A new lib candidate emerges
These people, on the left, put a smile on this woman's face, on the right. Kim Rudd, a Cobourg entrepreneur won the Liberal nomination on a second round of counting. 9 votes short of the 461 needed to win, the redistribution of Andrew McFadyen's ballots gained 67 more, enough to stop an impressive second choice Chris Herrington from taking it but not impressive enough to claim a runaway win.922, announced from the stage, people voted at the Grafton Arena last night, although the size of the meeting, at its height, was estimated to be just over five hundred. The Arena support worker told me he put out 350 chairs and, "based on other events, I would say there were just over 500 here tonight." The other 350 came in as a result of a late visit or a reminder from the many workers who were desperately working the phones "pulling the vote".
Each of the camps set up their booths:
Kim Rudd's tables were giving away buttons and water, labelled 'win with kim', McFadyen's camp had sandwiches and finger food, but Herrington's table was kitted out with a chocolate machine for marshmallow dunking. The surprise to me was a publicity device in the form of a tie. Neat trick. Stephen Spencer, of Brighton, was snapped wearing one. He also led me to believe that a Rudd victory was in the offing. Asked where he was from he told me Brighton. "How many are from Brighton in this room?" I asked. "Looking around he said' "About fifty" Ooops not many for a victory for Herrington I thought. Bur once again Herrington wowed the crowd with a speech that drew the only spontaneous applause. Talking about the need to defeat Rick Norlock she again spoke a variant of the familiar lline that worked for her at the ACM. "I know Rick Norlock's weaknesses and I'm still looking for his strengths!" - you had to be there, it was a zinger.
All in all a dragged out affair designed to allow the candidates to get out the vote. The evening started at 6pm, speeches done by 7.15pm and voting closed at 1005pm; result announced by 1115pm, home by 1135.Not a bad night for a political junkie but I did get to see these two girls having a lot of fun as well as most of the pundits, hacks and retreads in the area, guess who had the most fun?
19 comments:
It doesn't matter which one of the three mousekateers won; none of them has what it takes to overcome Norlock's overwhelming majority last time out. He will return as MP, the local Libs will spend a lot of time going "woulda, coulda, shoulda". They'll never learn.
" Mousekateers ", that's clever. What's your witty moniker for Rick, I wonder ? Robocop ?
The Last election loss for the Libs was way more about Dion then it was a glowing result for Norlock. When will the Cons. get that.
Following Harper's truth telling in that secret session in the Soo last week, all the tories have to do is let their bad dog run wild.
If the sight and sound of Harper snarling and spewing his right wing hate and fear doesn't wake up our fellow Canadians then nothing will.
If only we had a credible, trustworthy alternative. Neither Iggy nor Jack create much hope for our future.
Critic, is your default position then, letting " bad dog run " on ? Cynicism across the board sounds pretty good for Harper. Devious chap.
There will be an "anybody but Harper" movement again with websites where people can find out who to vote for to defeat their local tory candidate.
Many people will follow that strategic voting approach, even though it's arguably better for the country if we vote FOR somebody instead of blindly AGAINST.
Let's hope people don't decide to just stay home, that's the worst outcome for us all.
The reality of the situation is in the numbers. With the right-wing vote split no longer in play, NQW is a true long-shot for the Liberals. Stewart held it as a result of the split, with 1 exception where in her last election she actually outnumbered the combined votes. Macklin held due to the split, and then squeaked through once after the parties combined, mainly due to name recognition, and most of all the Paul Martin trend at the time. When these factors were no longer in play, Macklin wasn't in play either and has gone down hard to Norlock several times since. Macklin was definitely the better campaigner with better name recognition, yet Norlock kicked him to the curb each time.
Now, Rudd, with zero name recognition outside of Cobourg/Port Hope, a ridiculous campaign team of power hungry twits, most of whom are generally associated with each loosing Liberal campaign since the time of Joan Fawcett, and a record that many do not feel will stand up to any scrutiny as she goes into the campaign.
This already weak organization, and weak candidate, are going to be done for if the PC's take a few strong swipes at Kimmy and Crew at the outset, which is exactly what they should do.
Ben, would be good to learn more about who is running the organization for Kim as it speaks volumes for the kind of organization she would have as MP, and the type of campaign she is going to run. Too many times in the recent past have we seen scary results, from both PC and Lib offices locally due to the people behind the politico.
