Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why?

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why?

__

Caissa

I'm still undecided.

lil.Tommy

I fully agree with the essence of what your saying... but Deputy Leader might not be the right title... something more along the likes of Caucus Spokesperson or Caucus Outreach...

Also am leaning towards Mulcair as leader but am still tossing back and forth Mulcair and Nash

Anonymouse

I'm supporting Roméo Saganash. I could still change my mind but right now, he is the guy for me. He is sufficiently radical, humble, and a team-player that he would merit my vote. More importantly, he would also smash the media narrative that it is Thomas Mulcair or bust. The media will have to pay attention to us. They will have to pay attention to us because they have gotten the story all wrong, because they have demonstrated that once again they have no understanding of the NDP, and that once again they have no understanding of the Canadian people. Roméo Saganash will be an effective leader, because just like Jack Layton, he is the anti-Harper. Almost any personal and political trait of Harper's you can take and line up against Saganash comes up flat. Harper cannot even attack Saganash on the economy because Saganash has much more experience working with the private sector (and Canada's most important resource economy) than him. Saganash is a true rural candidate and politician while Harper is a poseur. Saganash is inspiring and fresh and a role model and Harper is a hypocrite who is venal and mean, and has failed to enact most of the policies that he says got him into politics in the first place. With Saganash's principle, positivity, and integrity we can defeat Stephen Harper. With Saganash's intelligence and experience we can achieve good government. With Saganash's clear recognition of his own personal shortcomings and strengths, he will build a potent team. With Saganash demonstrated good political judgment on everything from courting Brian Topp's favour (by making it sound like he would consider endorsing Topp) before entering the race and sounding like an ally of Mulcair, to being the first candidate to realise that the question about "who is your second choice" in the Ottawa debates was a trap, to positioning himself to be a candidate that all the campaigns could like and potentially agree on, to demonstrating good judgment on wedge issues like drug policy (only candidate "pro-legalisation"), Israel-Palestine (a rare candidate on the record as being more consistently pro-Palestinian), and using rhetoric that appeals directly to the NDP base (i.e. anti-colonial, anti-imperialist), Saganash has shown that he can be the right mix of radical, pragmatic, and personable that you need to be NDP leader. He is also a consummate outsider, just like most of the NDP base. We are the trampled upon, the disregarded, the often well-educated, well-informed, passionate and disempowered. We are the Roméo Saganash's of our own communities, whether or not we have his profile or his personal strength. Now we need to elect him leader and help him change the world.

If all else fails, I'll vote Mulcair. He is the "safe" choice, with "safe" really code for conventional, traction free, and most likely to maintain the status quo. That's why our great champions of the status quo (the media, the elites), love him so much. That's why Mulcair can hold the NDP's support while hardly breaking a sweat. But can he grow it? I'm not so sure. It depends how much he can make Harper squirm, and the tools Mulcair has seem to be the same ones Harper is working with.

Peggy would be my third choice. She says all the right things. She has a lot of the right "left-wing" support, but she doesn't lift me up and she doesn't inspire me. In her consistency, I see the hobgoblin a few dozen small (if noble) minds working furiously behind her. The same activists that for the last 40-50 years have driven forward on the same themes to bring us to the same sterile outcomes. Saganash is new. Saganash gets economic development, he gets growth, and he also gets all the aspects that are important to activists. He is a triple bottom line guy and his experience shows we can trust him. If Saganash wasn't in the race, it could be Peggy Nash in a heartbeat, but because Roméo is there, it gives us a chance to do something new and bring Québec along with us.

I'm voting for the "little guy," I'm voting for Roméo, and I'm ready to change the world.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

My head still says "Mulcair" but my heart says "Saganash". I may go with my heart. I dunno.

JeffWells

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm voting for the "little guy," I'm voting for Roméo, and I'm ready to change the world.

 

I agree with all you said and can add only bravo. 

Charles

I'm starting to wonder how many names I will mark on my ballot. I'm only prepared to write a name down of someone I would like to, under any circumstances, see as leader. Dewar's french has almost ruled him out as a ballot option at all. I'm still crazy torn on Cullen as someone who has been perhaps the most impressive candidate of the race in many respects but with a few policy ideas that could also rule him out. Saganash's bio and background are beyond impressive but I have not felt the presence or outward passion I happen to like in political leaders. I won't be putting Singh or Topp on my ballot because leader of the opposition is not an entry-level job. There are only three candidates I feel passionately could be a good leader and bring something truly meaningful to the role from day one - Mulcair, Nash and Ashton.

