Call Me Carolyn
In the day she's profiled in the Globe and Mail, Carolyn Bennett has dropped out and tossed her support behind...Bob Rae.
This is probably for the best. Carolyn is an individual who I really like as a person but she certainly wouldn't have made a good leader and was heading for an embarrassing delegate total if she'd stayed in. As for Rae, this isn't as big a "get" as Maurizio, but it's impossible to deny anymore than Bob is a serious contender who could win this thing.
What's more interesting is the position this leaves Bennett's supporters in. Today is the deadline to submit your form if you wish to run as a delegate for the convention. So anyone who has already submitted their form to run for Bennett might find themselves unable to run for another candidate at delegate selection time which would be a real shame. Hopefully the party will make some sort of exception and allow them to switch their declared support.
This is probably for the best. Carolyn is an individual who I really like as a person but she certainly wouldn't have made a good leader and was heading for an embarrassing delegate total if she'd stayed in. As for Rae, this isn't as big a "get" as Maurizio, but it's impossible to deny anymore than Bob is a serious contender who could win this thing.
What's more interesting is the position this leaves Bennett's supporters in. Today is the deadline to submit your form if you wish to run as a delegate for the convention. So anyone who has already submitted their form to run for Bennett might find themselves unable to run for another candidate at delegate selection time which would be a real shame. Hopefully the party will make some sort of exception and allow them to switch their declared support.
posted by calgarygrit at
1:02 p.m.
11 Comments:
I still think it is safe to say that Rae can't win this thing. Maybe not as safe but safe nontheless. He will go to convention with less than 20% of the delegates. It would take a miracle for him to get from that point to 50% seeing as he is very few people's second, or even third choice.
Some disagree with me on this, but I am still fairly confident.
By
KC, at 1:58 p.m.
From CG, last Sunday:
"Healthcare (Rae, Volpe, Bennett)
Bennett talks about prevention while making choking gestures with her hands. In the exchange, she gets a dig in against Bob, saying she decided to run provincially "after five years of Bob Rae" because the health care system was in bad shape in Ontario. " (emphasis added)
The lack of principle in the Liberal Party never does cease to amaze me
By
BL, at 2:39 p.m.
Yeah, I remember that.
Weird dig by Bennett considering she must have known a week ago that she'd be going Bob's way (I doubt this was a spur of the moment decision).
By
calgarygrit, at 3:06 p.m.
On Politics, Bennett said that she decided at supper last night!
By
Jason Cherniak, at 7:08 p.m.
I also believe the theory that this was a somewhat spur of the moment decision. There was a notice sent out to Saskatchewan Liberals on Tuesday afternoon announcing a Bennett event in Saskatoon today at noon. The cancellation notice only went out this morning at 10:00 a.m.
As always, could just be head-faking, but given how few resources Bennett had on her team to organize events (particularly in SK), seems like a stretch.
By
Prairie Fire, at 7:31 p.m.
concerned yl: Here's what I wrote back in March about leadership polls:
I won't post the results from this poll, or any other similar ones, because these are dangerous polls that people should completely ignore. They are based on nothing more than name recognition, and most Canadians know very little about the big names, never mind the hidden jewels of the race
By
calgarygrit, at 7:59 p.m.
In a strong way, I like the idea of ignoring polls myself.
Funny enough, however, I'll mention that big Herle one - I'm not going to bother checking (because polls are often lame), but wasn't Bennet surprisingly high on it?
Anyway, it was good to see a doctor in the race, and it was good to see a bunch of women. Kind of sorry to see one go, but I understand why she would.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 8:18 p.m.
oh, I don't know CG, I think you should all jump ship and head for the Dryden magic carpet ride.
By
Tarkwell Robotico, at 8:18 p.m.
put the party first; I posted that back in MARCH. I did not foresee how my candidate of choice would be performing in these polls 6 months later when I posted that. And GK did very well in the Decima poll which came out earlier this week for what it's worth.
You can click on the link and read my original post for my reasoning. The fact is, in a race with unknown candidates, the general public does not know any of them very well. So people should not be basing their choices on how they are currently viewed by the general public but on on how their performance will be viewed by the public after they are scrutinized and...you know...seen.
Like I said back then, this is how John Kerry won the democratic nomination which I think we can all agree was a big mistake for the Dems.
Finally, I would love to hear an explanation about how posting the poll results on my blog would be "putting the party first".
By
calgarygrit, at 11:04 p.m.
put the party first;
1. That's my whole point. These polls are full of problems and are incredibly easy to spin.
2. I never mentioned the Decima poll in a post. I mentioned in a comment after you said I was ignoring polls where Kennedy did poorly. I pointed out that I ignored a poll where he did alright too.
3. Kennedy is tied for the largest voter pool in the Decima poll and has the largest in Ontario where he is best known. That's what my "backdoor comment" refered to. But, like I said, I don't put a lot of stock in these polls so I didn't post on that even though it would have been pretty easy to spin in a pro-Kennedy light.
4. Selective reporting would be picking some polls and excluding others. I've said I think that all these leadership polls are crap so I won't use them (although, I must say I am tempted to post some of the issues which Herle mentions since that stuff might be useful).
5. Finally, in conclusion, the point is that you can't reach conclusions when you're polling people who aren't informed on the topic you're polling on. The general population doesn't know these people now. It'd be like asking the general population who they think will win the Stanley Cup this year and basing which team you're going to bet on because of what the poll says. Only 5 or 10% of the population likely follows hockey close enough to be well enough informed so the rest of the population will just pick their home town team or whoever won last year. It would be foolish to make your bets based on a poll like that, just like it would be foolish to make your choice in leader based on polls like this.
By
calgarygrit, at 11:53 p.m.
air jordan uk
michael kors uk
ray ban sunglasses outlet
mlb jerseys wholesale
michael kors outlet
nike free run
ray ban sunglasses outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
colts jerseys
cheap ray ban sunglasses
By
raybanoutlet001, at 9:08 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home