Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

brookmere wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
the Liberals and Conservatives will team up to call an election to essentially finish off the NDP both as a political party and as a force for progressive change.

What makes you think the Conservatives want to get rid of the NDP?

As the Conservatives are backed by the wealthy, removing the NDP would remove an obstacle to governing in favour of the rich. The key success for the rich in the 1993 election was not only electing the Liberals, but marginalizing the NDP to the point that you had the Liberals delivering cuts and a strong Reform/Alliance caucus demanding more cuts.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

I understand the NDP has to be reasonably moderate for electability, but I think it also has to be authentic, and it hasn't been, at least not as a progressive party.

You're not wrong, [satire] but since the NDP hasn't had a chance to break promises to us at the federal level, that means they never would, unlike the liberals who should really just merge with the CPC and make it official [/satire]

Quote:
The rise of the NDP has been meteoric but it was clear to me that like Harper's ten year reign it was due in part to the self-propelled descent of the Liberal Party. Infighting and terrible leadership candidates weakened the Liberal party beyond recognition but the brand remained solid.

Both the NDP and CPC did better then expected in 2011 because the LPC did far worse than expected. The NDP also picked up a lot on Layton's brilliant campaign. But I disagree, I think the liberal brand was fine after Dion but damaged by Ignatieff. The projected LPC victory is entirely due to Trudeau - nobody else except maybe Dominic Leblanc could have put the party where it is now.

Quote:
It seems the NDP decided Trudeau really was a lightweight so they didn't have to worry about him.

I still can't understand how they could have made this mistake. But it does seem like you're right. Mulcair certainly doesn't respect him.

Quote:
Harper's brand is still shockingly strong, almost incomprehensibly strong given his pile of sins is so high.

The only explanation I have is that since there is no alternative to the CPC, the hardcore CPC supporters will support him literally no matter what. Recall the Simpsons episode where the two aliens impersonate the presidential candidates, Homer outs them, and they still get voted in. "Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos."

Quote:
I think if the NDP had focused on Harper more and Trudeau far less Harper could have been pushed into 3rd.

You're right (some polls have the CPC under 30% now, although I'm sure they will do better with their better turnout, the "fair elections act" suppression, and some literal cheating). But, if Mulcair had continued to tear Harper down that would benefit Trudeau as much as the NDP and the NDP would have come second to Trudeau's first.

Quote:
Mulcair and the NDP are responsible for the campaign they have run that depended on ridiculing JT instead of presenting and defending a genuinely progressive campaign from the start.

If there is one single thing the NDP needs to learn from this campaign, it's to use non-partisan focus groups when making strategic campaign decisions.

terrytowel

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Quote:
It seems the NDP decided Trudeau really was a lightweight so they didn't have to worry about him.

I still can't understand how they could have made this mistake. But it does seem like you're right. Mulcair certainly doesn't respect him.

The NDP put way too much stock on Bill C-51. They ran on that as if it was an election issue, when the polling showed voters cared more about the economy than C51.

Where Trudeau vision piece was infastructure, the NDP touted universal daycare. Problem with that is it only affects roughly 1/4 of voters. Plus it take 8 years to implement.

Mulcair is a lawyer and Trudeau is just a teacher. Combine that with the "just not ready" campaign they assumed progressive voters would back the more experieced and educated Mulcair over the inexperienced Trudeau.

Cody87

Aristotleded24 wrote:

brookmere wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
the Liberals and Conservatives will team up to call an election to essentially finish off the NDP both as a political party and as a force for progressive change.

What makes you think the Conservatives want to get rid of the NDP?

As the Conservatives are backed by the wealthy, removing the NDP would remove an obstacle to governing in favour of the rich. The key success for the rich in the 1993 election was not only electing the Liberals, but marginalizing the NDP to the point that you had the Liberals delivering cuts and a strong Reform/Alliance caucus demanding more cuts.

I disagree. If there was only CPC and NDP, the CPC would dominate (consider 2011 where the LPC was as close to irrelevant as it's ever been). The anti-NDP vote is stronger than the anti-CPC vote, the only difference is since the CPC is the stronger of the two parties we see ABC. But even in this election in places like Victoria, there are "anyone but NDP" ridings.

It has been well documented that young Harper was a Liberal who idolized Trudeau Sr. until the NEP - and has hated Trudeau Sr. and the LPC as a whole ever since. He literally wanted to destroy the LPC.

https://whatisupcanada.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/harpers-only-priority-is...

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/the-trudeau-c...

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/07/18/why-harper-attacks-...

http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/28/HarpersVisceralHate/

Cody87

terrytowel wrote:

The NDP put way too much stock on Bill C-51. They ran on that as if it was an election issue, when the polling showed voters cared more about the economy than C51.

