Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

722 posts / 0 new
Last post
KarlL

mark_alfred wrote:

nicky wrote:
Now Magaine endorses Tom in an editorial that does a good job exposing liberals as fake progressives. https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/no-doubting-thomas_1/ Elsewhere in the same issue it endorses 9 NDP candidates in Toronto - all incumbents plus Chow, Hollett and McQuaig. It also recommends holding your nose and voting Liberal to defeat Conservative incumbents in Toronto

Now Magazine is a bit of a joke when it comes to its endorsements.  They never seem able to fully make up their mind.  So, every election the two main editors of Now write separate endorsements, with Hollett endorsing the NDP and Klein endorsing strategic voting (more or less endorsing the Liberals.)  It's been like this every election for at least the past ten years.

A Michael Hollett endorsement of the NDP is the only other certainty in life beyond death and taxes.  Moreover, the number of undecided people looking to NOW for political guidance would have to be pretty minuscule.  

ctrl190

Hell, the "sort of" endorsement of Horwath in 2014 was intepreteted by many to be a huge rebuke of Horwath considering how pro-NDP NOW usually is. 

Even as a dyed in wool Dipper I cringe at how vehemently pro-NDP NOW is sometimes. I imagine it's how some Grits feel about The Star.

mark_alfred

ctrl190 wrote:

Hell, the "sort of" endorsement of Horwath in 2014 was intepreteted by many to be a huge rebuke of Horwath considering how pro-NDP NOW usually is. 

Even as a dyed in wool Dipper I cringe at how vehemently pro-NDP NOW is sometimes. I imagine it's how some Grits feel about The Star.

I agree with Hollett.  But Now's perpetual unwillingness to make a definitive endorsement annoys me.  They (Now as a whole) should make their minds up which side they're endorsing, be it NDP or Liberal, rather than simply present the same old Hollett cheers NDP and Klein cheers the Liberals.  Or, include these views, but then Now as a whole should make up its mind officially and come out one way or the other on Now Magazine's official endorsement.

KarlL

ctrl190 wrote:

Hell, the "sort of" endorsement of Horwath in 2014 was intepreteted by many to be a huge rebuke of Horwath considering how pro-NDP NOW usually is. 

Even as a dyed in wool Dipper I cringe at how vehemently pro-NDP NOW is sometimes. I imagine it's how some Grits feel about The Star.

I find the Star almost unreadable.  

Pondering

nicky wrote:
Pondering manages to sound ridiculous and whiney at the same time. Her disparaging attitude toward Mulcair has been noted.

I am not running for office, attacking me does not vindicate Mulcair. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

nicky wrote:
Pondering manages to sound ridiculous and whiney at the same time. Her disparaging attitude toward Mulcair has been noted.

I am not running for office, attacking me does not vindicate Mulcair. 

Actually, "Pondering", it does!

Captain Obvious

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Actually, "Pondering", it does!

I don't see how. Or what it has to with the polls. 

I'm one of those who would actually like to read some analysis, rather than relentless attacks on a particular poster. While I doubt much will change, I have flagged your post. 

MegB

nicky wrote:
Pondering manages to sound ridiculous and whiney at the same time. Her disparaging attitude toward Mulcair has been noted.
This is a personal attack and is in violation of babble policy.

nicky

Meg, you will note that I only repeated exactly what Pondering said in her previous post with a change of name.

Basement Dweller

Lieberals are such crybabies. Cry

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Captain Obvious wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Actually, "Pondering", it does!

I don't see how. Or what it has to with the polls. 

I'm one of those who would actually like to read some analysis, rather than relentless attacks on a particular poster. While I doubt much will change, I have flagged your post. 

What's the prupose of telling me you flagged my post? Intimidation? Trying to make me worry. Telling me I'm in for it. OK. But, I'm flagging yours too. This is harrassment.

MegB

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Actually, "Pondering", it does!

I don't see how. Or what it has to with the polls. 

I'm one of those who would actually like to read some analysis, rather than relentless attacks on a particular poster. While I doubt much will change, I have flagged your post. 

What's the prupose of telling me you flagged my post? Intimidation? Trying to make me worry. Telling me I'm in for it. OK. But, I'm flagging yours too. This is harrassment.

