Tuesday, February 05, 2013

#skndpldr Candidate Rankings - February 5

Once again, there's been relatively little to shift the respective rankings of Saskatchewan's NDP leadership candidates. So I'll use this post to point out a few points of interest which haven't yet made it into roundup posts.

1. Ryan Meili (1)

I haven't spent much time assessing the choice of image made by the leadership candidates so far. But the last couple of weeks have featured Meili simultaneously taking on two rather different personas: as the tech-savvy candidate who's introduced campaign apps to the party, and as the traditional candidate who's comfortable presenting himself and his policies with decidedly retro imagery. And so far he seems to have pulled off the feat.

2. Cam Broten (2)

Broten too has introduced at least one retro image which fits neatly into his overall theme. But Broten's campaign has otherwise remained fairly quiet - and it remains to be seen how much of a turnout machine he'll be able to get revved up once voting starts.

3. Trent Wotherspoon (3)

This may be a make-or-break week for Wotherspoon: the Sask Party's treatment of provincial auditor Bonnie Lysyk looks to be a lasting news item, and Wotherspoon is ideally positioned to respond to it as the chair of the Public Accounts Committee. But that opportunity comes with a risk as well: if he isn't able to maintain a clear advantage over a few government back-benchers on the story, then he may come under even closer scrutiny within the leadership campaign.

4. Erin Weir (4)

Finally, Weir has received a bit of criticism from Jason Hammond for pointing to commentary from bloggers and writers who haven't publicly endorsed him as part of a "Why We're with Weir" e-mail message. But while I've wondered at times about Weir's inclination to highlight what seems like purely neutral coverage, I don't particularly share Jason's concern with this particular set of quotes: each of the pieces of commentary posted helps to answer the question of "why" even if it doesn't necessarily come from a Weir supporter. (And indeed, I'd hope all of the candidates are able to take something useful from both the approval and criticism coming from outside voices.)


  1. Hey Greg,

    To be honest, my concern isn't necessarily that Erin chose to use a positive observation that I'd made about him but more with *how* it was utilized.

    The e-mail blast was titled "Why We're With Weir" and there wasn't anything within the blast that clearly delineated which quotes were from actual supporters and which were taken from other observers who hadn't yet endorsed anyone.

    That's likely less of an issue for you as an undeclared blogger but it did mean I had some 'splainin' to do to a couple member of Team Meili who wondered (mostly tongue-in-cheek but still) why I was being shown in an e-mail as supporting Erin Weir. Was I a double-agent or a mole? ;-)

    I guess the other aspect of it is that, yes, what I wrote is complimentary and on a public blog. But as I alluded to Dwain Lingenfelter mis-representing the support of people he happened to be photographed with in 2009, I've suggested to their campaign some sort of request for permission (or a head's up at the minimum, especially given that I'm a known supporter of another candidate) would've been appreciated.

    At the same time, I know very well how stretched every campaign is in terms of volunteer time so can overlook this. I've told them I don't really think this is a big deal in the grand scheme of things but did want to do a blog post to tell my side of the story.


  2. To set the record straight, the e-mail clearly delineated which quotes were from actual supporters and which were taken from other observers. The quotes from endorsers appeared under the following bold heading: “Former Elected Officials Support Weir”.

    The quotes from other observers appeared under the following bold headings: “What Newspaper Columnists Are Writing” and “What Bloggers Are Writing”. All of the quotes from columnists and bloggers featured links to the original source being quoted.