Possible NDP leadership thread

R.E.Wood wrote:

The Conservatives appear to be looking for potential leadership talent outside the elected MP pool, as per this (I can't believe I'm linking to Sun News) article: 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/12/12/caroline-mulroney-lapham-could-be-tories-heir-apparent

Why can't the NDP consider this also? At the very least, the idea of a leader who comes from outside the elected federal caucus should be on the table for consideration.

I also don't buy the concern about someone like Erin Weir's (for example) profile being too low as a reason to not consider him as potential leadership material. Public profile can rise quickly. And - despite Nicky's reasoning - a candidate who starts with a lower approval rating can become very popular once people get to know them. The fact is that people across the country do know Mulciar and clearly don't want him as Prime Minister. We just had the ultimate and only truly accurate poll on that subject: an election.

Do you have proof that they aren't considering that option?

nicky wrote:

Let me wade back into the question of Tom's poll standings.

I was bitterly disppointed in not just the result of the election but in many aspects of the campaign itself. The party lost about 40% of its support over the course of the campaign and was comprehensively defeated, blowing perhaps its best chance at power ever.

In consequence of this defeat there are some knives out for Tom, perhaps nowhere more evident than on Babble. But we need to look a little deeper before we can conclude that we need to switch leaders.

It would be very damning if the party's popularity and that of the leader collapsed as a result of the campaign. But it is far from clear that is what happened. The EKOS poll I cited above shows Tom's popularity today to be what it was when the party was polling 35% in August.

 Other polling shows that fully 50% of the elctorate considers the NDP to be either its first or second choice. That figure is also aboout where it was in August.

The problem is that a lot of our first choices became second choices over the course of the campaign.

Why was that? It does not seem to be because the public suddenly rejected Tom Mulcair, because he seems to have maintained his popularity. 

I always thought that this election would be about which party was able to establish itself as the main alternative to Harper who was increasingly reviled. Once the Liberals established themselves in that position many voters who preferred the NDP and many who liked Tom switched, not out of repudiation of the NDP or its leader but because they wanted rid of Harper at all costs.

That being said we ran a disaterous campaign that allowed the Liberals to emerge as the alternative. But the campaign did not noticably detract fro the regard the public in general had for either Tom or the party as an acceptable option.

Tactics and strategies can change. Lessons can be learned. I hope they are. 

But we should think hard before we reject a leader who has a 60% approval rating. That means that he is well regarded by fully half of the voters who did not vote NDP. 

Sure another leader may grow into the role or in time establish a similar approval level. But there is absolutely no guarantee that will happen. 

 

Just because they approve of him doesn't mean they'll vote for him.