Every day I become more convinced of the value and importance of electing Mulcair as leader. That said Nash would make a good leader with different strengths. But whether we like it or not performance skills are vital to a political leader and I sometimes wonder if Nash has them. Ashton has them in spades and I think would make for a very interesting leader, breaking genuinely new ground. I have not decided if she or Nash will be my number two, but however one slices it those three may make up my ballot, possibly with Saganash after them and if I can get past Cullen's co-operation bullshit I may have him on there as well...

Lord Palmerston

I'm torn between marking Saganash and Nash first, I think both would make excellent leaders.  In the next "tier" I'd have Ashton in third - she was quite impressive at the Toronto debate and I like her emphasis on gender equality and generational equality, Topp would come in fourth - I like his taxation policy but his leftward swing seems opportunistic and comes across too much as a backroom guy.

In fifth, I'd put Cullen, he is quite affable and reminds me the most of Layton, in spite of his "progressive primary" idea.  Mulcair is sixth given that he is feared the most by the Tories and Liberals, but he is too right-wing for my liking.  Dewar is seventh - he seems "nice" but he didn't do a very good job as Foreign Affairs Critic, his French is subpar and he's too enamoured with Obama.  

In last is Singh.  He spends most of his time engaging in a right-wing characture of the NDP of not knowing how to grow the economy and the need to be more pro-business etc.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Saganash then Mulcair/Topp.  French roots are a necessity this time.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

I'm still undecided.

I'm not sure if I am or not.

 

A_J

I'm voting for Martin Singh

UWSofty

I'm still undecided and am waiting for someone to impress me in the upcoming debates. But from what I've seen so far, I'd have to pick Mulcair as my top pick.

wage zombie

Here's how my list would look if the vote were today:

1. Niki Ashton

I view her youth as a large positive although I'll accept that she does lack some experience.  However I find her articulate, engaging, and seemingly very competent.  I think she understands the issues Canada faces and may have a wider range of issues she can speak about than other candidates.  I like how many languages she speaks, and I like that she has lived abroad.  If I think of the average 30-something debating the average 50-something, I'd bet on the average 30-something having a better grasp of the issues (no offense intended to 50 somethings--but if you look at where the two demographics tend to get their news, and additionally which parties they tend to vote for, I think my point stands).

If we are having to pick a leader who will have to do some growing into the role in the next 4 four years (as all candidates other than arguably Mulcair will have to do), it makes sense to pick someone who has more capacity to grow and learn.

--- substantial drop to #2, I am fairly set on #1

2. Thomas Mulcair

Mulcair is ready now.  He has demonstrated great political skills and I feel confident that he can win us a majority.

However for a number of reasons, I feel that a Mulcair government would be more watered-down in terms of policy than that of some of the other top candidates.  I want to win, but I think we can win while being bold, so I'd rather do that than win by being safe.  However, I feel the other candidates that I'm considering need to demonstrate that they have a good chance to win--so until they have Mulcair is my #2 by default.  If Mulcair came out with some bold COMMITMENTS then that would solidify him as my #2.  If I don't feel any candidates have made a strong enough case for their capacity to beat Harper then I'm happy to choose Mulcair as a safe choice.

--- drop to #3/#4/#5/

3/4/5. Brian Topp / Romeo Saganash / Peggy Nash

I will be seriously considering each of these candidates.  All of them have some real strengths as potential leaders.  I would be happy with any of them as leader, but each of them have a deficiency that they need to speak to.  Any of them could easily move up to #2 by overcoming their perceived weakness.  Conceivably all 3 could do so, putting Mulcair down to #5.  Maybe none of them will.

All 3 I feel would make excellent leaders but I want to make the best choice.  All 3 bring a lot to the table.

---significant drop to #6, I don't see myself supporting these candidates FOR leader although I would support them AS leader.

6. Nathan Cullen

I like Nathan Cullen but he's used up his three strikes.  Strike 1 was his French, which I was willing to voerlook because his accent is good.  Strike 2 was his joint nomination plan, which I was willing to overlook for a number of reasons--but the strike is that I think it demonstrates poor sense of the general will of the membership.  Strike 3 was the comment he made about not working with separatists.  Strike 3 is the one I can't overlook because I think having Cullen as leader risks losing Quebec.  Other than these 3 strikes I think he's smart and funny, and makes a good candidate.

