Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? 2

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? 2

--

NorthReport

You do not have to bash other candidates in order to say who you are supporting. 

NorthReport

The three candidates I am supporting are Saganash, Ashton, and Mulcair.

JoshD

I like them all, mainly I am backing Thomas Mulcair. I started the race behind Paul Dewar (I've lived in his riding) but realised that I was thinking more with my heart rather than my head.

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I have to renew my donation to be eligible to vote and I'm debating whether or not it would be a good idea. The candidates I'm considering ranking would be (alphabetically): Ashton, Nash, Saganash, Topp--with the rest filling out the bottom end. I can't decide whether to a) get  involved or b) if so, how to rank them. I expect Topp to be fourth, however.

wage zombie

I will be voting in real time from BC.  Up until now I have been mostly just ranking candidates in a list but this week I started thinking about how the vote will go.

The candidates that I prefer are Niki Ashton, Romeo Saganash, and Brian Topp.  I will likely vote Ashton first ballot.

I expect that on the 2nd ballot I will vote for whichever of these three are highest.

The perceived front runners seem to be Mulcair and Nash.  If it came down to a choice between the two of them I would likely go with Mulcair.

Up until very recently I had Mulcair ranked 2nd after Ashton, and I was taking a wait and see approach to Saganash and Topp.  I now prefer them to Mulcair.

I expect to change my mind a bit between now and the vote, likely only deciding right before.

NorthReport

I wonder what percentage of people will mail in their ballot or vote ahead of time as opposed to voting on March 24th. I'll be voting on the 24th.

janfromthebruce

I will be voting in real time as I did last time. I am a Topp supporter.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

I will be voting in real time from BC.

 

Will the eastern results be blacked out?

 

Howard

Unionist wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

I will be voting in real time from BC.

Will the eastern results be blacked out?

Only on twitter, but the live results will be available by Pony Express for those with fifty silver dollars to spare (early bird special).

marciam

1. Cullen. This is because he's made proportional representation his #1 priority.  I see his plan to support cooperation between progressives at the local level as the only way to make this happen, and I'm thrilled that Leadnow.ca may be getting behind this idea:

http://tfaforms.com/233344

If Cullen grew a moustache nothing could stop him.

... (#2-4 are still somewhat undecided)

2. Topp. He started out lower, but I'm very happy that he's promoting a plan to increase taxes on wealthier people. I also can't discount the support of Libby Davies.

3. Saganash. I love him in principle, but he hasn't lived up to my initial expectations. I'm also disappointed that he trashed Topp's tax policy.

4. Nash. I could live with Nash winning, but nothing's really sold me on her yet. I'm also very disappointed by her attacks on Cullen's cooperation plan.

...

5. Ashton. I can't take anymore vacuous talk of New Politics.

6. Singh. I support his Pharmacare plan, but that's about it.

7. Dewar. I can't forgive his foreign policy leadership.

8. Mulcair. He used to be a Liberal. I'm also deeply troubled by his attacks on Libby. I'd probably have trouble voting NDP with him as leader (but in Vancouver East any non-NDP vote doesn't count).

KenS

Saganash and Topp.

If neither makes it to the last round(s), figure it out when we get there.

Steve_Shutt Steve_Shutt's picture

If I had to cast my ballot today - which I do not - I'd be backing Mulcair.  IMO he is the most ready today to hold, or even grow, our support in Quebec and even with his rough edges is the most polished and ready, again IMO, to go toe to toe with Harper and Rae.

I've been most surprised by Cullen, who until seeing him in the Halifax debate, I had not even considered.

Most disappointed, if only because I was wanting to see more, with Nash and Topp but freely admit that my choice can (and likely will) change.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

marciam wrote:

If Cullen grew a moustache nothing could stop him.

Best line of the day! Laughing

socialdemocrati...

I'm pretty open minded. But I've roughly decided: not Dewar (French is too shitty, especially for someone from Ottawa), not Cullen (I like him, but think his joint nomination plan will backfire in a huge way), and not Singh (I can give him the benefit of the doubt on his economic argument, but then he's presenting it badly).

oldgoat

I'm going to be at the convention.  My top 3 choices are Saganash Topp and Nash.  My second and third ordering are not carved in stone at this point.  Going to an event in Oshawa on Monday where I hope to get a chance to talk to Peggy Nash. 

