Before you dismiss me as daft, hear me out.
The Strategic Counsel poll on who Liberal Party members want to lead their party was a flawed instrument, but it did yield some useful nuggets. Here’s why it was flawed. The Globe and Mail said that “the survey differs from other leadership polls in that it queries only Liberal Party members who will be selecting delegates next week for the party’s convention.” Actually it was a beauty contest among Liberal members, a very large proportion of whom won’t even show up to vote to choose delegates. (Thirty-seven per cent of those polled said they were not following the race at all, or not closely. Only twenty per cent said they were following it very closely.)
Going to a delegate selection meeting requires commitment, knowledge and the willingness to put in a few hours, which makes those who do it quite different from the members of the general population who vote in a federal election. Indeed, going to a delegate selection meeting often requires a connection to campaign organizers from one or more of the candidates.
The poll was much too blunt an instrument to measure how a relatively small group of people will behave.
If we can regard the poll as a beauty contest, then we should expect it to be skewed in favour of those who have received the most media coverage and those who have the highest public profiles. Michael Ignatieff has been the hands-down leader in media coverage, with Rae and Dion second and third. And that’s how the poll came out, with Ignatieff, Rae and Dion, one-two-three. In the public profile category, Ken Dryden scores high, but he has a poorly organized campaign and is not likely to go far for that reason. Interestingly, he scored as high as Gerard Kennedy in this poll.
The poll was yet another indication, although a very imprecise one, that Ignatieff is not going to win. Because he is such a polarizing figure in the Liberal Party, as a result of his views on foreign policy, he can only win if he has a commanding lead going into the convention. With a commanding lead, he could entice others to join him so they can be on the winning team.
Analysts of this race need to get their heads around the fact that Ignatieff has already failed to create the conditions he needs to win. Even if in the delegate selection process, he places first (a likely outcome), if he is stuck with less than a quarter of the delegates, he is a dead duck.
Many people have already figured out that Ignatieff will not win and that will be palpably obvious once the delegates are chosen. That moment---let’s call it the post-Ignatieff moment---will cause the dynamics of this race to change completely.
People will be forced to take a hard look at who is actually going to win and to make some tough choices.
In practice, the hard thinking will concern only three candidates: Stephane Dion, Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy. I will deal with them in that order.
I have a lot of regard for Stephane Dion, but he is not going to win. He won’t win because he utterly lacks the charisma a leader needs. That may sound vague, but it’s very real. It has not been uncommon for Quebecers who can carry Ontario to make formidable leaders, for instance Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien. Stephane Dion cannot strike fire in Ontario and Liberals will think that through between now and early December. Everybody knows that winning Ontario is the sine qua non for federal Liberals. On top of that, Dion is a polarizing figure in his own province, which he could not carry in a general election. He’d be a gift to Gilles Duceppe and maybe even to Stephen Harper in Quebec.
What about Bob Rae? I confess I badly underestimated Rae when this contest began. He has run a formidable campaign and he is by far the most seasoned campaigner in this affair. He’d make a great Liberal leader. He was born to be one. Unfortunately, and I don’t want to be a nag about this, his long detour in the NDP (the party where I’m staying) is still one hell of an obstacle. A lot of people in the Liberal Party continue to be unwilling to embrace him as one of their own. I’ve heard that in various places across the country and I’ve encountered it myself in the surprising hostility of quite a few people toward Rae.
When I wrote about this contest earlier, I believed that Rae would never overcome his negatives. Now I’m not so sure. He could win. I still believe, though, that it is very much an uphill struggle.
Then we come to Gerard Kennedy, the natural choice for the Liberals. He’s progressive, the right age, charismatic and he’s always been a Liberal. He did a job everyone agrees was first rate as minister of education in Ontario, no easy task after the Harris-Eves years.
A lot of people believe that Kennedy has lacked weight, gravitas in this campaign. To a certain extent, that’s his own fault. He has wanted to avoid the front-runner problem that nagged him in his run for the Ontario Liberal leadership. Being low key is fine, but there can be too much of a good thing and that could sink Kennedy.
