Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? #7

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
DSloth
Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? #7

[...]

Regions: 
DSloth

 

[url=http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?t13f3das5d0cva5]Babble Declared Preferences 1.3.12[/url]

Final Ballot: Mulcair 42, Nash 23

1st Ballot: Mulcair 30, Cullen 12, Nash 9, Ashton 9, Topp 7 Dewar 3, Singh 2.
2nd Ballot: Mulcair 30, Cullen 12, Nash 9, Ashton 10, Topp 7 Dewar 3.
3rd Ballot: Mulcair 31, Cullen 13, Nash 10, Ashton 10, Topp 7
4th Ballot: Mulcair 31, Cullen 14, Nash 15, Ashton 10
5th Ballot: Mulcair 34, Cullen 15, Nash 19

 

Trends: Nash is the story this week, she was the only candidate not to grow support since the last update, perhaps due to a lackluster debate performance.  Cullen has completely overtaken her on first ballot support and she now ties with Ashton for 3rd place.  However as we go to a final ballot for the first time since Saganash's withdrawl the lurking threat that Nash poses was exposed for the first time. Of the candidates competing for the non-Mulcair spot she cleans up in down ballot support and was able to climb back to second by the final ballot. 

 

 

flight from kamakura

i just read that saganash will be on the first ballot.

Bookish Agrarian

Hey Catchfire--- I was joking in response to what you had literally wrote in the previous thread.   I guess I should have added one of theseLaughing because the tone in my head didn't translate onto the screen. (think Arte Johnson) Sorry if it came off wrong.  (hope this is the right place to put it)

 

ETA- just realized he said very before didn't he, so I didn't even get the joke right   Maybe that's a sign it is time to go

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Ahh, BA. My bad. It's getting hard to parse the serious allegations of conspiracy and the joking ones. I should have known. Sorry about the snark. It was also a long day at the office, so to speak, so my humour radar was on the fritz.

KenS

Anyway, its rather silly that Mulcair is not coming here because another hour in one of numerous town halls is more important. Baloney. Directly and indirectly, there is a relatively untapped crowd here compared to yet another hour in town halls.

He isnt coming here because its not a friendly place, which the number of supporters cannot change, and its not his kind of venue.

No need to be defensive about it. It is a leadership race- candidates go to where it is to their advantage, and avoid the opposite.

meades meades's picture

Now that Saganash is no longer in the running, my ballot will look like this:

1. Ashton

2. Nash

3. Dewar

4. Cullen

5. Mulcair

6. Singh

7. Topp

Hoodeet

What's the general sense out there in Babble Land regarding how a leader would be likely to act if s/he is elected after a couple of ballots in which other candidates made a strong showing?

Do you think  (a) he/she would feel the need to include those former rivals in key cabinet positions (which might strengthen the collective leadership), or

(b) he/she would try to isolate them (and in doing so consolidating a highly autocratic leadership à la Harper but also alienating the base, which would probably lead to a loss of volunteers and eventually of "soft" NDPers in  future elections)?

(Yes, I have Mulcair in mind. But also Nash, Topp, whoever...)

 

 

KenS

Depends.

On everything.

But first of all on who the winner is, and what happens between now and then.

Mulcair would be harder to rach out to.

And you dont necessarily have to reach out to your strongest rivals- least of all when there are so many.

And if people are inclined to be alienated by the choice, who they winner reaches out to only might help counter that.

KenS

No one is going to try to isolate a former rival. It wont be any worse than ignoring them.

Stockholm

KenS wrote:

He isnt coming here (rabble) because its not a friendly place, which the number of supporters cannot change, and its not his kind of venue.

Actually its not such an unfriendly place...there seem to be more Mulcair supporters posting in babble than anyone else. I suspect that if he did do a session here - there would be quite a few supporters of his who would lob some softball questions to him.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Hoodeet wrote:

What's the general sense out there in Babble Land regarding how a leader would be likely to act if s/he is elected after a couple of ballots in which other candidates made a strong showing?

Do you think  (a) he/she would feel the need to include those former rivals in key cabinet positions (which might strengthen the collective leadership), or

(b) he/she would try to isolate them (and in doing so consolidating a highly autocratic leadership à la Harper but also alienating the base, which would probably lead to a loss of volunteers and eventually of "soft" NDPers in  future elections)?

