Mulcair's decision to not resign

[Guest]

I think a big part of his problem was his opposition to Trudeau in this election. That same problem will be a strength in the next election as the NDP takes on the role of the only progressive alternative to the Liberals.

I think that started as a strength and then quickly hurt Mulcair as Trudeau proved to be intelligent, competent and a good communicator. In my opinion, NDP gains made during the previous election were really the result of a weak Liberal option. Voters simply returned home when Justin proved to be credible.

Unless the Liberals have a disastrous few years, I don't think the moderate left will be returning to the NDP any time soon. In that light, I think Mulcair is the perfect leader for barking at the government during QP and attacking Trudeau during the next campaign. Installing an affable leader now would be a waste. However, that may change if the Liberals keep their electoral reform promise.

[-1=e^ipi]

Trudeau proved to be intelligent

You have an interesting definition of intelligent.

[ToadBrother]

Did people stop mentioning George Bush's intelligence after he was elected due to his last name?

People like you were running the Tory and NDP campaigns, and had no response to the fact that Trudeau clearly isn't an idiot. But hey, if that makes you feel better, then so be it.

[-1=e^ipi]

People like you were running the Tory and NDP campaigns

Given that I don't support either the tories nor the NDP, you have a strange definition of 'people like me'.

Trudeau clearly isn't an idiot.

Well I guess if you add clearly to a claim it makes it true. *sarcasm*

[ToadBrother]

Given that I don't support either the tories nor the NDP, you have a strange definition of 'people like me'.

By that, I mean people who underestimated him.

Well I guess if you add clearly to a claim it makes it true. *sarcasm*

If the results don't prove it, then Trudeau's disciplined campaign does. Like I said, if it makes you feel special to denigrate Trudeau, that's your prerogative. I'd say that says a lot more about you than him.

[-1=e^ipi]

By that, I mean people who underestimated him.

Underestimating him? How? All Justin Trudeau had to do was show up, not be Mulcair or Harper, and enjoy the CBC propaganda machine.

then Trudeau's disciplined campaign does.

Other people run Trudeau's campaign for him. Same with George Bush. I guess that means George Bush is a genius.

I'd say that says a lot more about you than him.

If you say so.

[ToadBrother]

Underestimating him? How? All Justin Trudeau had to do was show up, not be Mulcair or Harper, and enjoy the CBC propaganda machine.

Other people run Trudeau's campaign for him. Same with George Bush. I guess that means George Bush is a genius.

If you say so.

You seem to want very badly to view Trudeau as an idiot. I think that says everything about you. It says nothing about Trudeau, of course, because you're not in any particular position that I am aware of to assess his intellectual capabilities.

I think you're just the kind of person who needs to denigrate successful people to feel special.

[-1=e^ipi]

you're not in any particular position that I am aware of to assess his intellectual capabilities.

What would count as an adequate 'position' to you for someone to be able to assess intellectual capabilities?

I think you're just the kind of person who needs to denigrate successful people to feel special.

Success? All his accomplishments are due to who his father was.

[ToadBrother]

What would count as an adequate 'position' to you for someone to be able to assess intellectual capabilities?

In receipt of some documentation demonstrating his lack of intelligence.

Success? All his accomplishments are due to who his father was.

His father was handed a safe riding when he entered Federal politics in the 1960s. Trudeau actually fought a darned hard campaign to win in his first run. But I get it, you don't like the guy, for some reason, and have decided that you're uninformed views on him are fact. I get it. It makes you feel good about yourself.

[-1=e^ipi]

Trudeau actually fought a darned hard campaign to win in his first run.

Papineau has gone liberal since 1953 in all but 2 years. It's a pretty safe liberal riding. It also helps if you are a pretty boy with Trudeau as your last name.

[G Huxley]

If that's the worst he did, that's a pretty small crime. And, quite frankly, with the Greens ever dwindling support, I think we can safely ignore them, even in a non-FPTP electoral system. I think Elizabeth May has got far more attention than she ever earned.

Not it's a HUGE CRIME. It is anti-democratic. It is a complete affront to Democracy in Canada.

It is also the polar opposite of what the NDP claims to be. (democratic)

Edited November 3, 2015 by G Huxley

[ToadBrother]

Not it's a HUGE CRIME. It is anti-democratic. It is a complete affront to Democracy in Canada.

It is also the polar opposite of what the NDP claims to be. (democratic)

It's a leadership debate that the Greens never had any business being it. They haven't even cracked 4% since 2008.