UWSofty

I think I've settled on:

1) Cullen - for awesome debating, desire to work with progressives from all parties, and electoral reform

2) Mulcair - for environmental focus, leadership ability, and passion

3) Topp - for brains, tax policy, and media savvy

DSloth

What a historic day for the Mulcair campaign, endorsements from Howard Hampton, Shelly Martel, Canada's largest private sector union, and now rabble user DSloth Tongue out.

 

Nothing's set in stone (especially regarding the rest of my ballot) but I'm sitting at something like this today:

1. Mulcair

2. Cullen (solely for the promise to introduce MMP on day one).

3. Nash

4. Saganash

5. Topp

6. Dewar

7. Ashton

8. Singh

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think Mulcair will win it, but I'll probably vote for Saganash because I really like the guy. And I think it's high past time we had a FN party leader in the H0fC. I watched the final episode of 8th Fire tonight, and I think I heard that FN's are the fastest growing demographic in this country, and they're woefully unrepresented in Parliament. And, personally, I'm 100% opposed to the Northern Gateway Pipeline, and I think Saganash can best speak on behalf of FN's there who oppose this project, although Nathan Cullen has done one hell of a job on environment and FN rights if I remember correctly (probably not...).

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

It's weird Boom Boom, I hear you on Nathan Cullen. And I'll vote for Saganash too. Mulcair is starting to lead my ticket. I wish Unionist had more influence, even when he's wrong.

pcml

Pat Martin
Or whom ever he likes
Any one know by chance?

Seriously though I dont think it will matter as no one will maintain where the party got to with the sherbrook declaration

Although for what some say about mulcair and his stance with libby davies I could vote for him as he sounds very smart

jjuares

I wanted to support Saganash because of what he could represent. However, I find him to diificult to understand because of the timber of his voice. Cullen I can not support because of his joint nomination plan. I will support Mulcair because I believe he can take Harper on in debate and in the house.

writer writer's picture

Pearson had a lisp. Still, he managed to get a Nobel Peace Prize! Imagine that.

Skeena13

Boom Boom wrote:

And, personally, I'm 100% opposed to the Northern Gateway Pipeline, and I think Saganash can best speak on behalf of FN's there who oppose this project, although Nathan Cullen has done one hell of a job on environment and FN rights if I remember correctly (probably not...).

 

Google "Nathan Cullen" and "Northern Gateway". He has been against it from day one and done a hell of a job sticking up for First Nations.

NDPP

writer wrote:

Pearson had a lisp. Still, he managed to get a Nobel Peace Prize! Imagine that.

NDPP

and Obama - 'I am a new democrat',  is a mass-murdering warcriminal and he did too - imagine that!

writer writer's picture

I believe you have completely missed my point, NDPP. I do know there is another point to be made. However, it was not the point I was making.

Are we now in a place where people with any difference – hard of hearing, using a wheelchair, speaking with a mild speech impediment – are automatically bumped from consideration? Because that's not a place I want to be. That's not a place I want to make room for.

That's my point. Sorry. Guess I should have spelled it out.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Jean Chretien was difficult to understand in English, and I've read he was difficult to understand in French as well - and he led his party to three majorities. I know Saganash was having difficulty in the English debates, but he was interviewed by Evan Solomon on P&P and he came across flawlessly in English. And I've read that Saganash speaks perfect French and Cree.

That aside, I just feel very strongly that it is time for a First Nation person to lead a political party in this country. Especially when FN's are the fastest growing deomgraphic in the country!

JeffWells

Of all the candidates, Romeo is, IMO, the most naturally empathetic. This isn't a small thing, at least not for the NDP, and in this respect at least I see him as the obvious successor to Jack, whose own empathy accounted in great measure for his personal appeal, particularly among women. Voters trusted that his heart was in the right place, and that he felt the issues as deeply as he thought about them. Though it took him years of dogged effort to overcome the "used car salesman" knock. Saganash won't have that strike against him.

Romeo neither looks nor sounds like the politicians we've come to expect, even on the left. I don't think I can adequately express how grateful I am for that. He's the only contender who carries within him the potential to blow up politics as usual in this country. Every choice carries some risk, but none other choice carries such promise.

 

 

NDPP

writer wrote:

I believe you have completely missed my point, NDPP. I do know there is another point to be made. However, it was not the point I was making.