(Yes, I have Mulcair in mind. But also Nash, Topp, whoever...)

A, A, so much A. For the worst-case scenario, just compare to the role Paul Martin played in Jean Chretien's cabinet (or any other similar situations in other jurisdictions).

josh

Stockholm wrote:

KenS wrote:

He isnt coming here (rabble) because its not a friendly place, which the number of supporters cannot change, and its not his kind of venue.

Actually its not such an unfriendly place...there seem to be more Mulcair supporters posting in babble than anyone else. I suspect that if he did do a session here - there would be quite a few supporters of his who would lob some softball questions to him.

 

Maybe he just views it as his Sister Souljah moment

1springgarden

Stockholm wrote:

KenS wrote:

He isnt coming here (rabble) because its not a friendly place, which the number of supporters cannot change, and its not his kind of venue.

Actually its not such an unfriendly place...there seem to be more Mulcair supporters posting in babble than anyone else. I suspect that if he did do a session here - there would be quite a few supporters of his who would lob some softball questions to him.

I would expect the questions to be moderated and respectful as well as hopefully enlightening - similar to questions asked of other candidates.  It would also be a tremendous opportunity for Mr. Mulcair.

1springgarden

josh wrote:
Maybe he just views it as his Sister Souljah moment

LOL!

I had waited months for Mulcair to telegraph his bonafides to the left of the party, and it simply never happened.  Not coming on Rabble = Mulcair's Sister Souljah moment.  Ha!  I'm ranking him last.

josh on Aug 28, 2011 wrote:

I think Nash, Angus or Julian would be excellent choices.

Mulcair is a good choice if you want to go the Blairite route or to engage in merger talks with the Liberals.

Josh, you're hardcore. You had Mulcair pegged within a day of the NDP Leadership thread #1 opening.  Bravo.

NDPP

John Ivison: Mulcair Considered Joining Conservatives Before Joining NDP

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/01/john-ivison-mulcair-asked...

not surprised - after all professional politicians, especially Canadian ones, are ultimately hungry for a high paying good gig and will work for whoever - eg Bob Ray, U Dosanjh, etc etc

NorthReport

This BS just shows how absolutely threatened Harper is feeling about a Mulcair Leadership of the NDP. And so he should be.

KenS

And the fact you think this shows Harper feels threatened by Mulcair shows....

[but I think we've been here before]

DSloth

KenS wrote:

And the fact you think this shows Harper feels threatened by Mulcair shows....

Well it's also what Lawrence Martin thinks and this isn't the first time the CPC has tried to meddle in the Leadership contest against Mulcair. 

Paul Dewar also gave a classy Tweet dismissing the "story" today. 

Brachina

DSloth wrote:

KenS wrote:

And the fact you think this shows Harper feels threatened by Mulcair shows....

Well it's also what Lawrence Martin thinks and this isn't the first time the CPC has tried to meddle in the Leadership contest against Mulcair. 

Paul Dewar also gave a classy Tweet dismissing the "story" today. 

Good for Dewar. As I said, the rivals will circle the wagons. Not just because trying to milk this would look like an alliance with Harper, but because there all smart enough to know horse shit when they hear it.

NorthReport

KenS wrote:

And the fact you think this shows Harper feels threatened by Mulcair shows....

[but I think we've been here before]

You're quite the authority on all things political aren't u Ken? You think people were born yesterday.  lol!!!

Leak shows Harper fears Mulcair

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/03/02/lawrence-martin-leak-shows-harper-fea...

Howard

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Hoodeet wrote:

What's the general sense out there in Babble Land regarding how a leader would be likely to act if s/he is elected after a couple of ballots in which other candidates made a strong showing?

Do you think  (a) he/she would feel the need to include those former rivals in key cabinet positions (which might strengthen the collective leadership), or

(b) he/she would try to isolate them (and in doing so consolidating a highly autocratic leadership à la Harper but also alienating the base, which would probably lead to a loss of volunteers and eventually of "soft" NDPers in  future elections)?

