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

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
gunder

Wow, I listened to that C'est La Vie interview with Romeo somebody posted.  What a great conversation (you can tell Bernard really wanted to connect with him.).  Now I feel slightly bad about dismissing him (had I known he was a poet...).  Love to see him in a senoir cabinet post where he can use his mediation skills.

Excuse me for the long tirade re Cullen..sufficed to say I feel rather strongly about the whole thing (and I'd just finished hammering out an op-ed on it), but mostly about the idea that he can't win, so it's "safe" to vote for him to give him a strong showing- there are so many X-factors and wildly varying perceptions involved, it's always the best poicy to vote for the people you'd most like to see leading, all the way down the ballot (or however many spaces you intend to fill in).  I'm voting ballot-to-ballot.  I assue they'll have instantaneous phone voting so you won't have to stand in line if that's an issue.

gunder

Unionist wrote:

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".

I was under the impression that came from the top (or, second-from-the-top, to be more precise)}.  The NDP's allergy to any discussion on the Middle East is discouraging, to say the very least, but  this is the field we have before us.

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

I meant more generally, but yeah, you've got a point.  It was a mess, optically as well as politically, for everyone not named Stephen Harper, but that does only go so far.  Still, I can't imagine Maher Arar endorsing somebody with a runaway interventionist agenda, can you?

Aristotleded24

gunder wrote:
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.)

Of all the candidates I've seein in Winnipeg thus far (which include Chisholm, Topp, Saganash, Nash, and Cullen), her visit had the greatest impact on impressing me even more. She had a strong answer to the question of how to connect people with post-secondary education to meaningful work, and she shurgged off the fear of being labelled "soft on crime" by basically saying "the Conservatives are going to call us lots of names, get used to it." Her campaign also paid for supper, so since all politicians talk about feeding the people, it's nice to see one who puts those words into action! Smile

gunder wrote:
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. )

Very eloquent deconstruction of his joint nominations idea. He also came across as being very full of himself when I saw him here.

gunder wrote:
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.)

This is tough for me. I really like Saganash, I have a gut feeling about him, and I agree with every word of praise about him that has been written on these 2 threads. I think he's the most in tune with the spirit of revolution that is currently sweeping the globe, and I think that Saganash could inspire the same kind of hope in Canadians that Barack Obama inspired in Americans.

BUT

Thus far, he has not shown an ability to hold is ground in English during the debates, and this is a friendly crowd. How do you think he will do on stage against Harper or the Conservatives. And I'm not saying this to run him down, I want him to do well. He already has the potential, because he does very well in French, and one-on-one type conversations in English. And issues with communication can be worked on, unlike fundamental questions of character. But it is absolutely essential that he improve in the English debates, otherwise he will have a rough go of it.

Hunky_Monkey

1springgarden wrote:

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:

Well, considering that someone who works on the Nash campaign told me they have a team to do this, it's not that far fetched :) He was actually shocked there wasn't such a group with the Mulcair campaign.

Hunky_Monkey

JeffWells wrote:

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.

 

If you're ok with it, inbox me... love to hear which campaign :)

Hunky_Monkey

writer wrote:

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

Sometimes, writer. But there are some, as JeffWells who was asked, that have been here for some time.

oldgoat

"Inbox me" I always love a new verb, and that one sounds slightly naughty.  Or maybe I'm just slightly pervy...

 

But anyway, I'm not sure either as a moderator or a consumer that what you're describing would particularly bother me, as long as people were reasonably up front about it.  I would have a problem with someone using multiple identities of course, but I don't think that's happening.  Several people just hammering home the same message in some co-ordinated way would begin to feel like spam, and would probably alienate more readers than they would convince.  I don't see getting a message out using boards like this as being outside the realm of honest campaigning.

Howard

Alright, I'll admit. The only reason I joined babble was to astroturf for Pat Martin.

Here is my pitch: Vote for Pat Martin because @$@#* is a @$#( little #($#%&. Thank you and goodnight.

Hunky_Monkey

oldgoat wrote:

"Inbox me" I always love a new verb, and that one sounds slightly naughty.  Or maybe I'm just slightly pervy...

 

But anyway, I'm not sure either as a moderator or a consumer that what you're describing would particularly bother me, as long as people were reasonably up front about it.  I would have a problem with someone using multiple identities of course, but I don't think that's happening.  Several people just hammering home the same message in some co-ordinated way would begin to feel like spam, and would probably alienate more readers than they would convince.  I don't see getting a message out using boards like this as being outside the realm of honest campaigning.

I question those who may bash other candidates... while not being up front about it who they're working for or whether they may even be paid for it.

wage zombie

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 think with Mulcair there is a lot to like, and there are a few things to take issue with.  I don't see it as a coincidence, I see it as the natural consideration process people go through.

Quote:

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

From what I can tell most of the babblers actively, vocally, supporting a particular candidate are supporting Mulcair.  Are you saying that you've been told that the Mulcair campaign has sent people to babble?  I wouldn't be surprised to hear that.  The Mulcair supporters here seem the most relentless.

