During each down-swing the most recent batch of "new comers", sweater vests et all all seem to disappear to some secret place. This reduces noise across all channels making it easier for capable people with good ideas to have intelligent conversations. Entrepreneurs that are passionate and resourceful do better in this environment because they don't need to "run and shout" to be heard.

It's also a great opportunity to focus inside yourself and your company instead of out at your industry (where there's really nothing to look at). Now you have time to slow down a bit to take your customers out for a drink and wife to a movie.

Now is the best time to get together with cool people, think, experiment and develop. When things pick up then it's time to sell and grow. What are you doing today to be first in line at the next party (hint-hint)?

-- An addicted Entrepreneur

@Rick Actually here in Canada the results are often unexpected because of the "strategic" voting aspect i.e. the ones that lose don't throw their support behind the person that just beat them. That's exactly what happened in 2006 in Alberta when Stelmach (a virtual unknown even by the media) with only 15% of the vote ended up winning with 58% - three rounds - one day http://is.gd/39mA

@Rick Actually here in Canada the results are often unexpected because of the "strategic" voting aspect i.e. delegates who lose are often opposed to voting for the top dog so they form a coalition to bring him down. That's exactly what happened in Alberta in 2006. Watch the progress of Stelmach (a virtual unknown) who started with 15% of the vote and ended up winning the campaign with 58% (in one day) http://is.gd/39mA

We use a similar process up here in Canada for choosing the party leaders...it's basically over in a day; like watching a movie.

"The party delegates vote secretly and individually. No additional names may be placed in nomination once the voting has begun, and the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped after each ballot until one candidate has won a clear majority of the votes cast. If no majority winner is declared on one ballot, voting resumes straight away on the next."

"The effect of the rules is to force many delegates and candidates in multi-ballot conventions to reconsider their options and to vote for a candidate on later ballots other than their most preferred one on the first ballot. This promotes "strategic" voting on successive ballots, and prompts most candidates who withdraw or are gradually eliminated from the race to "throw their support" on the convention floor behind an erstwhile opponent."

>> can't seem to add a second comment so I'll add to this one...

@Rick Actually here in Canada the results are often unexpected because of the "strategic" voting aspect i.e. the ones that lose don't throw their support behind the person that just beat them. That's exactly what happened in 2006 in Alberta when Stelmach (a virtual unknown even by the media) with only 15% of the vote ended up winning with 58% - three rounds - one day http://is.gd/39mA