Jack Layton's sliding into irrelevance

121 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2009-06-01 06:11

Hunky_Monkey

Hebert is at it again...

Quote:
Jack Layton's sliding into irrelevance

Jun 01, 2009 04:30
Chantal Hébert

MONTREAL

Three days after the Conservatives drew 2,000 supporters to a Montreal fundraiser last month, barely a hundred people showed up for a general meeting of the Quebec wing of the federal New Democratic Party in the same city.

While the two exercises were fundamentally different in nature, the high profile of the first versus the non-existent one of the second highlight the reality that, in politics, it is better to be powerful and despised than to be inconsequential and ignored.

These days, the Conservatives and the New Democrats are being squeezed out of the Quebec scene by a resurgent Liberal party. But in contrast with Harper, Jack Layton and the NDP are not so much being rejected by Quebecers as being declared redundant.

In fact, while Layton was gamely telling his sparse audience that the New Democrats were on the move in Quebec, Michael Ignatieff's lieutenant, Denis Coderre, was busy networking at a weekend meeting of the provincial Liberals.

It is virtually a done deal that the two organizations will unite behind a star candidate in the Montreal riding of Outremont in a joint bid to beat the NDP's Thomas Mulcair in the next election.

Campaigning for the first time against a strong pro-Liberal tide, Layton's lone Quebec MP will have his toughest federal fight ever on his hands.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/643402

Mon, 2009-06-01 07:47

KenS

Yawn.

Mon, 2009-06-01 07:49

KenS

Mon, 2009-06-01 08:05

remind

And the media keeps on being the corporate tools they are by trying to manufacture consent and public opinion.

To cute of Herbert to say the NDP do not have public profiles of any sort, while her and the media plays a concerted effort in keeping the NDP out of the news except for dissing them. Herbert's and others actions go well beyond anti-democracy, and press censorship, IMV.

Mon, 2009-06-01 08:46

Bookish Agrarian

Well to date the only person making themselves irrelevant is Chantal Hebert who can't seem to get the page turned on her Liberal hymnal.

Mon, 2009-06-01 09:24

Boom Boom

Is it really necessary to start a new thread every time Chantal Hebert says something disparaging about Jack Layton? Good God, we already know how she feels about him!

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:00

KenS

Hebert has never acted like a Liberal. She mostly seems to operate by irritating everyone. Seems to work- gets her attention.

But of late she seems to repeat everything that is the spin coming from Camp Iggy. With her own twists added- but thats where she seems to get her view of reality.

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:18

Debater

Rather than attacking Hebert as per usual, why not examine whether some of the basic points she is making are correct?

At the moment it does happen to be the case that the NDP is gettiing squeezed out in Quebec between the BQ and the Liberals. Last year when the Liberals were led by Dion and were very low in support, there was an opportunity for Layton to make a breakthrough. Now with Ignatieff as leader and rising in the polls, the NDP appears to have lost that opportunity for the moment.

And it also appears to be the case on a national level that the race is gearing up to be Ignatieff vs. Harper with the media ignoring the NDP for the most part. There is a danger of the NDP ending up on the sidelines if it is not able to get into the mix.

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:21

josh

Boom Boom wrote:

Is it really necessary to start a new thread every time Chantal Hebert says something disparaging about Jack Layton? Good God, we already know how she feels about him!

With Dion out of the picture, she needs somebody new to bash.

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:28

#10

Debater

Some people here act as if she is going after Jack on a personal level. (eg "disparaging") She is focusing mainly on the issue of NDP support in Quebec which appears to be stagnant since last fall's vote. The main battle in Quebec will be between the BQ and the Liberals unless Layton finds a way of changing that.

The thesis of Hebert's article is backed up by all the polls we have seen coming out of Quebec this year - it's not as if she's making this all up.

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:34

#11

KenS

The rise and fall of the Bloc matters much more to the fortunes of the NDP in Quebec. In last years' election not many people switched their vote from Liberals to the NDP. So whatever the polls might be registering, the NDP has nothing to lose to the Liberals. The Bloc is another story.

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:34

#12

Boom Boom

Hebert never misses a chance to diss Layton, though.

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:38

#13

KenS

Debater wrote:
Some people here act as if she is going after Jack on a personal level.

She is. It used to be Dion. It sells her column.

Shes a crank. Even cranks say something cogent a certain percentage of the time. But so what?