If you're actually suggesting that the Topp campaign, or other campaigns, are sending people to babble, not to actively promote their own candidate, but to pretend to be on the fence about Mulcair, I'd say that's pretty silly.  And time to check your head.

Unionist

gunder wrote:
The NDP's allergy to any discussion on the Middle East is discouraging, to say the very least, but  this is the field we have before us.

That wasn't my point about Dewar's statement on Durban II. I would have been fine if the NDP had kept its mouth shut. But by congratulating Harper, he supported Harper's line that opposition to Israeli policy is anti-semitism. He supported the big lie that Durban I was anti-semitic. That's one of those inexcusable things in my book. Today, they're beating the drums of war against Syria - at least, Dewar's temporary replacement is. If this and Libya and Durban and the rest don't reflect Dewar's thinking on foreign affairs, then I need an explanation of how I'm seeing things all wrong.

Quote:
Still, I can't imagine Maher Arar endorsing somebody with a runaway interventionist agenda, can you?

I was outraged at U.S. and Canadian actions in the Arar case, and I feel deeply sorry for what he experienced. But I know nothing about Arar's politics. Do you? Maybe I just missed it all. Has he called for Canada to get out of Afghanistan (for example - one of those litmus test things)? I'm not saying he hasn't. I'm just saying that his endorsement of Paul Dewar means nothing to me. He said "I can see Paul Dewar as Prime Minister." Unfortunately, so can I - which is why it's important to warn people against him.

 

gunder

I think Nash's record opposing imperialism is probably the best, but that's just by my lights.     I have Dewar as my second choice for the same reason Peggy is first.  I see them both as concensus-builders who aren't going to buckle under the strain of Conservative spin and can project a lot of competence as managers, without causing a lot of internal rancor.

gunder

On Arar: He's criticized Obama for conducting raids in Pakistan and keeping GItmo open, and he's the editor in-chief  of PRISM magazine(http://prism-magazine.com)

mark_alfred

So far, my preferences are (in order of how I would vote if the election were held today):  Topp, Nash, Mulcair.  Also, I like the fact that Singh has brought a lot of attention to the pharmacare issue, so I may vote him first (though I don't expect him to win).  Otherwise, it's Topp, Nash and Mulcair.  All three have impeccable French.  Topp's policies and strategy to win make the most sense to me personally at this point.

NorthReport

Sometimes people from the Topp and other campaigns such as the one who writer tangled with, might just be doing it on their own. Who knows! You don't know for sure and neither does anyone else.

wage zombie wrote:

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 think with Mulcair there is a lot to like, and there are a few things to take issue with.  I don't see it as a coincidence, I see it as the natural consideration process people go through.

Quote:

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

From what I can tell most of the babblers actively, vocally, supporting a particular candidate are supporting Mulcair.  Are you saying that you've been told that the Mulcair campaign has sent people to babble?  I wouldn't be surprised to hear that.  The Mulcair supporters here seem the most relentless.

If you're actually suggesting that the Topp campaign, or other campaigns, are sending people to babble, not to actively promote their own candidate, but to pretend to be on the fence about Mulcair, I'd say that's pretty silly.  And time to check your head.

Pogo Pogo's picture

If you have a strong campaign that has attracted support, it will be represented on babble.  If then someone attacks with spurious argument, then that will provide an opportunity for the supporters to shoot down the argument.  Nothing looks better on a candidate than winning arguments.

Brian Glennie

gunder wrote:

Wow, I listened to that C'est La Vie interview with Romeo somebody posted.  What a great conversation (you can tell Bernard really wanted to connect with him.).  Now I feel slightly bad about dismissing him (had I known he was a poet...).  Love to see him in a senoir cabinet post where he can use his mediation skills.

Excuse me for the long tirade re Cullen..sufficed to say I feel rather strongly about the whole thing (and I'd just finished hammering out an op-ed on it), but mostly about the idea that he can't win, so it's "safe" to vote for him to give him a strong showing- there are so many X-factors and wildly varying perceptions involved, it's always the best poicy to vote for the people you'd most like to see leading, all the way down the ballot (or however many spaces you intend to fill in).  I'm voting ballot-to-ballot.  I assue they'll have instantaneous phone voting so you won't have to stand in line if that's an issue.

Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

They, like we are now, were spending all kinds of their precious resources on a futile battle, based entirely on organizational hubris, that was only serving to elect the very people they were fighting against.

No doubt it must have been a difficult pill for the Conservatives to swallow, but they took their medicine and look at them now.

Harper's worst-case scenario is that the Left will unite under a charasmatic, visionary NDP Leader.

 

 

 

Hunky_Monkey

wage zombie wrote:

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 think with Mulcair there is a lot to like, and there are a few things to take issue with.  I don't see it as a coincidence, I see it as the natural consideration process people go through.

Quote:

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

From what I can tell most of the babblers actively, vocally, supporting a particular candidate are supporting Mulcair.  Are you saying that you've been told that the Mulcair campaign has sent people to babble?  I wouldn't be surprised to hear that.  The Mulcair supporters here seem the most relentless.

