Here, on how the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign winding up this weekend looks to be well ahead of the party's 2009 campaign in voter turnout and fund-raising.
For further reading...
- The current financial reports from this year's campaign are here. 2009 numbers are from James Wood's post-campaign report, showing full-campaign donations of $131,132 to Dwain Lingenfelter, $62,231 to Ryan Meili, $21,725 to Yens Pedersen and $21,064 to Deb Higgins.
- Voter turnout numbers from 2009 are here.
- And for those interested in reading more about the leadership campaign as we approach this weekend's convention, see my own reference page (updated today) along with Leftdog's aggregator.
Showing posts with label leadership 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership 2009. Show all posts
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Confirmation
From Robert Hale's report into the Meadow Lake membership sale controversy:
[(T)he local DLC volunteer] readily admitted that he had not contacted the members and had simply filled out the forms based on the information received from the Band offices.The RCMP's conclusions leading to charges against Ernest Morin alone:
There is no evidence that anyone other than [the local DLC volunteer] handled the applications or arranged delivery to DLC. The applications arrived at DLC campaign office with signatures and volunteers with DLC campaign office did not add signatures. Based on this information the only possible conclusion is that [the local DLC volunteer] entered the signatures on the applications.
...
It is very significant that this scheme did not succeed. One person did try to deceive the party and to abuse the rights of many individuals. But the NDP found out. It was not just one person or one process that revealed this scheme. Questions were raised by all leadership campaigns, by the local executive, by provincial office and by individual members. He tried to deceive the wrong party. He was caught several times over.
"The investigation is complete. There is only one individual who has been charged," Insp. Stewart Kingdon, head of the RCMP commercial crimes unit, told reporters Tuesday at Regina RCMP headquarters.(Edit: fixed link.)
...
Kingdon said he could not discuss details of the investigation — including whether Lingenfelter was interviewed — because the matter was before the courts.
However, he said he considered the NDP to have been fully co-operative with the investigation.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Saskatchewan NDP Year in Review 2009: Pushback
As I discussed in an earlier post, the federal NDP's 2009 was marked by incremental progress toward a long-standing plan. In contrast, the year in Saskatchewan's NDP involved major decisions as to the party's direction. But while there are plenty of questions left to be answered over the next two years, we did see one key shift in Saskatchewan's political scene which will make tracing a path to government in 2011 far less problematic that it might otherwise have been.
Needless to say, the first six months of the year were dominated by the party's leadership race which culminated in Dwain Lingenfelter's second-ballot victory over Ryan Meili. What began as a seeming romp for Lingenfelter turned into a dramatic finish, as longtime stalwart Lingenfelter, faced with the membership sale controversy, was just barely able to hold off the combined efforts of a strong MLA competitor in Deb Higgins and two of the party's rising stars in Meili and Yens Pedersen.
But perhaps even more important than the candidates themselves was the range of supporters brought into the race - with Lingenfelter mixing plenty of new names and faces into a base of bedrock support dating back decades, while Meili and Pedersen put together new campaign teams which surprised many with their enthusiasm and effectiveness. Which leads to the question of how best to keep all of the key leadership race participants inside the NDP's tent and engaged in the party leading up to 2011.
So far, the best prospect for continued renewal looks to be a policy development process which Lingenfelter is rightly playing up as setting the NDP's direction for some time to come. There's some obvious room for improvement in the amount of public discussion about the process so far, but once consultations begin in earnest there will be a golden opportunity not only to set the NDP's policy direction, but also to build up a new set of NDP voices for the future to join Meili, Pedersen and newly-elected MLA Danielle Chartier. The latter goal may require some concerted effort to place a focus on the grassroots rather than the current leader or caucus, but such an effort would figure to be well rewarded in the end.
Meanwhile, Lingenfelter's main appeal as a leader always figured to be his ability to turn the tables on a government which had emerged almost entirely unscathed from its first two years in office (thanks to fawning media coverage as well as a lack of consistent NDP messages to define him). And with an assist to the NDP's prescient warnings about overreliance on potash revenues, the first half-year of Lingenfelter's leadership has undoubtedly seen the end of any free ride for Brad Wall.
Mind you, the concern hasn't yet filtered down to as much of the general public as one would like to see (nor up to the national media). But commentary on Saskatchewan politics in the latter half of the year rightly focused largely on the Sask Party's mismanagement in 2009 and difficult decisions to be made in 2010. And with cities, school boards and others who will be affected by cuts to anticipated funding starting to speak out, it doesn't figure to take long before Wall's habit of promising the moon sets up a significant opening for a government which is better grounded in reality.
It does remain to be seen exactly what alternative vision the Saskatchewan NDP will put forward in 2010 and beyond. But the combination of NDP renewal and Sask Party tarnish should significantly narrow any gap in the polls just in time for it to matter - meaning that whatever the NDP comes up with in its policy process should have a significant chance of setting the province's agenda within the next two years.
Needless to say, the first six months of the year were dominated by the party's leadership race which culminated in Dwain Lingenfelter's second-ballot victory over Ryan Meili. What began as a seeming romp for Lingenfelter turned into a dramatic finish, as longtime stalwart Lingenfelter, faced with the membership sale controversy, was just barely able to hold off the combined efforts of a strong MLA competitor in Deb Higgins and two of the party's rising stars in Meili and Yens Pedersen.
But perhaps even more important than the candidates themselves was the range of supporters brought into the race - with Lingenfelter mixing plenty of new names and faces into a base of bedrock support dating back decades, while Meili and Pedersen put together new campaign teams which surprised many with their enthusiasm and effectiveness. Which leads to the question of how best to keep all of the key leadership race participants inside the NDP's tent and engaged in the party leading up to 2011.
So far, the best prospect for continued renewal looks to be a policy development process which Lingenfelter is rightly playing up as setting the NDP's direction for some time to come. There's some obvious room for improvement in the amount of public discussion about the process so far, but once consultations begin in earnest there will be a golden opportunity not only to set the NDP's policy direction, but also to build up a new set of NDP voices for the future to join Meili, Pedersen and newly-elected MLA Danielle Chartier. The latter goal may require some concerted effort to place a focus on the grassroots rather than the current leader or caucus, but such an effort would figure to be well rewarded in the end.
Meanwhile, Lingenfelter's main appeal as a leader always figured to be his ability to turn the tables on a government which had emerged almost entirely unscathed from its first two years in office (thanks to fawning media coverage as well as a lack of consistent NDP messages to define him). And with an assist to the NDP's prescient warnings about overreliance on potash revenues, the first half-year of Lingenfelter's leadership has undoubtedly seen the end of any free ride for Brad Wall.
Mind you, the concern hasn't yet filtered down to as much of the general public as one would like to see (nor up to the national media). But commentary on Saskatchewan politics in the latter half of the year rightly focused largely on the Sask Party's mismanagement in 2009 and difficult decisions to be made in 2010. And with cities, school boards and others who will be affected by cuts to anticipated funding starting to speak out, it doesn't figure to take long before Wall's habit of promising the moon sets up a significant opening for a government which is better grounded in reality.