The NDP won in voters minds big on C51, but the NDP neglected to note that most non-CPC voters are not single-issue voters. In the most balanced board I've been able to find between LPC and NDP, I can't tell you how often in the last couple of weeks I've heard "After C51 I was so mad at Trudeau I was sure I was going to vote NDP, but I like _____ and _____ and ______." Or, "After C51 I was so mad at Trudeau I was sure I was going to vote NDP, but I dislike that Mulcair/the NDP is doing _____ and _____ and ______." It made me think of you, because I originally disagreed with your assertion that C51 wouldn't move votes - I thought it would but it seems like you were right and the swing voters are over it.

Quote:
Where Trudeau vision piece was infastructure, the NDP touted universal daycare. Problem with that is it only affects roughly 1/4 of voters. Plus it take 8 years to implement.

Plus Mulcair is assuming the provinces will pick up 40% of the tab.

Quote:
Mulcair is a lawyer and Trudeau is just a teacher. Combine that with the "just not ready" campaign they assumed progressive voters would back the more experieced and educated Mulcair over the inexperienced Trudeau.

You're right, and I don't get it. Did they not see how Dion and Ignatieff performed despite their supposed intelligence and accomplishments? This is an especially bizarre mistake for the NDP to make, because a lot of NDP'ers who are anti-establishment don't like lawyers, and a lot of NDP'ers do like teachers (and other entirely unionized professions).

terrytowel

Cody87 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The NDP put way too much stock on Bill C-51. They ran on that as if it was an election issue, when the polling showed voters cared more about the economy than C51.

It made me think of you, because I originally disagreed with your assertion that C51 wouldn't move votes - I thought it would but it seems like you were right and the swing voters are over it.

Even on election signs you see Stop C51 on NDP signs all over Toronto.

The information I got that C51 was not an election issue was from the NDP Ian Capstick. The day of the final vote on C51 CBC commentator Ian Capstick (for the NDP & Jack Layton former Press secretary) said C51 is NOT an election issue, and it wouldn't move votes. He warned the NDP on TV not to put too much stock into C51. He said if the NDP runs on C51 it would backfire.

The irony is that Ian Capstick is married to the current NDP press secretary for Tom Mulcair, Shawn Dearn.

Cody87 thanks for the kind words.

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:
You're right (some polls have the CPC under 30% now, although I'm sure they will do better with their better turnout, the "fair elections act" suppression, and some literal cheating). But, if Mulcair had continued to tear Harper down that would benefit Trudeau as much as the NDP and the NDP would have come second to Trudeau's first.

Yes, and that would have been a better long-term strategy than going for 1st which I said years ago and was accused of "concern trolling".

Let's say the NDP wins the election with a minority. It would probably not last longer than a year or two at the most. During that time they wouldn't be able to do anything significant. They would hand money over to Quebec no strings because they already have a daycare program. Ontario is demanding the same because they have all day kindergarten. That's the two most populous provinces. The other provinces would have to work out a deal and would be crying poverty or increasing taxes to pay the 40% and blaming Mulcair for the necessity.  Mulcair would be lucky if any new daycare spots actually existed before facing another election.

Mulcair said he would not bring the TPP deal negotiated to parliament to approve. If he signed on to TPP he would be called a liar and if he refused would be accused of being anti-trade and destroying Canada's economy by locking us out of a deal that represents 40% of world trade.

He would raise the Federal minimum wage, and it wouldn't help the majority of minimum wage workers.

I hope we can all agree that Harper has presented a false surplus that conceals the true state of affairs of Canada's wallet. Kevin Page pointed out the NDP budget was based on unrealistic numbers. Canadians would be expecting instant restoration of all the coast guard stations closed and the vet offices and all kinds of other cuts reversed.

Mulcair would have to run a deficit or fail to meet the high expectations that would be placed on an NDP government to be progressive.

Contrast that with another stint living in Stornoway as the official opposition against the Liberals.

In third place the Conservatives would start to disintegrate because they are really still the reform party. Harper would be gone and the infighting would increase as the various factions fought for supremacy. Social conservatives versus libertarians.

With the NDP in official opposition they could hold Trudeau's feet to the fire continuing to solidify their position as the alternative to the sitting government. They could point out all the ways the Liberals were failing to roll back Harper's changes. As it stands the NDP is stuck criticizing the Liberals pre-2005 history which no non-partisan holds Trudeau responsible for.

NDP supporters scoffed at the Liberal's ability to move from 3rd to 1st but 2011 was a condemnation of Ignatieff not of the Liberal party. If they didn't know it then they should have figured it out during Trudeau's meteoric rise. The Liberals in 3d was an anomaly not a trend so moving back to 1st was attainable and realistic.