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:40

#14

Stockholm

In column after column she keeps going on about the Liberals running some mysterious un-named "star candidate" in Outremont. Maybe, its Chantal Hebert and she is trying to spin for herself in advance!

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:42

#15

Boom Boom

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:52

#16

Debater

KenS wrote:

Debater wrote:
Some people here act as if she is going after Jack on a personal level.

She is. It used to be Dion. It sells her column.

Shes a crank. Even cranks say something cogent a certain percentage of the time. But so what?

She's actually considered one of the best political analysts in Canada right now. Reviews of her work are often positive, she is regularly asked to speak at universities, and just received an honourary doctorate over the weekend.

She's actually a smart cookie - that doesn't mean you have to agree with her though.

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:02

#17

KenS

I'm sure she's a smart cookie. That and someone whose analysis is heavily stilted by her jag of the moment. She gets a column and the invites because she is opinionated and stirs things up, not because she is cogent.

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:06

#18

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I'm getting very tired of entire threads in bold. What's up with that?

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:10

#19

KenS

??? don't see any boldother than highlights

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:14

#20

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Really??

Everything but the first line of the first post is in bold in my browser. I'm going to switch to another to check it out.

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:15

#21

remind

What are you talking about LTJ?

And that is too funny Stock, perhaps it is Herbert herself, or maybe she is going for a Senate seat too?

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:17

#22

ottawaobserver

Debater wrote:

Rather than attacking Hebert as per usual, why not examine whether some of the basic points she is making are correct?

<snip>

And it also appears to be the case on a national level that the race is gearing up to be Ignatieff vs. Harper with the media ignoring the NDP for the most part. There is a danger of the NDP ending up on the sidelines if it is not able to get into the mix.

The media always ignore the NDP, except near the end of a Parliamentary session when what the NDP does affects the outcome, and during an election when media are more closely watched in terms of the time and space they're allocating to the parties.

If your hypothesis were true, however, we would see the NDP at 12-13% in the national polls, rather than the 17% they're showing this morning in a statistical tie between the Conservatives and Liberals. We're not even six months into the I-I-Ignatieff honeymoon, so to me that's not too darn bad.

Debater, you're probably learning a couple of things from your short time here on Babble: (i) if NDPers lived and died by everything the national media and the latest polls said, they would have folded up and packed it in a LONG time ago, (ii) we've certainly heard this song before (viz. Paul Martin, Stephane Dion), and (iii) campaigns matter, particularly when it comes to NDP support, so we don't get too upset by media commentators between them when we see the work that is going on internally.

Also, as pointed out here ad nauseum, Chantal Hébert's previous track record in predicting the outcome in Outremont is 0-for-2.

There is always a danger of the NDP ending up on the sidelines if it is not able to get into the mix. But let's be honest: you write that because you WANT it to happen, not because of any evidence to support it in the current polls. Meantime, it's the NDP bill on EI that Parliament will be debating this week, proposing changes that, if Iggy had any negotiating chops AT ALL last February, he could have already won as concessions from the government in return for passing the budget. According to Craig Oliver on CTV Question Period yesterday, the Conservatives are now contemplating agreeing to at least some of those changes, but guess who's going to get the credit.

I've heard some of his own party insiders say that Ignatieff is going to prove a harder sell for the Liberals in the medium-term than many people think, and certainly he will be the novice campaigner on the campaign trail next time out. I don't think this story is anywhere close to be written in full yet, but by all means stick around ... who knows, you may even cross the floor yourself by the end of it all ;-)

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:20

#23

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Son of a gun. It's only in Safari. Happens on random threads, not consistently.

Sorry for the thread drift, folks.

BTW, great observations, ottawaobserver.

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:25

#24

Debater

ottawaobserver wrote:

Also, as pointed out here ad nauseum, Chantal Hébert's previous track record in predicting the outcome in Outremont is 0-for-2.

Yes, I've noticed it pointed out here before. I would still like to see where she actually predicted the outcome unequivocally on both occasions. I don't think she did, although I know that's the collective opinion here.

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:34

#25

JimmyRiddle

The only person sliding into irrelevance is Chantal Hebert.

The journalistic dishonesty of this piece makes Brian Mulroney look like a choir boy.

