In this post:
- Brian Topp not in the top tier of NDP leadership candidates
- Reaction to Capstick’s comments
- Some thoughts on the complexities of the race
——————-
As most, if not all, of the NDP Leadership campaigns gear down for a Christmas break (left), it’s probably worth some stock-taking of where that race is headed, particularly in light of Robert Chisholm’s departure from the field earlier this week and former NDP caucus press secretary Ian Capstick’s assertion that Romeo Saganash and Niki Ashton ought to pack it in as well and that Brian Topp could throw in the towel in order to prevent Thomas Mulcair from winning.
First on the thing Capstick said about Topp —
Capstick: “You may see someone like Brian Topp come out and say, if I’m not going to win this thing, Tom Mulcair is not. You will see an A-B-T — Anybody-But-Tom — or A-B-M — Anybody-But-Mulcair movement — that dynamic is there”
— I spoke to someone in the Topp campaign about this and here was that campaign’s reaction to Capstick’s comment:
“These manœuvres don’t work in a one-member-one-vote system and nothing like that is being considered because we think we can win it.”
Indeed, several of the campaigns I spoke with said Capstick’s suggestion that someone — anyone — could deliver supporters to another candidate simply doesn’t work in the OMOV (one-member-one-vote) preferential ballot system the NDP is using to pick a leader in a vote scheduled for March 24. NDP members can vote in different ways: By mail or online in advance of the March 24 vote or, in person in Toronto on March 24. If they choose the advance ballot, members will be asked to rank their choices. Then, if there is a second ballot — and there almost certainly will be, it seems to me — then the second choices will be counted by those who voted first for the candidate that is not on the second ballot. And so on through ballot three, four, etc. That kind of balloting makes it difficult — although not impossible — to get together to “block” another candidate. But it also makes it pretty tough for a candidate to “deliver” his or her supporters to another, as we’ve seen in delegated conventions held by other parties. Alice Funke makes the interesting point in a post looking at the ins-and-outs of this system of voting, that in 2003, Jack Layton’s goal was simply to be ranked ahead of Bill Blaikie on anyone’s ballot — as he saw Blaikie as his biggest threat.
Saganash campaign manager Daniel Wilson conceded that this system of voting can make for some tricky politicking. He says each campaign has to have a strategy for winning three different kinds of races: 1) The race to sign up new members 2) the race to convince existing New Democrats to support the candidate 3) The campaign to convince new and old members who support someone else to be your number two candidate.
(As an aside, I asked Wilson what he thought of Captick’s comments that Saganash should quit and Wilson said, “Romeo has overcome much bigger challenges than Ian’s comments in his lifetime. We’re relatively unbothered by that debate.'”)
Race #3 — winning second ballot support — is the culprit, if you want to call it that, that has made this into such a boring campaign in which everyone seems to every other candidate is wonderful. But it also makes telephone campaigning a more crucial component of this leadership race than other kids of races. Campaigns are spending a good chunk of their money tracking NDP supporters to find out where they stand on the first ballot but also where they might stand on subsequent ballots. Not only do campaigns have to track where they stand among their supporters, they have to keep track among all voters where they stand on subsequent ballots.
Campaigns are loathe to discuss details of their internal polling numbers but I have been able to glean from piecing together bits and pieces things different campaigns say in general terms to be able to say, with some confidence that, at this point, at least, it would be inaccurate at this stage to refer to Brian Topp as a frontrunner. In fact, he may not even be among the top tier candidates.
The Topp campaign will only say that it, like others, is doing its own polling and believes, based on that, that it thinks Brian can win. Where does Topp rank, then, and how might he (or any of the others) win? Long answer here, so bear with me.
The conventional narrative you may have read is that there a top tier of candidates and a bottom tier of candidates. In fact, it seems more likely that there are really three tiers of candidates. A trio of candidates are doing very well and are clearly separating themselves from the pack when it comes to more first-ballot support. That trio is Thomas Mulcair, Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar. There is a bottom trio that is finding it difficult to get lots of first ballot support and, at this point, would be good bets for being dropped early in the balloting on March 24. That trio is Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton and Martin Singh. Then there is a middle tier consisting of Romeo Saganash and Brian Topp. As I said, I’m piecing this snapshot together from sources who will not go on-the-record and are from different campaigns and who are providing me information that needs a bit of deduction. So while I’m reasonably confident about this middle tier, if there were just two tiers, I would put Saganash in the top tier and Topp in the bottom tier.
So how do those not in the top tier strategize at this point about winning on March 24? Well, for Cullen, Ashton and Singh there are real issues about surviving enough ballots to have a chance to come up the middle as the second, third or fourth preferences. Those campaigns need to spend the after- Christmas period focusing hard on winning Race #1 and Race #2 — winning the first choice slot among candidates.
