Good morning. A busload and Hancock supporters went to Calgary yesterday and we got home at 4:30 this morning. I am a bit blurry eyed and feel like I slept with an old sock in my mouth. I have been telling myself since I woke up “I am not too old for this.” There is a fine line between an affirmation and a delusion.
Just did a quick look at the constituency results and will have lots to say later today. The choice is clear but it is not a two horse race - it is a real three-way contest, with clear alternatives and real choices, each resulting in a very different Alberta.
Ed Stelmach is a strong third place finisher and is definitely in the hunt. He has traction, momentum and growth potential this week. The media will frame the choice as Dinning vs. Morton. I see that dichotomy as we really don’t need just more of the Dinning Calgary Mafia nor do most Albertans see themselves reflected in the social conservative values of the Morton Alliance Mafia.
This week there will be lots of hype, hyperbole and hypertension. There is time for the average Albertan to take some time for some sober second thinking about the kind of Alberta we should become. We can all reflect on which of these three is going to be the most effective agent of real change to help move us forward to our preferred future. Those that do some sober second thinking will find a real alternative in Stelmach. He is not just a compromise candidate to the other two "top guns." He is the real thing.
I know Ed Stelmach. I like him and respect him. More importantly, I trust him and know he is authentic to his progressive values and has sound judgment. I will be telling you more abut him as the week progresses.
I suggested early in the campaign that Hancock could be the beneficiary of a Mandel syndrome where the front runners were found wanting and an acceptable alternative was wanted. Mandel became that acceptable alternative to the so-called “favorites” and the Mayor of Edmonton. Not only is Ed “acceptable” but for the kind of real change an attitude and approach to government and governing, he is, by far the best alternative for Leader/Premier for ALL ALBERTA
The race for the leadership of the Alberta PCs is now just that, a sprint to the finish. And after Saturday's vote, the choices have solidified somewhat.
ReplyDeleteWe can either choose the candidate of the status quo, the candidate who surrounded himself with the usual well-heeled, backroom and corporate insiders who will stay the current course.
Or we can opt for the candidate of the past we never had, the candidate who curries favour only with those who thinks as he does that we should become narrow-minded, inward and isolated from the any influences he deems are dangerous or troublesome.
But there is clearly now a third option.
Ed Stelmach represents all that is good about all of Alberta and all Albertans -- rural and urban; newcomers to Wild Rose Country and those descendants of our proud pioneer heritage; those enjoying the benefits of the Alberta Advantage and those still struggling to take their place.
Ed has taken the time to look at all the issues -- economic, social and political. He knows Alberta's future promise rides not on defining winners and losers, insiders and outsiders, who's for us or against us, but rather on what unites us all in a diverse, modern province and what makes us stronger.
Why is it that we have the same kind of campaigns in this party? The rules for ths leadership were non existent, subject to ridicule and abuse. Even David was not "marketed" - made media and camera friendly. Why were we so afraid to tweek him? I mean the guy is so shy.... Another thing is why do campaigns never reach out of their "inner circle" within the campaign and make use of volunteers that are there to help them? What are you all afraid of?
ReplyDeleteHi, Ken.
ReplyDeleteThanks for confirming that Oberg had announced for Stelmach. Just read it online, too.
Here's the text of a posting I was going to put up before I heard the news. I don't think it changed my view so here it is as written.
-----------
Hi, Ken. Looking forward to your analysis of the vote on Saturday and how things might play out over the next week.
I'll get the ball rolling here, but I hope the responding posts aren't as juvenile as some of the ones that have shown up in your blog in recent days. There’s a real difference between passion and vitriol. Schoolyard taunts aren’t the stuff of civil debate.
Apologies to you and Dave about my own vote on Saturday, but Jim has been my #1 and Ed my #2 for a while now and it was confirmed when I spoke with DG. I know Ed's been your #2 all along and can understand why he moves up to #1 for you. And I can understand, too, why Ed's still going for the gold. He's no quitter, and if you're in the race you run to win. Fair enough, good for him and I wish him well. If it should work out that Ed’s Premier we would be well-served.
But I don't believe he can win, Ken.
1. Good thoughts from the people who really, really like Ed won't get him there. This is the playoffs and the teams that have the most passionate fans don't always win the cup.