It does remain to be seen exactly what alternative vision the Saskatchewan NDP will put forward in 2010 and beyond. But the combination of NDP renewal and Sask Party tarnish should significantly narrow any gap in the polls just in time for it to matter - meaning that whatever the NDP comes up with in its policy process should have a significant chance of setting the province's agenda within the next two years.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
A brief appeal
Following up on my post this morning, word has come out that the reported fund-raising and expense totals from the Saskatchewan NDP leadership candidates are from the end of the campaign period. And in the case of Ryan Meili's campaign, about $5,000 more has been raised since that time to cut the reported debt in half.
But it would still be a major plus for all involved to get the remaining campaign debts squared away so that Ryan and the rest of his team can focus fully on the next steps in building the Saskatchewan NDP. So let's start an informal campaign based on Meili's 45% share of the vote on the second ballot: please take a moment and stop by Meili's donation page with a donation ending in .45.
But it would still be a major plus for all involved to get the remaining campaign debts squared away so that Ryan and the rest of his team can focus fully on the next steps in building the Saskatchewan NDP. So let's start an informal campaign based on Meili's 45% share of the vote on the second ballot: please take a moment and stop by Meili's donation page with a donation ending in .45.
On final tallies
James Wood reports on the final financial results from Saskatchewan's NDP leadership race. And if there's any major surprise, it's that the candidate fund-raising totals ended up substantially matching the result of the first ballot: despite a publicly-disclosed total nearly $12,000 behind Deb Higgins just days before the June convention, Yens Pedersen apparently managed to eke ahead of her in the financial department as well.
Now, it's not clear whether part of the new totals reflect some surprisingly effective fund-raising after the vote itself, or whether they mean that Pedersen's small-donor income during the leadership campaign dwarfed his disclosed donations. But either way, the example is one which candidates in future leadership campaigns and other races would do well to follow.
Now, it's not clear whether part of the new totals reflect some surprisingly effective fund-raising after the vote itself, or whether they mean that Pedersen's small-donor income during the leadership campaign dwarfed his disclosed donations. But either way, the example is one which candidates in future leadership campaigns and other races would do well to follow.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
One more for the historical record
While the Saskatchewan NDP convention may have taken place over a month ago, video material from the race continues to find its way online. So for those interested, here's Ryan Meili's nomination speech.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
On impacts
Jason's list of which factors affected (and didn't affect) the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race is definitely worth a read. But I'll note a couple of factors where my take apparently differs from Jason's, as well as one more worth adding to each list.
Here's Jason on advance voting as his #1 factor which did play a major role:
I'd note first that the trend in other political forums seems to be toward a greater focus on advance voting. To my recollection the U.S. election in 2008 saw a record turnout of early voters, while the percentage of votes cast in advance polls was up in Canada's 2008 election (the raw number dropped from 2006, but less than the raw number of total votes). And as it makes sense for parties to want to lock in their votes early during an election campaign, it doesn't make sense to me to run a party's leadership races based solely on one- or two-day voting.
Of course, different timing for votes will favour different types of organization. And a longer voting period can favour a front-runner who's able to lock in a large number of votes early - as it seems to have done for Lingenfelter.
But it can also give more time for a social-networking model to reach a greater number of people, encouraging a better-dispersed model rather than a one-day phone blitz to reach would-be voters. And it wouldn't be at all surprising if some of the same ideas which have served Meili's campaign and other challengers well could be adapted for advance voting: wouldn't a "vote bomb" be an entirely viable response to any issues that do serve to fire up one's voters during an advance voting period?
Indeed, the biggest timing issue for Meili may have been the membership deadline which prevented people who heard of him only late in the campaign from casting a vote, limiting the amount of impact that his own online presence could have late in the campaign. And the timing of the vote wouldn't have made any difference there.
So the impact of advance voting should serve more as a lesson to future campaigns to take full advantage of the opportunity, not a need to change the leadership rules.
The other issue I'll raise with Jason's analysis is his take that the membership controversy would be classified in the "less impact" department:
If even a few hundred more people who didn't vote had voted with Lingenfelter, or if an even smaller number did shift their allegiances from Lingenfelter to another candidate in the wake of the membership controversy, then the convention would have seen a first-ballot win rather than the close contest that it became. And in the absence of any other obvious group of NDP member who would have had reason to be turned off by the leadership campaign, it wouldn't be surprising if Lingenfelter had gained far more votes than the bare minimum for a majority - maybe even approaching a 60%-style romp which would have served as license for him to marginalize the other leadership camps.
So while the membership controversy didn't manage to completely undermine Lingenfelter's campaign, it likely served as one of many necessary factors to make the race as close as it was in the end.
With that out of the way, let's add one more item to each of Jason's categories.
More impact than expected: One-choice voters
It's understandable that each leadership contestant sought primarily to lock in his or her own first-ballot support rather than encouraging members to take a closer look at down-ballot possibilities. But the problem with that strategy became obvious on voting day when a combined non-Lingenfelter vote turned into something less than the sum of its parts - due in particular to voters who had listed only one option on their ballot.
Of course, it's tough to say how candidates might handle that issue in future races. But it wouldn't be all that surprising to see some semi-formal alliances among candidates to ensure that similarly-positioned contestants maximize their chance of ending up on the winning team by the final ballot.
Less impact than expected: Endorsements
I'll make one possible exception here, as the joint Meili endorsement from former MLAs Peter Prebble and Lon Borgerson early in the race can plausibly be seen as one of the turning points at which Ryan Meili pulled decisively ahead of Yens Pedersen as the youth/renewal candidate. But even in that case, it's difficult to tell whether the endorsement simply reflected what was happening behind the scenes rather than doing much to shape where the race was going. And there's otherwise virtually no indication that even the biggest-name endorsers did much to sway opinions during the course of the leadership race.
Andrew Thomson's endorsement of Deb Higgins could have been the most significant of all in theory, since Thomson would seem to have been a natural Lingenfelter supporter based on his own positioning within the party. But it didn't seem to have any impact in bringing the centre-right of the party into Higgins' camp.
Meanwhile, a constant stream of union endorsements for Lingenfelter didn't stop plenty of key figures in the labour movement from putting their money and efforts behind other candidates. Meili's endorsers Nettie Wiebe and Maynard Sonntag combined in 2001 for twice Meili's first-ballot support in terms of raw votes, suggesting that past supporters weren't particularly motivated by their endorsements. And of course, the presence of a half-dozen caucus endorsers wasn't enough to push Higgins ahead of Yens Pedersen and his zero named endorsements prior to the convention.
Of course, that's likely for the best to the extent it shows that voters were deciding for themselves rather than allowing somebody else's judgment to dictate their choices. And indeed, it may signal how much of a grassroots organization the Saskatchewan NDP truly is - as no matter how well-known or even well-respected a figure might be within the party, no one person or organization was able to exercise much top-down impact on how members cast their ballots.
Here's Jason on advance voting as his #1 factor which did play a major role:
1. Advance VotingNow, I don't think there's much room for doubt that advance voting did have a significant impact on the race. But I'd disagree with Jason to the extent he's suggesting looking to limit its effect in the future.
