Canadian federal election - October 19, 2015 (Official Campaign Thread)

[136or142]

1.I don't know if anybody mentioned this on the pre election thread but the only thing striking out from the CON ad on Thomas Mulcair is how brazen it is.

They criticize him as a 'career politician' for having first gotten into electoral politics in 1994 but Sleazy Stevie first got elected to Parliament in 1993 and first ran in 1988.

Also, Mulcair had a lengthy career as first a lawyer and then a top administrator in the Quebec Civil Service while he who cowers in closets has never had a non political job except working in his dad's company's mail room for a few months (though he may have been a lecturer in the economics department at the U of Calgary for a semester or two, though in this case any similarities between what is taught in economics at the U of Calgary and real economic theory is purely coincidental.)

2.Heir Harper is now saying that any deficit budget will lead Canada to Greek Tragedy. If that false dichotomy is the case, then won't this new CON home renovation program automatically lead Canada to Grant Devine like bankruptcy?

3.In regards to Alberta there are 3 NDP defeated provincial candidates who are running for the federal nomination: Lynn MacWilliam in Bow River Katherine Swampy in Red Deer-Lacombe and Mikhai Ion in Calgary-Forest Hills.

[Hash]

Let's keep the excessive hyperbole and useless spinning under control guys, please (ie 'Heir Harper', 'he who cowers in closet').

[136or142]

Let's keep the excessive hyperbole and useless spinning under control guys, please (ie 'Heir Harper', 'he who cowers in closet').

1.You said nothing about referring to Justin Trudeau as 'Justin' which had been done in a previous post.

2.Stephen Harper cowering in a closet is a fact.  There is nothing on this board that says facts can't be stated if they are embarrassing.  In this case, it is highly relevant as Harper portrays himself as 'Mr Security' when this shows the reality is that he is an easily scared little boy.

Of course, it's often the case that the easily frightened tend to support police state laws like C-51.

If you have a different term you'd prefer me to use, fine, but unless you are going to ban me or delete my posts, I will continue to refer to Harper as 'He who cowers in closets' because it is true, there is no rule against it and because it is highly relevant to Harper's true personality.

And if you are going to either ban me or delete my posts, I want an explanation as to why a fact can't be stated here.

[RogueBeaver]

Harper's retirement schedule: Ibbitson confirms what we already knew.

Pupatello not running in Windsor West.

[136or142]

Harper's retirement schedule: Ibbitson confirms what we already knew.

An obvious deception to tell voters that they can vote Conservative with Harper as leader because they don't have to worry about him staying on.

I want this in a notarized legal contract before I believe it.

[RogueBeaver]

Teneycke: expectations are so low for Trudeau that he'll exceed them by "coming onstage with his pants on." LMAO.

[Хahar 🤔]

Adam, this is the best place on the Internet for discussing elections around the world largely because people refrain from inserting their own political views into discussion of elections. I don't need to be told how to feel about Stephen Harper; I already have my own opinion of Stephen Harper. I come here to read about the election. Your editorializing does not help.

[Hash]

Let's keep the excessive hyperbole and useless spinning under control guys, please (ie 'Heir Harper', 'he who cowers in closet').

1.You said nothing about referring to Justin Trudeau as 'Justin' which had been done in a previous post.

2.Stephen Harper cowering in a closet is a fact.  There is nothing on this board that says facts can't be stated if they are embarrassing.  In this case, it is highly relevant as Harper portrays himself as 'Mr Security' when this shows the reality is that he is an easily scared little boy.

Of course, it's often the case that the easily frightened tend to support police state laws like C-51.

If you have a different term you'd prefer me to use, fine, but unless you are going to ban me or delete my posts, I will continue to refer to Harper as 'He who cowers in closets' because it is true, there is no rule against it and because it is highly relevant to Harper's true personality.

And if you are going to either ban me or delete my posts, I want an explanation as to why a fact can't be stated here.

Nobody is going to ban you or delete your posts, so please calm down. As for the rest, this is a board for mature discussion of elections, and this board is well regarded for the high value of its discussions, and because I want to keep it that way, I would prefer if we could stay away from silly name-calling of politicians (i.e. calling people 'Heir' or something) which don't add any value or content to the discussion. There's no need to get on high horses about this.

