I can appreciate that people shouldn't be surprised Joe Schmo is lying in his assault trial, but shouldn't it be appalling if public officials/lawyers are misleading the court? We hold them to higher standards of conduct, but especially the latter who have ethical obligations as officers of the court beyond the oath.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian General Election (OT) - #elxn42: October 19, 2015
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
Blatantly lying?! My heavens! Such scandalous adverbs!
Unfortunately, as true as that may be, the standard for a perjury charge is a tad more stringent than portraying oneself as just having a very dodgey memory about the contents of one's e-mails.
Quoth Blatchford
Stop, I'm dying here, seriously.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
"Justin, do you remember what day it is tomorrow?"
You did this better than I could have hoped to do myself, amazing.
Now I'm too lazy to do Mike Duffy on Sen. Armstrong's body.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
I'm not sure if your insinuation about the legal profession is justified or appropriate. Consider what the Supreme Court said about lawyers in Hill v. Church of Scientology:
I'm kinda stumped to be honest, especially - in strategic terms - this is a buffet of votes just waiting to get picked up (with the right words of course).
killer rin
Member
Wow, it doesn't even seem like there would be any downsides to this. Just walk in, say you support 100% equal rights for all, drop the mic then go
It's hard to argue against the strategy. The Liberals aren't the NDP's competition. The Conservatives are. Debating against the Liberals and Greens is a largely pointless exercise and the NDP have little to gain from it. This debate is being cancelled because Harper won't participate.
This is probably old news but you literally have to pay a ton of money to get questions asked by the PM if you are lucky.This journalist at vice was not able to ask harper a question. The journalist describes what happened in detail at the conservative event he went to.The journalist also got an email from someone connected to the party after that article he wrote was published which is also mentioned in the article.The email contained a sad clown picture.
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/if-w...per-questions-we-have-to-give-his-party-78000
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/if-w...per-questions-we-have-to-give-his-party-78000
Buba Big Guns
Banned
So the next debate is the foreign policy one? Does Harper honestly consider that as one of his strong points?
Foreign policy does segue into security in a few ways, so I'm sure the CPC can spin it somehow.
matthewwhatever
Member
Oh, please. 70% of Canadians want someone other than Harper as PM; that means the Liberals and the NDP are competing for approximately 70% of the vote. That's competition, however much you want to minimize it. It astounds me how arrogant the NDP has gotten just from a bump in the polls that may or may not have them ahead by a point or two. You realize you have to actually persuade voters, right? It's not like Mulcair has such a sterling, winning personality that people have no choice but to go to him. There are options: Layton realized it when he asked Liberals to lend him their votes in 2006 -- I'll admit that line worked on me, along with a lot of other people. The fact Mulcair is acting like he's already won and this whole election is just a bothersome exercise he has to endure before he gets handed the keys to 24 Sussex doesn't shine the best light on his personality.
Besides, isn't the whole point to be better than Harper? Considering this debate was going to happen with or without the PM, Mulcair pulling out -- after loudly proclaiming that he was in, and that the other leaders were cowardly for not doing it -- is what cancelled it.
It's not *as* bad as Ling makes it out to be. Every party charges media to sit in the bus/plane, and they do it to cover all the expenses associated with lugging journalists all over Canada. I have no problem with criticizing Harper for when he is legitimately shutting down debate, but this is not one of those times.
Yep -- the next (and possibly only other) debate will be the Munk Debate. There was an interesting article in the Citizen yesterday or the day before about the electoral considerations behind all Harper's sabre-rattling. Even though he's minimized Canada's ability to do anything on the global stage, there are about a dozen ridings with large Ukrainian populations, and all of them had really narrow margins last time (either for the CPC or for the other parties). He's hoping that all his bluster about Russia will pay off in those dozen ridings.
Of course, if the debate goes anywhere beyond talking points about Putin or Muslim terrorists hiding under the bed, not sure what he's going to say.
New Nanos poll (with the usual proviso that their rolling sample may yield different results that the others):
CPC 30 (-2)
LPC 30 (+1)
NDP 29 (-)
What the parties are doing setting themselves up so that the are only fighting the battles they think they can win. Harper is turning down the invitation to this debate because it's not a battlefield he can do well on, and Mulcair is as a result skipping because the main attraction wouldn't be there, and he'd be left as the front runner absorbing attacks from everyone else, which is an unnecessary, risky and pointless exercise from his point of view.
I don't really blame either party for doing this. I'd be doing the same.
I don't really blame either party for doing this. I'd be doing the same.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The strange thing here isn't the rolling sample, it's the question; it explicitly asks voters to rank their top two preferences, and then graphs the preference they've ranked as first. I have no idea how that is going to differ from an intend-to-vote question, but either it doesn't (in which case, why ask it rather than the more conventional question) or it does (in which case, comparisons to the conventional question are fraught.) What an unusual decision.
