of Leadnow's "Cooperate for Canada" campaign? "We asked if you would support political cooperation between the NDP, Liberals and Greens to defeat the current government in the next election, and then pass electoral reform. Almost 10,000 responded. 95% said yes, with an astounding 72% "strongly agreeing"."
Could be a real boost to Cullen's campagin if they mobile to sign up members.
It's a bit mystifying. They say on their website:
What do we mean by electoral reform?We think that Canada needs to have a national conversation to determine the exact nature of the electoral system that would best fit the needs of Canadians. The goal would be to ensure that the distribution of power in government closely reflect the distribution of votes by all Canadians. The current system does not allow for this.
"the distribution of power in government closely reflect the distribution of votes" = proportional representation. Right?
But they ask supporters to sign this:
During the next federal election, I call on the NDP, Liberals and Greens to work together in key ridings to defeat Conservative incumbents. After the election, I call on them to cooperate to pass electoral reform and make sure our government better reflects the values and priorities of all Canadians.People who bait signers with proportional representation, and then switch to the vague "electoral reform," invite the question "are you running a bait-and-switch operation?"
A lot of people have asked them, on their Facebook page, to clarify. We'll see if they do. Don't hold your breath.
It's not in their hands which system is chosen. That's for the political parties and/or general populace to decide. If people join parties assuming they meant PR, then that's what they will support inside the respective parties. I don't see the problem.
Fri, 2012-02-10 03:03
#66
What do babblers think of Leadnow's "Cooperate for Canada" campaign? "We asked if you would support political cooperation between the NDP, Liberals and Greens to defeat the current government in the next election, and then pass electoral reform. Almost 10,000 responded. 95% said yes, with an astounding 72% "strongly agreeing"."
Could be a real boost to Cullen's campagin if they mobile to sign up members.
It's a bit mystifying. They say on their website:
What do we mean by electoral reform?We think that Canada needs to have a national conversation to determine the exact nature of the electoral system that would best fit the needs of Canadians. The goal would be to ensure that the distribution of power in government closely reflect the distribution of votes by all Canadians. The current system does not allow for this.
"the distribution of power in government closely reflect the distribution of votes" = proportional representation. Right?
But they ask supporters to sign this:
During the next federal election, I call on the NDP, Liberals and Greens to work together in key ridings to defeat Conservative incumbents. After the election, I call on them to cooperate to pass electoral reform and make sure our government better reflects the values and priorities of all Canadians.People who bait signers with proportional representation, and then switch to the vague "electoral reform," invite the question "are you running a bait-and-switch operation?"
A lot of people have asked them, on their Facebook page, to clarify. We'll see if they do. Don't hold your breath.
Wilf I bet they are not aware of how precisely they're using language. If you are inclined you should contact them. I don't know much about LeadNow but a couple of my friends know some of the people involved and like them. They may well be open to receiving some coaching.
Fri, 2012-02-10 03:18
#67
Wilf I bet they are not aware of how precisely they're using language. If you are inclined you should contact them.
I said this on their Facebook page. So did about 25 other people. I'd say they've been told.
Fri, 2012-02-10 03:43
#68
i really didn't mean to be insulting to whoever, but one thing i do is read it like i see it. and the way it's looking to me is as follows:
1) the ndp membership has over the past dozens of weeks (to me, very gratifyingly) come around to the proposition that we need a leader who will connect with the people of quebec;
2) by now, it's fairly clear that certain candidates have certain bases of support - dewar, for instance, for me, as a quebec voter, in my mind, is so completely the wrong choice for leader that i can't but think that the only reason that reasonable people - beyond family connections - are supporting him is for his simple demographic appeal. and i doubt that i'm wrong. and yeah, ashton will eventually be a very formidable candidate for leader, but she isn't even close to ready, compared with a mulcair or a topp. nash was a fairly good ndp president, but she hasn't remotely the charisma (weird that people keep forgetting that she lost her seat to gerard kennedy). et cetera and et cetera.