Did I read somewhere that Ryan Meili got something like 75% of the votes of people who chose to wait until the convention day, hear all the presentations and endorsements, see the buzz for each candidate before making their own choice? If so, it's tempting to re-imagine the results had everyone been required to wait until the day of the convention to vote. A couple real life examples - we had one woman at our table who said she was torn between Ryan and Yens based on everything she'd seen so far. After the floor shows were over, I asked, "So?" and she just smiled and asked if she could have one of the Ryan buttons I'd offered her earlier. I also heard from a couple people who said they would've changed the order of their vote based on the floor shows. I'm sure many others felt the same way. I still love the idea of every individual member being able to vote by a variety of methods (by mail, phone, online or in person) but perhaps limiting the vote only to the day of the convention would reduce the chances of people re-thinking (or regretting!) their choices? (Can you imagine if the news of the membership scandal had broken on June 3, only a couple days before the convention and after most early votes were already in?)
I'd note first that the trend in other political forums seems to be toward a greater focus on advance voting. To my recollection the U.S. election in 2008 saw a record turnout of early voters, while the percentage of votes cast in advance polls was up in Canada's 2008 election (the raw number dropped from 2006, but less than the raw number of total votes). And as it makes sense for parties to want to lock in their votes early during an election campaign, it doesn't make sense to me to run a party's leadership races based solely on one- or two-day voting.
Of course, different timing for votes will favour different types of organization. And a longer voting period can favour a front-runner who's able to lock in a large number of votes early - as it seems to have done for Lingenfelter.
But it can also give more time for a social-networking model to reach a greater number of people, encouraging a better-dispersed model rather than a one-day phone blitz to reach would-be voters. And it wouldn't be at all surprising if some of the same ideas which have served Meili's campaign and other challengers well could be adapted for advance voting: wouldn't a "vote bomb" be an entirely viable response to any issues that do serve to fire up one's voters during an advance voting period?
Indeed, the biggest timing issue for Meili may have been the membership deadline which prevented people who heard of him only late in the campaign from casting a vote, limiting the amount of impact that his own online presence could have late in the campaign. And the timing of the vote wouldn't have made any difference there.
So the impact of advance voting should serve more as a lesson to future campaigns to take full advantage of the opportunity, not a need to change the leadership rules.
The other issue I'll raise with Jason's analysis is his take that the membership controversy would be classified in the "less impact" department:
This was the elephant in the room at the convention and I was surprised how little attention it got except in subtle allusions and whispered side conversations. Yes, the party did a report that cleared Dwain Lingenfelter of any wrongdoing but the day after the convention ended (nice timing there!), the RCMP announced they were investigating the matter then a couple days later, announced that it had become a criminal investigation. Some people are able to let bygones by bygones and chalk it up to "just politics" or "that's behind us now" but I think there are also a number of people who saw "Waterhengate" as going beyond the usual attacks and back and forth you might see in a political campaign. (Since I keep rewriting history in this post, I should also note that the flip side is that Ryan might not have had as strong of showing as he did had this scandal not happened.)I'd be inclined to draw a far stronger conclusion as to the impact of the membership controversy. Remember that despite the large number of advance voters, the final vote saw a surprisingly low turnout rate, as over a quarter of party members chose not to vote in the leadership race.
If even a few hundred more people who didn't vote had voted with Lingenfelter, or if an even smaller number did shift their allegiances from Lingenfelter to another candidate in the wake of the membership controversy, then the convention would have seen a first-ballot win rather than the close contest that it became. And in the absence of any other obvious group of NDP member who would have had reason to be turned off by the leadership campaign, it wouldn't be surprising if Lingenfelter had gained far more votes than the bare minimum for a majority - maybe even approaching a 60%-style romp which would have served as license for him to marginalize the other leadership camps.
So while the membership controversy didn't manage to completely undermine Lingenfelter's campaign, it likely served as one of many necessary factors to make the race as close as it was in the end.
With that out of the way, let's add one more item to each of Jason's categories.
More impact than expected: One-choice voters
It's understandable that each leadership contestant sought primarily to lock in his or her own first-ballot support rather than encouraging members to take a closer look at down-ballot possibilities. But the problem with that strategy became obvious on voting day when a combined non-Lingenfelter vote turned into something less than the sum of its parts - due in particular to voters who had listed only one option on their ballot.
Of course, it's tough to say how candidates might handle that issue in future races. But it wouldn't be all that surprising to see some semi-formal alliances among candidates to ensure that similarly-positioned contestants maximize their chance of ending up on the winning team by the final ballot.
Less impact than expected: Endorsements
I'll make one possible exception here, as the joint Meili endorsement from former MLAs Peter Prebble and Lon Borgerson early in the race can plausibly be seen as one of the turning points at which Ryan Meili pulled decisively ahead of Yens Pedersen as the youth/renewal candidate. But even in that case, it's difficult to tell whether the endorsement simply reflected what was happening behind the scenes rather than doing much to shape where the race was going. And there's otherwise virtually no indication that even the biggest-name endorsers did much to sway opinions during the course of the leadership race.
Andrew Thomson's endorsement of Deb Higgins could have been the most significant of all in theory, since Thomson would seem to have been a natural Lingenfelter supporter based on his own positioning within the party. But it didn't seem to have any impact in bringing the centre-right of the party into Higgins' camp.
Meanwhile, a constant stream of union endorsements for Lingenfelter didn't stop plenty of key figures in the labour movement from putting their money and efforts behind other candidates. Meili's endorsers Nettie Wiebe and Maynard Sonntag combined in 2001 for twice Meili's first-ballot support in terms of raw votes, suggesting that past supporters weren't particularly motivated by their endorsements. And of course, the presence of a half-dozen caucus endorsers wasn't enough to push Higgins ahead of Yens Pedersen and his zero named endorsements prior to the convention.
Of course, that's likely for the best to the extent it shows that voters were deciding for themselves rather than allowing somebody else's judgment to dictate their choices. And indeed, it may signal how much of a grassroots organization the Saskatchewan NDP truly is - as no matter how well-known or even well-respected a figure might be within the party, no one person or organization was able to exercise much top-down impact on how members cast their ballots.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Ryan Meili's Concession Speech...
...from the Saskatchewan NDP convention is now making the rounds - so here it is for those who weren't able to attend or watch at the time.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
As long as we're following up...
Having looked today at what's been done at the official Saskatchewan NDP website since the leadership race, let's take a quick run as well through the sites of the candidates other than Dwain Lingenfelter (whose leadership site now features a thank-you for the campaign).
Not surprisingly, the site which drew the most attention during the leadership contest has been the active one since the convention. While Ryan Meili's front page hasn't changed, his news page has continued to be updated with both a press release and news articles featuring Meili. And that hasn't been Meili's only continued online presence: in fact his Facebook group - which features additional updates - has continued to grow since the campaign, having now reached 525 members.
Meanwhile, Deb Higgins has updated her front page with a message of thanks for the campaign. That leaves Yens Pedersen as the only candidate whose page is still the same as it was before the convention - but hopefully Yens' page, like those of the other candidates, will soon serve to support a run in 2011 or sooner.
Not surprisingly, the site which drew the most attention during the leadership contest has been the active one since the convention. While Ryan Meili's front page hasn't changed, his news page has continued to be updated with both a press release and news articles featuring Meili. And that hasn't been Meili's only continued online presence: in fact his Facebook group - which features additional updates - has continued to grow since the campaign, having now reached 525 members.
