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

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Howard wrote:
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."

I actually believe that the left flank of the NDP might be better off if Mulcair wins over Topp. At least in Mulcair's case, the left flank knows that Mulcair is not on "their team," so they can strategize around that, and Mulcair would have to reach out to them in order to do well. Topp, on the other hand, is clearly saying things he knows the left flank of the party wants to hear, but IMO he knows who he has to cater to, and the left could end up marginalized because they think he's "one of them." Topp was in high places under Romanow's government in Saskatchewan, and Romanow was no lefty.

DSloth

philwalkerp wrote:

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...)

Brevity from a lawyer is indeed a rare and beautiful thing.

I also like how Niki managed to answer the entire questionaire with three words. 

janfromthebruce

The left flank would not be better off with a leader who wants to move the party to the centre. And I do believe Topp is on the left and to suggest other wise is not have read anything he wrote before throwing his name into the leadership hat.

 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Howard wrote:
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."

I actually believe that the left flank of the NDP might be better off if Mulcair wins over Topp. At least in Mulcair's case, the left flank knows that Mulcair is not on "their team," so they can strategize around that, and Mulcair would have to reach out to them in order to do well. Topp, on the other hand, is clearly saying things he knows the left flank of the party wants to hear, but IMO he knows who he has to cater to, and the left could end up marginalized because they think he's "one of them." Topp was in high places under Romanow's government in Saskatchewan, and Romanow was no lefty.

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

JeffWells

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I actually believe that the left flank of the NDP might be better off if Mulcair wins over Topp. At least in Mulcair's case, the left flank knows that Mulcair is not on "their team," so they can strategize around that, and Mulcair would have to reach out to them in order to do well. Topp, on the other hand, is clearly saying things he knows the left flank of the party wants to hear, but IMO he knows who he has to cater to, and the left could end up marginalized because they think he's "one of them." Topp was in high places under Romanow's government in Saskatchewan, and Romanow was no lefty.

In total agreement. IMO Topp has proven he isn't fit to lead the party.

Mulcair hasn't been pandering to the base, which actually makes me more inclined to trust that he means what he says. And as leader he won't be receiving a blank cheque from the membership. If he doesn't know that yet, he'll discover it.

I voted electronically yesterday, largely so I could get off the phone faster. My final ranking:

 

1, Saganash

2. Ashton

3. Mulcair

4. Nash

5. Topp

6. Cullen

7. Singh

8. Dewar

NorthReport

Excellent ballot selection JW.

NorthReport

So there you have it folks. Wink

Beginning of the End Games: Paths to Win in the NDP Leadership Race

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/02/beginning-of-the-end-games-paths-to-w...

 

 

Aristotleded24

JeffWells wrote:
I voted electronically yesterday, largely so I could get off the phone faster. My final ranking:

 

1, Saganash

We still have that option? If so, we should organize a write-in campaign! He can still win!

JeffWells

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JeffWells wrote:
I voted electronically yesterday, largely so I could get off the phone faster. My final ranking:

 

1, Saganash

We still have that option? If so, we should organize a write-in campaign! He can still win!

 

I don't have any confirmation of this, but I suspect since he's withdrawn, his name won't go forward past the first ballot, no matter how many votes he gets.

 

Hunky_Monkey

janfromthebruce wrote:

The left flank would not be better off with a leader who wants to move the party to the centre. And I do believe Topp is on the left and to suggest other wise is not have read anything he wrote before throwing his name into the leadership hat.

Who wants to move to the centre? No one. I haven't heard any candidate say that. I've heard one candidate say that about another... doesn't make it so.

Aristotleded24

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Who wants to move to the centre? No one. I haven't heard any candidate say that.

What makes you think a candidate who wants to move to the centre would say that?

Winston

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Who wants to move to the centre? No one. I haven't heard any candidate say that.

What makes you think a candidate who wants to move to the centre would say that?

Speaking of candidates that want to move the Party to the centre, does anyone who lived in Saskatchewan during the Topp/Romanow years care to chime in?

