The Calgary Herald Leger Poll is out but what does it tell us we did not already know? Not that it has a duty to show change, when there is none. Here are the results and the shifts since the last poll of those who identified as PC party supports...the key group:
Question:
If you could vote for the next Tory leader, who would you support?
Albertans PC Party - Supporters
Jim Dinning 18% 23%
Lyle Oberg 14% 16%
David Hancock 5% 4%
Ed Stelmach 5% 4%
Mark Norris 3% 3%
Ted Morton 4% 6%
Victor Doerksen 1% 2%
Gary McPherson 1% 1%
Other 3% 1%
Don't Know 37% 35%
Refused to answer/would not vote/spoil ballot 10% 4%
Source: Leger Marketing Margin of Error: 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
© The Calgary Herald 2006
So far "Don't Know" is running the most successful campaign at 35% support. The more extreme anti-campaign reaction of the refused to answer, would not vote or the "message senders" by spoiling ballots is down from 10% to 4% - still a significant condemnation of how the PC Party is doing reflecting and connnecting with its membership.
Dinning looks to be a cinch for a second ballot position and a second ballot looks inevitable as well. Oberg is the "rebel" but with a "cause" and a style of governing that no one feels very comfortable with...and for good reason. Morton is still the sleeper but a real threat for second or third place, depending if Oberg crashes and burns - or not! Morton support is almost subliminal but very substantially grounded in the evangelical movement and old line Reformers. They are below the radar but will show up to vote for their ideology as embodied in Dr. Ted Morton.
The remaining candidates are not out of it and campaigns matter but what happens to the Progressive element in the PC Party if the third place candidate is a distant third regardless of who that is? Alberta will survive but will we be in such a state of political flux that we are unable to effectively respond to the times of great promise - and responsibility - that stretch out before us?
I think the hard core PC party membership better start thinking seriously about how it regroups and progresses forward after the selection process because all signs are pointing to an early election in 2007 - whether Albertans like the idea or not. That means a provincial, municipal and likely federal set of elections next year and another set of revisited leadership issues for those whose party's lose in the elections.
Will all the King's horses and all the King's men be up to the task or do we get a bunch of factions all splitting off and into their own "realities" and the PC machine breaksdown.
I will soon post more "Send 'Em a Message" survey results on the evaluation of the government's performance in key policy areas. A bit of a preview - except for getting some positive credit for cutting taxes - it is not a pretty sight.
Ken:
ReplyDeleteAnonomoyous again:
See my comments on the income trust issue under your income trust blog.
I can't keep up with all your posting
Ken: thanks for the comment on the blog. I urge you to check out the blog of another Albertan Progressive Conservative of which I am a regular reader. He is always looking for more PC voices in his threads, so I figure you would enjoy perusing this blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://rightofcenterice.blogspot.com/
Ken...
ReplyDeleteafter the latest leadership forum ...
I AM ONLY VOTING FOR DAVE HANCOCK
He is the only "histrionic and hysteria free" candidate and is not a washed out "has been" with the same ideas repeated ad naseamly, spouting, "HEY MY best friends are in OIL" over and over and over and over with nothing else to say!! (I have a friend in OIL TOO, SO WHAT???)
Dave Hancock stands up for our kids education, for the enviroment and for health care AND is a level-headed voice of reason for all.
This is another thought provoking piece, obviously coming from a passionate voice within the party. As an outsider (and a prospective party member (voter)), I have a feeling that the candidates so far are trying quite well to move the party away from the reality of today.
ReplyDeleteRalph Klein was able to get away with a lot, mainly because of what I regard as his 'x-factor'. This I think is mainly associated with his charisma and forthrightness. I have not been able to associate these with any of the candidates up till now. Whoever is serious about leading this party has to come out as a real person. I see most of the candidate presenting themselves as chameleons, they blend with every background.
As a voter, at the moment if I want to vote, I can almost close my eyes pick any of candidates. This is because none of the front runners really stood out for me. I am not surprised about the results of the poll. At the moment, the idea of a second ballot will only pick a winner but not the leader.
Hi Becky - Interested in your Hancock perspective and what brings you to those conclusions...and wonder if you would call me 420-0505
ReplyDeleteCall you Ken?
ReplyDelete:-)
How about a few points from my scribbles just for now?
What leads me to the conclusion that I shall vote for Dave Hancock?
1. Dave is calm. If there was an urgent matter that needed to be attended to he would attend to it in an organized and calm manner and not allow "thin-skinned" comments to sidetrack him from his purpose; that is being the best leader for the people of Alberta.