Are we now in a place where people with any difference – hard of hearing, using a wheelchair, speaking with a mild speech impediment – are automatically bumped from consideration? Because that's not a place I want to be. That's not a place I want to make room for.

NDPP

Nor I writer.

GOD

I'm backing Romeo Saganash.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Heh - I was tempted to make a "with God on our side..." joke, but I was afraid you'd send a lightning bolt through my house. Sealed

writer writer's picture

Wow. JeffWells is very persuasive, I see.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thread drift: God, what was your reaction to all those "Clapton is God" graffitis all through the 1960s?

oldgoat

JeffWells wrote:

Of all the candidates, Romeo is, IMO, the most naturally empathetic. This isn't a small thing, at least not for the NDP, and in this respect at least I see him as the obvious successor to Jack, whose own empathy accounted in great measure for his personal appeal, particularly among women. Voters trusted that his heart was in the right place, and that he felt the issues as deeply as he thought about them. Though it took him years of dogged effort to overcome the "used car salesman" knock. Saganash won't have that strike against him.

Romeo neither looks nor sounds like the politicians we've come to expect, even on the left. I don't think I can adequately express how grateful I am for that. He's the only contender who carries within him the potential to blow up politics as usual in this country. Every choice carries some risk, but none other choice carries such promise.

 

 

 

Jeff that is wonderfully expressed, and captures much of why I'm so clear in my choice of Romeo for leader.

pcml

69 % voted against layton and he is very replaceable in my view
I am not nor was I a fan although it was only because he broke his personal word with me so many times

With out integrity no one will do better
I also dont agree its time for a first nations leader either as I would abolish the Indian Act and bring equality to First Nations
None of us average canadians get a share from corporations destroying or raping our country either and no one from the time of treaties is still alive
I dont like some with this sense of entitlement 
I would offer all individual FN a vote for a cash buy out and then see if they still want Band officers making little empires or if they want their own piece

Black history month also make my skin crawl as it is nothing more than manipulated racism  

I am for uniting all without references to their skin

In some ways as I say who wins the ndp leadership will be irelevent because I do see a collaspe of the one time Quebec vote 

Call me what ever it matters squat 

GOD

Boom Boom wrote:

Heh - I was tempted to make a "with God on our side..." joke, but I was afraid you'd send a lightning bolt through my house. Sealed

 

Well that'd be the closest your town got to having electricity, wouldn't it? Tongue out

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Thank you JeffWells.

I've flagged pcml.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

pcml wrote:

69 % voted against layton and he is very replaceable in my view
I am not nor was I a fan although it was only because he broke his personal word with me so many times

With out integrity no one will do better
I also dont agree its time for a first nations leader either as I would abolish the Indian Act and bring equality to First Nations
None of us average canadians get a share from corporations destroying or raping our country either and no one from the time of treaties is still alive
I dont like some with this sense of entitlement 
I would offer all individual FN a vote for a cash buy out and then see if they still want Band officers making little empires or if they want their own piece

Black history month also make my skin crawl as it is nothing more than manipulated racism  

I am for uniting all without references to their skin

In some ways as I say who wins the ndp leadership will be irelevent because I do see a collaspe of the one time Quebec vote 

Call me what ever it matters squat 

Wow. Flagged.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

GOD wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Heh - I was tempted to make a "with God on our side..." joke, but I was afraid you'd send a lightning bolt through my house. Sealed

 

Well that'd be the closest your town got to having electricity, wouldn't it? Tongue out

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

Well, on a good day, we do have Quebec Hydro..., but still, I take your point.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

pcml, your post at #34 is racist, sexist, offensive and against babble policy. It betrays a deep misunderstanding of FN issues and a stunning ignorance of anti-racism practices. You use "rape" as if its colloquial and not a wepon used primarily against women but always against the vulnerable capable of triggering traumatic memories in any babblers who have been victims of assault. All of this is against babble policy, and it seems clear you know this, but decided to try your luck anyway. It's unacceptable. You get three days off.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Hopeful people learn.

philwalkerp

I was thinking about voting for Thomas Mulcair, but his lack of a committment to reforming our broken electoral system has me looking elsewhere. I can't find anything from him on electoral reform since he launched his leadership bid.

nicky

I have heard Mulcair say in person three separate times that he supports proportional representation . Don't know where you get the idea, Philwalkerp, that he doesn't.