(I mean at right about the time when Topp was advising Romanow to legislate workers back to work for the second time in a year)?

JeffWells

I heard Ian Capstick today recall that before the race, Topp would describe himself as being on neither the left nor the right of the party, but on the winning side. 

Gosh, that sounds like something Mulcair might say. And then be misquoted and vilified for it by Candidate Topp.

Winston

JeffWells wrote:

I heard Ian Capstick today recall that before the race, Topp would describe himself as being on neither the left nor the right of the party, but on the winning side. 

Gosh, that sounds like something Mulcair might say. And then be misquoted and vilified for it by Candidate Topp.

LaughingLaughingLaughing

I find it ironic that all of the whispers that were spread about Mulcair at the outset of the campaign (e.g. too centrist, too mean) seem to apply to Topp at times.  I really respect the guy and his intelligence, but the tone of some of his attacks has really turned me off.  He'll probably still be #2 on my ballot - I just can't see anyone other than him or Tom having a hope of holding anything in Quebec.

The whole "Tom is a centrist" thing is getting annoying - none of his policy proposals have amounted to anything less than something we would applaud a provincial NDP government for doing.  I mean, he's proposing extending Quebec's anti-scab legislation across the country, for f*ck's sake!  That's probably the only way we'd get something like that here in Manitoba - our NDP government has had 4 terms to do it and hasn't.  When Tom was here in Winnipeg, I heard him advocate for increasing credit union membership in English Canada to Quebec levels, for universal daycare, for equipping our military only for peace and not "stupid foreign adventures".  He spoke out eloquently against Bill C-10 (in spite of the fact our NDP government here supports this draconian crime bill), despite the fact that this was not what many in the audience wanted to hear.  He made a point of emphasizing electoral reform and senate abolition within a first term.  Nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) he said indicated to me that he was anything but a true social democrat.  But he does not pander - when he disagreed with questioners, he very respectfully made clear that he disagreed with them and explained why.  And i know this is just my impression, but after meeting him and seeing him talk so frankly with the membership, I can honestly say that I TRUST and BELIEVE him when he says what he will accomplish.

That all said, criticizing Tom for not being "left" enough may be a valid line of attack for Niki Ashton (or maybe even Peggy Nash), but that attack seems disingenous coming from Brian Topp.  I don't doubt that there were difficult decisions to be made during the Romanow years in Saskatchewan, and I don't fault him for them having to be made, but criticizing Tom for being honest about the realities we will face if we wish to govern when he knows himself how difficult they can be doesn't seem fair.

Moreover, I can't see that anything Tom has said even suggests anything other than that he wants to continue along Jack's path of making modest, concrete and achievable proposals over unrealistic wish-lists.  Is that "centrist"?  I prefer to think of it as being mature enough to recognize that we owe it to Canadians to offer them a real (i,e, credible and realistic) alternative to the government of Stephen Harper.  But even if we choose to view that as being "centrist", Brian Topp needs to admit that he was a part of the group (along with Jack, Anne McGrath and Brad Levigne) that ALREADY MOVED the Party to this positioning.

Topp seems to want to have it both ways: he wants to take credit for his roles in the SK government and as a federal advisor while playing to the left-wing base of the Party without acknowledging some of the compromises he himself had to make which may be distasteful to some of the membership.  I respect that he made these compromises when necessary, and expect that he always did so with the interests of people at heart, but his failure to be honest about them harms the trust I have in him that he is being genuine with us in this leadership race vice just telling us all what we want to hear.

 

KenS

No NDP leadership candidate says they are a centrist. And i doubt any thinks [privately] thay are.

Tom Mulcair will end up 'evolving' the NDP into being more centrist.

So might some of the others. But Mulcair will.

janfromthebruce

yeah, and who cares.

Caissa

Today and subject to change ( in order): Topp, Nash, Ashton, Mulcair, Cullen, Dewar, Singh, Oldgoat's dog.