Saganash and Topp seem confident of getting deeper into multiple ballots and, it seems to me, there strategy is to appeal in a broad way to supporters of other candidates so that they win more 2nd or 3rd choices. They clearly want to sell more memberships to garner as many first-choice picks as possible but they are also playing for down ballot consideration.
There is the sense from the campaigns and supporters of both bottom- and middle-tier candidates that there is plenty of time to achieve their objectives.
Mulcair, Nash, and Dewar have the luxury, I suppose, of taking any number of different tacts tacks to win 50 per cent + 1 on ballot day. They might go for a decisive win early in the balloting by trying to take it all on the second or third ballot by securing as many first-place ballots as possible. You could see one of them trying to do this by being a bit more aggressive in the race in order to try to take another top tier down a notch and hope to steal their first-place ballots. The trick calculation there is: If I’m Dewar, for example, and I take some shots at Mulcair, do I win more first-ballot votes that would have one to Mulcair than 2nd and subsequent ballot votes I might already have from Mulcair supporters. In other words, Dewar has to figure he’ll shake more Mulcair voters loose than there will be Mulcair voters that shake Dewar loose.
That might be a bit risky and it might involve a calculation by one of them that they need to lock in the supporters of Cullen, Ashton or Singh for enough second choice ballots that, combined with their first choice ballots would put one of them over the top. They might bet on taking it in later rounds by securing votes of the presumably more numerous Saganash and/or Topp supporters.
In any event, the smart campaigns are spending a lot of time on the phone counting each member and counting again and then running through various balloting scenarios to see which might work.
It may just be a matter of geography, but I’m not getting the same sense as you about the strength of the Dewar campaign. After talking with dozens of NDP members here in Edmonton throughout the Christmas schmoozy season, I am surprised at a) the almost universal anti-Topp sentiment people are glad to share after barely being asked and b) the very quiet but growing support for Nathan Cullen.
I’m still undecided but will predict the three names that go to the end: Cullen, Mulcair, Nash. Will not hazard a guess on who ends up on top.
Thanks for the observation, Mimi. Interesting. I, too, am not ready to hazard a guess about who ends up on top but I suspect we may yet see a good deal of movement among these “tiers”, as I’ve called them. Maybe Nathan will move up …
I’m very concerned about Mulcair, his approach to the economy is government should subsidize business, regulate it a bit, and tax workers heavily. His qualms over the tar sands do not extend to shutting down the carbon gushers, and he doesn’t talk about how to fund a green energy conversion of industry and home heating. Anybody want to refute that, have at it, please.
This dynamic is certainly what I am sensing in my BC phoning. I’m on the Dewar team. In spite of the big name support, there is little grassroots support for Topp.
The reality is that anyone claimin to have a clear insight into how the candidats stack up is blowing smoke. We have all sorts of secondary and tertiary data – eery bit of which is open to multiple interpretations.
That data suggests that Mulcair is ahead in public awareness, particularly in Quebec, that Romeo Saganash and Niki Ashton have exceeded expectations, Brian Topp may be falling short of expectations, and that Nathan Cullen’s proposal to help the Liberals rebuild has been pretty much a flop.
But even those interpretations need to be taken with a block of salt.
There is simply no reliable data to give an unequivocal impression of how the race really shapes up.
“Mulcair, Nash, and Dewar have the luxury, I suppose, of taking any number of different tacts to win 50 per cent”
tacks! They could take any number of different TACKS. It’s a nautical term, as in sailing in different directions.
Sincerely Yours
Captain Nit-Picky
@James: Of course! Thank you. Corrected.
While I agree that second choices are going to be very important in deciding this race, I think it’s much too early to tell where those will go. So many members are still undecided about their first choices.
To rule Topp out of the top tier is to completely overlook the fact that he has some of the strongest organizers in the NDP in vote-rich areas of the country like BC and Ontario (and everywhere else, actually).
This thing will be won on the ground and so one of the best ways to tell who the front-runners are is to look at who has the highest organizational capacity in these key areas.
Or you could keep relying on your internet polls which are only slightly more insightful than a magic ball. 😉
At this point, I have no idea. I have no clear picture of what the various candidates stand for, how they differ, or how I should vote. I’m waiting for more information to emerge, and for candidates to separate themselves from the pack. I have the sense that the winner ought to be someone who can both go toe-to-toe with a canny and manipulative politician (i.e. Stevie SweaterVest) and do so without selling his/her soul. Our next leader has to be able to do that and project that they are a capable PM-in-waiting, or the voting public will hold their noses and give Harper another mandate.
Pluses + Minises
1. Mulcair is smart, articulate, experienced, tough, within the right age range and prickly (little bit of lefty Harper), but has trouble making friends and will be divisive between Quebec and ROC. Definately the most skilled.