Meanwhile, Deb Higgins has updated her front page with a message of thanks for the campaign. That leaves Yens Pedersen as the only candidate whose page is still the same as it was before the convention - but hopefully Yens' page, like those of the other candidates, will soon serve to support a run in 2011 or sooner.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Leadership 2009 - Dwain Lingenfelter Afterword
It seems like a fairly safe bet that the outcome of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race wasn't exactly what Dwain Lingenfelter hoped for. But he does emerge from the contest with the main prize from the race - along with plenty of potential to harness the positive elements of the other candidates' campaigns to help propel him into the premier's office in 2011. And even if Lingenfelter wasn't otherwise inclined to change course somewhat from the leadership race, the province's political realities figure to leave him little choice.
For all the talk of his being on the right wing of the NDP, Lingenfelter was likely the leadership contestant whose message will be least easily transferred to the province at large. While "we must beat Brad Wall in 2011" makes for an easy enough theme for the NDP to get behind, it figures to run into problems among the general population of a province where Wall still has high approval ratings after nearly two years in office (no matter how much that may be due to a free pass from the media). Which means that Lingenfelter's strategy will have to include some combination of changing his message, or radically shifting the mindset of the province as a whole before the general election rolls around.
Of course, Lingenfelter hasn't hesitated to do what he can on the latter front during the leadership campaign: not only did he direct a couple of direct shots the Sask Party's way during the leadership contest, but even his policy proposals have tended to consist of equal parts positive content and criticism of the Wall government. From that starting point we can presumably count on much more clash with the government to come, particularly once Lingenfelter has the opportunity to lead the NDP's efforts in question period. And there's every reason to think Lingenfelter will more than hold his own in the give-and-take with Wall.
But having left ample room for the party behind him to renew its policy direction, Lingenfelter would seem to have a significant chance as well to assemble a strong case for change in 2011 without creating too much resistance among voters who don't share the NDP's view of Wall personally. And barring any major scandal which makes Wall so toxic that the NDP can win by default, it's the NDP's ability to develop a compelling positive vision which offers a readily-apparent contrast to the Sask Party's direction that figures to be the deciding factor in Link's pursuit of the position of premier.
For all the talk of his being on the right wing of the NDP, Lingenfelter was likely the leadership contestant whose message will be least easily transferred to the province at large. While "we must beat Brad Wall in 2011" makes for an easy enough theme for the NDP to get behind, it figures to run into problems among the general population of a province where Wall still has high approval ratings after nearly two years in office (no matter how much that may be due to a free pass from the media). Which means that Lingenfelter's strategy will have to include some combination of changing his message, or radically shifting the mindset of the province as a whole before the general election rolls around.
Of course, Lingenfelter hasn't hesitated to do what he can on the latter front during the leadership campaign: not only did he direct a couple of direct shots the Sask Party's way during the leadership contest, but even his policy proposals have tended to consist of equal parts positive content and criticism of the Wall government. From that starting point we can presumably count on much more clash with the government to come, particularly once Lingenfelter has the opportunity to lead the NDP's efforts in question period. And there's every reason to think Lingenfelter will more than hold his own in the give-and-take with Wall.
But having left ample room for the party behind him to renew its policy direction, Lingenfelter would seem to have a significant chance as well to assemble a strong case for change in 2011 without creating too much resistance among voters who don't share the NDP's view of Wall personally. And barring any major scandal which makes Wall so toxic that the NDP can win by default, it's the NDP's ability to develop a compelling positive vision which offers a readily-apparent contrast to the Sask Party's direction that figures to be the deciding factor in Link's pursuit of the position of premier.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Leadership 2009 - Ryan Meili Afterword
I've discussed earlier some of the possibilities for Ryan Meili after his remarkably narrow defeat in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race. But the main choice facing him is similar to the one in front of Yens Pedersen - and all indications so far suggest that Meili is headed down exactly the right path out of those options.
To see how that's so, let's look in a bit more depth at the forces at work behind Meili's decision not to run for the NDP's nomination in the impending Saskatoon Riversdale by-election.
For the most part, Dwain Lingenfelter's statement that he'd like to see Meili and Pedersen in the Legislature as soon as possible can and should be seen as a sign of unity coming out of the convention. But there's another possible side to it as well, as it might also hint at a preference to move the two renewal candidates into roles where they'd be subject to caucus discipline and heavier influence from Lingenfelter's loyalists - in effect co-opting them personally as a means of minimizing the effect of their supporters within the party.
And that perception would only have been stronger if Meili had pushed ahead with the Saskatoon Riversdale nomination. With Danielle Chartier having spent a substantial amount of time building a membership base in the riding while Meili was busy with the leadership campaign, Meili would have faced at best an uncertain road to victory based on the amount of support he could muster before the membership deadline.
To have more than a highly uncertain chance of winning, then, he'd have had to lean on Lingenfelter either to implore members to vote for Meili over the candidate who signed them up, or worse to state an intention not to recognize a Chartier victory. Which would have run counter to Meili's commitment to democratic nomination processes and created a huge split between him and at least some of his leadership-contest base.
Instead, Meili has lived up to his message from the leadership campaign, rightly passing on an opportunity to advance his own political career at the expense of the principles which made him such an appealing alternative to Lingenfelter. And that can only reinforce his credibility as a leading voice for progressive New Democrats in the years to come.
And there's no lack of areas where that brand can only be a positive for the Saskatchewan NDP. Within the party, Meili's effective leadership platform and strong reputation for listening to the party's membership make him a natural choice to lead the impending policy review process. And in the department of expanding the NDP's tent, the party will surely want to apply Meili's organizational skills and innovative outreach techniques - particularly to bring in support from the left which will be coming together around issues like the Sask Party's nuclear push.
That may make for a heavy workload over the next couple of years even if Meili doesn't find another by-election to pursue in the meantime. But among the other lessons learned during the course of the leadership campaign, we surely now know better than to underestimate what Meili and his movement can accomplish.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
To see how that's so, let's look in a bit more depth at the forces at work behind Meili's decision not to run for the NDP's nomination in the impending Saskatoon Riversdale by-election.
For the most part, Dwain Lingenfelter's statement that he'd like to see Meili and Pedersen in the Legislature as soon as possible can and should be seen as a sign of unity coming out of the convention. But there's another possible side to it as well, as it might also hint at a preference to move the two renewal candidates into roles where they'd be subject to caucus discipline and heavier influence from Lingenfelter's loyalists - in effect co-opting them personally as a means of minimizing the effect of their supporters within the party.
And that perception would only have been stronger if Meili had pushed ahead with the Saskatoon Riversdale nomination. With Danielle Chartier having spent a substantial amount of time building a membership base in the riding while Meili was busy with the leadership campaign, Meili would have faced at best an uncertain road to victory based on the amount of support he could muster before the membership deadline.
To have more than a highly uncertain chance of winning, then, he'd have had to lean on Lingenfelter either to implore members to vote for Meili over the candidate who signed them up, or worse to state an intention not to recognize a Chartier victory. Which would have run counter to Meili's commitment to democratic nomination processes and created a huge split between him and at least some of his leadership-contest base.
