Wilf, on the subject of ancient history I have heard that something like this did in fact happen at the 71 convention. Harney was regarded as a stronger opponent for David Lewis than Jim Laxer. Harney came close to overtaking Laxer for second place on the third last ballot. In order to ensure that Lewis faced Laxer instead of Harney I heard that 25 Lewis delegates switched temporarily to Laxer to ensure he remained in second place. It worked.
NDP Leadership #89
Fri, 2012-02-10 13:58
#102
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:02
#103
Wilf's post reminds me of the 1976 convention. . . A fair number of people who preferred Harney gave Brown a complimentary vote on the first ballot.
And a fair number of Broadbent supporters gave Harney a sympathy vote on the first ballot, as I did, which might also have put him ahead of Nystrom or Brown, but didn't. Sincere votes are always legitimate. I have a problem with organized tactical votes, where core supporters of a leading candidate make a calculated effort to manipulate the outcome by trying to bump off the candidate they fear might become everyone's second choice. That has never been seen in an NDP race that I know of, but it has been documented in other parties. It might happen spontaneously in this race if the first round shows a very close result between the second and third candidate.
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:02
#104
Just wondering, but is anyone here going to the Quebec City debate this weekend, or attending any events related to it?
oh, and I got my membership card in the mail today. I was pretty excited. = D
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:09
#105
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.
If Mulcair is the easy choice, why not vote for him?
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:09
#106
I heard that 25 Lewis delegates switched temporarily to Laxer to ensure he remained in second place. It worked.
And in 1995 I heard that a small group of Svend Robinson supporters voted for Nystrom to try to drop McDonough, who edged Nystrom by only 21 votes, and when it didn't work they were mad at Robinson for giving up too fast since he was not aware this group had done so and was underestimating his own support. Logical, except that I never met such a person, not met anyone who had met one. Great conspiracy theories run the risk of being untrue.
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:14
#107
Lou Arab
I think the party would have done well to copy the model the Alberta PCs use. Hold one ballot, take the top three finishers and hold a second, preferential ballot two weeks later.
There are some tweaks the NDP could make. For example, we could make the first round a preferential until the list was whittled down to three, (unless someone hits 50% of course) and then have the two week delay.
The amount of press attention the PCs recieved in the two weeks prior was off the charts. It was much easier for the press to wrap their heads around a three person run off than a six person race. I think the same can likely be said for individual members too.
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:16
#108
Wilf's post reminds me of the 1976 convention. . . A fair number of people who preferred Harney gave Brown a complimentary vote on the first ballot.
And a fair number of Broadbent supporters gave Harney a sympathy vote on the first ballot, as I did, which might also have put him ahead of Nystrom or Brown, but didn't. Sincere votes are always legitimate. I have a problem with organized tactical votes, where core supporters of a leading candidate make a calculated effort to manipulate the outcome by trying to bump off the candidate they fear might become everyone's second choice. That has never been seen in an NDP race that I know of, but it has been documented in other parties. It might happen spontaneously in this race if the first round shows a very close result between the second and third candidate.
And I was still in diapers :) hehe
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:19
#109
It's an interesting idea, Lou Arab. You'd still get the openness of the 8 person race, but you'd narrow it down for stronger contrasts. The media coverage is a nice bonus. Why have one event when you can have two?
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:19
#110
Lou Arab
I heard that 25 Lewis delegates switched temporarily to Laxer to ensure he remained in second place. It worked.And in 1995 I heard that a small group of Svend Robinson supporters voted for Nystrom to try to drop McDonough, who edged Nystrom by only 21 votes, and when it didn't work they were mad at Robinson for giving up too fast since he was not aware this group had done so and was underestimating his own support. Logical, except that I never met such a person, not met anyone who had met one. Great conspiracy theories run the risk of being untrue.
Funny, the conspiracy theory I heard was about backroom moves to ensure Svend never became leader. Essentially, the story went that a number of Nystrom delegates were locked in a room and forced to miss the balloting in order to ensure Alexa squeaked by him. The thinking being that if Alexa dropped off, enough of her supporters would break to Svend and allow him to win. Whereas Lorne's delegates would go to Alexa en masse and ensure Svend didn't eek out a victory.