If you're actually suggesting that the Topp campaign, or other campaigns, are sending people to babble, not to actively promote their own candidate, but to pretend to be on the fence about Mulcair, I'd say that's pretty silly.  And time to check your head.

wage zombie... as someone part of the Mulcair campaign, I have never been told to come on here to sell Mulcair... or to attack another candidate. And as far as I know, there is not a "team" to do that. I'd be quite disappointed if there was.

Actually, I don't take issue if teams want to push out information about their candidates. I just see a pattern of attacks on Mulcair... and knowing what's been pushed out there by certain campaigns (against Mulcair and other candidates)... doesn't take a great leap of faith to figure it out. Not silly in the least.

gunder

Brian Glennie wrote:

gunder wrote:

Wow, I listened to that C'est La Vie interview with Romeo somebody posted.  What a great conversation (you can tell Bernard really wanted to connect with him.).  Now I feel slightly bad about dismissing him (had I known he was a poet...).  Love to see him in a senoir cabinet post where he can use his mediation skills.

Excuse me for the long tirade re Cullen..sufficed to say I feel rather strongly about the whole thing (and I'd just finished hammering out an op-ed on it), but mostly about the idea that he can't win, so it's "safe" to vote for him to give him a strong showing- there are so many X-factors and wildly varying perceptions involved, it's always the best poicy to vote for the people you'd most like to see leading, all the way down the ballot (or however many spaces you intend to fill in).  I'm voting ballot-to-ballot.  I assue they'll have instantaneous phone voting so you won't have to stand in line if that's an issue.

Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

They, like we are now, were spending all kinds of their precious resources on a futile battle, based entirely on organizational hubris, that was only serving to elect the very people they were fighting against.

No doubt it must have been a difficult pill for the Conservatives to swallow, but they took their medicine and look at them now.

Harper's worst-case scenario is that the Left will unite under a charasmatic, visionary NDP Leader.

Harper's worst case-scenario is that his fragile support among small businesspeople and the segment of the working poor who have traditionally conservative views will be shattered by a coherent, well-articulated defence of humane, accountable government that will actually keep them working long enough to raise a family and secure enough to live.    It almost happened in 2011, it could happen in 2015, it's  going to happen sooner rather that later.

Harper's best case scenario is his opposition running sepately, but  together on a vague promise of "cooperating", how and for what we don't know, on a mixed bag of policies from each that maybe we'll figure out after the election or maybe not except we know we want electoral reform, well one of us does, and so does the other one maybe but not really. 

Failing that, his opposition could merge and disenfranchise even more of the electorate!  How low can we go, turnout-wise? I bet we can get to 25% by the end of the decade if we "work together" to "change the way we do politics" (back to the way we did it in the 1910s!).

I'd love to unite the left under a charismatic, visionary NDP leader.  The NDP, half the Green Party, 10% of the Liberal Party, the remaining left-mationalists in Quebec who are still on the fence, and the people for whom voting was not an option because they had been pushed onto the margins.  Hell yeah.  Let's start after the next election. A parliamentary coalition or an accord government, or a majority government that brings everyone else on board.

I'm  shocked how easily some people choose to ignore whole swaths of history to justify ridiculously simplistic narratives.  Explain, if you can: As a socialist, why should I give a flying fiddlehead about the merger of a populist conservative party and a business conservative party? And yet, well meaning people always mention it  like it 's ab example of an immutable fact of life, like (some of) the same people talk about deindustrialization or wages going down. This idea that there must be lessons from everything the right does because the right is winning  is an old and ignoble fallacy.

But let's get down to brass tacks here: After we've "taken the medicine", when do we have that debate about amending the Investment Canada Act? CETA? Expanding Medicare instead of slashing budgets and contracting it out? Affordable housing that actually 1) exists and 2) is available? When do we use all of that nifty cooperation we'd be practicing as a guiding principle in our economy? You know, by encouraging unions, democratizing workplaces, and  fencing off the tax-free playground that the super-rich seem to enjoy? Ideological purity is one thing, but there are debates that need having right now, and the Liberals are not interested in havbing them.  Maybe the NDP isn't having them, but the opportunity is there, and may it always be.

We are a living, mature democracy.  We deserve to have at our disposal more than two ways of figuring things out, more than simply - how does he put it- ah yes, "winner-take-all" politics

 

 

 

 

Stockholm

Right now I am impressed with the traction that Mulcair's campaign seems to be getting with a lot of impressive endorsements etc... and I find that he performs well in debates. There are a few things I'd like to see from him and that would make me feel a lot more comfortable with him:

1. More policy. I know he has put out some policy papers in a few areas - ie: pensions, women's issues, environment - but I would really like to see Mulacir address some other issues that Topp and Dewar in particular have been addressing in a way that i find impressive. First of all, I am still waiting for Mulcair's tax policy and what he plans to do about income inequality since i think this is such a CRITICAL issues right now. Secondly, Topp and Dewar have put out some interesting policy and ideas on their STRATEGY for building the party - where do we get our next 70 seats? how should the party organization be focused etc...? I would really like to see Mulcair's ideas about this.