2. Topp is smart, articulate, within the right age range and prickly, (and has a cancer history) but has no elected experience and keeps talking about taxing the rich, which will be a hard sell.
3. Dewar would be great for a third party. He is a bridgebuilder, is well liked but, well….too nice, and not strong enough in French
4. Nash is a little like Turmel, bilingual, older, heavy union influence and has not mastered the quick sound bite. Personally, I think the Cons should contribute to her campaign because I think they would clean up against her.
5. The dark horse. He is the right age, bilingual, has MP experience. He has everything going for him including reaching out to grow the base with Liberals. How will he play in Quebec?
6. Singh-Some good ideas, but no real following. Ashton-Not her time. Maybe a contender next time. Saganash-an interesting dynamic that the winner would be advised to utilize.
I agree with some of what’s been said above because it is the ground game that will be key to winning this leadership race.
From what I’ve seen, the two camps with a real ground game are Dewar and Nash. In particular, Dewar’s camp seems to be everywhere. I’ve been phoned and emailed multiple times, took part in a regional telephone town hall, and have been invited to a number of local events.
I’ve heard some curiousity about Mulcair (but also some concern about what he’s said about unions in the past). I’ve also heard good things about Saganash…though he hasn’t looked good in debates.
As for Topp…well, I’ve yet to meet an actual member voting for him. In fact, when I speak to members they are deeply resentful of his entry and topp-down approach to this race. So much for that so called ground game. From what I’ve seen, it’s all smoke and mirrors with articles in the media but no support on the ground.
Beddie, can I take it for granted that your Number 5 Dark Horse candidate is Nathan Cullen? My own choices will be between Cullen, Saganash and Mulcair.
@Beddie – I agree with your sentiments about Nash. I cannot imagine her being successful against Harper.
David, would you be able to comment on what the Conservatives think of the candidates, and specifically, what Don Martin wrote today about Harper wanting Mulcair to win?
@Josh, agreed that the ground game is going to be extremely import in this race. I’ve had a much different experience talking to members across the country, though.
Nash seems to be pretty solid on the ground in Toronto and some other urban areas, and I guess we’ll see if she can turn that support into sign-ups and votes. Her supporters are very loud on twitter and facebook, perhaps overly so.
Dewar’s campaign seems top-heavy. Solid social media and mainstream media presence, but little in the way of support outside of Ontario and Manitoba. Being based in BC, I’ve met few active supporters of his campaign, which is troubling for his camp considering the number of members in the province.
No one should dismiss Topp. Many of the most talented organizers are behind him, and he’s nailed down support in areas with a lot of sign-up potential. It seems he’s also generated the most interest from members for the policy ideas he’s presented.
Saganash, Ashton and Cullen are adding a lot of excitement and inspiration to the race, but I doubt their campaigns have the capacity to gain significant chunks of the overall vote. They’re all making me proud to be a part of this party, nonetheless!
Malcolm French has the gist of it from my perspective. (I’m a three time federal NDP candidate for Jack)
I’m a social democrat and a businessman with no ties to unions, and there are many of us in the party. I’m also an outspoken secularist. The federal NDP has the highest percentage of non-theists of any of the federal political parties and we’re looking for a strong secular leader to keep us on the secular path. We’re also looking for strong opposition to the decidedly non-secular Conservatives. So far Mulclair comes closest to meeting those requirements.
In Canada, and no doubt elsewhere, the most threatening candidate for the right and the conservatives is always attacked first and most. Whether it be by the media or one’s own party members. In this case we are talking about the NDP and the candidate with the most media attacks is undoubtedly Brian Topp. Of course, he is also the NDP candidate with the most prior media experience, having written in the Globe & Mail for a number of years. Actually, he is still writing for the G & M and cdn. journalists are expressing their obvious displeasure at that fact.
More than two years ago, a friend in public policy recommended that I read Mr. Topp’s columns, explaining how skilled and to the point he could be. I was not disappointed and I was not surprised when Brian was the first to announce his NDP leadership bid after Jack Layton’s untimely death. Brian also helped Jack write that famous last letter. Topp’s column that week of August 22nd was about Jack and Topp’s son playing piano together, and it was telling. It told me that Brian Topp is the type of NDP leader we need to defeat Steven Harper and the Conservatives know it!
My read is that Peggy Nash is very well positioned – despite not being top ‘sound biter’.
IMHO endorsements are of little help in this campaign (even backfiring) – we are ‘dippers’ because we think – and decide – for ourselves.
I see strong grassroots support for Mulcair, perhaps less so for Dewar, strong youth support for Niki Ashton, Romeo as the sentimental favourite “if only’ and Nathan Cullen as the ‘dark horse’.
