Eye on Outremont

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
autoworker autoworker's picture

FYI  St. Henri used to be in Westmount riding, where the demographic was similar to what now exists in Outremont.    Also, many people get around by bus and Metro, so what?  I take the bus to get around in my riding.  As far a "soft soverigntists" are concerned, I suppose they don't mind the $8 BILLION in transfers that Quebec receives from the rest of Canada.  Why do you have to do this, Unionist"?  Because you're a pro-separatist that hopes to split the vote, in Federalist ridings, to the advantage of the Bloc-- or why else call yourself a unionist, if you don't subscribe to Quebec labour consensus?  Query: why is it that the Canadian left is so chummy with agents who actively work to break up our country?  What kind of nationalism is that?  Perhaps patriotism is just corny and old-fashioned, at least to the self-anointed sophisticates in urban ridings.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

I wasn't speaking to your brand of patriotism, dear Unionist, although I'm sure that you identify quite strongly with it.  Personally, I don't celebrate American Independance Day, but Canada is a free country, and you can do what you like.

Socrates Socrates's picture

I assume you're not from Quebec autoworker, because things are a little bit more nuanced than saying that everyone who votes Bloc or is a sovereigntist is an evil person.

First of all lots of Quebecers who don't want to seperate vote Bloc as a party that will stand up for Quebec's interests and advance a somewhat social democratic agenda. Secondly the history and rationale for sovereignty is complex and not easily dismissed. If you trace it to its roots the movement was based on forming a seperate country in order to enact a socialist platform impossible within Canada. It's only in recent years that it has become less ideologically driven and more propelled by its own inertia.

I don't agree with sovereignty and I feel it wouldn't change anything and is a pipe dream that would see Quebec swallowed up by the U.S., leading to functionally less autonomy than there is now. However I have a great deal of respect for Levesque and the original sovereigntists who wanted to create a better world. There's certainly an element of zenophobia within the movement which is unfortunate, but things like that don't come about in a vaccum and it's neccessary to look at the extreme racism displayed by anglos towards francophones in the past which fuelled the idea of a seperate identity.

Right now however sovereignty is deader than a doornail. Even the PQ don't mention it too much anymore and no one votes for the Bloc because they think it'll bring about sovereignty, they do it because they think it'll benefit Quebec.

My problem with the Bloc is a lack of principles. When Layton crafted the 4.6 B buddget deal with Martin the Bloc voted AGAINST it (despite everything in it being directly from their platform) because Duceppe wanted to gain a few seats in an election. I never supported the Bloc but I did consider them fellow travellers of a sort to the NDP, that episode lost most of the respect i had for them.

So don't slag on unionist for no reason, mkay?

 

Debater

Socrates wrote:

Breton was at Convention and does intend to run again, for now at least. LeProhon will be an interesting match-up but keep in mind that the real competition is the Bloc who currently hold Jean-Le-Ber. LeProhon was a formidable adversary when she was the protege of the Quebec Lieutenant. Now that that is no longer the case she doesn't seem very strong to me.

My Liberal sources tell me that the official story about this Coderre/Cauchon dust up is BS. Apparently Cauchon was at the Liberal Convention six months ago talking about his intention to run in Outremont.

I think Cauchon is in for a rude awakening. Mulcair's consituency staff are excellent and his organization is well staffed and well run. Also, in the face of this challenge, many Quebec NDP operatives and volunteers that might have taken the riding for a lock will be going there to work next election, myself included.

The downside is the perceived need for support in Outremont will bleed workers, and to an extent money, from other races in Quebec.

Why would people have assumed the riding would be a lock?

Socrates Socrates's picture

@debater

For the same reason we were more focused on Westmount Ville Marie last election (and even had some of Mulcair's volunteers working there on e-day) and didn't worry too much about Outremont. Because it was a lock against that clown Dhavernas and if he were running again it would be a lock again. Something the Liberals obviously figured out.

Even with Cauchon, Tom will be quite difficult to unseat. Outremont includes the Plateau, Mile End and some of the area that returned Amir Khadir and almost elected Francoise David for QS. This area is also the bedrock of Projet Montreal, our progressive municipal party which is set to make sweeping gains in the election November 1st.

this area is very progressive, although in the case of Outremont also quite federalist. Lots of allophones and immigrants who might have voted Liberal in the past as the most progressive federalist option but are more than happy with Tom's progressive credentials and impressive riding work. I also think (although I haven't overlayed past results to see for sure) that a fair chunk of progressive Bloc voters are voting for Tom as they feel he'll represent the same social justice positions as the Bloc, in a riding the Bloc can't win.

Cauchon will give us a run for our money, but don't count on this riding going anywhere. Tom is almost a household name in the riding and extremely popular for his office's constituency work as much as his politics and community engagement.

Colour Outremont orange. Now let's see how we can do on Gatineau, Hull-Almyer, Jean-Le-Ber, Hochelaga and Westmount Ville Marie. The NDP more than doubled our vote in Quebec last time and placed a respectable second in quite a number of ridings. We've got some momentum in this province, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rocheleau come close or even win if the right wing Bloc candidate falters badly in the Hochelaga by-election.