2. I'd like to get more of a sense of Mulcair as a person. Topp has had his family do a video and has spoken a lot about his personal story etc... Nash and Dewar have done some good videos as well that gives me more of sense of their personal narratives. I'd like to learn more about Mulcair. Why not an interview with his wife or grown up kids or with people who have known him all his life? Why not see more of what he likes to do in his spare time? what are his hobbies? I think its important that the leader of the NDP be a "HOAG" (hell of a guy/gal). It helps to see the prospective leader connecting with ordinary people and to see them in a more casual setting being "themself".

gunder

I'd agree with that. His pension policy seemed a wee bit convoluted, and I'm still waiting on economic equality and foreign policy. Wouldn't mind chatting with him to get a better sense of the man. I like the staggered debates  (though I wish they were scattered more evenly) on dedicated subjects.  Provides a context you don't usually get, even when the candidates or the questions wander away from the topic at hand.

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

Right now I am impressed with the traction that Mulcair's campaign seems to be getting with a lot of impressive endorsements etc... and I find that he performs well in debates. There are a few things I'd like to see from him and that would make me feel a lot more comfortable with him:

1. More policy. I know he has put out some policy papers in a few areas - ie: pensions, women's issues, environment - but I would really like to see Mulacir address some other issues that Topp and Dewar in particular have been addressing in a way that i find impressive. First of all, I am still waiting for Mulcair's tax policy and what he plans to do about income inequality since i think this is such a CRITICAL issues right now. Secondly, Topp and Dewar have put out some interesting policy and ideas on their STRATEGY for building the party - where do we get our next 70 seats? how should the party organization be focused etc...? I would really like to see Mulcair's ideas about this.

2. I'd like to get more of a sense of Mulcair as a person. Topp has had his family do a video and has spoken a lot about his personal story etc... Nash and Dewar have done some good videos as well that gives me more of sense of their personal narratives. I'd like to learn more about Mulcair. Why not an interview with his wife or grown up kids or with people who have known him all his life? Why not see more of what he likes to do in his spare time? what are his hobbies? I think its important that the leader of the NDP be a "HOAG" (hell of a guy/gal). It helps to see the prospective leader connecting with ordinary people and to see them in a more casual setting being "themself".

I agree. There is still 6 weeks to go though. And I know there are more policy positions coming. As for the video, I think the "humanizing" will also come... Tom the person.

Interesting story... a woman I know came to Tom's post-debate event in Halifax. She came late... Tom and Catherine were just getting ready to have something to eat as most had left by then. Now, this woman is quite on the left of the party. I believe a member of the socialist caucus. Actually said at one event that she would vote for the "most socialist" candidate. Tom wasn't on her radar. After sitting down and chatting with Tom and Catherine one on one for about 15 minutes... she looked at me in complete surprise and said that Tom would be one of her top choices. Part of that was seeing the partnership of Tom and Catherine.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Stockholm wrote:

2. I'd like to get more of a sense of Mulcair as a person. Topp has had his family do a video and has spoken a lot about his personal story etc... Nash and Dewar have done some good videos as well that gives me more of sense of their personal narratives. I'd like to learn more about Mulcair. Why not an interview with his wife or grown up kids or with people who have known him all his life? Why not see more of what he likes to do in his spare time? what are his hobbies? I think its important that the leader of the NDP be a "HOAG" (hell of a guy/gal). It helps to see the prospective leader connecting with ordinary people and to see them in a more casual setting being "themself".

This old CPAC Beyond Politics video might help.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

First off, the only reason I'm bothering renew my membership and vote in this leadership race is to vote against Mulcair. My politics are well to the left of the NDP, but in the absence of a mass socialist/anti-capitalist party to the left of the NDP that I can support, I'm left trying to influence the direction of the NDP.

I'll be voting for Nash on the first ballot.

I've picked her as my first choice for a number of reasons:

- Her policies on opposing the Northern Gateway Pipeline, bringing in proportional representation, support for social housing, and lowering tuition fees.

- Her previous involvement in the "peace" movement in Toronto.

- Her desire for the NDP to reach out to social movements without controlling them, evidenced by her releasing her plan for lowering tuition fees on the same day as the CFS day of action to call for lower tuition fees.

- Her vocal opposition to joint candidate nominations with the Liberals and Greens.

- That multiple people have described her as the furthest left candidate in the race.

- Duncan Cameron's [url=http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/11/why-i-support-peggy-nash]Why I Support Peggy Nash[/url] column.

- Two of my very close friends whose oppinions I take very seriously are supporting Nash.

I'll probably put Topp as my second choice. I havn't decided yet if I plan to mail in my ballot ahead of time or vote in real time. If I mail in my ballot I will definitely put Topp second. If I vote in real time I would consider Ashton or Saganash in the unlikely scenario that Nash dropps and one of them is higher than Topp, in order to defeat Mulcair. Though I suspect that only Nash and Topp have any chance of defeating Mulcair.