2. Dave would not embarrass us as leader of this province because he is thoughtful - that is, he thinks carefully before he speaks. I have observed this with him. Think - answer, Think - answer. He does not shoot off at the mouth. Oh I am sure he does occationally, which would be NORMAL, but over all I have noticed he is thoughtful.
3. Dave does not pretend to know everything and everyone. If is he not sure about something he will SAY IT honestly and then go find out the answer in a calm and methodical manner. This makes me think that Dave is a human being like I am and not some fake, self-serving, stuffed shirt, know it all.
4. Dave is C L E V E R. Lets face it, you absolutely cannot be a dummy and run the province. I KNOW I KNOW, there are LOTS OF RESOURCE people behind the scenes to H E L P. But lets speak to truth at the moment. He would not be side-tracked by stupidity because he is clever enough to see the trees despite the forest. Some candidates I have noticed do not have this ability. They may have some experience in life, but I find that you need to have a good head on your shoulders to be a leader. I want to know that my leader is clever "independently" and can think for themselves without the input of resource people and consultants that tend to hang around politicians to garner favour for themselves. OUCH I know that one was touchy :-) But some of these CONSULTANTS I have met, are incredible - HUH? - today I like this one, but tomorrow I like that one because he is the flavour of the month at the moment?? This is of course a fact of life but it is a bit repulsive to me. How can you trust the lot of them honestly? So my leader would have to be able to make decisions without the consultants in a thoughtful manner.
5. Dave does not appear to shop his fancy friends around in public. As a voter, I just cannot stand this at all, not a bit. Friends come and go very quickly, they can be fickle, we all know this. So big fancy friends and so on and so forth mean nothing to me as an ordinary voter with a family and kids in school, sorry it just does not cut it.
He appears to be a regular family guy just like us, here at home. We like that.
6. Dave is not shopping around the ETHNIC vote. VOTE for me just because I am of this particular culture. WE all know that THIS is going on pretty strong with one candidate. HOW disgusting is this already?? I am just appalled and annoyed! I should vote for the leader of the province JUST BECAUSE he is of a certain culture? AM I STUPID, would I really buy this? DOES THAT make him clever and fit for office? NO Does that make him capable enough to run? NO. I want to know if he is clever, I want to know if he CAN represent the province to the world and win the next election. I could care less about his culture or religion PERIOD! And so what if he is a NICE GUY, who cares. OK he can be nice but IS HE CAPABLE - like for instance, can he stand up and at least make decent SPEECH?? HELLO HELLO, EARTH TO CANDIDATE? To run on this platform and have your campaign workers run around to every cultural event shopping the candidate around because "HE IS ONE OF US AFTER ALL" HUH? Let us enjoy the event people, get out of my face talking about ETHNICITY DURING AN ELECTION when I am trying to have a meal and watch some entertainment. THIS is just a big FAT SHAME SHAME SHAME and IF I MAY BORROW A COMMENT - PUKE PUKE PUKE!!
7. Dave is thick-skinned I have noticed. A leader should not be some schoolboy stomping with flames coming out of his mouth over every LITTLE TINY GAFFE that happens - OH MY HEAVENS!!
8. Dave is interested in our children's education, I have noticed this. We like this. I know he is also interested in resources, the enviroment, health etc. etc. etc. but education is important. Some of the other candidates could take notice of this in their OWN LIVES instead of pretending to be so interested and understanding and not have one stitch of educational evidence in their own lives to back up WHAT THEY ARE PREACHING. I MEAN THE HYPOCRISY is ASTOUNDING!!!!!!
9. Dave is not an extremist. Of course he may be an extremist but I have no evidence of this from my observations. He says things like. "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the citizens".
Thank you Dave, lets get on to things like HEALTH AND EDUCATION. He appears to be a person who is accepting of everyone. I would like more people to notice this like I have. HE is not bogged down by race, culture, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, financial status. He is interested in us as he sees us - PEOPLE OF ALBERTA with all our faults and differences and opinions.
10. Dave is a voice of reason, he just is. If you put aside all your personal prejudices and just look at the candidates in a logical and unemotional manner, you will see the Dave Hancock is the ONLY voice of reason in the wilderness for ordinary Albertans.
11. Dave is not an old political hack trying to come back on what used to be a white stallion but is now a somewhat old grey mare so to speak. A person should know when to quit, really and just "MOVE ON".
