NDP Leadership

[Evening Star]

And tied with the CPC in MB/SK, if it's the same poll I saw.

[cybercoma]

That's the one. It had the CPC dominating Alberta, as usual, and gaining in Ontario, just under 50%.

[Evening Star]

That's the thing: outside the stretch of Ontario from London to Ottawa, the NDP has established itself as the alternative to the CPC.

[August1991]

That's the thing: outside the stretch of Ontario from London to Ottawa, the NDP has established itself as the alternative to the CPC.

IOW, the federal Liberal Party is no longer viable west of Lake Superior.

So, is the federal NDP a viable alternative to Harper and the federal Conservatives?

[Hint: Nature abhores a vacuum.]

[Evening Star]

IOW, the federal Liberal Party is no longer viable west of Lake Superior.

So, is the federal NDP a viable alternative to Harper and the federal Conservatives?

[Hint: Nature abhores a vacuum.]

Actually, I think the switch happens before you get to Lake Superior: Windsor is one of the most solidly orange cities. And afaict the Liberals are not viable in most of Quebec either, not like they were pre-1984. (The LPC would actually be doing fine if they were still the favoured alternative to the CPC throughout the entire part of the country that is east of Lake Superior.)

[WWWTT]

The NDP would ruin this country by raising all of our taxes and driving business away. Last week we saw Megan Leslie applauding the loss of jobs, and Nathan Cullen agreeing with her. Look how Obama has screwed up the United States and his views aren't half as hardcore as someone like Peggy Nash.

I see you are entangled in some kind of fear.

Why are you so fearfull of the political party that Canada needs right now that can help its citizens build a more prosperous country?

If it was not for previous liberal/conservative governments our GDP would currently be 4th or 5th in the world right now!

Things are currently very bad right now for a country that is as blessed as Canada!

I guess fear is all that some people will ever believe?

WWWTT

[Newfoundlander]

I see you are entangled in some kind of fear.

Why are you so fearfull of the political party that Canada needs right now that can help its citizens build a more prosperous country?

If it was not for previous liberal/conservative governments our GDP would currently be 4th or 5th in the world right now!

Things are currently very bad right now for a country that is as blessed as Canada!

I guess fear is all that some people will ever believe?

WWWTT

If people think Harper is scary just watch out for Peggy Nash.

[Wild Bill]

I see you are entangled in some kind of fear.

Why are you so fearfull of the political party that Canada needs right now that can help its citizens build a more prosperous country?

If it was not for previous liberal/conservative governments our GDP would currently be 4th or 5th in the world right now!

Things are currently very bad right now for a country that is as blessed as Canada!

I guess fear is all that some people will ever believe?

WWWTT

Fear? I suppose. However, I don't think you understand what kind of fear or from where it stems. It's really an expression of a deep lack of confidence!

Back in my hippy days we called them "head people" and "heart people". Head people tend to always ask "HOW will that idea work?" or "Sounds nice, but have you figured out how we can afford it?"

Heart people think more about the goal than the process. They have confidence that we can find answers to such questions as we go along and look at the very asking of such questions as attacks on the "goodness" of the goals. They view such questions as code for not wanting to do it at all!

Like it or not, the NDP has never tried to expand their support by appealing to head people! Worse, often they have come out with programs that that just appear to a head person to be a huge expensive waste that would actually hurt more than help.

Part of this may have come from decades of being the 3rd place party every election. The NDP was forced to take the fringe areas for their support. When you never expect to take power anyway this can seem a safe thing to do. You never expect to have to repay any fringe groups by adopting any of their goals. Today, that has changed drastically. The NDP now has a real shot at the brass ring! If they are not careful, they might lose their traditional fringe support without gaining enough from the mainstream.

If the NDP wants to take support from more head people they will have to dramatically change their approach. They never actually were as flakey as they appeared - their leadership was more pragmatic than their public image. Still, to a head person, a Peggy Nash will never inspire confidence. If you needed a strong fireman to rescue you from a burning house, it looks like Peggy would be responsible for you seeing a 100 lb woman hired under some gender equality program coming up that fire ladder to your window!

