Calgary Civic Election Poll #1: Who do you support for Mayor?

[mykalberta]

I guess the mods are are out drinking and too lazy to do a poll - in before the mod edit

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I don't think he'll cut down on infrastructure. Also services are highly inefficient in this city. I'd like to see him reorganize the city departments with a greater emphasis on cost efficiency.

9 years on council, and he hasn't put forward many useful proposals to this effect. He mostly seems to just latch on to populist issues and puts out some scathing sound bites to the media. He says what he's against, but rarely puts forward ideas for HOW to change things for the better. Zero-based budgeting is the only significant thing I could think of. Even then, his yearly zero-based budgeting idea he started putting forwared in 2008 in the context of a 3 year budget cycle, also makes no sense.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

9 years on council, and he hasn't put forward many useful proposals to this effect. He mostly seems to just latch on to populist issues and puts out some scathing sound bites to the media. He says what he's against, but rarely puts forward ideas for HOW to change things for the better. Zero-based budgeting is the only significant thing I could think of. Even then, his yearly zero-based budgeting idea he started putting forwared in 2008 in the context of a 3 year budget cycle, also makes no sense.

To top it all off he comes out with the scathing sound bite but then votes in favour anyway if he thinks that the motion won't pass.

The point about him not putting anything forward is more interesting to me though. Out campaigning I'm actually hearing a lot of "if they are currently on council I want them out" type of sentiments. I have the feeling that the election might not be the foregone conclusion that some might think (although that is purely anecdotal on my part).

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Slava

To top it all off he comes out with the scathing sound bite but then votes in favour anyway if he thinks that the motion won't pass.

The point about him not putting anything forward is more interesting to me though. Out campaigning I'm actually hearing a lot of "if they are currently on council I want them out" type of sentiments. I have the feeling that the election might not be the foregone conclusion that some might think (although that is purely anecdotal on my part).

I'm pretty out of the loop... These people that think it's a foregone conclusion, who are they thinking? McIver?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'm pretty out of the loop... These people that think it's a foregone conclusion, who are they thinking? McIver?

Ya. Based on the idea that he was the shoe-in to run from council and things like that I guess. In any event, I'm certainly not hearing that on an anecdotal basis...although how many people are going to walk up and say "I'm voting for the other guy and I hate you" or something to that effect?

[welshboy2008]

Originally Posted by Bunk

But think! Our tax increase will be 4.2% instead of 4.8%!! wahoo!

Well that has noting to do with the Mayor dude.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by welshboy2008

Well that has noting to do with the Mayor dude.

That's not the way McIver makes it sound in the media, and he could pay the price for that if he does get the chair and doesn't deliver reductions in our taxes.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Poll added.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I'll add that I'm leaning toward Kent Hehr, but I'm still considering Nenshi. I really like Naheed Nenshi, and I sort of wish both guys weren't running--they are the only candidates with any kind of credibility in this field. Overall, I feel that Kent is a better politician, but Naheed is the most sophisticated visionary in this field.

I worry that Naheed will have trouble connecting with everyday people, whereas Kent is one of those guys were I'm very confident saying that if you meet him, you'll want to vote for him. If they could form a single super-candidate, I'd be very happy about that.

[octothorp]

Right now I'm going to say Nenshi, but really I'm in the anybody-but-McIver camp; if polling indicates that it's between McIver and Hehr or McIver and Hawksworth, that's who I'll vote for.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'll add that I'm leaning toward Kent Hehr, but I'm still considering Nenshi. I really like Naheed Nenshi, and I sort of wish both guys weren't running--they are the only candidates with any kind of credibility in this field. Overall, I feel that Kent is a better politician, but Naheed is the most sophisticated visionary in this field.

I worry that Naheed will have trouble connecting with everyday people, whereas Kent is one of those guys were I'm very confident saying that if you meet him, you'll want to vote for him. If they could form a single super-candidate, I'd be very happy about that.

Kent's a good candidate. I really like the guy, very personable, but he just doesn't quite seem to know what he is talking about with civic issues. His grasp just isn't quite there. Just a small example, he calls TOD (a major issue in the city with Plan It) Transportation-Orientated Design, or sometimes Transit-Orientated Design - in fact, what it really means is Transit-Oriented Development. This is basic stuff here, seems small but it gave me pause.

Nenshi clearly knows what he is talking about, he has been immersed in civic issues for a long, long time and seems to know the policies and actions on how to get things done, rather than simply stating what he wants to see happen. Any candidate can articulate what they want, it's how to get it done that really matters though.

So far, I think he's overcome well, the trap that most academics fall into and communicates extremely effectively understandable and sensible ideas.

Thanks for adding the poll. Just a note it's McIver, not McIvor. Not sure if it's possible to edit the poll now, but whatever not a big deal.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Right now I'm going to say Nenshi, but really I'm in the anybody-but-McIver camp; if polling indicates that it's between McIver and Hehr or McIver and Hawksworth, that's who I'll vote for.

