Having pointed out the effect of Peggy Nash's willingness to consider cross-party cooperation in my rankings post, I'll double back to one of the other noteworthy developments today - as Thomas Mulcair may have utterly reshaped the expected movement of down-ballot support.
Since the start of the campaign, plenty of commentators have tried to divide the candidates into two camps - with the two consistent divisions being Mulcair/Nathan Cullen on one side as the candidates seeking to challenge party orthodoxy, and Peggy Nash/Brian Topp as the comparative traditionalists.
But by announcing that he's not open to cooperation with the Libs on any front (including post-election coalitions of the type the NDP has organized in the past), Mulcair effectively severed ties with a good number of Cullen voters. After all, surely nobody drawn to Cullen based on his appeal for cross-party relationships can then turn around and offer second-choice support to the lone candidate who's ruling out anything of the sort either pre- or post-election.
Now, I'm not sure the shift is necessarily a damaging one for Mulcair: it could be that he'll win over more support from other candidates' backers who see the move as assuaging any question about his party allegiances than he'll lose votes from Cullen backers. But for anybody who sees the NDP's Quebec gains as the result of a combination of Layton, Mulcair and a willingness to work beyond party lines, Mulcair has made clear that members will have to give up the latter in order to present him as the face of the party. And that may force plenty of commentators to rethink their assumed voting patterns.
I read on Twitter that only 4% of NDP members have voted so far.
ReplyDeleteIf true, it might be because most folks think it's safer to wait until election-day...
Or, it's because - like myself - alot of folks haven't received their voting kits yet.
Last week, I predicted that Cullen was actually a top-tier candidate.
ReplyDeleteThis was done at a time when he was viewed as a John Huntsman-like candidate...destined for low-tier status.
Only days after my prediction, folks analyzed the donation numbers - which ended up proving me right.
Funke, Ibbitson, Walkom all parroted my belief that BC was more enamoured with Cullen than most thought.
And some days later, Forum released their NDP-centric poll - which, again, ended up proving me right.
Forum parroted my belief that most NDP members (6 out of 10) are not put off by his "co-op" plan.
If election day proves me right, then it won't matter who Cullen's supporters choose as #2. If he's a finalist, he'll be taking on Mulcair.
Supposing he even drops off at #3, realistically - it's clear that Nash would have dropped off before him. So Nash being Cullen-supporters' #2 wouldn't matter.
Below their #2, I suspect many Cullen supporters will be choosing rankings based on charisma, since none of the other candidates support "co-op". That would mean Mulcair & Dewar would rank higher than Topp. Some food for thought...
Especially when it comes to C
But
As I predicted, days before media commentators parroted my conclusions
Nash won't receive any benefits from her flirtation with co-operation.
She thinks that Cullen will drop off the ballot before her? Laughable prospect.
<span>Last week, I predicted that Cullen was actually a top-tier candidate.
ReplyDeleteThis was done at a time when he was viewed as a John Huntsman-like candidate...destined for low-tier status.
Only days after my prediction, folks analyzed the donation numbers - which ended up proving me right.
Funke, Ibbitson, Walkom all parroted my belief that BC was more enamoured with Cullen than most thought.
And some days later, Forum released their NDP-centric poll - which, again, ended up proving me right.
Forum parroted my belief that most NDP members (6 out of 10) are not put off by his "co-op" plan.
If election day proves me right, then it won't matter who Cullen's supporters choose as #2. If he's a finalist, he'll be taking on Mulcair.
Supposing he even drops off at #3, realistically - it's clear that Nash would have dropped off before him. So Nash being Cullen-supporters' #2 wouldn't matter.
Below their #2, I suspect many Cullen supporters will be choosing rankings based on charisma, since none of the other candidates support "co-op". That would mean Mulcair & Dewar would rank higher than Topp. Some food for thought...
</span>
Thomas Mulcair has run a very successful campaign. He has defined himself as the anti-establishment candidate who is strong enough to take the NDP in a non-tradition different direction. Love him or hate him, Mr. Mulcair will be a strong leader who will take the NDP where he wants to go. While Nathan Cullen has been promoting some form of eletoral cooperation between the NDP and Liberals, that implies that the NDP alone is too weat to take on Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. One cannot picture Thomas Mulcair as being a weakling vis-à-vis Stephen Harper.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't trust everything you read on Twitter, but regardless, I haven't even received my package yet so I think it will still be a while and many are probably waiting for any last-minute revelations.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the source for Mulcair opposing post-electoral cooperation? I didn't see it in the debate.