The truth is, though, that Kennedy’s “below the radar” campaign is very well organized. His is especially strong among young members of the party, who are, if anything, over-represented in the delegate-selection process. If you are between 14 and 26 and you are a Liberal, you’ve got a very good chance of being a delegate.
When the delegate selection meetings take place in just over a week, Kennedy is going to do very well. He could run second.
I’m betting that the race is going to come down to a choice between Rae and Kennedy, and that Kennedy’s natural strengths are going to become much more evident than they have been so far.
It has often been the case in Canadian leadership contests that front-runners don’t make it and that someone lower in the pack emerges to win. It certainly happened in 1976 when a little known guy named Joe Clark emerged from the pack to beat the two favourites. And the same was true when someone called Dalton McGuinty beat a front-runner by the name of Gerard Kennedy.
The Strategic Counsel poll on who Liberal Party members want to lead their party was a flawed instrument, but it did yield some useful nuggets. Here’s why it was flawed. The Globe and Mail said that “the survey differs from other leadership polls in that it queries only Liberal Party members who will be selecting delegates next week for the party’s convention.” Actually it was a beauty contest among Liberal members, a very large proportion of whom won’t even show up to vote to choose delegates. (Thirty-seven per cent of those polled said they were not following the race at all, or not closely. Only twenty per cent said they were following it very closely.)
Going to a delegate selection meeting requires commitment, knowledge and the willingness to put in a few hours, which makes those who do it quite different from the members of the general population who vote in a federal election. Indeed, going to a delegate selection meeting often requires a connection to campaign organizers from one or more of the candidates.
The poll was much too blunt an instrument to measure how a relatively small group of people will behave.
If we can regard the poll as a beauty contest, then we should expect it to be skewed in favour of those who have received the most media coverage and those who have the highest public profiles. Michael Ignatieff has been the hands-down leader in media coverage, with Rae and Dion second and third. And that’s how the poll came out, with Ignatieff, Rae and Dion, one-two-three. In the public profile category, Ken Dryden scores high, but he has a poorly organized campaign and is not likely to go far for that reason. Interestingly, he scored as high as Gerard Kennedy in this poll.
The poll was yet another indication, although a very imprecise one, that Ignatieff is not going to win. Because he is such a polarizing figure in the Liberal Party, as a result of his views on foreign policy, he can only win if he has a commanding lead going into the convention. With a commanding lead, he could entice others to join him so they can be on the winning team.
Analysts of this race need to get their heads around the fact that Ignatieff has already failed to create the conditions he needs to win. Even if in the delegate selection process, he places first (a likely outcome), if he is stuck with less than a quarter of the delegates, he is a dead duck.
Many people have already figured out that Ignatieff will not win and that will be palpably obvious once the delegates are chosen. That moment---let’s call it the post-Ignatieff moment---will cause the dynamics of this race to change completely.
People will be forced to take a hard look at who is actually going to win and to make some tough choices.
In practice, the hard thinking will concern only three candidates: Stephane Dion, Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy. I will deal with them in that order.
I have a lot of regard for Stephane Dion, but he is not going to win. He won’t win because he utterly lacks the charisma a leader needs. That may sound vague, but it’s very real. It has not been uncommon for Quebecers who can carry Ontario to make formidable leaders, for instance Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien. Stephane Dion cannot strike fire in Ontario and Liberals will think that through between now and early December. Everybody knows that winning Ontario is the sine qua non for federal Liberals. On top of that, Dion is a polarizing figure in his own province, which he could not carry in a general election. He’d be a gift to Gilles Duceppe and maybe even to Stephen Harper in Quebec.
What about Bob Rae? I confess I badly underestimated Rae when this contest began. He has run a formidable campaign and he is by far the most seasoned campaigner in this affair. He’d make a great Liberal leader. He was born to be one. Unfortunately, and I don’t want to be a nag about this, his long detour in the NDP (the party where I’m staying) is still one hell of an obstacle. A lot of people in the Liberal Party continue to be unwilling to embrace him as one of their own. I’ve heard that in various places across the country and I’ve encountered it myself in the surprising hostility of quite a few people toward Rae.
When I wrote about this contest earlier, I believed that Rae would never overcome his negatives. Now I’m not so sure. He could win. I still believe, though, that it is very much an uphill struggle.
