Trudeau in trouble, trailing NPD in Papineau according to CROP, Quebec's gold pollster - Sep 17

The Quebec Liberal Party also opposes the Clarity Act and believes that Quebec has an absolute right to self-determination. Do you consider all members of he Quebec Liberal Party to be separatists who want Quebec to be outside of Canada?

A lot of Quebecers who are federalist or agnostic on separatism have total disdain for Trudeau - they see him as a dumb playboy from vancouver

Unionist wrote:

Do something real.

[size=30]Donate to Anne's campaign![/size]

[url=https://secure.ndp.ca/riding13/index.php?riding=24055&language=e]JUST DO IT![/url]

Get rid of that Justin Trudeau joker once and for all!

Thank you.

 

Done.  Twenty-five bucks.

Stockholm wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

The riding poll at 308 has Trudeau thirty points ahead of the NDP in Papineau(at least the one they had on their yesterday).   At least one of those polls has to be way the puck(see how I worked a hockey pun in there?)wrong.

Pardon me for losing my temper but for the gazillionth time 308 DOES NOT CONDUCT POLLS!!!!! Grenier does not have a polling company. he has never conducted or commissioned a poll in his life. He is a self-styled "poll analyst". His site takes the average of all the national polls that OTHER people have conducted and he then assumes that every riding in the country will swing accoridng to the national polling average. I'm am SICK TO DEATH of people referring to his half baked "projections" at the individual riding level as if they were actual polls of those ridings. He is just doing a very crude hypothesis of what HE thinks will happen in each riding.

sherpa-finn wrote:

Just to be clear, the riding by riding projections on 308 are not polls, per se. But an application of national or provincial poll results to the 2011 election figures in order to try to translate voter intention numbers into projected seat distributions. So no "real" local numbers are behind 308's riding-specific numbers.

Though I too watch them like a hawk to try and track 30 or so swing ridings.

(Cross posted with a much grumpier Stockholm!)

More precisely, if 308 is based on the 2011 numbers, then the high Bloc numbers in Papineau stem from the organizational advantage the Bloc had over the NDP. The candidate was the former incumbent who had come in second in 2008, so she obviously had a core of support she could count on. That is absolutely not the case now, and many of those votes would be freed up.

Anyways, hopefully the NDP will soon release a similar poll for Calgary Southwest.

What, I can dream, can't I?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

More precisely, if 308 is based on the 2011 numbers, then the high Bloc numbers in Papineau stem from the organizational advantage the Bloc had over the NDP. The candidate was the former incumbent who had come in second in 2008, so she obviously had a core of support she could count on. That is absolutely not the case now, and many of those votes would be freed up.

The 308 projection has the Bloc at 11% and the NDP in the twenties with the Libs over 50%.  So, according to that projection, even if all the Bloc went NDP, they'd still lose in Papineau.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Yes, Justin losing his riding isn't important. But people believing that he's going to lose his riding can be very important in the lead-up to E-day. Adds another log to the "just not ready" pile. Might add a couple, actually.

That would be true if many people followed politics closely but I don't think they do. A  recent study showed that 40% of Canadians never discuss politics.

The Liberals on Twitter are working overtime to discredit the CROP poll as being paid for by the NDP. Similarly Kinsella, Grenier and Akin.
Yet the Mainstreet Poll is scarcely good news for Justin, particularly with a big undecided vote, as well as a residual Boc vote available to squeeze. What the Liberals don't mention is that Mainstreet is run by one of their own, Quatro Magi. CROP on the other hand is a non-partisan and quite respected pollster.
CROP is a couple weeks out of date but still the Liberal furor over it may show that it is broadly accurate.

JKR wrote:

That would be true if many people followed politics closely but I don't think they do. A  recent study showed that 40% of Canadians never discuss politics.

But once they were asked the question, didn't the number plummet to 0%?

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:

That would be true if many people followed politics closely but I don't think they do. A  recent study showed that 40% of Canadians never discuss politics.

But once they were asked the question, didn't the number plummet to 0%?

:)

Very Far Away wrote:

Sean in Ottawa.

You wrote: "The idea that this is a bad strategy to release is silly becuase, if true, it is not giving the Liberals something they did not know".

How come someone like you say "silly" for someone else's idea? How would you feel if someone tells you that your post is silly?

I always thought this is an open discussion for open minded people. Everybody has an opinion, and this is mine. If we don't agree with someone else's idea, we can simply say we don't agree with him / her. How difficult is it to do that?