Me thinks the last post is written by one of the losing Nominee's who clearly knows nothing about Liberal History as example the "Team that supported Macklin lost in 2006 because of local organizational problems the very different team many of whom were behind both of Macklin's two previous wins in 2000 and 2004 were behind his 2008 team lost because of one reason the public's including most Liberal's rejection of Dion!
Few Candidates are ever truly known from one end of the riding including Norlock and yet still manage to win many ridings. Again unfortunate loser's sour grapes!
Dear Anon...
I can tell you this, the last comment wasn't written by me, so instead of taking a point delivered by someone and dumbing it down to being the product of a losing candidate, try to counter what was said with actual substance.
Ben, thanks for your coverage on nomination night. Was great to have local media working hard to get our brand front and center.
Anon, I should have clarified earlier, having written the apparent "sour grapes" comment, that I am not a party member, was not supporting /approached by any candidate and definitely wasn't any of the candidates. Simply watching this one play out from the sidelines.
I have been involved in enough local Lib politics to understand the inside history over the past few decades, so let's not get into a who knows more contest about local Lib history, ultimately, a boring prospect for anyone following this blog!
Regarding your interpretation of the 2006 campaign, I certainly did not imply that it was a local organizational matter. They got creamed in 2006 off a combination of Dion weakness, no vote splitting, and a weak national campaign strategy run by the equivalent of a bunch of people who had never participated in a national strategy. Locally, it was the first time since 1988 that the local Libs had to mount a federal campaign without an incumbent Member - a tough thing if you are not used to it. I would imagine this time they SHOULD be more prepared.
The reality is though, a lot of the same people are involved and are pushing their own agendas behind a neophyte candidate that didn't seem to be backed by the established political base in the party - an interesting combination that I am sure has our current Conservative MP laughing quietly.
My personal belief is that Anonymous is taking it too personally to actually be the bystander he purports to be.
I consider myself a bit of an orphan as I am a defector of the Cons that is not quite sold on the Liberals. My wife is trying to give me a shove towards the red, but for now my heels are pretty dug in. I went to the election with her as she wants to get more involved in area politics. We are recent transplants and have not yet found our local "social circle". My wife cast a vote, but I refused to register so I did not.
If I had voted it would have been influenced as follows:
1. Rudd delivered the strongest speech, looked the 'professional' part and seemed excited to be there. She would have gotten my first choice. My major concern with her is her apparent business success. I didn't hear any of the candidates talk about ethics in politics. How is she going to handle the inevitable conflicts of interests that are going to come up? Is she going to sell her existing business? Her speech was perhaps a bit too professional; why does she want to do this? I am interested in the character of a candidate as well as their accomplishments.
2. Herrington would have gotten my second choice. Her experience seemed very relevant and it sounds like she has actually accomplished things in this area. My major area of concern was that her voice cracked throughout most of her speech and it appeared as though she was very nervous. If she is that nervous at such a small scale event how is she going to handle herself in real life intimidating situations? I think the farming angle was a positive for much of the crowd, but I would also like to know that a candidate is aware of other industries and the rest of the world. If I knew that she had travelled substantially or lived somewhere other than a farm it would go a long way. Her attire could have been more professional.
3. McFadyen would have been a distant third for me. His speech lacked substance and was delivered as though he was preaching from the pulpit. He may have a future in politics but it will not be for some years yet. If I had a young, sick child at home that is where my priorities would lie. The advantage of teachers is that they tend to embrace travel and are influenced by ideas beyond the narrow scope of the NQW borders. If he had some substantial executive experience to back it up, speech training and his child was older, he may be in the running in the future. His attire was very professional. He didn't exactly exude warmth, but he dressed the part.
However, I am very curious as to why anonymous is so focused on the "team" that is behind Rudd? There is some bad blood there and perhaps it would informative for it to be aired out? If you are not a party member or associated with a candidate, how is that you know so much about the people working behind the scenes?
I will probably vote for the person in the riding, not the leader of the party. I do not feel like I will ever genuinely know Harper or Ignatieff and I would rather make my decision based on first hand information. I look forward to seeing Rudd and Norlock hit the campaign trail and tell us a little about themselves.
We are both Canadian, but we did recently move here from the States. We are looking forward to a more tolerant political climate.
Perfectly stated Brian I could not have said my own opinions of choosing between the three nominee's better !!!
I really am shocked just how truly accurate you are in suming up the three candidates!
Andrew I thought was the best speaker but had two problems with the voters (too young and too inexperienced).
I think Chris was a bit nervous as she was the one candidate that had the most to lose. She was the one who is known and is presently a mayor. She did not have this problem at any other function I attended.