Here's why I can't vote for the other candidates:

Mulcair -- his former membership in the neoliberal bourgeois government of Jean Charest's Quebec Liberals is a non-starter for me. Ditto his inexcusable attack on Libby Davies and his unconditional support for Israel. Stopping Mulcair is my main priority -- If Mulcair wins I would be inclined to support the left of the NDP breaking off and forming a new party.

Cullen -- His plan for joint nominations with the Liberals and Greens is a non-starter for me.

Dewar -- His French is not up to par, and I cannot forgive him for his role as foreign policy critic.

Singh -- Can't stomach his position on the economy.

Aristotleded24

Brian Glennie wrote:
Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

Gunder did a good job responding to this foolishness, but there are a few more points to add. In the case of the Reform-PC, that was the case of a party that split, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been going at each other for decades. In fact, given how right wing provincial Liberal parties in BC, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick have been, that should put to rest any notion of the Liberals as a progressive entity. And just because the major news organizations keep talking as if the Liberal party is viable does not reflect what is happening on Main Street, and (except PEI) the Liberal brand is tanking everywhere in the country.

Also, cut the "only 40% voted for Harper" crap. Yes, it sucks that Harper won a majority even though 60% of the people voted against him, but that's FPTP, it's the system the next election will be contested under, so that's what we have to work with. The problem isn't that people split their votes between opposition parties, it's that far more people supported Harper than any other party. You have to reduce the number of votes that Harper will get, and that takes work. Playing around with numbers and "60% voted against Harper" is basically trying to get around that work. You also cannot make assumptions about why people voted for the parties they did. A good number of Liberal voters would never support the NDP, and indeed many right-Liberals voted for the Conservatives because that was the only way to block an NDP government, since there was talk of the Liberals joining the NDP in a coalition. There's no reason that those voters wouldn't go back to the Conservatives.

Brian Glennie wrote:
Harper's worst-case scenario is that the Left will unite under a charasmatic, visionary NDP Leader.

I agree, and people are welcome to join the NDP to that end.

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

Left Turn wrote:

[...] Mulcair -- his former membership in the neoliberal bourgeois government of Jean Charest's Quebec Liberals is a non-starter for me. [...]

Which Federalist Quebecois Provincial Party should he have been a member of instead?

 

gunder

Thanks Aristotled.  The point about voting patterns is important, but I realized I glossed over it in both posts. 

Hunky_Monkey

Interested Observer wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

[...] Mulcair -- his former membership in the neoliberal bourgeois government of Jean Charest's Quebec Liberals is a non-starter for me. [...]

Which Federalist Quebecois Provincial Party should he have been a member of instead?

 

Yes... I'd love to know what political party in Quebec he should have been a member of since he's a federalist...

Left Turn, can you list them?

I'd also love to ask about Brian Topp and the Saskatchewan NDP. The Saskatchewan NDP isn't quite loved by those on the left and especially to those left of the federal NDP. Brian Topp was a part of that government. How do you square your support of Brian Topp as one of your top choices with his history in Saskatchewan?

nicky

Stockholm's post #70 got me thinking. 

There has been almost nothing in the media about the personal life of any of the candidates. It is hard to get a fix on any of them outside the political context.What are their hobbies? Their outside interests. Not even their webpages tell us much about the personal side.

I have met Mulcair half a dozen times, all but once I think accompanied by his wife Catherine Pinhas. She is an established psychologist in Montreal and is very conspicuous at his events.  My spouse likes her a lot. 

I am unaware of anything much about the other candidates' spouses or families apart form a few bare facts. What do they work at? Are they active in their campaigns?

writer writer's picture

Personally, I despise the notion that spouses and chlldren are somehow obliged to be involved and public in a candidate's campaign.

Not to mention the hetero-normative patina such "messaging" often contains. Blech.

Unionist

writer wrote:

Personally, I despise the notion that spouses and chlldren are somehow obliged to be involved and public in a candidate's campaign.

Not to mention the hetero-normative patina such "messaging" often contains. Blech.

Thanks for that, writer. I can't believe that people here want to know about the candidates' personal lives. But that's America for you.

Although had I known that Mulcair's wife was an "established psychologist", I might not have voted for him...

Just kidding.

Gaian

Clearly, she is someone he just "drags around" the meet and greets, and somehow has been coerced into thinking that "spouses and chlldren are somehow obliged to be involved." Incredible how some folks can be psychoanalyzed from a distance by the more creative mythmakers, eager to maintain their creations.

writer writer's picture

I am not clear what you are responding to, Gaian, but I'm responding to this: "I am unaware of anything much about the other candidates' spouses or families apart form a few bare facts. What do they work at? Are they active in their campaigns?"

Which has absolutely nothing to do with meet & greets. And has absolutely not a shred of anything to do with one individual.

Unionist

Gaian wrote:
Clearly, she is someone he just "drags around" the meet and greets, and somehow has been coerced into thinking that "spouses and chlldren are somehow obliged to be involved." Incredible how some folks can be psychoanalyzed from a distance by the more creative mythmakers, eager to maintain their creations.