Instead, Meili has lived up to his message from the leadership campaign, rightly passing on an opportunity to advance his own political career at the expense of the principles which made him such an appealing alternative to Lingenfelter. And that can only reinforce his credibility as a leading voice for progressive New Democrats in the years to come.
And there's no lack of areas where that brand can only be a positive for the Saskatchewan NDP. Within the party, Meili's effective leadership platform and strong reputation for listening to the party's membership make him a natural choice to lead the impending policy review process. And in the department of expanding the NDP's tent, the party will surely want to apply Meili's organizational skills and innovative outreach techniques - particularly to bring in support from the left which will be coming together around issues like the Sask Party's nuclear push.
That may make for a heavy workload over the next couple of years even if Meili doesn't find another by-election to pursue in the meantime. But among the other lessons learned during the course of the leadership campaign, we surely now know better than to underestimate what Meili and his movement can accomplish.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Leadership 2009 - Yens Pedersen Afterword
There's plenty of reason for optimism about Yens Pedersen's future in the Saskatchewan NDP in the wake of this weekend's convention. It was enough of a plus that he exceeded expectations both in his convention speech and first-ballot results - but the fact that Dwain Lingenfelter has stated his intention to work toward getting Pedersen into the legislature should suggest that the rifts that sometimes appeared between the Pedersen and Lingenfelter's supporters during the leadership campaign are a thing of the past.
That said, while there looks to be no question that Pedersen has a bright future in the party, there are a couple of different directions that future could take.
The path of least resistance for Pedersen would likely be to leave the leadership race behind and effectively start from scratch in working his way up through the NDP's ranks. That would presumably see him look to blend into caucus to start with while learning under Lingenfelter and his more experienced team, with every reason to expect that Pedersen would have a seat at the cabinet table once the NDP comes back to power.
That said, the more interesting possibilities would involve Pedersen looking to maintain one or both of the two main messages he's sent during the leadership campaign in addition to planning for a seat in the relatively near future. The less controversial of those possibilities would be for him to look to put his "democratic socialist" stamp on the upcoming policy renewal process - which might do less to brand him personally for the long term, but could conceivably have the most impact on the NDP's direction over the next few years.
Even more intriguing, though, is the prospect that Pedersen might look to transform his most visible public persona from the campaign into a long-term position in the province's political scene. As matters stand now, Pedersen has won accolades from inside and outside the party for his own commitment to character and ethics in politics as well as in his career in law. From there, it would seem a natural progression for Pedersen to build on that reputation in the years to come as an outspoken advocate for transparency and accountability on all sides.
Of course, that might occasionally put Pedersen at odds with NDP supporters when figures within the party fall short of the standards he's set so far. And indeed to the extent Lingenfelter might plan to apply a "never explain, never complain" strategy, he'd likely want to avoid having anybody playing a similar role to the one which Pedersen occupied during the leadership race.
But I'd think there's a strong case to be made that the NDP would be better off on a couple of fronts if Lingenfelter offers Pedersen some leeway to carry on as a voice of critical analysis from within the party. For those within the NDP, it would send a strong message that the party plans to hold itself to high ethical standards - which can only figure to raise the bar for the party's own actions. And in dealing with the broader political scene including opponents and the media, the credibility that Pedersen could build up as an voice for ethical politics where his own party is concerned would make his critiques of any failings by the Sask Party resonate far more than would be the case for any politician who's seen to operate solely on a partisan basis.
Of course, it remains to be seen both whether Pedersen wants that type of responsibility in the longer term, and whether Lingenfelter would be less forgiving of disagreement now that he's the party leader. But nobody is better positioned than Pedersen to serve as the conscience of Saskatchewan politics for years to come - and both the NDP and Pedersen would figure to benefit significantly from the work which he could do in that role.
That said, while there looks to be no question that Pedersen has a bright future in the party, there are a couple of different directions that future could take.
The path of least resistance for Pedersen would likely be to leave the leadership race behind and effectively start from scratch in working his way up through the NDP's ranks. That would presumably see him look to blend into caucus to start with while learning under Lingenfelter and his more experienced team, with every reason to expect that Pedersen would have a seat at the cabinet table once the NDP comes back to power.
That said, the more interesting possibilities would involve Pedersen looking to maintain one or both of the two main messages he's sent during the leadership campaign in addition to planning for a seat in the relatively near future. The less controversial of those possibilities would be for him to look to put his "democratic socialist" stamp on the upcoming policy renewal process - which might do less to brand him personally for the long term, but could conceivably have the most impact on the NDP's direction over the next few years.
Even more intriguing, though, is the prospect that Pedersen might look to transform his most visible public persona from the campaign into a long-term position in the province's political scene. As matters stand now, Pedersen has won accolades from inside and outside the party for his own commitment to character and ethics in politics as well as in his career in law. From there, it would seem a natural progression for Pedersen to build on that reputation in the years to come as an outspoken advocate for transparency and accountability on all sides.
Of course, that might occasionally put Pedersen at odds with NDP supporters when figures within the party fall short of the standards he's set so far. And indeed to the extent Lingenfelter might plan to apply a "never explain, never complain" strategy, he'd likely want to avoid having anybody playing a similar role to the one which Pedersen occupied during the leadership race.
But I'd think there's a strong case to be made that the NDP would be better off on a couple of fronts if Lingenfelter offers Pedersen some leeway to carry on as a voice of critical analysis from within the party. For those within the NDP, it would send a strong message that the party plans to hold itself to high ethical standards - which can only figure to raise the bar for the party's own actions. And in dealing with the broader political scene including opponents and the media, the credibility that Pedersen could build up as an voice for ethical politics where his own party is concerned would make his critiques of any failings by the Sask Party resonate far more than would be the case for any politician who's seen to operate solely on a partisan basis.
Of course, it remains to be seen both whether Pedersen wants that type of responsibility in the longer term, and whether Lingenfelter would be less forgiving of disagreement now that he's the party leader. But nobody is better positioned than Pedersen to serve as the conscience of Saskatchewan politics for years to come - and both the NDP and Pedersen would figure to benefit significantly from the work which he could do in that role.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Leadership 2009 - Deb Higgins Afterword
Let's run through the leadership candidates one more time at the end of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race to look at how (if at all) their position in the party looks to have changed coming out of this weekend's convention and what figures to come next - starting from the bottom of the vote standings and working our way up.
In some ways, the leadership race will likely be seen as somewhat of a disappointment for Deb Higgins, as she went from a strong second in name recognition to fourth in the leadership results. But it's worth putting those results in context compared to the last leadership race.
In 2001, Joanne Crofford and Buckley Belanger both ran as experienced cabinet members who likely figured that their prominent positions within the party would bring in a decent number of votes. But in a race with over twice as many ballots cast, the two barely won more first-ballot votes than Higgins alone managed this past weekend. And in percentage terms, Higgins' 14% first-ballot support was just below the 14.5% first-ballot vote of Crofford, Belanger and fellow cabinet minister Maynard Sonntag combined.
