Alberta Leadership Debate

[Thunderball]

I'm surprised there isn't a thread on this already... but here was my take.

The pundit on CBC believed everyone won insofar as they accomplished their goals... I say the opposite. I'd say the big loser was Taft, despite a very strong start.

Synopsis:

Stelmach: Under pressure in the beginning beared a striking resemblance to a combination of Porky Pig and Elmer Fudd. Fortunately for him, Mason turned his sights on Taft, and Hinman backed off to try and sell his own platform. His answers were predictable, scripted and generally unimpressive. Still, because Taft in particular didn't rip him apart from start to finish means he's assured an election win.

Taft: Started off strong, emphasized intelligent change, and largely let Hinman and Mason go for Stelmach's jugular. He even made a very good joke about the charisma gap. Once Mason caught on and started attacking him, he regressed into the unpopular candidate he was in the previous election and got into, essentially, a socialism contest with Mason as to who can spend Alberta into the ground faster. He started off looking like a Premier in waiting, he ended up looking like an opposition leader with declining fortunes. Points for mentioning blowing up the General Hospital... but he never attacked Stelmach with the kind of passion and charisma that one would expect a Premier candidate to do. He was a big let down.

Mason: He was fiery for most of the night, with some excellent vitriol causing Stelmach to derogatorily call him a socialist. He did an excellent job of essentially winning the election for Stelmach, as he exposed Taft as being a typical centre-lefty, and not a real viable electoral alternative for disenchanted conservatives. He didn't really help himself though. He may have lost voters that would otherwise vote for the NDP who will likely strategic vote against Stelmach.

Hinman: Innovative. He must have used that word 25 times. He started off wooden and scripted, but his policy was (with a couple exceptions, one critical... I'll get to it later) logical and coherent. His job was to come off as a legitimate candidate and be a real conservative alternative. He accomplished that. He made a big mistake in childcare. Like Taft, his true colors showed when he essentially said that the woman belongs in the home raising child. While I agree that institutional daycare is far from anyone's ideal, the way he articulated his position was terrible. Had he proposed that say, grandparents, siblings, relatives or parents be given a tax credit for performing babysitting/daycare services, or paying nannies out of pre-tax income (or some other incentive), he might have come off better and proposed a better alternative than the others arguing over who can spend the most money. That probably cost him Calgary and Edmonton... but it might play great in rural Alberta.

It was a subpar debate, with each candidate appearing very flawed and unpolished.

[peter12]

Yeah, I noticed the Mason/Taft smashfest pretty early on. I'm surprised that Taft didn't seem more ready for Mason's onslaught. As you said, he should have just kept on hammering Stelmach, but was obviously not up to the task.

Wow, this debate just summarized how LITTLE choice we have in this province. I wouldn't want a single one of those guys being the face of this province to the world and the rest of the country.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, I noticed the Mason/Taft smashfest pretty early on. I'm surprised that Taft didn't seem more ready for Mason's onslaught. As you said, he should have just kept on hammering Stelmach, but was obviously not up to the task.

Wow, this debate just summarized how LITTLE choice we have in this province. I wouldn't want a single one of those guys being the face of this province to the world and the rest of the country.

Yes and Yes.

Taft should have been prepared to take on Stelmach AND completely trivialize Mason as a fringe candidate.

I try not to think about how little choice we have... its essentially the south park election episode in real life.

Best case scenario, Stelmach gets creamed, retains a majority and gets kicked out for a new leadership election and some better candidates. I can't vote PC though, cause my MLA is a dufus (and used to be my religion teacher).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Yes and Yes.

Taft should have been prepared to take on Stelmach AND completely trivialize Mason as a fringe candidate.

I try not to think about how little choice we have... its essentially the south park election episode in real life.

Best case scenario, Stelmach gets creamed, retains a majority and gets kicked out for a new leadership election and some better candidates. I can't vote PC though, cause my MLA is a dufus (and used to be my religion teacher).