Also, the last sentence of your post is:

"I expect Trudeau to win this seat by a double digit advantage unless something changes radically in the next few weeks."

If this is what you expect, it means that releasing this poll won't have enough effect to beat Liberal leader in the riding, will it?

In this case, releasing the poll is useless, isn't it?

Thanks.

To answer your first question -- I have never had a problem with someone criticizing an idea of mine. This is a world of difference from a personal attack. As well this was a point I was making that I backed up with detail.

This is an odd place --  for a person to point me out out for saying an IDEA endorsed by multiple people was silly.Do you need a primer on the difference between debate on an idea and personal attacks? I am, of course, a person against whom anyone can attack personally endorsed by the moderators who will only intervene -- against me -- if I respond in kind. This is a place with rampant name calling and long venemous attacks directly on persons. But you decide to comment on the fact that I find an idea silly. Saying an idea is silly is different than just saying you disagree -- it is a way of characterizing an idea as being not just wrong but nonsensical. And this is an opinion that ought to be able to be expressed. I backed up my assertion and stand behind it. If you think what I said was silly, then back it up and we will debate. That's what this place is for.

If people could not call another idea silly on this place, I suspect that this place would empty out in an hour.

Now for your second question. Shall we consider the difference between what you expect and what you think is possible?

I expect Trudeau to win like I said and backed up. However, I think that it is possible for him to lose and what we saw was a strategy to achieve that. While I do not expect it to work it is a valid strategy and it might work.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Do you need a primer on the difference between debate on an idea and personal attacks?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am, of course, a person against whom anyone can attack personally endorsed by the moderators who will only intervene -- against me -- if I respond in kind. This is a place with rampant name calling and long venemous attacks directly on persons. But you decide to comment on the fact that I find an idea silly.

Life is so unfair.

The Liberals have nothing to say about this email since their stuff is no less nasty, no less deceptive but the NDP does have a tendency to get so cute that some are uncomfortable at times and the comments even slip out into the media. As a rule the NDP supporters do like fairer play (maybe less so here) and this means that getting extra cute is likely a bad strategy. As well it is better for communications to allow readers to think and conclude rather than the over-interpretation tendency the party has at times. There are time when the party says something that would have been more effective had the reader taken the first part and come to that conclusion on their own. This is the same thing with a good book: don't prevent your reader fropm participating, thinking and arriving at the obvious conclusions themselves. I have been critical of NDP communications this time and this is part of that criticism and why at times they look amaterurish. They need to ask themselves who the audience is -- how close you have to bring an idea to completion for that audience to get the point and when to underline the idea with the conclusion and when to let the reader do it themselves. Always tricky and critical for maximum effect.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Liberals have nothing to say about this email since their stuff is no less nasty, no less deceptive but the NDP does have a tendency to get so cute that some are uncomfortable at times and the comments even slip out into the media.

The Liberals have nothing to say about it because part of their campaign strategy is to rise above it.

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Liberals have nothing to say about this email since their stuff is no less nasty, no less deceptive but the NDP does have a tendency to get so cute that some are uncomfortable at times and the comments even slip out into the media.

The Liberals have nothing to say about it because part of their campaign strategy is to rise above it.

We here are lucky to be able to get the inside scoop on the Liberal campaign strategy.

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Liberals have nothing to say about this email since their stuff is no less nasty, no less deceptive but the NDP does have a tendency to get so cute that some are uncomfortable at times and the comments even slip out into the media.

The Liberals have nothing to say about it because part of their campaign strategy is to rise above it.

We here are lucky to be able to get the inside scoop on the Liberal campaign strategy.

I named it a strategy, not a character trait, and I am no insider anymore than Sean is. I am not the first person to observe that Trudeau is going for a more positive sunny image.

I will go farther and say I don't think the NDP email was particularly nasty or deceptive in terms of the style of politics that has become the norm. I don't believe the poll is accurate but I am sure it exists. I don't think it's the norm for campaigns to comment on each other's fund-raising letters although sometimes the media picks them up.

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Liberals have nothing to say about this email since their stuff is no less nasty, no less deceptive but the NDP does have a tendency to get so cute that some are uncomfortable at times and the comments even slip out into the media.

The Liberals have nothing to say about it because part of their campaign strategy is to rise above it.

We here are lucky to be able to get the inside scoop on the Liberal campaign strategy.