The NDP's breakthrough was primarily in Quebec which is notoriously volatile. Around half their seats came from Quebec. Notley's win convinced many that the NDP was the ABC vote which boosted Mulcair's numbers, but the ABC vote is also volatile and wasn't choosing the NDP as much as rejecting Harper.

They should have decimated Harper attacking the multitude of ways in which Harper has withdrawn services and injured Canada's ability to thrive rooted in ideological and mean-spirited decisions.

Then during Trudeau's stint the NDP could be illustrating the ways in which the Liberals failed to reverse Harper policies, or nailed him on his own policies including signing trade deals.

It was always a long-shot for the NDP to win this election after only one stint in official opposition. They sold their soul for a chance at the gold ring.

Now they are suddenly tacking left with opposition to the TPP but promising balanced budgets and a million daycare spaces. People ask "how can that be"? and the answer is it can't be. The million daycare spaces are over 8 years. So then people think, okay well don't tell me a million. Tell me what you can deliver in your first mandate then expand on long term vision.

I was scoffed for not worrying about Trudeau's drop in numbers and considering it part of his strategy of being the underdog although I think he dropped a lot farther than planned and I did get worried in the end. The Liberals knew that Trudeau could not sustain those astronomical approval numbers for years. They needed the attention to die down to give Trudeau and the party time to prepare policy and plan and ready Trudeau for what they knew would be a very challenging campaign.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

the NDP is stuck criticizing the Liberals pre-2005 history which no non-partisan holds Trudeau responsible for.

This should be a sticky. I've only been here about 3 weeks? and I am so tired of hearing about the GST. Especially considering that given a choice between having GST or having higher income taxes, I would have expected the NDP to support a consumption tax rather than a tax on jobs. I'm convinced that if the LPC had said "we won't introduce daycare" and then then did, there are people on this board who would condemn them for that too.

Quote:
I was scoffed for not worrying about Trudeau's drop in numbers and considering it part of his strategy of being the underdog although I think he dropped a lot farther than planned and I did get worried in the end.

I watched the Trudeau-Brazeau fight for the first time yesterday. The parallels to this campaign are striking.

KarlL

Standing ovation for Justin trudeau at the conclusion of his appearance tonight on Tout le monde en parle.  That is pretty rare, my French-Canadian wife tells me.

pookie

Cody87 wrote:

The projected LPC victory is entirely due to Trudeau - nobody else except maybe Dominic Leblanc could have put the party where it is now.

Ha!  Nice to see another Dominic Leblanc fan.  

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

KarlL wrote:

Standing ovation for Justin trudeau at the conclusion of his appearance tonight on Tout le monde en parle.  That is pretty rare, my French-Canadian wife tells me.

As a New Democrat, this is TERRIBLE NEWS! Yep, PQ gone too. I'm going ot predict. The NDP gets less than 15 seats in PQ and less then 50 over all. This is going to be an Audrey Maclachlan like disaster. But, this time, I'll outright say I don't blame the leader, I blame the F***ing idiots who ran the Campaign! And I say right now, if Brad Lavaign doens't get fired on the 20th, it'll show how much the NDP leadership has drunk the Koolaid Lavaingne has been serving. I've seen this before by the way; last election, Rebecca Blakie ran the stupidiest campaign, with NO ground game election night. Lamoureux had the election handed to him. In that riding, as long as the NDP majorit stays home, and that is what Winnipeg North is, a NDP majority voter seat, Lamoureux will win over and over. And think Lamoureux wil win by 1500 - 2500 votes. And in Winnipeg Center, I think it is entirely likely that RFO will win by 3000 votes. And no Pondering, the NDP doesn't desrve this because Canadians don't deservong the Lying, right wing, neo con Lib Majoriity they're goin to get Election night. Yep, I say Lib majority. I say 170 Libs, 109 Cons, 12 Bloc, and 1 Green.

Titanic proportion NDP Fail. No question. No point even postng here. Yes Terrytowel, the election's over, over for the NDP. Disaster in Atlantic Canada, shut out in Saskatachewan and Manitoba, 2 - 5 seats in Alberata, 12 Seats in PQ, 10 setas max in Ontario, 2 or 3 seats on Atlantic Canada, and the rest in Onatrio; there, take your pick. The only consolation is Vaughan and Feeeland are toast, Chow will, and Alex J will win, garunteed. Other likely, Kenora with Howie Hampton, Dewar, and a few others. And I say, don't toss Tom. He fitghts, Trudeua governs to ther right, and its a bare Lib majority with more New Democrats, as a the LIbs get their asses handed to them in PQ!

