Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

Ken Burch wrote:

You can't seriously still be arguing that progressives should vote Liberal rather than NDP.  After C-51, and with the Liberals in third place and clearly to the NDP's right the how can you possibly still justify that position?

What possible good can still come of arguing that only the two old parties should be considered for the role of governing?

My comment was an observation on tactics coupled with the opinion that Trudeau will do well in the Maclean's debate.

I have never argued that only the two old parties should be considered. Voters should consider all the parties.

The Liberals will soon be in first place. When they are will you promote them?

I don't like C-51 so I await the modifications to it.

Here is one of the reasons I don't care for Mulcair. This is a translation of comments from a recent interview.

https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lactualit...

Does the abolition of the Senate will be a subject of the election campaign?

I'll make an issue. Two thirds of Quebecers want to abolish it. It is a historical position of the NDP, and it starts with a warrant on 19 October. It's difficult, you have to work with the provinces, but it is not impossible.

Quebec is against abolishing the Senate, Philippe Couillard said clearly ...

This is the classic position of Quebec, which feels excluded from the 1982 Constitution, and rightly so, because the province did not sign the document. I understand that. But I refuse to believe that our institutions, even as anti-democratic that the Senate can no longer improve.

Do we can abolish the Senate without opening a cycle of broader constitutional negotiations that would include the demands of Quebec and First Nations?

I am looking for a strong mandate to abolish the Senate, not to launch a constitutional negotiation. I'll take my pilgrim's staff to convince the premiers. In the case of Quebec, we can answer some claims by other means. For example, the historical demand of the right of withdrawal of federal programs with full compensation, it is also the position of our party since 2006. We can make a law or a formal agreement, which will be very difficult to terminate.

Support for separatism is at an all-time low but Mulcair keeps stirring the pot. The people of Quebec are not calling for the above especially after the massive corruption found throughout municipal and provincial government. He is offering up my right to federally administered programs in exchange for his pet project of senate abolition. The Sherbrooke Declaration is why I don't support the NDP but I have other reasons for not supporting Mulcair and the party. I won't share them here because this thread is about Trudeau's campaign.

Neither the NDP nor the Liberals can be called progressive. They each have some progressive policies.

I have considered all three main parties and consider the Liberals the least unpalatable.

The NDP are riding high now but their platform isn't widely known. He got tons of brownie points for opposing C-51 but that will not last forever. Both Harper and Trudeau will press him on Quebec.

The first major test of the leaders is the debate on Thursday. If Trudeau is as bad as his detractors claim it will be revealed.

I think something entirely different will be revealed.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Mulcair hasn't been painting Trudeau as a dufus. You're going to need to cite some quotes for that. Just because many voters have concluded on their own that he's a flawed and ineffective candidate, it doesn't mean that Mulcair is responsible, let alone engaging in name calling.

What the NDP leadership has been doing is taking Trudeau 100% seriously. Voting for Bill C-51 is 100% serious. Slamming a coalition is 100% serious. The broken promises of past Liberal governments are 100% serious.

Mulcair avoids saying Trudeau's name and has been dismissive of Trudeau every bit as much as Harper has been.

But that's okay. Not a problem because people will form their own opinions of him. Trudeau will either prove them right or wrong on August 6th which is right around the corner. Am I the only one looking forward to the debates?

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

There's a HUGE difference between painting Trudeau and Harper with the same brush versus painting Trudeau as a dufus. I hear more Liberals talking about Trudeau's supposed lack of intellect than the NDP. If anything, Mulcair's strategy is to point out past Liberal failures on the environment, on corruption, and on keeping promises.

Personally, I'm less worried about what Trudeau says by mistake, and more worried about what he's done on purpose.

Mulcair hasn't been painting Harper and Trudeau with the same brush. He avoids mentioning Trudeau's name and he is condescending towards him.

Liberal history is old news. Trudeau represents generational change. People will judge him and his team on their own merits.

Mulcair suggests the Liberals and Conservatives are the same. Harper suggests the Liberals and NDP are the same.

