Phendrana Drifts

I was six years old in 1984, and at that tender age, I likely didn't care who won the leaders' debate in the federal election. And I'm bitter about that, because that was the epitome of a political debate - found here thanks to the CBC - and every single debate I've seen since the mid-nineties today I wait with baited breath for an exchange like that. And every time I'm disappointed including tonight. But that's ok, I'm getting used to debate disappointment.

I think Ed won, as the other two came across as a mixture of nervous or thin-skinned, but of course I'm biased. Good back and forth, but no interrupting or sparks - just gentle debate. Neither Jim or Ted went directly for each other's throats, but almost as a result they had very little to say. And if I had a nickel for every time Ted went after Ottawa I'd have... well tonight I would only have a buck, but still, that's some twenty times. On the other hand, Ed in his body language and what he said was so inviting and inclusive I wanted to campaign for next election right then and there, with that message.

Also, no one seemed to have a thirty-second sound-bite that is fun to share, other than Morton's attack on the reporters (which I found odd, but others found feisty). Also, given how much policy has come out in previous forums, this one was pretty light - only an Alberta pension plan and health care was given any serious consideration. Albertans have additional issues, in case no one noticed.

Thanks to the Edmonton Journal for being such a gracious host tonight to let me watch it at their place.

I've read a dozen times Jason Kenney's suggestion that at least a dozen Alberta MP's were flying in from Ottawa to lay the smack down for Ted Morton. Given how much press Dr. Morton gave Edmonton councilor Mike Nickel's endorsement, I can't for the life of me find the names of these MP's other than Jason Kenney and the jewels Myron Thompson and Rob Anders. Does anyone else have them?

Step 1: Every member of the PC Association of Alberta votes, putting a one beside their first choice and a two beside their second choice.

Step 2: All of the first choices of voters will be counted up. If 50% + 1 of the first choices are for a single candidate, he wins and is the new leader and Premier-designate. If not, proceed to step three.

Step 3: The "third" ballot - the person who came in third on the second ballot falls off the ballot, and his supporters' second place votes will be distributed between the top two candidates. Who ever has more votes between the two remaining candidates wins and is the new leader and Premier-designate.

So essentially, so long as someone doesn't get more votes than their two opponents combined on the second ballot all that matters is the second place votes of the candidate in third place.

The beauty of the system is that you can vote for your very favourite choice of the three as your first choice and save your second choice as your insurance vote. So let's say you think Ed is the best choice, but more importantly don't agree with Dr. Morton's platform and want to make sure he isn't Premier. You would then vote Ed-Jim, because if Ed doesn't make the final two, your vote counts against Dr. Morton just as much as if you voted Jim as your first choice. Same with the other permutations, Jim-Ed, Ed-Ted or Ted-Ed. I suppose Jim-Ted or Ted-Jim would also work, but I get the impression not many people are anti-Ed.

Next Saturday, 9am to 7pm. You can buy a membership all the way up to 6:59pm.

There is a decent chance you've never heard of Ed Stelmach. If Dave Hancock got the best line in at the all-candidates debate of "if you've never heard of me, it's because I haven't screwed up" then Ed is virtual paragon of solid performance. Leaving aside the normal campaign rhetoric that Ed is a solid guy full of honesty and integrity (and he is), Ed is the perfect choice to lead the PC's. He knows how to campaign, get people interested (spend five minutes with him and you'll understand), and most importantly grow our party to be one of innovation and inclusion.

This campaign is about to get very dirty, very quickly, and the best way to rise above the mud that is about to be slung is to reject the negative politics and look at our future - that's what the best ideas in this campaign have been all about, and what Ed represents. Far from being the best of a poor lot remaining on the ballot, Ed is the one person who gave me pause over working for Dave Hancock, and I'm glad to see him within striking distance.

So I'm working out this problem today, which to some degree is personal (who do I vote for and what do I do this week), but is also an exercise in political acumen (which has taken a beating this campaign, as what I predict can pretty much be guaranteed to work out to the opposite).