So enjoy all you want, you Libs shills, it's temmporary.

terrytowel

What was missing from this campaign was Brian Topp and the late Jack Layton.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

What was missing from this campaign was Brian Topp and the late Jack Layton.

No, Jack isn't why the NDP is going to do so badly. Tom Mulcair is not a disablity. What is lacking is a team of advisors who knew what the hell they were doing. I don't know about Topp, look what happend in BC. I can say defintiely, that the NDP did nothing while Butts and Trudeau swith boated them. Liberals LIE and these two are the G-ds of lying. The MSM also did everything it could do to destory the NDP. When Trudeau said that night the NDP wasn't the party of Jack Layton, the VERY NEXT DAY they should have had a press conference where Olivia Chow shamed him! The frame was established that night. The NDP DID NOTHING! The other thing that has to happen is for the rise of left leaning organzations to counter LPC front groups like leadnow, and supposed good Canadians like Maude Barlow. We need to set up counter voices just as progressives are doing in the US. The LPC is the DLCC on steroids. Classic Obama bullshit. Change and Unicorns! Pathetic. Appropos, https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=f8shVbOwLKmC8QfQjoCYAQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=...

And one last thing, party insiders like the stupid Blakies, need to be kicked out the door on their sorry G-d damn asses!

I'm madder then hell! Stupid, handed the election to the Libs, being lead by Le Dauphin soon to be kIng Justin the first!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh by the way, if Trudeau wins, he's NOT my Prime Minister. If I met him I'd have to call him Prime Minister, so I'll just stay away. He is the Prime Minsiter thought, of the 1% and Bay Street. Stupid F***ing Canadians!

ETA: I checked forms of addressal, there's no way to avoid having to call him Prime Minister! UGH!!!!!!

KarlL

Given Arthur's full head of steam, I should probably note that I did not actually witness this TLMEP standing ovation but had it reported to me by a Quebecois friend who watched.  I have tried to watch it on CBC player but last time I checked they had not uploaded it.  

If it turns out to be wrong, I will slink off into the dark from Babble and also send Arthur a bottle of Highland Park (only the 10-year old, though).

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

KarlL wrote:

Given Arthur's full head of steam, I should probably note that I did not actually witness this TLMEP standing ovation but had it reported to me by a Quebecois friend who watched.  I have tried to watch it on CBC player but last time I checked they had not uploaded it.  

If it turns out to be wrong, I will slink off into the dark from Babble and also send Arthur a bottle of Highland Park (only the 10-year old, though).

I don't see the humor! Trudeau and Butts are going to be rewarded for Swift Boating Tom Mulcair as well as Bush and Rove Switf Boated War Hero, and non combat/draft dodging Vet and Patriot, John Kerry! Lincoln is right, "you can full most of the people, some of the time". I wish Lincoln had told us how long "some of the time", is!

Debater

KarlL wrote:

Standing ovation for Justin trudeau at the conclusion of his appearance tonight on Tout le monde en parle.  That is pretty rare, my French-Canadian wife tells me.

Yeah, I'm seeing some pretty positive reviews in the Francophone Quebec press for Trudeau tonight.

And I've been checking to make sure they aren't just coming from Liberals but from non-partisans.

I wanted to get objective feedback from what happened on TLMEP tonight, rather than get it from people who are already Trudeau supporters.

Sounds like it went well and could raise the Liberal numbers a few points in Quebec.

But who knows?  Best not to reach any conclusions before we see how the rest of the week unfolds.

JGHali

KarlL wrote:

Standing ovation for Justin trudeau at the conclusion of his appearance tonight on Tout le monde en parle.  That is pretty rare, my French-Canadian wife tells me.

The audience also stood when he came in, which seems to be the trend lately (did the same for Mulcair, though the end of his clip is cut off before any applause). Anyway, it's just as weird a format as I thought it was the last time I watched it. 

Debater

TLMEP is obviously a very different type of show than the type of shows you get on English television.  It is very much based in Quebec French culture and to some extent resembles shows in Europe and other countries.

The hosts try to trick, entrap & play games with the guests.  Not only do the TLEMP hosts give a rough time to politicians, they do it to actors & entertainers as well.

I remember watching an episode of TLMEP a few years ago with Quebec actor Francois Arnaud who played Caesare Borgia opposite Jeremy Irons in "The Borgias" over the past few years.  They asked him a lot of personal questions and even played a nude scene he had done in an earlier movie which caused him to blush since his Mother was in the audience.  He was surprised at how forward & mischevious they were.