I've been thinking about officially declining my ballot at the polls this year. It's some measure of protest... either that or I'll vote for one of the wacky fringe parties. Maybe the Greens. Although, I've met all of their leadership and I find them to be the most ridiculously smug/whiny people in the world.

Once I mentioned how I supported Harper and the Conservatives over some policy issue and one of them literally turned her back on me and walked away. So actually they've lost my vote forever.

I keep hoping Preston Manning is right and some new Alberta party will rise from the ashes.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

I've been thinking about officially declining my ballot at the polls this year. It's some measure of protest... either that or I'll vote for one of the wacky fringe parties. Maybe the Greens. Although, I've met all of their leadership and I find them to be the most ridiculously smug/whiny people in the world.

Once I mentioned how I supported Harper and the Conservatives over some policy issue and one of them literally turned her back on me and walked away. So actually they've lost my vote forever.

I keep hoping Preston Manning is right and some new Alberta party will rise from the ashes.

I've met a couple higher-ups in the Green party. I found they were not only smug, but grossly uninformed and well, nutty. I think I'm voting Alliance, but I'm not too impressed with Hinman metaphorically dropping his Bible on his podium.

I also hope Manning is right, the choices are pretty poor.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I've met a couple higher-ups in the Green party. I found they were not only smug, but grossly uninformed and well, nutty. I think I'm voting Alliance, but I'm not too impressed with Hinman metaphorically dropping his Bible on his podium.

I also hope Manning is right, the choices are pretty poor.

Hinman is a decent fellow. He's definitely the only one of the four candidates that actually gets market economics and accompanying fiscal conservatism. He is a bit whacky on some of those social issues. Whatever... Taft the Tolerant seemed to agree with him on some of those points.

Frick. It seriously would not be hard to pull together a good platform based upon free market environmentalism. With the amount of good policy ideas coming out of the Alberta grassroots, I could pull together a good platform in a day. You'd get some big guns to support you, too.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hinman is a decent fellow. He's definitely the only one of the four candidates that actually gets market economics and accompanying fiscal conservatism. He is a bit whacky on some of those social issues. Whatever... Taft the Tolerant seemed to agree with him on some of those points.

Frick. It seriously would not be hard to pull together a good platform based upon free market environmentalism. With the amount of good policy ideas coming out of the Alberta grassroots, I could pull together a good platform in a day. You'd get some big guns to support you, too.

I agree. I think Hinman understands economics far more than the others. I totally cringed when he said that whole childcare thing, cause he was doing so well, especially on the oil and gas topics... luckily no one really attacked him for it.

It should be so easy to build a party with the type of policy that would topple the established parties. I just wonder where the hell it is. Free-market environmentalism, fiscal conservatism and social moderation. Simple.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I agree. I think Hinman understands economics far more than the others. I totally cringed when he said that whole childcare thing, cause he was doing so well, especially on the oil and gas topics... luckily no one really attacked him for it.

It should be so easy to build a party with the type of policy that would topple the established parties. I just wonder where the hell it is. Free-market environmentalism, fiscal conservatism and social moderation. Simple.

Alright, down to the James Joyce! We'll get a manifesto by sun-up.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Alright, down to the James Joyce! We'll get a manifesto by sun-up.

If only we could get a slate of candidates in on time!

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm protest voting for the communist party this year, unless a rhino candidate runs.

[Eric Vail]

It seems to me that people's pre-debate biases completely colour their vision of the debates. Conservative supporter see Stelmach and here his answers and say... it just makes sense.

and I could go down the list of candidates with the same comments. I guess the real question is whether anyone was swayed by what they heard tonight. I bet not very many. I may be mistaken, but I don't think these debates sway many voters.

[MacDougalbry]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Yes and Yes.

Taft should have been prepared to take on Stelmach AND completely trivialize Mason as a fringe candidate.

I try not to think about how little choice we have... its essentially the south park election episode in real life.

Best case scenario, Stelmach gets creamed, retains a majority and gets kicked out for a new leadership election and some better candidates. I can't vote PC though, cause my MLA is a dufus (and used to be my religion teacher).

