Conservative leadership race #1

449 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

bekayne wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Unless Ms. (oops, I mean Dr.) Leitch quickly learns to be a more convincing liar, her candidacy will be toast.

That's The Hon. Dr. K. Kellie Leitch, P.C., O.Ont., M.D., M.B.A., F.R.C.S.(C) to you.

She is proof that you can be well educated and not an idiot but still be ignorant, small-minded and nasty.

There is a lesson in this.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Debater wrote:

If the Conservatives choose a unilingual leader, they'll lose

Stephen Maher

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/01/14/if-the-conservatives-choose-a-unilingual-...

If they choose a woman leader, the Conservative misogynists will send her death threats by Twitter. If they choose a francophone leader, the Conservative francophobes will send him or her death threats by Twitter. If they choose someone who is not from Western Canada, they will never be trusted by the Conservative base. So what they need is a male who is nominally from Western Canada and also speaks sufficient French (like Harper). And I don't think one of them is running.

Debater

Quote:
O'Leary shows off his French lessons, promises proficiency by 2019

Sunday, January 15, 2017

After long suggesting he didn’t need to know French to be prime minister, unofficial Conservative leadership candidate Kevin O’Leary says he is taking French lessons and getting better every day.

O’Leary told CTV’s Power Play last year that he thought Quebeckers would “give him a pass on the language issue.” But he now vows to be proficient “by the time I have to debate Trudeau two years from now.”

“I want to learn it. I’ve been committed to do it,” he told CTV’s Question Period.

“People say I can’t speak French,” O’Leary added. “C’est pas vrai. Mon francais deviens (sic) mieux chaque jour.”

-

Full article:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/o-leary-shows-off-his-french-lessons-prom...

quizzical

Quote:
Kevin O’Leary has a novel idea to balance Canada’s budget — selling seats in the Senate.

The potential Conservative leadership contender told CTV’s Question Period that Canada’s upper house of Parliament should be a “profit centre,” not a cost centre.

“I don’t know why we can’t have a hundred thousand or a couple of hundred thousand committed each year per senator,” the reality TV host said.

 

quizzical

db

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Quote:
Kevin O’Leary has a novel idea to balance Canada’s budget — selling seats in the Senate.

The potential Conservative leadership contender told CTV’s Question Period that Canada’s upper house of Parliament should be a “profit centre,” not a cost centre.

“I don’t know why we can’t have a hundred thousand or a couple of hundred thousand committed each year per senator,” the reality TV host said.

 

Wow -- a move to fully institutionalize purchasing influence

O'leary is an ass. A few more of these ideas and he will get himself laughed out of the race.

The screwball we probably really have to worry about is Maxine Bernier if the hateful Trump fan does not win.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The more screwy they are, the less we have to worry about them. What the opposition to the Tories need to worry about is a level-headed moderate.

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

The more screwy they are, the less we have to worry about them. What the opposition to the Tories need to worry about is a level-headed moderate.

This is no longer true and it is a big part of what has changed on the left and the right and this is international because it is driven by two trends -- lower turnout and technology to track specific voting groups.

The middle does not excite. It has won for many years as people who vote no matter what opt for compromise candidates and people choose to vote for the best option they have.

All this has changed.

Today we have less than half of the electorate who can be counted on to vote and increasingly they will stay home unless given a reason. The result is that voting has trended down to between 50 and 60% percent (some of the these unreliable voters will vote in any given election).

Political parties are becoming aware of this dynamic even if the observers seem to be slow.

The result is that nobody is as interested in consensus support as it no longer wins. What they want, as long as we have FPTP, is to target the 20-25% of the most extreme who will reward them by coming out and voting for a flase majority. There is no benefit in getting 10% out of the centre if this larger group requiring motivation stays home.

So long as people are prepared not to vote, you have instead of a consensus candidate, as we used to get in the past, a competition for somoene to get a block fired up enough to get them in good numbers in the voting half of the population. We have been trending this way for a while but this has increased.

It means that micro-targetting of particular interests is more important -- the pro-Israel lobby, Indigenous Canadians, nationalists, environmentalists, alt-right types, smaller cultural groups (Ukrainians, Chinese, Indians, Arabs), Pro gun, anti gun, pro reproductive rights, anti reproductive rights -- all smaller groups who could be passed over in the past have more power if given some reason to come out together is placed before them. A small number of these can add up to put a minority view over the top.

Now some interests may be common to a large group of people but only a smaller group will really come out to vote on that particular issue -- that's the group I am talking about.

This new political reality changes things on the left and the right. The right have learned this and put together these coalitions whereas the left have been slow to stop appealling to the mushy middle that stays home and instead really provide what is needed for a smaller group to actually come out. The NDP campaign in 2015 was an excellent campaign for the 1980s. It may have assured enough of the middle to win.