2. A key part of Ed's strategy is to place first or more probably second on Dec2 and then leapfrog over the remaining candidate by virtue of all the second preference votes he'll pick up from Jim's supporters, who would cut their wrists before naming Morton to their second spot.
But, Ed won't place first or second on the ballot on Dec2 because the math just isn't there and he has no true growth potential.
First, you look at the sum of the probable Morton/Oberg alliance. Every single person who voted for Morton and Oberg will do it again next Saturday, if they do team up, and it's a bigger number than Ed can muster under any likely scenario.
Second, Jim won't lose first preference votes on the 5th. Why would he? He's in the lead, and his organization and supporters have no remaining doubts that they're in a tough fight. They'll all dig in.
Third, even if Ed receives the support of every other candidate, he hasn't enough votes to grab second place because of the slippage. Ed has little or no growth potential. All of Ed's people will come out again for him next Saturday, but not the rest of the candidates' supporters, not in the same way. This time they won't be voting for their guy, but for the guy their guy is recommending. Not the same thing and their numbers will decline on Dec2. Even if the Anybody-But-Dinning sentiment translates into action, it doesn't throw enough weight. Ed has peaked, and it's doubtful the other candidates can deliver all their people when they're not on the card.
Let’s think way outside the box for a moment. Say Ed gets the support of ALL the other candidates – say he gets Oberg, too. That’s going to create more problems for him than it will solve his number crunching issues. It may well cost him votes among progressive rural Albertans, or just those who are alarmed by Oberg's behaviour - would he be handling Ed's press conferences and caucus relations? What a test of character for Ed, in turn: the height of cynical politics, Ed spending the week defending Oberg’s conduct in the campaign, Oberg as Morton’s Trojan Horse in Ed’s campaign, Ed as hostage to the social hard right afterwards.
How would Dave’s supporters feel about sharing a bed with Lyle, or Mark’s supporters? How about you, Ken? You've been pretty straight up in your comments about the Doctor.
(Heard something about Lyle endorsing Ed today but can hardly believe Ed will accept. I might have to vote Morton as second preference in that case – if we’re going small “c”, let’s just do it, you know? )
On the other hand, Dr. Morton still has growth potential. His people will scour the highways and the byways to bring in more bodies on Dec2 because they now have real hope of electing the first Reform government in the history of Canada. I'll bet a lot of Oberg's supporters will move to Morton regardless of where Oberg himself goes.
And, Jim has growth potential, too, from underperforming supporters now bearing down in the drive for new memberships. I imagine a number of the other candidates’ supporters who are off the ballot, those with a progressive outlook, will move to Jim, too, on Dec 2.
3. Ed is a great guy but he doesn't perform well in front of a crowd. Now that the rubber has hit the road, many people will watch the televised debate this week and wonder, "Can Ed stand up to someone like Dalton McGinty?" A good performance by Ed will mitigate some of that, but he's not invisible any more and the spotlight casts a harsh light.
So it won't be first place or second pace for Ed on Dec2. That means a preferential runoff between Jim and Ted.
It's time for Ed's supporters and the supporters of the other candidates to think real hard about what they do with their first and second preference votes. I'm sticking with Jim because politics is the art of the possible. You have to stay in office to govern and make any change for the better. Jim has an abundance of positives and is the right blend of pragmatism and principles for me.
Just as much to the point, party members not devoted to Dr. Morton will be thinking, or should be thinking, about three things:
Deputy Premier Lyle Oberg, with a Morton win.
Deputy Premier Lyle Oberg, with a Stelmach win if Oberg announces for Ed.
And a year or two down the road, Premier Kevin Taft (or to make for an ever smaller PC Opposition, Premier Dave Bronconnier) after the Liberals finish doing to Dr. Morton and the PCs next election what their federal cousins did to Stockwell Day and the Alliance.
For just those reasons alone, a lot of party members will move Jim to their first preference, or certainly their second, if their guy was one who fell off the Dec2 ballot.
So here's the question now: Who will you support, Ken, and encourage others to support, and encourage Dave and Ed to support as their #2 on Dec2?
kevin from the country,
ReplyDeleteOne flaw (at least) in your analysis. You presume that Jim won't lose any votes because he is the frontrunner, still ahead of everyone else, etc. But I think you are wrong there. Jim was supposed to stun the membership yesterday with a performance much closer to 40% than 30%. Some of his supporters openly mused about a first ballot win. Neither happened. You could literally see that the wind was taken out of him if you attended the Roundup Centre event in Calgary.