Simmer down. I know Mulcair, personally. I worked (among many others) to elect him here, three times. I have never once met his wife. He does not act like Obama or other U.S.-style Hollywood politicians who use their family as ornaments. Please try to understand what's going on before you post.

ETA: Crossposted with writer. Don't worry, Gaian is responding to me. In several threads. We'll sort it out. Beneath it all, we're allies. Think of it as a domestic tiff.

 

Brian Glennie

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Brian Glennie wrote:
Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

Gunder did a good job responding to this foolishness, but there are a few more points to add. In the case of the Reform-PC, that was the case of a party that split, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been going at each other for decades. 

Yup, and the NDP spent decades in the wilderness as a result. Now its the Liberal's turn but it could easily be our's again in 2015.  No doubt both Parties will run on the same platform just like they always do but we likely won't have a Leader as popular as Jack and they would have a hard time finding someone as bad as those last two duds they ran. Under somebody like Dalton the Liberals could actually rebound pretty nicely with their gains coming mostly, if not entirely, from us.

The Liberals and NDP going at each other is the gift that keeps giving for the Tories. There has to be a better way.

JeffWells

Brian Glennie wrote:

The Liberals and NDP going at each other is the gift that keeps giving for the Tories. There has to be a better way.

 

Well, I dunno. I guess I'm old enough to recall years and years of mendacious Liberal government. I don't care whether Nathan Cullen thinks I'm nuts, I have zero interest in returning Ralph Goodale to Finance. The better way isn't giving a leg up to the other corporate party.

Unionist

Brian Glennie wrote:
Now its the Liberal's turn but it could easily be our's again in 2015.  No doubt both Parties will run on the same platform just like they always do ...

Whatever else one many think of Brian's views, or Cullen's, there is an important point here. It would be nice if the NDP didn't run on the same platform as the Liberals for a change.

 

writer writer's picture

The better way is also not to alienate and disrespect the place that gave us a historic win. Cullen's plan as it applies to Quebec shows a deep mistrust of the people there, and a profound ignorance of their culture. I'm not sure if the francophone media is saying much about how astonishingly stupid it is. Perhaps they are waiting for him to win, so they can dine out on it during the years before the election, pointing to it as an example of how the NDP really doesn't understand, and should not be trusted again.

Stockholm

Brian Glennie wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Brian Glennie wrote:
Tell me, Gunder, where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

Gunder did a good job responding to this foolishness, but there are a few more points to add. In the case of the Reform-PC, that was the case of a party that split, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been going at each other for decades. 

Yup, and the NDP spent decades in the wilderness as a result. Now its the Liberal's turn but it could easily be our's again in 2015.  No doubt both Parties will run on the same platform just like they always do but we likely won't have a Leader as popular as Jack and they would have a hard time finding someone as bad as those last two duds they ran. Under somebody like Dalton the Liberals could actually rebound pretty nicely with their gains coming mostly, if not entirely, from us.

The Liberals and NDP going at each other is the gift that keeps giving for the Tories. There has to be a better way.

There are many differences between the NDP Liberal situation now and the Reform PC situation in the 90s. For one thing the federal Tories are in a much weaker state and the opposition is in a vastly stronger state now than was ever the case then. In the 1993, 1997 and 2000 elections the Liberals won virtually every single seat in Ontario and the COMBINED number of PC and Reform seats as 54, 70 and 80-something...on top of that when Paul Martin took over the polls were all showing the Liberals in the high 50s in the polls and headed for a 250 seat blow-out! In contrast right now the Tories have 166 seats and the NDP and Liberals combined have 137 (138 if we cound the EMay party). The opposition is no where near the sort of hopeless situation that the Reform/PCs were in in the 90s.

Another thing to consider is that there really aren't all that many Tory held seats right now that both the Liberals and the NDP serioulsy compete in where you could say that the Tories are winning on a so-called split vote. There are marginal Tory seats in western Canada (and to a lesser extent in Atlantic Canada) where the NDP is the main opposition and the Liberals are non-existent. There are also marginal Tory seats in suburban Ontario where in the last election the NDP really was not competitive. I could count on one hand the number of ridings that are true three way races.

On top of that we KNOW that 1+1 never ever equals 2 when people get into these vote tampering "win by gaming the system" schemes. A lot of NDP voters hate Liberals and will refuse to vote for a Liberal and a lot of liberal still think the NDP are a bunch of wild eyed socialists who they would never vote for.

I think the NDP should stick to its knitting and as for the Liberals - if they really want to dislodge the Tories so badly - i think they need to try to win back all those "blue Grits/Paul Martin Liberals" they lost to the Tories. They need to get a new leader who is a rightwing economist with liberal views on social issues and try to win back ridings like Oakville and Mississauga South and Don Valey West from the Tories.

Steve_Shutt Steve_Shutt's picture

As for any talk of NDP-Liberal merger - forget it.  Very different than the PC-Reform merger (which, as noted above) was more of a re-merger.  The NDP and Liberals have separate, independent histories that both are quite proud of (even though they tend to overlap on some of their political mythological policy high-points - say, Medicare).

