Who won the federal-election all-candidates’ forum?
The question of who “won” tonight’s all-candidates’ forum at the TRU Grand Hall depends partly on your bias toward one candidate or another, and on your personal criteria, but my guess is most people will think the NDP’s Michael Crawford came out ahead.
The majority of questions were directed to Crawford and to Cathy McLeod of the Conservatives — about 18 to Crawford and 21 to McLeod by my count (trying to moderate a forum and keep track of who’s being asked what at the same time is a bit tricky).
The difference was that Crawford knows party policy and local issues; McLeod does not. She answered several questions by admitting she just didn’t know. “This is way beyond my depth,” she said on a trade question. She would have to “find out more” about the Omar Khadr case.”I don’t know the answer to your question,” she said on supervised injection sites. All those examples are issues on which the Tories have very clear — some might say dogmatic — policy positions.
But though she didn’t demonstrate a clear grasp of Conservative party policy, McLeod has to get credit for standing in front of 600 people and not trying to fake it. It takes guts to put yourself out front.
Ken Sommerfeld of the Liberals and Donovan Cavers of the Greens suffered from lack of microphone time due to the audience’s focus on the other two candidates. Cavers’ campaign manager, Matt Greenwood, suggested after the forum that we change the format next time to allow questions to go to one candidate, but to allow the other candidates 30 seconds to rebut or respond.
It’s worth thinking about, because we (we being the sponsoring media, The Daily News, Kamloops This Week and CFJC-TV) enforced a rule against one question being asked to all candidates at one time. That was so we could get as many questions in as possible, and, in fact, we got every question in in a little more than two hours. The downside is that some candidates get more questions than others. Which can be good or bad, depending on your point of view.
One of the audience members made an astute observation after we were finished: Cavers was the only candidate who focused only on his own party’s policies rather than attacking the others. She said it changed her vote.
As I’m writing this, Daily news city editor Susan Duncan is at her desk typing out her thoughts about the forum for tomorrow’s (Thursday’s) edition of The Daily News. I look forward to seeing if her observations differ from mine.
Special thanks to TRU for donating the use of the Grand Hall, and to Sandy Heimlich-Hall of CFJC-TV, Christopher Foulds of Kamloops This Week, and Cam Fortems of The Daily News, on the media panel.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
I echo Diane’s comments…
I turned to the gentleman beside me and asked “Is there anyone here who isn’t from the TRU Student Union?”
Some thoughts around the event:
I found it amusing how Sommerfeld went off on Ticks for a bit. His response and the time he dedicated to it did not equate to the severity of the follow up question (in my opinion). Methinks the ticks got under his skin.
Cavers performed well, all things considered. I complimented him after and his campaign manager.
You could tell the room was left leaning, as the biggest gaffe of the evening was performed by the media proclaimed “winner.” When Crawford stated that Cathy did not care for / would not stand up for women’s issues… a strange claim when she is the only female candidate on stage. I think the only guffaw came from me standing in the back corner.
Cathy’s response was measured, in comparison to how most would have responded. Cathy is far more forgiving than I, had I been a victim of such a ridiculous claim.
I can see why the media would crown Crawford king…every 10 seconds he was announcing more money for something. It’s wonderful giving away money in debate, and never having to act on it – as they will not govern.
LikeLike
I agree with your comments. I was keeping a pretty close eye on my watch as questions were being asked. While it seemed as though some of the questions were quite long, most didn’t go much over the minute mark, but a stop watch would have helped.
I felt, as you did, that the students were perhaps a little over-zealous in grabbing the first 20 spots at the microphone but you have to admire their efforts. I did not want to appear to be discouraging their participation but, in hindsight, I could have suggested they alternate with other questioners.
As the forum went on, I became very aware that the balance of questions was tipping toward Cathy McLeod and Michael Crawford. I like the idea of directing questions to one candidate only but allowing the other candidates a brief response. Another way around it might be to reserve part of the question period for questions to one specific candidate at a time, and another part for questions to all candidates.
Mel
LikeLike
I attended the all-candidates forum this evening at TRU and have two comments:
1. A “timed” event should be timed. Some of the questioners’ preambles went on forever.
2. A system of controlling the questioners needs to be devised. I heard a lot of comments that the students were monopolizing the microphones. I had hoped to ask a question myself but looking at the dozen or so students lined up at each microphone discouraged me from doing so. It was obvious who the students were and perhaps next time, they could be encouraged to alternate with other members of the audience who wished to ask questions.
Mr. Rothenberger did as fair a job of moderating as possible under the circumstances. Thanks to the sponsors for the forum.
LikeLike