This is also an argument in favour of proportional representation. With PR different parties can go get their coalitions but then have to be able to work together. With declining turnout FPTP favours more extreme views unless enough people are so upset about them that they come out as a backlash.

Therefore:

The Conservative you have to fear used to be the level headed moderate but that is not true anymore.

The Conservative you have to fear is the one who can put together the biggest coalition of people who wil come out at a greater rate than the opposition. The person who will manage to not turn off as many as they bring out. This is not a moderate but a person who is extreme enough to appeal to a particular groups without spooking all the others -- just a smaller group. this would be a person who has some calming words for some as she or he fires up the critical people.

This extremist will either be an extreme Libertarian with fairly socially Liberal views avoiding overt sexism and racism.

Or

A Racist who avoids overly sexist and and Libertarian views who appeals to the anti immigration crowd without scaring the economic middle

Or

The religious right homophobe with strong sexist views but who avoids overly right wing economic views

Instead of the moderately right libertarian, with somewhat sexist, intolerant bible belt visions and anti immigrant Conservative consensus candidate, like what they would present a generation ago, you are more likely now to get one who is more extreme in one area and less in others to light up one group without creating too much opposition.

If this sounds slightly familiar, look at the Conservative leadership race. Most are in this category. There are few moderate Conservtives offering somewhat regressive views across the board and instead there is a collection of more extreme positions in one area or another, offering something to a particular group while appearing moderate in other respects.They all have benefit of the technology to target their corner.

For other parties once they figure this out-- that you need to get a solid 20% and not worry about the mushy middle, they will be there as well.

The last scary leader might be the person who lights up all the extremes but does so in such an extreme way that a strong coalition of "deplorables" produces a 30% base -- enough to win even if opposition is increased in the process.

The only party not to understand this dynamic in the last election was the NDP, the one who lost the most becuase it was bland for all.

The Liberals and Conservatives cultivated particular groups by very carefully micro-targetting. You can see this under Trudeau's Sunny ways even if he risks losing some of these support areas next time.

It is no coincidence that both of the bigger parties used more sophisticated software to target their voters than the NDP.

You have to realize that we are in a new, technologically advanced, voter-targetting era where only highly motivated voters will come out so moderates can expect to get creamed unless they micro-target.

If things had been like this in the late 1990s Manning would have won. People have to realize how much things have changed in communications, social media, voting rates, since that time. Some people say that we are now firmly in a new century and this is it.

The left will survive with compassion, passion, strong proposals and appeals to specific groups to get them to come out. So will the right (minus the compassion). But don't count on consensus candidates or people to be unelectable due to their extremism. That is 20th century thinking from before the low vote, technological microtargeting era we live in now.

The problem for Mulcair is he represented that past vision of politics. Ideas will compete and the strongest ones in terms of inspiration rather than the most popular will win.

This is a thread about Conservatives but my post is to explain this wider changed dynamic that impacts that race and all other political races now. Don't count on moderatation as the only threat from that party.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I guess this is why Trudeau the moderate beat Harper and his band of right wing extremist trolls.

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

I guess this is why Trudeau the moderate beat Harper and his band of right wing extremist trolls.

You gotta love lazy sarcasm. It is so ... well, lazy.

Read my post and the explanations are there.

Trudeau offered specifics to specific groups of people. The Liberals employed direct technology on laptops to report the feedback of messaging to them.

They targetted families with kids at home, environmentalists and Indigenous people among others. They offered a lot of promises to different groups. It will be interesting to see how things look as these are broken.

The NDP offered a moderate message trying to be so moderate that it was called not ambitious and got creamed. It tried to straddle the centre between not spending too much no deficit only to find there was no centre. The NDP offered programms for everybody but not enough strength to capture enough enthusiasm from any group. It did not excite or promote the progressive parts of its platform due to a tone Mulcair set of being moderate. Trudeau ran on being an activist. I did not buy that propaganda but it was central to the campaign.

Now as for Harper and his trolls, they did actually quite well getting almost 32% down 7.7% from the previous election. Given how long they had been in power, how Harper was disliked personally, getting within 7% of Trudeau was impressive. If Trudeau's team had not targetted many non voters, had the NDP not collapsed as much as they did, Harper might still be PM. Had Mulcair run a less bland and more activist, progressive campaign he might have won.

I think you look at the majority and forget how slim those results were and what they were based on.

You also probably are confusing the Liberal government we have with what they ran as. The differences are significant.

But sure lazy sarcasm might make you feel good. It can replace any thoughtful substantive engagement.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I'm just going by the election results.

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

I'm just going by the election results.