I'll leave it to others to judge the probability of that story being true.
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:24
#111
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.
I don't think that the fact that the contest is perceived as "boring" by the media is a huge concern. It might actually be beneficial that the media is not that infatuated with the race as it makes the race more focussed on the candidates and the party membership, rather than quenching brush fires caused by "brushfires" in the media.
I also don't think that leadership polls in the general population tell us much other than who is best known. The polls tell us that Thomas Mulcair has much higher name recognition amongst the general public. Whoever wins the race, they will still face the challenge of establishing a positive profile befitting a national leader. I'm sure that the leader will face a strong negative advertizing campaign by the Conservatives to tar the new leader as was done for Dion and Ignatieff.
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:29
#112
Funny, the conspiracy theory I heard was about backroom moves to ensure Svend never became leader. Essentially, the story went that a number of Nystrom delegates were locked in a room and forced to miss the balloting in order to ensure Alexa squeaked by him. The thinking being that if Alexa dropped off, enough of her supporters would break to Svend and allow him to win. Whereas Lorne's delegates would go to Alexa en masse and ensure Svend didn't eek out a victory.
I'll leave it to others to judge the probability of that story being true.
I never heard that one, Lou.
The main issue in that race was a ton of Saskatchewan delegate spots not filled. It would have been interesting though to see where Alexa's delegates went though.
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:47
#113
Messages I take away so far are;
1) Vainity, stubborness and individualism should be rewarded in leadership campaigns and their supporters (i.e., particularly if their ship is going down).
2) Get used to losing, if I'm not already.
3) Our NDP "issues" require a minimum of nine eight seven "different"perspectives.
4) The good of the many is secondary to the good of the few - or the one.
5) Some of us really like the Babble bubble (so warm and fuzzy).
I stand by my main point that if we are all apples (on a tree), we need to take some off the lower branches so that the others will grow bigger and be more filling.
Fri, 2012-02-10 14:53
#114
Funny, the conspiracy theory I heard was about backroom moves to ensure Svend never became leader. Essentially, the story went that a number of Nystrom delegates were locked in a room and forced to miss the balloting in order to ensure Alexa squeaked by him. The thinking being that if Alexa dropped off, enough of her supporters would break to Svend and allow him to win. Whereas Lorne's delegates would go to Alexa en masse and ensure Svend didn't eek out a victory.I'll leave it to others to judge the probability of that story being true.
Criminal Code, s. 279(2) Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
So some Nystrom delegates, to stop Svend, skipped the vote and explained "they (?) locked me in a room." You're not saying you bought that, are you? :)
Fri, 2012-02-10 15:06
#115
writer
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.
Only last week, I had direct experience with several over-enthusiastic Topp organizers and one volunteer caller. And a candidate who expounded on the greatness of his team at the very moment members of that team were attacking me.
This certainly didn't convince me there was a great amount of self-discipline, let alone control by a well-run campaign. Or much common sense. Their apologies the next day were accepted, but I won't pretend it didn't happen. I'm surprised that others are so eager to wish this away. I do believe how a campaign is run is relevant to evaluating a candidate.
Fri, 2012-02-10 15:09
#116
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)
Maybe with regard to Niki Ashton specifically, but we had Boom Boom up thread talking about voting for Nash or Topp even though Mulcair is "quote" the obvious choice.
That kind of thinking is dangerous. I think Mulcair is doing very well, but no one has this in the bag.
Just vote for who you actually want to see win!
Fri, 2012-02-10 15:15
#117
If you support one of the top candidates, then I don't think it's too big a deal whom you choose in the first round -- the top candidates are not going to be eliminated in the first round. But, generally I oppose all aspects of strategic voting. So, regardless of polls or suspicions of who may win, I'll vote with my heart. That's what everyone should do.
