Yesterday, I spent an hour teaching my dad how our elections work, because of...

21 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2015-10-13 21:14

Cody87

This ad.

I don't understand how the posters on this board can act like the NDP is better than the LPC when the NDP has stooped to this level. Remember Ignatieff's Red door blue door moment?

How did that work out for him?

So far I've blamed all of the NDP's sins this election on Tom Mulcair. I'm beginning to believe I was mistaken. The argument this flyer is trying to make is system-wide. People in multiple ridings have reported getting door knocks from NDP candidates and volunteers pushing this narrative - including in CPC/LPC swing ridings where the NDP is a distant third. Tom Mulcair said it in an interview yesterday. There are flyers. This isn't Tom Mulcair making a petty jab. This isn't some ill-considered radio ads. The entire party is complicit in this lie.

I am beyond disgusted. I don't believe for one minute that Jack Layton would condone this. I don't even recognize the NDP anymore. The NDP, this election, has acted 100% like the Liberal party of old, right down to the hubris.

And you know what...I bet most of you are going to laugh this off. "It's fine, it's just a little white lie, only the NDP can save the country so if the public is misled it's just for their own good."

Well, consider this: during the Mike Duffy trial, Nigel Wright testified that he thought the "Duffy paid his own expenses" line was a "good lie" because the most important thing was to protect the CPC brand, because the CPC knows what's best for Canadians even if Canadians don't.

So maybe I was wrong. Maybe the NDP isn't mimicking the LPC. Maybe it's the CPC the NDP really looks up to.

Tue, 2015-10-13 21:33

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
This isn't some ill-considered radio ads. The entire party is complicit in this lie.

I read all eight paragraphs, but you didn't tell us what the "lie" was.

Also, when you had to explain elections to your father (!!!) was it as awkward as when he had to tell you where babies come from?

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:10

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
This isn't some ill-considered radio ads. The entire party is complicit in this lie.

I read all eight paragraphs, but you didn't tell us what the "lie" was.

Also, when you had to explain elections to your father (!!!) was it as awkward as when he had to tell you where babies come from?

Very well. For those here who wish to pretend that there is a single person on this board who doesn't understand how elections work.

"Justin Trudeau needs 100 seats to form government. Tom Mulcair needs 35."

For Tom Mulcair to form government with only 35 seats in a house of commons with 338 seats, he would need to somehow coerce a much larger party to support him as Prime Minister, which isn't going to happen.

Of course, what the flyer means to say is that Tom Mulcair needs to win 35 more seats than Jack Layton won, while Justin Trudeau needs to win 100 seats more than Michael Ignatieff won. This would be true, but as I have mentioned, this is exactly the same logic Ignatieff tried to use on "ABC" voters in 2011 by suggesting that voters only had two options - it backfired terribly, and rightfully so.

The ad says "Only Tom Mulcair can beat Stephen Harper." The suggestion that the results of last election have any bearing on who can win in the current election is entirely false - it's playing entirely to voter ignorance. It's like the NDP doesn't even understand why people don't like Stephen Harper.

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:20

pookie

What's particularly stupid is their related argument that this tactic is kosher because incumbency is so valuable.

Incumbency. Hmmm. Like Quebec in 2011?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:30

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Of course, what the flyer means to say is that Tom Mulcair needs to win 35 more seats than Jack Layton won, while Justin Trudeau needs to win 100 seats more than Michael Ignatieff won.

OK. Which of these is the lie??

Or are they both?

Don't prattle on and on. Just tell us about this lie you claimed.

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:35

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Of course, what the flyer means to say is that Tom Mulcair needs to win 35 more seats than Jack Layton won, while Justin Trudeau needs to win 100 seats more than Michael Ignatieff won.

OK. Which of these is the lie??

Or are they both?

Don't prattle on and on. Just tell us about this lie you claimed.

This part.

Quote:
The ad says "Only Tom Mulcair can beat Stephen Harper." The suggestion that the results of last election have any bearing on who can win in the current election is entirely false

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:41

jas

Cody87 wrote:

I think it's excellent.

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:41

pookie

The lie is that either of these parties needs only some number of seats to "add" to their pre-writ total to "form govt".

They ALL stand at zero.

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:53

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
This part.

Ah. I see.

If "we think we're the best choice for a better government" is a lie than all of electioneering is.