So am I -- and I explained it. You don't have to respond but I don't respond that nicely to those who fip out sarcasm in place of substance especially when the issue has been considered in the post.

Sarcasm is fine if it comes with at least some substance.

The middle party in terms of tone of campaign and emphasis was the NDP not the Liberals. They offered everything to a list of people they were seeking votes from and that is what the Conservatives did before them. The Conservatives in a change election managed quite well compared to the winning party as well. That is in the election results.

This is not a news site. This is a site of thought, ideas and reflection. I am happy to engage opposing views but I find content-free posts with cute sarcasm irritating.

wage zombie

Trudeau offered cannabis legalization which has been the most radical change promoted by any of the parties in quite a long time.  He did not run as a moderate, he ran as change.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The Conservatives were going to move my pension eligibility from 65 to 67. This was of paramount importance to me in the election. Rolling it back to 65 was one promise the Liberals kept.

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

The Conservatives were going to move my pension eligibility from 65 to 67. This was of paramount importance to me in the election. Rolling it back to 65 was one promise the Liberals kept.

Yes-- and while we can debate their record and which promises were kept, they did promote policies of change. Some of these were quite significant.

The Liberals connected policies to groups of voters they wanted to engage. They produced a coalition of people who felt strongly enough to vote.

The NDP had policies that it had offered a long time and some others that it promoted poorly. The message the NDP promoted most was that it was moderate. The Liberals promoted change and did so by offering policies for key demographics.

The left must do the same thing if they want to win. They have to stop being so afraid of bad feedback that they offer nothing but non-life-chanign policies. Instead taking a risk and being less moderate has more potential than trying not to offend ever did. The more people choose not to vote the more significant it is to offer substance -- even if that is less moderate.

The right already learned this lesson -- theya re more successful pulling their people out to vote than looking for the middle to support them. The same is true on the left.

Now TRudeau in his first election with a party that had been out of power for a while could do the same thing. Once he is defending a record he would either have to be very progressive or have to find a new plan as middle won't cut it. There are fewer voters there. The reminaing voters have fairly strong opinions about what they want.

josh
Debater

The problem for the other candidates is that he will suck up all the oxygen in the room and could dominate the media coverage the way Donald Trump did.

Rev Pesky

Debater wrote:

The problem for the other candidates is that he will suck up all the oxygen in the room and could dominate the media coverage the way Donald Trump did. 

It's not like they're getting a ton of coverage right now. In fact O'Leary's entry may provide a greater opportunity for the others to get some of the coverage they haven't been getting.

brookmere

This isn't a US primary campaign where half the electorate gets to vote. For all candidates media coverage is going to be less important than signing up members and getting them out. And it's not first past the post where someone can win with a fraction of the vote - down ballot preferences are going to be crucial.

bekayne
Debater

brookmere wrote:

This isn't a US primary campaign where half the electorate gets to vote. For all candidates media coverage is going to be less important than signing up members and getting them out. And it's not first past the post where someone can win with a fraction of the vote - down ballot preferences are going to be crucial.

Good point.

One disadvantage O'Leary faces is that because he is getting a late start, he will have to catch up to the others in signing up new members.

josh

He was smart enough to wait untill after the French language debate.

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:
He was smart enough to wait untill after the French language debate.

Actually no. By waiting only a few hours he has made that an issue. So on top of not speaking French well he painted himself a coward. Anyone who would have cared about his lack of French will be further unimpressed by this. I suspect that he likely would never have had much support form anyone who would have concerns about his speaking French anyway so he really has not avoided anyting --and has made his lack of French a bigger story.

Debater

Chantal Hébert's latest column on the French issue:

French will take the hits at Tuesday’s Conservative leadership debate

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/17/french-will-take-the-hits...

cco

Just saw CBC ask O'Leary whether he was going to be a full-time resident of Canada from now on, and he angrily answered "I am a full-time resident! I can barely afford to eat!"

Debater

Another column from Chantal Hébert:

Conservative leadership debate a head-shaking, tedious evening

And it’s not just that it showcased a majority of candidates whose French borders on unintelligible.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/18/conservative-leadership-d...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Candidates are littering youtube with ads. I just clicked on a video and on the upper right side where advertisements are was this ; Immigrants should be screened for anti-Canadian values...click here if you agree. Brought to you by Kellie.

O'Leary is littered on Youtube as well.

Kellie Leicth is a sickening vile wriggling tapeworm. O'Leary is no better.

Mr. Magoo

These are the Rubios and Carsons.  Canada won't get its Trump until Don Cherry declares.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

These are the Rubios and Carsons.  Canada won't get its Trump until Don Cherry declares.