Fri, 2012-02-10 15:35
#118
Only last week, I had direct experience with several over-enthusiastic Topp organizers and one volunteer caller. And a candidate who expounded on the greatness of his team at the very moment members of that team were attacking me.
I recall you described the caller in a post in Leadership thread 84. I didn't hear about these other organizers, however. Regarding the caller, I saw after you made the post that only minutes later Topp himself posted an apology about the caller, following it up the next day with various Twitter posts (so I heard -- I don't actually belong to Twitter). What happened with the other Topp organizers that you're now mentioning?
Fri, 2012-02-10 16:01
#119
Ah. Thanks for the reply. I'm not a member of Facebook either, so I can't actually read the comments in the link you gave. But, I'm sure they're innappropriate.
Fri, 2012-02-10 16:01
#120
Seems "Team Topp" is the only one so far who is pushing lines against other candidates especially from their phone banks. My friend from Alberta got a call from their phone bank and when she indicated she supports Mulcair, the caller asked "how do you feel about Mulcair wanting to move the party to the centre?"... to which she replied she's always been on the left of the party and thinks that foolish.
I didn't get that from the Nash campaign when they called me btw. Quite respectful of my choice and was curious if Peggy would be my 2nd choice.
ETA: If they're using specific lines against Mulcair... makes me wonder if that was an approved line against Saganash? And they really backed off once they knew it wasn't going to work and shit would the fan over it. Or... maybe the caller got Saganash and Dewar confused? :)
Fri, 2012-02-10 16:06
#121
writer
"I apologize for any offense" is not a meaningful apology. Certainly not an apology about what that caller did. As evidenced by this: "I have a great team working with me and I'm very proud of them and all the hard work they're doing."
Funny, here in Toronto the whole of the city's council had to go through an education about this very thing. The Integrity Commissioner here recommends a book about apologies, for those who don't understand how to make them. Rule one? When you've wronged someone, you don't make it out to be their problem for having feelings. You apologize for your behaviour, because that is the source of the problem, rather than the response to it being the issue.
"This is a colleague who needs to know a little more about Romeo" is not an apology about someone actively misrepresenting another candidate, or making things up, or lying, or whatever that caller was doing. Both during the call, and after it, when he fibbed about the call to his colleagues. Who then attacked me, based on that misinformation (and not tempered one bit by Brian Topp's non-apology).
The Team Topp twitter account smeared me after there was an agreement to have a cooling down period, then apologized the next morning. The Quebec coordinator smeared me, then apologized for the volunteer's behaviour (while rationalizing his own) the next day. As for other organizers, I invite you to read their comments for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150499746746710
One posted a full smeary Facebook note himself, which has since been pulled down. Reference to it can be found in the link above.
... And then there are the tweets. Forgive me if I don't take the time to pull those together for you. I am recovering from surgery.
That was my experience of the great team working with Brian Topp, who he was very proud of that night, and all the hard work they were doing ... at that very moment, I guess.
No direct apology from Brian Topp for that one. Nor am I expecting one.
Fri, 2012-02-10 16:25
#122
I think it's just an unfortunate part of human nature. When people believe too much in the purity of their own cause, they start acting like assholes.
Fri, 2012-02-10 16:48
#123
writer
I've been assured the disinformation about Romeo's fluency in French was not scripted.
I wish other campaigns would grow a backbone, document this stuff and deal with it in a straightforward way that ensures campaigns are responsible, and responsive. Otherwise, we are breeding a culture that enables this behaviour. The rumour-mongering and whispering all around make me kind of ill.
Several campaign supporters came to me privately about what was being said about their candidates. When I suggested that the campaign manager be informed, and the other campaign be challenged, they demurred. It was like they didn't want to get their hands dirty. So what did they expect me to do about it? With second- and third-hand griping from campaigns with far more resources than Saganash's?
I wasn't impressed by what happened during the call from Topp's campaign, or with the immediate fallout afterwards. I was also not impressed with the whisper campaigns that tried to take advantage of the situation, while the whisperers appeared unwilling to actually stand up for themselves, do something constructive and ensure the other campaign stopped (if the whispers were in fact true).