I'll give credit to Cullen for raising the issue of co-operation and credit to Topp for his efforts on the coalition plan (still love reading his account of the negotiations).  The Iggy hesitation and the horrible Dion execution (in both visibly including Duceppe and the camcorder debacle) probably doomed it to failure and consigned to Liberals to their subsequent 3rd place finish, but I still think it was a good gamble for Jack to have made and, as events showed, we didn't come out of it looking too bad.

I still think that an electoral arrangment to undo much of the Harper-mess and to clearly establish a PR system and join the 20th century (we can work on joining the 21st thereafter).

R.E.Wood

gunder wrote:

I think Nash's record opposing imperialism is probably the best, but that's just by my lights.     I have Dewar as my second choice for the same reason Peggy is first.  I see them both as concensus-builders who aren't going to buckle under the strain of Conservative spin and can project a lot of competence as managers, without causing a lot of internal rancor.

 

The very fact that you have Dewar as your #2 choice is clear evidence that your views on many matters are vastly (VASTLY) different than mine... Therefore, I am at ease ignoring all of your negative diatribe against Nathan Cullen, who I happen to like very much as a prospective leader.

And you're the only person I've seen who has criticized Cullen's ability to use humour to hammer home his points - something I see as one of his strongest assets, and something which would be very useful in connecting with voters across this country.

 

Hunky_Monkey

writer wrote:

Personally, I despise the notion that spouses and chlldren are somehow obliged to be involved and public in a candidate's campaign.

Not to mention the hetero-normative patina such "messaging" often contains. Blech.

I get your point, writer. But that's certainly not the case with Tom's partner Catherine Pinhas.

writer writer's picture

Nor was that the intended point. Of course loved ones – whatever their connection – might want to be part of a campaign. It's the assumption that, for families, this is somehow part of their unwaged job description. That they should be obliged and pressured. That this should be a given. That prying is acceptable. It communicates all sorts of things I don't think the asker might not have thought through. That I don't want to see shift into some kind of cultural norm here in Canada.

This is so far from a desirable, I don't know where to begin. We all have our own lives. That simple fact needs to be respected, or we are lost.

gunder

R.E.Wood wrote:

gunder wrote:

I think Nash's record opposing imperialism is probably the best, but that's just by my lights.     I have Dewar as my second choice for the same reason Peggy is first.  I see them both as concensus-builders who aren't going to buckle under the strain of Conservative spin and can project a lot of competence as managers, without causing a lot of internal rancor.

 

The very fact that you have Dewar as your #2 choice is clear evidence that your views on many matters are vastly (VASTLY) different than mine...

Fine.  I'm not saying I don't care about the foreign policy direction of the NDP and the best leader should just mind the store.  I can't accept, having read Paul's Middle East policy and met him several times, that he's automatically going to be best buddies with Nethanyahu and lead the charge into Iran, but whatever.  

R.E.Wood wrote:

Therefore, I am at ease ignoring all of your negative diatribe against Nathan Cullen, who I happen to like very much as a prospective leader.

And you're the only person I've seen who has criticized Cullen's ability to use humour to hammer home his points - something I see as one of his strongest assets, and something which would be very useful in connecting with voters across this country.

 

Of course you ought to use humour.  It's when you use it to dodge serious questions about the future of the economy that it's a cause for alarm.  Even if he hadn't proposed thae koint-nominations, he'd still be the wrong choice, since he's chosen to use "wealth creation" as the basis for economic policy.  Talk about being tone-deaf to the outside world and totally innapropriate for the NDP.  I'd say, "wait for the details", but it doesn't look good.

Mostly thogh, I just want this race to be over.

 

JKR

Brian Glennie wrote:
... where would the Right be in Canada had they not gotten togther?

They'd still be sitting on the opposition benches and Harper would probably be back with the NCC or maybe the Fraser institute or maybe a right wing institute in the US like the Caito Institute or the Hudson Institute.

jerrym

Writer, checking babbler's "joined date" to see whether their opinions are suspect, seems like a paranoid mechanism to divide the NDP into two classes, the worthy and the unwashed. Or do prefer the good-old days when we were getting 8% in an election but those were true NDPers? In my riding, my MP in the 1970s and 1980s was Pauline Jewett, a former Trudeau Liberal, who was loved by both party members and people in the riding, as hard as that seems for you to believe. One of her greatest supporters was Yvonne Cocke, a daughter of one of the founding members of the CCF and provincial secretary of the party, who I lived next door to for 25 years and who was always trying to grow the party, rather than questioning the reasons of anyone who joined or ran for the party.