3) bc has a weird political history of weird risk-takers and it's pretty cool. i think the ndp could probably have become government by now, had the party elected barrett during the pivotal post-broadbent leadershipt convention. but we didn't. or, at least, our forebearers didn't. cullen is a really charming guy, and as i've mentioned in various posts over the years, i like him a lot, have had beers with him, etc. but he's not the leader we need, even as he's the candidate who brings a certain sort of attention to the leadership race.
4) singh is a weird cool candidate to have in the leadership race, as is ashton. but we have a situation now where it's getting very serious, and having so many people on the stage really makes it difficult for the candidates to talk for more than a few seconds at a time. losing, say, singh-ashton-dewar - that would really open it up so that people could get a sense of what the serious candidates are about.
Fri, 2012-02-10 04:04
#69
RevolutionPlease
people should give Romeo some room. Take some well deserved time off.
Fri, 2012-02-10 05:10
#70
There are much larger drawbacks to Paul Dewar's candidacy than being a "white guy." Frankly I am somewhat mystified by his appeal because he obviously has significnant backing. He seems to be extremely well organized and I think he is probably fighting it out for third place with Topp (with Cullen perhaps gaining on them). I don't know how significant it is that he has almost no discernable support on Babble.
It's not just his French. I am prepared to let him sink or swim on that front in the debate on Sunday. It is his pedestrian, shallow rah rah approach. He has always given me the impression he is running for high school president. He will just get chewed up in the big leagues. His attack on Mulcair over bulk water exports rebounded badly against him and that is a portent of things to come. He just comes across (for me at least) as a well-meaning light-weight.
He has no Quebec caucus support whatsoever, nor any significant endorser from Quebec. When he campaigns on his plan to gain 70 seats I can't help but think we will really need 129 extra seats because everything in Quebec will be imperilled.
And speaking of insults, it is an insult to our intelligence to have the Mulcair / Osama matter dredged up here as if Babble were no better than the letters to the editor section of the Toronto Sun. Any fair reading of the Solomon interview indicates that Mulcair was doubting that there existed pictures of Osama being killed by marines acting in self-defence. He never disputed that Osama was dead. I hope this is the end of this nonsense here. Leave it to the right-wing noise machine.
Fri, 2012-02-10 05:15
#71
RevolutionPlease
I'm leaving it to Romeo for now.
Where did this Osama boogeyperson come from?
Fri, 2012-02-10 05:50
#72
Forum poll as reported in todays National post:
The NDP is scheduled to choose their permanent leader to replace interim head Nycole Turmel next month. The Forum poll found Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair the clear choice among NDP voters, at 35% support. Peggy Nash, the former labour leader and Ontario MP, was a distant second, at 17%.
Ontario MP Paul Dewar drew 14% support, narrowly out-polling former NDP president Brian Topp, at 12%. Niki Ashton, Nathan Cullen, Romeo Saganash and Martin Singh rounded out the NDP list.
“There’s no one who has really broken out as the alternative to Mulcair,” Mr. Bozinoff said.
Fri, 2012-02-10 06:01
#73
RevolutionPlease
The Mulcair campaign really knows how to NOT get people to vote for them much as they lean that way.
Fri, 2012-02-10 06:07
#74
RP, the party may well "not get people to vote for them" if we ignore what our base is telling us about the leadership.
Fri, 2012-02-10 07:31
#75
RevolutionPlease
That's what I'm trying to signal, nicky.
Fri, 2012-02-10 07:38
#76
Forget about Martin Singh dropping out. And really, why should he?
For that matter, at the most elementary level, why should the occasion of one candidate unfortunately leaving the race lead to questions of who else could be turfed while we are at it?
Because the large number of candidates is a big reason why this campaign is being seen as boring and not all that illuminating. I hope more of the less-likely candidates drop out.
Fri, 2012-02-10 08:05
#77
writer
I can't imagine he would endorse Topp, especially after all this nonsense over Topp people saying he can't speak french.One Topp person. No hostile spin among friends, please.
