Now the Liberals are falling behind, 4% behind the NDP, and dead last in the latest poll Canadawide, it is OK to call it a three way race, eh! 
Chantal has blinders on concerning national polling, C51, Trudeau's constant fumbling the ball, etc. it seems.
Conservatives blind to growing desire for regime change: Hébert
Regime change could easily trump policy as a ballot box issue in next fall’s federal election.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/22/conservatives-blind-to-gro...
What a joke! Right-wingers like Murphy are freaking out over the possibility of a NDP fedewral government.
A message for Mr. Harper — Conservative voters are feeling let down
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-a-message-for-mr-ha...
"Regime Change" is also known as "Incumbency". After 9 years, people are sick of Harper. They want him out.
North Report, you're letting your partisanship get carried away!
I think you're misinterpreting what Chantal Hébert is saying. She is not shilling for the Liberals (in fact, she probably votes for Mulcair/NDP since she lives in Outremont).
Hébert is basically saying what Sean and other Babblers are saying on these very threads -- Harper is in danger of polarizing the electorate to such an extent that the Conservatives are in danger of losing support to the Opposition - whether it is the NDP or the Liberals. There is now a sizeable non-Conservative vote out there and despite the CPC budget and all of their focus on micro-targeting of specific demographics, they are in danger of peaking in support.
You are doing one hell of a job Peter!
$20M-fund to help sex workers is ‘over-subscribed,’ Peter MacKay says
There are more groups than money available for the government’s proposed $20-million plan to get sex workers out of the industry, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said Friday
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/22/20m-fund-to-help-sex-worke...
Its interestng that it says more groups, not more sex workers, just more groups, I wonder how much of this money is actually going to sex workers.
North Report, you're letting your partisanship get carried away!
I think you're misinterpreting what Chantal Hébert is saying. She is not shilling for the Liberals (in fact, she probably votes for Mulcair/NDP since she lives in Outremont).
Hébert is basically saying what Sean and other Babblers are saying on these very threads -- Harper is in danger of polarizing the electorate to such an extent that the Conservatives are in danger of losing support to the Opposition - whether it is the NDP or the Liberals. There is now a sizeable non-Conservative vote out there and despite the CPC budget and all of their focus on micro-targeting of specific demographics, they are in danger of peaking in support.
Actually I agree with Debater, that was my reading of her column as well.
Chaos in Iraqi forces contributed to Islamic State’s biggest win this year
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/chaos-in-iraqi-forces-co...
C51 really backfired on the Liberals. They didn't think it would be a ballot issue. And hurt Mulcair in Quebec where polls showed a majority of Quebecers supported the bill.
Even every pundit on TV said C51 would not be an election issue or a ballot issue (even NDP Ian Capstick said so on Power & Politics)
But judging on twitter it is a HUGE issue with Liberal supporters, as such they are turning to the NDP. And instead of boosting Trudeau numbers in Quebec, it has done the opposite. His numbers have slid, while Mulcair got through the roof.
Trudeau wanted to capture the youth vote, but becuase of C51 young people are turning to the NDP instead. In DROVES.
Now yesterday on Power & Politics both Kady O'Malley & Jen Gerson has said C51 is an election issue and is one (among many) of the issues that have turned Liberals off, and sent them to support the NDP.
Even every pundit on TV said C51 would not be an election issue or a ballot issue (even NDP Ian Capstick said so on Power & Politics)
This is because "pundits" are no more likely to be correct about these things than any other reasonably well informed person. Their so-called expertise is actually just fakery. Try not to take them so seriously in the future.
Good advise'
I do think that Bill C-51 fires up a lot of progressives. But I really think Sean in Ottawa is right. This is less about one bill and more about a death from 1000 paper cuts. For a while, you won't even notice all the tiny nicks, until one day they fall over from massive blood loss.
For the past 3 years, Trudeau has said a lot of stupid things, even if they aren't major. He's been especially boneheaded about foreign policy. ("Whip out our CF-18s", "I admire China's basic dictatorship", "Russia lost in hockey, so they're in a bad mood", "address the root causes", mixing up Russian politicians, giving really mixed signals about ISIS, and hello ladies). Again, you could debate whether any of these matter, or if some of them are even mistakes at all. But when you connect all the tiny dots, it doesn't create a picture of someone who instills confidence on foreign policy and security.