No, the NDP always appears to be the party that when your lifeboat is sinking wants to form a committee to investigate if the choice of who should bail out the water is gender neutral!

It doesn't matter that this is an exaggerated perception. Politics is all about perception! Ask any NDP supporter about how they thought someone might have gotten rich and odds are they will tell you the person must have stolen or cheated!

If you want to get elected, it is much easier to change your image to make it more appealing than to try to change the values and perceptions of perhaps millions of people.

So it is not so much fear, WWWTT, as a deep lack of confidence! The NDP will need many more head people if they want to win the throne in Ottawa. Scolding or ridiculing head people as "hard-hearted, greedy mean conservative bastards" is not likely to work! They should be stressing issues like attracting business to provide jobs and avoiding like the plague those that deal with bike lanes.

Please understand, I am not trying to be negative towards the Left, just realistic as far as how to win support.

[cybercoma]

Actually, I think the switch happens before you get to Lake Superior: Windsor is one of the most solidly orange cities. And afaict the Liberals are not viable in most of Quebec either, not like they were pre-1984. (The LPC would actually be doing fine if they were still the favoured alternative to the CPC throughout the entire part of the country that is east of Lake Superior.)

And Windsor, even as late as the 1980s, was solidly Liberal and continues to be so in provincial politics.

[Tomrourne]

This is spot on accurate about Obama.

Plain and simple Obamas leadership has been a failure even when using his own standard.

[Newfoundlander]

A Quebec MP thinks Dippers should only support either Mulcair and Topp.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-mp-warns-against-stphane-dion-syndrome/article2330920/

[PIK]

I'm not a big Obama fan or anything but I don't see at all how he has screwed up the US. Leaving aside that he's limited in what he can do without Congress's support, it seems pretty clear that he's largely been dealing with a mess that was handed to him by the Bush administration.

Having said that, if Obama is too far left for you, you should probably avoid the Liberals as well.

He has done nothing to fix the problem, he has spent more then bush, he is still killing evil doers with drones and the jail is still open. So what has he done?

[TheNewTeddy]

I've been keeping track of the metrics. There are three ways to know what's going on in a leadership race.

Public Polling.

This is unreliable, as only 2% of Canadians are members of any party. Beyond that, many are members of other parties. Perhaps only .5% are NDP members. Thats 1 in 200. You then need them to admit it, which lowers it even more. Add to that you really need at least 300 respondents per area to get a reliable count, and with the variances in NDP membership numbers by province, this is important. You'd need to use at least 6 regions, which means at least 1800 respondents. In order to get 1,800 NDPers on the phone who will answer questions, you'd need to actually call 8,000,000 Canadians, which, frankly, polling companies are not about to do.

Endorsements.

This is also unreliable, but if you want to keep track, use 308.com

Fundraising.

I've actually found this to be the most accurate in the races that I've followed. http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/02/ndp-leadership-fundraising-predicted-first-ballot-outcome-in-2003/ has an excellent sum of what's been going on so far.

If I were a betting man, I'd take 50%* of the latter, 25% of the polls, 25% of the endorsements, and come up with a "prediction" as to the winner.

* split half-half between total funds and persons

For anyone curious, those numbers would be

Mulcair - 28.25%

Topp - 18.57%

Nash - 17.22%

Dewar - 13.35%

Edited February 8, 2012 by TheNewTeddy

[Newfoundlander]

I've been keeping track of the metrics. There are three ways to know what's going on in a leadership race.

Public Polling.

This is unreliable, as only 2% of Canadians are members of any party. Beyond that, many are members of other parties. Perhaps only .5% are NDP members. Thats 1 in 200. You then need them to admit it, which lowers it even more. Add to that you really need at least 300 respondents per area to get a reliable count, and with the variances in NDP membership numbers by province, this is important. You'd need to use at least 6 regions, which means at least 1800 respondents. In order to get 1,800 NDPers on the phone who will answer questions, you'd need to actually call 8,000,000 Canadians, which, frankly, polling companies are not about to do.

Endorsements.

This is also unreliable, but if you want to keep track, use 308.com

Fundraising.