There is something to be said for that.

The Trudeau campaign has a clear strategy: they do prefer to keep Trudeau as much as possible from the more dirty attacks and let others do the dirty work. They have a large support base known to be rather aggressive online (lots of reports of this). The Liberal war room also is known to be as crafty and nasty as they come. So with this, they let Trudeau rise above and even when he stoops, he stoops to the more passive aggressive than anything direct. This allows a rather nasty Liberal campaign to say that they rise above. I am sure this is all by design. Unfortunately, there are times when Trudeau is being manipulative he looks amateurish and incincere. In some respects, Trudeau might come across better not pretending to be nice of fair when it is clear he is not being either.

When it comes to the NDP, they have not trained and protected Mulcair in the same way. Mulcair is skilled at rhetoric. It would seem NDP strategy is not to hold back Mulcair on the zingers becuase some are well-timed, effective and clever. But the problem here is that not all of them are. Some come across as gratuitous and are taken as mean by some people, or worse, petty. Mulcair looks good when he is Angry Tom on issues that matter -- you might want an angry person when you need someone to stand up for you -- but at times he stoops into Petty Tom and when he does he loses what he gains in his other more passionate moments.

It is not clear to me, as different as they are, that either has a huge advantage as both seem to have some as well as the capacity to undermine those advantages in ways they think nobody notices but are in fact quite transparant.

To his credit, Harper does not try to be other than he is. He is mean, partisan, divisive, prejudiced, hateful and makes no pretence about being accessible, fair or even caring about what or who he does not give a fig about. Of course Harper's base likes mean. Trudeau's partisans might also like mean but the undecided voter probably does not see it that way.

In the end what actually is said or done matters less than what the armies of partisans say. I saw the debate and like every professional pundit commenting that night -- Trudeau looked bad and Mulcair did very well. But a couple days later we see the strength of the Trudeau partisans who claim he won loudly enough that he is being declared by many as a winner. The same is true for Harper. The selection of a debate forum where the actual content would not matter as much as the post spin was artful. The Conservatives have the  money and media friends to turn a debate loss into a win and it works because the audience (who actually saw it) will be dwarfed by those who read about it only. Just wait for the out of context ads. Even many of the pictures I have seen were incredibly selective.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

A lot of Quebecers who are federalist or agnostic on separatism have total disdain for Trudeau - they see him as a dumb playboy from vancouver

 

As a Vancouverite, I must take exception to this unfair mischaracterization of our fine and outstanding privileged young men who have grown up in the lap of luxury in our fairest of fair cities. With the best weather and weed here in Lotus Land our outstanding privileged playboys have impressed the world by being well, hmmm, you know, uhhh, ok, let's see, hmmm... Never mind.

Speaking of dumb playboys, isn't another Justin, Justin Bieber from back east? Put that in your pipe central-Canada and smoke it cause it ain't gonna taste as good as BC Bud.

Polls do seem to show a difference but it seems that it is Ontario and Atlantic Canada with the Trudeau bug and less so the West Coast and even less Quebec.

That said, I think a lot of people actually do like Trudeau -- including many people who do not want him to be PM or support his party. Trudeau may be considered a bad choice for PM but this is not the same as being hated -- not like PM Harper is for example.

Some hate him but many more just do not approve of him being a PM. In my case I rarely hate the Liberal leader and in some cases even like them but I dislike their party and do not want to see it govern. As well I want more progress than I think will ever come from them no matter how they try to position themselves during an election. I don't find it essential to hater Trudeau to reject him as PM material. My feelings about the Liberal party is more about the party itself and this is reinforced to a significant degree by those who represent it both officially and those who cheer-lead unofficially for it. In fact for the most part the Liberal party tends to elevate people who are actually better than the party itself in many respects and that is natural. And people do not have to be competant in order to at least like them a little.

 

Great points. Ultimately it is the policies that actually get implemented that matter the most, not personalities. As the majour party that cares the most about the 99.9% of Canadians that are not, as Pondering would say, plutocrats, the NDP is the party most likely to establish good legislation for Canada.

I see Trudeau as being a decent and caring person but also a person who does not have the depth of knowledge to implement policies independently. He seems to depend completely on his advisors like Gerald Butts to establish policies for him. I think it is fair to say that his advisors do not understand the plight of the working class nearly as much as the NDP does. That's why I support the NDP as being the best choice we have to form government.