Hunky_Monkey

nicky wrote:

I have heard Mulcair say in person three separate times that he supports proportional representation . Don't know where you get the idea, Philwalkerp, that he doesn't.

Candidates don't have a policy paper where they say they love babies... guess that means they hate babies, huh nicky? :)

Is it my imagination or do several babblers come on, say they like Mulcair... thinking of voting for him... BUT... comes up with some odd or obscure reason not to support him? Seems a bit more than a coincidence.

I was told some campaigns actually have specific people to respond and post on social media sites including babble.

gunder

Still sort of on the fence, but:

Nash (I think she can project the right mix of credibility, toughness and  commitment to an agenda to challenge and beat Harper.  Her emphasis on uniting the party really speaks to me, and I believe she's exactly the type who could - with a firm enough hand to keep the egos in check. I also think she could connect to voters, because she is not a prisoner of talking points and she means what she says.  Anyway, Stephen Harper is not exactly stern competition in terms of charisma, after all.)

Dewar (He was running the best ground game until recently, and had the deepest policy agenda - but alas, he was doing it en anglais seulment.  He's a genuine guy, and another team player who also has the ability to lead - when his French is better.  I'm probably alone on this, but I found him to be an exceptional FA critic. His work on Africa and aid issues is inspired, and got a lot of development types who usually don't give a fig for partisan politics to look seriously at the NDP.  Actually, I'm not sure where the criticism is coming from.  Seems to me he righted (lefted?) the ship on Afghanistan after Dawn Black threatened to derail things, and his support for R2P isn't neccessarily a bugaboo.  It depends who's wxercising the power.  The other big advantage of the FA portfolio is that it places one above the domestic fray to some degree, and thus immune to Tory attacks.  I think his organizers are hoping that will be a winner for him.)

Topp (His campaign tactics are a turn-off, and he still has that strange backroom manner about him-although he did a lot better in the last debate.  However, he is the smartest guy in the room and he does have the best plan to build the party up to where we can concievably win. He'll be a great MP and Minister,)

Ashton (Niki the person is one of my favourie politicians.  Niki the candidate- not so much.  I was ready to support her on day one, but then she chose to lead with "new politics" and all my enthusiasm dissipated.  I was really hoping her incredible passion and intelligence would come across and liven things up, but it hasn't worked out that way for whatever reason.   Another "next tme")

Mulcair (I have to say, when the Mulcair people I know started talking about "smears" and such, I thought they were blowing smoke a bit in order to pump up the whole underdog narrative.  Look, is he the ideal candidate? No.  Can he be unbearably smarmy at times? And how! Does his position on Israel worry me, for more than the obvious reasons? You bet it does.  But we can count on him to put up a fight and win, and to convince people on an intellectual and emotional level to support social democratic ideas.  At the end of the day, that's what counts.  I'm stunned that he's being trod upon for being a Liberal more than the guy who's actively campaigning on the promise of selling us out to the Liberals.)

Saganash (Like the guy, but he's a mumbler.  He's got a novel approach to politics, but he won't convince anybody who's not already firmly on board.  Needs more time on the federal stage.)

Singh (Although I think it's a minor tragedy that he's the only one to evoke Tommy's legacy in the present tense- in reference to pharmacare.)

Cullen (The fact that he seems to have ballot strength - on rabble of all places!- is what's frightening to me.  Those saying he can't win and giving him sympathy-ish votes are making a dicey propostion.  It's all about late ballot support in these things - if he has enough 2nd and 3rd ballot votes, he's got more than an outside shot.  His promise to implement MMP right away is attractive, but it's a red  herring (no pun intended).  First of all, he'll never get the chance (nor will any NDP leader for the forseable future if he leads us into an election, but I digress).  Second of all, he'd have to cave in to the Liberal concensus: Study it forever and then push for AV, a poisoned challice for the NDP if there ever was one.  Third,  all of them support PR, of course it's going to be a priority for the first NDP government. Let's move on.