When people already have an impression that Trudeau might be unserious, inconsistent, unreliable, or whatever adjective you want to use... his position on Bill C-51 was the worst possible position that he could have taken. Is he for it? Is he against it? Both! And on top of that, he said out loud that he didn't want a vote on a massive surveillance state to be an issue.
If you can't take a stand on an important piece of legislation, let alone stand up to Harper, how will voters believe that you'll stand up for the national interest?
Bill C-51 was just the final straw in a series of waffly, odd, flippant remarks.
All while Mulcair was quietly getting praise for being smart, hard working, and forceful.
A side effect is that people trust Mulcair about national security issues more than Trudeau. And I'd argue that it's not even half to do with his policy choices (left vs right), and more to do with the forcefulness and courage that he puts behind them.
"He acts like a Prime Minister". That's a thing for voters.
C-51 as a ballot issue is not a simple question. I don't think C-51 is THE ballot issue. I think it informs the ballot issue.
It is not the turning point in a decision to vote against the Conservatives-- it is an example of what we think of them: a confirmation. We see what they say and we see what the bill actually does and we do not trust anything Harper says or what he proposes. Trudeau's suitability to be PM has been a ballot issue since he won the leadership. His position on C-51 is a lightning rod for why people increasingly do not think he is suitable. Voting one way while rhetorically saying the opposite helped crystalize the suitability issue into the more basic trust issue.
Trudeau says he will amend the legislation into something completely different. What he will amend it to is not a ballot issue. This is a strong clue that it is not C-51 that is the issue but Trudeau himself. When Trudeau proposes things people are increasingly not as interested because they don't believe him -- the saying one thing and voting another. The transparent attempt to game the politics using a vote in the House has become a reason not to trust Trudeau. It is trust in Trudeau's opposition to Harper that has become an issue along with trust in him generally.
There is another example of the same issue: Trudeau stated he would not agree to a coalition even when most people opposed to Harper would want one if that would be the price to get rid of Harper. Trudeau also did not say he would not do a coalition with Harper. Trudeau is not trusted to oppose Harper or his policies.
So the ballot issue is trust. Both Conservatives and Liberals are on the wrong side of this issue. This is one of the worst issues to be on the wrong side of. It is almost impossible to remedy as people have stopped believing what you say so nothing works anymore. This is why I do not worry about Conservative ads. If people no longer trust him the ads won't work. Also, Trudeau's platform can no longer do much good if people no longer believe it.
I get why the pundits appear to have been wrong. There is nothing that would make C-51 on its own a ballot issue for most voters. Most barely understand it and would have taken it along party lines. It is only Trudeau's massive cloud of incoherence that has connected to the trust issue. How one issue feeds into another is less predictable. The coalition and the C-51 statements have fed into the trust issue. Trust is ALWAYS up there as a ballot issue even if we are only aware of it when it goes severely negative.
This is because "pundits" are no more likely to be correct about these things than any other reasonably well informed person. Their so-called expertise is actually just fakery. Try not to take them so seriously in the future.
Yes yes yes. No idea why some people don't understand this.
North Report, you're letting your partisanship get carried away!
I think you're misinterpreting what Chantal Hébert is saying. She is not shilling for the Liberals (in fact, she probably votes for Mulcair/NDP since she lives in Outremont).
Hébert is basically saying what Sean and other Babblers are saying on these very threads -- Harper is in danger of polarizing the electorate to such an extent that the Conservatives are in danger of losing support to the Opposition - whether it is the NDP or the Liberals. There is now a sizeable non-Conservative vote out there and despite the CPC budget and all of their focus on micro-targeting of specific demographics, they are in danger of peaking in support.
Actually I agree with Debater, that was my reading of her column as well.
It's been pretty rare in the past that we agree on anything. 
"He acts like a Prime Minister". That's a thing for voters.
