Trudeau campaign 2015 part 2

http://www.canada.com/News/politics/Senate+Liberals+hustings+limbo+elect...

Senate Liberals who were once in charge of the national campaign, or contributed mightily to its successes and failures, now find themselves in political no-man’s-land: They are still Liberal party members, and they want to see the party win, but they are not necessarily welcome on the hustings.

“We have to be sensitive to the new times that we live in,” said Sen. Jim Munson, who has been an active campaigner in the past, even flying on the Liberal leader’s plane as a campaign organizer in the past...

But Senate Liberals are not expecting they will help guide the national campaign in this year’s federal election, even though Liberal senators through history — from the late Keith Davey (“The Rainmaker”) to David Smith — have a long history of doing exactly that.

“They’re not asking us to do anything — and I’m not seeking to do stuff — but I’m a Liberal, a lifelong Liberal,” said Smith, who was national campaign director during the Chrétien years.

The party has issued no guidelines to senators about their involvement in the campaign, given they are no longer part of the Liberal caucus. Nor will they receive any special treatment.

When the expenses report on senators finally comes out it will help that Trudeau distanced himself from all of them. It will be interesting to see if Harper has senators on the campaign trail in 2015.

Debater wrote:

Ouellette will soon be acclaimed as the Liberal candidate for Winnipeg Central.

Winnipeg Central?

He msut be seeking a provincial seat, because there's no riding with that name federally.

terrytowel wrote:

Paul Wells was on CTV Power Play today and he said that Trudeau is losing this election, and it hasn't even been called yet!

It's called wishful thinking.

David Young wrote:

Debater wrote:

Ouellette will soon be acclaimed as the Liberal candidate for Winnipeg Central.

Winnipeg Central?

He msut be seeking a provincial seat, because there's no riding with that name federally.

The reporter obviously means Winnipeg Centre.

It's kind of a creative alternative name for the riding, though. 

Wells is second only to Hebert in credibility in journalism in Canada.

First the Trudeau Liberals are in denial...........

It appears that Trudeau and the Liberals are creating a lot of Potemkin villages. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gavin-magrath/eve-adams-cross-the-floor_b_6...

First let's put to rest any theory that this political event is being treated in a balanced fashion: the talk is about Adams' checkered past and challenges in finding a seat for this year's election; the fact that the MPP in the riding she intends to contest says she'll win over his dead body; and whether or not the value of the deal is really in the secrets held by her fiancee Dimitri Soudas, obtained over his long and close association with the PMO...

But coming on the heels of the clearly unplanned departure of John Baird, the real story is not the questionable value of the asset Trudeau has acquired but the fact that a sitting government member has crossed the floor to sit with a third party. While government members have infrequently left their parties to become independents on issues of conscience, and while readers will recall members like David Emerson and Belinda Stronach who left their smaller parties to take up portfolios in government, the departure of a government member for a third party is, I believe, unprecedented in Canadian politics.

To scoff at the value of that lost MP seems like collective participation in a sour grapes story, as if it doesn't matter that the government lost another member because they didn't really want her anyway. Her departure for the third party Liberals, rather than the opposition NDP, only serves to underline the Liberal positioning as the big-tent party of the center and the real alternative to the current government, in spite of their numbers in the House.....

Finally, balancing the equation of whether the third party Liberals got a good deal for this sitting government MP -- an almost absurd question when considered from that perspective -- we must ask 'what did they pay?'. The answer seems to be 'nothing', unless you count the strange way in which the media has treated this as a questionable pick-up for the third party rather than another alarming loss for an increasingly creaky government.

If the defection is worth more than nothing, it's a good deal for the Liberals. And clearly the damage she has already done to Harper with her comments is already worth something, and at the very least she will have to compete for her nomination, attracting attention and members and contributors to the Liberal Party whether she wins or loses.

Quote:

But coming on the heels of the clearly unplanned departure of John Baird, the real story is not the questionable value of the asset Trudeau has acquired but the fact that a sitting government member has crossed the floor to sit with a third party. While government members have infrequently left their parties to become independents on issues of conscience, and while readers will recall members like David Emerson and Belinda Stronach who left their smaller parties to take up portfolios in government, the departure of a government member for a third party is, I believe, unprecedented in Canadian politics.