-=+=-

Wilf Day wrote:

2.  Ignatieff wound up with an appeal for Canadians to recognize world-class Canadians like globe-orbiting Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté -- "and me." Michael, you're no Guy Laliberté.

 

No way.  Did Iggy actually say this?

One can just imagine future "and me" speeches.

  • Let us now recognize world class Canadian intellectuals:  Marshall McLuhan, Northrop Frye -- "and me"
  • Let us now remember world class Canadian athletes:  Maurice Richard, Wayne Gretzky -- "and me"
  • Let us not forget those world class Canadian innovators:  Alexander Graham Bell, Jim Balsillie-- "and me". 
  • Let also pause to remember those great Canadian war heroes:  Billy Bishop, Sir Arthur Currie -- "and me"
  • And of course, those great Liberal Party leaders:  Mackenzie King, Sir Wilfrid Laurier -- "and me"

It beggars belief.

 

 

martin dufresne

I want to see Iggy with a red plastic nose.

If he fails to take power and inspire Grits, he can always head back to London and try the "...and me" bit about great Britons, hanging on the Queen's arm.

 

SCB4

Let us now recognize world class, misunderstood Canadian Liberal leaders who never received what was rightfully theirs -- John Turner, Stephane Dion "and me". 

-=+=-

martin dufresne wrote:

I want to see Iggy with a red plastic nose.

If he fails to take power and inspire Grits, he can always head back to London and try the "...and me" bit about great Britons, hanging on the Queen's arm.

 

 

Mum, Prince Philip -- and me.

 

Now appearing as a West End farce.

janfromthebruce

Remembering great anti-capitalist films - Roger who is against me!

Debater

Socrates wrote:

@debater

For the same reason we were more focused on Westmount Ville Marie last election (and even had some of Mulcair's volunteers working there on e-day) and didn't worry too much about Outremont. Because it was a lock against that clown Dhavernas and if he were running again it would be a lock again. Something the Liberals obviously figured out.

Even with Cauchon, Tom will be quite difficult to unseat. Outremont includes the Plateau, Mile End and some of the area that returned Amir Khadir and almost elected Francoise David for QS. This area is also the bedrock of Projet Montreal, our progressive municipal party which is set to make sweeping gains in the election November 1st.

this area is very progressive, although in the case of Outremont also quite federalist. Lots of allophones and immigrants who might have voted Liberal in the past as the most progressive federalist option but are more than happy with Tom's progressive credentials and impressive riding work. I also think (although I haven't overlayed past results to see for sure) that a fair chunk of progressive Bloc voters are voting for Tom as they feel he'll represent the same social justice positions as the Bloc, in a riding the Bloc can't win.

Cauchon will give us a run for our money, but don't count on this riding going anywhere. Tom is almost a household name in the riding and extremely popular for his office's constituency work as much as his politics and community engagement.

Colour Outremont orange. Now let's see how we can do on Gatineau, Hull-Almyer, Jean-Le-Ber, Hochelaga and Westmount Ville Marie. The NDP more than doubled our vote in Quebec last time and placed a respectable second in quite a number of ridings. We've got some momentum in this province, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rocheleau come close or even win if the right wing Bloc candidate falters badly in the Hochelaga by-election.

Aren't you admitting in your first paragraph that the NDP displayed the same type of overconfidence in last year's federal election as the Liberals did in the by-election?

There was no reason to assume Outremont would be a lock - it is not a long-term NDP seat and it has been Liberal historically.  Mulcair and the NDP should have realized that ANY Liberal could potentially be competitive.  As it turned out, Dhavernas was far from a "clown" - he came within a couple thousand votes of Mulcair and it was a lot closer than people thought it would be.  Considering that Mulcair had more political experience, more money and more organization, Dhavernas performed very well.

The reason Dhavernas has not been selected by the Liberals this time is not because he can't win - it's because a bigger name came along who is more important to the Liberals and who has more clout.  Dhavernas was basically a temporary candidate.

Would you also agree that it is an exaggeration to say that Mulcair is "very popular"?  He didn't even crack 40& of the vote in the last election.  He has some popularity, but I think you need to get better than 39% to claim a candidate is "very" popular.  Is that a fair assessment?

As for Hull-Almyer, Jean-Le-Ber, Hochelaga and Westmount Ville Marie - the NDP is not really on the radar in those ridings.  In Gatineau, yes, that is a possibility for the NDP to win.

remind remind's picture

Then why if a "bigger name came along" is his presence being contested in said riding debator?

 

NorthReport

I'm not sure it is worth the NDP's energy,  to even discuss the Liberals any more, as they appear to be tanking everywhere, and Harper is on his way to a majority unless Layton does something about it.  How much more have the Liberals dropped in today's polls? Maybe that 50 seat forecast for Ignatieff was being optimistic.