Negative advertising worked on Dion, because he really wasn't a leader. His English was too weak and he didn't have presence. Ignatieff was "just visiting".

Whether or not Trudeau is "ready" will be determined by the people. If they deem him to be ready then continued attacks on his background and maturity will come off as personal attacks and condescending treatment will backfire.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

So Pondering is trying their new strategy: say that Harper's dirty tricks are also Mulcair's dirty tricks. 

It isn't a dirty trick. It is par for the course politic tactics. We will see what Mulcair's attitude is towards Trudeau during the debate Thursday night.

Back to the main topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/04/trudeau-harper-focus-energy-on-k...

TORONTO — Stephen Harper may feel he's on a first-name basis with Justin Trudeau, but the Liberal leader isn't rising to the prime minister's bait.

Trudeau was first out on the campaign trail today, unveiling the Liberal campaign bus at an early rally in Mississauga, Ont.  

He dismissed as a "distraction" Harper's apparent preference for referring to his Liberal rival simply as "Justin," dropping his famous last name, while ignoring a Canadian economy that's sliding into recession.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

At least get your story straight. Is Mulcair calling Trudeau a dufus, or is he not mentioning Trudeau at all.

 

I don't have a "story" I have an opinion. This isn't a debate to me, it's just a conversation. My impression of Mulcair is that he avoids mentioning Trudeau and when he does it's in a disrespectful condescending manner. Nobody is going to take my word for it, they will form their own opinions, and Mulcair's attitude may change.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Trudeau might be able to address Harper's tactics of painting him as "not ready", but the NDP is going to focus on the Liberal party's actual votes, broken promises, and vague non-answers.

Mulcair is as fond of saying "the Liberals and the Conservatives" as Harper is saying "the NDP and the Liberals." I agree that Mulcair is going to focus on old history to try to tar Trudeau with the sins of the past. Maybe it will work, maybe not, I think not but we shall see.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I actually expect Trudeau to do well, because he's obviously has a high level of verbal intelligence. He scored well on his LSATs after all. (But to hear his reasons for why he didn't go to law school are telling: his problem is not his intelligence.)

His reasons are he didn't like it. It was a direction his father steered him towards. He has money so he had the luxury of education for its own sake and to choose a profession he enjoys.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Another reason Trudeau will do well is because the Liberal campaign is going to make this election about style instead of policy. Trudeau's policies aren't clear enough or different enough from Harper's, so you will see people like Pondering try to equate Mulcair and Harper on style. 

Just the opposite. Trudeau is going to make it about policy.

I don't need to equate Mulcair and Harper on style. People will or won't see similarities for themselves. Nothing I say is going to make a difference. It simply forms part of my reasoning that's all.

nicky wrote:

Sheila Copps doesn't seem to think ver highly of Justin. https://twitter.com/sheila_copps/status/590155466157662209[/quote]

Trudeau agrees that he is not like his father and he isn't trying to be.

Ken Burch wrote:

There is no such thing as the NDP putting down Trudeau.  Nobody cares whether Mulcair calls the guy by his first or last name.  And there's no nostalgia for Justin's dad, either...dude's been dead for fifteen years.

If Chretien didn't legalize pot, no Liberal government ever will. 

I think it makes Mulcair look pompous and silly at the same time which will contribute to general opinion about his character. That's only if he keeps it up, but I suspect he will. You and SD deny it is happening in which case it won't have any impact at all.

Talkback Montreal says only 26% of viewers will be watching the Macleans debate and it might be the only one Mulcair participates in unless Harper takes on another French debate.

Mulcair has accepted 2 debates.

Trudeau has accepted 5 debates.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

How people look. 

For a guy who keeps saying that the Trudeau campaign will be about policy, we never seem to hear much about it.

I'm not a guy and I have discussed policy numerous times. Also, people here are not interested in discussing Trudeau's policies just slamming them and if they can't slam it they say he won't keep his word. If there is a policy you would like to discuss the merits of I'd be happy to.

http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/