NDP leadership #114

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

I guess he could really use the boost.

Brian Glennie

Why wasn't Tom able to take charge?

Chajusong

Brachina wrote:
Found out more, the Topp campaign tried to hijack the Quebec youth wing and force an endorsement of Topp and this lead to a bitter fight and as I said the Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen camps ended up walking out in protest.

 

They didn't just try to hijack the meeting, they did it by packing the room with a bunch of instamembers (14 of which signed up today) that were complete unknowns to the rest of the people there. 

"We don't need to become Liberals to win" indeed.

David Young

When I do get my voting package, even with Saganash on the ballot, won't the people who do the counting just disregard any votes for Saganash and go to the next choice?

 

Hunky_Monkey

I remember the criticism levelled at Tom at the start of this race... doesn't play well with others... polarizing... too aggressive...

Gee, what campaign does that sound like? Certainly not Tom's.

Brian Glennie

Tonight's debacle reminds me of LSD's crossing the floor. Come on, Tom: Be our champion!

Rakhmetov

Brachina wrote:
According to the Dewar poll Mulcair is tied for second in Ontario and he was only under the 15,000 mark by 1013 members, not bad for nearly starting from stratch.

Their original stated goal was 20000 members, then they lowered the target twice, to 15000, and then again to over 10000.  Not very impressive to have missed the first two targets even after lowering the second one and when there were already a couple thousand in Quebec to begin with.  And the Topp campaign allegedly signed up a fair amount of these in Quebec.

And, as I said, I would be surprised if Mulcair is first in either Ontario or BC.  We can only speculate as the polls are unclear and the Dewar internal poll partisan, but it looks like Nash is first in Ontario with Mulcair either 3rd or tied for second, in BC, Mulcair might even be below Topp, Cullen, and Nash. But it's hard to say.

 

Policywonk wrote:

Dewar's poll was weeks ago. And it seems that Mulcair has support accross the country. Someone refered to Mulcair's "small" plurality. I suspect it is significant (perhaps 10% or more). Whether it is enough to win on second and subsequent choices is the question, but I think that unless you are offered favourable odds, at this point to bet against Mulcair will probably cost you.

 

Well the Farnworth campaign had the same overconfidence based on a few polls and media hype.  Given that something like half of New Democrats are only making their decision around now, that means Mulcair's support is probably actually somewhere in the teens amongst all members.  Pretty small really, and most of that could just be based on name recognition, like the the Farnworth polls showed.

 

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
Found out more, the Topp campaign tried to hijack the Quebec youth wing and force an endorsement of Topp and this lead to a bitter fight and as I said the Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen camps ended up walking out in protest.

I've asked this before - why not a 10-year race? Great for unity and media coverage.

 

Rakhmetov

Hah, the Dewar email reminds me of when Hillary Clinton at one point during the 2008 Primaries egregiously argued that "Obama is a great guy and all but he simply can't become our nominee because the Republicans will constantly bring up his troubled youth, how he was on coke and other drugs, etc..  But not me, I would never bring up such awful things..."

Dewar was boasting about his alleged first place ranking for second-choice votes, if true, it's hard to see him keeping it up with this sort of line and some of his other mean-spirited attacks on other candidates, like Nash on corporate tax increases.

Rakhmetov

Policywonk wrote:

I'm supporting Mulcair but I wouldn't consider myself part of his team. Still depends on the turnout. If Mulcair is in the high teens, everyone else is in the low teens or less.  I think we can assume as a first guess that the undecided will break in proportion to current decided support, whatever that is. I would be surprised if Mulcair isn't at least second in BC, considering the size of the crowds he attracts. I don't know about Ontario, since I don't live there.

Can we assume undecideds will break the same way as decideds, especially if many of them have not known much about him and are only looking into him now when the negative attacks against him are at their peak?  Yeah, Mulcair apparently did have a great turn out for an event at UVic in his last BC tour I believe.

vaudree

Arthur Cramer wrote:

That is a mess. What the hell is he thinking?

 

If that is true, the term "thinking" should be used loosely.  I am getting the feeling that even Mulcair is more of an Uniter than Topp. 

About Saganash, they will have to count them if they exist.  It goes without saying that Saganash won't make it past the first ballot.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I'll tell you one other thing, if the brain trust establishment of this party thinks Topp is the new "wunderkid", all I can say is it makes me wonder how in the hell they manage to keep us listening to them? Topp is totally pressing on my last nerve. This is just g-d unbeiieveable. Who the heck put those guys in charge anyway?

mtm

I believe that if you withdraw your votes don't count.  That is also true of someone who withdraws even if they don't finish last on a ballot.