I echo Xahar's excellent post.

[136or142]

Adam, this is the best place on the Internet for discussing elections around the world largely because people refrain from inserting their own political views into discussion of elections. I don't need to be told how to feel about Stephen Harper; I already have my own opinion of Stephen Harper. I come here to read about the election. Your editorializing does not help.

Is it?
Then what about these comments:
1.#StandWithHarper

2.As usual, Nik Nanos is pushing his friend Justin.

We talk of a "pollster" who put the Liberals first long after real pollsters had them in 3rd place.

(Nanos was actually on tv today saying that his polling now finds the Conservatives with slight momentum.)

[136or142]

Let's keep the excessive hyperbole and useless spinning under control guys, please (ie 'Heir Harper', 'he who cowers in closet').

1.You said nothing about referring to Justin Trudeau as 'Justin' which had been done in a previous post.

2.Stephen Harper cowering in a closet is a fact.  There is nothing on this board that says facts can't be stated if they are embarrassing.  In this case, it is highly relevant as Harper portrays himself as 'Mr Security' when this shows the reality is that he is an easily scared little boy.

Of course, it's often the case that the easily frightened tend to support police state laws like C-51.

If you have a different term you'd prefer me to use, fine, but unless you are going to ban me or delete my posts, I will continue to refer to Harper as 'He who cowers in closets' because it is true, there is no rule against it and because it is highly relevant to Harper's true personality.

And if you are going to either ban me or delete my posts, I want an explanation as to why a fact can't be stated here.

Nobody is going to ban you or delete your posts, so please calm down. As for the rest, this is a board for mature discussion of elections, and this board is well regarded for the high value of its discussions, and because I want to keep it that way, I would prefer if we could stay away from silly name-calling of politicians (i.e. calling people 'Heir' or something) which don't add any value or content to the discussion. There's no need to get on high horses about this.

I echo Xahar's excellent post.

1.I wasn't getting on any high horse.

2.I am always calm.

3.If Sleazy Stevie can't conduct a mature election campaign, I see no reason why I shouldn't detail his lies in kind and, as much as I abhor it, it's pretty evident his cynical dishonest campaigning has worked for him in the past.

4.I just showed that Xahar's post is factually inaccurate.

[Хahar 🤔]

Adam, this is the best place on the Internet for discussing elections around the world largely because people refrain from inserting their own political views into discussion of elections. I don't need to be told how to feel about Stephen Harper; I already have my own opinion of Stephen Harper. I come here to read about the election. Your editorializing does not help.

Is it?
Then what about these comments:
1.#StandWithHarper

This is also a bad post.

2.As usual, Nik Nanos is pushing his friend Justin.

We talk of a "pollster" who put the Liberals first long after real pollsters had them in 3rd place.

(Nanos was actually on tv today saying that his polling now finds the Conservatives with slight momentum.)

I'm not clear what the issue here is, since it's obviously relevant to this thread if a particular polling firm is consistently pro-Liberal.
I'm trying to be nice here, so I'll ask that instead of relying on legalistic "gotcha" arguments you try and consider the actual substance of my post. When you refer to Stephen Harper as "Sleazy Stevie", are you convincing anyone who wasn't already on your side? Are you contributing to the discussion? If you're not interested in the answers to those questions I'm going to have to conclude that you're not interested in having an intelligent discussion.

[DC Al Fine]

Getting back on topic....

Does anyone have any thoughts on which seats/regions are most likely to move against the national trend?

My guesses:
Suburban Quebec City and the Lac St. Jean area will trend Con
The Liberals will under perform in the 905
The NDP will under perform in Northern Ontario
The Bloc will do well in Eastern Montreal

[Хahar 🤔]

It definitely seems like the Tory vote will hold up in suburban Ontario significantly better than elsewhere.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1.If you read the substance of my post, you'll see that I did make, in my opinion, a definite contribution to the discussion both in my commenting on the absurdity of the CONS ad calling Mulcair a 'career politician' and on the absurdity that any deficit spending will inevitably lead to a 'Greek Tragedy, as well as pointing out the likely largely forgotten fact that it was a similar program that Harper is now proposing of rebates for home renovations that would have led Saskatchewan to declare bankruptcy had it not had it debts guaranteed by the federal government (to be sure, the Saskatchewan program was likely a much larger percentage of their budget than this program, but if Harper is going to outright state that any deficit spending will lead to a Greek type economic collapse, I fail to see why I should show context.)