Wilf, he also witnessed what happened to me after I spoke out about that one volunteer. Several organizers attacked my character. For hours. Not just one volunteer was involved in that mess. Several apologies came out the next morning, addressing a variety of bad behaviour.
No revisionist spin and cold minimizing of trauma among friends, please.
Fri, 2012-02-10 08:18
#78
Why it is supposed to be a good thing if candidates drop out:
Because the large number of candidates is a big reason why this campaign is being seen as boring and not all that illuminating. I hope more of the less-likely candidates drop out.
Show me an NDP leadership race that isnt perceived as boring. The number of participants does pose challenges. But if the party culture valued lively debate, we would have it. The number of participants is an excuse, not an obstacle.
Fri, 2012-02-10 09:05
#79
Boom Boom
I'm at a loss as to who to cast my vote for, with Saganash now out. Mulcair is the easy choice, but I think he has it won - I'd like my vote to go to a deserving candidate other than Mulcair. I guess I'll vote for Nash or Topp, but Cullen and Ashton also appeal to me. So I guess that's my new shortlist: Nash, Topp, Cullen, and Ashton.
Fri, 2012-02-10 09:12
#80
Boring is not the question. Giving as much airtime to the (real ?) "contenders" is.
IF a candidate (or their team) can clearly see that there is no chance in heck that they are going to win, why deny the other candidates the airtime to make their points clearly?
Congratulations to Romeo Saganash for "having the wisdom to know the difference".
I would agree with others that both Nicky Aston and Martin Singh need to take a moment to reflect and then do the right thing. Of the remaining five, it is hard to suggest that they don't each provide something different. However, while the membership's consensus is not in yet, I would hazard to predict that both Dewar and Cullen are not in the final round. They might also do well to reflect and decide to merge their campaigns with someone else's.
The number of leadership participants is clearly an obstacle. It limits the opportunities for meaningful discussion (I won't say debate - because there hasn't been much of that).
In the end, six other candidates will have to merge their campaigns into the central one anyway. Better to be part of the solution than part of the problem that blocks a coherent message.
Fri, 2012-02-10 09:26
#81
There's plenty of air time in the debates.
At best, 80% of it is taken up with repetitive vacuous statements.
But the discussion of whether people should drop out is doubly fruitless: it makes no difference to the candidates, who virtually no one would take away their right to make the decision; and those of us who have no say in the first place will have to agree to disagree on whether it is a good thing.
And by the way, a campaign is not an object like a box of apples that you 'merge' into another campaign. That it is not is an additional reason candidates do not throw in their lot with some one else.... just because it looks like a 'no-brainer' to people on the outside.
You do not understand a thing about why Romeo Saganash packed it in. Fortunately, it was not from the 'wisdom' you impute to him.
Fri, 2012-02-10 09:28
#82
And consider the reality that anyone who is fit to be Leader is by nature going to be one of the last people to say 'I can't win this'.
Fri, 2012-02-10 09:34
#83
writer
Supporters hope for miracle after cash crunch, sickness force Saganash out of NDP race
[Calgary artist Lee] Deranger, who hosted Saganash during a campaign stop in Calgary this past December, said the campaign was being run on a “shoe-string.” Deranger said that Saganash was avoiding hotels and staying in people’s homes during his campaign stops.
“He is not doing the fancy campaign trail,” said Deranger. “He is staying at people’s homes, we are feeding him.”
... [Jude] MacDonald said Saganash’s campaign was hurt by the media’s focus on a horse race, which ignored the ideas of a man with experience ranging from the local to the international sphere. MacDonald said Saganash also faced a rigid leadership race structure.
“If we have a party that is truly sympathetic with Aboriginal leadership, maybe we should have debates more in keeping with Aboriginal tradition like having a debate in a circle,” she said. “That kind of inclusiveness is more than just a gesture.”
Fri, 2012-02-10 10:07
#84
[..]
Congratulations to Romeo Saganash for "having the wisdom to know the difference".
I would agree with others that both Nicky Aston and Martin Singh need to take a moment to reflect and then do the right thing. [..]
The number of leadership participants is clearly an obstacle. It limits the opportunities for meaningful discussion (I won't say debate - because there hasn't been much of that).