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

A lot of Quebecers who are federalist or agnostic on separatism have total disdain for Trudeau - they see him as a dumb playboy from vancouver

 

As a Vancouverite, I must take exception to this unfair mischaracterization of our fine and outstanding privileged young men who have grown up in the lap of luxury in our fairest of fair cities. With the best weather and weed here in Lotus Land our outstanding privileged playboys have impressed the world by being well, hmmm, you know, uhhh, ok, let's see, hmmm... Never mind.

Speaking of dumb playboys, isn't another Justin, Justin Bieber from back east? Put that in your pipe central-Canada and smoke it cause it ain't gonna taste as good as BC Bud.

Polls do seem to show a difference but it seems that it is Ontario and Atlantic Canada with the Trudeau bug and less so the West Coast and even less Quebec.

That said, I think a lot of people actually do like Trudeau -- including many people who do not want him to be PM or support his party. Trudeau may be considered a bad choice for PM but this is not the same as being hated -- not like PM Harper is for example.

Some hate him but many more just do not approve of him being a PM. In my case I rarely hate the Liberal leader and in some cases even like them but I dislike their party and do not want to see it govern. As well I want more progress than I think will ever come from them no matter how they try to position themselves during an election. I don't find it essential to hater Trudeau to reject him as PM material. My feelings about the Liberal party is more about the party itself and this is reinforced to a significant degree by those who represent it both officially and those who cheer-lead unofficially for it. In fact for the most part the Liberal party tends to elevate people who are actually better than the party itself in many respects and that is natural. And people do not have to be competant in order to at least like them a little.

 

 

Great points. Ultimately it is the policies that actually get implemented that matter the most, not personalities. As the majour party that cares the most about the 99.9% of Canadians that are not, as Pondering would say, plutocrats, the NDP is the party most likely to establish good legislation for Canada.

I see Trudeau as being a decent and caring person but also a person who does not have the depth of knowledge to implement policies independently. He seems to depend completely on his advisors like Gerald Butts to establish policies for him. I think it is fair to say that his advisors do not understand the plight of the working class nearly as much as the NDP does. That's why I support the NDP as being the best choice we have to form government.

Trudeau has one other card and it is related to the branding of the Liberal party itself.

Parties are usually very top-down. The Conservatives are judged -- correctly -- only on Harper's abilities and directions. The NDP has very often had a very leader-centric focus -- in large part becuase the party historically did not elect a big enough team and the party having not governed has never presented a team federally -- as government.

The Liberals on the other hand have the history of team -- this goes back to Pearson who was not a particularly strong leader in the traditional sense -- even though he was liked. What Pearson did was assemble a team. He did this including strong people who had been in the party from before him. Even Trudeau Senior, known to be somewhat autocratic, did bring in some powerful Cabinet Ministers -- apart from the "three wise men" he had the likes of Axworthy and Monique Begin (whose stature grew over the years). Liberals, more than any other party have the good fortune to be associated with team -- even if this perception is unfair. For this reason many Liberals will accept Trudeau's enthusiasm and presume he will be moderated by a team more than anyone would give the same credit to the NDP or CPC.

Trudeau is still in the race and I submit that the reason he is, would be directly realted to the preception of the Liberal party that may be more forgiving of a leader that must rely on a team than other parties. Not being ready may not be as serious as incomprehensible and wrong-headed (Dion) or uncommitted with policies that did not speak to Canadians (Iggy). This is why the attacks on Trudeau have not worked as well in my opinion. Many who do not prefer Trudeau as PM may still like the Trudeau team and potentially vote for it. This is something the NDP needs to factor in. Again I am speaking of impressions which matter more than anything else.

I have said the Liberals were not out of the campaign when they were at 23%. But for them to sit at nearly 30% now they may even have an advantage over the other two. I do not support Trudeau but I actually think he has the greatest advantage right now. The greatest disadvatnage remains Harper in my opinon. The greatest risk is Mulcair's. He has the potential to win but an equal potenital to fall hard to third. The fact Trudeau has survived and recovered to this point may indicate that the chance of a hard fall for Trudeau is lower now.

Now this will settle little as any of the three parties could emerge a year from now as victors after a minority that has them in any position. A minority is an extended election campaign.

Hi Sean.

Thanks for clarifying your post. I think I was too sensitive because of the use of the word "silly". Especially, when it came from you whom I think is one of the most objective people here in Rabble.