I propose an alternate scenario. Jim loses some support, such as from those MLAs who were softly supporting him to begin with. The public criticism was already coming out before the vote against a few Dinning MLAs who were deemed to be underperforming in terms of membership sales. Do you really think they will work harder this week? Do you think they will sit in the lobby of the polling stations accosting would-be voters again? (denying that they did so would be like denying the law of gravity, so don't start) Jim has proven to be somewhat of a paper tiger.
Additionally, there are some areas that I believe voted for Ted because they wanted a rural candidate that could beat Jim - ignoring for the moment that Ted really doesn't know rural. He can talk their language, but he still comes from the urban ivory tower (duck-hunting in the backwoods doesn't count). Now that Ed has shown he can win, the game has changed for Ted as well. I really don't believe that Ted's private healthcare philosophy appeals to the entire rural base.
So, in this scenario, Ed takes from Jim AND Ted, and gets votes from the "I don't want to see *** as premier" crowds (insert Morton or Dinning as appropriate) and comes out ahead. He only needs to be 2nd, since he will take second preference votes from either. I'll acknowledge it is not a slam-dunk, but certainly in the realm of possibility. People underestimated Ed in round 1, remember. Some media didn't even put him as a frontrunner. Lyle and Dave are not stupid - they would not sign on if they thought Ed did not have a chance.
You must be the kinder and gentler of the anonymi that have been posting to Ken's blog:-)
ReplyDeletePoints well taken, of course. There's no doubt that Saturday's vote was an excruciating disappointment to Jim - as it was to Hancock and Oberg as well. But not completely unexpected, since there were indications of a tight two-way race going into the last week. And not an entirely unwelcome result. Saturday became about field position, not scoring the TD, and Jim is still closer to the goalpost than any other single candidate.
Of course you're right that Hancock, Oberg and Norris wouldn't support Ed if they thought he was a lost cause. Of course, if they want to stay in the game they have to sign on somewhere.
And you're right to say that it's possible for Ed to win, as all things are. Ken has promised to let us know how that's going to happen, actually.
More to the point, as Duncan has mentioned, there are multiple possible outcomes, some more likely than others. I think the scenario I've laid out is as likely as any other and more so than some. Who were the other candidates lining up behind when Nancy Betkowski and Ralph were heading into round two? Just goes to show you.
Taken together, the Anybody But Dinning Alliance plus Ed tops Jim's Saturday vote count by about 10,000. Can the candidates signing on to Ed deliver all those votes? I think that's less likely than their support bleeding to Jim and Dr. Morton: to Jim as a brake on Morton, and to Morton as the genuine small "c" article.
(You're right again, though, about Morton not being a true rural voice, but it's about the ideology, not geography, and Morton's rural Reform constituency will deliver again for him in spades next Saturday.)
So Jim and Morton won't lose too many votes in the next vote, will gain some in fact, Ed's new team probably will lose votes, and Ed has no growth scenario. Again, I'm interested to hear Ken's counter to that because I know he has one and he's a smart guy.
And, the Alliance has Oberg. I'd call him something of a mixed blessing whose "help" could flush even more votes away from Ed from the Alliance's soft supporters who have more of a philosophical kinship with Jim than Morton or Oberg, and who just plain don't like Oberg. Deputy Premier Oberg might end up a millstone around Ed's neck.
It's not about policy anymore, it's about the sniff test and optics. Ed has hurt himself on the character issue by gladly taking on Oberg (Win at any cost, right?) and if Ed doesn't do well on TV it will cost him some more.
Don't forget almost 100000 folks showed up to have a say yesterday. That was twice as many as in the 1992 first ballot with 11 candidates.
ReplyDeleteThere is a voracious appetite for change but not radical right wing social conservative that wants to impose on and limit my personal freedoms or a change that is more consistant with sustaining the status quo power base where the rich get richer etc. etc. etc.
Alberta is more complicated than that. The dynamics of the second ballot are very complex too. We do not have any indications that any candidate can deliver their votes based on the strength of their own loyality base. Again we will not be able to accurately "pundit" the outcome until the vote is counted.
Saturday December 2 is all about deciding the kind of Alberta we want and figuring who is the best alternative to get us there.