7. Paul Dewar

Dewar has two strikes (imo)--his lack of French and his tenure as Foreign Affairs critic.  In contrast to Cullen though, Dewar hasn't really impressed me.  I like his proposal about tying per vote party financing to the amount of women the party runs.  If he had another handful of novel proposals like that I would be impressed, but on its own, it's just a good idea, it doesn't solidify Dewar as the ideas candidate.

8. Martin Singh

I think he'd make a great MP or even cabinet minister.  I think he is lacking in qualifications when compared to the other candidates (but it's a high bar).

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

I am still undecided, but I've started to make a tentative list that I keep changing around, at least. It's a start, I guess?

I decided a while back not to talk about the shape of that list with any other New Democrats until after the convention, though. This is because I feel a lot more strongly about people educating themselves about the candidates and making up their own minds than I do about trying to talk people into voting for the candidates I like best. So if you want to know who I voted for, feel free to ask me afterward and I'll be happy to tell you. (Unless you're one of the people who got so hyperpartisan about your candidate that you were tearing down the other candidates in order to talk people out of voting for them. In which case I'm unlikely to have a one-on-one conversation with you about anything NDP-related, let alone the leadership race itself.)

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

JeffWells wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm voting for the "little guy," I'm voting for Roméo, and I'm ready to change the world.

 

I agree with all you said and can add only bravo. 

Applause from this corner too. You have outlined Romeo's strengths beautifully, Anonymouse.

Mr.Tea

If the election were today, I'd put Peggy Nash first. I think she's someone who can really unite the party and everyone can rally around and not lead to any kind of factions. Good experience. From Toronto (as am I) so I'm more familiar with her than many of the others and she's impressed me quite a bit on the few occasions we've met.

I'm still undecided as to who is my second choice after Nash but I'm leaning towards Mulcair at the moment because he seems more ready to lead and I think that he offers a better chance of holding on to the gains in Quebec.

Given that I expect Nash and Mulcair to be among the top 3 finishers (along with Topp), I don't suppose my 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. picks really matter very much but Niki Ashton has impressed me a lot.

oldgoat

1. Romeo Saganash.  I mean what's not to like? An impressive resume, and a seasoned mover in the broader political spectrum, possessing all the personal qualities I'd like to see in a leader.  ...and yes, he can win.

 

2. Topp.  Like him, like the policies.  He also has large amounts of political smarts, and regionally, he's kind of pan-Canadian. He's for sure no political neophyte, the absence of elected office notwithstanding. There are some issues with his personal presentation that are perfectly fixable given how much time we have 'til the next election.

 

3. Nash.  I'd be fine with her, really, for lots of reasons stated above, so I won't repeat them. 

 

4. Cullen.  I dunno, I've warmed to him a bit.  Give him a French injection, give his head a shake around a few policy issues, like mainly not running against the libs in selected ridings (ugh) and I could live with him.

 

5. Ashton.  Many fine qualities, but it aint gonna happen.  Not this time, anyway.

 

6. Dewar.  It's just not there for me.

 

7 Singh.  Uh, did he mention he's a small business man?

 

8. My dog Gracie, (the smart one).  I mean she is REALLY fucking smart.  Looks good too.  No French at all.

 

9. My other dog Sophie.  Not as bright as Gracie, but as a golden retriever she has fabulous people skills.

 

10. Ok, now we get to Mulcair.  I absolutely concede his formidable skills as a politician.  Hell, he could probably even win.  A pundit said where Baird uses a club,  Mulcair uses a sword.  I've seen him use this sword in parliament and he's effective.  I'd just be happier if he was facing the other side of the house when he was doing it.  Just about everyone here is familiar of the him and Libby affair.  Here's what sticks with me.  After Marc Garneau gave that speech in June/10 I believe, tearing strips off Libby and demanding Jack fire her, the Libs and Conservatives all stood up and applauded...and Mulcair.  There are Ottawa staffers who will tell you the when Libby walks into a room Mulcair will leave.  Now Libby Davis is a grownup and can look after herself, I'm not saying this to jump up in defense of her, but it says a lot about Mulcairs style as far as I'm concerned, and it's not a style I want to see in a leader.  To me this says vindictive and spiteful.  Other candidtes have style issues that can be fixed, but you can't fix that. If anything this is the opposite of Jack.  I feel it would be destructive to the party, and I can see if Mulcair is the leader the more progressive wing of the party will be marginalized.