Of course, this year's race featured different dynamics - which resulted in Higgins dropping off after the first ballot, rather than getting to try to pick up support for another round (or two as Sonntag could have done if he hadn't chosen to withdraw). But while Higgins and her supporters may have hoped for more, she can certainly take credit for a respectable result in the vote totals to go with a solid performance as a candidate.
The question for Higgins is now whether the campaign will have much impact on her place within the party. If the Lingenfelter camp wants to hold grudges, it can certainly find some of Higgins' comments to hold against her - but for now I'll operate under the assumption that they're not about to go in that direction. Conversely, while somebody looking for reasons to promote Higgins within the party could probably find them in the leadership race (such as the fact that she managed to take what was already a well-developed constituency and earn the "most improved" title at the convention), she doesn't seem to have carried much public momentum out of the campaign.
Which means that Higgins will likely finish the leadership campaign exactly where she started it: as a well-respected MLA who figures to hold down a mid-ranking cabinet position in any NDP government she sits in, but likely won't be one of the main faces of the party. And while that may fall well short of her supporters' hope to make her the first female NDP leader and Saskatchewan premier, hopefully her work will help to ease the way for the woman who eventually blazes that trail.
In some ways, the leadership race will likely be seen as somewhat of a disappointment for Deb Higgins, as she went from a strong second in name recognition to fourth in the leadership results. But it's worth putting those results in context compared to the last leadership race.
In 2001, Joanne Crofford and Buckley Belanger both ran as experienced cabinet members who likely figured that their prominent positions within the party would bring in a decent number of votes. But in a race with over twice as many ballots cast, the two barely won more first-ballot votes than Higgins alone managed this past weekend. And in percentage terms, Higgins' 14% first-ballot support was just below the 14.5% first-ballot vote of Crofford, Belanger and fellow cabinet minister Maynard Sonntag combined.
Of course, this year's race featured different dynamics - which resulted in Higgins dropping off after the first ballot, rather than getting to try to pick up support for another round (or two as Sonntag could have done if he hadn't chosen to withdraw). But while Higgins and her supporters may have hoped for more, she can certainly take credit for a respectable result in the vote totals to go with a solid performance as a candidate.
The question for Higgins is now whether the campaign will have much impact on her place within the party. If the Lingenfelter camp wants to hold grudges, it can certainly find some of Higgins' comments to hold against her - but for now I'll operate under the assumption that they're not about to go in that direction. Conversely, while somebody looking for reasons to promote Higgins within the party could probably find them in the leadership race (such as the fact that she managed to take what was already a well-developed constituency and earn the "most improved" title at the convention), she doesn't seem to have carried much public momentum out of the campaign.
Which means that Higgins will likely finish the leadership campaign exactly where she started it: as a well-respected MLA who figures to hold down a mid-ranking cabinet position in any NDP government she sits in, but likely won't be one of the main faces of the party. And while that may fall well short of her supporters' hope to make her the first female NDP leader and Saskatchewan premier, hopefully her work will help to ease the way for the woman who eventually blazes that trail.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
On wrong turns
For the past couple of months, my discussion of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race has featured charts with my guesses as to the outcome - the last of which can be found here. In the absence of detailed polling data or other information providing a direct indication of voter intention, I've tried my best to make predictions based on the factors that seemed to me to be at play. But in retrospect, there are a couple of areas where my assumptions were apparently off the mark - and I'll take a few minutes to point those out.
The first and most obvious is my relative treatment of the candidacies of Yens Pedersen and Deb Higgins. In Pedersen's case, I underestimated the strength of his campaign, focusing too much his comparative lack of public endorsements when there were probably signs of solid organization that could have been given more weight, particularly the logic underlying his phone poll process.
In Higgins' case, I likely did just the opposite, overemphasizing her positive moments due to her endorsement base and giving plenty of weight to media narratives which in retrospect were likely based more on her name recognition than on anything happening during the course of the campaign. And the result was my regular ranking of Pedersen as far more likely to finish last than Higgins (contrary to the final results this weekend). So my apologies to Yens for missing the relative strength of his campaign - and hopefully he can take some small moral victory in having proven one self-appointed pundit wrong.
The second broad area has to do with the relative likelihood of a first-ballot win for Dwain Lingenfelter and his prospects for victory later on. In retrospect my analysis wasn't far from the mark in placing the two most likely results as a Lingenfelter first-ballot victory or a final-ballot showdown again Meili, with little to choose between the relative likelihood of the two. But I likely didn't account enough for the chances that a Lingenfelter first-ballot lead would get him within a small number of votes of the 50% mark such as to make a later-ballot win difficult for his competitors as proved to be the case.
I'll leave the personal navel-gazing at that for now, and hopefully learn a few lessons to be applied to future analysis. But thanks to all who have taken the time to read my off-the-cuff predictions - and I'll try to be closer to the mark next time.
The first and most obvious is my relative treatment of the candidacies of Yens Pedersen and Deb Higgins. In Pedersen's case, I underestimated the strength of his campaign, focusing too much his comparative lack of public endorsements when there were probably signs of solid organization that could have been given more weight, particularly the logic underlying his phone poll process.
In Higgins' case, I likely did just the opposite, overemphasizing her positive moments due to her endorsement base and giving plenty of weight to media narratives which in retrospect were likely based more on her name recognition than on anything happening during the course of the campaign. And the result was my regular ranking of Pedersen as far more likely to finish last than Higgins (contrary to the final results this weekend). So my apologies to Yens for missing the relative strength of his campaign - and hopefully he can take some small moral victory in having proven one self-appointed pundit wrong.
The second broad area has to do with the relative likelihood of a first-ballot win for Dwain Lingenfelter and his prospects for victory later on. In retrospect my analysis wasn't far from the mark in placing the two most likely results as a Lingenfelter first-ballot victory or a final-ballot showdown again Meili, with little to choose between the relative likelihood of the two. But I likely didn't account enough for the chances that a Lingenfelter first-ballot lead would get him within a small number of votes of the 50% mark such as to make a later-ballot win difficult for his competitors as proved to be the case.
I'll leave the personal navel-gazing at that for now, and hopefully learn a few lessons to be applied to future analysis. But thanks to all who have taken the time to read my off-the-cuff predictions - and I'll try to be closer to the mark next time.
Unconventional
There's plenty about this weekend's leadership race that deserves some comment in the days to come. But for now, I'll note one remarkable number as to how the votes were cast:
With that in mind, it's worth wondering how the possibility of the result being effectively locked in before a convention will affect future leadership races. Will campaigns spend more time focusing on less committed supporters (or even identified non-supporters) to leave their possibilities open in case of a close race like the one yesterday? And will the principle of "vote in advance so you're able to work the convention floor" become less of a priority if campaigns conclude their time is better spent locking in outside support in advance?
Of course, we're at least a few years away from finding out. And it could be that this weekend was an anomalous result rather than an indication of how all future leadership races will run. But it seems entirely possible that yesterday's results will lead to a radical shift in focus away from the convention itself and toward the advance voting period.
The vast majority of votes - 8,793 out of 9,444 - had been cast in advance using preferential ballots.I'd noted last week that even the numbers released at that time - with over half of all eligible voters casting ballots ahead of time - could change the dynamics of the race. But in retrospect, that number far understated the relative importance of advance balloting and convention momentum in determining the final outcome.