Haven't posted in a long while but need to say PRECISELY to this. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing - I generally haven't liked how Prime Ministers act - but this is an intangible that is still very much in effect, and Mulcair has this in spades. Regardless of politics, or where one falls on the left/right spectrum, I'd say very few have a hard time imagining Mulcair filling the role. (Even with a beard, which stupid as an anti-beard bias may be, says a lot for the man's gravitas.)
Rachel Notley, I'd say, also acted like a Premier. She wasn't just an agent of change; she also convinced Albertans across partisan lines that she was serious, credible and trustworthy. It wasn't a fluke the anybody-but-Prentice vote gravitated to her.
Over the past few weeks, I've come to believe that either Stephen Harper or Tom Mulcair will be Prime Minister after the election, and that Justin Trudeau almost certainly will not be. Because most people, and more people all the time, can't imagine him filling that position. (Also, I'd say most people couldn't see Jack as PM, either. Even in the few weeks between the 2011 election and Layton's final illness, I presumed the NDP would need Mulcair as leader to make the final step to government.)
Now, Mulcair has a challenge ahead with the consortium debate. Without Harper, and should the NDP numbers hold or the party still be regarded as in contention, he will fill the role of the de facto incumbant. He will be everyone's target. The Liberals, Greens and Bloc can't grow unless they wound the New Democrats. I'm sure he'll know that, and I believe he's up to the task, but it won't be easy, and any slip will be pounced upon by the media. Just to caution against overconfidence.
"He acts like a Prime Minister". That's a thing for voters.
Another thing is that conservative-minded voters like a tough guy. I reckon Mulcair is about as tough as they come in Canadian politics - but only when he needs to be, which is reassuring.
Keep in mind that Justin Trudeau has a tough side -- he has a ruthless aspect to him sometimes, and he's also a boxer who picked up a lot of support because of the Brazeau fight and his ability to break away from the pretty boy image.
This latest bump in the polls by Mulcair could give Justin a kick in the ass and remind him that he has to stop playing it safe like he had been in recent months and get back to his tough-guy boxing image again.
Keep in mind that Justin Trudeau has a tough side -- he has a ruthless aspect to him sometimes, and he's also a boxer who picked up a lot of support because of the Brazeau fight and his ability to break away from the pretty boy image.
This latest bump in the polls by Mulcair could give Justin a kick in the ass and remind him that he has to stop playing it safe like he had been in recent months and get back to his tough-guy boxing image again.
Debater, the toughness I have in mind is not what many people can display in a ritualized situation like a boxing match for charity against a fellow parliamentarian. It's what comes through when you don't know what's coming at you next or whether you're going to survive (physically or politically) but you're still able to deply all your resouces effectively and give the best possible account of yourself. Part of this is knowing you have the resources to deplay, which in a political contest I think Mulcair does; but I'm not sure that Justin Trudeau does. Trudeau depends a lot on the judgements of other people, and it appears that he can't rely on those other people, for example on Bill C-51.
Agree with Debater that Trudeau could stand to have a fight or two. Everything that Trudeau does seems consultant-driven, wrapped up in marketing of "we're new, and we're not extreme". But in trying to avoid a not-extreme position on Bill C-51, he's actually stumbled into an indefensible position, let alone that he openly said he took that position because he was afraid of how Harper might paint his position. That's not courage or strength or leadership.
I've never cared much about "looks like a prime minister", and I really would like to see someone truly break the mold. But that "looks like a prime minister" stuff matters to my parents, and it seems to be paying off for Mulcair.
"He acts like a Prime Minister". That's a thing for voters.
Now, Mulcair has a challenge ahead with the consortium debate. Without Harper, and should the NDP numbers hold or the party still be regarded as in contention, he will fill the role of the de facto incumbant. He will be everyone's target. The Liberals, Greens and Bloc can't grow unless they wound the New Democrats. I'm sure he'll know that, and I believe he's up to the task, but it won't be easy, and any slip will be pounced upon by the media. Just to caution against overconfidence.
Hadn't thought about that aspect... that in the Harper-less debates, Mulcair will become the target. I think you're right. I wonder if he can turn that around and practice acting prime ministerial... he has the qualities.