Then we come to Gerard Kennedy, the natural choice for the Liberals. He’s progressive, the right age, charismatic and he’s always been a Liberal. He did a job everyone agrees was first rate as minister of education in Ontario, no easy task after the Harris-Eves years.
A lot of people believe that Kennedy has lacked weight, gravitas in this campaign. To a certain extent, that’s his own fault. He has wanted to avoid the front-runner problem that nagged him in his run for the Ontario Liberal leadership. Being low key is fine, but there can be too much of a good thing and that could sink Kennedy.
The truth is, though, that Kennedy’s “below the radar” campaign is very well organized. His is especially strong among young members of the party, who are, if anything, over-represented in the delegate-selection process. If you are between 14 and 26 and you are a Liberal, you’ve got a very good chance of being a delegate.
When the delegate selection meetings take place in just over a week, Kennedy is going to do very well. He could run second.
I’m betting that the race is going to come down to a choice between Rae and Kennedy, and that Kennedy’s natural strengths are going to become much more evident than they have been so far.
It has often been the case in Canadian leadership contests that front-runners don’t make it and that someone lower in the pack emerges to win. It certainly happened in 1976 when a little known guy named Joe Clark emerged from the pack to beat the two favourites. And the same was true when someone called Dalton McGuinty beat a front-runner by the name of Gerard Kennedy.
10 comments:
The big knock against Kennedy, which I don't buy, is his perceived lack of experience. The argument follows that because the Liberals may well win the election, they need someone who can hit the ground running. The problem with all the "experienced" guys, those experiences come with ample baggage. For a party desperate to project a new image, doesn't it make sense to go to someone who's biggest baggage is his French is basically on par with Harper.
Calgary Grit's projection puts Kennedy in second on the first ballot and his methodology shows a more extensive understanding of the workings of the Liberal Party than the Globe Poll.
I think Kennedy is the Liberals' most winnable candidate in a general election - especially if he runs in Alberta where he could strike a blow in the heart of Conservative country and re-build the Liberal Party's credibility in that region.
Though one interesting nugget from that Globe Poll, when they polled the general public, it appeared that Rae wasn't as large a liability in Ontario as previously thought.
Stéphane Dion IS Stephen Harper. He is routinely underestimated. People assume he does not have the tools necessary to become a strong, captivating leader capable of solidifying his party and then enough electoral support to put it in government.
In truth, he has done nothing in his life, but rebuke the stereotypes that have been exacted against him. Federalist Québécois love Stéphane and they will go to bat for him. His emphasis on renewing Canada's economic sustainability by making it environmentally stable is the kind of thing that will put Liberals on the map in Western provinces where energy and the environment are hot button issues.
Stéphane has effectively silenced both Michael Ignatieff and Gerard Kennedy in separate debates... in his second language and their first. Whether you support Dion or not, I think it's time we all started acknowledging that he is a serious contender with as many assets as anyone else in the race. Like Harper, he is more than capable of overcoming his percieved faults. If Stéphane is able to outpace Ignatieff and Kennedy in his second tongue, I think Gilles Duceppe and Stephen Harper will have everything to fear if they run into this guy at the next federal French debate.
I don't have any problem with Dion as the next party leader. Matter of fact, I think he'd make a pretty damn good one.
Again, the Quebec myth. What candidate do you think would carry Quebec James? Would Gerard, or any Liberal candidate? In fact, Dion is polling ahead of every other candidate, and the LPC itself, among Quebec voters.
The fact is Dion is the most popular candidate amongst Quebeckers. That will be a major factor for the party when trying to determine who is the best leader to bring the Liberals back to government. Gerard Kennedy has zero support in Quebec.
Every time the Liberals choose a Quebec francophone as leader, they win a majority. Every time they choose an anglophone, they lose.
Mr. Martin had pretty darn good French and it didn't matter in the last election. Adscam did. Francophone Liberals got creamed in Quebec. Stephane Dion is not part of cleaning the house and he was a terrible environment minister. We need a fresh face. Kennedy is improving in French and will only get better. With the other top candidates, all of their baggage is permanent.
Well, Here's my $0.02 on the Liberal leadership race....