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

No NDP leadership candidate says they are a centrist. And i doubt any thinks [privately] thay are.

Tom Mulcair will end up 'evolving' the NDP into being more centrist.

So might some of the others. But Mulcair will.

Good to see that you had some of that tasty Topp kool-aid :)

KenS

I'll deferr to your judgement on that one.

Because you may know more than anyone around here about Kool-Aid. Kiss

David Young

I received my ballot today, and filled it out this way:

#1 Mulcair

#2 Nash

#3 Ashton

#4 Topp

#5 Dewar

#6 Singh

#7 Saganash

#8 Cullen

Stay tuned!

 

CanadaApple

I said before I was leaning towards Topp or Mulcair, but now I'm not so sure. The only thing I can really say for sure that it is my choice. At the end of the day, I've just got to pick the person who I think is my kind of man/woman. Hopefully I'll figure it out in time, but knowing me, it might only be the week before the convention. Tongue out

JKR

1 - Topp

2 - Cullen

3 - Mulcair

4 - Nash

5 - Ashton

6 - Dewar

7 - Singh

nicky

I have voted:

1. Tom

2. Nathan

Caissa

Are some parts of the country receiving their ballots earlier than others?

NorthReport

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - March 4, 2012

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/03/leadership-2012-cand...

Caissa

Today (in order) 1. Topp, 2) Ashton 3) Nash 4) Oldgoat's dog 5) Mulcair, 6) Cullen 7) Dewar, 8) Singh.

Brachina

Winston wrote:

JeffWells wrote:

I heard Ian Capstick today recall that before the race, Topp would describe himself as being on neither the left nor the right of the party, but on the winning side. 

Gosh, that sounds like something Mulcair might say. And then be misquoted and vilified for it by Candidate Topp.

LaughingLaughingLaughing

I find it ironic that all of the whispers that were spread about Mulcair at the outset of the campaign (e.g. too centrist, too mean) seem to apply to Topp at times.  I really respect the guy and his intelligence, but the tone of some of his attacks has really turned me off.  He'll probably still be #2 on my ballot - I just can't see anyone other than him or Tom having a hope of holding anything in Quebec.

The whole "Tom is a centrist" thing is getting annoying - none of his policy proposals have amounted to anything less than something we would applaud a provincial NDP government for doing.  I mean, he's proposing extending Quebec's anti-scab legislation across the country, for f*ck's sake!  That's probably the only way we'd get something like that here in Manitoba - our NDP government has had 4 terms to do it and hasn't.  When Tom was here in Winnipeg, I heard him advocate for increasing credit union membership in English Canada to Quebec levels, for universal daycare, for equipping our military only for peace and not "stupid foreign adventures".  He spoke out eloquently against Bill C-10 (in spite of the fact our NDP government here supports this draconian crime bill), despite the fact that this was not what many in the audience wanted to hear.  He made a point of emphasizing electoral reform and senate abolition within a first term.  Nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) he said indicated to me that he was anything but a true social democrat.  But he does not pander - when he disagreed with questioners, he very respectfully made clear that he disagreed with them and explained why.  And i know this is just my impression, but after meeting him and seeing him talk so frankly with the membership, I can honestly say that I TRUST and BELIEVE him when he says what he will accomplish.

That all said, criticizing Tom for not being "left" enough may be a valid line of attack for Niki Ashton (or maybe even Peggy Nash), but that attack seems disingenous coming from Brian Topp.  I don't doubt that there were difficult decisions to be made during the Romanow years in Saskatchewan, and I don't fault him for them having to be made, but criticizing Tom for being honest about the realities we will face if we wish to govern when he knows himself how difficult they can be doesn't seem fair.

Moreover, I can't see that anything Tom has said even suggests anything other than that he wants to continue along Jack's path of making modest, concrete and achievable proposals over unrealistic wish-lists.  Is that "centrist"?  I prefer to think of it as being mature enough to recognize that we owe it to Canadians to offer them a real (i,e, credible and realistic) alternative to the government of Stephen Harper.  But even if we choose to view that as being "centrist", Brian Topp needs to admit that he was a part of the group (along with Jack, Anne McGrath and Brad Levigne) that ALREADY MOVED the Party to this positioning.