Happy to see him in the house, and he can be a valuable member of caucus, and even cabinet as long as he's kept away from foreign affairs.

 

 

Unionist

oldgoat wrote:
Now Libby Davis is a grownup and can look after herself, ...

Unfortunately, in point of fact, she was not able to look after herself. She was bludgeoned into retraction, followed by utter stunned silence (which she has maintained as far as I know to the present day) - by Mulcair as attack dog, by Layton in much kindlier fashion (his apology to Israeli ambassador Miriam Ziv and his indications that Libby is really not all that bad a person after all), and by the rest of the caucus, not a single one of whom to my memory (including the present leadership candidates) stood up to defend her.

Sorry to disrupt the thread, oldgoat and others, but I've seen several babblers say they would never support Mulcair (or even in one case, "a party led by Mulcair"), because of his vicious attack against Libby. I think they're giving a pass to those whose fangs were velvet-gloved, if you don't mind the mixed metaphor. The proof is in the conclusion, which is a sorry one for the state of NDP policy.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

You could still back Saganash or Ashton, then...they weren't IN the caucus when all that went down.

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

You could still back Saganash or Ashton, then...they weren't IN the caucus when all that went down.

Ashton was in the caucus.

I do, in fact, back Saganash, although I have no idea whether he would have had, or would now have, the courage to stand up in the face of what was done. You see, no party figure to my knowledge defended her. She didn't even defend herself.

 

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

 

9)Singh-anybody understand why he's even still in the race?  You'd think the guy would have taken the hint by now.

He's on drugs.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I stand corrected about Ashton. 

If I myself had a vote in this, my own ballot would be marked as follows

1)Saganash-he may not make it, but the man has come to embody the soul of the party, in my view, and the Canada and the world that needs to be made in the future, if we're to have a future

2)Ashton-and, frankly, I think this is just the start for her.

3)Nash-good combination of the ideal and the pragmatic.

4)Cullen(he's the closest thing I've got to a "local hero"-his riding actually wraps entirely around Southeast Alaska, where I live).  Also, I admire his courage in not pandering to the "great white hunter" types on the long-gun registry issue.

5)Topp-his disdain for social movements is a deal-breaker for me, and a recipe for disaster for the party if it embraces his attitude on that issue.  Topp needs to admit that change requires work on the inside AND pressure from the outside.  Without the outside pressure, the chance of change invariably dies, since the "insiders" don't have the will and the power on their own.

6)Mulcair-the guy's probably gonna get it, but he needs to see that he's not going to be allowed to run roughshod over the party if he does.

7)Oldgoat's golden(she also has the advantage of being the only leadership candidate who's hair is naturally in the party color)

8)Dewar-just can't get behind the "humanitarian intervention" thing-it really, really looks as if, had Dewar been the leader in 2002, he'd have made the party officially back the Iraq War..

9)Singh-anybody understand why he's even still in the race?  You'd think the guy would have taken the hint by now.

theleftyinvestor

A friend and I were musing about comparing these contenders to last year's BCNDP race.

Mulcair is the Mike Farnworth of this race - the guy whose supporters say he's the only one who can win the next election.

Topp is the Adrian Dix of this race - except Dix had some actual caucus experience!

Cullen (and maybe also Saganash) is the Nicholas Simons of this race - you know he's not going to win, but every time he talks you just want to give him a hug.

Nash is the John Horgan of this race - seen as someone who would unite warring factions of the party (although Dix turns out to be, against old expectations, quite a good uniter).

Singh is the Dana Larsen of this race - all he talks about is drugs.

Ashton and Dewar, I wouldn't say either of them quite had an equivalent in the BCNDP race.

---

On topic though - when I look at the field, I ask: If this person wins, do I have confidence they will be able to function well enough as leader to smack down a Conservative majority?

The people who make me say yes are Nash, Mulcair, Cullen and Ashton.

The people who make me say no are Topp, Saganash, Dewar and Singh. Topp because he puts me to sleep and has no caucus experience. Saganash because he still seems to crack under pressure, and therefore I'd rather see him work where he works well rather than be the guy who personally gets slain by the big blue machine. Dewar because his French is just not going to cut it. Singh gets a participation award like they gave out on track and field day for people who don't score any actual points.

