NDP voters aren't as idiotic as those Bernie supporters who could flip flop between candidates that are polar opposites. The majority of NDP voters would not vote CPC over a Liberal candidate. However, certain Liberals can and have done that before when the choice is NDP or CPC (2011).
-
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 PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
gutter_trash
Banned
Quebec City voters say hi.
They went from Voting in Conservative MPs in 2008 then shifting NPD during the Layton Orange Crush in 2011, then revert back to voting Conservative again in 2015.
They vote for whatever Talk Radio tells them to vote for
Dude, I live here, if you think any "Talk Radio" told anyone to vote for the NDP in 2011, you are wrong. The only reason the NPD happened in Quebec City was the CPC refusal to give a single penny to build the already empty arena. The mayor went on a crusade.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Well, don't underestimate the rural areas. Poor internet connections and access to television forces them to that one form of media (aside from friends, family or newspapers).
gutter_trash
Banned
how's did the Nordiques return pan out? LOL
I can't believe that they dumped Conservatives in 2011 just because they did not want to inject public money into that empty arena
chaobreaker
Member
Ethics watchdog launches investigation into Trudeau's vacation in the Bahamas
Its just bad looks into bad looks with this guy.
Its just bad looks into bad looks with this guy.
killer rin
Member
I honestly don't understand how he keeps on getting himself into these messes. Especially since it feels like it would be the easiest thing in the world to avoid them.
He has been running a lot of unforced errors lately.
I've started receiving calls from the CPC asking for donations. They started off by saying the Liberals were changing the voting system to favor themselves, and y'know, we just can't have permanent deficits like that, and then there's the carbon tax, which is just a tax grab plain and simple. Then they started off by asking for a $200 donation, which I suppose is how the CPC is so well funded. Surprisingly they knew the amount of my previous donation, although I'm not sure they knew it was for Chong, or they might have tried something other than carbon taxation to try and motivate a donation from me. But also they gave up very quickly after they mentioned my previous donation amount, so maybe that information was there on their screen and they just hadn't read it yet.
Voting systems favouring certain parties is something I think is always a legitimate concern when electoral reform is about, but the wording they used was a bit strong for where we're at right now in the electoral reform process (and also the status quo might favour certain parties unfairly as well). And there are plenty of concerns about the process itself to raise, but this is jumping the gun a bit.
On deficits I'd tend to believe that permanent deficits are bad, so I suppose I agree with that point. But they are kinda misrepresenting the Liberals plan in raising concerns about permanent deficits when the Liberal plan calls for a temporary deficit for the sake of stimulus. And I do believe borrowing to fund infrastructural investments can be good, especially if interest rates are low and there are good projects to invest in. But at this point the economy is actually doing quite fine, and interest rates are rising. If our intention is to follow some sort of counter-cyclical policy now would be the time to go into surplus to pay down the debt in preparation for the next down cycle. But all that said, there seems to be a lot of debate among economists on the topic of deficits, and I am definitely not an expert, so I'll avoid taking a strong stance on this issue.
The carbon tax was described as a job-killing tax grab. Obviously in this sort of elevator pitch there isn't a lot of room for nuances like whether or not a carbon tax implementation is revenue neutral or not, so I'll let the job-killing claim slide, although they could have avoided making the job killing claim if they weren't gonna provide the nuance for that claim to be meaningful (obviously just a straight tax increase would only really reduce the incentives to invest in Canada, even if only by a little bit). The more disagreeable thing is the claim that this is "just a tax-grab", when, of all taxes, the carbon tax is not just for raising revenues. Indeed, a revenue neutral carbon tax would seek to solely influence the costs and incentives of producing carbon, without affecting the general level of taxation. It's definitely the pro-market solution to climate change, and the one that I think would be most effective if we had the guts to make it high enough. Unfortunately the consensus in the CPC right now is to favour trying to keep oil and gas jobs over the broader good functioning of "the market" and the serious climate change concerns we face. This issue is the main reason I joined the party, so hopefully I can help to change that stance.
Voting systems favouring certain parties is something I think is always a legitimate concern when electoral reform is about, but the wording they used was a bit strong for where we're at right now in the electoral reform process (and also the status quo might favour certain parties unfairly as well). And there are plenty of concerns about the process itself to raise, but this is jumping the gun a bit.
On deficits I'd tend to believe that permanent deficits are bad, so I suppose I agree with that point. But they are kinda misrepresenting the Liberals plan in raising concerns about permanent deficits when the Liberal plan calls for a temporary deficit for the sake of stimulus. And I do believe borrowing to fund infrastructural investments can be good, especially if interest rates are low and there are good projects to invest in. But at this point the economy is actually doing quite fine, and interest rates are rising. If our intention is to follow some sort of counter-cyclical policy now would be the time to go into surplus to pay down the debt in preparation for the next down cycle. But all that said, there seems to be a lot of debate among economists on the topic of deficits, and I am definitely not an expert, so I'll avoid taking a strong stance on this issue.