Let's review: The BC election resulted in both the Libs and the NDP at exactly the same level of support--in vote share and seats--as the last election. The only party that saw any movement in their vote was the Greens, who dropped 37%.

In Quebec the NDP is polling at exactly the same level of support as the 2008 election; in in fact, of late, is polling higher than the CPC. Multiple polls agree. So, um, where exactly is the loss of support Ms Hebert claims is happening? As for Outremont, if Hebert actually did any legwork she'd know that Mulcair's victories both came from Bloc support, not CPC and LPC voters.

And while victory was denied the NDP in BC, the same does not appear to be so in Nova Scotia, where pundits are not only predicting we'll win government, but a majority at that: www.novanews.now.com/article-n341891-BREAKING-New-poll-predicts-NDP-majority-of-at-least-30-seats-Updated.html

Oh, and how strange that the Star did exactly what it did last time when Hebert published her rubbish: they closed the comments section.

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:37

#26

Debater

JimmyRiddle wrote:

The only person sliding into irrelevance is Chantal Hebert.

The journalistic dishonesty of this piece makes Brian Mulroney look like a choir boy.

Let's review: The BC election resulted in both the Libs and the NDP at exactly the same level of support--in vote share and seats--as the last election. The only party that saw any movement in their vote drop 37%.

In Quebec the NDP is polling at exactly the same level of support as the 2008 election; in in fact, of late, is polling higher than the CPC. Multiple polls agree. So, um, where exactly is the loss of support Ms Hebert claims is happening? As for Outremont, if Hebert actually did any legwork she'd know that Mulcair's victories both came from Bloc support, not CPC and LPC voters.

And while victory was denied the NDP in BC, the same does not appear to be so in Nova Scotia, where pundits are not only predicting we'll win government, but a majority at that: www.novanews.now.com/article-n341891-BREAKING-New-poll-predicts-NDP-majority-of-at-least-30-seats-Updated.html

Oh, and how strange that the Star did exactly what it did last time when Hebert published her rubbish: they closed the comments section.

1. I think Hebert was referring to the seat count in BC, which is the way things often get measured in this country because of our electoral system. Yes, obviously the popular vote was basically the same.

2. A couple polls show the NDP ahead of the CPC in QC, but a couple show them behind. In any event, it isn't the popular vote that matters in QC for the NDP - it's how high they are in relation to the Liberals and whether they can concentrate the vote enough to win seats.

3. I disagree about the NDP vote in Outremont only coming from the BQ. Ken S said the same thing and is mistaken. Some of the NDP vote came from the Liberals.

4. True - the NDP is doing well in Nova Scotia, and I have noticed that the media out here isn't giving it much coverage. That deserves some criticism.

Mon, 2009-06-01 11:52

#27

Noise

LTJ, a bit sidetrack but...

I'm guessing someone is leaving an open html bold tag without a close somewhere in the thread, which is much easier in this new babble (it's a button now thats automatically adding them, and presumably somewhat incorrectly). Your browser is reading that tag and applying it to everything since there isn't a close tag.

Mon, 2009-06-01 12:26

#28

KenS

Debater wrote:

2. A couple polls show the NDP ahead of the CPC in QC, but a couple show them behind. In any event, it isn't the popular vote that matters in QC for the NDP - it's how high they are in relation to the Liberals and whether they can concentrate the vote enough to win seats.

3. I disagree about the NDP vote in Outremont only coming from the BQ. Ken S said the same thing and is mistaken. Some of the NDP vote came from the Liberals.

Of course some of the vote comes from the Liberals. But predominately, Liberal voters in Outremont did not switch to the NDP.

You do this often of changing what people said into a cardboard cut-out for you to punch at.

Or ignoring the larger point: it isn't whether the media 'deserves to be criticised' for ignoring the rise of the NDP in Nova Scotia. ["Yes, some corrective is required."] The point OO was making is what is totally predictable from the media. So using media commentators as experts on what is going on with the NDP is just bunk.

Mon, 2009-06-01 12:53

#29

JimmyRiddle

Debater, not to quibble, but:

1. BC seat counts remained the same, after factoring in the addition of new seats. As you noted, popular vote remained unchanged.

2. The NDP has remained at, or above, 2008 election support. In the next election there will be at least one other NDP MP along side Mulcair--Francoise Boivin in Gatineau. She came a close second to the Bloc MP, and the Liberal with declared intentions, Steve MacKinnon (the former prez of the LPC under the Dion trainwreck), is a no-hoper.