---

I will be voting round-by-round. I am thinking I could park my vote with Ashton or Cullen in the first round or two, to assess where the pieces have fallen. Nash is the ultimate destination of my vote, and Mulcair is my fallback.

stevebrown

Romeo Saganash, because a First Nations in 24 Sussex would be sweet.

Hunky_Monkey

oldgoat wrote:

There are Ottawa staffers who will tell you the when Libby walks into a room Mulcair will leave

Really? I spoke with Mulcair personally about Libby and the only impression I got is that he likes her. And since he's not the shy type, I can't see him taking off in fear of facing Libby...

oldgoat

He's in campaign mode, what's he gonna say.  And I wasn't suggesting anything about fear at all, I doubt he's a particularly fearful person.  I'm suggesting petty vindictiveness.

vaudree

theleftyinvestor wrote:
Singh is the Dana Larsen of this race - all he talks about is drugs.

Thank you everyone for making me smile.  Looking forward to the debate tomorrow.

It is not about taking hints - everyone is in the race for a reason.

I know which way I am leaning but now that the debate season is starting in earnest.  The first official debate (and the unofficial ones) were to feel each other out and get feedback on what one needs to improve in self presentation.

Have the same hesitations about Mulcair, though his sword can come in handy if pointed in the right direction.  His campaign song could be "Hey there Little Red Ridinghood" because he is trying to present a kinder gentler version of himself.

Nash needs to get more feisty.

I did not even look at Dewar at the beginning but he has Charlie Angus, Maher Arar (who is also supporting Craig Scott) and Monia Mazigh in his corner.  He and Nash have been the ones going furthest concerning the Caterpillar lockout etc.

Have noticed that on Nikki Ashton's webpage that they list, not her present age, but how old she will be at the time of the next election.

Saganash has had a bit of problems - both illness and personal - I don't think that we have seen him at his best yet.

Topp's son's remind me of him same gestures.  Interested to find that Rebecca had run on behalf of the NDP.

Debate tomorrow noon Central.
CBC interviewing candidate (not sure which one) tomorrow morning possibly around 10.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I simply don't know. I really don't. I want someone to show they are capable of either developing or generating charisma. I admit it sound stupid, but I am waiting to feel that about someone. Can anybody help with this? I haven't got a clue.

I will say I am starting to really develop admiration for Saganesh. I think he will grow and he has a lot about him that is so impressive. Could he developi into a kind of "Jack" (blessed be his memory)?

Why do the leaders on the left pass on like this? What has fate got against them? John, Martin, Bobby, and now Jack. Blessed be all their memories. It makes no sense and I simply can't understand it at all! I just can't!

vaudree

Pollution increases the cancer rates.

Or it could be like Libby Davies said - Jack gave his life for the party.  The News pudents did not think that Jack, who had just had hip surgery at the time, would be wanting to bring down the government.

I just wished that Jack was still here though I can just picture him talking to Tommy Douglas and David Lewis and his eyes lighting up from above when he saw his brand new granddaughter.

KenS

Right now, I'm thinking I will vote for Romeo first round. After that, we'll see.

Every other race I have been a partisan for one candidate, period.

Depending on what I see in the next two months, including looking for more from Romeo, I could decide to support him all the way, or not vote for him at all.

nicky

It sounds like Romeo may win outright on the first ballot because of complimentary votes from people who really prefer someone else

KenS

Dont make assumptions about what is behind anyone else's expressed preferences.

Speaking for myself: I dont prefer someone else.

Again: Romeo for the first ballot, then I will see.

Gaian

oldgoat wrote:

He's in campaign mode, what's he gonna say.  And I wasn't suggesting anything about fear at all, I doubt he's a particularly fearful person.  I'm suggesting petty vindictiveness.

And the "Ottawa staffers" who you have "spoken to" are not being creative or frightened and "vindictive" themselves?

Or do you know anything about Mulcair's feelings and situation beyond gossip and his effectiveness in Paliament? You'd rather a Gladstone than a Disraeli? But mostly you can't forget the Libby affair.

All cause for a full flight from the prospect and best opportunity, you admit, of changing the lives of millions for the better, clearly.

doofy

Old Goat's story about Mulcair is hardly believable. If he had applauded the Conservatives for calling on Libby Davies to resign, I am sure it would have been mentioned somewhere in the media. The MSM would love to point to deep divisions within the NDP.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The debate repeats at 9 pm on CPAC. I'll see it then, and comment afterwards.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

vaudree wrote:

Pollution increases the cancer rates.