You explained it well: "This is a place with rampant name calling and long venemous attacks directly on persons." Unfortunately, this is how I see in some of the posts written by so many different people.

As for the election result in that specific riding, I still believe there was no reason for NDP to release this data. I don't think these tactics will help NDP (in any case, we'll learn it on the 19th of October)

As a side note, I'm not impressed with NDP's campaign at all. This election was a great opportunity for NDP to have a very progressive campaign. Because Canadians are ready for it after so many years of Conservative government. Plus, Liberals have an inexperienced leader. However, what we got so far from NDP is mainly "the childcare plan" in addition to some other vague statements (Improving health care etc). And I don't think they'll be enough to form a minority government. Hope I'm wrong.

I already voted for NDP with a special ballot and I don't regret since I believe in most of the principles of NDP. Having said that, Liberal platform makes more sense in this election. The problem with Liberals is that they say anyhting they want in order to be elected. They're very pragmatist and I think Canadians are kind of naive when it comes to Liberal promises.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is not just with me, they give you a pass for doing the same things that they clamp down on others.

Not at all. I think I am at times a thorn in their sides that they would be happy to see the backend of because they find all the personal bullshit tiresome and it destroys threads and makes rabble look bad when these threads hit the front page over and over again. I am more often than not at the centre of these kerfuffles because I am verbose, support Trudeau, and support the Nordic model of prostitution law and I am not as well-versed in activist speech so occasionally used loaded terms like "social justice warrior".

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This has lead to what was a more minor rivalry between us, that could have been managed by moderation, turning into outright hatred.

I don't hate you or anyone else here nor do I consider you a rival. I'm just here to talk politics. I enjoy interacting with some posters more than with others because of their approach to political discussion. I wish you would relax and not take everything so much to heart because I used to enjoy our discussions and still do enjoy some of your analysis. I don't think that is in the cards so, oh well.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

  The lack of being evenhanded is one of the most destructive things. Instead of helping things for you or the board this has made the situation toxic. Life may not be fair but moderation should be and when it is not, everyone suffers -- even the pet of the moderators, the targets of the pet and the bystanders who hate the shitshow. It is the elephant in the room. I am one who does not mind naming the elephant until it is led away.

I am not the moderator's "pet" and for the most part I don't think they agree with my politics, or at least there are a few areas where they vehemently disagree.

You think they are showing bias in my favor when really I have just figured out their approach to moderating over time and learned to deal with attacks in a manner that doesn't over-complicate their task. When they make a ruling, I accept it even if I disagree with it.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I can say their preferential treatment is very much a factor in why things are so bad between you and me. If we both had the same rules and the same tolerances this would never have deteriorated to this point.

Except the preferencial treatment is how you have interpreted their behavior not an objective fact.

Not too long ago in reference to something quizzical said about Margaret Trudeau I said the comment sounded like something a bully would say. I did not intend to call quizzical a bully but everyone interpreted it that way and Meg popped in and told me I was wrong. I see her point now that intended or not that was the obvious interpretation. Maybe if I had started out with, "that doesn't sound like you at all" it might have been interpreted closer to the way I meant it but continuing to defend myself would only prolong the disturbance so I apologized to quizzical as best I could and moved on. At that point my intent was immaterial. I had caused offence and defending myself would only cause more. Although proclaiming my innocence was important to me, it was not important or of interest to other posters, or to mods.

Message boards lend themselves to misinterpretation of comments because don't see each other's expressions and (mostly) don't know one another outside the context of these discussions. We don't reveal the full breath of who we are when we are posting. Within my family I have supporters of Liberals and of the PQ and Bloc (and I think a closet conservative), so we don't talk politics when we are all together. As a child I learned when mixed with alcohol that leads to fisticuffs, but we all love each other and believe each other to be misguided politically but otherwise good people.

On a board like this we do talk politics and most don't know each other as 3D people. Many of us are people who would never cross each other's paths in real life. We live in completely different areas of the country and have different personal concerns and worries. That's going to lead to misunderstandings and fisticuffs.

When a hostile exchange turns into pages of posts and reports start to flow in the mods don't care who started it. The "victim" whomever it may be, fought back so all involved are told to cut it out. Whomever refuses to stop gets held accountable even if they are not the one who "started" it. The mods objective isn't to figure out who started it, it's to end it.