Frankly, I think the race would have been more interesting if the alleged top four (Dewar, Nash, Mulcair, Topp) had dropped out. Then, more time would have been left for Ashton, Cullen, Saganash, and Singh.
That said, I think the race has been good. Rather than a nasty snipe-fest like other electoral races often become (especially in the States) this one has been reasonably civil, and interesting to me, anyway.
Fri, 2012-02-10 10:43
#85
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10/liberals-reach-post-election-hig...
Mulcair - 35%
Nash - 17%
Dewar - 14%
Topp - 12%
“There’s no one who has really broken out as the alternative to Mulcair,” Mr. Bozinoff said.
Fri, 2012-02-10 11:25
#86
Candidates shouldn't just drop out to "make things interesting", or give "more airtime" to other people.
Saganash shouldn't have dropped out. Even though his fundraising and endorsements were low, I think his support was deeper than he thought if babble is any indicator (which it might not be). If nothing else, I knew a few other people who didn't have strong feelings on the race, and were gonna throw their support to Saganash on the first ballot just to see if he emerges as a big contender.
I was considering doing the same thing. And now that Saganash is out, I'm giving Niki Ashton a new look to play that role. (Although I thought Saganash would have been a much better PM.)
Singh genuinely adds something to the race too, as a non-MP, as a businessperson, as a Sikh, and for the issues he raises. He also deserves points for improvement. He's learning fast.
The only guy who I might actually encourage to drop out is Dewar. I laughed a lot when nicky said it's like he's running for high school president, and I think there's a kernal of truth to that. But the French issue is crucial. I've been beating this drum prematurely, before the Francophone debate. But after Sunday there will be no more excuses.
Fri, 2012-02-10 11:36
#87
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10/liberals-reach-post-election-hig...
Mulcair - 35%
Nash - 17%
Dewar - 14%
Topp - 12%
“There’s no one who has really broken out as the alternative to Mulcair,” Mr. Bozinoff said.
Didn't they say the same thing about Iggy in the '06 Liberal race?
Fri, 2012-02-10 12:23
#88
It's hard to have much "passion" in the exchanges among leadership candidates when they are saying almost nothing.
Can someone explain to me, again, why candidates are making expansive election promises when running for leadership? What are they trying to prove: "I care more about seniors/dental care/homeless than they do?" This is stupid cynical politics, and it seems that by "discussing" their platforms, many people are eating it up.
Good points. Which point represents your view today? :)
Fri, 2012-02-10 12:23
#89
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10/liberals-reach-post-election-hig...
Mulcair - 35%
Nash - 17%
Dewar - 14%
Topp - 12%
Its worth noting that a month ago when Forum asked the exact same question, the numbers were quite similar:
Mulcair was 36%, Nash at 20% and Topp and Dewar at 11% each...I would wager that if the results of the first count are anything like that - Mulcair will have it in the bag! But as we all know, the opinions of NDP voters do not necessarily reflect the opinions of MEMBERS - though i suspect that there would be some degree of correlation
Fri, 2012-02-10 12:36
#90
It's hard to have much "passion" in the exchanges among leadership candidates when they are saying almost nothing.
Can someone explain to me, again, why candidates are making expansive election promises when running for leadership? What are they trying to prove: "I care more about seniors/dental care/homeless than they do?" This is stupid cynical politics, and it seems that by "discussing" their platforms, many people are eating it up.
Good points. Which point represents your view today? :)
LOL
Fri, 2012-02-10 12:47
#91
I'm at a loss as to who to cast my vote for, with Saganash now out. Mulcair is the easy choice, but I think he has it won - I'd like my vote to go to a deserving candidate other than Mulcair. I guess I'll vote for Nash or Topp, but Cullen and Ashton also appeal to me. So I guess that's my new shortlist: Nash, Topp, Cullen, and Ashton.
As a Mulcair supporter, let me say that he doesn't have this in the bag. My advise would be to vote for the person you want to see handling Stephen Harper for the next four years and into the 2015 election.