Thanks for running Martin Singh and Robert Chisholm!
I also note that Nash has as many FB likes as Topp and Mulcair together – and also leads Mulcair comfortably in the other unscientific poll at demochoice.org … in which Topp is next-to-last
If one puts their ear to the earth here in BC (and BC being party-member rich – one member one vote), one will realize that man with the strongest organization and policies is Brian Topp; he’s still doing extremely well in BC. Let’s just say his team have moved the puck pretty fast, and have signed up new members as well. If you place Dewar and Mulcair in top tier, Topp should be ahead of them… Being someone who had decided to vote for Cullen after his performance in BC, I see Topp, via his organization, going all the way. My choices, though, don’t think will make it past first second ballot, but I’m sticking to my guns…
And as respected as you are, you should base your missives on more substance than “people from different camps”.
Well i gotta offer up a nod to you David for submitting some reasonably well informed analysis that challenges the standard media fixation of this race being Topp vs Mulcair.
Those of us on the ground in this race have known this not to be the case for awhile. The national media appears to be slowly shifting to recognize the hot air that’s been pumped into a certain “juggernaut” campaign and while Mulcair did look to be fading away there for awhile, his campaign appears to be waking up and holding onto it’s top tier status.
From a westcoast perspective i certainly agree Mulcair and Nash have secured their campaigns in the top tier. Mulcair has been lighter than Nash on the ground in BC from what members i’ve talked to have seen, but Nash, Cullen and Tom have all clearly been the largest growing beneficiaries of the Topp campaign face plant that happened at the recent BC NDP convention:
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2011/12/09/new-democrat-leadership-race-hits-vancouver-live-blog?page=0,1
(read ‘Blunder of the Night’ as an introduction #fail of epic proportions to a crowd packed with the most important organizers and activists in the province. This important turning point has gone largely under-reported despite it’s viral on the ground legs out here amongst members).
By offering 30 seconds of personal validation to what every other campaign has underlined as his weaknesses was nothing short of a game changer in the richest vote get province.
Cullen’s strong performance at that same convention secured him a real shot at making it to the big dance. almost everyone i talked to at the convention said Cullen had the most impressive showing at the BC leadership townhall (other camps conceded as much in private).
To this end Nathan’s more west coast centric campaign is getting the serious traction it needed to overcome the barrier cooperation has posed for his growth. Where Saganash may be perceived to be a dark horse out east, in the west his support has yet to make itself known and will likely be curbed by Nathan’s dark horse status out here.
Nash’s larger than expected on the ground presence has been noted by a few media analysts, and it is very important to her growth potential in BC. While Topp may have made early organizational gains off the Mulcair vs Topp media obsession, his contracting momentum has already opened up BC and it could be Nash’s for the taking.
Members uneasy with Mulcair’s treatment of Libby and his more aggressive leadership style could see Nash as the more natural extension of Layton’s consultation style leadership. Nash’s more T.O. centric name = her biggest challenge.
Tom’s strong enviro proposal has been winning him some support in BC, but it’s yet to be seen if that support will hold after Nash and Cullen roll-out what’s anticipated to be strong green policy. Certainly a few of the big name BC endorsers who resisted Topp’s aggressive endorsement…
Participate in my unscientific cumulative rank ballot poll on the NDP leadership race. Rank your preferred choices 1, 2, 3, and so on. You may vote once per hour. Note: the candidates’ names are listed randomly and the order is changed periodically by some computer program.
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=NDP2012NPD
…continued:
Certainly a few of the big name BC endorsers who resisted Topp’s aggressive endorsement push could make or break Tom’s momentum in BC. His strong oratory skills and likely steady performances in the debates ahead will give Mulcair a bump in winning some of this key support, but his polarizing reputation and wildcard personality make him a risky candidate to hitch political capital to for big name BC endorsers like Mike Farnworth and Rob Fleming.
A lot will be revealed in January with many campaigns just finding their stride while others have completely lost theirs.
A very interesting article. Your analysis, while generally worth while, does make a few assertions that I would have to disagree with. Namely, that anyone other than the top tier, statistically, matter.
Let’s say that N/M/D all have rough 20% support (I think I can say with confidence all three contenders are within 3% of that mark) leaving 40% to the remaining 5 camps.
If there is a minimum of 1/4th the votes, an average of 1/3rd, and a reasonable ceiling of 1/2 of the supporters going to any one candidate, there is basically no incarnation of numbers that could give any candidate a clear advantage with three contenders left.
It looks like we are rapidly coming to a result of barely 50%, unless one of the top three contenders steps down explicitly for the other, and long before the convention. I think Dewar/Nash could easily get 60% of the party behind them, but any one candidate is doomed to 51% if they go the route of second (and lower) choices.