I don't report for my own sake anymore. If mods step in it is because someone else is reporting or they saw the posts for themselves and found them objectionable. Ages ago we were told to report each other but when we did we were told to stop. I interpreted that as "settle it for yourselves", which I have for myself. If I percieve an insult directed at me, even if it is couched in the language of "your posts are stupid hyper-partisan garbage" I call it out right away. No back and forth escalating jabs and no reporting. That usually ends things pretty quickly.

Your post 348 in the Liberal Campaign topic:

http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/trudeau-campaign-2015-part-3-augus...

I responded with 353 mocking you for reading my posts which you had described as goofy and beneath your interest using the excuse that you were forced to in order to be able to follow conversations.

In 354 you say I can't tell when my posts are being ridiculed, admitting that you were ridiculing my posts. 

Post 363 "The rest of your post is utter garbage and petulant."

That's insulting me not just my posts.

When I respond I skip the "your post is" part and address you directly. You then get outraged and accuse the moderators of favoritism for not punishing me.

The mods don't recognize the thin line between "you are" and "your posts are" or "your comment is" because it is too easily used as shield when insult is intended. It didn't matter if I didn't intend to call quizzical a bully, that is how it was interpreted, and it doesn't matter if you didn't intend to insult me by calling my posts garbage and petulant. You weren't presenting a political argument that I could counter and it was reasonable for me to interpret it as a personal insult.

There is no injustice here. There are moderators who expect us to settle our own petty squabbles through behaving like adults. If we don't care for someone at work we are still expected to treat them with civility in terms of unavoidable interactions even if we don't choose to go to lunch together.

Sometimes what's unfair is expecting moderators to act as referees between experienced members who should know better. Yes it is their job but they would probably rather spend the time participating in and elevating discussion.

This is not a matter of justice. It's a matter of pulling ourselves back and behaving in a civil matter even when we feel passionately about issues instead of resorting to figurative fisticuffs.

The aformentioned Globe article is the final stage of the brilliant jujistu the Liberals are uniquely capable of. A poll using an entirely legitimate process/sample size shows their Zoolander-like leader in serious trouble. Normally this would resonate deeply across the country, but the Liberals start whining about methodology despite it being entirely legitimate by a more-than-legitimate polling company, and their social media drones start repeating the whine ad nauseum. Then, their friends in corporate media start picking up the torch and repeating the claim, adding in the idea that there is something untoward about using a poll in this way (in the US every single campaign hires pollsters and they release polls that are favourable to them - an entirely legitimate narrative-setting campaign tactic - but never mess about with methodology and the like because no legitimate pollster would engage in that kind of statistical manipulation). THEN we start to see this used as a "bad NDP for using -gasp! clutch the pearls and drag out the fainting couch- POLLS as a strategic tool, and poor poor Liberals and poor poor Little Lord Fauntleroy who's being picked on!". THEN we see another poll that shows Justin W. Bush within the margin of error of losing his seat but this is manipulated into "see! He's just fine! NDP lie!" instead of "Holy Jesus on a pogo! World's Most Hansdome Man in the range of losing his seat! This is serious shit!" Total turnaround within a day on an issue that should be a vote killer for these frauds. 

But they do it well. These folks know how to throw a punch. Those on the left, meanwhile, take a punch and cry a little and then say "see we're the REAL winners because we didn't punch back. We're morally better than you." I wish the NDP had half the ability to throw a punch and unapologetically follow it through as the corporate parties. This is why even when they keep shitting on the collective heads of the electorate they somehow manage to keep winning. Shame on those on the left for letting this key moment in the campaign get hijacked by the forces of darkness yet again.

Quote:

Quote:

Shame on those on the left for letting this key moment in the campaign get hijacked by the forces of darkness yet again.

So the summative sentence in your post scolds the left.  That should help the left.  Maybe not punching back harder isn't the left's only Achilles' heel.

Bah.  You're too critical.  I agreed with the entire post.  Trudeau's in trouble in Papineau.  One poll showed him behind, one a smidgen ahead.  It's gonna be close.  Go Dowson go!

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

A lot of Quebecers who are federalist or agnostic on separatism have total disdain for Trudeau - they see him as a dumb playboy from vancouver

 

As a Vancouverite, I must take exception to this unfair mischaracterization of our fine and outstanding privileged young men who have grown up in the lap of luxury in our fairest of fair cities. With the best weather and weed here in Lotus Land our outstanding privileged playboys have impressed the world by being well, hmmm, you know, uhhh, ok, let's see, hmmm... Never mind.