Speak up, deal, or don't and live with it. Psst psst psst sounds like a lot of piss.
Fri, 2012-02-10 16:54
#124
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.Only last week, I had direct experience with several over-enthusiastic Topp organizers and one volunteer caller. And a candidate who expounded on the greatness of his team at the very moment members of that team were attacking me.
This certainly didn't convince me there was a great amount of self-discipline, let alone control by a well-run campaign. Or much common sense. Their apologies the next day were accepted, but I won't pretend it didn't happen. I'm surprised that others are so eager to wish this away. I do believe how a campaign is run is relevant to evaluating a candidate.
Thanks for the Facebook link. I think Malcolm summed it up well: "When an issue is breaking in real time, you don't have 12 hours to figure out the right message track. The campaign's apology came 12 hours too late."
My first post above was unrelated to your experience. I said that I think he's gotten under control the one or two of the folks who persuaded him to run, who were over-enthusiastic in those first weeks (including the poor-taste comment on Saganash declaring his candidacy). I don't think they are the same people you had your experience with. I suppose I may be wrong, though.
Fri, 2012-02-10 16:55
#125
If they're using specific lines against Mulcair... makes me wonder if that was an approved line against Saganash? And they really backed off once they knew it wasn't going to work and shit would the fan over it. Or... maybe the caller got Saganash and Dewar confused? :)
I suspect the latter...In an ideal world (which does not exist) - everyone would run 100% positive campaigns and not even hint at any possible knocks agianst any of the other candidates. But honestly i have no problem with people telling me what they see as possible shortcomings of other candidates...as long as those are legitimate possible "beefs". Obviously the line about saganash not speaking French was absurd and was certainly unscripted. But it is a FACT that Paul Dewar's French leaves a bit to be desired and if there are members who are thinking of voting for Dewar - I'm not sure that its the worst thing in the world to remind them of that fact so they can take it into consideration. Back in 2002, Jack Layton's leadership campaign didn't exactly make it a secret that Blaikie's French was lousy - some people thought it was "bad form" to raise that issue - others thought it was a perfectly legitimate liability to make people aware of.
Fri, 2012-02-10 17:06
#126
writer
Thanks, Wilf.
I guess my larger point is that the general over-enthusiasm seems to breed an overstepping, which can quickly lead to bullying (and very dumb behaviour that can do serious damage to a campaign, to be both bloodless and blunt).
You flag this as the behaviour of a few early in the campaign. It is what I experienced only last week. It really does make me quite concerned, whoever is engaging. It does seem to be part of that campaign's culture. This would be an even stronger argument if the same people *weren't* involved at either end.
Can anyone point to anything concrete that indicates Topp's people spoke of Romeo's impending endorsement? Other than the recycled and unattributed Globe assertion, I am unaware of anything else.
Fri, 2012-02-10 17:15
#127
Can anyone point to anything concrete that indicates Topp's people spoke of Romeo's impending endorsement? Other than the recycled and unattributed Globe assertion, I am unaware of anything else.
The Globe article did not say that there was an impending Topp endorsement from Romeo. They said that there was an impending endorsement of one of the other candidates, but did not specify which candidate.
Fri, 2012-02-10 17:28
#128
There were articles right before Saganash announced his candidacy in which the Topp campaign said Saganash was going to endorse him and then articles insisting that Saganash had told them that after Saganash then decided to run himself. Many speculated at the time that leaking the endorsement was an attempting to pressure Saganash that may have backfired.
Fri, 2012-02-10 17:30
#129
"I apologize for any offense" is not a meaningful apology. Certainly not an apology about what that caller did.
I actually did read what Topp wrote as an appropriate apology. He did not deny what was said. He took full responsibility for it. He acknowledged that what the caller said was wrong and corrected it. And he acknowledged that the caller needed to be better informed. I'm not sure what else you possibly could want in an apology.
Fri, 2012-02-10 17:32
#130
Closed for length
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3