KarlL

No.  John Kerry, despite his drawbacks was genuinely a war hero (or really, really accident-prone) to get three Purple Hearts. The Swiftboat veterans campaign was a disgrace.

Tom Mulcair is a solid, intelligent career politician, but nothing more.   

He slags Trudeau wherever he can and vice versa.  

He has played and he has lost.  That's all.

Debater

KarlL wrote:

Tom Mulcair is a solid, intelligent career politician, but nothing more.

And the fact that Mulcair is a career politician is one of the things that may have hurt him.

It's one of the reasons why he doesn't really represent change.

As Mulcair kept saying in the debates, he's been in public life for 30 years.

Well, what that also means is that he is not only 17 years older than Justin Trudeau, but several years older than Stephen Harper, as well.

When you run as the agent of change, it's more challenging to do so when you are not only much older than your Opposition rival, but older than the incumbent Prime Minister, also.

Mulcair turns 61 later this month.  That would make him one of the oldest 1st-Term Prime Ministers in modern history.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Wrong, Mulcair was swift boated that night in Toronto. And all the Libs have done is lie about him, like his being a Thatherite, He's been swift boated. He's no more a career politician then Trudeau; I'd be careful throwing that around by the way if I were you, ever hear of Sheila Copps, Mark lalonde, etc, etc. That is bull Karl. And on top of that, a very nasty, low blow. And no, he's been nicer to Trudeau then vice versa. You are delibeation mis reading this. The Libs and the MSM switft boated Mulcari, Period!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater, YOUR party is FULL of Career Poiiticians, Chretien, Martin Lamoureux, etc. What a bunch of bull! That is seriously SO rich coming from a Liberal!

Pondering

I watched and the interview was great. There was a standing ovation. Audience clapped numerous times to his responses to questions. 

They showed this video:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/montreal-rapp...

Montreal rap duo Yung Liberalz troll Trudeau with ‘Stoners for Justin’

...

Despite its name, Yung Liberalz is non-partisan, and the song is firmly in the realm of satire.

But despite the fact that Stoners for Justin is “trolling” the Liberal leader, in x.shulz’s words, he says it’s been met with uniform Liberal praise.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

I watched and the interview was great. There was a standing ovation. Audience clapped numerous times to his responses to questions. 

They showed this video:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/montreal-rapp...

Montreal rap duo Yung Liberalz troll Trudeau with ‘Stoners for Justin’

...

Despite its name, Yung Liberalz is non-partisan, and the song is firmly in the realm of satire.

But despite the fact that Stoners for Justin is “trolling” the Liberal leader, in x.shulz’s words, he says it’s been met with uniform Liberal praise.

And you loved every second of it, didn't you?

KarlL
Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater, YOUR party is FULL of Career Poiiticians, Chretien, Martin Lamoureux, etc. What a bunch of bull! That is seriously SO rich coming from a Liberal!

This career politician thing is deeply offensive. The Liebrals are trying it (as they copy much from the Conservatives) but the reality is long public servive is nothing to be ashamed of.

On the other hand the Liebrals are trying to make TRudeau a career PM -- after all he has little going in and they say that is fine. There is some incredible hypocricy from Liberals on calling Mulcair a career politician running Trudeau who has done little other than be Daddy's son and be an MP for a few years.

Unionist

Trudeau did very well indeed. Well prepared, relaxed, even his French sounds better. And he got applause for his answers on the niqab and his promise to hold an inquiry on the missing and murdered Aboriginal women. HIs focus was anti-Harper. Even his rejection of "coalition" wasn't absolute - he insisted that job #1 was to defeat Harper, that's what a majority of Canadians want, and then bills and policies can be put forward which can unite MPs. Well-prepared - and focused on what many Quebecers want to hear - was even polite and respectful to Gilles Duceppe, saying he believes profoundly in what he's doing, even though Trudeau disagrees.

If I didn't know he was with the Liberal party, I might have been impressed. But that kind of killed it for me.

Bottom line: He certainly didn't lose any votes. I don't know how much he'll gain.

I haven't seen Duceppe's performance yet, though I'm seeing positive reviews in the Twitterverse, or part of it anyway.

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
If I didn't know he was with the Liberal party, I might have been impressed. But that kind of killed it for me.

LOL!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I watched and the interview was great. There was a standing ovation. Audience clapped numerous times to his responses to questions. 

They showed this video:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/montreal-rapp...

Montreal rap duo Yung Liberalz troll Trudeau with ‘Stoners for Justin’

...

Despite its name, Yung Liberalz is non-partisan, and the song is firmly in the realm of satire.

But despite the fact that Stoners for Justin is “trolling” the Liberal leader, in x.shulz’s words, he says it’s been met with uniform Liberal praise.

