You're right there IFF, but that is also kind of the point. The top two are so far ahead in the name recognition side of things that the others are all trying to be in 3rd decisively just to be a factor.
Really the main race is still from Labour day onward though and I still think that is the case.
You're right there IFF, but that is also kind of the point. The top two are so far ahead in the name recognition side of things that the others are all trying to be in 3rd decisively just to be a factor.
Really the main race is still from Labour day onward though and I still think that is the case.
Absolutely agree. I bet only a small fraction of people who will ultimately vote in October have bothered to even see who is running let alone weigh policy and have made a choice. Heck, a good friend of mine who usually is pretty up to date on current affairs and always makes time to vote was shocked when I told him last week that Barb Higgins was running. A lot of people have been away on holidays or have been busy with summer things.
On another note, after talking amongst my social circle, I find it shocking how many of my female friends plan to vote for Barb Higgins based solely on the fact that she is a high profile woman. For those that criticize Higgins for being short on policy so far and for only offering up platitudes, that probably doesn't hurt her one bit.
Wow.
Nenshi with 44%, Higgens at 15, and Mcdic at 14%.
Around 1100 votes, at this time.
If Nenshi cuts off that greasy hair, he'll be a slam dunk.
Some wierd stuff happened with that poll. It was up early this morning and logged about 850 votes with McIvor and Higgins talking 30ish% each and Nenshi at 20%. Then, at about 1030AM they reset the votes to zero for everyone and started counting again. Makes me think the Higgins and/or the McIvor people found a way to tamper with the results intially, because there is certainly no chance the Calgary Sun is showing a bias towards Naheed Nenshi!
Anywho, I can't explain it, but great news! It seems that people are starting to wake up and realize, firstly that Naheed is far above and beyond every other candidate in terms of qualifications and secondly that Higgins, and no offence to her, has her head securely lodged up her arse.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
^ You guys are dreaming. If there was an accurate way to do this I would bet you $100 each that 44% of the people have no idea what a Naheed Nenshi is, never mind are the planning on voting for him.
Before the obvious comments let me say I mean no disrespect by that comment. Most of the other candidates are in the exact same position. Other than the interested and hardcore political junkies most people have never heard of most of these guys! How many people even knew that there was a mayoralty forum last night for example?
^ You guys are dreaming. If there was an accurate way to do this I would bet you $100 each that 44% of the people have no idea what a Naheed Nenshi is, never mind are the planning on voting for him.
Sure... but anyone who sees this poll result (if it holds up) will be more likely to look into or consider voting for Nenshi.
I would agree that most Calgarians have never heard of Nenshi and that the Sun poll doesn't reflect normal voting demographics. What could be critical in this election is if a candidate like Nenshi can motivate a high turnout from a group of voters that normally has a poor turnout (like the young, urban, internet savvy group that seems to be his base). With the normal 30% turnout for a civic election it wouldn't take too many new voters to swing the tide in his favor.
Sure... but anyone who sees this poll result (if it holds up) will be more likely to look into or consider voting for Nenshi.
That's just it. For a guy like Nenshi, who already has a ground swell of support, if he is able to get his name on the front page of the Sun website for a day and win their poll, that is huge. If he can make his name "known" in the next couple of months and turn people on to what he is about, I think he has a great chance.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
^ You guys are dreaming. If there was an accurate way to do this I would bet you $100 each that 44% of the people have no idea what a Naheed Nenshi is, never mind are the planning on voting for him.
Before the obvious comments let me say I mean no disrespect by that comment. Most of the other candidates are in the exact same position. Other than the interested and hardcore political junkies most people have never heard of most of these guys! How many people even knew that there was a mayoralty forum last night for example?
I guess my point is that you could as easily say that 44% of eligible voters will never have heard of any of the candidates, let alone be motivated enough by one of them to get off their duffs and vote for him/her--and that this will be true until the morning after the election, when they will read the new Mayor's name in the paper over a double-double and maple dip. In fact, the number might be higher. Turnout is so low in municipal elections that polls are sort of meaningless. It's really all about getting out your vote.