Fri, 2012-02-10 12:59
#92
As a Mulcair supporter, let me say that he doesn't have this in the bag. My advise would be to vote for the person you want to see handling Stephen Harper for the next four years and into the 2015 election.I'm at a loss as to who to cast my vote for, with Saganash now out. Mulcair is the easy choice, but I think he has it won - I'd like my vote to go to a deserving candidate other than Mulcair. I guess I'll vote for Nash or Topp, but Cullen and Ashton also appeal to me. So I guess that's my new shortlist: Nash, Topp, Cullen, and Ashton.
Luckily we have multi-round on-line voting. If one is worried that Mulcair might not be in the top two, it might make sense to vote for him in the first round. If one is confident of that, there is no harm in casting a sympathy vote for Ashton, or a strategic vote for whoever you want to see on the final ballot with Mulcair.
In my view, everyone is blowing smoke about what the first ballot results will be. I expect the unexpected. Which would, then, be a good reason for Mulcair supporters to vote for him in the first round.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:14
#93
There is never just one reason to drop out, but I understand some of the personal issues Romeo was challenged with. I've been a candidate and had family issues impact a campaign. I have participated in three other federal leadership runs and even helped out Herschel Hardin - remember him?
That being said - IF (and that is a big if around here) - the individuals supporting campaigns that have no hope to ever lead this party can see it in their hearts that their issues will be incorporated into the the overall package they should be willing - if not eager to merge their efforts for the common good. We are all apples afterall. 
Some - apparently - will deny that the withdrawl of several candidates would provide more time for those that remain.
However, the do nothing, head in the sand approach to changing the dynamic of this leadership campaign is rooted in what exactly?
Why not avoid the train wreck and humiliation of the first ballot drop off?
I get pharmacare and probably most other leadership candidates do to - time to move on.
I get "new politics" (?) - point made.
I think it is shameful and wasteful for those candidates to solicit money for a losing cause - regardless of how overall noble it is.
My key point remains that we are all in it together and we are going to be in it together after too.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:20
#94
Why not avoid the train wreck and humiliation of the first ballot drop off?
I think that for most candidates, the attitude will be one of "in for a penny, in for a pound". If you ran largely to raise some issues and to also raise your profile both nationally and within the party - it makes sense to stay in to the end and at least get to participate in 5 more leaders debates and give a speech to the convention etc...if you have come this far, why back out now - unless you have personal reasons like Saganash apparently did or if you are like Chisholm and you realized early on that your candidacy was totaly unviable.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:23
#95
Wilf's post reminds me of the 1976 convention. Broadbent was the leading candidate going into the convention. with Rosemary Brown second. No one thought she could actually beat Broadbent so it was expected his main competion on the last ballot would come from John Harney who had finished a strong third, ahead of Broadbent, at the 71 convention.
It was widely expected that Harney would place third but that Lorne Nystrom's votes would propel him ahead of Brown and onto he last ballot with Broadbent.
EXCEPT for two things. A fair number of people who preferred Harney gave Brown a complimentary vote on the first ballot.There were also a fair number of Harney votes from Saskatchewan who felt they should give their first ballot vote to Nystrom as a favourite son. The result was that Nystrom placed narrowly ahead of Harney on the first ballot. Harney's votes then started to drift to Broadbent to keep Brown from winning and Harney was eliminated on the next ballot.
A cautionary tale indicating that we should actually vote for who we want to win.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:27
#96
As a supporter of the Federal NDP, you should be used to the idea that winning isn't everything, and losing isn't the worst humiliation.
We've long been the conscience of the country. We need a few candidates to be the conscience of the party. Most of them have a unique perspective to offer. Raising that perspective is a noble pursuit. They deserve every bit of airtime as the frontrunners.
If we took the contrary attitude, the media would have gotten their wish, and we would have seen a one-on-one Ignatieff-Harper debate. And ultimately, a one-on-one Liberal-Conservative race.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:41
#97
There is also the case of the Liberal convention in 2006 where a handful of ex-officio delegates who backed Gerard Kennedy wanted to make Martha Hall Findlay look good so they voted for her on the first ballot and as a results Dion beat Kennedy by 2 votes and gained momentum and became the "third man" instead of Kennedy...