And you loved every second of it, didn't you?

Yes, I did, did you not enjoy Mulcair's interview last week which I recall was pretty strong?

I've made no secret of the fact that I want marijuana legalization and Trudeau confirmed his plans to work with the provinces to regulate it like alcohol and cigarettes. He defended it very well. Mulcair and the NDP could have and should have been on the side of full legalization. They had plenty of time to reconsider and take the progressive stance of full legalization. Instead he made his oregano statement inferring that today's pot is so much stronger as if it makes a difference.

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This career politician thing is deeply offensive. The Liebrals are trying it (as they copy much from the Conservatives) but the reality is long public servive is nothing to be ashamed of.

On the other hand the Liebrals are trying to make TRudeau a career PM -- after all he has little going in and they say that is fine. There is some incredible hypocricy from Liberals on calling Mulcair a career politician running Trudeau who has done little other than be Daddy's son and be an MP for a few years.

You just shot your claim to objectivity to hell with this tirade, Sean.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This career politician thing is deeply offensive. The Liebrals are trying it (as they copy much from the Conservatives) but the reality is long public servive is nothing to be ashamed of.

On the other hand the Liebrals are trying to make TRudeau a career PM -- after all he has little going in and they say that is fine. There is some incredible hypocricy from Liberals on calling Mulcair a career politician running Trudeau who has done little other than be Daddy's son and be an MP for a few years.

You just shot your claim to objectivity to hell with this tirade, Sean.

Hardly -- you can't refute it either.

I do see the "liberal" as "liebral" those were typos -- happens when I try to type quickly some letters get reversed.

I still find it a ridiculous irony of Liberals claiming Mulcair is a career politician when Trudeau has done little else that is noteworthy.

How is that such a strange observation???

 

KarlL

Unionist wrote:

Trudeau did very well indeed. Well prepared, relaxed, even his French sounds better. And he got applause for his answers on the niqab and his promise to hold an inquiry on the missing and murdered Aboriginal women. HIs focus was anti-Harper. Even his rejection of "coalition" wasn't absolute - he insisted that job #1 was to defeat Harper, that's what a majority of Canadians want, and then bills and policies can be put forward which can unite MPs. Well-prepared - and focused on what many Quebecers want to hear - was even polite and respectful to Gilles Duceppe, saying he believes profoundly in what he's doing, even though Trudeau disagrees.

If I didn't know he was with the Liberal party, I might have been impressed. But that kind of killed it for me.

Bottom line: He certainly didn't lose any votes. I don't know how much he'll gain.

I haven't seen Duceppe's performance yet, though I'm seeing positive reviews in the Twitterverse, or part of it anyway.

Duceppe's was available last night.  He did well, I thought, though I am hampered by limited French. 

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/tout-le-monde-en-parle/2015-2016/segment...

 

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

No, Jack isn't why the NDP is going to do so badly. Tom Mulcair is not a disablity. What is lacking is a team of advisors who knew what the hell they were doing. I don't know about Topp, look what happend in BC.

Sean in Ottawa has been saying this since one. That the communication messaging from the NDP has been a disaster, In terms of Brian Topp he ran Rachel Notley campaign, and those results speak for themselves. At the very least with Topp in the mix (with this campaign) he would have run the communications of this campaign better,

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

No, Jack isn't why the NDP is going to do so badly. Tom Mulcair is not a disablity. What is lacking is a team of advisors who knew what the hell they were doing. I don't know about Topp, look what happend in BC.

Sean in Ottawa has been saying this since one. That the communication messaging from the NDP has been a disaster, In terms of Brian Topp he ran Rachel Notley campaign, and those results speak for themselves. At the very least with Topp in the mix (with this campaign) he would have run the communications of this campaign better,

It's not just the campaign, it's the set of disjointed policies that give a sense of smoke and mirrors.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

No, Jack isn't why the NDP is going to do so badly. Tom Mulcair is not a disablity. What is lacking is a team of advisors who knew what the hell they were doing. I don't know about Topp, look what happend in BC.

Sean in Ottawa has been saying this since one. That the communication messaging from the NDP has been a disaster, In terms of Brian Topp he ran Rachel Notley campaign, and those results speak for themselves. At the very least with Topp in the mix (with this campaign) he would have run the communications of this campaign better,

It's not just the campaign, it's the set of disjointed policies that give a sense of smoke and mirrors.

Well that approach has not harmed the Liberals

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's not just the campaign, it's the set of disjointed policies that give a sense of smoke and mirrors.