Keep in mind that Justin Trudeau has a tough side -- he has a ruthless aspect to him sometimes, and he's also a boxer who picked up a lot of support because of the Brazeau fight and his ability to break away from the pretty boy image.
This latest bump in the polls by Mulcair could give Justin a kick in the ass and remind him that he has to stop playing it safe like he had been in recent months and get back to his tough-guy boxing image again.
Perhaps. But I think the boxing match parallel is a stretch when applied to the political forum. In fact, not only a stretch, but just wrong.
The boxing match featured Trudeau, who's been boxing all his life, against Brazeau, who looked stronger and had experience in the military and (allegedly) a black belt in karate. But, regardless of strength and other unrelated skills (karate skills simply do not translate into any advantage in a boxing ring), Trudeau had a longer reach and experience. So the result should not have surprised anyone.
In the political realm, Mulcair has far more experience than Trudeau, and his past training as a lawyer gives him a farther reach than Trudeau. Trudeau putting on the tough guy image would be the same as Brazeau putting on his "Speedo-clad look how tough I am" image before being knocked senseless. I expect Trudeau to continue to fall and eventually be knocked out as the main choice of who is the best candidate to beat Harper.
Keep in mind that Justin Trudeau has a tough side -- he has a ruthless aspect to him sometimes, and he's also a boxer who picked up a lot of support because of the Brazeau fight and his ability to break away from the pretty boy image.
This latest bump in the polls by Mulcair could give Justin a kick in the ass and remind him that he has to stop playing it safe like he had been in recent months and get back to his tough-guy boxing image again.
Debater, the toughness I have in mind is not what many people can display in a ritualized situation like a boxing match for charity against a fellow parliamentarian. It's what comes through when you don't know what's coming at you next or whether you're going to survive (physically or politically) but you're still able to deply all your resouces effectively and give the best possible account of yourself. Part of this is knowing you have the resources to deplay, which in a political contest I think Mulcair does; but I'm not sure that Justin Trudeau does. Trudeau depends a lot on the judgements of other people, and it appears that he can't rely on those other people, for example on Bill C-51.
There is no evidence that Trudeau relies more or less on the judgement of other people. It is far too soon to assume that C-51 will have any impact five months from now especially if Trudeau puts amendments to it in his platform.
Mulcair is absolutely the better debater but Trudeau has a rock solid confidence in himself and a good team.
The boxing match is a good metaphor, but before the match Trudeau said that he is consistently underestimated because he is not like his father so he is used to having to prove himself. He said before the match that he had trained and was confident that he could win or he wouldn't be fighting. He won because he fought strategically. He took blows until he saw stars to weaken Brazeau. He began to fight back at the end of the second round. He went full out in the third round.
We are now at the beginning of the second round. It will end when the writ is dropped and round three begins.
If you are right and Trudeau really is weak then he will be knocked out in round three but I wouldn't bet on it. Trudeau is a disciplined fighter able to pull his punches until he is ready to come out swinging. Right now he is not fighting back but that doesn't mean he never will.
There is no evidence that Trudeau relies more or less on the judgement of other people. It is far too soon to assume that C-51 will have any impact five months from now especially if Trudeau puts amendments to it in his platform.
His support of Bill C-51 was a cynical shallow nasty move based upon the assumption that if polls (especially in Quebec) showed people in favour of it, then regardless of whether it undermines the Charter or not, he'll support it. Gutless.
Now, Mulcair has a challenge ahead with the consortium debate. Without Harper, and should the NDP numbers hold or the party still be regarded as in contention, he will fill the role of the de facto incumbant. He will be everyone's target. The Liberals, Greens and Bloc can't grow unless they wound the New Democrats. I'm sure he'll know that, and I believe he's up to the task, but it won't be easy, and any slip will be pounced upon by the media. Just to caution against overconfidence.
This is exactly what will happen. All three parties will be looking to take support from the NDP and not much from each other, so a gang-up is inevitable. However, doing this will cement Mulcair as the guy to beat and legitimise him as an option for PM. If Mulcair handles their attacks (which I think he will) then it will be a huge boost to his image.
