#SKNDPLDR: On Traps

The final official debate of the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign was the first I had the opportunity to see, and I'd hoped that it would result in some meaningful and constructive contrast. But instead, the debate and its aftermath looked largely to push both candidates toward the key traps for their respective campaigns.

For Carla Beck, that trap was the tendency to retreat constantly into tiresome talking points and vague generalities. 

Beck was obviously comfortable with the debate stage, and appears to have stuck with the plan she brought to the debate. But the nature of that plan resulted in a frustrating experience for anybody hoping to find out much about what Beck would be interested in pursuing as leader. 

On the few occasions when she chose to address issues with any substance (normally only where that meant critiquing specific government policies), observers could see a hint of her capacity to challenge Scott Moe. 

But the bulk of the time, no matter how obvious the opportunity or need to offer some meaningful content, her responses led back to the "meet people where they're at" catchphrase which offers zero useful information - other than that she's more interested in being everything to everyone than putting forward a vision. That might seem like sound strategy as the favourite in a leadership campaign, but it stands to set Beck off on exactly the wrong course as the spotlight grows brighter and both party members and the general public get to know her better.

Unfortunately, Kaitlyn Harvey didn't match Beck's comfort with the format, struggling to fit answers into time limits and structure her answers even on friendly issues. (Of course, it didn't help that a few of the questions themselves were framed in ways that played far more to Beck's positioning than to Harvey's.)

That need for more focus was then exacerbated by Harvey's comments portraying herself as a target and linking the campaign back to the party's treatment of Ryan Meili. Which isn't to say those can't be fair areas of concern - but for a candidate trying desperately to get party members to focus on substantive issues, they serve primarily as distractions which make it hard for her policy message to get through. 

The end result was thus likely to strengthen Beck's position for all the wrong reasons. Voters open to considering both candidates may have seen enough inexperience to rule out Harvey, even as Beck did little to earn their confidence.

Once again, what happens from this point forward may well be academic: many votes have already been cast, and nothing has changed the basic dynamics of the campaign. But it is still worth watching and hoping the candidates will be able to extricate themselves from where they've ended up so far in the informal forums and convention to come.