Ug. It's painful to read such tortured logic. It's just like the constant refrain of Debater that the NDP is doing poorly, just based on what a party "ought to" be like in OO, when really it's never been so successful in its entire history.

This is just semantic word games, and rather desperate ones, to try to make a bad position sound better. Nobody's ever crossed to a third party before? Shock! Amazement! This must be the best third party ever! Sorry, but lots of people have floor-crossed to the Liberals before. It's not exceptional. The only difference is that the Liberals have never been the third party before, and there's nothing impressive about that.

Just because they had one disastrous election doesn't mean they stopped being the Liberal party all of a sudden. One political fall doesn't wipe away over a hundred years of history. They're still the biggest old-boys network in Canada and if a Conservative needs to leave their party, they know where they'll be welcome, no matter how the Libs happen to be doing in seats.

You can try to spin it as doing well "for a third party", but actually they're doing badly for the Liberals. That's what matters.

The NDP might be doing poorly "for the Official Opposition" but actually they're doing fantastic, for the NDP. That's what matters.

Debater wrote:

Your arguments can be completely reversed against what you are arguing.  You're claiming that an Official Opposition party which is doing much worse than what an Official Opposition party should be doing is doing "fantastic" but a Third Party which is doing much better than what a Third Party normally does is doing "badly".

This is what bugs me about you. There's no way that I actually have to spell this out in words of small syllables for you so that you can finally "get it". You're not this dumb. Like always, you're just writing arguments you know are nonsense to keep pushing your party line. It's really sickening, honestly.

What I'm stating (not claiming) is that terms like "third party" and "Official Opposition" are just labels that have no significance of their own. What does have significance is a party's political history and culture. This things will be affected by, but not replaced by, any changes of fortune. A party that is reduced from government to third party status is still the same party, with the same connections and potential support, even if they have to do some work to win it back.

I am not deciding that the NDP is doing fantastic. This is an objective fact. Looking over the NDP's culture and history, it is indisputable that the party has never been as successful, prosperous and popular as it is right now. There is no rational way to deny this.

And while the Liberals have polled lower than they are right now many times, it hasn't been that many, and never for too long. Looking over their culture and history, low thirties is rather poor numbers for them.

Obviously propagandists will try to obscure these two clear factual statements, since they don't fit the narrative, but word games are just word games. Yes, the NDP is polling lower than the Liberals do when in opposition. They are also polling lower than Saddam Hussein did under his dicatatorship (100%!). But they are neither of those things, so it's not really relevent. They are the NDP, and for the NDP they're doing great!  

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Obviously propagandists will try to obscure these two clear factual statements, since they don't fit the narrative, but word games are just word games. Yes, the NDP is polling lower than the Liberals do when in opposition. They are also polling lower than Saddam Hussein did under his dicatatorship (100%!). But they are neither of those things, so it's not really relevent. They are the NDP, and for the NDP they're doing great!  

You keep stating your personal opinion as "objective fact".  And you also keep claiming that the people making this argument about the NDP are "propagandists".

You are free to disagree with them of course and put your own spin on it, but you can't credibly claim that well-respected journalists who have documented the NDP's poor results over the past 2 years are "propagandists".

Let's look at what Chantal Hébert has written about the NDP over the past few months.  I think we can agree that she is more objective about this situation than you or I, yes?

1) Oct 29, 2014

The NDP’s problems are piling up across Canada

the party’s troubles are not limited to the municipal scene. Going from west to east, the NDP landscape outside Quebec is a picture of desolation.

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/4951265-the-ndp-s-problems-are-pi...

--

2) Nov 19, 2014

 NDP’s Quebec fortunes not immune to chill in rest of Canada

These days Quebec is a rare bright spot in an otherwise glum NDP landscape but that is mostly the result of a distinct political micro-climate.

The circumstances that have so far allowed the New Democrats to consolidate their hold on Quebec — involving as they do the demise of a sovereigntist party — cannot be replicated elsewhere in Canada.

But a micro-climate is not synonymous with a sheltered hothouse and NDP fortunes in Quebec are not immune to the penetrating chill of devastating byelection results in the rest of Canada.