With that in mind, it's worth wondering how the possibility of the result being effectively locked in before a convention will affect future leadership races. Will campaigns spend more time focusing on less committed supporters (or even identified non-supporters) to leave their possibilities open in case of a close race like the one yesterday? And will the principle of "vote in advance so you're able to work the convention floor" become less of a priority if campaigns conclude their time is better spent locking in outside support in advance?
Of course, we're at least a few years away from finding out. And it could be that this weekend was an anomalous result rather than an indication of how all future leadership races will run. But it seems entirely possible that yesterday's results will lead to a radical shift in focus away from the convention itself and toward the advance voting period.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
On potential energy
After months of a campaign involving serious discussions of policy and principle among four well-qualified candidates, the leadership race took a turn for the surreal at the end.
While Ryan Meili's campaign spent the voting interval on the second ballot marshalling every available troop to try to call potential voters to narrow a gap which proved too large to overcome, Dwain Lingenfelter's supporters started setting up their victory rally in the main hall. But within seconds of the Lingenfelter crowd to the right of the stage starting a "Link" chant in support of their candidate, a throng of Meili supporters (including plenty of new arrivals from the Higgins and Pedersen camps) soon assembled to the left with a "Meili" counter chant - which in turn gave way to an "NDP" chant bringing both sides together. One or more of those three messages echoed through the room until the results were announced...along with a tongue-in-cheek "Wallace" chant to beckon for the auditor responsible to announce the final numbers.
The contrast in the types of messages which managed to emerge from the crowds may ultimately serve as a perfect metaphor for the final result of the leadership race. The Saskatchewan NDP isn't lacking for members who are not only willing to show their enthusiasm, but eager to join forces toward the right end. But the NDP needs to figure out a common refrain that will actually unite its members - and any effort which fails to take into account all sides of the party figures to face vociferous opposition from within.
So what positives can we take from the convention so far? The good news today isn't limited to Lingenfelter and his supporters - though they're surely breathing a sigh of relief. Even for those who have been skeptical about Dwain Lingenfelter's run for the leadership, today's result should do about as much as can be done to confirm the fact that Lingenfelter can't afford to ignore the left side of the NDP.
Remember that it was just last year that the NDP faced a real fear that Lingenfelter's ascent to the leadership was a foregone coronation and that nobody would even bother seriously challenging him. From that starting point, many members would likely have been thrilled with the prospect that Lingenfelter would instead win a close second-ballot victory against a well-organized opponent. And if the actual result is still somewhat of a disappointment when something even better seemed well within reach, that's a positive sign as to how far the progressive faction within the NDP has come - as well as a hint that Lingenfelter would be well-advised to recognize and tap into the energy of his leadership opponents.
But then, the importance of working together and leaving nothing to chance should be no less clear to supporters of Meili, Pedersen and Higgins. After all, as strong as their show of common purpose was by the time of the second ballot, Lingenfelter would have swept to a first-ballot victory if any one of the three has been just slightly less successful in winning votes. And there's surely some theoretical possibility that it was within the grasp of the candidates to come up with the extra votes which would have been needed to push Meili ahead.
That goes doubly in the wake of what has to be seen as a disappointing level of voter turnout. Just yesterday, Murray Mandryk was commenting on the need to take into account the possibility that "while a spectacularly high number of eligible New Democrats will vote, it might not be unreasonable to suggest a five- to eight-per-cent 'no-show' rate." Instead, over 3,600 eligible members failed to vote at all, making for a no-show rate of over 27% - meaning that there were plenty of votes theoretically left unharvested which might have changed the results in any number of ways.
In the wake of a close vote which could so easily have gone differently, Lingenfelter now faces a double challenge. The first step is to make sure that everybody who attended the convention and showed their eagerness to be involved is inspired to keep doing the same - making sure to build a party that keeps convention attendees proudly chanting "NDP" rather than breaking down into internal factions. But the more important work is ultimately to start building a similar degree of enthusiasm among disaffected potential and current NDP members.
It remains to be seen how much Lingenfelter can accomplish on that front - and his continued focus on "winning" over questions of what the party actually hopes to accomplish in power signals that he has work to do in shaping his own message to the tasks. But it's Lingenfelter's success or failure in those areas that ultimately figure to define his leadership and determine the NDP's fate in 2011 - and there's every reason for him to want to start immediately in harnessing some of the obvious potential for renewal.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
While Ryan Meili's campaign spent the voting interval on the second ballot marshalling every available troop to try to call potential voters to narrow a gap which proved too large to overcome, Dwain Lingenfelter's supporters started setting up their victory rally in the main hall. But within seconds of the Lingenfelter crowd to the right of the stage starting a "Link" chant in support of their candidate, a throng of Meili supporters (including plenty of new arrivals from the Higgins and Pedersen camps) soon assembled to the left with a "Meili" counter chant - which in turn gave way to an "NDP" chant bringing both sides together. One or more of those three messages echoed through the room until the results were announced...along with a tongue-in-cheek "Wallace" chant to beckon for the auditor responsible to announce the final numbers.
The contrast in the types of messages which managed to emerge from the crowds may ultimately serve as a perfect metaphor for the final result of the leadership race. The Saskatchewan NDP isn't lacking for members who are not only willing to show their enthusiasm, but eager to join forces toward the right end. But the NDP needs to figure out a common refrain that will actually unite its members - and any effort which fails to take into account all sides of the party figures to face vociferous opposition from within.
So what positives can we take from the convention so far? The good news today isn't limited to Lingenfelter and his supporters - though they're surely breathing a sigh of relief. Even for those who have been skeptical about Dwain Lingenfelter's run for the leadership, today's result should do about as much as can be done to confirm the fact that Lingenfelter can't afford to ignore the left side of the NDP.
Remember that it was just last year that the NDP faced a real fear that Lingenfelter's ascent to the leadership was a foregone coronation and that nobody would even bother seriously challenging him. From that starting point, many members would likely have been thrilled with the prospect that Lingenfelter would instead win a close second-ballot victory against a well-organized opponent. And if the actual result is still somewhat of a disappointment when something even better seemed well within reach, that's a positive sign as to how far the progressive faction within the NDP has come - as well as a hint that Lingenfelter would be well-advised to recognize and tap into the energy of his leadership opponents.
But then, the importance of working together and leaving nothing to chance should be no less clear to supporters of Meili, Pedersen and Higgins. After all, as strong as their show of common purpose was by the time of the second ballot, Lingenfelter would have swept to a first-ballot victory if any one of the three has been just slightly less successful in winning votes. And there's surely some theoretical possibility that it was within the grasp of the candidates to come up with the extra votes which would have been needed to push Meili ahead.
That goes doubly in the wake of what has to be seen as a disappointing level of voter turnout. Just yesterday, Murray Mandryk was commenting on the need to take into account the possibility that "while a spectacularly high number of eligible New Democrats will vote, it might not be unreasonable to suggest a five- to eight-per-cent 'no-show' rate." Instead, over 3,600 eligible members failed to vote at all, making for a no-show rate of over 27% - meaning that there were plenty of votes theoretically left unharvested which might have changed the results in any number of ways.