And while we're at it, Ms Hebert might like to read polls commissioned by her own paper which debunk her entire thesis. To wit, today's front page story in which the NDP is at 17% in Quebec--5% above its 2008 result.

Full poll results are here: http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2009.06.01_FederalScene.pdf

3. Sorry to have to correct you, Debater, but it was the collapse of the Bloc in both the 2006 byelection and the 2008 general that won that seat. I worked e-day in 2006, and in my polls the Lib vote mostly held, Conservatives were largely irrelevant, and the Bloc was an absolute shell of its past results. I'm talking handfuls of votes in polls that used to have hundreds of Bloc votes. If you don't believe me, check out poll by poll results on www.elections.ca

4. While Hebert and her supporters in the OLO would like us all to believe in a two horse race, Nova Scotia is proving them wrong. In the interests of journalistic objectivity I look forward to her obituaries (mea culpa's surely) of the both the Tories and Liberals--both once dominant political forces in Nova Scotia. What will Hebert say when voters decisively reject the failed policies of these parties and instead (oh, shock!) endorse a social democratic party in the midst of economic turmoil?

Mon, 2009-06-01 12:54

#30

ottawaobserver

Debater wrote:

3. I disagree about the NDP vote in Outremont only coming from the BQ. Ken S said the same thing and is mistaken. Some of the NDP vote came from the Liberals.

Elect'n_ | _NDP_ | __Lib__ | __BQ_ | Cons_ | _Grn_ | %TO
--------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | ------- | ------ | ------
2008 GE | 14,348 | 12,005 |   4,554 | 3,820 | 1,566 | 56.6%
2007 By | 11,374 |   6,933 |   2,618 | 2,052 |    529 | 37.4%
2006 GE |  6,984 | 14,282 | 11,778 | 5,168 | 1,957 | 60.8%
2004 GE |  5,382 | 15,675 | 12,730 | 2,284 | 1,643 | 56.1%
2000 Tr |  2,139 | 19,252 |  9,159 | 3,132 | Oth:4,101 | n/a

I put the raw vote (from the Pundits' Guide page) into a table, so we can take a look. From 2006 to 2008, the NDP vote more than doubled, and in fact increased by about 4500 votes in the by-election even during a large decline in turnout. The Liberal vote declined coincident with the lower turnout, but returned to nearer previous levels in the 2008 general, while the Bloc vote did not similarly recover. Meantime, Mulcair's raw vote increased still further.

This tells me that previous Liberal voters stayed home during the by-election, and that some of the ones who did then moved to Mulcair during the general. The likeliest source of Mulcair's increased by-election vote was previous Bloc voters (which is consistent with the Nanos poll around that time showing that the NDP was the second choice of 70% of Bloc voters).

Of course, this is a generalization, and I suspect you're right that some of Mulcair's vote did come from previous Liberal voters. If I had lived in Quebec in the 80s and 90s, it would have been tricky to figure out as a New Democrat which of the right-wing federalist Liberals or social democratic but separatist Bloquistes were the lesser evil, and thus finally having a competitive NDP candidate would have been a no-brainer for me. So your observation does make sense to a certain extent.

Mon, 2009-06-01 12:57

#31

thorin_bane

Notice how irrelevant the NDP are in Nova Scotia. Odd that she forgot the fact that they will likely have a majority. Also note, that is the same title she used not a few weeks ago. As pointed outabove, again the comment are quickly closed on the day the article was put up. Strange isn't it. Lazy dishonest journalism.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nsvotes2009/story/2009/05/31/ns-poll-ndp.html]NDP losing steam?[/url]

The poll, which was released Monday, showed the New Democratic Party leading with 44 per cent of decided voters, trailed by the Liberal party at 28 per cent and the Progressive Conservative Party at 26 per cent. About two per cent of those surveyed supported the Green party.

Mon, 2009-06-01 12:58

#32

ottawaobserver

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

BTW, great observations, ottawaobserver.

Hey, thanks!

Mon, 2009-06-01 13:00

#33

Debater

ottawaobserver wrote:

Debater wrote:

3. I disagree about the NDP vote in Outremont only coming from the BQ. Ken S said the same thing and is mistaken. Some of the NDP vote came from the Liberals.