In the fight to establish which of the main opposition parties is the alternative to the Conservatives, the Liberals now have a decisive edge over the NDP. On Trudeau’s watch, every byelection has shored up that advantage.

. . .

With every NDP byelection debacle the notion that the party is not in the game of beating Stephen Harper gains traction in Quebec.

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/5147056-ndp-s-quebec-fortunes-not...

--

3) Jan 16, 2015

Electoral prospects looking grim for Thomas Mulcair’s NDP

Under the guise of calling all hands on deck for an upcoming election NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair issued a cry for help this week.

His decision to invite back some of the main architects of Jack Layton’s last campaign comes at a time when every poll suggests he will need all the assistance he can get to hang on to existing NDP territory next fall, let alone gain enough ground to win the election. To achieve the latter Mulcair would require a shift in the tectonic plates of Ontario second only to that which took place in Quebec in 2011.

Based on his party’s distant third-place standing in Canada’s largest province, an electoral miracle of Laytonesque proportion is called for.

If it is going to be a contender for federal power next fall, the NDP needs to more than double its Ontario support.

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/5262627-electoral-prospects-looki...

I think that speaks for itself.  I backed up my argument by citing by-election results, polls & detailed commentary by an award-winning journalist.  Meanwhile all you have come back with is your personal opinion that I have "no argument".

Your inability to dispute any of the detailed arguments that Chantal Hébert made above shows that you are the one that has no argument.

See Jacob Two-Two, compared to Debater I'm not so bad after all!

But can you make the argument? Can you ever make any argument at all? Do you understand that linking to pundits is not the same as making an argument?

Here are my two factual statements again:

Quote:

I am not deciding that the NDP is doing fantastic. This is an objective fact. Looking over the NDP's culture and history, it is indisputable that the party has never been as successful, prosperous and popular as it is right now. There is no rational way to deny this.

And while the Liberals have polled lower than they are right now many times, it hasn't been that many, and never for too long. Looking over their culture and history, low thirties is rather poor numbers for them.

I consider these statements indisputable. If you have a logical series of arguments that can dispute these statements in any rational fashion I would be interested in hearing it. But obviously I won't be holding my breath.

And while you're at it you could try responding to this:

Quote:

What I'm stating (not claiming) is that terms like "third party" and "Official Opposition" are just labels that have no significance of their own. What does have significance is a party's political history and culture. This things will be affected by, but not replaced by, any changes of fortune. A party that is reduced from government to third party status is still the same party, with the same connections and potential support, even if they have to do some work to win it back.

Y'know, just the entire content of my post. Which you ignored. As always. Because you really have nothing to say despite the endless posts and links.

Jacob, I've already made the argument repeatedly.  Using numbers and quotes to back it up.  How many more times does it have to be stated?

The Liberals have been on an upward trend since the last election and the NDP has been on a downward trend.  The Liberals are overperforming for a 3rd party and the NDP is underperforming for an Official Opposition party.

I didn't ignore the content of your post - I responded to it in detail.  You're the one that ignored my post and all the arguments that I quoted from Chantal Hébert.  Why is it that partisan NDPers here only seem to be able to engage in personal attacks when people disprove their arguments?

Debater wrote:

Jacob, I've already made the argument repeatedly.  Using numbers and quotes to back it up.  How many more times does it have to be stated?

The Liberals have been on an upward trend since the last election and the NDP has been on a downward trend.  The Liberals are overperforming for a 3rd party and the NDP is underperforming for an Official Opposition party.

I didn't ignore the content of your post - I responded to it in detail.  You're the one that ignored my post and all the arguments that I quoted from Chantal Hébert.  Why is it that partisan NDPers here only seem to be able to engage in personal attacks when people disprove their arguments?

Once again you show that you don't know what an argument is. This is you restating your original premise, which I took issue with, by making a logical series of arguments, which you had no response to.

For the umpty-billionth time:

The notion of "third party" and "official opposition" do not tell us anything about a party's culture, history, alliances, or popular support. These are the important factors when considering how well a party is doing. Focusing on narrow and entirely relative labels like these only serves to obscure what is truly important in evaluating a party's position (which is precisely what you intend it to do).

A well-established party that has always had lots of popular support (like the Liberals) does not lose all of that because of one bad election. It is still a well-established party with lots of (potential) support. The Liberals had one bad election where they sank to under 20% for a few months. That does not completely reset their expectations or their culture and history. They have always polled in the forties, occasionally dropping down to low thirties but not often. And yet that's where they are now. The fact that they happen to be the third party in seats doesn't change the fact that these are among the lowest numbers they've ever had historically.

Your attempt to spin this as a positive can only be done by deliberately ignoring the entire history and culture of the Liberal party. Their enduring popularity, their elite connections with business and media, the strength of their historical brand. Only by omitting everything that is relevent about the Liberals can you call numbers in the low thirties positive. It just doesn't add up.

Now, WHAT IS YOUR REFUTATION OF THIS ARGUMENT!!!

Stockholm, I didn't say Chantal Hébert was gospel.  Like other commentators, she has documented the NDP's challenges going into the next election, particularly in Ontario.  Obviously no one knows for sure what will happen - these things can change.  The point is that not everyone sees things the way NDPers do.

And yes, Hébert writes negative columns about other parties, too.  She isn't an NDP-basher.  She's normally pretty even-handed.  And like many people in the media she decided to rake Justin Trudeau & Eve Adams over the coals this week.  She's not a pro-Liberal commentator.

Not sure what you mean about blackmail, though.  Seems to me as if the press got a little too conspiratorial about the whole Adams thing this week and let their imaginations run away with them.

Stockholm wrote:

If we Chantal Hébert as the gospel Check ont her latest column which is a stinging indictment of Trudeau's bizarre handling of the Eve Adams fiasco and implies Soudas is blackmailing Trudeau

Don't forget Chantal is a exclusive member of the best political panel on Canadian television. She is in the A-list of political commentators, with that status.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Now, WHAT IS YOUR REFUTATION OF THIS ARGUMENT!!!

Debater wrote:

*crickets*

As always, you have no argument. Your Liberal talking points are empty rhetoric that are totally groundless. Your dittohead pundits are proof of nothing. Your posts are devoid of meaningful content. You're just a bullshit artist.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

What I'm stating (not claiming) is that terms like "third party" and "Official Opposition" are just labels that have no significance of their own.

Actually they have a lot of significance. Official Opposition means more money, status and position in the House. It means being higher profile and it means calling yourself the government in waiting. It comes with government paid resources including living in Stornoway.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

What does have significance is a party's political history and culture. This things will be affected by, but not replaced by, any changes of fortune. A party that is reduced from government to third party status is still the same party, with the same connections and potential support, even if they have to do some work to win it back.

Yes indeed it is, which many tried to deny when the NDP rose to 2nd place. The talk was all about how the Liberals should just fold or join the NDP with the NDP having the lead spot of course. So yes, absolutely, the Liberal position as the "natural governing party" of Canada was never lost and the NDP's position as 3rd place "conscience of Canada" remains solid.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I am not deciding that the NDP is doing fantastic. This is an objective fact. Looking over the NDP's culture and history, it is indisputable that the party has never been as successful, prosperous and popular as it is right now. There is no rational way to deny this.

Of course they are doing fabulously well for a third place party that isn't in contention to actually win an election.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

And while the Liberals have polled lower than they are right now many times, it hasn't been that many, and never for too long. Looking over their culture and history, low thirties is rather poor numbers for them.

Yes Liberal numbers are still weak which is why there is still a chance Harper could win the next election and maybe even get a majority which all too many NDP supporters seem practically gleeful about. Nevertheless Liberals are in a stronger position than they have been in for years and they are in a position to win the next election which the NDP are not.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Obviously propagandists will try to obscure these two clear factual statements, since they don't fit the narrative, but word games are just word games. Yes, the NDP is polling lower than the Liberals do when in opposition. They are also polling lower than Saddam Hussein did under his dicatatorship (100%!). But they are neither of those things, so it's not really relevent. They are the NDP, and for the NDP they're doing great!

There is nothing to obscure. The NDP is doing great for a party that is not in contention to win elections. The Liberals are doing moderately well for a party that was decimated for a decade and is building it's way back up. They are in contention to win the next election.

So yeah, if you mean the NDP is doing great for the NDP, and the Liberals are not doing great in comparision to their own history, sure, you are absolutely right. But if you interpret "doing great" as meaning "could win an election" then the Liberals doing great, the NDP not so much.

Not good, as the star, la presse, and cbc are bout the only media allies trudeau has left. Strange dat!

Rex Murphy for one!  

nicky wrote:

Even the Toronto Star is starting to question Justin's judgement:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/02/19/liberal-leader-just...

Of course they are going to criticize Trudeau as are all the media outlets so there is no "even" about it. Criticizing politicians is what the media does for a living. None wants to be seen as supporting a particular party or politician at this stage of the game.

The first criticism is the Eve Adams move which pundits seem to agree was done to pick up Soudas and there is no guarantee she will pick up a nomination. Who cares if no one is "impressed". Canadians seem to have reacted with a big shrug.

His speaking fees were not an "ethical lapse".  There was nothing unethical about accepting work through a speaker's agency that the charities outside his riding went to to hire a celebrity. They could have had an MP for free but that isn't what they wanted.

Likewise, the China comment was an offhand joke at a casual event not a policy announcement. Again, no one cares.

Trudeau's decision to expel senators from the Liberal caucus was brilliant and well recieved by the Canadians who count,(the ones that vote).

Candidates always needed to pass a green light committee. "Open nominations" never meant axe murderers could run. There is always some sort of vetting process. All candidates still have to be elected or aclaimed at the local level.

The Liberal party adopted a pro-choice stance at a convention. Trudeau made the party position official. Again, I don't see voters being upset with his position. I'm certainly happy with it. If Goar has a problem she can go ahead and vote Conservative.

Initially Canadians were willing to give Trudeau a second — and a third and a seventh — chance. But now they’re starting to weigh their electoral choices. The Liberal leader needs a solid platform, a dependable moral compass and someone in his inner circle who can persuade him to pause and think.

Yes he does need a solid platform, which he will release at the appropriate time. Canadians aren't "starting to weigh their electoral choices".  They will do that when the election is called. Right now Canadians are just answering polls casually. All the moves Trudeau has made have been valid moral or political choices.

Goar is desperate for something to write.

Here we go again.

Justin Trudeau’s fun with carbon pricing

Trudeau is pitching a cash transfer from the provinces to Ottawa to…pay for a cash transfer from Ottawa to the provinces. Wait, huh?

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeaus-fun-with-carbon-p...

scott16 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Here we go again.

Justin Trudeau’s fun with carbon pricing

Trudeau is pitching a cash transfer from the provinces to Ottawa to…pay for a cash transfer from Ottawa to the provinces. Wait, huh?

 

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeaus-fun-with-carbon-p...

That's an interesting pic of Trudeau at the top of the article.

It's a very good article. More reasons not to vote for him.

More reasons for people who already won't vote for him. I don't think it will negatively impact people who consider voting Liberal.

This story seems to fit here:

http://noisey.vice.com/en_ca/blog/here-are-the-real-untouched-justin-bie...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Posting here becuase it is the generic Trudeau thread

Just a funny thing-- not sure who came up with this wording:

Liberals are offering a Trudeau sketch to donors. Thing is they are calling it an "original limited edition."

How can this be an original AND a limited edition?

The symbolic comparisons to Liberal positions like C-51 where they are both for AND against come to mind. But I have to say this "original copy" idea is quite interesting.

"If they could bring the month’s total contributions to $350,000 by midnight, the email promised, all March donors would receive the “beautiful, limited-edition original Justin Trudeau sketch as a postcard!” As of press time, the drive was still $53,024 short of the goal."

These are not promised to be signed. They actually do not seem to be limited (not promised as numbered or only to the first X donors) and as I say not original.

http://www.canada.com/news/national/Beautiful+limited+edition+sketch+Jus...

 

As a New Democrat I can't help but think this offer sounds as phony as a Liberal promise.

If any Liberals get one of these -- please tell us what it actually looks like. I sure won't waste the money.

What will they think of next? For the NDP could we see a plucked hair from the Beard for a donation over $1000? At least that would be both original and theoretically limited.

Honestly???

It sounds as desperate as Ezra Levant's "begging for cab fare" for his "The Rebel" outfit....