salsa
Senior Member
More votes for May will only benefit Harper on election day.
|
|
|
2015 Federal Election
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
More votes for May will only benefit Harper on election day.
ttk77
Senior Member
I'm not so sure about that. I know a number of conservatives who consider the Green party a safe place to park their vote when upset with their usually first choice party. Other than environmental issues they don't stray too far to the left, and they don't have the partisan baggage that the Liberals and NDP have. I think May is capable of swaying just as many Conservative voters as she is Liberal or NDP voters.
salsa
Senior Member
Anecdotes aside, many articles I read portrays the Green Party as a competitor to the NDP. I feel that the federal by-elections from a couple years ago is the best example of how the Green Party contributes to vote splitting and ultimately works against the ultimate goal of getting rid of Harper. In Calgary Centre, somehow the Greens managed to grab 25% of the votes, but if just a small number of those votes went to the Liberal candidate instead then he would have won. And in Victoria, the Greens won by less than 1% of the vote, but it was enough to prevent the NPD candidate from winning. If this were to happen again in the upcoming election, Mulcair would have one less seat in parliament because of it. With the Green Party gaining in popularity, the progressive vote is now being split three ways rather than two.
Attachments
Last edited:
Videodrome
Senior Member
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant
When the National Post puts this on their site, it says a lot.
When the National Post puts this on their site, it says a lot.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
The Post also put this on their site:
"Justin Trudeau ekes out win in leaders debate with no knockout punches, little high drama"
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...te-with-no-knockout-punches-little-high-drama
"Justin Trudeau ekes out win in leaders debate with no knockout punches, little high drama"
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...te-with-no-knockout-punches-little-high-drama
Videodrome
Senior Member
The NP will probably still endorse Harper.
JGHali
Active Member
Okay, while I don't really disagree with any of this, the Greens most certainly did not win in Victoria in that by-election. Best to look at the final results.
Having said all that, I don't think the Greens are actually gaining in support. And Elizabeth May's past logic about defeating Harper at any cost most certainly does not square with supporting her party. She was good, of course, because she's done this before. I didn't much like her closing statement, though, which seemed like little more than "name-dropping" her candidates.
As for the rest, Trudeau probably had the best, most engaging style of the night. That worked pretty well for softer, easier questions, and utterly failed when he had to respond on any controversial issues. Like on C-51, which he admitted he might have been "naive" to support. His words! It was clearly a tactical decision made without regard to principle and it is, largely, an indefensible position (at least from its critics opinions).
Similarly, his intervention on the Clarity Act represents an appalling attempt to foment a "wedge" issue on a very serious subject. I was singularly unimpressed by his failure to respond to Mulcair's direct question, particularly since the Supreme Court said nothing about what a "clear majority" might be apart from that it would be for the "political actors to determine" (http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do). But then that's also why the Clarity Act itself is bad legislation - it doesn't define much of anything, and leaves the definition of a "clear majority" to the federal government to be decided after a future referendum. You have to pick a number, in advance, and it has to be something with domestic and international precedent (see, for example, Scotland in 2014 which provided only for a simple majority). Mulcair made the point that allowing for some supermajority - to be decided after the vote - clouds the nature of the question. If the threshold is 60%, what are the implications of a 55% yes vote? 57%? 53%? If the Liberals had something substantive behind their criticisms, I might be less unimpressed with Trudeau on this, but accusations of "making it easier" to "break up" Canada are beyond the pale. As I recall, it was the Liberals that came within a hair of losing the 1995 referendum, and at the time the federal performance in the "No" campaign had been widely criticized. And we didn't use anything other than a simple majority then either.
Now, needless to say, I do like Mulcair's ideas best and I do think he articulated them pretty well. But he absolutely held back far too much. More interjections in the beginning would have helped, and while he eventually hit his stride, he only just got by on "style" points (which, ultimately, aren't that important). It's interesting that in this election he will have a chance to change that around, something rarely if ever present in past elections (and I do still miss Jack).
Harper was abysmal. He came off as defensive, dismissive, condescending, and unlikeable. I won't bother talking about his answers because they were, mostly, BS.
Paul Wells was okay. I guess. I think overall this was far too much of a free-for-all free-form snooze fest that didn't really come together as interesting. Maybe that's the way a debate should be. But it needs better moderation and, probably, more questions.
It's generally the moderation that bugs me most about the election debates.
Has Terry Milewski every moderated a debate? I heard him interviewing Trudeau last weekend, and he asked tough questions and demanded answers. It was a refreshing change from how the media tends to let politicians away with evasion and bafflegab.
Has Terry Milewski every moderated a debate? I heard him interviewing Trudeau last weekend, and he asked tough questions and demanded answers. It was a refreshing change from how the media tends to let politicians away with evasion and bafflegab.
WislaHD
Superstar
I wonder how someone like Matt Galloway would moderate a debate. I absolutely love his interviewing style, actually pressing the interviewee to answer tough questions and calling them out when they don't answer the question asked.
adma
Superstar
Notice in salsa's posted illustration--POLLS REPORTING: 160/256. That is, it shows an incomplete count.
Yes, there are 2 Greens currently in Parliament--but the other one is party-jumper Bruce Hyer in TB-SN.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I think Trudeau performed the best but in terms of who came out the winner I would have to say, unfortunately, Harper.
Harper wanted Trudeau to do well as his Tory support is solid but has little growth room. By Trudeau doing well it may result in a slight rise in Liberal support but at the expense of the NDP. This is exactly what Harper wants,,,,,,,,,,,a divided left so he can come up the middle.
Harper wanted Trudeau to do well as his Tory support is solid but has little growth room. By Trudeau doing well it may result in a slight rise in Liberal support but at the expense of the NDP. This is exactly what Harper wants,,,,,,,,,,,a divided left so he can come up the middle.
Videodrome
Senior Member
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/08/participants-at-conservative-events-must-agree-to-gag-order/
Harper is a tin pot dictator.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-terrorist-activity/article25897926/comments/
So, travel to Israel and the US would be banned?
Harper is a tin pot dictator.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-terrorist-activity/article25897926/comments/
So, travel to Israel and the US would be banned?
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Not me, I find myself shouting at the radio when he soft handles questions with anyone he shares political/social views with, including politicians. The tough questions you mention above are only for those with views contrary to progressive viewpoints. Listen next time and you'll catch it.
Marcanadian
Moderator
The Supreme Court will strike that down without a second thought, it violates section 6 of the Charter.
What a horrible idea too. What if I have family there? I could be arrested and thrown in prison for visiting my family? It assumes that anyone visiting the area is automatically a terrorist, so you're essentially guilty before being proven innocent.
Videodrome
Senior Member
He is basically saying that you can't travel to Germany, France, America and the UK, since terror elements exist there too.