But the big difference is that the Liberals in '06 and the NDP in '75 were DELEGATED conventions where people were voting ballot by ballot in real time etc... In a seven person preferential ballot - i think its pretty risk free for someone to (for example) make Niki Ashton a "1" (just to make her look good) and then make Mulcair a "2"...the first count will almost certainly yield two "tiers" of candidates (ie: the four front-runners and everyone else)
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:41
#98
yeah, howard, things are looking good for mulcair. his competion for that final ballot slot should be much more clear after the french language debate. singh and ashton have no chance to win, and dewar is almost at that level. i'm thinking that this debate is where wildman cullen (whose french is relatively poor) and nash (whose french is weird) will either propel themselves into contention in quebec (feels like both have some decent momentum) or sink utterly. i don't see much in between to be had there. also bear in mind that this will be quebec's introduction to brian topp - if nash somehow overperforms, topp will have that much more trouble reaching the final ballot for the face-off with mulcair.
if more candidates do drop out, i'd hope that singh is the next to go. now that most of the members have been signed up and the arguments presented, he doesn't really add anything to the race. i'd say the same about ashton but i'm guessing that people on here would jump all over me. dewar, by contrast, needs to stay in the race as the generic white guy from ontario, as does cullen to keep on with his role as the kooky western populist.
Sorry for this, everybody, but who's wild and kooky?
Tom actually confuses "Osama" with "Obama" at 1:44.
There's nothing kooky in that clip. It is clear as day that Mulcair and Solomon were talking past each other. As Mulcair later clarified he thought Solomon was talking about there being pictures of Obama being shot. A slip of the tongue by which Mulcair refers to Osama as Obama is less than meaningless.
The only thing that made this even seem kooky at the time was the ridiculous headline the CBC ran the story under and the fact that the headline was what got picked up by other media outlets.
Not that I'm saying Cullen is kooky, but posting that clip as just silly.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:48
#99
Yes well, my understanding of what happened was Saganash was leaning towards Topp but hadn't decided and then the boneheads on Topp's campaign leaked that he was supporting Topp. Saganash rightly took offense that his support was assumed to be forthcoming and then told Topp to stick it and ran himself.
I can't imagine he would endorse Topp, especially after all this nonsense over Topp people saying he can't speak french.
I hope he can take a breath for a moment and then endorse, if he feels compelled, some time after the cut-off.
Compounding all of that, after Saganash announced he was running (and thus not supporting Topp) rather than just accepting they'd gotten egg on their faces, the Topp campaign insisted that Saganash had said that he was going to endorse Topp and that it was Saganash who was a flake for having backed out last minute in order to run himself.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:55
#100
There was a lot of crosstalk and mix up of what pictures were being talked about. Read the entire transcript. I even had a CBC reporter say that interview confused him. But hey, it's Evan Solomon so should we actually expect clear journalism?[
Sorry for this, everybody, but who's wild and kooky?
Our next leader will have to be able to take charge under exactly these kind of conditions and when Mulcair got his shot he blew it. Memorably. The last thing we need is a leader who makes Canadians feel uneasy.
What on earth are you talking about?
Mulcair has done a thousand of these interviews and performed phenomenally well in them--under much more scrutiny than any of the other candidates.
That's why so many people are supporting him. Trying to claim that Mulcair has a problem because isn't good enough on TV, in debate, in interviews, in speeches or communicating in general is gonna be a losing argument.
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:57
#101
after Saganash announced he was running (and thus not supporting Topp) rather than just accepting they'd gotten egg on their faces, the Topp campaign insisted that Saganash had said that he was going to endorse Topp and that it was Saganash who was a flake for having backed out last minute in order to run himself.
I have the impression that, in those first weeks, one or two of the folks who persuaded Topp to run were over-enthusiastic. Since then I think he's gotten them under control as one would expect.