On the ad thing, I just read over the pre election call thread and nobody commented on it.  Maybe most people here already know that Harper first got elected in 1993 and first ran in 1988 and has never had much of a job outside of politics both elected and non elected, but I doubt everybody here does, and I also believe it was worthy of discussion, in large part because it comes right out of the, I believe, Frank Luntz  Republican playbook of trying to make a strength by accusing your opponents of having your own potential weaknesses.

2.I strongly disagree with your premise that only an, I guess, university seminar type discussion is 'intelligent.'  High minded to be sure, but usually lacking in impact and frequently not interesting.  In my opinion "intelligent discussions" can and frequently do contain mockery, put downs and the like, and generally highly regarded intellectuals like William Buckley and Gore Vidal agree with me.

I would also point out that it was this sort of determination to be 'high minded' that is one of the main reasons Democrats lost most elections from around 1980-2008.

The West Wing "Good Political Advice"
https://youtu.be/PCSMyFWTjRc

[136or142]

Adam, this is the best place on the Internet for discussing elections around the world largely because people refrain from inserting their own political views into discussion of elections. I don't need to be told how to feel about Stephen Harper; I already have my own opinion of Stephen Harper. I come here to read about the election. Your editorializing does not help.

Is it?
Then what about these comments:
1.#StandWithHarper

This is also a bad post.

2.As usual, Nik Nanos is pushing his friend Justin.

We talk of a "pollster" who put the Liberals first long after real pollsters had them in 3rd place.

(Nanos was actually on tv today saying that his polling now finds the Conservatives with slight momentum.)

I'm not clear what the issue here is, since it's obviously relevant to this thread if a particular polling firm is consistently pro-Liberal.

Per The Nanos Comment
1.It refers to Justin Trudeau as 'Justin.'

2.I agree that Nanos' poll tend to lean Liberal, but I'd say this falls into conspiracy theory territory as it:
A.Claims Nanos is not a real pollster, when he certainly is,
B.Suggests Nanos' polls are so comprised because he is a friend of either Justin Trudeau or the Liberal Party.

If questioning a pollster using that sort of language is acceptable, then pointing out that Harper's image of himself as "Mr. Security" is a fraud using my language is also perfectly acceptable.

Edit to add:
I mainly engage in repetition for mocking purposes.
I.E calling Harper Sleazy Stevie (which he is) in reference to CONs calling Mulcair Angry Tom (Which he isn't)

I got the idea for this directly from The Bible:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2011:1-9

The Tower of Babel

 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city..."

The Lord said "...Come, let us go down and confuse their language...”

So, if you want to call mockery 'unintelligent' you're calling God 'unintelligent'.

[King of Kensington]

It definitely seems like the Tory vote will hold up in suburban Ontario significantly better than elsewhere.

Have to agree with that.  The Liberals are too weak to be in a position to pick up a lot of 905 seats, but outside of Brampton/Malton and Oshawa the NDP are not likely to be a factor.  In contrast, the NDP can win most of suburban Vancouver, which lacks a York Region-type dead zone.  

[136or142]

It definitely seems like the Tory vote will hold up in suburban Ontario significantly better than elsewhere.

Have to agree with that.  The Liberals are too weak to be in a position to pick up a lot of 905 seats, but outside of Brampton/Malton and Oshawa the NDP are not likely to be a factor.  In contrast, the NDP can win most of suburban Vancouver, which lacks a York Region-type dead zone.  

In regards to suburban Vancouver, the NDP probably can't win  North Vancouver (not the Burnaby-North Burnaby riding but the North Vancouver riding), West Vancouver and Delta will be difficult as the South Delta part of the riding is heavily anti-NDP (unless a load of Liberals vote NDP to defeat the Conservatives.) The southern exurban ridings of Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Langley are also not viable for the NDP, though the northern exurban ridings of Maple Ridge and Mission (does anybody still refer to this area as 'Dewdney'?) are very competitive.