Speaking of dumb playboys, isn't another Justin, Justin Bieber from back east? Put that in your pipe central-Canada and smoke it cause it ain't gonna taste as good as BC Bud.

Polls do seem to show a difference but it seems that it is Ontario and Atlantic Canada with the Trudeau bug and less so the West Coast and even less Quebec.

That said, I think a lot of people actually do like Trudeau -- including many people who do not want him to be PM or support his party. Trudeau may be considered a bad choice for PM but this is not the same as being hated -- not like PM Harper is for example.

Some hate him but many more just do not approve of him being a PM. In my case I rarely hate the Liberal leader and in some cases even like them but I dislike their party and do not want to see it govern. As well I want more progress than I think will ever come from them no matter how they try to position themselves during an election. I don't find it essential to hater Trudeau to reject him as PM material. My feelings about the Liberal party is more about the party itself and this is reinforced to a significant degree by those who represent it both officially and those who cheer-lead unofficially for it. In fact for the most part the Liberal party tends to elevate people who are actually better than the party itself in many respects and that is natural. And people do not have to be competant in order to at least like them a little.

 

 

Great points. Ultimately it is the policies that actually get implemented that matter the most, not personalities. As the majour party that cares the most about the 99.9% of Canadians that are not, as Pondering would say, plutocrats, the NDP is the party most likely to establish good legislation for Canada.

I see Trudeau as being a decent and caring person but also a person who does not have the depth of knowledge to implement policies independently. He seems to depend completely on his advisors like Gerald Butts to establish policies for him. I think it is fair to say that his advisors do not understand the plight of the working class nearly as much as the NDP does. That's why I support the NDP as being the best choice we have to form government.

I mostly agree with you about the Trudeau persona. However at moments he also comes across as elitist. I find him manipulative and wonder just how honest he might be. As well I do not have a good feel for how autocratic he may be. While we have so many pictures and so many impressions Trudeau is largely a mystery when it comes to his personality and this is in part due to the careful crafting of his persona.

I won't deny that there are similar questions about Mulcair and while I do see him as sincere, others do not. Few would say that they do not wonder about other traits.

I have noted how often there are photo shots that are meant to look reminiscent of his father. I am not sure how much of this is the team, Trudeau or even the campaign photographer who has studied and continues to refer to the iconic pictures. No doubt part of this would be some inherited and natural gestures that look similar, but the deliberate posing of some shots is all too obvious.

One thing that will help keep leaders like Mulcair and Trudeau honest will be if members of their parties keep the pressure on them to satisfy their wishes. One admirable thing about Harper is that he has satisfied his base. Mulcair or Trudeau will have to do the same if they become PM and want to be successful. Personally  I am hoping that the NDP forms government and that members of the NDP make sure that Prime Minister Mulcair doesn't dissapoint us. Party members have a responsibility too.

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is not just with me, they give you a pass for doing the same things that they clamp down on others.

Not at all. I think I am at times a thorn in their sides that they would be happy to see the backend of because they find all the personal bullshit tiresome and it destroys threads and makes rabble look bad when these threads hit the front page over and over again. I am more often than not at the centre of these kerfuffles because I am verbose, support Trudeau, and support the Nordic model of prostitution law and I am not as well-versed in activist speech so occasionally used loaded terms like "social justice warrior".

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This has lead to what was a more minor rivalry between us, that could have been managed by moderation, turning into outright hatred.

I don't hate you or anyone else here nor do I consider you a rival. I'm just here to talk politics. I enjoy interacting with some posters more than with others because of their approach to political discussion. I wish you would relax and not take everything so much to heart because I used to enjoy our discussions and still do enjoy some of your analysis. I don't think that is in the cards so, oh well.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

  The lack of being evenhanded is one of the most destructive things. Instead of helping things for you or the board this has made the situation toxic. Life may not be fair but moderation should be and when it is not, everyone suffers -- even the pet of the moderators, the targets of the pet and the bystanders who hate the shitshow. It is the elephant in the room. I am one who does not mind naming the elephant until it is led away.

I am not the moderator's "pet" and for the most part I don't think they agree with my politics, or at least there are a few areas where they vehemently disagree.

You think they are showing bias in my favor when really I have just figured out their approach to moderating over time and learned to deal with attacks in a manner that doesn't over-complicate their task. When they make a ruling, I accept it even if I disagree with it.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I can say their preferential treatment is very much a factor in why things are so bad between you and me. If we both had the same rules and the same tolerances this would never have deteriorated to this point.