12. I was one of the many people who lost their "very excellent, needing lots of education, who worked hard for so long to get ahead" jobs. Remember the LAY OFFS. I remember a particular candidates dismissive and arrogant words in regards to what happened. I remember the staff crying and wondering how they were going to pay their mortgages and bills because I was one of them. I remember the PINK SLIP, something I never ever thought would happen to me. I will never forget the lack of compassion in his delivery to US as Albertan who were axed. One thing I know about a message. If it is delivered with true compassion and understanding with rational explanation because THINGS need to be done, that is one thing. If it is delivered with arrogance as if it was OUR FAULT - that is the SHAME SHAME SHAME. How come no one is mentioning THIS????
I have come to the conclusion that should Dave Hancock have to deliver a message, I know that it would be done with much thought beforehand, with intelligence, with compassion and understanding. He would not run away from responsibility but he would not make all of us feel like failures and little people who are not not worth anything at the end of the day when we went home with our slips of paper and complete lack of dignity.
I wish others could HEAR and SEE Dave Hancock how we have HEARD and SEEN Dave Hancock, because he WOULD be the FRONT RUNNER and he WOULD WIN BY A LANDSLIDE.
HI Becky - can I forward your Comments on this Blog about the reasons you are voting for Dave Hancock to his campaign?
ReplyDeleteI bet they would like to put them on his website.
You have captured the essence of the guy and the reason's I support him. Thx for taking the time to write this.
Becky,
ReplyDeleteIn your somewhat rambling dissertation on the merits of Dave Hancock you manage to throw a heck of a lot of mud on another candidate who does not deserve it. If by connecting the dots of "nice guy" and "ethnic vote" you mean Stelmach, you are so off the mark it isn't even funny.
Stelmach has never stood up and waved the Ukrainian flag. Rather, he has had it foisted upon him by everyone else. The media, even such decent writers as Tom Olsen, rarely fail to mention that Ed is of Ukrainian ancenstry. So what? So is a decent chunk of the province. But it is interesting how the cultural backgrounds of any other candidates are not even mentioned - even in passing.
What is a Hancock by the way? Or Dinning? Some good anglo-saxon protestant? Maybe we should beware Doerksen. Sounds German - maybe he is going to invade Saskatchewan for more land.
Surely, you don't mean to suggest Stelmach is any less "Albertan" because his roots (generations back) don't stem from the United Kingdom. You're post is doubly offensive since you seem to imply you share the same cultural background. For shame.
I actually didn't mind your post until Point 6, where by going negative like that on a candidate that has been anything but in this race, you have ruined your own arguments. To my knowledge, Dave and Ed have had a good working relationship as cabinet ministers for years. I sincerely doubt that Hancock would be proud to call you a supporter.
Ken, frankly I am surprised you gave her post such a resounding endorsement. Until now, I thought you ran a fairly even-handed blog.
P.S. Becky - I think the caps-lock key is STUCK ON YOUR KEYBOARD.
I see no point in wasting my time or energy on a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning, that is Dave Hancock.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Norris and Morton are certainly not the corporate Calgary frontrunners, they at least have a chance of winning this thing. I'd rather pick the likely winners and try convince them of my ideas than waste my time on Hancock.
I agree - saying thanks for the long-winded rambling crap? Her excessive use of caps does not at all help her inability to convince.
Anonymous
ReplyDelete:-)
I can tell you my friend:
1. I do know what I am talking about
2. Obviously you have not been exposed to one of the long-winded "he is one of us" speeches over a dinner plate where we are all supposed to attending a family event. I have been, AD NASEAMLY. That is my point, I do not think that ethnicity should be a tool used for a vote. If a person knows that this is going on, and they do not want it to happen, they should tell their workers to just STOP IT. BUT, BUT there is no stopping it at all, it just rolls along. I didn't say the guy wasen't nice, he is a real nice guy, a real nice guy, really, I really like him a lot a lot more than you realize and I respect him! :-)
But the FACT IS, this is what has been happening and continues to happen, it's like pass the perogies and buy a membership! Don't start running around in a circle hyperventilating on us now pretending this is not happening, I mean, my gosh already!!
3. I have a right to my opinion, if you do not LIKE IT, don't read it. But I think I struck a chord with you LOL! I am not such an uptight, thin-skinned reactive person like you obviously. ;-)
4. I know who I am voting for, who are you voting for? OR, are you still sitting on the fence to see who will offer you a better position, whose briefcase you will be allowed to carry, who you can be a CONSULTANT for or resident expert about something for? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??