I'm terrified to even chuckle at that.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Jennifer Wells has an interesting column in which she collects some of O'Leary's on the record statements about various issues. For example:

Jennifer Wells wrote:
Define right-wing:

“I like to challenge the assumptions we have as Canadians that we need so much government in society. I’m quite displeased lately about government involvement in things our taxpayer dollars should not be spent on, funding zombie companies like Chrysler and General Motors. There’s absolutely no need for that.”

On the 2009 bailout of the automakers:

“It’s an outrage. Every Canadian should be outraged. To me it’s viscerally offensive.”

Would he consider that the circumstances were extraordinary?

“It’s irrelevant. That was a chance to break the union, which has been a parasitic union.”

josh

Sounds like a real sweetheart.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

These are the Rubios and Carsons.  Canada won't get its Trump until Don Cherry declares.

Oh don't even say that.

There are many others who could be very damaging.

I personally remain very worried about Maxine Bernier, With the clowns and dog whistle people he is doing an impression of being reasonable that that is a very scary thing.

Debater

Yes, Maxime Bernier currently appears to be the frontrunner.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Former 'dragon' weighs in on O'Leary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtWX7ZYl-pQ

josh

Debater wrote:

Yes, Maxime Bernier currently appears to be the frontrunner.

At least according to Bernier. He's probably the most worrisome because of his Randian economic philosophy. O'Leary would be a much weaker leader because he'd likely get wiped out in Quebec, and his anti-union statements would cause a strategic voting flood to Trudeau in Ontario. Similar to the last provincial election there.

Debater

Bernier probably has a big advantage with the Quebec members, so he's off to a good start unless some of the other Conservative candidates can make more inroads in Quebec.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Leitch is really pushing the "Canadian Values" shit. Here is a screen grab from a few minutes ago:

Debater

Kellie Leitch’s campaign manager, mastermind behind her ‘Canadian values’ campaign, resigns

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/kellie-leitch...

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Kellie Leitch’s campaign manager, mastermind behind her ‘Canadian values’ campaign, resigns

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/kellie-leitch...

We have long been able to see that the Conservative Party is faithful to an "America First" policy so we get why quite a few would support Trump

Debater

Follow the money trail to see where the support is in Tory leadership race

Maxime Bernier has raised the most, hinting at hidden base. Kellie Leitch’s fundraising has fallen from first to second place.

by Chantal Hébert

Mon., Feb. 6, 2017

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/06/follow-the-money-trail-to...

Sean in Ottawa

Bernier of course was the man so far out on the fringe that people never dreamed he would have a hope for a leadership position. Such is how far that party has tilted right.

sherpa-finn

The leadership candidates were here in Halifax over the weekend, campaigning and debating. It was O'Leary's first time on the stage, so some pokes were taken at him in the debate, but all in all it was a low-key affair, according to local media reports. 

The leader of the NS PCs, Jamie Baillie just came out in support of Erin O'Toole, which surprised some here as Lisa Raitt was trying to position herself as a local "favourite daughter", given her roots in Cape Breton.  Presumably these two candidates (and Michael Chong) will be battling amongst themselves to secure position as the emergent leader of the 'progressive' wing of the federal Conservative Party.

josh
Debater

Kevin O'Leary made 'brutal' errors in French debut: language prof

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kevin-o-leary-made-brutal-errors-in-frenc...

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Let them pick O'Leary. He will look good on them.

josh

O'Leary 22

Letich 21

Bernier 18

 

Even taking into account the margin of error, Leitch has surged. Mainstreet Research president Quito Maggi thinks Leitch's rise could have to do with the heated debate over the Liberals' Islamophobia motion and President Donald Trump's travel ban.

Having stood firm despite the backlash against her policy proposal to screen every immigrant and visitor to Canada for 'Canadian values', Leitch is now benefiting from the support of members who are most worried about immigration. 

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/17/leitch-surges-in-latest-mainstreet-tory-leadership-poll/

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

Let them pick O'Leary. He will look good on them.

Many said that about Harper and then the guy got elected after all.

quizzical

AB hates them all except maybe Sheer or whatever his name is.

bekayne

http://globalnews.ca/news/3277229/kellie-leitch-canadian-values-screenin...

The video’s opening shot has Leitch looking into a camera that tracks awkwardly from right to left, though it never loses her gaze.

Throughout the video, Leitch repeatedly looks away from the camera, up, down, and side to side.

It also alternates between two different angles: one that shows Leitch looking right into the lens, and one that doesn’t.

 

Mr. Magoo

So evidently Leitch is an accomplished and respected pediatric orthopedic surgeon, a recipient of the Order of Ontario, with a Masters in Business Administration.

If she were even remotely progressive there would be ten threads on babble touting her as the only viable choice for the next NDP leader.

But alas, that was not to be.

Pages