Except the preferencial treatment is how you have interpreted their behavior not an objective fact.

Not too long ago in reference to something quizzical said about Margaret Trudeau I said the comment sounded like something a bully would say. I did not intend to call quizzical a bully but everyone interpreted it that way and Meg popped in and told me I was wrong. I see her point now that intended or not that was the obvious interpretation. Maybe if I had started out with, "that doesn't sound like you at all" it might have been interpreted closer to the way I meant it but continuing to defend myself would only prolong the disturbance so I apologized to quizzical as best I could and moved on. At that point my intent was immaterial. I had caused offence and defending myself would only cause more. Although proclaiming my innocence was important to me, it was not important or of interest to other posters, or to mods.

Message boards lend themselves to misinterpretation of comments because don't see each other's expressions and (mostly) don't know one another outside the context of these discussions. We don't reveal the full breath of who we are when we are posting. Within my family I have supporters of Liberals and of the PQ and Bloc (and I think a closet conservative), so we don't talk politics when we are all together. As a child I learned when mixed with alcohol that leads to fisticuffs, but we all love each other and believe each other to be misguided politically but otherwise good people.

On a board like this we do talk politics and most don't know each other as 3D people. Many of us are people who would never cross each other's paths in real life. We live in completely different areas of the country and have different personal concerns and worries. That's going to lead to misunderstandings and fisticuffs.

When a hostile exchange turns into pages of posts and reports start to flow in the mods don't care who started it. The "victim" whomever it may be, fought back so all involved are told to cut it out. Whomever refuses to stop gets held accountable even if they are not the one who "started" it. The mods objective isn't to figure out who started it, it's to end it.

I don't report for my own sake anymore. If mods step in it is because someone else is reporting or they saw the posts for themselves and found them objectionable. Ages ago we were told to report each other but when we did we were told to stop. I interpreted that as "settle it for yourselves", which I have for myself. If I percieve an insult directed at me, even if it is couched in the language of "your posts are stupid hyper-partisan garbage" I call it out right away. No back and forth escalating jabs and no reporting. That usually ends things pretty quickly.

Your post 348 in the Liberal Campaign topic:

http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/trudeau-campaign-2015-part-3-augus...

I responded with 353 mocking you for reading my posts which you had described as goofy and beneath your interest using the excuse that you were forced to in order to be able to follow conversations.

In 354 you say I can't tell when my posts are being ridiculed, admitting that you were ridiculing my posts. 

Post 363 "The rest of your post is utter garbage and petulant."

That's insulting me not just my posts.

When I respond I skip the "your post is" part and address you directly. You then get outraged and accuse the moderators of favoritism for not punishing me.

The mods don't recognize the thin line between "you are" and "your posts are" or "your comment is" because it is too easily used as shield when insult is intended. It didn't matter if I didn't intend to call quizzical a bully, that is how it was interpreted, and it doesn't matter if you didn't intend to insult me by calling my posts garbage and petulant. You weren't presenting a political argument that I could counter and it was reasonable for me to interpret it as a personal insult.

There is no injustice here. There are moderators who expect us to settle our own petty squabbles through behaving like adults. If we don't care for someone at work we are still expected to treat them with civility in terms of unavoidable interactions even if we don't choose to go to lunch together.

Sometimes what's unfair is expecting moderators to act as referees between experienced members who should know better. Yes it is their job but they would probably rather spend the time participating in and elevating discussion.

This is not a matter of justice. It's a matter of pulling ourselves back and behaving in a civil matter even when we feel passionately about issues instead of resorting to figurative fisticuffs.

I did not respond point by point to your last post in that thread and I won't here. It is not worth it. I have absolutely no respect for you due to what you have posted before this. I do not need more evidence and don't need to parse this to find more specific examples.

This is not an indication that I agree or submit to anything you have said -- it is only recognition that you will go in circles and no progress can be made in any discussion with you.

I am not debating with you over the preferential treatment you have been shown -- nobody in the history of this site has gotten away with needling so many different people over such a long time and at such great volume. And we have had people from many different parties so it is not the fact that you are a Liberal that you are getting this reaction. As a point of fact I do live in Ottawa. In my real life I know many Liberals (it is a very Liberal town). There are many Liberals I talk politics with who I respect very much even where we disagree. It is not the party -- it is you.