Politics is often the art of determining probabilities. In this case, what could happen on Saturday and what would have to happen to get there. Working out from a group of e-mails and conversations I've been having all day (and to some degree, plagarizing directly, apologies if you are re-seeing words or seeing your own thoughts), I see this. Six possible scenarios:

2nd ballot Dinning win - Dinning grows to 50% or more from the fear of a Ted Morton government. Dinning has a crack campaign team, who despite losing momentum may figure out how to get it back - especially if those MLA's supporting Dinning get off their asses and work for it.
2nd ballot Morton win - Morton sells enough memberships in one week to surpass Stelmach and Dinning combined. Possible, depends on whether he has tapped out his support base for the first ballot. If so, no chance. If there is room for membership growth, well... Less likely than Dinning taking it on the second ballot, but still very much possible.
2nd ballot Stelmach win - An extreme longshot, given that Dinning + Morton was 56.4% this last vote. While I think Stelmach has the most room to grow, I'm not sure there is that much room.
3rd ballot Dinning win - As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to conceive, as many Stelmach supporters will choose Morton as their second choice, and all Morton supporters will choose Stelmach as theirs. If he remains in the thirties or even low fourties on the second ballot, I can't see him finishing it.
3rd ballot Morton win - Stelmach's supporters choose Morton to throw him over the top. Unless Jim gets in the high forties, I think Stelmach's supporters will send Ted to the big chair. In the cold light of this afternoon, I think this is the most likely of the six scenarios.
3rd ballot Stelmach win - Stelmach comes in 2nd or 1st, and the supporter of the candidate that drops off picks Stelmach as their second choice. If Stelmach comes in second or first on the second ballot and whoever is first doesn't have 50%, Ed is the premier-designate, at least that is how I see it. What is holding this option back is that right now, all things being equal, Ed Stelmach will not be second or first.

For the purposes of probabilities, even a high 40's % would qualify as a win because if you're at 48% and the person left off the ballot had 20%, you would only need 10% of their supporters to list you as their second choice to put you over the top.

In many respects it boils down to this in my mind - if no one gets it on the second ballot and Stelmach is in the top two, then Stelmach will win. If no one gets it on the second ballot and Stelmach is not in the top two, then Morton wins. In any case, Dinning can only win on the second ballot and by the laws of mathematics and the PC party, that will only be the case if Morton plus Stelmach are less than Dinning. That is far from the case right now.

Important to note too that if Stelmach doesn't successfully make this a three-way race, that will make it Morton vs. Dinning. And unless the winner, be it Morton or Dinning, has some sort of leadership skills beyond parallel and continues making our party a big tent party, this party will be sunk.

I forgot to mention in my post of yesterday that I checked the credentials of the Honourable Don Getty for the vote yesterday. He was very classy, quite the gentleman.

Morning thought: If Ed makes it either first or second on the next ballot, regardless if it is Morton or Dinning who comes in first, the second choice of who drops off will be Ed. It is within the realm of possibility that the only way Jim will meet his ambition is to come in with 50% + 1 on the second ballot, which won't be easy.

Heavy turnout at Edmonton-Meadowlark, nearly double earlier predictions. We haven't opened the ballot box yet of course, so no idea how it works out, but I'm glad to see the turnout. My best story so far:

Voter: What else would work for a second piece of ID?
Duncan: Almost anything, something with your picture and your name...
Voter: What about my police badge? It has my picture right here...
Duncan: [Firmly] Yes. That will do nicely.

Rumour has it there is going to be an interesting poll tomorrow (hat tips to Ken and Benevolent Dictatorship) on the PC leadership race. If all is to be believed, the poll of current PC members will suggest a two-way race between Dinning and Morton - I was rumour mongering this all through September and October but fell behind this month as c-lo pointed out. Speaking of the man, the funniest e-mail of my day is when he dropped me a line about his thoughts on the Jim Dinning song - you can read them on his blog.

Dinning vs. Morton. Wow, you can smell the unity after that second ballot from here.

Paraphrasing from Penny Arcade (online gamer comic) today: Aren't Jim and Ted like brothers, coming from the same party and whatnot? You might recall that Cain and Abel were brothers.

Another thought on blogs, I have a new flavour of the month in blogs, the Enlightened Savage. He is spot on in many comments, and I can only hope he will continue blogging about Alberta politics past Nov. 25/Dec. 2. He is setting a furious pace, with a superb analysis of Dinning today, and a good one on Hancock yesterday.

Tonight might be the last night of relative peace for my family. I can't even say if I will be able to blog over the next little bit... maybe if there is internet at the Edmonton Meadowlark poll on Saturday (I'm a constituency volunteer for the vote(s) - I think I'm on credentials). Oh, and if you're looking to participate and want to support the best candidate in the race, drop me a line. And if you want to remain non-partisan (but still are ok buying a membership) and would like to volunteer for the election in being a poll clerk or something similar, drop me a line.

I looked at the long range forecasts for Edmonton and Calgary on Saturday: -23�C and -18�C respectively as a high. -27�C and -23�C as the low. What a day to have a very cold winter election. Brr...

I did happen to look at the temperature in Anaheim that same day: a high of +22�C, a low of +8�C. That would make a 45�C / 35�C difference from where I will be.

Some things take forever to wait for.

I am proud to support Dave Hancock. I have never met someone so passionately dedicated to making Alberta a better place to live, and Dave realizes that the best way to make Alberta better is through its people. There is no better investment. Dave offers vision and leadership in a political world filled with sound bytes over a solid plan. Dave's Alberta is one that is diverse, progressive and prosperous, with great people, where people have taken care of their environment, invested their prosperity well and everybody participates in democracy.

As President of the Edmonton-Meadowlark PC Association, I am looking for someone who is able to win the next election, and win it in Edmonton as well as in rural Alberta and in Calgary. A revitalized party that is prepared to win a mandate in the next election should be the goal of our new leader, and as past President of the PC party Dave has already shown his commitment to accomplishing just that. We can present a plan that appeals to Albertans in all corners of the province, including here in the capital region.

As an advocate for education, I want a Premier who gets it - who understands that education is the key to our future and making sure Alberta becomes the place to do business. In the post-petroleum world Alberta will need something else to offer the world, and a resource economy is not going to be it. If we are going to continue to be prosperous, we are going to have to be smart and innovative, offering new knowledge and the most educated workforce in the world.

But perhaps most importantly, as a conservative, I want someone who will use our resources wisely, investing prudently, and gets past the pathetic debate between just spending money on our problems or being so stingy that they ignore the need for investment. In the grand scheme of things, our petroleum-fuelled prosperity is fleeting, and I want someone who will leverage that to create an ideal economy and society for our children and grandchildren. Dave's passion for ensuring our resource revenue is used in the right ways - in endowments and in capital infrastructure for generations is what drew me to his team.

[The on-again, off-again blog covering the PC leadership race, Renewing the One Party State, asked bloggers who are supporting a candidate to blog about why - if you have an opinion on where Alberta should go and who should help lead it, blog about it and let the people running the blog know.]

10. Seeing many friends, including a surprise visit from daveberta. I do not believe he got a membership.

9. Fresh amounts of candidate propaganda, in the form of glossy brochures, t-shirts, and other paraphernalia.

8. Question: How do we make Edmonton a great capital city? Answer from Norris: I am from Edmonton. (I am abbreviating this somewhat, all the same, I am not altering the substance of Norris' reply)

7. I think there is strong chance Victor will come in dead last, below Gary McPherson and even Dave King's abysmal showing in the last race - a long fall for a former two-term Minister. His support was non-existent, and it is clear he is in well above his head.

6. Norris forgetting about Lukaszuk when saying the PC's in Edmonton were wiped out, save Hancock and Zwozdesky. Lukaszuk won Edmonton-Castle Downs.

5. Of course, how well Dave did. And he did indeed do very well.

4. Dr. Oberg's comment on how he wasn't afraid to speak up and speak about what is on his mind - indeed, Dr. Oberg has proven great at speaking before thinking.

3. How loud the person beside me laughed when Dr. Oberg said that, along with other comments from the good doctor.

2. When I pointed out to them after the forum the person sitting in front of us was the good doctor's wife, explaining the angry looks given when the laughter occurred.

1. Norris: Welcome to Edmonton, as you can see, a Tory town. Abboud (on the other side of me): Yeah, except for McClung.

Is it just me, or does the PC leadership campaign have far too much in common with the last provincial election? Leadership races are never policy heavy (indeed the folks at Renewing the One Party State noticed that this one had lots of policy relatively) but still, it has been kind of like watching paint dry. Well, not for me, but that is just because I'm personally involved. But if I just read the paper, I'd be bored.

I'm no politician. I like politics (admittedly, I like politics a lot) and I have even flirted with the idea of running for an office (or more likely running my wife, who is far more attractive and much less shy). I say this because even if I ran, and even if I ran without much thought of winning or planning, I believe I would do better than, say, 2%. 10% might be a stretch, but certainly 2% is more than do-able.

Apparently Stephen LeDrew, former President of the Liberal Party of Canada, is running to be mayor of Toronto. Good for him. I doubt I would vote for him, but I do know who he is. Always wore a bowtie, called Chretien's campaign finance reforms (and by reforms we mean he socialized it, how Canadian was that?) "dumber than a bag of hammers," and was a key person in convincing Jean that it was time to go.

On the other hand, I have no idea who Jane Pitfield is (well, I do now - read her wiki) and all I know about David Miller is that he is the incumbent mayor of Toronto. I know more about Stephen LeDrew than both of these people combined.

Apparently what I know about someone is not related to how they do in the polls - Stephen LeDrew, as pointed out by Paul Wells, is polling at 2%. 2%?!? WTF?

However, if electoral performance is inversally related to how well Duncan Wojtaszek knows them (which would explain a couple of electoral results) I would like to point out I once had a class with Dr. Ted Morton. I know him very, very well.

I'll have to be honest - I had no real idea what an income trust was until Scott Brison was suspected of sending an improper e-mail on the subject last federal election. But I still relegated it to the part of the brain that holds "Financial information that has little or no impact on me until I develop some capital." My bank account informs me, almost on a daily basis, that the file is not in any urgent need to be opened. Which is another way of saying, I only sort of knew what an income trust was.

Then yesterday federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty made me trot out that tiny piece of knowledge, as he announced the federal government would begin taxing income trusts like corporations. Good for him, and good for his government.

Does it brake an election promise? Well yes, but not only had circumstances changed, the proliferation and development of income trusts was a serious problem. While I appreciate the business model from the good perspective, from a larger macro economic level I can't imagine a worse model to base an economy on.

With the beginning of November comes the home stretch of the PC leadership campaign. There are five weeks left, six more forums, a bunch more interviews, and possibly another Oberg skeleton. Still, I'm left some disheartened by the process. Why? Well it isn't structural - I love the one member, one vote leadership concept (delegated conventions may produce more drama and publicity, but the other process is considered so much more legitimate and produces largely electable leaders) and it isn't because the stakes are too low - because they are indeed very high.

I think it is because no one else seems to take too much interest, and the campaigns themselves are not creating much waves. I always knew that the leadership race itself would be policy-light, the vast majority of leadership races are. Look at the federal Liberal race on right now, or the most recent federal Conservative race. Personality always trumps policy and ideas in internal races, and I fear they are doing so in general elections as well.

Still, I'm feeling like we're stuck in a political rut of apathy, and this race is simply reinforcing it. Normally I would bring out my trusty scapegoat of the media (and it fits here as well) but there must be other reasons as well. So why does no one care about this leadership selection? Maybe it is just me. But I don't think so, and neither does a Calgary Herald/Edmonton Journal article this morning - it suggests this apathetic and ho-hum race is reinforcing a Dinning lead, which I certainly could have guessed. It fails to mention it also reinforces the party outsider focused campaign of Ted Morton. As both have ins to talking to potential voters via either the party infrastructure of the Alberta PC's or the federal CPC's respectively, the others are faced to deal within the media, which is hazardous, or drumming up support outside of a political structure.

I don't think it is necessarily the candidates' fault - most have released detailed policy and are challenging some common assumptions. All are actively campaigning, and from what I can tell, all are campaigning relatively well. With the exception of Oberg's stupid stunt, I can think of no direct mistakes, certainly different styles, but no certain mistakes. Another thing that is reinforcing Dinning's (and to a degree Morton's) campaign. I still think this is a race, and one that could be won by anybody, but to some measure everybody except Dinning and Morton needed luck in addition to sound policy, good organization and hard work.

Hopefully the forums will shake some Albertans and media out of their laziness, and will shake the party into realizing this is a life-or-death race for the party that is depending on a contest rather than a coronation. But I can't emphasize enough, it may also just be me.

Some rumours making the rounds in my world:

"Anybody but Dinning" and "Anybody but Morton" teams are actively forming and trying to influence the race. This might help explain some of the longevity Oberg has, as he is a natural candidate for both those categories.
"Anybody but Oberg" appears to be just another name for "Jim Dinning", but before the stupid stunt it may have had room to grow - still I'm not counting out Oberg (I made that mistake before, and I feel dumb for making it) and as long as he is in, the possibility of a "Anybody but Oberg" camp forming around Jim, Dave, Mark, Ed or Ted still exists.
Someone will drop before the November 6 deadline - I think it is just a rumour, unless Victor is thinking seriously about it. The big six don't seem to be slowing down at all, or taken any major blows, and Gary will stick to the end. Of course, the poll of today shows that not much has changed (from a pollster's perspective) in a month - and six or seven candidates needed something to change.
Jim Dinning is planning for what happens on December 3 (beyond just policy) - I hope not, because win or lose that is a big mistake. That said, he's never said anything publicly about the subject (the exact opposite in fact) and never anything to me other than about his plans for the next general election (he plans on winning).

Twitter Updates