There are nearly 40,000 New Democrats in BC who have voted/will be voting in the NDP leadership race. This afternoon in Vancouver, leadership candidates engaged in the final and perhaps most important all-candidates debate of the campaign. Did you watch? Who do you think won? Vote right here and then tell us why in the comments section:
[polldaddy poll=6028408]
The media would have us believe that the momentum is behind Thomas Mulcair. But in this debate, it seemed as if Mr. Mulcair could hardly choke out a few kind words for the party he wants to lead. Presumably the party will prefer “one of their own”. I think Brian Topp demonstrated the two things they will be looking for: traditional NDP values and the ability to communicate with, and relate to, Quebec.
shouldn’t even be a poll it was Cullen as usual
It was Nathan Cullen, everyone else was weak and boring.
Nathan Cullen won. As always, he was quick on his feet, humorous, and full of real things to say rather than spouting jargon. He thinks pragmatically while still embodying NDP principles and he has a gift for connecting with people, which is key in this role. He has my vote.
Mulcair came off well also, refraining from attacking the other candidates and defending himself well. I think he could win in a general election, and I hope he’d do it without dragging the party too far from its principles.
Nash seems to sway in the wind with the moods of voters. I’d like her to be clearer on what she proposes policy-wise, but I’m glad to hear she supports proportional representation. I worry about her ability to connect with Western voters, and to bring more people to the party.
Topp did better than he has in past debates, but still sounds a bit wooden. I like him and his ideas but I think he’d be more successful in a continuing strategy role than as the face of the party.
Dewar didn’t come off all that well. I didn’t like his forced “I want to be HER/HIS leader” closing statement – it sounds like the Joe the Plumber meme. His French was also pretty awful. Like Nash, he seems like he’d be a very good MP and a valuable cabinet member but not my first choice for leader.
Ashton was again very scripted and while she’s passionate, she has a hard time speaking in specifics, even when pushed to by the moderator or other candidates. As much as I don’t love Singh, he did have a good and very specific question for her on how her plan to nationalize the production of generic pharmaceuticals under a Crown corporation would protect Canadians from risks of drug shortages like with Sandoz. She should have been able to respond. I know she’s running mainly to raise her profile but it really is time to bow out for this round.
Singh is a two-trick pony. He has nothing to say unless the topic is either Pharmacare or small businesses. Both are important topics and he’s done his bit to keep them in the discussion, but like Ashton, he has no chance at winning and really shouldn’t.
As pointed out on the Pundits Guide blog run by Alice Funke, Nathan Cullen is now raising money faster than any other candidate for the NDP Leadership.
He is also the clear winner of the final debate according to this poll, and through the Lead Now and Avaaz campaigns has probably signed up more new NDP members than any other candidate. He is also quite popular in BC which has the most NDP members.
Oh – and everyone agrees he is the funniest and most charismatic candidate.
At what point will the media and pundits assemble this evidence as a powerful argument that he is in fact the front-runner in this race as the candidate most able to excite and unite progressive Canadians?
why do you keep changing the position of the names on the ballot?
@ Kindle Wood: With most multiple choice polls, I select an option which will present the voter with those choices in a constantly changing random order …
Nash was specific and has a clear understanding of the west and BC in particular – she gave concrete examples such as turning raw logs and bitumen into value-added jobs in Canada. She talked about inspiring youth to join and told of the young woman so passionate about salmon; she talked about the censoring of gov’t scientists which recently was revealed in BC She was the only candidate to raise the issue of the mine proposed for the Courtenay area which will threaten water [including world famous Fanny Bay oysters] which tells me that she pays attention to what she knows are key local issues as well as national policy.
Nathan Cullen is the only horse in the race. It’s like watching Secretariat when he won the Belmont Stakes. The most important thing right now is not the survival of the NDP, it’s the survival of our country, and that’s why Cullen is gaining such support. He’s can see beyond the myopia of party lines and politics and is actually speaking to Canadians. Ironically the only hope for the NDP IS Cullen
Paul Dewar won. He did the best job of looking like someone who could actually talk to real voters about why they should vote NDP. Feet on the ground kind of stuff. Nathan’s style is engaging and entertaining, but I cannot separate it from the substance of what he is saying. Joint nominations with the Liberals? Give me a break. That’s a recipe for endless argument and wasted time. And lowering the voting age to 16? Sorry, Nathan. Way too gimmicky, and actually patronizing to young people.
Brian Topp has the best grasp of the issues, and articulates his opinions clearly and forcefully. He is the thinking person’s candidate.
Brian Topp won hands down. He knows the issues and will attract voters to NDP values. The next election will see a majority of voters repulsed by conservative policies and warm up to NDP values.