Topp seems to want to have it both ways: he wants to take credit for his roles in the SK government and as a federal advisor while playing to the left-wing base of the Party without acknowledging some of the compromises he himself had to make which may be distasteful to some of the membership.  I respect that he made these compromises when necessary, and expect that he always did so with the interests of people at heart, but his failure to be honest about them harms the trust I have in him that he is being genuine with us in this leadership race vice just telling us all what we want to hear.

 

+1

Major points, excellently stated.

What you see today with Mulcair, is what you get period, no magic shifting right or left, if he says he's going to do something, he does it. That simple. I his type, his word is everything to him so he accepts that means he's going to say some things people don't want to hear and pay the price accordingly.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Caissa wrote:

Are some parts of the country receiving their ballots earlier than others?

Don't know, but I received my voting package today - not bad, considering I live in a very isolated village in Quebec and mail delivery is iffy at best.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm using the mail-in ballot, and I'm just voting three choices: 1, 2, 3. Should I place an "X" in the five spaces left where I did not vote?

CanadaApple

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm using the mail-in ballot, and I'm just voting three choices: 1, 2, 3. Should I place an "X" in the five spaces left where I did not vote?

I was under the impression you can just leave them blank.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Okay, thanks. Smile

DSloth

Yes, you're under no obligation to fill out your ballot. Leaving names off does not invalidate your ballot, it only means your vote won't count if every name you put down is dropped off. 

 

I'd advise against putting in Xs or novelty names though. 

Nova Scotialist

I voted today:

1. Tom

2. Nathan

doofy

My ballot:

1) Mulcair: He is the most electable. Alone among the candidates, he has a realistic shot of holding all the NDP's seats in QC.  No QC= back to thirdor 4th place. His support in BC and Ontario shows he can win there too. We would be very foolish to turn our back on him.

I should say that those on this board who argued that Mulcair supporters were reminding them of Liberals (i.e. saying you HAVE to vote Mulcair or you'll be stuck w/ Harper) did make me stop and think, b/c there was nothing I hated more than those vacuous Liberal slogans. But, Mulcair is NOT a Liberal. He will not say one thing to get elected and then do the opposite if/when he comes to power. If that were his style it would have been very easy for him to appeal to the base in this campaign. However much we would all have liked to hear him run on the explicit slogan of "make the rich pay", Mulcair is still going to give us the most left-wing gov't in Canadian History. In 2015, you will actually see Libby Davies becoming a cabinet minister. The others would, I'm afraid, likely lead the NDP into a junior role in a Liberal-led coaliition. Just compare Mulcair's policies and what we got in the 2008 accords. Not even close.

2) Topp. At the beginning, I was impressed, but he had six months to introudce himself to QCers and his image there has not improved. Other than Mulcair, however, he still has the best shot at holding a dozen seats in Montreal and the Outaouais. I very much doubt he'll be able to grow beyond that, as he doesn't have the intimate feel for Quebec's centre-left nationalist concensus. He's spent most of his adult life in the ROC, and it shows. To be fair, though, he probably will keep the NDP relatively strong in the ROC (around Broadbent levels). But, in 2015, we'll be stuck around a 50-60 seat ceiling, with the Liberals around 80. In 2019, the Liberals will (maybe) win govt and Topp will be writing the sequel to "How we almost gave the Tories the boot". 

**At this point, I think we can be fairly certain of heading back to third/fourth place, so:

3) Cullen: He has a gamble to get PR. I doubt it will work,  but it's the closest to being a blievable road-map. I really don't tink the Liberals will go for it though; a Cullen victory will give both them and the BQ a huge boost in QC. They will see that they don't need us. I bet he won't be ahead of Mulcair or Nash on any ballot, so ranking him is a bit of an academic exercise....