Well that approach has not harmed the Liberals

Trudeau final platform didn't pull any rabbits out of a hat. Any changes were made early in the campaign. Later announcements were all fleshing out his initial frame. I know exactly what to expect from the Trudeau Liberals some bad some good. Their decisions will be evidence-based.

I can't say that about Mulcair's NDP.

SeekingAPolitic...

Why I voted liberal.

I have no love for the liberal party and it came down who can stop a Harper government. I would have voted NDP if they a better chance in my riding. I voted NDP in the last federal election but my imperative was to vote out Harper this time. I have two regrets with my choice for the current election. First, I am hoping for a minority Liberal and not a majority which would be bad news. Second, if I wasn’t concerned by another Harper government I would have voted Green.

After the Ontario NDP released there election platform in 2014 I felt that NDP no longer represented my beliefs. Sadly my thoughts were the same when the NDP released there platform this time around. My economic views are left of the NDP policy and I generally feel the NDP has moved so far to right that it’s a pale comparison to the past. I find it somewhat amusing and ironic when some NDP posters put the line out that Cons and Libs are the same. Currently I view the Libs and NDP to be the same, NDP has become poor copy of the Libs hence my decision to buy a Green party membership.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's not just the campaign, it's the set of disjointed policies that give a sense of smoke and mirrors.

Well that approach has not harmed the Liberals

Trudeau final platform didn't pull any rabbits out of a hat. Any changes were made early in the campaign. Later announcements were all fleshing out his initial frame. I know exactly what to expect from the Trudeau Liberals some bad some good. Their decisions will be evidence-based.

I can't say that about Mulcair's NDP.

Funny that I know exactly what to expect from you: Thousands of words all saying the same thing.

 

Rev Pesky

terrytowel wrote:
...Sean in Ottawa has been saying this since one. That the communication messaging from the NDP has been a disaster, In terms of Brian Topp he ran Rachel Notley campaign, and those results speak for themselves. At the very least with Topp in the mix (with this campaign) he would have run the communications of this campaign better,

Brian Topp got a lot of help in Alberta from Wild Rose and the Conservatives. That floor crossing just before the election did a huge amount of damage to both, but most to the Conservatives. Their share of the vote dropped dramatically, but it didn't swing to Wild Rose. At the same time Wild Rose had to have a new leader step in and take over and deal with their own disillusioned members.

Yes, the NDP increased their share of the vote, but absent that floor crossing (and Alison Redford) the result would have been a lot different. And for those fans of proportional representation, the combined vote of Wild Rose and the Conservatives was over 50% of the popular vote.

To get a real picture of what Brian Topp can (or cannot) do I think you have to wait for the next Alberta election.  

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Funny that I know exactly what to expect from you: Thousands of words all saying the same thing.

And I know what to expect from you, endless ignorant personal snipes followed by injured innocence when I insult you right back after which we are treated to long posts or even entire threads on how unfairly you are treated and how you are driven off the boards by me because you just can't bear to see my posts then everybody tells you how valued you are and how you are the voice of reason and I'm just a big ol' meanie so please please don't go after which you are molified for awhile (or leave in a huff) until we start the process over again.

Rinse and repeat. Maybe we can speed up the process this time.

Ciabatta2

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's not just the campaign, it's the set of disjointed policies that give a sense of smoke and mirrors.

Well that approach has not harmed the Liberals

Trudeau final platform didn't pull any rabbits out of a hat. Any changes were made early in the campaign. Later announcements were all fleshing out his initial frame. I know exactly what to expect from the Trudeau Liberals some bad some good. Their decisions will be evidence-based.

I can't say that about Mulcair's NDP.

This makes no sense.  The Liberal platform says nothing about what they will actully do beyond borrow money and cut taxes.  Nothing on what the money will be spent on, nothing on how it will be sustained, or how the funding will be drawn down for year four without cuts.  The "efficiencies" line item is a piece of garbage that, had the NDP ran on it, they would have been obliterated by the media.

The Liberal platform is a beautiful, felted, top-notch empty hat.  Well branded, brilliant piece of political action.  Wonderful in the shop window, but empty.  There will be zero evidence-based decisions because it says nothing of any consequence.  I don't understand this analysis beyond a cntrl-v of partisan talking points.  The NDP may have shiat the bed in communicating their platform, but in terms of policy it makes decent sense.

