Shit show Liberals. That'll teach them.
Lowest Liberal Vote Since 1867
Fri, 2008-10-17 01:33
#52
Fri, 2008-10-17 01:33
#53
Shit show Liberals. That'll teach them.
Fri, 2008-10-17 14:50
#54
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867]http://en.w...
Unknown: 34%
Fri, 2008-10-17 14:50
#55
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867]http://en.w...
Unknown: 34%
Fri, 2008-10-17 14:50
#56
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867]http://en.w...
Unknown: 34%
Fri, 2008-10-17 14:50
#57
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867]http://en.w...
Unknown: 34%
Fri, 2008-10-17 15:48
#58
Malcolm
self-indulgent bump
I just love the thread title.
Fri, 2008-10-17 15:48
#59
Malcolm
self-indulgent bump
I just love the thread title.
Fri, 2008-10-17 15:48
#60
Malcolm
self-indulgent bump
I just love the thread title.
Fri, 2008-10-17 15:48
#61
Malcolm
self-indulgent bump
I just love the thread title.
Fri, 2008-10-17 18:59
#62
It might be tough to do a lot better.
quote:
I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:
1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;
2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;
3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;
4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;
5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;
6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;
7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;
8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;
9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;
10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);
11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.WEmail18/BNS... to be Liberal[/url]
Fri, 2008-10-17 18:59
#63
It might be tough to do a lot better.
quote:
I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:
1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;
2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;
3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;
4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;
5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;
6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;
7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;
8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;
9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;
10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);
11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.WEmail18/BNS... to be Liberal[/url]
Fri, 2008-10-17 18:59
#64
It might be tough to do a lot better.
quote:
I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:
1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;
2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;
3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;
4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;
5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;
6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;
7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;
8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;
9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;
10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);
11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.WEmail18/BNS... to be Liberal[/url]
Fri, 2008-10-17 18:59
#65
It might be tough to do a lot better.
quote:
I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:
1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;
2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;
3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;
4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;
5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;
6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;
7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;
8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;
9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;
10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);
11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.WEmail18/BNS... to be Liberal[/url]
Sat, 2008-10-18 05:30
#66
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
Now THAT's shoddy recordkeeping.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Or did Canada actually elect a Marxist government in 1867 but the reporting officers just refused to admit it?
Sat, 2008-10-18 05:30
#67
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
Now THAT's shoddy recordkeeping.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Or did Canada actually elect a Marxist government in 1867 but the reporting officers just refused to admit it?
Sat, 2008-10-18 05:30
#68
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
Now THAT's shoddy recordkeeping.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Or did Canada actually elect a Marxist government in 1867 but the reporting officers just refused to admit it?
Sat, 2008-10-18 05:30
#69
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
Now THAT's shoddy recordkeeping.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Or did Canada actually elect a Marxist government in 1867 but the reporting officers just refused to admit it?
Sat, 2008-10-18 17:48
#70
Malcolm
Probably a little shoddy recordkeeping, a few missing records, inconsistency in how votes for independent candidates were attracted.
In any event, glad to bum the thread because I presume the title annoys Liberals - and I like annoying Liberals.
Sat, 2008-10-18 17:48
#71
Malcolm
Probably a little shoddy recordkeeping, a few missing records, inconsistency in how votes for independent candidates were attracted.
In any event, glad to bum the thread because I presume the title annoys Liberals - and I like annoying Liberals.
Sat, 2008-10-18 17:48
#72
Malcolm
Probably a little shoddy recordkeeping, a few missing records, inconsistency in how votes for independent candidates were attracted.
In any event, glad to bum the thread because I presume the title annoys Liberals - and I like annoying Liberals.
Sat, 2008-10-18 17:48
#73
Malcolm
Probably a little shoddy recordkeeping, a few missing records, inconsistency in how votes for independent candidates were attracted.
In any event, glad to bum the thread because I presume the title annoys Liberals - and I like annoying Liberals.