So say for example if Candidate A finishes a distant 4th on ballot #1, and withdraws officially at that point, and throws his/her support to another candidate, their #1 choices automatically are discarded, even if they beat 3 other people.

Thats what I believe will happen with any Saganash ballots.  As he has already withdrawn from the race, his results wont even be counted and his #2 will become #1's on the 1st ballot. 

CanadaApple

Brachina wrote:
Found out more, the Topp campaign tried to hijack the Quebec youth wing and force an endorsement of Topp and this lead to a bitter fight and as I said the Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen camps ended up walking out in protest.

This is interesting (that's the best word I can think of at the moment), does anyone have a link to a proper story on it?

Policywonk

Rakhmetov wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

I'm supporting Mulcair but I wouldn't consider myself part of his team. Still depends on the turnout. If Mulcair is in the high teens, everyone else is in the low teens or less.  I think we can assume as a first guess that the undecided will break in proportion to current decided support, whatever that is. I would be surprised if Mulcair isn't at least second in BC, considering the size of the crowds he attracts. I don't know about Ontario, since I don't live there.

Can we assume undecideds will break the same way as decideds, especially if many of them have not known much about him and are only looking into him now when the negative attacks against him are at their peak?  Yeah, Mulcair apparently did have a great turn out for an event at UVic in his last BC tour I believe.

As a first guess it's as good as anything else. And I don't know whether the negative attacks are having any impact; other candidates are having questions raised about them as well. We'll see on the day of the vote, but I think Mulcair will have a significant lead on the first count/ballot, and I'm not making any predictions about who will be second.

Unionist

CanadaApple wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Found out more, the Topp campaign tried to hijack the Quebec youth wing and force an endorsement of Topp and this lead to a bitter fight and as I said the Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen camps ended up walking out in protest.

This is interesting (that's the best word I can think of at the moment), does anyone have a link to a proper story on it?

I found a fairly accurate account [url=http://www.deviantart.com/download/57207197/Get_Ready_to_BRAWL__Fin__by_....

 

JoshD

Here's an account of what went down

 

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=310591839003237

JoshD

Here's an account of what went down

 

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=310591839003237

CanadaApple

Unionist wrote:

CanadaApple wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Found out more, the Topp campaign tried to hijack the Quebec youth wing and force an endorsement of Topp and this lead to a bitter fight and as I said the Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen camps ended up walking out in protest.

This is interesting (that's the best word I can think of at the moment), does anyone have a link to a proper story on it?

I found a fairly accurate account [url=http://www.deviantart.com/download/57207197/Get_Ready_to_BRAWL__Fin__by_....

 

That was...awesome! = P

Jacob Two-Two

Well, it sounds like the behaviour was pretty terrible all around, but I get the impression that these were candidates' youth supporters, not their campaigns. I can't imagine the actual campaigns behaving so foolishly.

Wilf Day

JoshD wrote:

Here's an account of what went down

 

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=310591839003237

Fascinating, but the youth leaders don't seem to be blaming the Topp supporters; it was clear that other camps were ready to play. Sounds like a lot of members were attending their first convention; it wasn't just the 14 new Topp supporters. If 14 new members could give Topp a majority, he was already doing far better than I would have guessed among Quebec youth.

CanadaApple

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Well, it sounds like the behaviour was pretty terrible all around, but I get the impression that these were candidates' youth supporters, not their campaigns. I can't imagine the actual campaigns behaving so foolishly.

That was my feeling as well. Theirs no indication (yet) that any of this came from the Leadership candidates themselves, or people involved with them. It's possible though.

vaudree

Niki Ashton is problably gloating a bit that the youth seemed more mature than the old guys.  What are the odds that this issue comes up during the debate?

CanadaApple

vaudree wrote:

Niki Ashton is problably gloating a bit that the youth seemed more mature than the old guys.  What are the odds that this issue comes up during the debate?

Not sure. If it does, hopefully it'll just be to patch things up and move on.

Chajusong

CanadaApple wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Well, it sounds like the behaviour was pretty terrible all around, but I get the impression that these were candidates' youth supporters, not their campaigns. I can't imagine the actual campaigns behaving so foolishly.