I've actually found this to be the most accurate in the races that I've followed. http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/02/ndp-leadership-fundraising-predicted-first-ballot-outcome-in-2003/ has an excellent sum of what's been going on so far.

If I were a betting man, I'd take 50%* of the latter, 25% of the polls, 25% of the endorsements, and come up with a "prediction" as to the winner.

* split half-half between total funds and persons

For anyone curious, those numbers would be

Mulcair - 28.25%

Topp - 18.57%

Nash - 17.22%

Dewar - 13.35%

What about the fact that even though Topp raised the most money he had the fewest donors out of the top 5 candidates? Mulcair had twice as many donors as Topp, and both Dewar and Cullen had more donors then Topp and Nash.

[cybercoma]

The other problem you need to consider is that the vote for leadership is instant runoff. These opinions polls don't really capture that. I suspect it will be Mulcair that takes this thing, however.

[Newfoundlander]

The other problem you need to consider is that the vote for leadership is instant runoff. These opinions polls don't really capture that. I suspect it will be Mulcair that takes this thing, however.

It's hard to say, I think Peggy Nash has a good chance.

[TheNewTeddy]

Topp is not what the media makes him out to be. If you round my numbers a bit, you get Mulcair at 30, and Topp, Nash, and Dewar tied at 15. I think the final (first) ballot might look like that. Movement between the #'s 2, 3, & 4, candidates will all be a result of the "bottom tier" dropping out.

[mentalfloss]

Mulcair is going to win it and deservedly so.

Topp's actually got some charm and good policy, but he doesn't have as much charisma as Mulcair in order to make a difference during question period. Nash is highly overrated and you can tell that she isn't as intricate in her agenda - she seems to spout a lot of rhetoric and textbook lines.

The rest of the members are a mishmash, but I think Martin Singh deserves way more credit than he's getting right now.

Edited February 9, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Newfoundlander]

Charisma? I haven't seen either bit of charisma from the candidates.

[cybercoma]

I think Martin Singh deserves way more credit than he's getting right now.

Absolutely!

[TheNewTeddy]

Saganash will withdraw. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/09/romeo-saganash-ndp-leadership-race.html

[AusKanada]

I am almost starting to think the NDP leadership contest is so low-key to stop Tories from having their attack ads loaded with bad blood expressed in the race. The Tories had tons to use from the last Grit leadership convention and used it in their attack ads (e.g., Ignatieff attacking Dion on the environment). It's also true part of their political culture to present consensus, but regardless it's probably a good idea for them to be tight-lipped then present their candidate so Conservatives cannot make dictate the conversation about that person.

I am assuming Mulcair, but Nash or Topp seem possible.

[mentalfloss]

Charisma? I haven't seen either bit of charisma from the candidates.

Mulcair and Topp definitely have a good bit of wit and tact.

Absolutely!

I have no problem with his appearance, personally.. but the head dress and beard are why he is being overlooked.

Edited February 10, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Evening Star]

I am almost starting to think the NDP leadership contest is so low-key to stop Tories from having their attack ads loaded with bad blood expressed in the race. The Tories had tons to use from the last Grit leadership convention and used it in their attack ads (e.g., Ignatieff attacking Dion on the environment). It's also true part of their political culture to present consensus, but regardless it's probably a good idea for them to be tight-lipped then present their candidate so Conservatives cannot make dictate the conversation about that person.

I am assuming Mulcair, but Nash or Topp seem possible.

There might be a strategic element to it but I do think that the candidates are respecting the supremacy of the party when it comes to policy. Tbh, I always found it a little bizarre when leadership candidates in other parties would rip into each other - after all, they'd have to work together on the same team once the contest was over. Either way, it seems to put the lie to August's theory that the fatal flaw of leftists is that they can never agree/get along.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

I have no problem with his appearance, personally.. but the head dress and beard are why he is being overlooked.

I only really watched the first debate but then, Singh seemed very much to be a single-issue candidate who was fixated on small businesses, especially his own. Has he shown more depth? I have no issue with his turban and beard. (Mulcair has a beard too!)