(Yes, I have Mulcair in mind. But also Nash, Topp, whoever...)

A, A, so much A. For the worst-case scenario, just compare to the role Paul Martin played in Jean Chretien's cabinet (or any other similar situations in other jurisdictions).

I'm actually a bit worried about Topp winning. I think he has the capacity to be vindictive and he has certainly thrown elbows in this race. Topp also knows that once you've won, you've won, and I don't think he'd be shy flexing his power. Mulcair on the other hand has taken a lot of hits during the campaign from inside the party, from all directions. It seems to me that he would have the biggest team-building exercise on his hands and is probably aware of it. Evenso, he has been endorsed by more than 40 NDP MPs, including a former rival. Not bad for team-building. How he has campaigned seems to me indicative of how he would behave as leader. He hasn't tried to "crush" his opponents or intimidate candidates out of the race. He hasn't campaigned negatively with the exception of 1 comment about Topp not having lived in Québec in decades at the very beginning of the race. Nash has run a very positive campaign as well. With the exception of a few attacks on Dewar and Topp in the debates, she has publicly taken the high road. Nash also comes across as a genuine, nice person. I'm not worried about her ability to "play well with others."

Howard

1springgarden wrote:

josh wrote:
Maybe he just views it as his Sister Souljah moment

LOL!

I had waited months for Mulcair to telegraph his bonafides to the left of the party, and it simply never happened.  Not coming on Rabble = Mulcair's Sister Souljah moment.  Ha!  I'm ranking him last.

josh on Aug 28, 2011 wrote:

I think Nash, Angus or Julian would be excellent choices.

Mulcair is a good choice if you want to go the Blairite route or to engage in merger talks with the Liberals.

Josh, you're hardcore. You had Mulcair pegged within a day of the NDP Leadership thread #1 opening.  Bravo.

Pfft!

josh

Howard wrote:

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Hoodeet wrote:

What's the general sense out there in Babble Land regarding how a leader would be likely to act if s/he is elected after a couple of ballots in which other candidates made a strong showing?

Do you think  (a) he/she would feel the need to include those former rivals in key cabinet positions (which might strengthen the collective leadership), or

(b) he/she would try to isolate them (and in doing so consolidating a highly autocratic leadership à la Harper but also alienating the base, which would probably lead to a loss of volunteers and eventually of "soft" NDPers in  future elections)?

(Yes, I have Mulcair in mind. But also Nash, Topp, whoever...)

A, A, so much A. For the worst-case scenario, just compare to the role Paul Martin played in Jean Chretien's cabinet (or any other similar situations in other jurisdictions).

I'm actually a bit worried about Topp winning. I think he has the capacity to be vindictive and he has certainly thrown elbows in this race. Topp also knows that once you've won, you've won, and I don't think he'd be shy flexing his power. Mulcair on the other hand has taken a lot of hits during the campaign from inside the party, from all directions. It seems to me that he would have the biggest team-building exercise on his hands and is probably aware of it. Evenso, he has been endorsed by more than 40 NDP MPs, including a former rival. Not bad for team-building. How he has campaigned seems to me indicative of how he would behave as leader. He hasn't tried to "crush" his opponents or intimidate candidates out of the race. He hasn't campaigned negatively with the exception of 1 comment about Topp not having lived in Québec in decades at the very beginning of the race. Nash has run a very positive campaign as well. With the exception of a few attacks on Dewar and Topp in the debates, she has publicly taken the high road. Nash also comes across as a genuine, nice person. I'm not worried about her ability to "play well with others."

 Yes, if Topp wins all Mulcair supporters will be sent to Alma-Ata.

Hoodeet

Nash also comes across as a genuine, nice person. I'm not worried about her ability to "play well with others."

Hoodeet (JW)

Now that kind of scares me.  It's all well and good for the party leader to "play well"with others inside the party, but does she have the mettle to do battle with il Duce and his blackshirts?

KenS

Forget Lawrence Martin NR. He's no authority on the NDP. You and I know more, and we disagree. That's it.

Not to mention that you have since long before the leadership race treated people you agree with as authorities, while those you dont agree with are idiots and/or part of some conspiracy against whatever you favour. And unfortunately,  I ain't exagerating.