That was my feeling as well. Theirs no indication (yet) that any of this came from the Leadership candidates themselves, or people involved with them. It's possible though.

There were, by my count, around 3-5 top Topp organisers in the room, depending on how you define "top", and the group of Topp supporters were looking to them for instructions on how to vote on resolutions. Later, on twitter, one of those same organisers [url=http://twitter.com/#!/justin_ling/status/176071911820886016]confirmed[/url] they gave all their volunteers the day off to come to the meeting. There was absolutely no question from anyone in the room that this was orchestrated by the Topp campaign.

Jacob Two-Two

Huh. Well, if that's true, it's another nail in the coffin of Topp's legendary political acumen. I just keep seeing dumb shit like this. I'm starting to think he's a bit of an idiot.

Do you think the same is true of the Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen camps? Were they being directed by campaign personnel?

CanadaApple

Chajusong wrote:

There were, by my count, around 3-5 top Topp organisers in the room, depending on how you define "top", and the group of Topp supporters were looking to them for instructions on how to vote on resolutions. Later, on twitter, one of those same organisers [url=http://twitter.com/#!/justin_ling/status/176071911820886016]confirmed[/url] they gave all their volunteers the day off to come to the meeting. There was absolutely no question from anyone in the room that this was orchestrated by the Topp campaign.

mmm...that sounds pretty bad. = (

 

Winston

In reading the comments after the article, what appeared to have happened was that there had been a resolution proposed well before the meeting to endorse Mulcair, which was withdrawn by the Mulcair supporters at the meeting.  Rather than accept victory that the resolution had been withdrawn, Topp's people decided to put an endorsement resolution of their own forward.

Sounds like it was entertaining to say the least. 

Chajusong

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Huh. Well, if that's true, it's another nail in the coffin of Topp's legendary political acumen. I just keep seeing dumb shit like this. I'm starting to think he's a bit of an idiot.

Do you think the same is true of the Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen camps? Were they being directed by campaign personnel?

The Mulcair campaign did make calls trying to get supporters out to the meeting, but I understand it was of the "hey, this is going on, you should come" variety, and that they didn't have a set agenda coming in. They had actually withdrawn the motion to endorse Tom and replaced it with a motion that the JNDQ remain neutral back on Tuesday after a discussion with other campaigns' supporters on the JNDQ's facebook group, and I know for a fact that they had absolutely no idea back then that the Topp campaign was mobilising people. Mucair's supporters didn't come into the meeting expecting a fight over leadership, and weren't organised. As far as I could tell, the Mulcair supporters voted as individuals.

I'm a Nash volunteer. The extent of our coordination was a few posts on our facebook group early in the week ago noting there was a motion to endorse Mulcair on the docket and us concluding we should probably try to convince the room to remain neutral. We didn't try to mobilise our supporters and get them to show up, and there wasn't a whip at the event.

I can't speak to the Cullen camp, I don't know them very well. 

 

(I think it's notable that there was a Youth/LGBTT/cultural communities/women's commission event in the Old Port afterwards. The bulk of the Mulcair and Nash supporters went there after the meeting dissolved, but I saw nobody from the Topp camp there.)

nicky

Dewar's defense of Mulcair may have been a little self-serving in comparing the innuendos to comments on his French ability. But at least he disassociated himself from the Conservative attack. as did Nathan Cullen.

Brian Topp , as quoted in the Toronto Sun, had a particularly graceless and ignoble response. He said something to the effect that Mulcair would have to answer these allegations, ignoring his comprehensive response as if it answered nothing. Then Topp in the next breath was talking about Mulcair taking the party to the centre, being a former Liberal, etc. As if there was something behind the slurs

Topp has steadily diminished himself in my estimation. he has chosen the low road far to often in this campaign.

Brachina

Is Topp that deseperate for an edorsement that he'd send organizers to manipulate things?

Way to turn off Nash's people and possibly Nash herself. This could lead to Nash supporters swinging to Mulcair down ballot if she doesn't make it to the final ballot, instead of Topp.

Brachina

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Huh. Well, if that's true, it's another nail in the coffin of Topp's legendary political acumen. I just keep seeing dumb shit like this. I'm starting to think he's a bit of an idiot.

Do you think the same is true of the Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen camps? Were they being directed by campaign personnel?