Or it could be like Libby Davies said - Jack gave his life for the party.  The News pudents did not think that Jack, who had just had hip surgery at the time, would be wanting to bring down the government.

I just wished that Jack was still here though I can just picture him talking to Tommy Douglas and David Lewis and his eyes lighting up from above when he saw his brand new granddaughter.

I really not a religous man, not withstanding when I post about Jack (blessed be his memory). That is more cultural then anything else. I can't help myself. I love the thought of what you wrote. What a grand time that would be!

nicky

KenS, I know you probably think this song is about you but my post was a humourous reference to a large number of Babblers who say they will give Romeo a complimentary first ballot vote. It is perhaps a little ironic that you will vote for Romeo. You made innumerable contradictory and incomprehensible posts snidely attacking Mulcair for not contributing money to the party. Yet when it turns out that in truth he contributed almost $5,000 to the NDP over the last few years, you indicate you will vote for a candidate who contributed precisely zero. It appears that consistency doesn't matter to you when you sense an opportunity, even an unfair one, to attack Mulcair. Flight from K..... Is exactly right in what he has just posted about you on the Leadership thread.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Gaian wrote:
oldgoat wrote:

He's in campaign mode, what's he gonna say.  And I wasn't suggesting anything about fear at all, I doubt he's a particularly fearful person.  I'm suggesting petty vindictiveness.

  You'd rather a Gladstone than a Disraeli? 

There'd be a strong case for preferring a Gladstone to a Disraeli in electoral terms.  During their respective political careers, Gladstone led the Liberals  to three electoral victories(also forming a minority government on another occasion with the Liberals holding fewer seats than the Conservatives), while Disraeli managed to lead the Tories to only one majority win, in 1874(and even then, the Gladstonian Liberals actually defeated the Tories by over eight percentage points in the popular vote, which showed how badly corrupted the UK version of FPTP was in the 19th Century.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

I'm supporting Tom Mulcair for Leader mainly because I think we need a kick Harper's ass Leader, however I'm going to mark my first ballot support for Romeo Saganash. And I'm looking at Nicki Ashton as my second choice. 

It is way past the time for us to bring our First Nations people, who have so much wisdom to offer us, which we quite regularly ignore, into the mainstream of Canadian society's decision-making process. And it's essential we listen to what women, and young people, have to say as well.

http://romeosaganash.ndp.ca/

I would like to see Mulcair, once elected Leader, to choose about a dozen Deputy Leaders from the following communities:

First Nations

Women

Filipino

Vietmanese

Chinese

East Indian

Seniors

Eastern Canada

Northern Canada

Central Canada

Eastern Canada

Youth

 

 

 

Uh...you put "Eastern Canada" in there twice.

NorthReport

That's because of population.

LOL

Thanks for catching that Ken and I will correct it.

NorthReport

I'm supporting Tom Mulcair for Leader mainly because I think we need a kick Harper's ass Leader, however I'm going to mark my first ballot support for Romeo Saganash. And I'm looking at Nicki Ashton as my second choice. 

It is way past the time for us to bring our First Nations people, who have so much wisdom to offer us, which we quite regularly ignore, into the mainstream of Canadian society's decision-making process. And it's essential we listen to what women, and young people, have to say as well.

http://romeosaganash.ndp.ca/

I would like to see Mulcair, once elected Leader, to choose about a dozen or so, and perhaps Deputy Leaders is not the correct term, thanks lil.Tommy, but regional or cultural spokespeople, from the following communities:

Central Canada

Chinese

Eastern Canada

East Indian

Filipino

First Nations

French

Northern Canada

Seniors

Unions (working people)

Vietnamese

Western Canada

Women

Youth

 

 

 

R.E.Wood

My current voting preference (subject to change, of course!) would be:

1. Cullen (people need to realize his co-operation plan will affect very few ridings, if any at all, in actual practice. It's really going to be a non-issue, and he has so many other excellent aspects.)

2. Mulcair (would make a very fine leader, but needs to show he can strike a balance between mellow/dull and aggressive.)

3. Nash (would also make a fine leader, but today gave me concern about her abliity to connect with audiences - both in person and via television.)

4. Saganash (could be a good leader, and has great qualities, but his communication difficulties will severely limit his appeal to a broad base of people. If he could stop coughing and clearing his throat mid-sentence, it would help!)