ReplyDeleteI recall it coming up in the debate and heard about it in the scrum as well. But I believe the first source is his interview with Althia Raj:
ReplyDeleteOne thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party.
“N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.
The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition.
“The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.
I wouldn't say it's clear at all that Nash will drop off the ballot before Cullen - she's ranked second in all of the polling released by campaigns and outside pollsters alike, and I'd think that Mulcair 1, Nash 2, Cullen 3 is an entirely realistic scenario. Which means that if Cullen's supporters go to one rather than the other, it's potentially a huge deal.
ReplyDelete(Mind you, it could well be that Mulcair thinks Cullen will end up 2nd and the handling of the Libs will offer him a useful contrast.)
Ian,
ReplyDeleteMulcair was on CTV's QUESTION PERIOD today and repeated his opposition to co-operating with the Liberals. But the Huffington Post interview from yesterday is a more categorical quashing of the idea.
From the HuffPo, I particularly love this: "<span>The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals"</span>
I still remember those days. It was amazing watching John McCallum (Lib finance critic) praising Thomas Mulcair (NDP finance critic) & arguing that the NDP's economic platform was pretty sound and NOT dangerous in the least bit.
Of course, that honesty was short-lived. Ignatieff & his conservative Liberal faction took control. Next thing you know, the NDP was again "amateur" & "dangerous"...and Warren Kinsella was on the air questioning Jack Layton's (RIP) character with that SUN News smear about the massage parlour.
Mulcair is correct in this. The Liberals party is not to be trusted. But their soft voters are to be brought to our side.
Ian,
ReplyDeleteIf I had received my voting kit last week, I'd have already voted.
However, after Mulcair's recent "I'd attack Syria" boast...I'm glad the kit hasn't arrived yet.
The "last minute revelations" won't be anything the media will catch. They'll be peculiar things only NDP members take notice of.
That's why I've changed my mind. I'll be voting on the actual election day. Will be interesting to see how the desperate ones...& confident ones...act & speak in the final days.
The only poll I can remember is Dewar's...and that was long before the membership influx. After that, I only remember Forum's polling of national voters...and that was merely an exercise in name-recognition. Would love to know if I've missed something...
ReplyDeleteIMO, devoid of polling, too many are using op-ed columnists (Ibbitson, Wells, Hebert, Coyne, etc.) as informal pollsters. Too bad they have no real insight into the thinking of NDP members...as they are Liberals themselves (of various shades). I suspect they are more interested in influencing the vote rather than predicting its outcome.
The closest thing to polling are the donation figures. And according to donator count (not to be confused with actual money count), Nash is behind Mulcair, Cullen, & Dewar. Of course, I pegged Peggy in that rank BEFORE the data was calculated. My opinion was based on something obvious to any observer: "performance". I know, really subjective & unfair.
Time will tell..
I believe that I will be voting for Cullen. I'm not a fan of cooperation but I kinda hope that idea will die a quiet death in the EDAs.
ReplyDeleteI think Cullen has the most appeal for Canadians who are not partisan (which is most). Cullen knows how beat a Conservative by reaching across the aisle while not retreating from your core beliefs. He seems to be firmly aware of massive future issues such as energy and food security that have kinda flown under the radar. I think his tax plan mirroring Topp's sealed the deal for me- he is not as centrist as the MSM will have you believe. Though I'm a rural British Columbia so maybe I just have some regional affinities lurking in my psyche.
Nash might be my second choice although I have doubts about her ability to win in the West. I was considering Mulcair but he has shrouded his plans for the NDP in mystery- I don't even know what "modernizing our language" is suppose to mean. He might have the ability to get the job done but I wish he was a little more up front.
Thanks for the link. I'm surprised this got so buried in the article and that it hasn't really come up. It's a very anti-Jack message and seems like the kind of position that will actually erode NDP support in Quebec quite quickly (assuming, as most pundits do, that Quebeckers voted for a cooperative NDP). He's definitely off my ballot now (along with Singh) and I may have to bring Nash back on to keep Mulcair off.
ReplyDeleteThis partisan rancour is not what's going to reach out beyond the NDP base to those who aren't voting. We can bring soft Liberals to our side, but just as many are going to jump to Harper to stop (in their view) a socialist party from winning government. We need the 40% of non-voters to come back to politics to build our party.
ReplyDeleteIan,
ReplyDeleteDon't just repeat vague political jargon ("partisan rancour").
The Liberal party is an actual organization with its own interests. Its recent history co-operating with the NDP gives us a sense of how they'll behave in the future. You cannot dismiss that with empty catch-phrases.