I think a minority conservative government would be the ideal (but probably unlikely) outcome. That would guarantee a shake-up in the PCs but would also signal the possibility that the Liberals could someday win an election which would hopefully draw higher quality candidates into that party and hopefully a new leadership contender there as well.

[MacDougalbry]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

It seems to me that people's pre-debate biases completely colour their vision of the debates. Conservative supporter see Stelmach and here his answers and say... it just makes sense.

and I could go down the list of candidates with the same comments. I guess the real question is whether anyone was swayed by what they heard tonight. I bet not very many. I may be mistaken, but I don't think these debates sway many voters.

Usually not, but occasionally they do. I remember this debate in BC in 1991... Gordon Wilson's "win" in this debate essentially nailed the coffin shut on the Socred Party in BC:
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1637...lections/clip6

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

It seems to me that people's pre-debate biases completely colour their vision of the debates. Conservative supporter see Stelmach and here his answers and say... it just makes sense.

and I could go down the list of candidates with the same comments. I guess the real question is whether anyone was swayed by what they heard tonight. I bet not very many. I may be mistaken, but I don't think these debates sway many voters.

Normally, debates really only sway the undecideds. This year, there are a lot apparently... something like 16%. That's huge for any party. I don't think any of the candidates were overly convincing to that undecided percentage... and they just might stay home.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MacDougalbry

I think a minority conservative government would be the ideal (but probably unlikely) outcome. That would guarantee a shake-up in the PCs but would also signal the possibility that the Liberals could someday win an election which would hopefully draw higher quality candidates into that party and hopefully a new leadership contender there as well.

Elections don't get much easier than this one. If the Liberals couldn't smell blood and topple Stelmach now, they never will.

Many people don't want to vote PC, they feel like they have no choice but to. Taft demonstrated that for the centrist and right of centre voter (which was, and still is the majority of the electorate) the liberals are no alternative. Hinman demonstrated that he could be, but one would have to take the good with the bad in him... and that's not a great choice either.

[Dion]

Thanks for the debate summray Thunderball!

I too expected Taft would try and hammer Stemach on the issues. Chances are i'll flip a coin when it comes to casting my vote.

[Slava]

Eric Vail has it right here. Your pre-dispositions colour your views on the debate. I watched the whole thing and, (shockingly, I know), thought Taft did well while Stelmach came off as an idiot.

I don't know what "socialist" spending race you're talking about though. One party has spent more money than any other in history and the other two are the Liberals and NDP! That seems to me like a pure ideological slant on the situation. Taft said point blank "I think that enough money has been spent...its the way its being spent". Hardly sounds like your spending race to me!

All I can say for sure is that there are a lot of disaffected voters out there, and voting Conservative doesn't change anything. It makes them think that they are doing a great job...which not many people agree to be the case.

[Agamemnon]

I can't believe how lame all the candidates seem. Stelmach is so stiff and wooden that I think if any other candidate had broken out a robot impersonation they'd win the election on the spot. The collective charisma of those 4 is close to zilch.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Elections don't get much easier than this one. If the Liberals couldn't smell blood and topple Stelmach now, they never will.

Many people don't want to vote PC, they feel like they have no choice but to. Taft demonstrated that for the centrist and right of centre voter (which was, and still is the majority of the electorate) the liberals are no alternative. Hinman demonstrated that he could be, but one would have to take the good with the bad in him... and that's not a great choice either.

Funny, I didn't see it that way.

I saw that the debate reinforced how badly Alberta needs a change in government and I would think many voters would have a more difficult time than ever voting PC.

[KTrain]

In my opinion, none of the candidates have a clear vision for the province that includes all Albertans.

I'm frustrated with the PC's. They have the money to make dramatic, positive changes to the lives of all Albertans now but they choose to delay for their plans for years. Health care premiums. Poverty solutions. Disability funding.

They acted quick enough when it came to the royalties because that was going to put money in their pockets. Now do something with that money.