The joint nominations plan is a giftwrapped majority for the Conservatives.   It's the one strategy they are absolutely prepared for - as the last campaign demonstrated.  All it would take is to get the NDP defending the Liberal platform and vice-versa.  It's got "uncertainty" (Harper's favourite word) written all over it.  And to those of you who say it won't be a big deal - just try campaigning in a weak riding if this goes ahead.  Sure, the riding associations have a "choice."  The day-trader and the guy who works three minimum wage jobs have the same "choice" to start saving for their retirement...Who's gonna make it? And good luck if you do run!  I can't imagine knocking on all those doors and being asked why I'm running if even my own leader doesn't think I can win.  It would be the sme arguments from 2000 all over again.  What an insult to our activists. The same logic applies to the seats we've got: Why stick with the NDP if we're endorsing Liberals anyway?

Then you've got him fearmongering about how scary "these" Conservatives are, reciting this pro-business, "free enterprise" pap and answering questions about economic equality with jokes.. Good God. So he's a great constituency MP and he can make captain of the debate team, whoopee.  It's not as if he's the only guy in Canada who can make the case against Enbridge.  Folks, I won't tell you how to vote (that would be rather hypocritical, eh?)  but if you  feel his plan is an "anchor" or find it repugnant, then I reeeeeallllly wouldn't advise placing him above fifth or sixth on the ballot.  Every indication is it will be a long haul to the finish, and it's best not to take anything for granted.  He is aggressively signing up people (including erstwhile Liberal activists), using social media extremely well and getting favourable coverage from the MSM.  Better to put the whole Liberal business to bed now, so we can have full, necessary debates about the future of the country. )

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think Nash and Saganash are the most left-leaning candidates. Although I think Mulcair will win it, I've shifted my vote to Saganash for reasons I've outlined earlier - I really want Saganash to have a good showing in this race.

writer writer's picture

Hunky_Monkey, I find it useful to check babblers' "Joined" date. Provides some context.

JeffWells

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I was told some campaigns actually have specific people to respond and post on social media sites including babble.

Early on I was asked by a camp I'm not supporting to do just that. (And no, I didn't.) Of course virtually nobody is getting paid on these campaigns, so there's nowhere near the inauthenticity of races in other parties and places, but that's still duplicity. Nevertheless, I don't think it's too diffidult for us to separate the grassroots from the astroturf.

 

1springgarden

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Is it my imagination or do several babblers come on, say they like Mulcair... thinking of voting for him... BUT... comes up with some odd or obscure reason not to support him? Seems a bit more than a coincidence. I was told some campaigns actually have specific people to respond and post on social media sites including babble.

 

I think it's your imagination.  After taking in the Halifax debate, I recently posted as you describe, but can assure you I am not affliated with any campaign, though my vote is leaning toward Peggy Nash.  You and writer should keep playing spot-the-paid-poster whenever a newbie posts an opinion contrary to your own  :rolleyes:

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I'm not sure it makes any difference if a babbler dedicated to tirelessly promoting a single candidate in the face of all reasonable criticism joined yesterday or ten years ago.

It sure would make things nicer around here if folk paid attention only to what's being said and didn't speculate on the motivations of other babblers or attach their own person worth to the public statements of career politicians.

Unionist

gunder wrote:
I'm probably alone on this, but I found him [Dewar] to be an exceptional FA critic. His work on Africa and aid issues is inspired, and got a lot of development types who usually don't give a fig for partisan politics to look seriously at the NDP.  Actually, I'm not sure where the criticism is coming from.  Seems to me he righted (lefted?) the ship on Afghanistan after Dawn Black threatened to derail things, and his support for R2P isn't neccessarily a bugaboo.

He issued a statement congratulating Harper for announcing that Canada would boycott Durban II in Geneva - making Canada the first state to do so. The statement appeared on the NDP web site, then was removed after a couple of days because of the number of complaints they got. It took several months for Layton to right the ship on that one. I've never heard a single word from Dewar to explain that nauseating act, nor (more generally) to provide any hope that Canada will separate itself from the pro-U.S. bandwagon on Israel and Palestine. I guess he knows what happened to Svend, and he doesn't want to make the same "mistake".

Afghanistan... It was Olivia Chow, surprisingly enough, who was the first to speak out after the Dawn Black nightmare era and say, clearly and without conditions, that all Canadian troops must be brought home (in response to the "end" of the combat mission and the start of the "training" mission). [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/canadian-troops-out-afghanista...'s the November 2010 babble thread[/url] - you can read the first couple posts in particular. Thanks, Olivia. Not Dewar.

As for R2P, yes, he beat the drums of war on Libya quite nicely. Is that what you meant? We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Pages

Topic locked