4) Nash: Will save the "furniture". The NDP will be a credible third party, with maybe a few seats in QC. Hope for a coalition.

5) Ashton: Better than Dewar or Singh.

6) Singh: for symbolism's sake

7) Dewar: No French should = no chance.

 

flight from kamakura

nova scotialist !!  hilarious handle!

clambake

Someone said it another thread, but I wish Topp's brain was in Mulcair's head. Perfect candidate.

clambake

Someone said it another thread, but I wish Topp's brain was in Mulcair's head. Perfect candidate.

Ottawa Centre-Left

Long time lurker, first time poster.

 

Tonight my fiancee and I voted. While it seemed noble to wait and do it in real time during the convention, it felt nice to have it out of the way and as an easy response to help quell the deluge of incoming campaign calls.

 

I voted Tom, Nathan and Peggy for 1,2,3 respectively and didn't go further.

The better half voted all the way down the list, starting with Tom, but I'm not quite sure the order after that.

socialdemocrati...

You might get your wish. I personally have a lot of respect for Topp has a strategist, and I hope he'd continue to have a big role in shaping strategy. Having him become an MP would almost be a step backwards, although perhaps he can still influence strategy from the bench.

Ippurigakko

1 - Niki Ashton, top Aboriginal issues

2 - Paul Dear, lots First Nations supporters

3/4 - Nathan Cullen or Thomas Mulcair

 

Winston

nicky wrote:

I have voted:

1. Tom

2. Nathan

My partner did the same thing to his ballot!!!

Winston

doofy wrote:

My ballot:

1) Mulcair: 

2) Topp. 

3) Cullen:

4) Nash:

5) Ashton: 

6) Singh:

7) Dewar: 

Mine was the same as yours, except I swapped Ashton and Nash.

Ottawa Centre-Left

Winston wrote:

nicky wrote:

I have voted:

1. Tom

2. Nathan

My partner did the same thing to his ballot!!!

It looks like Nathan is a popular 2nd choice for Tom supporters, and I had done the same.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Tongue out

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

OK, I've finally made my decsion.

It wasn't easy.

After months of agonizing, talking, and reading endless babble threads I've picked a candidate.

I will be voting for...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Today I voted for.... will let you know on Election Day!

JKR

DSloth wrote:

Yes, you're under no obligation to fill out your ballot. Leaving names off does not invalidate your ballot, it only means your vote won't count if every name you put down is dropped off.

 

I'd advise against putting in Xs or novelty names though.

People should keep in mind that if they want to decrease the chances of their least favorite candidate or candidates winning, they should rank ALL 7 candidates.

When using a preferential ballot, one should keep two things in mind:

1 - the chances of a candidate winning increase the closer they are to the top of your ballot.

AND

2 - the chances of a candidate not winning increase the closer they are to the bottom of your ballot.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

After I ranked my three, I had no desire to rank the others at all.

Ottawa Centre-Left

Boom Boom wrote:

After I ranked my three, I had no desire to rank the others at all.

Agreed. Especially if one's top three picks are very likely on the final ballot, beyond that it seems a stretch to try to decide. Originally I was just going to do two (Mulcair, Cullen), but my third pick (Nash) is a strong compromise option against the rest, which I decided to add at the last moment. My two prevailing assumptions are that it will be a Mulcair/Nash showdown, and that it won't take too many rounds to decide.

 

Aristotleded24

janfromthebruce wrote:
The left flank would not be better off with a leader who wants to move the party to the centre. And I do believe Topp is on the left and to suggest other wise is not have read anything he wrote before throwing his name into the leadership hat.

Topp's record as part of Roy Romanow's government speaks louder to me than any opinion piece he has written. Actions speak louder than words.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
People should keep in mind that if they want to decrease the chances of their least favorite candidate or candidates winning, they should rank ALL 7 candidates.

How does ranking all the candidates decrease chances of the least favourite candidate winning? What if outside of the candidates you have elected you find the others equally distasteful?

Pages

Topic locked