Elect'n_ | _NDP_ | __Lib__ | __BQ_ | Cons_ | _Grn_ | %TO
--------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | ------- | ------ | ------
2008 GE | 14,348 | 12,005 |   4,554 | 3,820 | 1,566 | 56.6%
2007 By | 11,374 |   6,933 |   2,618 | 2,052 |    529 | 37.4%
2006 GE |  6,984 | 14,282 | 11,778 | 5,168 | 1,957 | 60.8%
2004 GE |  5,382 | 15,675 | 12,730 | 2,284 | 1,643 | 56.1%
2000 Tr |  2,139 | 19,252 |  9,159 | 3,132 | Oth:4,101 | n/a

I put the raw vote (from the Pundits' Guide page) into a table, so we can take a look. From 2006 to 2008, the NDP vote more than doubled, and in fact increased by about 4500 votes in the by-election even during a large decline in turnout. The Liberal vote declined coincident with the lower turnout, but returned to nearer previous levels in the 2008 general, while the Bloc vote did not similarly recover. Meantime, Mulcair's raw vote increased still further.

This tells me that previous Liberal voters stayed home during the by-election, and that some of the ones who did then moved to Mulcair during the general. The likeliest source of Mulcair's increased by-election vote was previous Bloc voters (which is consistent with the Nanos poll around that time showing that the NDP was the second choice of 70% of Bloc voters).

Of course, this is a generalization, and I suspect you're right that some of Mulcair's vote did come from previous Liberal voters. If I had lived in Quebec in the 80s and 90s, it would have been tricky to figure out as a New Democrat which of the right-wing federalist Liberals or social democratic but separatist Bloquistes were the lesser evil, and thus finally having a competitive NDP candidate would have been a no-brainer for me.  So your observation does make sense to a certain extent.

Well that's nice of you to say.

JR is right above that a lot of the NDP support came from the BQ - I wasn't disputing that. I was just saying that some of the NDP support came from the Liberals as you point out in your analysis.

In any event, what is interesting is that Mulcair's vote dropped by a number of percentage points in the GE as opposed to his large victory in the BE. The Liberal vote went up in the GE, and the NDP vote went down. That is why I think there is a relationship between some of the Liberal and NDP votes in Outremont.

Mon, 2009-06-01 13:10

#34

ottawaobserver

It might be interesting, but it's not relevant when the Turnout varies so much between the two events. That's why I looked at raw vote. Which parties' supporters stayed home is key ... and in this case, I would argue, at least as relevant to the short-term outcome as which parties' supporters switched.

Now that Mulcair has won twice, the incumbency factor also kicks in, so it will be a taller hill to climb to knock him off ... particularly as he gets a disproportionately large share of media coverage in the province as the only elected NDP MP there.

I don't discount Denis Coderre's interest in knocking him off though, for fear that Mulcair is the thin edge of the wedge. I guess we'll see who is the better organizer, won't we.

Mon, 2009-06-01 13:11

#35

ottawaobserver

{d'oh ... clicked "quote" instead of "edit" !}

Mon, 2009-06-01 13:11

#36

remind

Can you not read debator, Mulcair's vote did not go down in the GE, it went up by 3000 votes!

Mon, 2009-06-01 13:16

#37

ottawaobserver

Debater wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Also, as pointed out here ad nauseum, Chantal Hébert's previous track record in predicting the outcome in Outremont is 0-for-2.

Yes, I've noticed it pointed out here before. I would still like to see where she actually predicted the outcome unequivocally on both occasions. I don't think she did, although I know that's the collective opinion here.

The first time was on the National's At Issue panel (before they started archiving the videos, unfortunately). The second time was on a Newsworld panel that did not get archived either, unfortunately, but the Libs were starting to put out the spin that Mulcair was in trouble a few days before the election (standard operating procedure for them when they're trying to drive the vote their way). Also, it was apparently Charest's people who dropped the stuff on Mulcair and water exports ... retaliation I suppose for the way he quit provincially and what he said on the way out.

Mon, 2009-06-01 13:18

#38

ottawaobserver

remind wrote:

Can you not read debator, Mulcair's vote did not go down in the GE, it went up by 3000 votes!

I think he was saying that Mulcair's vote SHARE (in percentage points) dropped. But, as his raw vote increased along with the turnout, who cares.