Socrates Socrates's picture

@ Debater

I call Dhavernas a clown largely because he couldn't be bothered to get someone to proof-read the flyers he carpet bombed the riding with, which were equally full of atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes in both languages.I can't take someone seriously who spends that kind of money without having his stuff proof read. Pretty much amateur hour.

There is also a major difference between overconfidence before a campaign has started, and knowing where you stand on its last day after having run a fully funded, well organized campaign. Mulcair had far and away more volunteers than any other riding, as a result he let some of them go to W-V-M on E-day as it was the second highest priority campaign and he didn't neeed them all to get his vote out.

He won by 2400 votes. Not huge but not a squeaker either. And Dhavernas was at VERY least as well funded as Mulcair, I think he had more money tbh.The Liberals targeted that riding and thought Dhavernas would get it back for them. They certainly injected money and organization in an effort to prevent Mulcair from getting a foothold in a general election. Dhavernas was no place holder, he was in it to win and had the money and organization to support that goal.

As for the rest of the riddings I mentioned, I'm not saying we'll win them all, or maybe even any of then next election (although Boivin in Gatineau lost by ~1500 votes and has a great shot this time) but we more than doubled our vote share in all those places and registered the NDP as a serious party with a shot at winning. That fact alone helps to draw support from people frustrated with the Bloc or Liberals who would never vote for the NDP as long as we were getting 5%.

 

 

KenS

Outremont also follows the historical pattern of a lot of other seats for the NDP.

When the NDP breaks in somehwere there is no such thing as an easy shot. There are best shots in a place with 'potential'- but only potential. IF the NDP wins there, the first time it is narrow. Then there is the advantage of incumbency, and if on top of that, the now incumbent is a good constituency politician and does the work... the margin grows to being comfortable but not overwhelming. Yet.

Consider Stoffer in Sackville-Eastern Shore. Wins in an unlikley place by 37 votes. Next time, goes in nervous but having worked his butt off, wins by a couple thousand. Still not an overwelming lock. But goes in further elections from being comfortable to being a lock.

Wilf Day

Debater wrote:
As for Hull-Almyer, Jean-Le-Ber, Hochelaga and Westmount Ville Marie - the NDP is not really on the radar in those ridings.  In Gatineau, yes, that is a possibility for the NDP to win.

Define radar. A party getting over 10 percent of the votes will qualify for reimbursement from the Receiver General of 60 percent of actual election and personal expenses paid. That separates the token candidates flying below the radar from the visible ones.

Westmount—Ville-Marie 22.9%

Hull—Aylmer 19.8%

Jeanne-Le Ber 15.7%

Hochelaga 14.4%

and for that matter, close to a majority of NPD-Quebec candidates got over 10%, including, for just a few examples:

Repentigny (Réjean Bellemare) 15.1%; ran second to Bloc

Laurier-Sainte-Marie 17.1%, likely to run second to Duceppe today

Saint-Lambert (Richard Marois) 14.5%

Rivière-du-Nord 14.5% came second

Drummond (Annick Corriveau) 16.4%

Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière (Raymond Côté) 13.2%, ahead of the Liberal

Debater

Socrates wrote:

@ Debater

I call Dhavernas a clown largely because he couldn't be bothered to get someone to proof-read the flyers he carpet bombed the riding with, which were equally full of atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes in both languages.I can't take someone seriously who spends that kind of money without having his stuff proof read. Pretty much amateur hour.

There is also a major difference between overconfidence before a campaign has started, and knowing where you stand on its last day after having run a fully funded, well organized campaign. Mulcair had far and away more volunteers than any other riding, as a result he let some of them go to W-V-M on E-day as it was the second highest priority campaign and he didn't neeed them all to get his vote out.

He won by 2400 votes. Not huge but not a squeaker either. And Dhavernas was at VERY least as well funded as Mulcair, I think he had more money tbh.The Liberals targeted that riding and thought Dhavernas would get it back for them. They certainly injected money and organization in an effort to prevent Mulcair from getting a foothold in a general election. Dhavernas was no place holder, he was in it to win and had the money and organization to support that goal.

As for the rest of the riddings I mentioned, I'm not saying we'll win them all, or maybe even any of then next election (although Boivin in Gatineau lost by ~1500 votes and has a great shot this time) but we more than doubled our vote share in all those places and registered the NDP as a serious party with a shot at winning. That fact alone helps to draw support from people frustrated with the Bloc or Liberals who would never vote for the NDP as long as we were getting 5%.

Dhavernas WAS a place holder - Martin Cauchon was the one the Liberals wanted to run last year, and when he said no, they didn't seriously expect to win back Outremont while Dion was leader and so not much money or effort was spent on the riding.  If you check the campaign expenses, you will see that Mulcair spent much more than Dhavernas.  The figures are at the Pundit's Guide I believe.

The fact that Mulcair only won by a couple thousand votes over a man he outspent by quite a lot and who he also beat in organization and in political experience, means he will have a lot more work to do to win against a much stronger candidate like Cauchon.  Mulcair will need the Liberals to tank in Montreal in order to be assured of winning.

remind remind's picture

Continued here

Pages