I've never liked the whiny NDP "the media is against" narrative that their partisans spit out, but in this case the media hasn't just been soft on the Liberal platform - they're so in love with the idea of beating Harper they're in awe of it's political mastery but policy vacuum.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:
Why I voted liberal. I have no love for the liberal party and it came down who can stop a Harper government. I would have voted NDP if they a better chance in my riding. I voted NDP in the last federal election but my imperative was to vote out Harper this time. I have two regrets with my choice for the current election. First, I am hoping for a minority Liberal and not a majority which would be bad news. Second, if I wasn’t concerned by another Harper government I would have voted Green. After the Ontario NDP released there election platform in 2014 I felt that NDP no longer represented my beliefs. Sadly my thoughts were the same when the NDP released there platform this time around. My economic views are left of the NDP policy and I generally feel the NDP has moved so far to right that it’s a pale comparison to the past. I find it somewhat amusing and ironic when some NDP posters put the line out that Cons and Libs are the same. Currently I view the Libs and NDP to be the same, NDP has become poor copy of the Libs hence my decision to buy a Green party membership.

Thanks for sharing this testimony of your recent conversion with the rest of us sinners. Great first post.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Funny that I know exactly what to expect from you: Thousands of words all saying the same thing.

And I know what to expect from you, endless ignorant personal snipes followed by injured innocence when I insult you right back after which we are treated to long posts or even entire threads on how unfairly you are treated and how you are driven off the boards by me because you just can't bear to see my posts then everybody tells you how valued you are and how you are the voice of reason and I'm just a big ol' meanie so please please don't go after which you are molified for awhile (or leave in a huff) until we start the process over again.

Rinse and repeat. Maybe we can speed up the process this time.

You are quite the piece of work. You get insults from half the board and earn every single one. You are a one-note vote-Trudeau band. You don't add much else to this place and distort everything to drone on the same message.

I think and back up what I say. You BS and distort endlessly. But always the conclusion is the same. Predictable like nightfall. We get to read your 99 reasons for supporting Trudeau daily. There is never consideration and it has no use or meaning becuase whatever Liberal policy goes out -- you are there to endorse it. You throw this garbage back at me becuase you have no response to the simple accusation that you are completely predictable and seem to have one purpose. This is a personal attack hidden inside a cowardly deflection of a comment that speaks to your predictable posting only.

You have no shame and you should buy an ounce.

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:

This makes no sense.  The Liberal platform says nothing about what they will actully do beyond borrow money and cut taxes.  Nothing on what the money will be spent on, nothing on how it will be sustained, or how the funding will be drawn down for year four without cuts.  The "efficiencies" line item is a piece of garbage that, had the NDP ran on it, they would have been obliterated by the media.

The Liberal platform is a beautiful, felted, top-notch empty hat.  Well branded, brilliant piece of political action.  Wonderful in the shop window, but empty.  There will be zero evidence-based decisions because it says nothing of any consequence.  I don't understand this analysis beyond a cntrl-v of partisan talking points.  The NDP may have shiat the bed in communicating their platform, but in terms of policy it makes decent sense.

I've never liked the whiny NDP "the media is against" narrative that their partisans spit out, but in this case the media hasn't just been soft on the Liberal platform - they're so in love with the idea of beating Harper they're in awe of it's political mastery but policy vacuum.

The platform seems pretty specific to me:

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf

They will take 3 years to do what the NDP promises to do year 1. Three years gives time for the economy to grow and the government to gain full control over expenditures.

Kevin Page said the Liberal budget was very realistic. It had wiggle room build in, and the Liberals are willing to run deficits to get things done.

The NDP promises a balanced budget year 1 and every year after, with no idea of the mess Harper is leaving behind.

I don't expect everything in the platform to get accomplished to the letter, but I expect most of it will be. Items like this:

We will appoint a Chief Science Officer who will ensure that government science is fully available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are considered when the government makes decisions.

There is another thread on Liberal policies so I will leave it at that.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Here is what makes no sense, anyone believing an elite 1%er, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, vacuous, committed to nothing but power, who has done nothing but lie and swift boat this entire election. The Liberals will do nothing they promise but lie and steal from the 99% to give to his elitist, 1%er Bay Street pals while rewarding Libs like they ALWAYS do! He is lying! That is what Liberals do! They K
Lie. They are Sociopathic, Macivellian, nasty Liars! Again that is what Liberals do! They govern ONLY for the 1%!

Pondering

High school teacher isn't generally part of the career path of power hungry sharks. Just saying.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

High school teacher isn't generally part of the career path of power hungry sharks. Just saying.

You really don't have anything going for you other than rhetorical slight-of-hand, do you Pondering? How sad.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

High school teacher isn't generally part of the career path of power hungry sharks. Just saying.

We had one middle school level teacher run the province of Ontario -- Mike Harris. Will Trudeau be as progressive in the end?

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
High school teacher isn't generally part of the career path of power hungry sharks. Just saying.

He's practically Gandhi.

I'm sure he'd never have left his cushy high-school teacher job if it weren't in his destiny to lead.

Pages