Also from the poll, vote ceilings ("Would you consider voting for this party?"--someone could say yes or no to each party)
CPC 39
NDP 49
LPC 47
Bloc 29
Green 29
Finally, no likely voter screen or even registered voter screen. These seem to just be random adults.
I see why he isn't going, but I agree with you. Dude isn't likeable in the least and frankly his attitude feels like Dix and the BC NDP last election here. Where the polls showed them winning for the first time in a decade and the party had an air of "well we got this! Start printing up for business cards guys" but then Election Day rolled around and "oh shit how did we ever lose?!"
When I did the Mainstreet IVR polls, they also asked me my top two preferences. IIRC they also only graphed the first preference.
I think the second preference helps for data analysis later on, especially for shifting trends in voter intentions?
I think the NDP is trying to coast to a minority government without rocking voter intentions too much. If he does engage either the CPC or Liberals too much, he may start to shift voter intentions in Ontario -- especially towards the Liberals.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Question wording for everyone who polled in August;
Nanos asks: "For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences?"
Forum asks: A federal election has been called for October 19. Which party are you most likely to vote for in this election?'". They do ask a follow-up question a few questions down where they ask if you had a second choice, what would it be.
Leger asks: "- If FEDERAL elections were held today, for which political party would you be most likely to vote?" They do ask a follow-up question a few questions down where they ask if you had a second choice, what would it be.
Mainstreet/Postmedia: "If the Federal Election were today, which party would you support?" (separate question about lean for undecided, others simply re-prompt people to pick even if they're not sure). They do ask a follow-up question a few questions down about second choice, if any.
EKOS: "If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?" Follow-up second choice question
Ipsos: "Thinking of how you feel right now, if a FEDERAL election were held tomorrow, which of the following parties' candidates would you, yourself, be most likely to support?" (separate leaners question)
Abacus doesn't have their questions public
As a woman, it is terribly a shame to me that they decide to pick this particular topic to play politics. The biggest problem I have with NDP really boils down to me not trusting Muclair. He has this opportunity to show why he is PM-material and better than Harper. To show he is one who is engaging and want to tell Canadians what his party and platform is all about. Instead, he plays politics and makes me think he is just the leftist version of Harper. So far in this whole election, I have been more impressed with Trudeau because his style is more open and inclusive. He seems far more willing to engage and show us what his platform is all about. I am very disappointed with the NDP so far because I was very ready to vote for NDP this election in order to help vote out Harper. But as it is, I have problem letting myself vote in a person like Mulcair as our PM.
CitizenVectron
Member
Nanos has some really strange methods. They also use really small samples and like to use that mysterious "power index" of theirs to rank parties.
Dangerous game to be playing on their part. Most polls only show a few seats difference between them and the cons no?
This election sucks. I feel forced to support a party who's leader I greatly dislike (in mulcair) simply because I really don't want Harper in again.
I'm incredibly disappointed that this debate isn't happening but I can't really blame Mulcair for dropping out if Harper isn't there. As I've said before it only helps the Cons to have the other three parties ripping into each other on national media while he's off trying to add targeted bits to his core
The thing is, these debates are really pointless without Harper participating, and the NDP, Liberals and Greens picking at each other during the debate only helps the Conservatives.
Although it would be fun to see an hour of debates where everyone is just picking at only the Conservatives
Although it would be fun to see an hour of debates where everyone is just picking at only the Conservatives
Er, I forgot to add that the polls I did with Mainstreet IVR was for the Alberta provincial election. Seems to be a similar approach though, with first choice, likely to vote for, then second choice.
It's a dangerous game, but the NDP is leading in most parts of the country except for the prairies and Ontario. If Ontario starts to shift towards the Liberals, then there's a risk of other regions shifting red as well. With the CPC, there's really no danger of that.
edit: One of the bigger things about this election is that it's mainly framed as a fight against the CPC, but I don't think that's really true at all. A lot of it is political maneuvering between the NDP and the Liberals -- that's where the real story is -- because it's somewhat of a foregone conclusion that the CPC will either have a minority government or lose government entirely.
CreeperBlocks
Banned
"Justin, do you remember what day it is tomorrow?"
I'm gonna make this my avatar
The way these national polls are reported is so absurd. They create this illusion of a tight three way race that could go either way that is not in any way representative of the reality.
The regional numbers are what is relevant so why are they buried? There you can see for example that the Conservatives are incredibly weak in Quebec, which is quite relevant. If any pollster did by riding polling we'd know whether or not with their low amount of support in Quebec if the Conservatives would still pick up a few seats around Quebec City, because the support is further regional within the province.
The state of polling in Canada is just terrible.