Sun, 2008-10-19 22:50
#74
Malcolm
A further self-indulgent bump
Sun, 2008-10-19 22:50
#75
Malcolm
A further self-indulgent bump
Sun, 2008-10-19 22:50
#76
Malcolm
A further self-indulgent bump
Sun, 2008-10-19 22:50
#77
Malcolm
A further self-indulgent bump
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:44
#78
Malcolm
must continue to rub Liberals' faces in this.
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:44
#79
Malcolm
must continue to rub Liberals' faces in this.
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:44
#80
Malcolm
must continue to rub Liberals' faces in this.
Mon, 2008-10-20 22:44
#81
Malcolm
must continue to rub Liberals' faces in this.
Tue, 2008-10-21 06:03
#82
That 1867 link is very telling.
The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.
Much like today, Liberal voters stayed home, or more importantly voted Conservative in many swing ridings. And we still have various Anti Confederation forces at work [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .
Tue, 2008-10-21 06:03
#83
That 1867 link is very telling.
The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.
Much like today, Liberal voters stayed home, or more importantly voted Conservative in many swing ridings. And we still have various Anti Confederation forces at work [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .
Tue, 2008-10-21 06:03
#84
That 1867 link is very telling.
The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.
Much like today, Liberal voters stayed home, or more importantly voted Conservative in many swing ridings. And we still have various Anti Confederation forces at work [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .
Tue, 2008-10-21 06:03
#85
That 1867 link is very telling.
The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.
Much like today, Liberal voters stayed home, or more importantly voted Conservative in many swing ridings. And we still have various Anti Confederation forces at work [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:26
#86
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
Independents got 0% so I guess they just called all Independents Unknowns. I wonder if that changed when the first Independent got elected and ceased to be an Unknown?
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:26
#87
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
Independents got 0% so I guess they just called all Independents Unknowns. I wonder if that changed when the first Independent got elected and ceased to be an Unknown?
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:26
#88
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
Independents got 0% so I guess they just called all Independents Unknowns. I wonder if that changed when the first Independent got elected and ceased to be an Unknown?
Tue, 2008-10-21 10:26
#89
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
Independents got 0% so I guess they just called all Independents Unknowns. I wonder if that changed when the first Independent got elected and ceased to be an Unknown?
Tue, 2008-10-21 18:11
#90
Malcolm
bump
Tue, 2008-10-21 18:11
#91
Malcolm
bump
Tue, 2008-10-21 18:11
#92
Malcolm
bump
Tue, 2008-10-21 18:11
#93
Malcolm
bump
Tue, 2008-10-21 18:30
#94
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
In the days of John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party it was hard to tell the various Liberals apart. "Shoals of loose fish" he once called them. It was the first Dominion election, with an evolving party system. Like many new countries, a local baron would get elected, take a look around, and see what party looked like the best bet for his riding's interests. Or just join the winner.
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Tue, 2008-10-21 18:30
#95
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
In the days of John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party it was hard to tell the various Liberals apart. "Shoals of loose fish" he once called them. It was the first Dominion election, with an evolving party system. Like many new countries, a local baron would get elected, take a look around, and see what party looked like the best bet for his riding's interests. Or just join the winner.
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Tue, 2008-10-21 18:30
#96
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
In the days of John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party it was hard to tell the various Liberals apart. "Shoals of loose fish" he once called them. It was the first Dominion election, with an evolving party system. Like many new countries, a local baron would get elected, take a look around, and see what party looked like the best bet for his riding's interests. Or just join the winner.
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Tue, 2008-10-21 18:30
#97
quote:
Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]Unknown: 34%[/b]
In the days of John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party it was hard to tell the various Liberals apart. "Shoals of loose fish" he once called them. It was the first Dominion election, with an evolving party system. Like many new countries, a local baron would get elected, take a look around, and see what party looked like the best bet for his riding's interests. Or just join the winner.
[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Wed, 2008-10-22 15:44
#98
bump
Wed, 2008-10-22 15:44
#99
bump
Wed, 2008-10-22 15:44
#100
bump
Wed, 2008-10-22 15:44
#101
bump