Mon, 2009-06-01 13:38

#39

Debater

remind wrote:

Can you not read debator, Mulcair's vote did not go down in the GE, it went up by 3000 votes!

remind, everyone's vote went up in the GE - that's what happens in a GE as opposed to a BE. What matters is the share of the vote. Mulcair's share of the vote dropped by 8 percentage points in the GE as opposed to the BE, and the Liberal vote went up by 4 points (and by 5,000 votes).

That means Mulcair ended up finishing with only a 6 point lead over the Liberals compared to 19 points in the BE. Mulcair beat the Liberals by a 47 to 28 margin in the BE, but only by 39 to 33 in the GE.

That is what is significant and what may foreshadow clouds for him going into the next election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outremont_(electoral_district)

Mon, 2009-06-01 14:05

#40

Bookish Agrarian

Are you trying to pull our collective leg there Debator. Nothing, beyond a win is relevant in the switch from a by-election to the general. Voting trends are never, ever transferable from a by-election in terms of specific vote counts or percentages. What matters is the win and Muclair's was comfortable if not overwhelming. Trying to pretend that a) Muclair is dependent on Liberal votes and b) Muclair should be shudering because of the vote spread from a by-election is farcical.

But then you really do know that don't you.

Hebert is one of the most over-rated pundits out there. She, like her ilk, almost consistently get things wrong when it comes down to specifics. Her claim of the NDP decline in Quebec is disproved by her very own paper's published poll. Her focus on Muclair with barely a fact in site starts to make me wonder if there is not another agenda at play.

Mon, 2009-06-01 14:08

#41

ottawaobserver

I realize you meant vote share and not raw vote, Debater, but disagree that it is significant, or in any way foreshadows any such thing.

You simply can't extrapolate anything from a decline in vote share in a situation where the turnout changed so dramatically, unless you assert that the characteristics of those who did not vote in a by-election exactly mirror those of voters who did cast a ballot.

Very evidently, from the subsequent results, they did not.

Mon, 2009-06-01 14:31

#42

Debater

Well, people can interpret the numbers differently, yes, but certain basic facts remain.

The point is that the NDP, despite having a high-profile, well-financed candidate who had won the by-election by a large margin, dropped significantly in the vote share, while the Liberals, despite having a last minute candidate with little money, went up in the vote share and closed the gap.

Most people observing the race in Quebec noticed that it was closer than expected. If Mulcair can only win the riding by a small margin when Dion was leader, it may be much more difficult when Ignatieff is leader. Dion was so weak he couldn't even get Denis Coderre to agree to be his Quebec Lieutenant. The moment Ignatieff took over, Coderre got on board. There is also a big Liberal fundraiser coming up in Montreal soon at $500 a plate - change is afoot.

Mon, 2009-06-01 14:43

#43

Stockholm

Maybe we should start a new thread entitled "Chantal Hebert's sliding into irrelevance"

Mon, 2009-06-01 14:58

#44

Scott McWhinnie Scott McWhinnie's picture

psst - she's right...

Mon, 2009-06-01 15:57

#45

Debater

Scott McWhinnie wrote:

psst - she's right...

Who? Hebert?

I think she's right on some of her points too (although not all). I try to look at these things objectively.

In any event, whenever the next election is, it will be interesting to see who prevails in the Hebert vs. Rabble battle.

Mon, 2009-06-01 15:59

#46

thorin_bane

Hebert has said that the last three general elections...we have increased seats in all 3. Go figure...psst -she's wrong...

Debater there is no relation between be and ge. In fact a byelection is the greatest chance for an upset since you can get your voters out. This has more to do with apathy and low turnout. The only measurement you have will come after they drop the next writ. At the end of the election you can find out whether his vote increased or decreased. He may lose, but there is no relation to the byelection. See the green party in london for confirmation on this.

Mon, 2009-06-01 16:19

#47

Debater

JimmyRiddle wrote:

In the next election there will be at least one other NDP MP along side Mulcair--Francoise Boivin in Gatineau. She came a close second to the Bloc MP, and the Liberal with declared intentions, Steve MacKinnon (the former prez of the LPC under the Dion trainwreck), is a no-hoper.

Boivin, as you know, is a former Liberal MP for Gatineau. There are some people in the riding who are not happy that she switched parties as some blame her for splitting the vote between the Libs and NDP and allowing the anti-English BQ MP Richard Nadeau to squeak through with 29% of the vote. She would have won had she run as a Liberal. She placed a strong 2nd in October, but despite all the help she got from the NDP HQ, she only managed to finish 1% ahead of the Liberal. That may be the closest she comes to winning back the riding.