I know your TYPE very well. (Please don't start running around in a circle even faster now)
5. I am not trying to convince you, I was merely telling Ken about my scribbles as he asked. If he likes them, this is great, if he does not, he can toss them. It was a "CAPPED" exercise for Ken, not for you Buddy, so take a hike! LOL.
6. Thank goodness, Ken just doesn't allow self-important-stuffed-shirted-know-it-alls like you to take up valuable space on his blog.
Ken you can pass my comments along, for what they are worth, remembering that, they are merely becky's scribblings from reading and hearing and watching and not the authoritative, expertise laden scribblings of our friend, ANONYMOUS, the "CAPS-HATER".
;-)
I'm the second anon.
ReplyDeleteI am not a Stelmach supporter. However, I don't think people will vote for him because he is Ukrainian.
I was actually only upset that I took the time to read your post. Your insults humiliate yourself.
Ken, are you going to respond to this type of post or silently condone it because she is supporting your contender?
For the record - Ed Stelmach is my favourite provincial politician even though I support Dave Hancock as my first choice.
ReplyDeleteIn the last 2 elections I have taken a day off and gone to Vegreville to door knock for his campaign.
I believe we Albertans and Canadians should thrive on our individual differences not try to marginalize people because of them.
Yes Becky is wrong on the facts and yes she took a cheap shot at Ed but he is not so thin skinned that he can't take someting like that in stride.
Ed is not campaigning based on his ethnicity and I know his support is broader and deeper than the Ukrainian community. What is wrong with that anyway? Are we going to criticize Morton because of his evangelical support? Of course not. They have every right to coalesce behind any candidate the wish and for what ever reasons they choose.
Stelmach's qualifications and capacity for political public service are considerable and he has proven himself. The quality of his character and his practical realistic approach to politics is amongst the best I know of anywhere.
I just think Hancock is more likely to be a more effective agent of real change for what Alberta needs moving forward at this time. I also know he and Ed are friends and have the greatest of respect for each other - and they work every well together.
So everybody - lighten up...show some respect for people in politics- even those with whom you disagree - we will all be better for it.
To all Anonymouses
ReplyDelete:-)
You absolutely do not know what you are talking about, you poor souls!!
AND why because you are NOT one of us. One of us would have winked and laughed and went....YEAH YEAH....the "N" thing AGAIN, oh boy and just laughed!!!
(you don't know what the "N" thing is I suppose)
:-)
I certainly have not "humiliated myself".
You are just upset that I have the gall to state the "facts" as they were presented to us attending various cultural events. It is not the person I am talking about, but the methodology involved! The candidate is a great guy really, a real nice guy! Very funny actually, I just think that Dave is the better choice!
:-)
I am certainly not insulting anyone at all, in fact, it was "all of us who felt rather insulted" and that is why I put forth what I did. WE were insulted. If you cannot read that in my posts than you have certainly missed the boat by a long shot.
Since you were not there, you do not have a pompous leg to stand on.
You all are really stomping around, bellowing hot air concerning yourself about a cause you do not even support - which is puzzling??
Wanting me banned and silenced because I support "ken's" contender NOW after careful consideration of all candidates??
WOW WOW
and a good Sunday morning to you by the way, I need another coffee here!!!
:-)
And that is that everyone!
I'll just move along to the voting booth!
Hey Becky - Do not be silenced...keep the discussion going.
ReplyDeleteThe more points of view we all get exposed to the better our collective final decisions will be about this leadership thing. And more importantly we will be clearer about our hopes and aspirations for the future direction of our province. That is what this current political process is really all about.
Don't be silenced - active participating citizenship is too important to be silenced.
Nice post Ken; I completely agree with you on Stelmach.
ReplyDeleteBecky says: You absolutely do not know what you are talking about, you poor souls!!
Apparently Becky has not heeded your advice. You can support a candidate without insulting others who are not in line with your thinking. In fact, if you really want to support Hancock, you should try convince others. Anyway, I do enjoy your seemingly unlimited enthusiasm.
:-)
ReplyDeleteIt is very apparent that when some voters tell others about methodologies that other candidates have been using to garner their votes, we are insulting others, not heeding advice, and should be sent to the corner like the bad little children that we are.
And should we disagree with this methodology our
LOYALITES are questioned and the guilt trip of "not being one of us" is hung around our shoulders?
Who is being insulted?
We the voters, have been highly insulted, I can tell you this!
:-)
You are "poor souls" if you do not think that this is going on.