The carbon tax was described as a job-killing tax grab. Obviously in this sort of elevator pitch there isn't a lot of room for nuances like whether or not a carbon tax implementation is revenue neutral or not, so I'll let the job-killing claim slide, although they could have avoided making the job killing claim if they weren't gonna provide the nuance for that claim to be meaningful (obviously just a straight tax increase would only really reduce the incentives to invest in Canada, even if only by a little bit). The more disagreeable thing is the claim that this is "just a tax-grab", when, of all taxes, the carbon tax is not just for raising revenues. Indeed, a revenue neutral carbon tax would seek to solely influence the costs and incentives of producing carbon, without affecting the general level of taxation. It's definitely the pro-market solution to climate change, and the one that I think would be most effective if we had the guts to make it high enough. Unfortunately the consensus in the CPC right now is to favour trying to keep oil and gas jobs over the broader good functioning of "the market" and the serious climate change concerns we face. This issue is the main reason I joined the party, so hopefully I can help to change that stance.
killer rin
Member
Realistically, this part seems like them trying to seed some bad faith into their supporters in the off chance it goes to a referendum. As we can see from Republican strategy to the south, if you repeat it enough times people will end up thinking its true. That works in this situation also. Despite knowing what the actual proposal would end up being, if it does happen; just by saying they are rigging the system they can easily rally their base against it.
We know the Liberals prefer Ranked Ballots, we know the committee came back with Proportional Ballots. We know the people pushing for reform are for Proportional Ballots. Given this information, I personally don't the Liberals would be stupid enough to push forward a type of reform everybody but them was opposed to. It would be easier to just stay with FPTP since that also benefits them.
I received similar calls for the provincial Wildrose party recently, down to the $200 donation request. Funny how in sync Alberta NDP seems to be with Canadian Liberals -- considering the lack of a real liberal party here and how they're being dragged through the mud everywhere, maybe the Alberta NDP should consider rebranding!
yanipheonu
Member
It really is Trudeau in a nutshell.
"Bad look" certainly doesn't mean I think he's horrifically corrupt or awful necessarily... More than any other given politician lol.... Just someone who keeps getting themselves in such awkward situations that him look bad.
Could you imagine Trudeau without getting to be comparatively awesome compared to Trump?
He's pretty lucky, honestly.
gutter_trash
Banned
Justin isn't very bright when it comes to optics and appearance of guilt stuff even if it was innocent
I mean, this is probably the one thing we already know best about Trudeau: he's really gaffe prone, so I'm almost certain that the public will look the other way as it's not really self-aggrandizing or malicious.
I can almost picture the phone call: "Oh, you're offering so and so? Sure, why not!!" without actually realizing the consequences.
His handlers -- ie. Gerald Butts and all -- need to keep him on a shorter leash...
Hopefully, and this may be a stretch, it;s because he's got other things on his plate that he simply forgets or doesn't care about the optics of smaller things like this.
Silent Chief
Member
For many people the Liberals are the right and the NDP is the left.
Quebec doesn't count when it comes to NDP voting. The Orange Crush in 2011 was primarily a result of voters wanting something other than PQ and they didn't want CPC.
Silent Chief
Member
With Trump, people fear that every scandal is just going to be shrugged off.
With Trudeau, the issues raised are completely minor.
Harper just didn't have any rich friends to go vacationing with and if it's bad that Trudeau meets rich folks at expensive diners, it's actually worse when a party receives large donations without apparent reasons.
Harper eliminated the money that was given back to each party for each vote received.
That was actually one the best things Chretien had ever done, but Harper was intent on defunding the NDP and the BQ. You know what's bad? Tax credits for political donations. Why should tax payers be subsidizing donations that are made to influence politicians?
It is a minor thing. But also the rule's are pretty straight forward, especially the one about not taking rides in private aircraft. And then he took a private helicopter ride. The opposition just wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't raise the issue when the rules were so obviously broken.
matthewwhatever
Member
1) Harper has plenty of very rich friends. We know that he went to a party with Sheldon Adelson (ultra-rich Las Vegas Republican), where he spoke to top GOPers about how to keep conservative parties together. We also know that he went to Bohemian Grove last summer, which is "two weeks of heavy-drinking, super-secret talks, druid worship and other rituals by some of the richest and most powerful men in the world." I find it hard to believe that these groups suddenly discovered him just months after he was no longer PM. Of course, none of them are Muslims with scary-sounding titles like "Aga Khan", so I can see why no one ever made a big deal about it.