No, AC, this is petty. Please don't flag a post unless it openly violates babble policy.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

What is wrong with that article? I read it and found it pretty accurate. There might have been one point about Mulcair that seemed off early in the going but overall I had no problem with it. And Fisk is not beholden to any political party in Canada and has been an excellent critic on middle east affairs for the past 15 years that I have read him.

 

How about this:

"the Conservative prime minister, William Mackenzie King"

It's been corrected.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

What is wrong with that article? I read it and found it pretty accurate. There might have been one point about Mulcair that seemed off early in the going but overall I had no problem with it. And Fisk is not beholden to any political party in Canada and has been an excellent critic on middle east affairs for the past 15 years that I have read him.

 

How about this:

"the Conservative prime minister, William Mackenzie King"

It's been corrected.

Oh joy.

When the difference between two parties is mostly the name -- that name really matters.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But Now's perpetual unwillingness to make a definitive endorsement annoys me.

I'm not sure democracy is better served when popular media makes a definitive endorsement of one particular party or candidate.

An endorsement of an issue, like PR?  Sure.  Or a critique, like the TPP?  Fair enough.  But why should we be disappointed if a newspaper fails to play favourites?

nicky
mark_alfred

nicky wrote:
Noah Richler in The Guardiam:
">http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/17/running-election-ca...

Thanks.  Interesting article.  He mentions this:

Noah Richer wrote:
Exit polls are illegal here until the voting is complete across Canada’s time zones (spanning three and a half hours, from coast to coast), and now there is a bona fide argument for extending that ban through the weeks before election day.

Would that be possible?  I recall when polling wasn't allowed a couple of days before the vote, but that changed for some reason.  I'm not sure what the reason was, though.  Was it similar to lifting the ban on Sunday shopping, where (I believe) this was considered an infringment on business'/people's rights?  Or was it a policy decision that could be reversed an even expanded?

mark_alfred

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But Now's perpetual unwillingness to make a definitive endorsement annoys me.

I'm not sure democracy is better served when popular media makes a definitive endorsement of one particular party or candidate.

An endorsement of an issue, like PR?  Sure.  Or a critique, like the TPP?  Fair enough.  But why should we be disappointed if a newspaper fails to play favourites?

Perhaps the whole issue of newspaper endorsements should be rethought for the future.  But, for now, newspapers, including Now, do usually give endorsements for elections.  For instance, they endorsed Olivia Chow for mayor (link) -- this was not simply an article by Klein or Hollett, but rather the entire magazine (IE, presumably the editorial board).  Their failure to come out definitively for someone in this election is just cowardice on their part, IMO.

Now is not alone in this.  Both the Star and the Globe have also been guilty of displaying this odd sort of cowardice or indecisiveness.  Last election the Star gave an "endorsement" of the NDP while simultaneously instructing people to vote Liberal in various ridings.  Talk about confusing the issue.  And the Globe last time was a dual article endorsement that was pretty weird, which incredibly they topped off this time with throroughly bizarre inability to actually make a definitive commitment.  (But that said, as weird as their endorsements have been, at least they were willing to step up to the plate, facing the possibility of derision from some readers, which Now failed to do.)

I think it's a reflecion of the fact that news has been a lot more biased and tabloid like in its presentation in recent years.  So, rather than an endorsement being a break from the rigours of strict journalistic neutrality, it's now almost as if they're worried about accusations of bias and are using half-hearted endorsements as a kind of defence to such claims.  Perhaps instead of "endorsements", papers should admit that they're always endorsing a party and never, even in news coverage, are free from bias, and instead write "evaluations" (IE, "well, while we typically support XYZ party, this time we must say that we feel they're .... and the other parties maybe have .... so, in conclusion, vote XYZ.")

But regardless, as I said previously, endorsements are still the norm.  So Now should step up, rather than ostrich-like sticking its head in the sand.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

That Right Wing, Harper Supportin', Red-neck organization of Desprados says those righ wing NDPers are the most proressive. http://behindthenumbers.ca/2015/10/13/making-progress-which-party-has-th...

. Who knew?

 

brookmere

Quote:
now there is a bona fide argument for extending that ban through the weeks before election day.

If such a ban were imposed, we would see anonymous "leaks" of real or fabricated internal polls on social media by those seeking to influence the vote, including the parties themselves.

You just can't stop the dissemenation of such information today, why is why it's better to have up front data from known pollsters.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Stephen Harper is endorsed by Conrad Black, and Brian Mulroney. Stephen Lewis endorses Mulcair. Which is the progressive party again?

Pages