The regional numbers are what is relevant so why are they buried? There you can see for example that the Conservatives are incredibly weak in Quebec, which is quite relevant. If any pollster did by riding polling we'd know whether or not with their low amount of support in Quebec if the Conservatives would still pick up a few seats around Quebec City, because the support is further regional within the province.
The state of polling in Canada is just terrible.
To be fair, the same problem exists for the US as well -- or any jurisdiction for that matter.
matthewwhatever
Member
Polling is probably way worse here than the US, though. You'll get the odd rogue poll down there, but on the whole, they seem to bunch around the same conclusions. Here...well, just look at the numbers. Some polls have the Conservatives in the mid-30s and leading, others have them in the mid-20s and in third place. Some of the differences are within the margin of error, but when you're seeing such huge differences that's clearly a sign that no one is entirely sure what they're doing.
And the massive number of undecideds probably isn't helping.
...and I'm certain you'd be taking the same stance if the roles were reversed, and Trudeau had been the one to cancel a debate. Particularly if Trudeau were on record as challenging the other leaders to the debate, and had ordered all his candidates to tweet at the other parties accusing them of avoiding debate -- as Mulcair did in this case.
Next I look forward to hearing your rationale for why no, seriously, Mulcair being in favour of privatizing health care isn't a violation of the NDP's core principles. Though I guess if you're vowing to not go into deficit -- which is kind of silly, since we already are, but whatever -- cutting off health care is one way to do it.
Nanos' methodology is definitely odd, but he seems to get accurate results. On Twitter he claims that they "are the only firm doing land- cell- sample with live agents." No idea if that makes a difference, though.
Well...then vote for someone else. Chances are good you'll have at least four parties in your riding!
Does it really help the Conservatives, though? If approximately 70% of the population are definitely not voting Conservative, it's not like the sight of Trudeau, May and Mulcair debating will make that 70% suddenly decide to vote Conservative. It's not like a leadership debate, where the CPC would get clips of people criticizing their own party leaders -- if, say, May catches Mulcair in a lie, the Conservatives aren't going to run an ad highlighting May. There's a risk of a gaffe, I guess, but that's present anywhere. I think it would do a better job of shaking loose that small number of persuadable CPC voters -- there aren't a lot, but there are enough that if the Conservatives don't win them, they have no chance of winning.
*And Atlantic Canada. And their lead in BC depends on the poll. So...Quebec. Obviously, that's better than just leading Alberta -- two times as many seats! -- but they really only have safe numbers in one province.
And the massive number of undecideds probably isn't helping.
...and I'm certain you'd be taking the same stance if the roles were reversed, and Trudeau had been the one to cancel a debate. Particularly if Trudeau were on record as challenging the other leaders to the debate, and had ordered all his candidates to tweet at the other parties accusing them of avoiding debate -- as Mulcair did in this case.
Next I look forward to hearing your rationale for why no, seriously, Mulcair being in favour of privatizing health care isn't a violation of the NDP's core principles. Though I guess if you're vowing to not go into deficit -- which is kind of silly, since we already are, but whatever -- cutting off health care is one way to do it.
Nanos' methodology is definitely odd, but he seems to get accurate results. On Twitter he claims that they "are the only firm doing land- cell- sample with live agents." No idea if that makes a difference, though.
Well...then vote for someone else. Chances are good you'll have at least four parties in your riding!
Does it really help the Conservatives, though? If approximately 70% of the population are definitely not voting Conservative, it's not like the sight of Trudeau, May and Mulcair debating will make that 70% suddenly decide to vote Conservative. It's not like a leadership debate, where the CPC would get clips of people criticizing their own party leaders -- if, say, May catches Mulcair in a lie, the Conservatives aren't going to run an ad highlighting May. There's a risk of a gaffe, I guess, but that's present anywhere. I think it would do a better job of shaking loose that small number of persuadable CPC voters -- there aren't a lot, but there are enough that if the Conservatives don't win them, they have no chance of winning.
*And Atlantic Canada. And their lead in BC depends on the poll. So...Quebec. Obviously, that's better than just leading Alberta -- two times as many seats! -- but they really only have safe numbers in one province.
Wow, the comments on that video.
"This man is now dead, so this is in bad taste! Take this video down!"
The logical hoops they'll jump through to avoid considering Dear Leader just may be lying.
I'm not impressed with Mulcair but he is nothing like Harper. Harper has spent half of his campaign telling people why they should be afraid of a,b and c. Mulcair at least tries to be positive, Harper spends his time fear mongering.
I thought there was a poll a few pages back that said the NDP was leading in the Atlantic now?
Huh? I don't think the polls have been anywhere near as variant as you're describing here. It's been ages since the CPC have been in the mid-30s in any poll (and maybe one poll ever has had them in the mid 20s, if at all), and other than Nanos' ridiculous new polling method the other polls have been pretty well aligned with each other for quite a while.