I appreciated that Dave did not hang a guilt trip of any kind, be it culture, be it corporate, be it the "old boys club sticking together", around our necks in order to persuade us to vote for him.
He gave absolute factual solutions to our questions and concerns as citizens of Alberta and talked to us like a grown up. Not once did he send us to the shame shame corner to medidate on "why we will not support one of us, because it is our turn now", not once did he talk oil "wink wink" or buddy buddy friend "wink wink", he stuck to the facts.
He talked like an educated, responsible man with a family, just like us who wants the best for the province and our kids future in every way.
So here is "one of them" who will be voting for Dave.
(and please Anonymous, come down, come down, from your high horse up there in the clouds to mingle with the little people who are actually on the ground listening to all of this fake outrage!!)
And now Ken, I have to cook a great meal for my family coming over! You know, the rest of the dastardly "not one of them" voting for Dave.
:-)
Hey Becky - I am sure you can convince some of your family to vote first - and then to vote for Dave. Have a great family dinner and enjoy your time together.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you are staying in the discussion!
Well done Ken, you might get a couple extra votes for Hancock ... at a certain cost. Are you "ONE OF THEM"? Well, ARE YOU?
ReplyDelete"One of Them" meaning am I voting Hancock - you bet!
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, there are at least two anonymouses here. I was the first to respond to Becky. And yes, I am supporting Stelmach. Thanks Ken, both for your favourable comments towards Ed and for pointing out that Becky is wrong on some of her facts.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right in that we can be enthusiastic supporters for our favoured candidate while not falling into partisan squabbles. For the record, having been to one of the PC forums so far, I would most likely support Hancock in the event he makes it to second ballot and Stelmach does not. From what I have seen so far, of all of the candidates, it appears to me that both Dave and Ed have not descended into cheap shots against other candidates. It would be a real shame if neither of them made it to second ballot, and all we were left with was "Mr. skeletons in the closet guy", "the chosen one" and "the right hand of God". It would be worse if supporters of each resorted to mudslinging the other and in doing so ruined the chances of both.
I am not a fan of so-called "strategic voting" whereby you vote for a candidate not because he is your first choice, but because he is the closest to your beliefs AND is also belived to make it to second ballot. That kind of thinking is self-defeating. So in this, I disagree with Anonymous2.
Isn't this anonymous stuff getting beyond silly and a little out of hand - especially with the "dueling" anonymities on this posting? I really do not care who is Anonymous #1 and #2. Why in the world are you insisting on anonymity in the first place is my question.
ReplyDeleteAgain I wonder what people are afraid of? Surely people know there are risks in having opinions about powerful people in government but only those who are in politics because having power is their primary purpose.
This is a democracy! They work for us - not the other way around.
To not stand up to them - in your own name - simply lets them get away with more intimidation and innuendo and fear mongering.
Paraphrasing Edmond Burke..."it is sufficient for evil to flourish if good people simply to do nothing."
OK stating opinion and sharing ideas on a Blog is not exactly "nothing" but doing it anonymously means you are volunteering for the erosion of your right to free speech.
I see so many right wing Conservatives who seem afraid to overtly state an opinion that is not exactly "on message" with their Party's prevailing political orthodoxy of the day. They also love to name and frame others as "not real conservatives" or "liberals" as if that was significant of anything of importance.
Diversity, inclusion, sharing ideas and using positive participatory politics as a way to advance an entire society is not assisted by labels and petty efforts at marginalizing people merely for having a different opinion.
What is with that?
Come on people - be yourselves, say who you are, state what you believe in and stand up for what you believe in. Even defend your beliefs or - heaven forbid - take the risk and try being persuasive not merely prejorative.
I am always ready to be convinced of a better idea, approach or purpose...but it is hard to be persuded by "entities" skuling in dark shadowy cyber-corners.
Nope! :-}
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWell done Ken, you might get a couple extra votes for Hancock ...
at a certain cost. Are you "ONE OF THEM"? Well, ARE YOU?
***********************************
Ken do you think that Anonymous is confusing the election with an episode of "LOST"
you know, one of them, the others??
Ah Anonymous, recall
The Savoy Operas?
remember the first night?
then THE SECOND NIGHT!
"If you wish in this world to advance,
Your merits you're bound to enhance;
You must stir it and stump it,
and blow your own trumpet,
Or trust me, you haven't a chance.
Vote for Dave already, give this up,
see the light!
Come on, at the next culture event I'll buy you a cup of coffee and some "Pampushky" and we'll make up!
:-)