Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Or maybe it's this: "We have always said the science isn't settled and we need to continue to monitor the debate." - Danielle Smith on climate change
If your solution to what is a major challenge to this province is to deny it, what ends up discredited is you.
|
Sure, but read my whole quote where I said 'like their policies or not'. Just because she made a controversial comment doesn't deny she is popular and is the party's best chance at victory. (Really, who else would be a more charismatic leader for them?)
Based on that logic, Ralph Klein would not have been the PCs best chance to win if they 'were serious about forming government' because he threw a toonie at a homeless man and told him 'to get a job'. I'm not suggesting the climate change quote helps, but it doesn't really mean she can't win an election either.
The point remains, if the Wildrose is serious about forming government, they'd be wise to keep Danielle as leader as she is their best chance at winning an election. Period. If they change leader now after both their seat and vote share rose dramatically in the next election, the perception of the party is that of instability. It would just not help them win whatsoever. Similarly, internal instability of two leaders in five years didn't exactly help the PCs electorally as they bled popular vote in a way they hadn't in 19 years.
It has nothing to do with partisanship or making a disagreeable comment. Tommy Douglas was his party's best chance at electoral success as was Pierre Trudeau in his day.
And hey, I'd be welcomed to be proven wrong, so either of you two are more than welcome to point out who should be leader 'if they are serious about forming government' as Bertuzzied suggests.