KenS

Sorry Howard- the difference between Topp and Mulcair behaviour is entirely rooted in different strategic needs.

How they would behave after winning is speculative- and long term histories would be a more reliable indicator there. But still speculative, and something over which people would just argue aimlessly and endlessly. But suffice to say that Tom has shown that he has sharp elebows on the inside dynamics. Not saying Topp has not. Just poking your balloon.

Howard

KenS wrote:

Sorry Howard- the difference between Topp and Mulcair behaviour is entirely rooted in different strategic needs.

How they would behave after winning is speculative- and long term histories would be a more reliable indicator there. But still speculative, and something over which people would just argue aimlessly and endlessly. But suffice to say that Tom has shown that he has sharp elebows on the inside dynamics. Not saying Topp has not. Just poking your balloon.

You could be right. Either way, I am ranking Topp second. I think he'd do a good job if Mulcair can't make leader.

shartal@rogers.com

Peggy Nash

I decided to support Peggy Nash after reading about Munclair's flirtation with the conservatives this morning. One of the important ways to evaluate a candidate is who are their friends. Peggy Nash has a history as an organizer, she is supported by community organizers who work from the ground up. Topp is supported by "important people" but not by activist groups.

The future for a progressive fight back to finance capital's austerity agenda is and will be in alliances with activists on the ground and in the streets. A major portion of Ford 's cut back program was defeated because of the loud, consistent and persistent multitude that stood in opposition to his cuts.

In Canada and around the world the programs that support the 99% are under direct attack as corporate capital uses the State to appropriate tax support transferred to corporate capital and endeavors to shred hard won legal and program protections people had struggled for. I believe that our defense must be in alliances of parliamentary and extra-parliamentary political action. From this perspective Peggy Nash is the best fit.

DSloth

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Peggy Nash I decided to support Peggy Nash after reading about Munclair's flirtation with the conservatives this morning.

You decided your vote based on a smear from a Conservative Party insider? There are plenty of good reasons why someone might want to vote for Nash this is not one of them. 

Winston

DSloth wrote:

Well it's also what Lawrence Martin thinks and this isn't the first time the CPC has tried to meddle in the Leadership contest against Mulcair. 

Paul Dewar also gave a classy Tweet dismissing the "story" today. 

Yeah...I was impressed by that.  Dewar probably has little to gain (2nd-ballot, etc) in specifically being nice to Mulcair, so the tweet was just a genuinely nice gesture. 

Stockholm

Its a bit hypocritical for Dewar to try to sound like the boy scout in his message when just two weeks ago his campaign put out that mass e-mail full of not so subtle digs at other candidates who are "not real New Democrats" or who are planning secret purges at party HQ.

NorthReport

Too bad some NDP supporters here at babble don't do the same thing, which is quite pathetic, eh!

NDP leadership candidates defend competitor

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/02/ndp-leadership-candidates-defend-co...

 

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

Its a bit hypocritical for Dewar to try to sound like the boy scout in his message when just two weeks ago his campaign put out that mass e-mail full of not so subtle digs at other candidates who are "not real New Democrats" or who are planning secret purges at party HQ.

Preach!

Howard

-

socialdemocrati...

I dunno, it seemed like almost everyone here thought it was a really lame ass smear attempt. Nobody thought it had any legitimacy.

flight from kamakura

i really like that dewar/cullen would do that, it helps us out long run, no matter who wins.  we can't let these cpc toads get into our discussion.  not cool for topp.

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

Too bad some NDP supporters here at babble don't do the same thing, which is quite pathetic, eh!

NDP leadership candidates defend competitor

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/02/ndp-leadership-candidates-defend-co...

 

Anyone who believes team Harper needs to shake out the cobwebs. Not just on this issue, but as a basic general principle.