In the wake of a close vote which could so easily have gone differently, Lingenfelter now faces a double challenge. The first step is to make sure that everybody who attended the convention and showed their eagerness to be involved is inspired to keep doing the same - making sure to build a party that keeps convention attendees proudly chanting "NDP" rather than breaking down into internal factions. But the more important work is ultimately to start building a similar degree of enthusiasm among disaffected potential and current NDP members.
It remains to be seen how much Lingenfelter can accomplish on that front - and his continued focus on "winning" over questions of what the party actually hopes to accomplish in power signals that he has work to do in shaping his own message to the tasks. But it's Lingenfelter's success or failure in those areas that ultimately figure to define his leadership and determine the NDP's fate in 2011 - and there's every reason for him to want to start immediately in harnessing some of the obvious potential for renewal.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Today's the day that all the world will see
Friday, June 05, 2009
Leadership 2009 - Final Prediction Chart
I'll close out the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign with one more purely guesswork-based chart as to the likely outcomes tomorrow. But first, let's note a few factors resulting in changes since last week's numbers.
First, the past week has seen a fairly consistent narrative developing around Deb Higgins as a "compromise candidate". It still looks like she's behind Ryan Meili in the race for second, but that kind of message along with a strong showing in tomorrow's speech could both push fence-sitters into her camp and turn some additional second-choice support her way - helping Higgins to regain some of the ground which she'd seemed to lose while staying silent earlier in the campaign.
Second, there's the Lingenfelter campaign's disclosure of its percentage of votes in the bank, coupled with a conspicuous non-disclosure about the raw totals. Again, that figures to offer at least some hint that Lingenfelter's campaign no longer considers itself to have a particularly safe lead.
Finally, today's convention was noteworthy in the apparent parity among the candidates. On the organizational front, Lingenfelter and Meili still looked to be at the head of the pack in terms of making material and information availabile to interested members. But in terms of identified supporters there was a remarkable degree of parity among the delegates, with Higgins in particular having more buttons around than I'd expected and Lingenfelter noticeably lacking for a substantial lead over his competitors.
Which means that for the first time in a few weeks, the gap between Lingenfelter and his competitors looks to have narrowed rather than widened. And that should make for a fascinating day of voting and results tomorrow.
With all that in mind, here's the final estimate as to the possible outcomes:
First, the past week has seen a fairly consistent narrative developing around Deb Higgins as a "compromise candidate". It still looks like she's behind Ryan Meili in the race for second, but that kind of message along with a strong showing in tomorrow's speech could both push fence-sitters into her camp and turn some additional second-choice support her way - helping Higgins to regain some of the ground which she'd seemed to lose while staying silent earlier in the campaign.
Second, there's the Lingenfelter campaign's disclosure of its percentage of votes in the bank, coupled with a conspicuous non-disclosure about the raw totals. Again, that figures to offer at least some hint that Lingenfelter's campaign no longer considers itself to have a particularly safe lead.
Finally, today's convention was noteworthy in the apparent parity among the candidates. On the organizational front, Lingenfelter and Meili still looked to be at the head of the pack in terms of making material and information availabile to interested members. But in terms of identified supporters there was a remarkable degree of parity among the delegates, with Higgins in particular having more buttons around than I'd expected and Lingenfelter noticeably lacking for a substantial lead over his competitors.
Which means that for the first time in a few weeks, the gap between Lingenfelter and his competitors looks to have narrowed rather than widened. And that should make for a fascinating day of voting and results tomorrow.
With all that in mind, here's the final estimate as to the possible outcomes:
| Candidate | 1st Ballot Win | Final Ballot | Final Ballot Win | 4th on 1st | Total Win |
| Dwain Lingenfelter | 43 (46) | 43 (39) | 10 (10) | 0 (0) | 53 (56) |
| Ryan Meili | 2 (4) | 37 (35) | 25 (23) | 3 (3) | 27 (27) |
| Deb Higgins | 0 (0) | 25 (21) | 18 (15) | 5 (6) | 18 (15) |
| Yens Pedersen | 0 (0) | 5 (5) | 2 (2) | 47 (41) | 2 (2) |
On sociability
Not surprisingly, all four Saskatchewan NDP leadership candidates are having social events tonight in advance of tomorrow's vote. Whether by coincidence or planning, Deb Higgins, Ryan Meili and Yens Pedersen will all have their socials in different rooms at the Regina Inn, while Dwain Lingenfelter's will be held at the Hotel Saskatchewan ballroom. So for those looking to see the candidates and the rest of the party in less formal settings before the vote, tonight (starting at 8 for Lingenfelter and 7 for the other candidates) is your chance.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Leadership 2009 Links
A couple more links worth pointing out on the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race and related issues...
First, Stephen Larose theorizes that the Sask Party's cabinet shuffle reflects an attempt to get more partisan members into battle in preparation for a Lingenfelter win:
But if so, that would make for a sad commentary on Wall's view of government. And if the political scene is indeed headed to a war footing, one consequence figures to be an end to the undeserved free pass Wall has received from the media so far during his term in office.
Meanwhile, the Southwest News picks up on one noteworthy comment from Deb Higgins:
First, Stephen Larose theorizes that the Sask Party's cabinet shuffle reflects an attempt to get more partisan members into battle in preparation for a Lingenfelter win:
Probably the best way to look at Brad Wall’s recent cabinet shuffle (Government of Saskatchewan) is to put it in context of the NDP leadership race. Wall thinks (correctly,) that Dwain Lingenfelter is going to win in a walk, so Wall prepared a wartime cabinet.It's definitely an interesting theory, though there might be similar logic at play no matter who wins the leadership race. With the main question over the next year-plus figuring to be how the NDP leader gets branded going into the next provincial election, Wall may well have figured he's better off promoting Yogi Huyghebaert to shriek about an impending red menace than putting somebody more reasonable in front of the cameras.
That’s the main reason why Wall has removed three people (Sask. Party website) who (for Sask. Party politicians, anyway) were doing not that bad a job, and replaced them with three hard-core ideologues (Sask Party website). Wall is expecting that the next months in the Legislature will resemble trench warfare in the First World War – massive expenditures of manpower, time, money and effort for little or no gain.
Then again, I’m sure Wall would rather see Link as NDP leader than anybody else, for the same reason why the Pentagon would rather fight a conventional war than a war of counter-insurgency. It’s what they know; it’s what they think they’re good at.
But if so, that would make for a sad commentary on Wall's view of government. And if the political scene is indeed headed to a war footing, one consequence figures to be an end to the undeserved free pass Wall has received from the media so far during his term in office.
Meanwhile, the Southwest News picks up on one noteworthy comment from Deb Higgins:
Saskatchewan NDP Leadership candidate, Deb Higgins attended Wednesday's meeting in Swift Current and hopes a referendum is held on the Nuclear issue. Higgins states the future of Uranium in Saskatchewan is a crucial issue and cannot be decided over a 10 week period alone.Of course, I'd have to agree with the latter point. But as with Ryan Meili's call for a redesigned consultation process, any demand for a referendum which essentially legitimizes a debate where nuclear generation is placed ahead of all other options figures to make for a more difficult position to defend than a consistent message that nuclear power doesn't deserve the focus in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)