I too worry about the Rudd Gang and if they run the next campaign, how many others will have anything to do with it? They appear to be solely out of one small region of the riding while the other two candidates fought over the rest of the riding and had riding support from all regions.
The problem having it in Grafton was that Andrew and Chris' voters had to travel a much larger distance (45 minutes or so vs. 10 minutes from Cobourg) to vote. I think if the location was different then a much different result could have happened after seeing the final results here. It looks like many didn't make the vote at all!
The one advantage for the Liberals going into the next election will be the fact that this nomination gives them a big head start in finding workers for the next election and homes to put up RED signs.
Rudd needs to understand that the riding is much bigger than the Cobourg area and that she needs workers and support from the rest of the riding and not just her Rudd Gang! She needs many outside of her Gang to have a MAJOR role in her next campaign if she hopes for success.
Those disaffected Liberals need to suck it up and find some manner of rapprochement with the " Rudd gang ", or be road kill for the incumbent member. On the other hand, being one of those Liberals who voted last week, I wonder what efforts are underway to bring in the support of the 2 unsuccessful candidates. I will be watching very, very carefully.
I sure wish all these wily spin-meisters would use their real names. Then it would be easy to distinguish genuine and sincere comments from the BS and sour grapes.
In my opinion, Kim Rudd will do just fine in the election. She's a great people-person, a strong leader who enjoys great respect from those of us who have worked closely with her over many years.
Get off your high horse, Martin. A wily wit like yourself can surely distill the sweet from the sour. Kim will do well on her own.
I post here somewhat frequently. I always make the choice to do that under the available "Anonymous" label. I have many reasons for making that choice. Most of these reasons are habits I have developed over almost 10 years of internet use including reading many blogs, bulletin boards, live-chat rooms, etc and posting in those forums. Self-protection means continued participation in too-many internet places.
That said, Ben appears to offer open, uncensored access on a persistent basis. This is as it should be. Ben's philosophy is consistent with the original concepts of interaction on the net.
In part, posting as anonymous should allow an idea to be evaluated by others devoid of any bias for or against that comes up solely from seeing a given name attached to it.
For example, if I were to freely admit my own personal bias, seeing the name Martin Partridge would tend to make me think, "Oh, good. I usually agree with him."
But sometimes I read what he writes and find I disagree this time out.
Similarly, when I see the name Wally Keeler, I would normally think, "Gawd, not him again. I never agree with anything he writes anywhere ever."
But sometimes I read what he writes and find I agree with him. Well, to be honest, me agreeing with Wally has happened once, maybe twice in my life.
Being deeply genuine in my self-examination with regards to bias, I would have to say that my delight in posting as "Anonymous" is deepened every time Wally goes nuts about it.
Martin, have you considered that you increase the dedication to use "Anonymous" among those folks where there is animosity from them to you or you to them when you froth at the mouth about it so much?
Your enemies enjoy seeing you agitated over nothing, after all.
By the way, don't misunderstand, I am not saying I identify myself as an enemy of either of Martin or Wally.
Contrary to blog practices, you can't get published in the MSM without revealing your true name; blogmasters routinely attach their identities to their opinions; and reporters generally filter out, or at least qualify, suspiciously tilted information from sources who refuse to be identified.
While I support the freedom of blog commenters to hide their identities, I also believe that it is reasonable to challenge the weight, relevance and veracity of some anonymous comments without being accused of "frothing at the mouth".
I always identify myself fully. If I'm not willing to stand by my opinion, I stay silent.
I fail to understand why some commenters absolutely never identify themselves. Discretion may be a good idea much of the time but surely once in a while it adds impact to put your name on a comment.
Of course, anonymity is sometimes quite understandable. For example, the person who wrote about Kim Rudd's "ridiculous campaign team of power hungry twits" clearly chooses not to be challenged and corrected personally by someone who actually knows what's going on, such as myself.
That was a poor phrasing on my part. Apologies for the hyperbolic term "frothing at the mouth." I almost edited that before hitting "publish my comment" but got distracted from the task. A better phrasing would be "when those who want to vex you think you are frothing at the mouth." Don't miss the point, though. I did not mean to say I see you as frothing at the mouth. What I am trying to say is well summed-up in the old internet adage: "Don't feed the trolls." They're trolling here to get you agitated and you're letting them know it's working.
If Kim Rudd unseats Norlock, it will be good. My opinion is she was the only one of the 3 candidates who stood a remote possibility of doing so. All power to her.
Post a Comment