None of the candidates are perfect but if Ed's biggest flaw is his "performance in front of an audience or a television camera" I can live with that and he can fix that.
The bigger issue is the concern over the values and beliefs of the various candidates.
For example, Jim Dinning is very equivocal about running in the next election if he does not win the leadership. He says he "will be happy to run in the next election as the leader of the PC Party."
Obviously he is not interested in returning to politics otherwise. That makes this campaign all about him and his personal goals and aspirations and not really about the rest of us, don't you think?
Ted Morton is not going to tell us who paid for his campaign. Why? Is it because a major source of his campaign donations are coming from religious groups who are jeopardizing their charitible status and breaking the rules regarding political activity?
Not saying it is happening but you have to wonder since he refuses to disclose. What else will he not be telling us about for his protection or the protection of his friends or for "our own good" as the Premier?
I don't what to have to harbour such suspicions about my Party Leader or my Premier.
It is now a character thing for me. I will be joining Dave Hancock and supporting Ed Stelmach because he is the kind of person I can trust and respect. I know Ed well and know that as Party Leader and Premier he will be looking out for US and not just HIMSELF or his FRIENDS.
BTW - I do not expect Oberg to be seen or heard from much in the Playoffs this week nor in an Ed Stelmach government. Too much baggage and too few attributes.
Not sure I agree with you on all counts, Ken.
ReplyDeleteThere's certainly a mood for change blowin' in the wind, but I'm not sure why you say it's not for fundamentalist conservative offerings. Hasn't Alberta led the country in sending Reform, Alliance and now Conservative Party MPs to Ottawa? Ted Morton has hold of that constituency and he's calling it a freight train. One, I think, that can run over Ed's Alliance quite handily - but that remains to be seen. That was Ted I saw in second place on Saturday, right? You were in Calgary - were they actually pretty cheerful at the end, Ted's people, like I hear?
The remaining folks in Alberta who desire change want the kind of changes that all the candidates are promising, that taken together translate into intelligently dealing with the issues surrounding our present prosperity so that we don't waste this tremendous opportunity to set ourselves up for a remarkable and satisfying future. Would it really mean ruin for the province to see Jim's policy platform enacted as opposed to Dave's and Oberg's via Ed? And would their ideas truly not receive any consideration, ever?
And speaking of Oberg, it may be possible as you suggest to tuck him away in a corner for the duration of the campaign to limit the backlash to Ed of having him on board. But Lyle a non-entity afterwards? That seems unlikely, don't you think? Enlightenedsavage is spot on. I say it's Deputy Premier for Oberg, enlightenedsavage thinks it's Minister-Of-Anything-He-Wants, but it sure won't be the backbenches for Lyle.
You're absolutely correct when you say it comes down, finally, to character - the sniff test. But a pragmatic and principled character - like Ed taking on Oberg because it helps him win. A more substantive and indicative chip in the paint than not being smooth on TV, perhaps, when you're the integrity candidate.
You've made your distaste for Oberg clear. It must pain you that Ed and Dave are mixed up with him. Think that's the last time Ed will have to do something like that if he were Premier and Party Leader? You've been around, more than me. Knocking Jim (who I know personally, like greatly and respect very much, although I confess we're not duck hunting buddies) or any other leader for engaging in the political art of the possible is hard for me to understand.
I like Ed, tons. I took him and Marie up and down the Main Street of our town for three hours and made sure they met as many people as possible in our community. They're a blast, wonderful people. I had Dave in for coffee with civic leaders. He impressed with his sincerity and passion. I had Jim and Evelyn in town a couple of times. Marvellous couple. I've heard from mutual friends that Ted and Bambi are fine people, too.
Point is, each of the remaining three candidates can be trusted to deliver on their promises, and none of them is any less beholden to their supporters than any other, or handcuffed to the status quo. Aren't those long-serving MLAs cabinet ministers I see lining up with Ed (just not as many as for Jim), deeply entrenched in the present government? And some wealthy business people carrying the water for Oberg and Norris? And Ralph's dad, for Pete's sake?
Question is, who can go up against Morton's amazing and swelling ground-level tsunami and win?
Ground level. That's my neighbourhood and the view is a little scary at the moment.
Saw Ed quoted today as saying that "this is hardball politics and I'll do anything to win."
ReplyDeletePot, kettle.