So based on my assumptions and the earlier posting allocating Hancock, Oberg and Norris support to Stelmach, coming out of Edmonton and the rural vote he is effectively tied with Morton for and adjusted base vote going into the second week.
So what happens in Calgary? First Dinning owns Calgary with 13752 votes for 53% of the total. Awesome control over that city. Morton was a respectable second place with 6817. So what happens to the Hancock, Oberg and Norris votes in Calgary?
I think all the Hancock, Oberg and Norris votes go to Stelmach. They are urban votes and any bleed may be from Norris but the base is so small as to not make much of a difference. I do not think the Calgary Oberg votes will switch to Morton if they are evangelical or, maybe Dinning if they ad Calgary-centric, or they stay home. One can not possible know this dynamic. At any rate, this is the best possible scenario for Stelmach.
To catch second place Morton, Stelmach needs to garner over 6800 votes. Well he has 1256 of his own, 542 from Hancock and 702 from Norris and assuming all of Oberg’s Calgary support goes to Stelmach – a big assumption, he gets 2946 from Oberg. That total 5446, leaving him about 1000 to 1500 votes shy of an equal footing with Morton when all the reallocations are done…again you have to accept my assumptions on allocation and retention by the also-rans.
That is to my mind terrific and means it is doable to catch Morton. Of course the sale of many more memberships to people committed enough to show up is key. Stelmach has growth potential in Edmonton and the North and some central rural, Dinning has growth in Calgary and region. Morton has many more Reformers, Alberta Alliance and Evangelicals in his hip pocket yet too. There were over 70,000 Alliance ballots cast in the 2004 election and Morton only has 25,600 first ballot votes. He has growth potential too.
This could be a 34/33/33 split after the second ballot. If so, based on second vote preferences we get Premier Stelmach so long as the middle 33% is him!
Perhaps Stelmach would be the best candidate to re-unite the party. He offends neither the left nor right wings of the party and isn't from Edmonton or Calgary. In the current scenario, Stelmach has the most to offer by being the least offensive.
ReplyDeleteThere is a strong "ABD" movement that will leave the party and go to the right if Dinning wins. Over 55% of the popular vote in the 2004 election was PC or farther right- so that is where the majority of votes are.
On the other hand, Ted Morton could alienate moderates and red Tories and reduce the popular base of the party.
Like others before him in history, Ed Stelmack could rise to the occasion, just as Harry Truman or Gerald Ford did- strong, capable leaders who seemed to rise from annonymity and impress everyone.
The key to a Stelmach or Morton victory will lie in the preferential ballot- who's your #2 choice? A strong (and smart) "Anbody But Dinning" movement would give its first choice to Stelmach or Morton and its second choice to the other (Morton or Stelmach). The only way Dinning could then win would be if he garners a clear majority right off the mark on the second ballot- not a likely scenario.
ReplyDeleteThe second choice will be the key to victory.
Ken:
ReplyDeleteOr for us simple folk--if everyone who voted on the first ballot for Ed brought one new person with them (and who can't come up with one person to save our province??)--Ed could easily win. Add that new support to all of the new MLAs + being everybody elses second choice and VOILA Premier Stelmach! GO ED!
Ken:
ReplyDeleteI think your numbers are dead on. Based on my own calucations, I saw this a virtual statistical dead heat and you have confirmed it.
Stelmach has to go into overdrive on membership sales this week, but with Hancock, Norris, and Oberg on side he will have some help there.
He can stay above the fray and present himself as the moderate alternative, while Dinning and Morton eviscerate each other.
Dinning and Morton are good people but one senses that they personally see this leadership event as proof that they are each destined for greatness.
ReplyDeleteStelmach is more Churchillian and is destined for greatness by having the events and consequences of leadership thrust upon him. He seeks an opportunity to be a leader-servant for the benefit of all of us - not a stage for personal agenda's, manifest destiny or aggrandizement.
The former is all about the candidates and achievment - the latter is all about the citizens and our mutual progress.
We are in a complex and chaotic world that needs thoughtful leaders who are unashamedly principled...and all the final three candidates are definitely that.
The difference is how they are animated and by what principles and what are the tradeoffs they are willing to make between competing principles.
Rest assured there will be competing principles demanding tradeoffs. How will they make those decisons?
It is time for wisdom over cleverness. It is time for character over personality. It is time for servant leaders over powerbrokers.
Stelmach is the best shoice for all those reasons.
I dunno, I find Stelmach's cowardice in dealing with EPS violations of his department's policies to be highly offensive.
ReplyDeleteI think I've heard enough days of "Stelmach is a compromise candidate and is neither left nor right". He's not right, that's for damned sure, but I'm not sure somebody who won't fight a battle he's guaranteed to win is much of a "compromise".