5. Topp (Generally dislikable: I have serious doubts he could connect with Canadians.)

6. Dewar (Unable to connect with a modern audience, and intensely stiff. And as others who speak French have emphatically stated, his French is unacceptable.)

7. Ashton (has become a boring photocopy of her talking points, and my partner called in from the other room, "She's really annoying", without even seeing the TV.)

8. Singh (Just withdraw already, please? Stop taking up time and space better devoted to serious candidates.)

R.E.Wood

Ken Burch wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I'm supporting Tom Mulcair for Leader mainly because I think we need a kick Harper's ass Leader, however I'm going to mark my first ballot support for Romeo Saganash. And I'm looking at Nicki Ashton as my second choice. 

It is way past the time for us to bring our First Nations people, who have so much wisdom to offer us, which we quite regularly ignore, into the mainstream of Canadian society's decision-making process. And it's essential we listen to what women, and young people, have to say as well.

http://romeosaganash.ndp.ca/

I would like to see Mulcair, once elected Leader, to choose about a dozen Deputy Leaders from the following communities:

First Nations

Women

Filipino

Vietmanese

Chinese

East Indian

Seniors

Eastern Canada

Northern Canada

Central Canada

Eastern Canada

Youth

 

 

 

Uh...you put "Eastern Canada" in there twice.

 

After deleting one of the "Eastern Canada" references, there will be room for someone from the LGBTQ community.

... (or "Western Canada")

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I still want to see the rest of the debates and speeches, but right now my two at the top of the list are Mulcair and Cullen. I think Mulcair is the best hope to beat Harper in 2015. Cullen impressed me today. I'm taking Saganash off my list because he has yet to have a good debate perfromance - at least that I've seen so far.

Pogo Pogo's picture

nicky wrote:
It sounds like Romeo may win outright on the first ballot because of complimentary votes from people who really prefer someone else

I think that Saganash is very risky, and his victory could end badly.  However, if he is successful the oppportunity for great change is there. 

At the other end of the spectrum is Mulcair.  Very likely to maintain the political successes but one has to guess whether any great change will occur.

Hunky_Monkey

Pogo wrote:

At the other end of the spectrum is Mulcair.  Very likely to maintain the political successes but one has to guess whether any great change will occur.

If we get a cap-and-trade system, a national childcare program, and pharmacare which are some of Mulcair's top priorities, I'll be happy.

Gaian

@ pogo

Except, perhaps, in realizing both a means of controlling atmospheric carbon while also paying for New Democrats' social programs.

(as me old mom would have said, great minds think alike, HM) :)

Pogo Pogo's picture

All of which one could imagine with left leaning Liberal government perhaps pressured by the NDP in a minority government.  Imagine what we could do if we challenged Canadians to stretch the boundaries.

Policywonk

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Pogo wrote:

At the other end of the spectrum is Mulcair.  Very likely to maintain the political successes but one has to guess whether any great change will occur.

If we get a cap-and-trade system, a national childcare program, and pharmacare which are some of Mulcair's top priorities, I'll be happy.

Assuming the cap-and-trade system works. The devil is in the details.

Caissa

The most difficult impediment to my making up my mind is that they all fall short of my measuring stick--Jack Layton. I know I have to get beyond this, and I will get beyond it. I miss, Jack.

mark_alfred

For me so far:

1.)  Topp -- I like his policies and I agree with his strategy of promoting the truth that New Democrats are fiscally responsible and that Canadian society under an NDP gov't will be both richer and more egalitarian.  Seems a good idea to directly challenge the Cons on this, rather than soft-sell social democracy.

2.)  Nash -- Seems very competent and I also like her policies. I prefer Topp's more direct assault on the Con-created ethos that cuts are the only answer to gov't revenue issues.

3.)  Cullen -- very charismatic, and has a good record as an MP --> his open nomination strategy is stupid, however, but his charisma has raised him in my list.

4.)  Mulcair -- competent.  Seems capable.  I don't agree that it would be effective to soft-sell social democracy as a means to getting power, however.  Using revenue from cap and trade to fund other non-environmental programs seems hypocritrical since we criticized the Dion Liberals on that aspect of their green shift proposal.

5.)  Singh -- seems competent, and I like his focus on both health care and small business.  He does seem a bit singular in his focus though.

Pages

Topic locked