Most Canadian voters don't base their decisions on "socialist" or "neo-con" labels. If Canadians were so put off by "socialism"...Danny Williams (aka Hugo Chavez) would never have been elected...over & over again. If Canadians were so put off by the "neo-con" label & social conservatism...Stephen Harper would never have been prime minister....over & over again.
Voters base their decisions on who is perceived to be the most competent & least tainted by innuendo. If you believe that simply smiling & promising to play nice is some recipe for forming government...you're welcome to visit the political graves of Ignatieff & Dion.
In case you haven't noticed, the two most partisan parties in Canada (Conservatives & NDP) have been rewarded with increased support every election. Meanwhile, the self-perceived non-partisan Liberal party has steadily lost support every election.
As for the "40%" who don't vote...most will not because they are distrustful of the actual political system. They don't care about branding, strategy, or speeches. A "co-operation" plan & kumbaya talk will only make these people laugh. They won't even listen, much less vote, until they see changes in their actual lives.
I say all this as someone who ranks Nathan Cullen #1 in his voting preferences. Nathan is a gifted communicator not afraid to fight. While everyone is myopically focusing on his election proposal, they've ignored how forceful & confident he is on issues like the middle-east & the economy. More so than even Mulcair (my #2).
Actually I'd think Cullen's level of centrism is one of the more interesting questions about any of the second-tier candidates at this point. While he's offering the most direct challenge to the Cons' focus on the oil sector, he's also issued direct admonitions not to speak ill of the corporate sector that would fit just as easily in Martin Singh's repertoire - and while his policies are both thoughtful and leftish, I'm not sure we can get there if we concede as much rhetorical ground as he wants to at times.
ReplyDeleteI'd distinguish between being partisan and being ideological: the last couple of election cycles it's been the NDP saying it's willing to cooperate (which one can do more easily if one has ideological goals beyond the mere pursuit of power), while the Libs have taken a less ideological but more partisan approach in saying that beating the Cons means voting for them alone. And I'll agree with Ian that we should remember which of those approaches has worked.
ReplyDeleteGreg,
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. You are confusing "post-election" with the "actual election".
Go back and watch the campaign ads & speeches. The NDP campaigned on "fighting", not "co-operating". Jack constantly thumped the message that NDP was trying to take over the government...not cut deals with it.
Before the polling surge, I remember Peter Mansbridge interviewing Jack for 'The National'. Mansbridge kept pushing Jack to concede that the NDP would end up 4th as usual...and he demanded to know how Jack would "compromise" & "work with" the other major parties (Liberals and Conservatives).
I remember my jaw dropping as Jack just refused to answer the question. He kept denying the premise, instead choosing to highlight NDP platform points. But more importantly, he insisted that he was "running to be the Prime Minister". He wouldn't even entertain the idea of achieving anything less.
I thought he was deluded....even arrogant. Then the debates happened, then the polling surge kicked in...and Jack kept thumping that myopic message of forming government..."Are you ready for Prime Minister Jack Layton?!" he would yell to the crowds....he never once said anything like what Ian is suggesting: "Are you ready for me to work with other parties to achieve a progressive majority?".
It was only after the election that Jack made "Proposition, not just opposition" a key NDP strategy.
I'd ask you and Ian to consider the chronology. You "fight" during elections. You "co-operate" after elections.
Rest assured that I speak from close observation and participation in the last three elections. But while Layton indeed ran for Prime Minister (and rightly so), he also explicitly said during election campaigns that he was open to co-operation, while the Libs muddied up their message by trying to paint Harper as a mortal threat while explaining why they wouldn't even talk to any other party about how to work together in replacing him. (For example, in 2008 Layton said all options were on the table, while Dion ruled out any coalition by saying he could never co-operate with a party which didn't back corporate tax cuts.)
ReplyDeleteAnd the NDP took its strategy to another level in 2011 as a contrast to the Cons' anti-coalition attacks. No, "travaillons ensemble" - the central theme underlying the orange wave in Quebec - doesn't translate as "death to all other camps until the votes are in".
air max 97
ReplyDeletelouboutin shoes
curry 4 shoes
jordan 6
off white shoes
retro jordans
jordan shoes
moncler
balenciaga sneakers
off white nike
m2p52s4d61 f5p05q7v38 x5v53n6i26 l8i45d6d25 b7u61y7k05 d4s20v0l89
ReplyDeletel0b56z4b92 m0u48v8w84 r0h14a3t20 c2k06l1s84 b8y26b6y66 j4z82d4p16
ReplyDeletef4g66m4p39 c5v02y8e49 l0a65l6b20 u9t76f5l52 d7d21k1w68 c5j68h0m31
ReplyDelete