I love people who strategically vote. More often than not it blows up in their face.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Thanks for adding the poll. Just a note it's McIver, not McIvor. Not sure if it's possible to edit the poll now, but whatever not a big deal.

Apparently, yes it is. I'm learning on the job here.

[FurnaceFace]

If Blinky becomes mayor...I'd have to question my desire to live in the city. That might be a bit of hyperbole but I don't think he's ever come up with anything relevant and frankly giving him the keys to the kingdom would scare me. As others have said he just seems to tag along with what he feels is populist sentiment. To lead, you must lead. That sometimes results in going against the grain and doing what is actually best for The City instead of what people want.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Kent's a good candidate. I really like the guy, very personable, but he just doesn't quite seem to know what he is talking about with civic issues. His grasp just isn't quite there. Just a small example, he calls TOD (a major issue in the city with Plan It) Transportation-Orientated Design, or sometimes Transit-Orientated Design - in fact, what it really means is Transit-Oriented Development. This is basic stuff here, seems small but it gave me pause.

Nenshi clearly knows what he is talking about, he has been immersed in civic issues for a long, long time and seems to know the policies and actions on how to get things done, rather than simply stating what he wants to see happen. Any candidate can articulate what they want, it's how to get it done that really matters though.

So far, I think he's overcome well, the trap that most academics fall into and communicates extremely effectively understandable and sensible ideas.

Thanks for adding the poll. Just a note it's McIver, not McIvor. Not sure if it's possible to edit the poll now, but whatever not a big deal.

I understand what you mean. The thing is, that's not so much an issue for average voters, most of whom just want a candidate who can articulate and execute a simple and compelling vision for the city. I think Kent can do that, a few minor errors notwithstanding. I hope Naheed can as well--but what I really, really hope is that they don't split the vote and allow a candidate who is utterly without vision of any kind to come up the middle.

Of course, for all I know they may finish last and second-last and this will be a moot point.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I understand what you mean. The thing is, that's not so much an issue for average voters, most of whom just want a candidate who can articulate and execute a simple and compelling vision for the city. I think Kent can do that, a few minor errors notwithstanding. I hope Naheed can as well--but what I really, really hope is that they don't split the vote and allow a candidate who is utterly without vision of any kind to come up the middle.

Of course, for all I know they may finish last and second-last and this will be a moot point.

I think come september if one clearly has an advantage over the other(s) in support and fundraising (be it Nenshi, Hehr, Hawksworth, Stewart) you'll probably see some drop out and throw their support behind the candidate with the best chance of winning against a perceived frontrunner like McIver. Same might be said for others as well.

It's a long election though, so anything can happen. What's interesting though is the general level of interest is quite high in the race with no incumbant. Twitter and Facebook also have changed the face of campaigns significantly.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'll add that I'm leaning toward Kent Hehr, but I'm still considering Nenshi. I really like Naheed Nenshi, and I sort of wish both guys weren't running--they are the only candidates with any kind of credibility in this field. Overall, I feel that Kent is a better politician, but Naheed is the most sophisticated visionary in this field.

I worry that Naheed will have trouble connecting with everyday people, whereas Kent is one of those guys were I'm very confident saying that if you meet him, you'll want to vote for him. If they could form a single super-candidate, I'd be very happy about that.

I suspect this will resolve itself... if one polls better early than the other, that's who the voters will gravitate to on election day.

[Slava]

That is definitely a worry (the vote split between Kent and Naheed). They do have very similar positions on many issues if not all of them. They are both great candidates and both bring some new and exciting ideas to the table. I think that Kent and his unbelieably tireless campaigning will be the difference. I've talked to people in the know and they were literally in awe of how good he is.

Kent is the kind of guy you can have a beer with at the Flames game (or wherever else) and it's normal and natural. Make no mistake though, he knows what he's talking about. Today's policy announcement is all him. No one had to come to him and say "you should consider this". Instead Kent recognizes the coming need for dialogue and cooperation and wants to make sure the city has stable funding going forward. Rather than just say something like "we'll work for stable funding from the province" though he comes out with this gem that is both effective and necessary.

[Bunk]

Even early in the voting, I'm surprised that only 3 candidates have registered any votes.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Even early in the voting, I'm surprised that only 3 candidates have registered any votes.

I'm not exactly surprised. I really don't get why some of these people are running. Does Jon Lord really think he has a chance? He's just a vanilla kinda-conservative guy. We all knew Alnoor was a bit of a wingnut, but really? He thinks he has a legitimate shot of being mayor of Calgary in October? Burrows' name is mud to most people. McIver has most of Connelly's bases covered with a much bigger public profile. I mean really, who other than Connelly's wife and parents is going to vote for Joe instead of McIver?

The race is still young I guess, so a lot can change, but there will be 2 or 3 clear frontrunners by the end, and that is reflected in this poll I think.