This whole debate thing is working out so well for the NDP. Harper couldn't have handed the party a better gift. I hope he sticks to his guns on this stupid idea. :)
Agreed. Harper has based it on his erroneous belief that the NDP is an easier foe than the Liberals. After Mulcair flattens Trudeau at the consortium debates, establishing him as the main alternative to Harper, Mulcair will flatten Harper in the other debates and become prime minister.
Good riddance Harpo.
Ther CBC were the last media on the planet to clue into what was happening in Alberta, and they seem to be doing the same thing federally.
Typical CBC windbag, full of aspirations for the non-existent Liberals.
Parties playing game of chicken with federal election debates
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parties-playing-game-of-chicken-with-fed...
The good ship Liberal has been taking on water for some time. It was easy to ignore the leaks because it appeared to floating high and mighty with its dashing captain. But after a period of time, the leaks have taken their toll and the good ship Liberal is sinking.
Now many people are asking when Trudeau is going to show some leadership ability and prevent the good ship Liberal from sinking below the surface. There isn't much time left to do that and it's got a lot of Liberals worried.
When I read or listen to what the pundits are saying about Trudeau it makes me think of this famous commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
Where's the Beef
Huge jumps for the NDP in the UBC election stock market. Liberals not so much.
Defense chief: Iraqis don’t have ‘will to fight’ ISIS
Greg Jaffe and Loveday Morris
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s comments about the shakiness of Iraq’s troops reflect frustration and surprise in the Obama administration.
Agreed. Harper has based it on his erroneous belief that the NDP is an easier foe than the Liberals. After Mulcair flattens Trudeau at the consortium debates, establishing him as the main alternative to Harper, Mulcair will flatten Harper in the other debates and become prime minister.
Good riddance Harpo.
The non-consortium debates will be held at a timing convenient to Harper
Agreed. Harper has based it on his erroneous belief that the NDP is an easier foe than the Liberals. After Mulcair flattens Trudeau at the consortium debates, establishing him as the main alternative to Harper, Mulcair will flatten Harper in the other debates and become prime minister.
Good riddance Harpo.
I'd be cautious about making predictions that Mulcair will "flatten" both Trudeau & Harper. He may not flatten either one of them. There will be a lot of factors at work, and one risk that is present for Mulcair is not to appear so fired up to go after his opponents that he looks like a chainsaw trying to tear them all down. Michael Den Tandt brought up this point a few days ago, and it bears keeping in mind.
Keep in mind that Justin Trudeau has a tough side -- he has a ruthless aspect to him sometimes, and he's also a boxer who picked up a lot of support because of the Brazeau fight and his ability to break away from the pretty boy image.
This latest bump in the polls by Mulcair could give Justin a kick in the ass and remind him that he has to stop playing it safe like he had been in recent months and get back to his tough-guy boxing image again.
Debater, the toughness I have in mind is not what many people can display in a ritualized situation like a boxing match for charity against a fellow parliamentarian. It's what comes through when you don't know what's coming at you next or whether you're going to survive (physically or politically) but you're still able to deply all your resouces effectively and give the best possible account of yourself. Part of this is knowing you have the resources to deplay, which in a political contest I think Mulcair does; but I'm not sure that Justin Trudeau does. Trudeau depends a lot on the judgements of other people, and it appears that he can't rely on those other people, for example on Bill C-51.
There is no evidence that Trudeau relies more or less on the judgement of other people. It is far too soon to assume that C-51 will have any impact five months from now especially if Trudeau puts amendments to it in his platform.
It is absolutely clear that the entire show is run by Butts, as anyone who follows him on Twitter. Lately he has taken to floating out of context excerpts from Brad Lavigne's book to make the case that the NDP and the Conservatives are colluding on the debate issue. And, most laughably trying to make the case that the NDP collaborated in an effort to sink Dion through unscrupulous smears -- a totally ironic charge in the light of the fact that it was the NDP that tried to make Dion Prime Minister in 2008, and it was the Liberal Party that prevented it by ousting him and replacing him with the Beltway Democrat.