[G Huxley]

We're talking about DEMOCRACY not a business. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word democracy like Mulcair or Harper.

[ToadBrother]

We're talking about DEMOCRACY not a business. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word democracy like Mulcair or Harper.

Democracy doesn't mean that every marginal party gets to be treated as if it was somehow a major party. It's a fringe movement fading into oblivion.

And capitalizing words doesn't actually prove your point. You do know this, right?

[G Huxley]

Democracy means all leadership candidates from the parties are on the table and the voter decides after seeing a fair even representation of the options.

Edited November 3, 2015 by G Huxley

[ToadBrother]

Democracy means all leadership candidates from the parties are on the table and the voter decides after seeing a fair even representation of the options.

No, democracy means all candidates are on the ballot. Leadership debates are merely a tool, and not in and of themselves the embodiment of democracy. In fact, I don't think, other than as a bit of drama, they serve much of a purpose at all.

Do you realize that if every registered party could put its leader in the national leadership debates, the affair would be even more ridiculous, pointless and unwatchable than it is now?

Frankly, I think it's time to close the books on the Greens. They always were a joke, and May has driven them to the point where they aren't even a funny joke. They are probably one of the regional parties in the country, with meaningful support to be found only on southern Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

[ReeferMadness]

Frankly, I think it's time to close the books on the Greens. They always were a joke, and May has driven them to the point where they aren't even a funny joke. They are probably one of the regional parties in the country, with meaningful support to be found only on southern Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

Not sure why you hate the Greens so much but you're off topic.

[ToadBrother]

Not sure why you hate the Greens so much but you're off topic.

The other poster is claiming the NDP were anti-democratic for objecting to a fringe party being in the leadership debates.

[ReeferMadness]

Back to the topic at hand, I think the NDP needs to reflect on what it really wants to be and be it. I think Mulcair is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. I've spent a fair bit of time on rabble.ca and it seems to me that a lot of die-hard NDP supporters are so focused on the NDP getting elected that they haven't noticed the huge rightward drift of most western societies over the past 30 years (obviously, I'm talking economic issues, not social ones).

I think that under Mulcair, the NDP thought it could push the Liberals out of existence and occupy both the centre and the left. Mulcair may have been the guy to bridge that span, I don't know. I don't think he's the guy to lead a party that caters to social democrats, much less socialists. It's telling that many Harper supporters on this forum like Mulcair.

So, maybe Mulcair was the leader for what the NDP could have been but I don't think he's the leader for what the NDP is today.

[ReeferMadness]

The other poster is claiming the NDP were anti-democratic for objecting to a fringe party being in the leadership debates.

You could respond to that without expressing your deeply held wish that all the Green members immediately relocate to a Vancouver Island rain forest and self-immolate. Or start your own "death to the Greens" thread.

[G Huxley]

If the NDP are going to claim they are democratic they need to demonstrate it by showing democratic tendencies and intentions. Sidelining other parties from the debate process shows that they are not truly democratic. In fact talking to NDP campaigners this election was interesting. Some even admitted that they aren't democratic. Well OK never expect to get my vote in my lifetime and don't expect to draw many others.

The Liberals although I didn't vote for them either, to their credit were the only of the main parties that actually showed integrity towards democracy in this election and they won in a landslide, a good sign that the majority of Canadians still believe in democracy.

Edited November 3, 2015 by G Huxley

[Vega]

I could agree with you more, OP.

The NDP needs to move back to the left, which, as shown elsewhere, is a winning stratey. I think someone like Niki Ashton could do the party a world of good.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Vega

[BC_chick]

You have an interesting definition of intelligent.

I don't think we've had enough of a chance to make this assessment but what makes you so certain that he's not intelligent?

[BC_chick]

I could agree with you more, OP.

The NDP needs to move back to the left, which, as shown elsewhere, is a winning stratey. I think someone like Niki Ashton could do the party a world of good.

I'm so conflicted, to be honest. I like Mulcair a lot and several posters have made great points on this thread but I can't help but think he might be a liability.

[ToadBrother]

I'm so conflicted, to be honest. I like Mulcair a lot and several posters have made great points on this thread but I can't help but think he might be a liability.

He may very well be, but who exactly is going to take his place, and would that person be an even greater liability? Beyond that, I still contend what ultimately killed Mulcair was the niqab debate, and I have a hard time imagining that any other NDP leader would have done any differently.

For the moment, I think, it's best to stick with Mulcair. The next election is four years away, so it's not like there's a rush, and both the NDP and the Tories shouldn't rush around trying to fix things before they even know what was broken.