Lowest Liberal Vote Since 1867

Dion was lamenting the lack of fundraising in the Liberal Party, and that the next Liberal leader should be someone who can raise funds.

Yet another reason I'm supporting Joe Volpe for Dion's replacement. That man can even get money from kids!

The Liberals blame Dion, Dion blames lack of fundraising like it's something entirely new.

But, since the rules were changed on donations, the Liberals have not adjusted the way the NDP and Conservatives have. After these many years, I can't believe it's from lack of trying. There's something more fundamental going on here.

The donation limits can't even come close to a down payment on a government contract, so why would anyone contribute to the Liberal Party?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Dion was lamenting the lack of fundraising in the Liberal Party, and that the next Liberal leader should be someone who can raise funds.

Yet another reason I'm supporting Joe Volpe for Dion's replacement. That man can even get money from kids!

The Liberals blame Dion, Dion blames lack of fundraising like it's something entirely new.

But, since the rules were changed on donations, the Liberals have not adjusted the way the NDP and Conservatives have. After these many years, I can't believe it's from lack of trying. There's something more fundamental going on here.

The donation limits can't even come close to a down payment on a government contract, so why would anyone contribute to the Liberal Party?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

They should have elected 81 MP's on election day!! They won't mind propping up the Tories for a while longer and take their chances on winning, oh, maybe an exaggerated minority next time. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

For pity's sake, Malcolm, get a life and move on with it!

I think this would be an opportune time for high end Liberals to push for electoral reform. It's time for cooperation and productive alliances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[QB][/QB]

---

No offence Malcolm just using your quote to bump this to the top for fun.

I wonder, at what point does indulgence become spamming?

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]Lowest popular vote and second lowest seat count.[/b]

---

Third=lowest, actually, 1958 (50 seats) and 1984(40)were lower.

I had to find the thread most fitting for this garbage from "Vote for the Environment"

[url=http://liberalparty20.blogspot.com/2008/11/vote-for-environment-co-found... Vote for the environment[/url]

Funny they pulled this one out to show their success.

quote:

---

Do you feel votefortheenvironment.ca played a role in the Conservative failure to win a majority?

Well, yeah. When you look back at the site, there's no doubt we had an effect.

We had three weeks to ask hundreds of thousands of Canadians to trust us - it was a huge barrier to overcome.

I think it was a success to reach so many Canadians -- evene without the media putting us out there.

As far as actual results, if you do look at riding like Edmonton-Strathcona , Linda Duncan (NDP) beat Rahim Jaffer (Conservative) by 400 votes.

If you look at Google Analytics, we had 13000 visits from Edmonton. It's only one factor, but, yes, I think we had an effect in Edmonton Stratchona.

---

Apparently, they need a Leader who sends a populist message like Jack Layton did in 08.

quote:

---

What should the Liberals do to increase their viabilty in the West?

I'm convinced the Liberal brand isn't broken. If they can bring in a leader with a populist message and an authencity to cut through the garbagey, spin-doctoring they can win an election.

I think the Liberal Party is in the perfect position for that.

---

Does vote for the environment take credit for the
Lowest Liberal Vote since 1867?

Bump to your heart's content Malcom, especially since you mention Linda Duncan's win in Edmonton Strathcona I feel like indulging you. That mention alone is worth another three or four bumps.

quote:

---

The only one coming close to being inspiring in the last election was Green Party leader Elizabeth May...but none of the leaders were inspiring to Canadians to get them involved in the political process.

---

I read this kind of stuff (coming out of a partisan liberal's mouth) and I think - really? Not one Green elected. Oh yes, I see that they gained in popular vote, but in the next election, the Greens will not have a friendly liberal party helping to raise the Green's profile, or their leader, as it actually decreased the liberal vote.

Also, Kevin Grandia was being highly partisan in his statement (without disclosing he is partisan), with his sweeping statement "but none of the leaders were inspiring to Canadians to get them involved in the political process", in ignoring, for instance Layton's consistent 2nd place leadership numbers throughout the race, and increase of seats for the NDP.

Grandia made sweeping assumptions (which I think he knows are bull but that is a another storyline for a different point I would make later) that he has no legitimate proof to actually valid his inferences. What I suggest here is that he made a faulty "cause and effect" relationship of where "A type behaviour resulted in B outcome." There might be some correlation between the two but there is not enough evidence to show that votefortheenvironment actually had a cause/effect relationship.
And yes, I am going there with some stats notions here:

quote:

---

Correlation and causality

Main article: Correlation does not imply causation

The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be validly used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction).

A correlation between age and height in children is fairly causally transparent, but a correlation between mood and health in people is less so. Does improved mood lead to improved health; or does good health lead to good mood; or both? Or does some other factor underlie both? Or is it pure coincidence? In other words, a correlation can be taken as evidence for a possible causal relationship, but cannot indicate what the causal relationship, if any, might be.

---

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation]source[/url]

That said, in some ways I hope he remains "ignorant" and doesn't dig deeper into the real meaning because that might make him more "dangerous." On the other hand, if he can sell to the wider public that his voting site has "legitimacy" and enough buy into that fallacy of "cause and effect relationship" where there is none (or there is a correlation but he doesn't want people to know what that might be)than he is "dangerous" because it's about manipulating the public into a scheme of selecting a party who actually doesn't represent their interests.

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]...he is "dangerous" because it's about manipulating the public into a scheme of selecting a party who actually doesn't represent their interests.[/b]

---

Exactly, it is all about manipulating people from their votes, to benefit his partisan interests.

Long thread.