North Report, your statement that most comments come from Mulcair supporters and therefore suggest they are pushed to do so by the Mulcair campaign is alienating. I had no favourite at the beginning of the campaign. I also understand that whoever is the perceived frontrunner tends to get most of the attacks because he/she is likely the one who has to be beaten in order to win. However, many people get tired of hearing the same attacks again and again, especially when, from their perspective, they do not seem merited. It forced me towards deciding to support Mulcair earlier than I otherwise almost certainly reached a decision on who I would vote for. To understand this, simply look at Santorum's (a candidate whose values are the direct opposite of mine) 3 victories in the US tonight. By comparison with Romney, Gingrich and Paul, he has engaged in the least mudslinging, and since his policies fit within the conservative mould, he has won growing support from those tired of these attacks. One of the reasons Layton grew the party so much in the last election was that his message was so much more positive than the Cons or Liberals. Initially, my defence of Mulcair was more a response to what I perceived as an unfair attack, rather than that of a hard-core Mulcair fan.

JKR

gunder wrote:
I'd love to unite the left under a charismatic, visionary NDP leader.  The NDP, half the Green Party, 10% of the Liberal Party, the remaining left-mationalists in Quebec who are still on the fence, and the people for whom voting was not an option because they had been pushed onto the margins.

Using the UBC Election Forecaster you can actually do a simulation where half of the Green voters, 30% of the Liberal voters, and 60% of the BQ voters from the 2011 election all move into the NDP's column for the 2015 election. According to the forecaster, the results would be:

CON: 162 - Another phony FPTP majority government
NDP:  143
LIB:  3
BQ: 0
GRN: 0

 

gunder wrote:

We are a living, mature democracy.  We deserve to have at our disposal more than two ways of figuring things out, more than simply - how does he put it- ah yes, "winner-take-all" politics

 

We are an FPTP democracy. Meaning we're saddled with a two-party, winner-take-all system. If we want to move to a fair multi-party system, we will need to change to a PR system.

Ryan1812 Ryan1812's picture

1. Paul Dewar

2. Thomas Mulcair

3. Nathan Cullen

4. Brian Topp

5. Peggy Nash

6 Niki Ashton

7. Romeo Saganash

8. Martin Singh

I landed on Paul after being in Peggy Nash's camp for the first little while. Peggy dissapointed me with her lack of focus on grassroots activism (I am and have been a dedicated grassroots new democrat for several years). When Paul came out full stop as the grassroots candidate I threw myself behind him. His stance on privitizing water, establishing strong connections between the federal NDP office and the regions and really moving into ridings to build the vote are reasons for my support. So many of the candidates, save perhaps Cullen, are focused on the top down game in regards to the leadership. It's refreashing to see and candidate focus on the people who work in the ridings to get MP's elected. That's why Dewar has my support. Plus, his The Next 70 plan cannot be beat, IMHO.

I welcome comments.

gunder

JKR wrote:

gunder wrote:
I'd love to unite the left under a charismatic, visionary NDP leader.  The NDP, half the Green Party, 10% of the Liberal Party, the remaining left-mationalists in Quebec who are still on the fence, and the people for whom voting was not an option because they had been pushed onto the margins.

Using the UBC Election Forecaster you can actually do a simulation where half of the Green voters, 30% of the Liberal voters, and 60% of the BQ voters from the 2011 election all move into the NDP's column for the 2015 election. According to the forecaster, the results would be:

CON: 162 - Another phony FPTP majority government
NDP:  143
LIB:  3
BQ: 0
GRN: 0

I could provide an even more dire (and more realistic) scenario where half the NDP vote bleeds away and the Bloc makes huge gains.  The (arbitrary) figures there were meant to suggest core support for a broadly-left NDP, not as an actual model for statistixal analysis.  As has been pointed out, key to victory will be contunuing to make inroads into the Conservatives' swing vote - small businesspersons, young professionals. etc,

JKR wrote:

gunder wrote:

We are a living, mature democracy.  We deserve to have at our disposal more than two ways of figuring things out, more than simply - how does he put it- ah yes, "winner-take-all" politics

 

We are an FPTP democracy. Meaning we're saddled with a two-party, winner-take-all system. If we want to move to a fair multi-party system, we will need to change to a PR system.

 

No disagreement there.  But to do that, the NDP has to get elected first, which won't happen unless we keep doing what we have been: convincing people we can be trusted to govern without adult supervision.

NorthReport

 

 

Not me. I think perhaps you meant wage zombie and I hear what you are saying.

jerrym wrote:

North Report, your statement that most comments come from Mulcair supporters and therefore suggest they are pushed to do so by the Mulcair campaign is alienating. I had no favourite at the beginning of the campaign. I also understand that whoever is the perceived frontrunner tends to get most of the attacks because he/she is likely the one who has to be beaten in order to win. However, many people get tired of hearing the same attacks again and again, especially when, from their perspective, they do not seem merited. It forced me towards deciding to support Mulcair earlier than I otherwise almost certainly reached a decision on who I would vote for. To understand this, simply look at Santorum's (a candidate whose values are the direct opposite of mine) 3 victories in the US tonight. By comparison with Romney, Gingrich and Paul, he has engaged in the least mudslinging, and since his policies fit within the conservative mould, he has won growing support from those tired of these attacks. One of the reasons Layton grew the party so much in the last election was that his message was so much more positive than the Cons or Liberals. Initially, my defence of Mulcair was more a response to what I perceived as an unfair attack, rather than that of a hard-core Mulcair fan.

Pages

Topic locked