Look at it this way: only about 208,000 people voted in the last municipal election. Given that there's no incumbent, we'd expect that we're not going to see a runaway winner like we did last time. It's very likely the case that 30% of the vote will do it, and perhaps even less given the size of the field. Let's, for argument's sake, say that 25% of the vote makes you very competitive. That's only about 50,000 votes in a city of 1 million.
So let's assume that Candidate A has exactly 75,000 supporters, and that (for argument's sake) there are 600,000 eligible voters in Calgary. That candidate (assuming polls that are reasonably accurate) would probably consistently poll at around 12.5%.
But if those 75,000 were extremely motivated as a group, and two-thirds of them came to the polls on election day, then Candidate A is your new mayor in spite of some very underwhelming poll numbers. They could even outperform a candidate with 90,000 supporters, if those supporters were slightly less motivated and only half turned out at the polls.
In reality, participation numbers are likely to be much lower for every candidate, but my point is this: the X factor in an election with low turnout, no incumbent and a good deal of anti-incumbency sentiment is motivation, and that's something a poll will never tell you. I doubt name recognition matters as much, because people who are less informed are much less likely to vote at all.
In effect, this means that the size of any candidate's poll numbers is unimportant. What matters is the size and efficiency of each candidate's GOTV organization, and whether they are connecting efficiently with their base in a way that motivates their supporters to get out and vote.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Boy, for someone who should be experienced at this sort of thing, Barb Higgins was sure awful. I felt uncomfortable watching her, and I hate to say it, but she looke a bit like a deer in headlights. It was particularly awkward when (during Nenshi's address) she appeared not to know what her own platform says. I was actually embarrassed for her.
Kent was polished and confident, and hit his talking points very well. Naheed was excellent, but a lot brainier--not necessarily a bad thing.
As for the others: Jon Lord was terrible. He spent more time talking about his website and complaining about the format than he did about his platform. Bev Longstaff is fine (and I remember her well), but Wayne Stewart is still a mystery to me.
I couldn't hear what Joe Connelly was saying because his shirt was too loud. I'm pretty sure he wasn't good. The others barely merit any mention at all, including McIver, whose speech was so filled with buzzwords and so empty of content that I felt dumber after listening to it.
For those paying attention to things like the forum and platforms at this point (which I'm convinced is about 5-10%) Higgins has really left the door open. I would've expected her to consolidate that ABM sentiment, but so far it's not the case.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
For those paying attention to things like the forum and platforms at this point (which I'm convinced is about 5-10%) Higgins has really left the door open. I would've expected her to consolidate that ABM sentiment, but so far it's not the case.
I don't get what you're saying here... the engaged, anti-McIver people will have a preferred candidate based on platform at this point. It's the un-engaged, anti-McIver people who might gravitate towards Higgins.
Or are you simply addressing those of us who are interested enough to be reading this thread, and telling us you're surprised Higgins hasn't garnered more support in general?
I love Nenshi, I've had him as a prof at MRU and have alot of admiration for the guy. With that said, as a Criminal Justice student, Kent Hehr's promise to bring 500 more cops to the streets in the next few years is great for my future career as that's where I'm currently leaning.
I don't get what you're saying here... the engaged, anti-McIver people will have a preferred candidate based on platform at this point. It's the un-engaged, anti-McIver people who might gravitate towards Higgins.
Or are you simply addressing those of us who are interested enough to be reading this thread, and telling us you're surprised Higgins hasn't garnered more support in general?
I guess what I'm trying to say (and failing at) is that Higgins could've been in a position to consolidate most of the anti-McIver sentiment. Instead through a combination of her platform and inexperience she isn't actually consolidating. Most of the voters who were in favor of another candidate still are. It's early, so maybe this changes?