I'm not sure who the Liberal candidate will be in Gatineau next time - I don't think Steve MacKinnon has been nominated yet has he? I agree he is not the strongest candidate, but whomever the Liberals nominate in Gatineau is likely to have a good chance of winning considering that the Liberals came close to winning in October when they were way down in Quebec.

Mon, 2009-06-01 16:41

#48

remind

Debater wrote:
There is also a big Liberal fundraiser coming up in Montreal soon at $500 a plate - change is afoot.

Good to see the Liberals and Cons are for the majority of Canadians! :rolleyes:

Those with money, paying to be seen out with those who have money, so they can plan on how they can take working people for more money!

Mon, 2009-06-01 16:46

#49

Bookish Agrarian

pppssst-- a little secret - hardly anyone votes, beyond a few partisan diehards, on "I'm mad because she switched parties". Not in today's Canada.

There is a simple fact at play here. Hebert and others are making shit up. The poll out today shows the NDP sitting at 17% in Quebec. That's almost double the Conservatives. Since the last election it is clear Conservative and BQ support has slipped to both the Liberals and the NDP. That my friend is the real story.

Hebert and her cohorts are either trying to manufacture a story about the the demise of the NDP to facilitate Liberal switching, or they are intellectually and otherwise lazy. I suspect the latter is more likely the case, although never put it past the Ottawa chattering class to create a mythic love-in with the latest Liberal messiah. Remember all those stories about Paul Martin potentially getting the biggest majority in history and burying the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP for a generation- how did that work out again?

Mon, 2009-06-01 16:56

#50

ottawaobserver

Debater wrote:

JimmyRiddle wrote:

In the next election there will be at least one other NDP MP along side Mulcair--Francoise Boivin in Gatineau. She came a close second to the Bloc MP, and the Liberal with declared intentions, Steve MacKinnon (the former prez of the LPC under the Dion trainwreck), is a no-hoper.

Boivin, as you know, is a former Liberal MP for Gatineau. There are some people in the riding who are not happy that she switched parties as some blame her for splitting the vote between the Libs and NDP and allowing the anti-English BQ MP Richard Nadeau to squeak through with 29% of the vote. She would have won had she run as a Liberal. She placed a strong 2nd in October, but despite all the help she got from the NDP HQ, she only managed to finish 1% ahead of the Liberal. That may be the closest she comes to winning back the riding.

How dumb of the Liberals then, assuming that was true, not to allow her to run for them last time !

I have an alternate theory. Sometimes it takes two elections for the electorate to realize which candidate in a riding is better placed to knock off an unpopular incumbent, especially in the face of orchestrated misinformation to the contrary. We shall see.

Mon, 2009-06-01 16:57

#51

Debater

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

pppssst-- a little secret - hardly anyone votes, beyond a few partisan diehards, on "I'm mad because she switched parties". Not in today's Canada.

There is a simple fact at play here. Hebert and others are making shit up. The poll out today shows the NDP sitting at 17% in Quebec. That's almost double the Conservatives. Since the last election it is clear Conservative and BQ support has slipped to both the Liberals and the NDP. That my friend is the real story.

Hebert and her cohorts are either trying to manufacture a story about the the demise of the NDP to facilitate Liberal switching, or they are intellectually and otherwise lazy. I suspect the latter is more likely the case, although never put it past the Ottawa chattering class to create a mythic love-in with the latest Liberal messiah. Remember all those stories about Paul Martin potentially getting the biggest majority in history and burying the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP for a generation- how did that work out again?

Yes, but that is one poll and is the high-water mark this year for the NDP in QC. Most of the other polls have had them below that. What is also important is not just polls, but the sentiment on the ground as to how people are talking and planning to vote in QC. Right now the NDP is not a hot item in QC the way the Liberals and Ignatieff are. If the NDP can consistently start placing ahead of the CPC, then people will start to notice.

As for Paul Martin, he would have had a huge majority had the sponsorship scandal not happened. He was at 56% in the polls before Sheila Fraser's report came out. When it did, he dropped 20 points. One doesn't have to have a PhD. in political science to see what happened.

Pages

Topic locked