Its sad really he got into this campaign to boost his career and instead it looks like he destroyed his reputation as a cunning tactician. A life time of work, flushed down the drain. For the record I don't think this is reflective of his history of achievements, just what happens when a backroom boy tries to take centre stage, the mentality to all wrong and they don't know to keep thier nose clean.

Brachina

-

nicky

I don't think anyone here has yet commented on the fundraising numbers released yesterday covering Jan and Feb. Mulcair : +60,000 for a total of 205,000 from 1347 contributors Topp: +14,000 = 183,000 from 984 Dewar : +50,000. = 144,0000 from 782 Nash: +31,000 = 139,000 from 727 Nash claims to have 20,000 more received but not processed in time for inclusion. The other three candidates have not yet filed. The stories also say that Topp has received 150,000 in personal loans. I am curious about a couple things. Perhaps Ken S can help because he seems on top of funding intricacies. How do the personal loans play into this? Has Topp really got a war chest of 333,000? Or can he only spend what he actually takes in from individuals and repay his loan from that. What if he does not take in enough to cover his loans? Can he still spend that? It seems that candidates have to file every two months, although I am not certain of this. do they need to reveal all of their contributions before the vote? If they have controversial contributors can they hold back on those till after Feb 29 so we may not know about them before the 24th?

janfromthebruce

Thanks Josh for a well rounded account of what happen and not the one sided account of other previous posters. It appears that all parties were guilty and nobody is clean, and it started with the Mulcair camp. Interesting the initial spin on this Board.

 

JoshD wrote:

Here's an account of what went down

 

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=310591839003237

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

josh

"Interesting the initial spin on this Board."

But certainly not surprising.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think this has been answered before, but I forgot what was said in reply. If neither of the two unelected candidates - Topp and Singh - win this contest, then neither of them gets a chance to run for MP until the next election (2015?) - correct?

David Young

If (a big if) Topp or Singh wins, then a sitting New Democrat MP would resign to give the new leader a chance to win a by-election, Boom Boom.

However, Harper can wait 6 months to call it, and set the date up to 6 months later.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yes, David, I knew that - but if Topp and Singh don't win the leadership, then they have to wait until 2015 to run - correct?

 

(what I'm getting at is whether either Topp or Singh will bother to run in 2015)

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Yes, David, I knew that - but if Topp and Singh don't win the leadership, then they have to wait until 2015 to run - correct?

(what I'm getting at is whether either Topp or Singh will bother to run in 2015)

You are right. I do think they will both run in 2015, though. Topp a) said he would, and b) seems to be enjoying "speaking for himself" (his words) too much to stop now. And Singh couldn't have staged a better between-elections campaign than running for the leadership and getting his ideas out there to the whole country.

David Young

They would have to wait to 2015, unless a seat were to open up otherwise.

Take Etobicoke Centre, for example.

Conservative Ted Opitz won by just 26 votes over the incumbent Liberal Boris Wrzesnewsky, and the results are being challenged.  If they are overturned, and a by-election ordered, there's nothing to stop either Singh or Propp from seeking the NDP nomination in that riding.

 

David Young

And I did ask Martin Singh that very question at a Meet-The-Candidates' get-together the day before the Halifax Leadership debate, and he said was intending on running in 2015, but more likely in the Bramalea-Gore-Malton area, where Jasmet Singh came a close second federally, and won that seat provincially.

nicky

Not sure where you get that "all parties are guilty" stuff Jan (post#85)

I am in Montreal on business and dropped by the social event last night at the Pub St Paul. From what I understood this is the situation:
This was a long scheduled event. The Mulcair forces put a motion on the agenda in advance to endorse him. The Cullen and Nash forces mobilized to present a motion of neutrality.
Fair enough so far? You will remember that the Nova Scotia Young New Dems passed a motion endorsing Topp. No one seems to have complained about it.
The Mulcair camp withdrew its motion, I dont know if this was because they would lose or because of a spirit of comity.
At the last moment from what I am told was a busload of Topp supporters arrived, none of whom seemed familiar to the regulars and suddenly formed the majority. They then without prior notice put forward a motion endorsing Topp. This is what caused the walk-out.
In the week when the robo-call scandal broke I wd have hoped we would be wary of engaging in such tactics.
Someone on the web said " not since Duplessis......" Someone at the event last night said it was reminiscent of the tactics of another "Brian from Quebec" in busing in residents og the Old Brewery Mission" to stack a delegate selection meeting.