It's been lively, Pondering, but everything I have been saying about the Mulcair vs. Trudeau matchup had been proven right, and the Tortoise is now ahead of the Hare.
In Today Globe and Mail C51 has backfired badly on the Liberals
The Conservatives start their last push to pass their controversial security bill this week, but it’s Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau who is getting squeezed.
His decision to choose the safe, popular position on Bill C-51 has backfired and become a significant weakness.
That’s not because the bill is now massively unpopular. A campaign against it has lowered its once sky-high approval ratings, but not to the floor. Many of those who really care, especially left-leaning voters, were looking for someone to oppose the bill and Mr. Trudeau didn’t. The NDP’s Thomas Mulcair did.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/
Despite what pundits and pollsters said would not be a ballot or election issue HAS
And that benefits the NDP
Sometimes you have to go with conviction, and not worry about polling. This is one of those cases.
Tories IGNORE Mulcair and NDP rise in polls and go after Trudeau HARD in new attack ad
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/new-tory-atta...
Which means they see the rise of the NDP as good for them, because it splits the vote and allows the Cons to come up the middle.
To push the Libs down and ignore the NDP, as they rise up.
Most shocking line in the ad?
PM says “You can’t be bound by ideology!”
Tories IGNORE Mulcair and NDP rise in polls and go after Trudeau HARD in new attack ad
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/new-tory-atta...
Which means they see the rise of the NDP as good for them, because it splits the vote and allows the Cons to come up the middle.
To push the Libs down and ignore the NDP, as they rise up.
I would say it has more to do with the ads already being produced prior to the recent rise in the polls for the NDP. And, that the Conservatives are attacking where they see weakness. Further, their strategy is to eliminate Trudeau as a serious option for voters and then during the election make it a choice between the "socialist hordes" and the Conservatives. They probably plan on trying to scare voters into voting for them by showing that the election is between these two choices, a strategy they used at the end of the last election that caused "Blue Liberals" in Ontario to vote Conservative.
a strategy they used at the end of the last election that caused "Blue Liberals" in Ontario to vote Conservative.
I doubt that would happen this time because those Blue Libs are more likely to back Trudeau than Ignatieff.
They would rather have a minority Parliment than a Con majority after seeing what has gone on the last four years.
Tories IGNORE Mulcair and NDP rise in polls and go after Trudeau HARD in new attack ad
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/new-tory-atta...
Which means they see the rise of the NDP as good for them, because it splits the vote and allows the Cons to come up the middle.
To push the Libs down and ignore the NDP, as they rise up.
Most shocking line in the ad?
PM says “You can’t be bound by ideology!”
Iveson is wrong in his analysis that the CPC see the Liberals as the main threat.
And it also does not mean that the CPC strategy will work either -- but here it is.
Ads are not about who you think is the threat-- they are about winning. In a three party race-- it makes just as much sense going after the third party as it does the second. You go after the votes. At this point the CPC is just trying to go after the votes they think they can get.
The CPC are now going after the Liberals not becuase they are the threat but because they are vulnerable. They are by definition more vulnerable than the NDP becuase the presumption is that NDP voters would never consider the Conservatives while at least some Liberals will. Further, this particular attack ad will not work on Liberals that might lean to the NDP-- it is designed for those who could lean to the Conservatives. (The message for NDP leaning Liberals we can already imagine -- would include C-51 etc.)
The point is the CPC want to target those voters who are in the Liberal column who might be persuaded to come to them and the ad is designed for that target. So too is Harper's leadership ad. This is designed to appeal to the same people.
The strategy to defeat the NDP relies on a couple things:
1) pull more Liberals to the CPC than the NDP can get from the Liberals. Might or might not work but ti is the only thing they can do. And in this strategy it works whether the Liberals are first or second.
2) Ignore the NDP now as acknowledging them might serve to help them by moving Liberals to the NDP. By pretending the threat is Liberal the Conservatives delay oravoid a polarization to the NDP rather than hurry it along
3) If the Liberals do not lose enough support to the Conservatives to beat the NDP, they can come in at the last moment with scary NDP ads about destroying the economy etc. but those ads have to be last minute or the NDP can counter them
The Conservative ads do not rely on a firm conclusion of which opposition party is ahead.
a strategy they used at the end of the last election that caused "Blue Liberals" in Ontario to vote Conservative.