Not like Mulcair who wants to change the party to suit his conservative ideologies. Mulcair is in the wrong party!! He’d have better luck running for the Conservatives.
Canada won.
Regardless of who wins in at this NDP Leadership convention the people of Canada will be the winners for this gang in Ottawa who call themselves the government are the most corrupt since the Harris Era
Lowering the voting age to 16 is not gimmicky, I know many 16 and 17 year olds far more engaged in what is going on than 18-25 year olds. It is THEIR future we are voting on. They are old enough to be put into a tonne of metal and drive, but not to choose the leaders of the country?
I think Nathan won hands down, cooperating is the only answer to saving our country.
Paul Dewar won it in my books. He was actually talking about people and ideas. Cullen performed on delivery…but the content of what he’s saying just isn’t there. I’m really concerned his showmanship is overshadowing the fact that his knowledge and depth isn’t up to the other candidates. Nash did okay…but is looking pretty tired in the last few showings. And her recent waverings on her stances are starting to add up. Topp likely did his best to date…but again reminded me of why he’s great to have on the team but not the guy to lead it.
Trudy, for a leader, delivery is an important – no, essential – part of the package. If Cullen was an empty-headed charisma-bot, I wouldn’t support him. But he isn’t. His “showmanship” is only overshadowing his policy because it is so dramatically better than the other candidates. Warm, witty, engaging, humorous and connecting. These are bad? As leader, he becomes the party’s top policy salesman to people who have never voted for us before, I’d call them core skills.
It’s not just Canada that benefits by this kind of exercise in democracy (open exposure of candidates and single transferrable vote to elect leader) but the whole world. Cullen and Mulcair specifically went after the Tar Sands. No one else did. Unless Canada initiates a very different pattern of consumption, we will continue to destroy the ecosystems that make life possible (now & later for our kids). Cullen goes after that up front. Mulcair follows. As a species, we are leading the lemmings going over the cliff. The time to reverse direction is now.
I find myself talking to strangers in the hot tub and on the bus about Nathan! He has my enthusiastic support because I actually believe him when he says that he is passionate about principles and fundamental values that we share, politics before power. I believe him when he says he will be hard on issues and soft on people. I love the fact that he encourages new ideas. He is honest and straightforward, enthusiastic, optimistic, inclusive, respectful.
He will visit the constituencies of Quebec to maintain and build solidarity and the lunch rooms of the labour unions to support the right to collectively bargain, finding the commonalites of the workers movement. When another politician might promise to do the same, I might not believe them. However, I have believed Nathan before and yesterday proved my point. I dont know how many interviews or research he did before the debate but I know there was media coverage after the debate, then speaking at the robocall demonstration in Vancouver, then speaking personally to every individual question at the event at the pub (being the perfect host), then telephone town hall for over an hour, and then, I dont know but I presume preparing for today! (Maybe he skyped with his kids). Through all of this, he is obviously having fun and aware of the difference he is making along the way. This is about more than winning a leadership campaign. He has won already.
I have heard many people saying “I had sworn off politics until he came along.” I have heard people saying they have watched former conservative voters voting for him because they have a common goal and they trust him, one example being west coast environmental issues.
More fundamental values that we share are the following:
He believes in more of a bottom up structure than a top down structure and says and demonstrates that he works for his constituents and will encourage the electorate at the constituent level to make decisions.
One main aspect of his international policy is a strong overarching development strategy with a focus on women. He believes that we can reclaim our natural mediation role on the world stage.
He believes that our addiction to fossil fuels will kill us and promotes transition policies and food security plans in order for us to lead life styles that are less dependant on fossil fuels but also realistic and possible. He wants to develop the Canadian market for our natural resources. He will give tax breaks to the Canadian manufacturing sector and not to corporations.yin
Nathan can bring people and politics together in a fresh, exciting and vibrant new way and there are only a few more days to vote and make this a reality. So I guess this is my last major effort to influence the vote. From now on, it might be just in the hot tub and on the bus.
Au revoir
Oh yes and there is more than speaking the French language, there is also understanding the French culture. Nathan is working to improve both.
I may be intruding into this discussion among NDP supporters (in case you don’t know, I’m a conservative) but I can’t help wondering about this:
Mary @ March 13, 2012 at 3:44 am says:
“I actually believe him when he says that he is passionate about principles and fundamental values that we share, politics before power.”
Isn’t one of Mr. Cullen’s main ideas collaboration with the Liberals in a non-compete pact, the sole purpose being unseating the Conservatives? Doesn’t that indicate that rather than “politics before power” — I suppose “politics” here defined as a lofty goal as opposed to an ignoble quest for power — it’s actually “power before politics” with Mr. Cullen? And realistically, doesn’t power come before being able to actuate any of one’s ideas?