As for Topp being vindictive I doubt it, for Brian this is just business, he desperately wants to win and so he does what he thinks will land him in the Prime Minister's chair. Its not personal, just the result of cold calucations. Topp isn't going to push away his best asset in Quebec, he'd try to ride Mulcair to victory in Quebec.

jill.inottawa

I have no idea who to vote for now. I was going to vote for Mulcair but i just can't get behind his position in the Middle East. I am seriously leaning toward Nash, even though I am not sure i would actually want her to win. Sigh.

jill.inottawa

I have no idea who to vote for now. I was going to vote for Mulcair but i just can't get behind his position in the Middle East. I am seriously leaning toward Nash, even though I am not sure i would actually want her to win. Sigh.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Ashton
Nash
Mulcair

Hunky_Monkey

jill.inottawa wrote:

I have no idea who to vote for now. I was going to vote for Mulcair but i just can't get behind his position in the Middle East. I am seriously leaning toward Nash, even though I am not sure i would actually want her to win. Sigh.

What is his position on the Middle East and how is it different than the other candidates?

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

Its a bit hypocritical for Dewar to try to sound like the boy scout in his message when just two weeks ago his campaign put out that mass e-mail full of not so subtle digs at other candidates who are "not real New Democrats" or who are planning secret purges at party HQ.

Do you find it a bit hypocritical for Topp to bash Mulcair as a "Blarite" while wrapping himself in the Romanow Saskatchewan NDP flag?

janfromthebruce

just voting Topp. I don't have any 2nd or 3rd choices. I'll see what happens in "real time"

DSloth

Stockholm wrote:

Its a bit hypocritical for Dewar to try to sound like the boy scout in his message when just two weeks ago his campaign put out that mass e-mail full of not so subtle digs at other candidates who are "not real New Democrats" or who are planning secret purges at party HQ.

I don't think doing the right thing now makes him a hypocrite. He's a politician, every statement he releases to the press in the middle of a Leadership campaign is by definition "political."

In this case though it's smart politics and a classy gesture.  

philwalkerp

I just want to clear something up.

Fair is fair, and I have been complaining here that the only things I've ever heard about Thomas Mulcair on proportional representation has been anectdotal heresay from someone whose "friend heard him say something at a pubic meeting somewhere" etc etc. Certainly not something you can take to the bank.

But now Thomas Mulcair has finally made a committment in a survey conducted on candidate positions on electoral reform:

Quote:

If elected Prime Minister would you, in your first mandate, undertake a process that includes public consultation to make the federal electoral system fairer and more proportional to the popular vote?

Yes.

 

It isn't the most stellar survey answer given by a candidate, but it's a start. Our ailing and abused democracy certainly needs all the help it can get right now, and I hope we can hold Thomas Mulcair to his commitment to help fix it. Remembering the NDP government in Ontario we may only get one chance at this.

Winston

philwalkerp wrote:

Quote:

If elected Prime Minister would you, in your first mandate, undertake a process that includes public consultation to make the federal electoral system fairer and more proportional to the popular vote?

Yes.

It isn't the most stellar survey answer given by a candidate, but it's a start. Our ailing and abused democracy certainly needs all the help it can get right now, and I hope we can hold Thomas Mulcair to his commitment to help fix it. Remembering the NDP government in Ontario we may only get one chance at this.

First rule of interviewing: if you're looking for an elaborate response, don't ask a question that elicits a yes/no answer. :)

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

jill.inottawa wrote:

I have no idea who to vote for now. I was going to vote for Mulcair but i just can't get behind his position in the Middle East. I am seriously leaning toward Nash, even though I am not sure i would actually want her to win. Sigh.

I am doing similar kinds of contortions. It's very weird that the "which candidates I like" and "which candidates I would actually like to see as leader" groups are not at all the same thing, but it's making me go cross-eyed.

Howard

-

doofy

jill in ottawa:

FYI: Brian Topp was asked directly during a townhall in Toronto on March 1 whether he would support boycotting Israel. He gave a very categorical NO. In other words, the same position as Mulcair. It would surprise me if any of the candidates differed on this.

philwalkerp

Winston wrote:

First rule of interviewing: if you're looking for an elaborate response, don't ask a question that elicits a yes/no answer. :)

 

I don't know who the interviewer was, but I'm quite satisfied with Mulcair's one word answer. Can't get much clearer than that. It is a refreshing change from most politicians answers to questions (after 500 words, you don't even know what they said...)

Pages

Topic locked