The Liberals would need to find someone who is electable, and not ONE of the prospective contenders could go all the way. At least not in the next election.
As someone who wants the Liberals to be out of office for a good long time, I'd like to see Bob Rae win. That would really give the Tories a chance to solidify their support in Ontario!!!
As far as where they stand politically, I prefer Ignatieff, and oif the Tories were to somehow lose the next time, I'd rather Iggy be Liberal leader than the others.
Speaking objectively, though, their best bet if they do want to win the election after next, is Stephane Dion. Of the lot he is probably the most intelligent and honest of the bunch, and moreover, has the best chance of winning seats in Quebec of any of the contenders. Quebec tends to vote for one of their own, if possible, and there are seventy five seats up for grabs. Can't ignore that.
My fearless prediction? I don't think Rae or Ignatieff is going to be able to go over the top, though I think Rae has more potential for growth than Ignatieff on subsequent ballots. I think, at the end of the day, Stephane Dion will emerge victorious, as other contenders will rally around someone who has experience in government, having handled several cabinet posts with great aplomb, and remained one of the few untarnished figures of the Chretien/Martin eras. Nobody can even accuse him of being in one or the other's camp! Kennedy lacks any real experience, but he may well be the Kingmaker that sets things in motion for Dion to win on ballot #3 or 4.
Great post... thanks.
One point: I was called in that poll and the screening question was something like, "Will you vote in the delegate selection meeting?" I said that I had registered as a candidate and that I was very interested in the race, but I would be unable to make the meeting because I'll be out of town... and the surveyor thanked me and didn't ask any other questions. I think that's a pretty good screening.
When this race started, I was convinced that the "anyone-but-Iggy" race would galvanize around Rae. However, now that Kennedy has made a strong showing with the delegate selction, I am leaning in his direction now. Rae's good traits are comparable to Kennedy's, but without the baggage. I rooted for Kennedy for Ontario Liberal leader, but thought the federal leadership might be over his head. I don't think so anymore and feel that he could pull it out on a 4th ballot win. He is certainly talented and capable, but it was only a question of support and profile, which he has successfully shown he can garner.
I just can't see any of the remaining candidates or their supporters going to Ignatieff afer the first ballot. The only ones that I could were Bennett and Bevilaqua, and they surprisingly didn't. I thought their supporters might, and now that some have, Ignatieff has peaked.
My money is on Kennedy.
As for Kennedy's electability,at the end of the day, the last election was not a Harper victory per se, but a small and temporary punishment for the Liberals. Many Liberals voted NDP in the last election, and if only they came back, a Liberal majority is assured, and they just need the slightest excuse to come back. As long as the Liberal leader is not a closet rightwinger and an ineffectual personality like Martin, they will return in droves, present company included.
The big knock against Kennedy, which I do buy, is that, in fact, despite what Jim says, he was a lousy Education Minister, and is an opportunist of the first order. The provincial Liberals have done a disgraceful job around education and Kennedy is progressive only to those whose expectations have been dulled by years of Liberal bullshit.
Kennedy has lied repeatedly about his past. He did NOT run to stop the Harris tories but in fact ran in a by-election against David Miller, our NDP mayor in Toronto. Prior to that he had campaigned actively to defeat the Rae government in Ontario, which for all its faults delivered anti-scab legislation, pay equity laws, minimum wage improvements, etc.. unequaled by the Liberals for obvious reasons.
Ultimately, all of you can go on and on with this abstract pseudo-political analysis but outside of the sad yet ever increasing ranks of the psuedo-leftist upper middle class cranks and self-involved assholes who populate it the Liberal "left" after all these years of deceit corruption and vicious malice towards the poor has become little more than a wet dream for those who cannot admit that their analysis has been wrong for years.
If you want a better agenda for the poor, the non-white, women, natives, etc.. your only vote is NDP. If you want to talk the talk but not have to do anything about because you actually do not give a shit then do what you have always done. Vote Liberal, your taxes will go down, social spending will go down, budgets will be as right wing as you can hope for, but I guess you will feel better as the stunned middle class losers that you are won't you? After all, despite all the evidence, they must be better than the Tories right?
Post a Comment