canadian government held in contemp

polaris_x

bytterman wrote:

I assume most of you caught this in the G&M.

Liberals narrow gap to 6 points in campaign’s ‘first possible shift’
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-narrow-gap-to-6-points-in-campaigns-first-possible-shift/article1964548/


I'd be lying if I said I was surprised that the Liberals have gained, because I think that Ignatieff has started quite well campaign-wise, but at the expense of the NDP instead of the Conservatives? Is this a response to where he plans to spend (education, daycare, popular on the left), or to how he plans to pay for it (mainly taxing the corporations, popular on the left but despised by the Tories)? I just found it odd.

Unrelated question: does anyone know the reason that Elizabeth May chose to run in a BC riding that has largely been Conservative for the past 50 years? I can't find anything on-line about it, but my search skills are admittedly weak. Wouldn't it more sense to pick a softer target seat, instead of going after cabinet ministers, if the goal is to win your party's first seat?

the liberals gain are primarily due to people not wanting harper to get his majority ... the reality is that in order to prevent a harper majority - there needs to be strategic voting ... which in some cases may mean voting liberal or in some other cases voting green or the NDP ...

she's chosen to run in saanich because that's where she predominantly lives and she's spent the last couple of years establishing a base there ... the most recent poll actually has her close to the conservative incumbent there ... i suspect that if liberal/ndp voters voted strategically, she could win ... the main part of the saanich is mostly ex-albertans who've retired there but the outskirts are fairly progressive people ...

bytterman

polaris_x wrote:

the liberals gain are primarily due to people not wanting harper to get his majority ... the reality is that in order to prevent a harper majority - there needs to be strategic voting ... which in some cases may mean voting liberal or in some other cases voting green or the NDP ...

she's chosen to run in saanich because that's where she predominantly lives and she's spent the last couple of years establishing a base there ... the most recent poll actually has her close to the conservative incumbent there ... i suspect that if liberal/ndp voters voted strategically, she could win ... the main part of the saanich is mostly ex-albertans who've retired there but the outskirts are fairly progressive people ...

The strategic voting thing makes sense, although I'm not following the the specific case of how it gets May elected. The Lib/NDP supporters all vote Green? Seems a long-shot.

polaris_x

bytterman wrote:

The strategic voting thing makes sense, although I'm not following the the specific case of how it gets May elected. The Lib/NDP supporters all vote Green? Seems a long-shot.

the goal is to prevent a harper majority ... so, if he needs 155 seats or whatever is to get a majority - every seat that is not won works towards that ...

if my info is correct and May is the one polling closest to the conservative incumbent - then the idea is to vote strategically with the person most likely to win the riding ... in this case - May ...

i'm sure you've heard that an NDP candidate has withdrawn his name for consideration in a riding because he feels it is much more important to prevent a harper majority than exude NDP influence ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

bytterman wrote:

The strategic voting thing makes sense, although I'm not following the the specific case of how it gets May elected. The Lib/NDP supporters all vote Green? Seems a long-shot.

the goal is to prevent a harper majority ... so, if he needs 155 seats or whatever is to get a majority - every seat that is not won works towards that ...

if my info is correct and May is the one polling closest to the conservative incumbent - then the idea is to vote strategically with the person most likely to win the riding ... in this case - May ...

i'm sure you've heard that an NDP candidate has withdrawn his name for consideration in a riding because he feels it is much more important to prevent a harper majority than exude NDP influence ...

I haven't heard that, but I heard this.

New Democrat hopeful quits to support Harper

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/967 ... arper?bn=1

lukin2006

bytterman wrote:

I assume most of you caught this in the G&M.

Liberals narrow gap to 6 points in campaign’s ‘first possible shift’
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-narrow-gap-to-6-points-in-campaigns-first-possible-shift/article1964548/


I'd be lying if I said I was surprised that the Liberals have gained, because I think that Ignatieff has started quite well campaign-wise, but at the expense of the NDP instead of the Conservatives? Is this a response to where he plans to spend (education, daycare, popular on the left), or to how he plans to pay for it (mainly taxing the corporations, popular on the left but despised by the Tories)? I just found it odd.

Unrelated question: does anyone know the reason that Elizabeth May chose to run in a BC riding that has largely been Conservative for the past 50 years? I can't find anything on-line about it, but my search skills are admittedly weak. Wouldn't it more sense to pick a softer target seat, instead of going after cabinet ministers, if the goal is to win your party's first seat?

I believe these are the same pollster that said the Toronto Mayoral race was to close to call. Did Rob not win rather easily?

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

bytterman wrote:

The strategic voting thing makes sense, although I'm not following the the specific case of how it gets May elected. The Lib/NDP supporters all vote Green? Seems a long-shot.

the goal is to prevent a harper majority ... so, if he needs 155 seats or whatever is to get a majority - every seat that is not won works towards that ...

if my info is correct and May is the one polling closest to the conservative incumbent - then the idea is to vote strategically with the person most likely to win the riding ... in this case - May ...

i'm sure you've heard that an NDP candidate has withdrawn his name for consideration in a riding because he feels it is much more important to prevent a harper majority than exude NDP influence ...

I'm not for strategic voting myself, if you got a good MP who goes to Ottawa and does a good job representing the riding I will support him. With that said not much of a decision, we have NDP here who does a good job for his constituency, but not nearly as good a job as Dwight Duncan has done for us, my local MPP, hehehehe. But it helps being finance minister, hehehe.

know1

I hold all of Canada in contempt.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

I haven't heard that, but I heard this.