I doubt that would happen this time because those Blue Libs are more likely to back Trudeau than Ignatieff.
They would rather have a minority Parliment than a Con majority after seeing what has gone on the last four years.
I agree that this strategy is not likely to work but it is the play the Conservatives have. They target the voters they think have the most chance of going to them
Tories IGNORE Mulcair and NDP rise in polls and go after Trudeau HARD in new attack ad
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/new-tory-atta...
Which means they see the rise of the NDP as good for them, because it splits the vote and allows the Cons to come up the middle.
To push the Libs down and ignore the NDP, as they rise up.
Most shocking line in the ad?
PM says “You can’t be bound by ideology!”
The new Mulcair ads are very good. Modest in their pitch but very professional, which makes them look like government-in-waitingesque. The ads could still be easy to satirize but aesthetically they remind me most of Reagan's "It's morning in America" ads, except that the message is let's get Canada back on the right track, a line which seems to be polling fairly strongly against the government. They look like many ads international Labour and the provincial NDP have had when running for government. Mulcair has also set up a distinction in some, appearing to say that Canadians can have economic growth and a healthy environment. Voters can have their cake and eat it too. Whether the public will believe it or not is a better question, but this ads seem to lay out the first attempt to do just that.
The interesting thing about the recent Conservative attack ad on Trudeau is how soft it is. In summing up the discussion, a woman proclaims, "I’m not saying no forever, but not now.” So, unlike the earlier ads or the ads on Ignatieff or Dion, they're not completely writing him off as a choice. They're just saying he's not yet ready.
Most shocking line in the ad?
PM says “You can’t be bound by ideology!”
I actually thought it was a good ad. The "can't be bound by ideology" line was delivered alongside a headline which showed "Canada's Harper pins future on $40 billion stimulus package". Given that the Cons generally speak of favouring debt reduction rather than interventionist stimulus spending, the not being bound by ideology line made sense.
That said, the scene showed an auto plant, which apparently is the same one that now is being cut, which hardly supports their premise that they're good stewards of the economy. Boneheaded Cons.
OF COURSE Evan Soloman says the Tories are targetting Trudeau because he's the big threat, not, that his support is the softest, as just tweeted by the Pundit's Guide. I HATE, Conventional Wisdom. And Soloman, what a stupid, Pompous, Loud-mouthed, Self-Absorbed, A**!
OF COURSE Evan Soloman says the Tories are targetting Trudeau because he's the big threat, not, that his support is the softest, as just tweeted by the Pundit's Guide. I HATE, Conventional Wisdom. And Soloman, what a stupid, Pompous, Loud-mouthed, Self-Absorbed, A**!
Arthur,
You forgot 'Liberal shill' as well!
I think the Tories have been sitting on that attack ad for a while. They're putting it out now because they see Trudeau on his way to third place, and maybe want to hasten the process.
But do they know how they're going to go after the NDP? Or is it going to be the usual red-baiting that backfired in Alberta?
The Cons made an anti-Mulcair ad and it fell totally flat. I think they just don't know what to do with him. They're waiting for some weakness to open up and so far they haven't seen it. Justin is a dartboard of vulnerabilities by comparison.
In the old marketing con games "the promoter" would come with his cases of snake oil panacea."Step right up", and the first person who bought was always a plant. With any luck, other spectators would buy the goods, and the planted person would get a shilling on the pound, or 5%. Hence the expression "shill", as if the political party gets the pound, the shills get to make their shilling a week in the political offices.
Apparently the Liberals have two ads coming out on Wednesday, one of which will be an attack ad on the Conservatives.
The Liberals have an ad on their webpage that features shots of a family and then Trudeau talks about money for childcare.
I found their attack ad against the Conservatives: https://www.facebook.com/LiberalCA/videos/10152782169467007/
Interesting that they criticize the Conservatives for having "disdain for the Charter" when they too supported Bill C-51.