2) No party is receiving "large donations" without apparent reasons. The cap is $1525/year, or $3050 if you want to count donations directly to riding associations. The idea that anyone can buy influence with $1525 is ridiculous -- and again, it's pretty telling that party donations (which are the only way for parties to exist, thanks to Harper killing the subsidy) only became an issue for conservatives after they stopped being in the lead in fundraising.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Michael Chong is too good for the Conservative Party TBH.
But also he really is too far to the right for the Liberal party, as becomes clear if you read his backgrounder thing. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...1478493883/Tax_Backgrounder_EN.pdf?1478493883
That said, I think everyone can agree that him winning would be really good for Canadian politics, even if you don't agree with his positions.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Michael Chong is pretty much the only viable candidate. Is it too late to sign up to the CPC to vote for leadership?
A perfect reason why we need proportional representation.
50.03% going to the right should never produce such a majority.
matthewwhatever
Member
As exemplified by Kevin O'Leary, brave soul that he is, skipping the French debate and jumping in tomorrow.
Just caught the last fifteen minutes of the Quebec City debate. Wow. I think I could speak better French than most of them, and I haven't used my French in about fifteen years. That was pretty terrible. If Bernier doesn't win the leadership, they may only win five seats east of Ottawa.
Ugh, I really have to sign up for a whole year?I can't just give $5 or something?
Tis' the sacrifice to help ensure an "O'Leary/Leitch/Anyone But Chong Seriously All These Candidates Are Garbage Except Him And Even Chong Has Problems" leadership disaster doesn't happen. Believe me, i'm not happy about financially supporting a party i'm ideologically opposed to, let alone enduring their calls and e-mails about elbowgate or the like for a year.
matthewwhatever
Member
If it makes you feel any better, apparently it costs them in the neighbourhood of $15 to process each new member (which presumably includes fundraising outreach, plus the cost of holding a leadership contest). So you're contributing to conservatism, but only in the most negligible way possible.
Does anyone have a link to a translated version of the debate. So far the best I've got is this guy's live tweeting https://twitter.com/Justin_Ling.
Conservatives seem to be rejecting O'Leary (https://www.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/5okt6y/kevin_oleary_to_enter_conservative_leadership/). With that crowd supporting Bernier, and with his boost from Quebec, it really seems like Bernier will win. But there does seem to be a lot more appetite for Leitch's ideas than I'd like to see.
Conservatives seem to be rejecting O'Leary (https://www.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/5okt6y/kevin_oleary_to_enter_conservative_leadership/). With that crowd supporting Bernier, and with his boost from Quebec, it really seems like Bernier will win. But there does seem to be a lot more appetite for Leitch's ideas than I'd like to see.
Maaaaaan, I guess so... bleh. Makes me feel icky, but for the good of Canada, I will help.
🇨🇦
matthewwhatever
Member
CPAC aired a translated simulcast, so it should show up there eventually. The past ones are, at least.
RE: Bernier...he shouldbe ahead after the first round of votes. Quebec has 7800 total points, and I'd be stunned if he didn't run up the score there. It's hard to tell how popular he is outside the province. I've always thought there's a natural alliance between him and Western Canadian libertarians, so he could get a decent showing in Alberta, especially since the only Alberta candidate is Deepak Obhrai. His problem, though, is that the race rewards candidates who are voters' second/third/fourth/fifth choices: no one is winning on the first ballot with 10 or so candidates, and the ballot rewards the candidates who offend others the least. I think people like O'Toole, Scheer and Raitt still have a better shot (though Raitt's terrible performance over the last few weeks may have hurt her).
Mr. Giggles
Member
Kevin O Leary ladies and gentlemen.
My hope is Trump fucks up so badly that Any thought of having the same effect here is tainted
My hope is Trump fucks up so badly that Any thought of having the same effect here is tainted
Exactly. I think complacency and apathy was the downfall.
But by the same token, don't act like the same conditions that allowed Trump to be elected in the US are present here in Canada.
racism, angry working class and smug liberals are all things that exist in Canada
maybe not at the same level but we're not immune to that shit. I maintain that I think he's probably going to win easily and there's not much you and I can do about it
Impeccable
Member
Based on what, just the ripple effect of Trump or you think the celebrity with some business = popular politician?
I hope Canada rejects him in advance and to be honest, I'm already seeing it in my area as a joke. We'll see.
I remember watching Trump's announcement on CNN and the cut to like five faces all smirking. They legitimized it by airing it, despite their tone after the fact.
Mr. Giggles
Member
Win what, the conservative leadership? or the general elections for PM?
While I think using hindsight and applying it so that we don't take O'Leary lightly - what other reason than "because it worked for America" do you have to justify your opinion?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked