Trudeau campaign 2015 part 2

Pondering wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That (coupled with you challenging my feminism) justifies me calling you a pompous ass.

You use weasel words to claim you don't insult me personally then whine about my calling you out on it.

Now you are going to try to find even more clever ways of insulting me while claiming innocence. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. If I can percieve the insult so can others.

I tried an olive branch more than once but that is no longer an option between us. A truce is the best that can occur. If you stop insulting me, paraphrasing me, talking about me instead of to me, I will stop calling you names.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My posts are not generic name calling -- they are responses to your behaviour.

Saying I would have thought childcare would be at least equal to public transist in meriting a universal program from a self-identified feminist is fair comment. Many of the cost issues are the same (between transit and childcare). You were the one to raise transit as something that merited universality while childcare did not make the cut.

There is nothing generic about my name-calling. It is a description of your behavior.

I support universal childcare and said so in post 238 "I want free daycare for all but until we can meet that standard I want subsidized daycare going to those most in need." I never said that childcare did not make the cut. The NDP is not offering a universal daycare system either so we are comparing two non-universal programs.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not accepting being challenged is central to your approach. So is your turning nasty when challenged. Logic has no currency. This is insulting to those who spend time thinking and responding.

That would be you. You turned nasty in 225 among other posts. All your talk about universality is moot because the NDP program isn't universal either which you refuse to acknowledge. Your entire focus is on dogging me not critiquing various daycare programs.

I did not reject challenge I explained my support for means-testing as a method of targeting daycare funding to those most in need based on no political party offering universality among other comments directly related to daycare.

Neither the NDP nor the Liberals are in a position to offer universal daycare because Harper has left the cupboard bare. That does not mean I don't support universal daycare. That is just the spin you want to put on it to give yourself another excuse to insult me. 

There was no reason whatsoever to bring up the issue of whether or not I am a feminist. It has no bearing on the pros and cons of the proposed daycare systems and it is sad that childcare is still considered a feminist issue.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This last post (about universality) is an example. Any normal exchange with this style is impossible

Really which post was that. Your lecturing about universality isn't even pertinent as no one is offering a universal childcare program. Your posts 225 and 229 were all about insulting me and talking about me as though I am not even present. You must think people are stupid that they would fall for your lame excuse that you aren't attacking me, just making civil observations.

If I can tell I am being insulted other people can tell too so you aren't fooling anyone.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is probably no more damage you could possibly do to yourself here. This is why you are able to name-call anyone who objects to your behaviour.

No, I am able to "name call" because I am telling the truth. If I were not you would have me banned in an instant.

I will say it again. Stop insulting me, paraphrasing me, talking about me instead of to me, and I will stop calling you names.

Pondering, the riony in your post is dumb-founding. I am awestruck by its content! Bravo!

Pondering wrote:

That would be you. You turned nasty in 225 among other posts. All your talk about universality is moot because the NDP program isn't universal either which you refuse to acknowledge. Your entire focus is on dogging me not critiquing various daycare programs.

...

No, I am able to "name call" because I am telling the truth. If I were not you would have me banned in an instant.

I will say it again. Stop insulting me, paraphrasing me, talking about me instead of to me, and I will stop calling you names.

Pondering: you have repeatedly shown a complete and utter lack of understanding of what universality is. I addressed your point myself several weeks ago, as did others. Yet you continue to confuse universality with issues of supply and accessibility. The red herring of yours about a flat tax is flat out absurd.

As a result, this whole thread has gone in circles now for weeks. If that was your goal, to derail yet another discussion: mission accomplished. This has been your pattern all too often. Rather that inform yourself and address others' views in a substantive way, you flood the board with non-sequitors and repetitive talking points until all meaningful discussion has ceased.

When people rightfully become frustrated, you don your victim suit and accuse them of personal attacks. It is truly exhausting for everyone. No, we may not be able to "kick you off the internet," but I have no doubt it would be a better place without you. (Speaking of absurd, since when does not being "kicked off the internet" prove the veracity of their points?)

I will stop feeding the troll. You have established beyond any doubt in my mind that you are here solely to disrupt discussion, so I will not be engaging in any further discussion with you. I encourage everyone else to ignore your posts too.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

Addressing others by name personally will cause people to take it personally and they might not take it the same way in which it was intended. If someone says a bad idea, I can attack the idea quite vehemently. It allows the other person the "I am always right" bias that it might not apply to them.

Generally I agree -- but if you are responding to behaviour you have to identify the person as others may think you mean them as happens here often when  posts are not directed to the person they are responding to.

Best to avoid "responding to behaviour", I feel.  Stick with debate on issues, and if tone or behaviour is offensive, then flag it as such for the moderators to deal with and otherwise ignore it.

Pondering wrote:

You aren't that smart. Get over yourself.

Your comment suggests that you need to get over yourself because you are the one who thinks so highly of yourself that you feel entitled to make me the topic of discussion by sharing your judgement of me publically.

[/quote]

Pot, meet kettle!

Pondering wrote:

P.S. You called me smarty-pants! lol lol lol

Yep, I did. So?

Winston]</p> <p>[quote=Pondering wrote:

 

I will stop feeding the troll. You have established beyond any doubt in my mind that you are here solely to disrupt discussion, so I will not be engaging in any further discussion with you. I encourage everyone else to ignore your posts too.

This oughta be babble 101.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So name calling is okay so long as *you* think it is true. It is also okay to threaten more of same -- paraphrasing and referencing people who are posting is to be expected. But of course paraphrasing is okay so long as *you* are the one doing it. The rules for others do not apply to you.

I don't paraphrase you I quote you and reference specific posts.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I stated I would have thought a feminist would not put a priority on universal transit over childcare. You paraphrased that to claim I questionned if you were a feminist. I merely pointed out a disconnect between what you self identify as and a position you made.

I did not priorize universal transit over childcare although had I done so it would not be in conflict with being a feminist.

I will quote you again:

Post 229

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is clearly difficult for someone who wants to be seen as a feminist, wants to be seen as a progressive but has a conservative economic vision. Some hide out in the Liberal party now that the PC party is gone.

There was no reason to introduce my status as a feminist or otherwise in this thread. No reason to discuss me at all. It is blatantly obvious the point of your musings was to insult me.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not a moderator and have no say in what you can get away with. However, I don't know how you can be so sure how far you can drive this double standard.

There is no double standard. The moderators don't have time for this shit. They prefer to let us settle it for ourselves. If tons of people start reporting they take a look. They are unlikely to ban me if they agree that you are doing exactly what I am accusing you of doing.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is absolutely the first time I have ever seen someone threaten future personal attacks on this site while admitting to and justifying previous ones. That's bold. I'll give you that.

That wasn't a threat it was an offer "Stop insulting me, paraphrasing me, talking about me instead of to me, and I will stop calling you names."

Consider it a promise.

Your problem is that you want to be able to insult me by accusing me of being a conservative, or insufficiently progressive, or un-feminist without being called out for doing it. My directness infuriates you. I'm supposed to defend myself not call you a pompous ass. Your indignation is palpable.

As you expressed here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/what-liberals-are-missing-when-...

and here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/new-forum-one-ndp-one-liberal

You don't believe Liberals should have equal rights on babble but failing that you want separate forums. I voluntarily stay out of NDP threads even when they contain criticism of the Liberal party or of Trudeau. I make no request that you or anyone else refrain from participating in Liberal threads, but that still isn't good enough for you.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

Addressing others by name personally will cause people to take it personally and they might not take it the same way in which it was intended. If someone says a bad idea, I can attack the idea quite vehemently. It allows the other person the "I am always right" bias that it might not apply to them.

Generally I agree -- but if you are responding to behaviour you have to identify the person as others may think you mean them as happens here often when  posts are not directed to the person they are responding to.

Not using the individual's name does not make it okay as you clearly want everyone to know who you are talking about. Your attempt to justify comments you knew I would find personally insulting is transparent. Nobody is falling for your aggrieved "I was just trying to have an innocent political discussion when along came mean ol Pondering calling me nasty names for no reason" act.

Seriously, you need to drop this obsession over how I identify myself versus the collection of my views etc. and what I do and don't support. It has no bearing on individual discussions of policies or leaders or parties.

Winston wrote:

Pondering: you have repeatedly shown a complete and utter lack of understanding of what universality is. I addressed your point myself several weeks ago, as did others. Yet you continue to confuse universality with issues of supply and accessibility. The red herring of yours about a flat tax is flat out absurd.

I agree that a flat tax was a poor example but issues of supply and accessibility are key to universality. The issue of access to abortion for women in PEI and New Brunswick is a better example as is placing foster children in hotels in Alberta. A daycare system isn't universial if you have to wait 2 or 3 years for a spot and not every child can have one.

I am not required to accept your pronouncement that supply and accessibility are not integral aspects of universality.

Winston wrote:

As a result, this whole thread has gone in circles now for weeks. If that was your goal, to derail yet another discussion: mission accomplished. This has been your pattern all too often. Rather that inform yourself and address others' views in a substantive way, you flood the board with non-sequitors and repetitive talking points until all meaningful discussion has ceased.

This is the thread on Trudeau's 2015 campaign. What meaningful discussion have I derailed?

Winston wrote:

When people rightfully become frustrated, you don your victim suit and accuse them of personal attacks. It is truly exhausting for everyone. No, we may not be able to "kick you off the internet," but I have no doubt it would be a better place without you. (Speaking of absurd, since when does not being "kicked off the internet" prove the veracity of their points?)

Oh you poor babies lol. How can you be expected to resist swinging your dicks around when you are just so frustrated? It's so exhausting for you to read the terrible things I say and Catchfire will punish you if you don't.  Ohhhh the suffering. Oh wait, no he won't. Who said anything about being kicked off the internet? lolololol.  Even Meg and Catchfire aren't that powerful but they will ban me if they think I deserve it. If you think I am doing something wrong you should go ahead and report me. There are enough of you to gain their attention.

Winston wrote:

I will stop feeding the troll. You have established beyond any doubt in my mind that you are here solely to disrupt discussion, so I will not be engaging in any further discussion with you.

Promise? I encourage you to save your strength.

Pondering wrote:

A daycare system isn't universial if you have to wait 2 or 3 years for a spot and not every child can have one.

I agree it's important to look at wait times for different proposals.  I think it's incorrect to assume that making child care means or income tested will lead to less waits. For instance, Trudeau said he does not need child care because he's rich and thus can afford Mary Poppins herself as a nanny if he so chooses.  So, just remove Trudeau and all the other multitude of rich people looking for childcare from the equation and *violà* loads of space for everyone!

That, I'm sure you'll agree, is a silly proposition.  It's not like the majority or even a large number of parents are rich like Trudeau.  Or are even anything approaching being considered wealthy.  The overwhelming majority are regular parents just struggling to get by.  Removing the handful of parents who don't need government help with childcare costs isn't going to make a huge difference on demand, in my opinion.

In Ontario, government help for childcare is delivered in a means tested (or income tested) fashion.  And in Ontario, there are huge wait lists for this (certainly in Toronto, from what I hear from parents here).  Any parent who doesn't apply years (years!) before they need childcare will be shit outta luck (best to apply as soon as the parent sees the positive pregnancy test).  So again, your proposition that means tested programs don't result in waits is bullshit.  Here's an article from Waterloo about waiting lists and the switch from means tested to income tested (both are similar ideas). 

Here's from the government of Ontario regarding accessing financial support for childcare:

Ontario government wrote:

Families can apply for the Ontario child care subsidy. The cost of this program is shared by the Ontario government, municipal governments and First Nations communities.

Eligibility

You can apply if your child is under 12 years old (or up to 18 years old if your child has special needs) and in either:

• a licensed child care program
• a school-aged child enrolled in an approved recreation program
• a before- and after-school program operated directly by a school board

Funding

The amount you pay for child care depends on your family's adjusted net income.

To calculate your net income:

• take your net income amount on line 236 of the Canada Revenue Agency personal income tax form

Then subtract:

• any federal Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) payments (the UCCB is not considered in determining a family's child care fee subsidy)

How to apply

The ministry provides funding for fee subsidies. To apply for the child care subsidy or to get more information about this program, please contact your local:

• Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSMs)/District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs)
• local band office administrator (for First Nations)

You say that Trudeau campaigning on a means-tested child care funding plan will prove to be more popular with people than will a universal program (similar to Quebec's) that the NDP are campaigning on.  I disagree.  People hate stuff like the shit above.  Trish Hennesy of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speaks of how parents feel about the prospect of a Quebec-like system in this article here.

What's important is that there is adequate funding and enough spaces (how many spaces is Trudeau's plan offering? -- Guaranteed it's less than the NDP are offering).  Certainly Quebec's system has had some issues with wait times (link), but even with this, I'm certain that parents in means-tested Ontario (which also has wait list issues) and elsewhere would take a Quebec-like system over any means-tested like system that Trudeau is offering. 

Pomdering wrote:

People in lower economic groups are more likely to stay home because the cost of daycare coupled with work expenses act as a deterrent. In Quebec, women who were more well-off were more likely to have a spot in subsidized daycare.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Peer reviewed study for this one please. Otherwise, stop saying it. You can have your opion but you don't get to decide what is fact and what is fiction.

Common sense dictates that if you make minimum or a low wage the cost of daycare x number of children + work expenses = decision on whether or not working is financially beneficial or feasible. I'm sure there are all kinds of peer reviewed studies that prove women are influenced by these factors and that some are discouraged from workplace participation based on daycare cost and availablility but I feel no need to provide them to you or prove the truth of my claim.

I leave it to readers to decide whether or not to agree with my assessment of the impact of daycare cost and availability on on the choice of women to work or not.

It is no secret in Quebec that subsidized daycare spots disproportionately went to higher income brackets. Don't believe me if you don't want to.

Here is something more general on Quebec daycare universality.

http://live.montrealgazette.com/Event/Frustration_with_7-a-day_daycare_i...

 Oh I think its possible, the Libs are becoming desperate and they have no problem with lying. They'd promise the moon to win.

 That being said they'd better keep it believable, remember the old saying "Pigs get fat, Hogs get slaughtered".

mark_alfred wrote:

No, it's not possible.  It's a complete misread of the Liberal campaign, which is Conservative-Lite.  The amount of childcare spaces won't come anywhere near what Mulcair and the NDP are promoting.  In fact, Trudeau's Liberals won't even come anywhere near the lesser amounts that Ken Dryden's childcare plan was projecting.  Trudeau's plan is more focussed on doling out money in the form of a rejigged Conservative Child Benefit program than it is to providing childcare spaces.  If you don't believe me, then just look at their website.

The daycare program isn't out yet so of course it wouldn't be on their website. The conservative child benefit is not being rejigged. All the child benefit programs are being rolled into one so it will all be subject to being taxed back. The two measures have nothing to do with one another.

Trudeau is not an appointed leader. Ignatieff was the only appointed leader unless you count Rae who was named as a placeholder.

This thread title is a misnomer - there is no Trudeau campaign.

And it sums up the Liberal problems in a nutshell. 

For those of you who don't think Trudeau can do worse thatn Ignatieff, Dion, or remember 250 seat Paul Martin, think again. 

Another Liberal anointed leader this time Trudeau has bombed, and there no Liberal campaign.

The Liberal party died when Martin created that putsch against Chretien, a sitting prime minister, and Martin's and McGuinty's people unfortunately for the Liberals are still around. 

Some deaths are quick, and some are slow and painful.

You are doing one hell of a job Justin!

NDP edges out in front

A week can seem like a lifetime. A few months can change the entire political landscape.

Just ask Jim Prentice. Or Justin Trudeau.

The polling trend for the federal Liberals has to be giving their campaign advisers giant ulcers and a lot of sleepless nights. After all, Trudeau was supposed to be it: the leader who could bring them back to power, to the glory days.

But a series of miscues and profound judgment errors — including the decision to vote with the Conservatives in favour of Bill C51, Stephen Harper’s broadly discredited so-called anti-terror legislation — have hurt the Liberals in the eyes of many Canadians desperately looking for a real alternative to the current government.

And Liberals are worried, and perhaps still a little shocked at this reversal of their fortunes. A recent commentary by Scott Reid, a CTV political analyst and former adviser to Prime Minister Paul Martin, was full of tough love.

“The hard truth is that it’s particularly hard truth time for the Liberals,” he wrote. “The first hard truth to face is that it’s not working — at least not well enough.”

EKOS, one of Canada’s top polling firms, noted in several recent polls how the fortunes of the federal Liberals have fallen. Other pollsters are showing similar results, including the latest by Corporate Research Associates, which polls exclusively in Atlantic Canada.

In politics, it is all about trends and the NDP is really liking the story those trends are telling.

Last week, EKOS pollster Frank Graves, who also called the Alberta NDP majority, noted that, “just as it looked like we were setting into a three-way tie, the NDP appears to be opening up some daylight between itself and the Conservatives — who are still stuck at sub-30 — and the listless Liberals, still drifting downward 

http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Columnists/2015-06-13/article-4178677...

Agreed. Really it has nothing to do with Justin, except to the extent that he doesn't have the professionalism or gravitas to be a proper smokescreen for the utter lack of principles in the party he's fronting ( not leading).

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I agree with most of Sean's points, particularly that of the choices available after the 2011 disaster, only Trudeau had any hope of reviving the Liberal Party . However, I think the crucial turning point for the LPC was in 2006. They had the opportunity to choose Bob Rae. Had they done so, I think it is likely that he would have formed government with at least a minority, and possibly a majority after the 2008 election in which Dion crashed so badly.

Hard to say -- I think Rae may have helped but he also may have hurt them as he certainly was vulnerable. Ironically this would have been better for the NDP. The Liberals explaining Rae's term in office would have helped (they would have had to explain what he was facing: worldwide recession; FTA adjustment; GST; Federal downloads etc.) Many still see his government as a disaster in terms of the budget which it really wasn't in the way people think. The Liberals carrying that for an election might have had long term benefits for the NDP. This neutralization of the Rae years in Ontario may have offset the benefits Rae may have brought.

Rae may have won a coalition with the NDP which woudl have been interesting to say the least.

I suspect the NDP would have been on the road to eclipsing the Liberals just as much but the Conservatives likely would have been out of power for part of the process. I doubt the Liberals would be in much better shape today. In fact, in this alternate reality 2008-2011 may have been a Liberal-NDP government. That may well have been defeated by Conservatives in 2011 and we could well be in exactly the same position today. Layton may still have damaged the Liberals in 2011 and we could have been right here with a different history.

One leader would not have undone the rot the Liberals have at the moment. It goes to their entire braintrust not just the leader.

I'd contrast the Liberal leadership battles with the other parties.

For a while the NDP was really on the ropes. There were genuine battles for the heart of the party. And after taking a few hard losses in the 90s, the party was ready for a referrendum on where they were going. Was it time to follow a "New Labor" style makeover as done by Tony Blair? Or was it time to reinvent the party, perhaps even disband the party with the New Politics Institute? By the time Jack Layton came along, there was a huge battle for the principles and ideas that would guide the NDP. Layton found a balance that would heal the divide, modernizing the party without compromising its principles. But the party hashed out some huge ideological battles. The leadership race was very much about principles, ideas, and values.

Even though the Conservatives are technically a new party, you could probably say the same thing about their first leadership race. This whole party came about because the whole movement split in two through the 90s. By the time they were ready to create a joint party, there were huge battles over whether it would resemble the Reform or the PCs, and all the principles and values that would guide that.

Now take a look at the Liberal leadership battles. The battle between Martin and Chretien wasn't some sort of ideological rift. It was because two different wings of the party were fighting over who got the power and the glory in what seemed to be a permanent majority. Once the permanent majority faltered, Martin surrendered the leadership. As the battles continued, the strategic vote for Dion was the compromise in a war between Rae and Ignatieff. And the coronation of Ignatieff was the final effort to heal that divide. But in the party's internal desire to heal, there was no discussion of what the party was supposed to stand for. Just a hope that if they could just all agree on a leader, they could get back to winning.

The 2011 election could have been an opportunity for the Liberal party to do some soul searching. I wonder if Trudeau hadn't shown up, or if they hadn't spent a year panicked that Rae might abuse his position as interim leader, maybe they could have talked more about their vision for the country. But instead it became another race talking about how the Liberal party could reclaim glory if they just had the right leader, and fixing Canada was just a question of getting Harper out. "Electability" was the only goal. This meant that when Trudeau took the leadership, he had no real vision or principle guiding him. So their approach to beating Harper became a lot like Ignatieff's, stealing Conservative policies hoping the peel off Conservative voters.

Yes, leadership elections are hugely important for political parties. But the leadership battle is always a proxy for something else. In the other parties, the leadership choices represented contrasting ideas. In the Liberal party, it never stopped being about power.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I'd contrast the Liberal leadership battles with the other parties.

For a while the NDP was really on the ropes. There were genuine battles for the heart of the party. And after taking a few hard losses in the 90s, the party was ready for a referrendum on where they were going. Was it time to follow a "New Labor" style makeover as done by Tony Blair? Or was it time to reinvent the party, perhaps even disband the party with the New Politics Institute? By the time Jack Layton came along, there was a huge battle for the principles and ideas that would guide the NDP. Layton found a balance that would heal the divide, modernizing the party without compromising its principles. But the party hashed out some huge ideological battles. The leadership race was very much about principles, ideas, and values.

Even though the Conservatives are technically a new party, you could probably say the same thing about their first leadership race. This whole party came about because the whole movement split in two through the 90s. By the time they were ready to create a joint party, there were huge battles over whether it would resemble the Reform or the PCs, and all the principles and values that would guide that.

Now take a look at the Liberal leadership battles. The battle between Martin and Chretien wasn't some sort of ideological rift. It was because two different wings of the party were fighting over who got the power and the glory in what seemed to be a permanent majority. Once the permanent majority faltered, Martin surrendered the leadership. As the battles continued, the strategic vote for Dion was the compromise in a war between Rae and Ignatieff. And the coronation of Ignatieff was the final effort to heal that divide. But in the party's internal desire to heal, there was no discussion of what the party was supposed to stand for. Just a hope that if they could just all agree on a leader, they could get back to winning.

The 2011 election could have been an opportunity for the Liberal party to do some soul searching. I wonder if Trudeau hadn't shown up, or if they hadn't spent a year panicked that Rae might abuse his position as interim leader, maybe they could have talked more about their vision for the country. But instead it became another race talking about how the Liberal party could reclaim glory if they just had the right leader, and fixing Canada was just a question of getting Harper out. "Electability" was the only goal. This meant that when Trudeau took the leadership, he had no real vision or principle guiding him. So their approach to beating Harper became a lot like Ignatieff's, stealing Conservative policies hoping the peel off Conservative voters.

Yes, leadership elections are hugely important for political parties. But the leadership battle is always a proxy for something else. In the other parties, the leadership choices represented contrasting ideas. In the Liberal party, it never stopped being about power.

Indeed. And it is that lack of substance that has overtaken any leadership as the real crisis in the party. No leadership can fix it.

Increasingly the voters don't even care if it is fixed at all. For them there are other options. Most Liberals can quietly choose between the NDP or Conservatives if they have to.

Den Tandt mocks Hepburn for being Justin's cheerleader:

Justin Trudeau, the Toronto Star’s Bob Hepburn opined Saturday, is showing signs of “turning a corner and becoming the formidable campaign force the Liberals hoped he would be and that Conservatives and NDP strategists feared all along."

Well, then. It’s curious Hepburn would have thought that enough to write it, and not re-written it immediately after reading it. I can’t think of another independent political observer in the known universe who would agree with him, just now – including respondents to the most recent EKOS poll, released Friday, which has the Trudeau-led Grits plunging to just over 23.3 per cent in national public support, almost four points back of Stephen Harper’s Tories, and more than ten behind Thomas Mulcair’s surging New Democrats

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/parsing-the-evidence-for-trude...

Then Den Tandt says that further NDP growth would only help the Conservatives. Duelling fantasies...

At what point woudl a party in first place increasing somehow help the aprty in second place?

Perhaps if the NDP can grow that ten point lead over the Conservatives in Ontario the Conservatives will sweep the Province!

nicky wrote:

Den Tandt mocks Hepburn for being Justin's cheerleader:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/parsing-the-evidence-for-trude...

Both articles are pundit fluff. Hepburn was not talking about the polls. He was talking about the beginning of the platform roll-out.

Den Tandt says this:

He’s highlighting the strength of his team? That suggests he needs all the help he can get.

That isn't even clever. Den Tandt can dismiss the team approach but the team does matter. Everyone knows that Harper didn't write the economic plan and his one man band has been heavily criticized. Trudeau has nothing to be ashamed of in promoting a team approach. It's going to be a primary feature of his campaign. It is very true that the team shores up Trudeau against accusations of insufficient experience.

Hepburn says this:

Third, Trudeau is showing he is a fighter. Long seen as “soft,” Trudeau has started to strike back at Conservative attack ads with his own ads that are tougher than the voters have seen from the Liberal leader in the past. “Voters want strong, tough leaders and that’s what we need to be showing with Justin,” a Trudeau team insider said.

THEN

Fourth, Trudeau is adopting a lower public profile. This time-limited strategy allows him to focus more on policy preparation, debate rehearsals and campaign logistics and tactics without unduly burning himself out before the official campaign launches immediately after Labour Day.

Fifth, knowing how critical they are, Trudeau has already put in long days of work in preparation for the televised leaders’ debates.

Trudeau is going on the BBQ circuit just like all the other politicians. We will continue to see ads but Trudeau won't be defending his program until September, the day after Labour Day to be specific.

He is working out as he did for his fight with Brazeau. He is "running stairs" so to speak, only politically that is getting policy in backwards forwards and upsidedown so he can defend it, then he is practicing defending it. This was a message to supporters.

It is in large part what I have been saying for months although I never imagined he would go this far this long. He has nerves of steel and so does his team. I fear they have gone to far, then I think of the old adage.

Campaigns matter. Dion couldn't shake "not a leader" because his command of English wasn't good enough. Duffy shouldn't have aired what he did but on the other hand Dion did have trouble understanding the question. It wasn't just that. He didn't connect with voters at all. He is a charming man but his charm is subdued. Ignatieff was an arrogant choice or a desperate one. He had been out of the country for decades and he came back to run for Prime Minister? Couldn't the Liberals fine anyone in Canada? He was an unappealing intellectual. Harper is unappealing too but he was the incumbant and still had a lot of support.

Trudeau has far more good will than either Dion or Ignatieff and far more personal appeal.

If he is a dufus once the campaign is in full bloom then he is toast. If he is well prepared, you may be shocked at how quickly things can turn around.

Kinsella, in a blog posting entitled From this guy, this is a big deal, stated that "Den Tandt was the only commentator they had left".  Presumably Den Tandt is generally pro-Liberal then.  Anyway, I thought Kinsella's reference to Bob Hepburn ("who has taken to writing fiction") was pretty funny.   

Kinsella wrote:

Apart from Bob Hepburn – who has taken to writing fiction – Den Tandt was the only commentator they had left. 

“Either way, Liberals cannot gild this lily, and their supporters would be better off not to try. They may conceivably wind up in a fight to hang onto what they now hold, which is 36 seats. Having the leader cut a lower profile while he bones up on his debating skills will not cut it. I would venture a guess that Trudeau either embraces his underdog status and scraps it out, mano a mano, or he loses, big.”

Have the feeling this is all going to end badly? Me, too.

 Yeah the star is getting increasing pathetic.

This is good. It is very professional and comprehensive, well laid out.

http://www.realchange.ca/

He is getting a lot of positive feedback, just like the NDP does when they release something.

That the Liberals have committed to electoral reform is good for the NDP. It legitimizes the NDP's position at least to the extent that they also agree that electoral reform is necessary. It will be more difficult for Harper to paint it as extreme.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

This is good. It is very professional and comprehensive, well laid out.

http://www.realchange.ca/

He is getting a lot of positive feedback, just like the NDP does when they release something.

That the Liberals have committed to electoral reform is good for the NDP. It legitimizes the NDP's position at least to the extent that they also agree that electoral reform is necessary. It will be more difficult for Harper to paint it as extreme.

Lots of reviews in the comment section here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeaus-real-change-includ...

More in the comments here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/16/justin-trudeau-open-government-a...

I saw a couple that were positive...

Comment sections are full of partisan critique. Negative comments will always outweight positive ones because it is always 2 against one if we only count the main parties.

What's more significant is which comments actually sound intelligent but even they can't be deemed in any way representative of public sentiment in general.

The website is excellent. I don't think it will have much impact because few people are paying attention to politics.