On a more positive note, the social vent last night was very well attended, perhaps 200 people. Mulcair, Ashton, Nash, Cullen and Dewar attended, although the latter two seemed to stay only briefly. A good sign for the health of the NDP in Quebec.

Stockholm

Chajusong wrote:

 Later, on twitter, one of those same organisers [url=http://twitter.com/#!/justin_ling/status/176071911820886016]confirmed[/url] they gave all their volunteers the day off to come to the meeting. There was absolutely no question from anyone in the room that this was orchestrated by the Topp campaign.

How do you give a "volunteer" a day off? If you are a volunteer every day is a day off and you can do as little or as much as you want.

janfromthebruce

I believe that Josh posted that nobody was clean and trying to suggest one is to me the dishonest part. That said, I have contemplated just leaving all the Mulcair supporters to run ramport on this board because I've really come to dislike there constant, or appears to me, smearing and suggestive negativity towards some other candidates.

Thanks Josh for giving a "rounded view" of what happen.

Chajusong

nicky wrote:
From what I understood this is the situation: This was a long scheduled event. The Mulcair forces put a motion on the agenda in advance to endorse him. The Cullen and Nash forces mobilized to present a motion of neutrality. Fair enough so far? You will remember that the Nova Scotia Young New Dems passed a motion endorsing Topp. No one seems to have complained about it. The Mulcair camp withdrew its motion, I dont know if this was because they would lose or because of a spirit of comity.

This part is a bit inaccurate. The motion to endorse Mulcair was withdrawn on Tuesday in the spirit of comity after pressure from the other camps. The same Mulcair supporter who presented that withdrawn motion then presented a motion of neutrality (there was a competing motion of neutrality from a Nash supporter that was a lot less wordy). The Topp camp may be confused because he was given time on the floor to motivate his withdrawal of his previous motion, and since most of them didn't speak French very well, might not have understood precisely what was going on. The JNDQ's web site has been clear since about Wednesday that the motion to endorse Mulcair had been withdrawn.

Michelle

Quote:

At the last moment from what I am told was a busload of Topp supporters arrived, none of whom seemed familiar to the regulars and suddenly formed the majority.

Quote:

They didn't just try to hijack the meeting, they did it by packing the room with a bunch of instamembers (14 of which signed up today) that were complete unknowns to the rest of the people there.

Must be that open welcoming spirit you hear so much about the NDP - a bunch of young people who want to get involved get labeled "instamembers" when they come to a meeting and don't vote the right way.  Were they members or not?  How many Quebec members are new members signed up during this campaign?  All those new members that Mulcair signed up to vote for him - are they also "instamembers"?

Hilarious.  Welcome to the NDP!  Now sit down and shut the fuck up, instamember.  We haven't seen you around these parts enough for you to have an opinion.

Just in passing, does anyone here know what happens when you join the Liberal Party?  Probably not, but I can tell you, because I joined the OLP about 13 years ago.  I was only a member for a year, kind of got sucked in because I was volunteering during an election campaign where the only way to get rid of the incumbent Tory was to vote Liberal since the NDP had no chance whatsoever in the riding.  I realized after a while that they weren't left enough for me, so I let my membership lapse after that year and started voting NDP exclusively after that. 

Anyhow, the moment you join the Liberal Party, the riding association tries to get you involved immediately.  They call and tell you when the next meeting is, and when you show up, they see a new face and welcome you with open arms and try to get you involved.  They want to hear your opinion, and they don't look at you suspiciously, wonder if you're some kind of plant, label you an "instamember" or consider you an outsider until three generations of your family has been a member.

So, back to the meeting.  Just so I have it straight - the Mulcair campaigners here on babble who are gleefully feasting on this latest kerfuffle would have been just fine with it had the original motion of the Mulcair supporters in the Quebec youth wing passed and they voted to support Mulcair.  But they are crying foul because Topp's campaign apparently out-organized them and signed up enough young Quebec members of the NDP to attend the meeting and put forward and potentially pass a motion to support Topp.

Do I have that just about right?

Michelle

By the way, can someone post the text of that Facebook note that was posted by JoshD?  I'm not on Facebook anymore and would be interested in reading it.

Unionist

The note isn't enough. You need to read the comments too.

 

Michelle

Ah, okay.  Oh well.  It sounds like I have the gist of it here anyhow.

Pages

Topic locked