The regional breakdowns are pretty bad, but that's to be expected when some of them have sample sizes in the 10s (*cough*especially Nanos*cough*)
Sun Media toadies? Check.
Draconian restrictions on media access? Check.
Schoolyard behaviour? Check.
Must be a Conservative campaign.
Aside from the gaffe potential, which you already mentioned, there's also shots at each other leading to depressed voter turnout for the three other parties on a "They're all the same. They all suck." sentiment. If they land particularly damaging shots.
In the end it's the same amount of risk as a debate with Harper but with far less potential for reward. Not being able to hold the incumbents to account is kind of a critical missing feature of any election debate.
Surely we can talk about the election objectively without falling into your team vs my team nonsense?
Absolutely if Trudeau was in Mulcairs situation he should do the same. Front runners have more to lose and should be being more cautious. Party leaders at the back of the pack that need to make dramatic gains should be taking dramatically more risks and talking to whoever will listen as much as possible.
Harper has taken this to an absurd extreme in that he's taking just a tiny handful of questions from the media. Even though I think it's generally a smart strategy for front runners to be more cautious, Harper has gone too far in this election and I don't condone the way he's gone out of his way to not attend the consortium's debates, limit discussion and disengage voters. I'd be critical of any leader that would do what Harper has done.
gutter_trash
Banned
time favors Justin.
Justin is a Liberal without a doubt, his ideological stance has been clear since the day he was born. Nobody questions Justin's Liberalism.
Thomas Mulcair however is a Shape Shifter. Changing colors and leaning on the compass depending what benefits him at the time. Mulcair says one thing in French then says something else in English.
Justin will be our next Prime Minister.
Justin is a Liberal without a doubt, his ideological stance has been clear since the day he was born. Nobody questions Justin's Liberalism.
Thomas Mulcair however is a Shape Shifter. Changing colors and leaning on the compass depending what benefits him at the time. Mulcair says one thing in French then says something else in English.
Justin will be our next Prime Minister.
Time favors the Liberals if they can peel off soft-blue support in Ontario as CPC support declines. The region already has a history of voting between Conservatives and Liberals... However, that's not counting the demographic changes over the past few decades.
CitizenVectron
Member
I would honestly like to see you banned from this thread for these kinds of posts. You are repeating the same talking points over and over and are refusing to actually engage with others, favouring instead to just copy and paste previous lines.
You're a partisan hack and everyone sees it. It's perfectly fine to want and believe someone will win, but your blind hackery means you can't even see other points as possible valid, and therefore won't engage in actual conversation or debate. You insist Justin will win even though his party is in 3rd and is regionally inefficient in their voter base, and when these things are pointed out you simply respond with "he will win," without any points to reinforce it. Now maybe he has a path to victory, but in order to converse about it we need examples of it, and why you think it's achievable.
You're a bad user and a bad hack.
I've lost track of how many of your posts end in those exact same 7 words.
What if Justin Trudeau ends up NOT being our next Prime Minister?
It would be amusing if ban bets were still allowed...
FixatedMouth
Neo Member
This is the toughest election by far for me. I have been a Harper supporter since he was with the Reform party.
Harper and the Conservative party are showing clear signs of corruption now (as all long term governments eventually do IMO)
No way I'm voting Harper again.
Liberals have a young, inexperienced leader with a decent cabinet. I'm not thrilled with the carbon tax idea either.
NDP has a decent leader with a young inexperienced cabinet. I'm don't like fiscal policies at all.
I respect Green but no way they will get a seat in my area or come close to forming anything.
I'm leaning toward NDP but I really don't know what I will do. I expect a minority government this time.
Harper and the Conservative party are showing clear signs of corruption now (as all long term governments eventually do IMO)
No way I'm voting Harper again.
Liberals have a young, inexperienced leader with a decent cabinet. I'm not thrilled with the carbon tax idea either.
NDP has a decent leader with a young inexperienced cabinet. I'm don't like fiscal policies at all.
I respect Green but no way they will get a seat in my area or come close to forming anything.
I'm leaning toward NDP but I really don't know what I will do. I expect a minority government this time.
I'm not so sure I follow Coyne's train of thought. The opposition isn't attacking the CPC for X straight deficits because a balanced budget is inherently good. They're attacking because the CPC sell themselves as economic stewards. The problem with that image is that they're not, as they have produced years of deficit -- structural deficit at that -- with nothing to show for it.
edit: To put it another way, context matters when it comes to deficits.
Yeah but Mulcair has claimed that he wouldn't run a deficit. Which I'm sure polls well because Canadians have this pathological fear of deficits for some reason but is not a real policy because of tanking gas prices and new initiatives like 15$/day daycare.
Has he? I've always had the impression he was soft on that stance. At any rate, I'm not sure if all Canadians have a pathological fear of deficits. I mean, look at the Wynne Liberals and their landslide victory.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked