j44

Other than the last debate he was one of the top performers IMO. I still think his proposal garnered him a lot more attention than he would have received without it. I also see Cullen and Mulcair teaming up in some form.

Like Martin says it is going to be a 'whose version do you believe type thing.' Although IMO those in the NDP with reservations re Mulcair will believe Harper. I wouldn't say Cullen is as populist as Ron Paul, or at all for that matter. And I don't see how he wants to fundamentally change the establishment.

Like him or not he seems to believe what he says (most of the time anyway) and people see that.

Like most things I'm sure the truth lies in the middle. But to say Jack Layton was the only reason 1000s voted NDP is silly.

LOL

You're just dismissing me because you think I'm a Conservative supporter.

Not to minimize what the Conservatives (may have) done here but am I wrong to assume this is done b parties all the time? And that they probably do more underhanded things? Or is this just a big deal because it may have been systematic or authorized from high up?

I couldn't remember if she said that she would stay neutral or not. I was surprised she came out right away and said she wouldnt run. Any insight on Provincial Party leaders/Premiers endorsements?

Abortion Romney Taxes/Spending Romney Regulation Romney Entitlements Romney but possible Santorum Afghanistan Obviously complicated and while Paul makes very good points I'm probably closer to Romney. Torture Paul Iran Paul Energy/Environment Romney Immigration Romney Same-Sex Marriage Paul Health Care Romney Education Romney China Romney, Paul, Gingrich. Bailout Romney About 70% Romney and 25% Paul.

Did Megan Leslie endorse anyone?

I knew someone would mention Perot and undermine my argument.

I think people are getting a little too over confident of a 2nd term. A few months ago everyone was saying Obama wasn't going to get re-elected. Romney will move to the center after he secures the nomination. His pandering will be used in ads by the White House but it is not like the GOP have nothing to attack Obama with. Who knows what will happen between now and November. God, there could be a terrorist attack. The economy could go down, Europe could go down. To dismiss the affect a downturn would have on the election is a bit much. Remember how high Bush 41's approval ratings were after the Gulf War. They were sky high and then came 'It's the economy, stupid.' If (and that is a big if) Romney can become a better candidate and cut down the gaffes this could be a close race. I'd still put the President as the favorite right now but I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it. The GOP will portray Obama as a flip flopper as well.

You're right. Maybe he just looks more personable next to Topp etc. I agree Cullen comes off well. Almost like a funny diplomat. I agree with the Quebec point too. I'm curious to see if the members like his centrist views.

Good point. And keep in mind a lot of Dems thought Reagan would be the easiest to beat. Also keep in mind that a few months ago Obama was the underdog. Romney doesn't get another shot anyway. Santorum is doing well and getting national attention which will help him in 4 years, Paul wants to get his message out there and possibly help his son Rand for 2016 and Newt, well, Newt is Newt. Not if the economy goes downhill.

I'm sure some people will jump down my throat for saying this but I'm not convinced that Obama would beat Santorum as easily as Dems think. I was with this line of thinking at first and there is no doubt that Santorum's mishandling of the religious issues/talk would hurt him in a general election but I think Dems should be careful for what they wish for.

Who thinks that unless it is Mulcair it will be difficult for the NDP to hold on and/or gain seats vis-a-vis the Liberals in the next election? I think Cullen is the only other one that has a personality and will appeal to more than just NDPers. Anything could happen and one of the under performers in the debates could turn out to be a very good leader but I think there are only 1 or 2 or 3 at most who can maybe hold on and prevent the Liberal from a big push back. Although I'm sure the Liberals will certainly gain seats in the next election.

I'm saying that Romney should at least have an advantage there. I don't think it is a huge stronghold for him but if he loses it, in my opinion, it can't be a good sign for his campaign. I agree that the state is more blue collar and might be more in line with Santorum in some respects and I think the number of evangelicals there is under appreciated and while I see your point I don't think the Harper/Toronto comparison fits unless Harper's dad was Premier of Ontario and a successful businessman there.

I think you are right. But I'm thinking more in the broader narrative of Romney not winning (one of) his home state(s).

Hmmm...

What about #2, #3....isn't it a preferential ballot?

Who here is a party member? I'd like to know if anyone is willing to share how they plan on voting.

I haven't been watching the polls lately but w McCain and Brewer both behind him I would think Mitt wins big in Arizona. That will make a potential loss in Mich. Less of an issue. I never thought of the VP debate. It'll be like two guys in a bar mouthing off to each other. I'm VERY interested in seeing who picks who for VP.

Who thinks Mitt is severely crippled if he loses the state? Who thinks it depends on Arizona? Who thinks these two states don't matter that much? If you had to put money down who would be your bet to be on the GOP ticket in November? And who gets the reference in the title?

Not that I make it a point to try to predict the future but I can't see the Liberals going from their seat count now to governing. And keep in mind the conservatives have added seats that they are more than likely going to win the next election. I’d say Silver’s article is pretty accurate. Fairly early on (it may have been even before the debates started) Mulcair came out and said he wanted unions to have a much smaller role in the party. That is a pretty bold statement coming out of the block. He also gave an interview to the Toronto Star a month or so ago and said a lot of non-social democratic things. I don’t remember everything but I think he basically threw his support behind the oil sands and said that raising taxes wasn’t a solution. It is one thing for someone from the party to believe those things but it is entirely different for someone to say them and even more out there for one of the front-runners for the leadership to say them at that time. I would like to see what he does to shore up the NDP base if he does win the leadership. Moving to the left AFTER a leadership contest would be....different. He could throw out some bones to make them happy though. Cut the F-35s and spend that money on social programs. That would appeal to the base and be pretty sensible/centrist. I think one of the most interesting parts of the article is Silver referring to the casual way he is shifting and would shift the party. There isn’t a lot of talk about that being an issue. I don’t hear NDPers yelling about him being the devil. I have no idea how the Liberals would react to a more centrist NDP but I would love to hear others thoughts on that. What will Rae do if that happens (do people care what the Greens will do? )? I think it is going to be a very interesting time if Mulcair wins. Mulcair, Rae and Harper are all very skillful operators. ^Very good point. Mulcair has talked a lot about the 1950s rhetoric and 'boilerplate' coming from the party. And he does have a point. Some of their rhetoric scares people off on top of not making people enthusiastic.