In addition to the 2 ridings the NDP hold in Surrey, Fleetwood-Port Kells is also a very good pick up opportunity for them.  Apparently star candidate and former very popular mayor Dianne Watts is not polling as well for the Conservatives in South Surrey-White Rock as she was expected to do, but this area also tends to be heavily anti NDP, and Cloverdale-Langley City is likely also not viable for the NDP.

[adma]

Don't forget Richmond as an NDP dead zone, too.  And I'm still not counting on the Cons in the 905--though that'd require the Grits using their brains over the next couple of months...

[136or142]

Don't forget Richmond as an NDP dead zone, too.  And I'm still not counting on the Cons in the 905--though that'd require the Grits using their brains over the next couple of months...

Hah. I was just going to edit my post to add that in.  And I live in Richmond too! The NDP has no hope in either Richmond Center or Steveston-Richmond East.

Not to stereotype anybody, but most in the Chinese community here would never vote NDP, although I'm sure there are some who would never otherwise who do vote for Harold Steves for city council.  There are a handful of high profile Chinese New Democrats in Vancouver and Burnaby, but I don't know a single one in Richmond.  The person from Hong Kong who ran for the NDP here in the last provincial election actually lives in Vancouver. Like most in the so-called ethnic communities, I would expect that the Chinese Canadian community will have voting patterns similar to the rest of the area once the second generation takes over.

In Vancouver proper, the NDP has no shot in Vancouver Quadra.  Vancouver Centre might be an exciting race.  Vancouver South might have been a potential pick up for the NDP had they nominated either the Chinese Canadian family physician who used to be head of the Vancouver Medical Association, or the Indo Canadian accountant who is a senior manager at KPMG or even the guy who used to be head of the B.C branch of the Canadian Cerebral Palsy Association, but instead they nominated a union staffer.  I personally am supportive of unions, especially the private sector unions, but I don't know that most voters of that riding feel the way I do.

[King of Kensington]

Yeah "most" is not correct.  About half of the suburban Lower Mainland is winnable for the NDP, the other half isn't.  Still a lot higher than the 905 where winning half a dozen seats would be an extraordinary victory for the NDP. 

[136or142]

In my opinion the NDP is competitive in
Vancouver 3/6
1.Vancouver-Kingsway (NDP riding)
2.Vancouver East (NDP riding)
3.Vanouver Centre (Liberal riding)

Lower Mainland 5 or 6/10
1.Burnaby North-Seymour (New riding)
2.Burnaby South (NDP riding)
3.Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam (James Moore retiring riding)
4.New Westminster-Burnaby (NDP riding)
5.Port Moody-Coquitlam (NDP riding)

Could be competitive
1.Delta (NDP/Conservative riding)

Surrey 3/5
1.Fleetwood-Port Kells
2.Surrey Centre
3.Surrey-Newton

Fraser Valley 2/5
1.Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge
2.Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon

So that's 13 or 14 of 26.

[Bojack Horseman]

Tom Mulcair sounds to me a lot like Bill Clinton did in 1992. Just saying.

[King of Kensington]

I can see that.  Clinton was after all, the inspiration for Third Way social democracy.

[DL]

In my opinion the NDP is competitive in
Vancouver 3/6
1.Vancouver-Kingsway (NDP riding)
2.Vancouver East (NDP riding)
3.Vanouver Centre (Liberal riding)

Lower Mainland 5 or 6/10
1.Burnaby North-Seymour (New riding)
2.Burnaby South (NDP riding)
3.Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam (James Moore retiring riding)
4.New Westminster-Burnaby (NDP riding)
5.Port Moody-Coquitlam (NDP riding)

Could be competitive
1.Delta (NDP/Conservative riding)

Surrey 3/5
1.Fleetwood-Port Kells
2.Surrey Centre
3.Surrey-Newton

Fraser Valley 2/5
1.Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge
2.Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon

So that's 13 or 14 of 26.

I agree with this list but I would add Vancouver Granville as another seat that I think is NDP winnable

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Darn. First I forget my own city, then I leave this riding off.

Thanks

So that's 14 or 15 out of 26.