Quote:
The lie is that either of these parties needs only some number of seats to "add" to their pre-writ total to "form govt".

They ALL stand at zero.

Fair point. Nobody gets to keep their former seats.

But srsly though. We all truly and genuinely believe that Mulcair is really, genuinely saying that if the NDP seat count is 35 on Oct. 20 that he'll form government? Or do we maybe actually see what he means?

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:55

#10

Catchfire

Yeah it's kind of dumb, but as straws go, if I were a camel I would take this one and then some.

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:56

#11

mark_alfred

There's a slight advantage to incumbency.

Tue, 2015-10-13 22:58

#12

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
This part.

Ah. I see.

If "we think we're the best choice for a better government" is a lie than all of electioneering is.

If the ad said, "we think we're the best choice for a better government," I would have no issue. That's not even close to what the ad says, and you know it.

Quote:

But srsly though. We all truly and genuinely believe that Mulcair is really, genuinely saying that if the NDP seat count is 35 on Oct. 20 that he'll form government? Or do we maybe actually see what he means?

I already addressed this, and you know it. I'd chastise you for pretending to be obtuse, but it's bumping the thread so thanks for that.

Tue, 2015-10-13 23:02

#13

pookie

mark_alfred wrote:

There's a slight advantage to incumbency.

As I said: Quebec. 2011. Doesn't seem like the NDP's strongest card.

Second, there are alot of incumbent-free seats this time.

Tue, 2015-10-13 23:20

#14

Aristotleded24

I get the sense that the NDP was always wanting to play this card, because of the communications they sent out regarding which seats were close. I even remember them targeting a few seats last time with bar charts of recent elections to remind people who could beat the Conservatives.

But yeah, I do agree that taking for granted that they are going to hold onto their seats is a bit shaky.

Tue, 2015-10-13 23:44

#15

JKR

I think most people are aware that a party needs more than 35 seats to form government. I think the NDP probably planned this ad before the Liberals moved into first place in the polls. I hope this ad does not backfire on the NDP.

Tue, 2015-10-13 23:46

#16

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP is simply claiming that the hill they have to climb is not as steep. I don't think it is a particularly strong message but it may work for some. I don't see how it is a lie or a scandal -- we hear talk of gaining seats over the previous election and I have hear this kind of reference before by many journalists.

I could argue that the NDP should have used a stronger message but there is nothing there people do not understand and so there is no misrepresentation.

Not brilliant in my mind but not a major problem either.

Tue, 2015-10-13 23:56

#17

quizzical

i think the Lierals taking it for granted they're going to get 105 more seats a bit shakey lol.

Wed, 2015-10-14 08:32

#18

Doug Woodard

Cody87, I think you're being a bit literal-minded here. I think that the number of people who wouldn't understand that "more" seats was implied is fairly small. although I think that the NDP was unwise not to say it explicitly, because I think that most people also grasp that the NDP is glossing over some obvious things, like Pookie's point that thery all start from zero when the writ is issued. It's especially embarassing when the Liberals have been competitive or leading for a while.

Wed, 2015-10-14 09:00

#19

Northern PoV

Here we are, down to short strokes (like 3.6M others, I voted already), and we are still throwing crap at each other.

Of course the parties remain hyper-partisan. It is not like we put Nathan and Joyce in charge, is it kids?

No, we each picked a warrior. A fight to the death. So productive. And a sad reflection of the partisanship that has given Harper a free ride.

Partisan? Go help your party in your own riding... or one nearby: Why are the NDP folks campaigning for a loser in Vancouver Center when they could help a potential winner in Burnaby North Seymour?

If you haven't voted, consider voting ABC. We need to put a silver stake through the (political) heart of Harper and his regime.

Fri, 2015-10-16 16:54

#20

Doug Woodard

There is sometimes an indistinct line between untruth and permissible hyperbole. My favourite example of the latter is from J. B. Salsberg, a Communist member of Toronto City Council 1938-1943. He was attacked for taking directions from Moscow, and he replied, "You're right. I got a telegram from Joe Stalin this morning ordering me to ask for a park for Ward 4."

Fri, 2015-10-16 17:30

#21

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I could argue that the NDP should have used a stronger message but there is nothing there people do not understand and so there is no misrepresentation.

To be fair, it took Cody87's dad a full HOUR to wrap his head around it.

"Wait, son, slow down a minute! what do you mean by '35 more?' More what??... you've lost me!"