New Democrat hopeful quits to support Harper

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/967 ... arper?bn=1

yeah ... that's the guy ...

bytterman

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I haven't heard that, but I heard this.

New Democrat hopeful quits to support Harper

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/967 ... arper?bn=1

yeah ... that's the guy ...

I saw that headline this morning, and then I noted it was April 1...

I wonder how he plans to support Harper; he won't be running in that riding because the Tory incumbent isn't going anywhere. That riding was very close in 2008 though.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

I haven't heard that, but I heard this.

New Democrat hopeful quits to support Harper

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/967 ... arper?bn=1

ooops ... i just assumed it was the right article ... this is the one i was referring to from a few days ago ...

http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/canada/article/818323

bytterman

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I haven't heard that, but I heard this.

New Democrat hopeful quits to support Harper

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/967 ... arper?bn=1

ooops ... i just assumed it was the right article ... this is the one i was referring to from a few days ago ...

http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/canada/article/818323

This could matter, last time the Lib/NDP together were within a couple of thousand votes of the Tory winner.

polaris_x

bytterman wrote:

This could matter, last time the Lib/NDP together were within a couple of thousand votes of the Tory winner.

the wildcard is really 65% of the population that are generally not engaged politically ... i suspect conservative voters will turn out en masse ... but will the rest of the public? ... i have a feeling they won't ... also, will the centre-left of the country mobilize!?? ... and get people to vote strategically?

bytterman

polaris_x wrote:

bytterman wrote:

This could matter, last time the Lib/NDP together were within a couple of thousand votes of the Tory winner.

the wildcard is really 65% of the population that are generally not engaged politically ... i suspect conservative voters will turn out en masse ... but will the rest of the public? ... i have a feeling they won't ... also, will the centre-left of the country mobilize!?? ... and get people to vote strategically?

Good call about the lack of engagement providing the uncertainty. Polls typically have something around 20-25% undecided, if they vote who knows, but that's a big if. Early on in this thread the probability of a pathetic voter turn-out was raised, and it doesn't seem that much has changed there. Talked with a friend last night who is definitely engaged/aware/interested politically, but he's struggling to care this time around. Wonder how common that is?
But the intention of (or need for) strategic voting came up in 2008 as well (and possibly earlier) and it doesn't seem to have much effect. Lots of people vote for a party more than a particular candidate, and for a life-long NDP supporter voting Liberal isn't easy, regardless of what they think about Harper.

Jason P

I have always been a big fan of a third party emerging in US politics .... maybe we don't actually have it so bad.

Good luck, canucks!

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I haven't heard that, but I heard this.

New Democrat hopeful quits to support Harper

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/967 ... arper?bn=1

ooops ... i just assumed it was the right article ... this is the one i was referring to from a few days ago ...

http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/canada/article/818323

The NDP are going to put another candidate in place.

lukin2006

All this talk of strategic voting has to have a negative impact on people. In Canada we don"t vote for the PM directly. As far as I'm concerned people need to put in the best candidate possible and the one who represent's your interest. I also try to keep in mind that you never know if you'll need them to help you out with a government agency, so you want to make sure you have the most qualified. I have that here, he is NDP, I would never encourage someone to vote for a PC or Liberal here.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

All this talk of strategic voting has to have a negative impact on people. In Canada we don"t vote for the PM directly. As far as I'm concerned people need to put in the best candidate possible and the one who represent's your interest. I also try to keep in mind that you never know if you'll need them to help you out with a government agency, so you want to make sure you have the most qualified. I have that here, he is NDP, I would never encourage someone to vote for a PC or Liberal here.

i dunno ... i'm fortunate in that the conservatives finish last in my riding ... even lower than the green candidate ... however, as much as I believe in the necessity of "third-party" candidates ... i think a harper majority would be bad for the country and i suspect that if i was in a similar position - i would vote strategic ....

lukin2006

Hébert: Why Elizabeth May doesn’t belong in election debates

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/poli ... bates?bn=1)

She does not appear to be getting much support to in the debate, or not as much as last time.

lukin2006

If I recall correctly the 2008 debate, it seemed like 4 on 1, attacking Harper, I did not really recall what the other 4 were going to do to make life better for Canadians, so if thats what they do this time, then whats the point.

Just like this campaign, whats the point, lets vote already. All parties are making promises that can't be kept or won't be kept. I was ready to support Layton until he went off about the credit card interest rates, like really, that's an issue of personal responsibility, don't use them if you don't like the interest rates, duh.

Iggy and is $1000 a year for post secondary education, in which he eliminates 2 credits, so this really amounts to $480 a year.

Harper's income splitting which will cost 2.5 billion a year and only really work for those who probably don't need the help.

Typical Canadian politics, full of bullshit.

lukin2006

lukin2006 wrote:

If I recall correctly the 2008 debate, it seemed like 4 on 1, attacking Harper, I did not really recall what the other 4 were going to do to make life better for Canadians, so if thats what they do this time, then whats the point.

Just like this campaign, whats the point, lets vote already. All parties are making promises that can't be kept or won't be kept. I was ready to support Layton until he went off about the credit card interest rates, like really, that's an issue of personal responsibility, don't use them if you don't like the interest rates, duh.

Iggy and is $1000 a year for post secondary education, in which he eliminates 2 credits, so this really amounts to $480 a year.

Harper's income splitting which will cost 2.5 billion a year and only really work for those who probably don't need the help.

Typical Canadian politics, full of bullshit.

Like I said before, all these leaders need to go and be replaced, we should do as Belgium and have no government.

No government, no problem

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/gover ... story.html