2017 British Columbia election

[adma]

I doubt the BC Cons will be nominating *no* candidates at all--at worst, as in the past, they'll have a few to keep the party affiliation ticking until whatever time.  (Maybe they'll be like Socred in 1996.)

[adma]

*And* when he was proven wrong, Lotuslander gave the Trump-ian "the other side cheated" alibi.

[adma]

Ah, Lotuslander: the Mansplainer-in-Chief of BC political psephology.

[adma]

Very deceitful Adam T. And I mean VERY. You rebuffed the bet... which ya conveniently forget.

I did no such thing.  You still owe me $1,000.

Lotuslander is a troll.  Seriously, why has he not been banned from this forum?

Because you remind him of his figurative ex-wife who bankrupted him on (to him) frivolous "abuse" charges.  And if the system wasn't "rigged" on her behalf, he surely would have prevailed, as surely as the non-vote-split Free Enterprise Coalition prevails in BC.  Get the picture?

(Hey, I wouldn't say that if he weren't so prone to using that "mansplaining" tone)

[adma]

And we also have "adma" who is nothing more than another NDP troll.. this time from Ontario... 3 time zones away. Again... providing nothing analytically useful to this thread. Don't understand why both you and "Adam T" are not both banned for violating/breaking clear forum policy/rules.

BTW, "Dumb and Dumber" has always been my fave flick.

Actually, I'm not an NDP troll except insofar as *anybody* who, to you, is charitable t/w the NDP and willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (at least as a serious component of our viable electoral-choice network) is, in your eyes, a troll.  In fact, I think of myself as more of an all-around psephological sensualist--and as such, I have every right to be interested and even willing to perform constructive advice and observation on elections not in my own territory.  And even to read meaningful between-the-lines data in seemingly boring "slam-dunk" constituencies a la the recent federal Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner byelection.  Stuff that *is* analytically useful, even if I'm several time zones away.

For you see, at its best, "analytically useful" transcends partisan bias.  Just as in Medicine Hat; whatever our individual partisanship,  it's boring to deem the result "boring".  Polling maps and polling data are fun, even when the race *appears* on the surface to be ho-hum.

By comparison, from what I can tell--you're not interested in that kind of stuff.  You're offering *political* arguments; you're not offering *electoral* arguments; you're not allowing for any nuances or wiggle room, and especially if they go against your theorems.

So, if you're attacking me for being an Ontarian, may I counter-attack *you* for being *disinterested* in Ontario.  And I speak from a realm where with exceptions (most notably the Rae interlude), the NDP's tended to be even *more* terminally-third-party marginal.  Yet...elections, poll-by-poll numbers and all, are interesting here, too.  So, why aren't you interested?  Why are you so constipated?  Why'd you rather stick to BC, and *just* to BC--and even doing BC an injustice by simplifying the tableau to fit your case?

I mean, under the circumstance, you might as well be suggesting the author of this piece has no right to speak on behalf of BC's modern heritage (Erickson homes et al) because he's from Ontario.
http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/another-one-bites-the-dust-ericksons-graham-house.html

[adma]

My advice: Don't feed the trolls. 

I usually believe in only speaking for myself, but I suspect that most people here have Lotuslander on Ignore.

I wouldn't say that; more like, most people don't give enough of a whozis to put him (or *anyone*, for that matter) on Ignore.  I mean, *I* don't have anyone on Ignore--that tactic's for wimps.  Yet at the same time, "wimpy" is just as well descriptive of Lotuslander's labelling of myself as an NDP troll.

And again, for all his bombastic claims of his "knowing" BC politics, I still have this inkling Lotuslander's gotten into hot water over "dirty tricks", and is basically using this forum as the last anonymous refuge of a scoundrel, getting back at those who "wronged" him or "set him up"...

[adma]

I don't agree that removing the comments from trolls is wimpy.  It just saves me a bit of time.

I'd rather the mods do it (if required) than to do it myself.  Or else, do so passively by avoiding forums/contexts where high-volume macho-preening trollism rules (i.e. newspaper comment threads, Twitter, etc--even some of the Banzaii-shouting US-election threads on this site).  And always remember that the problem isn't in the bias, it's in the devil-may-care mediocrity of expression

And that said, keeping to the topic of this thread, I wouldn't go *too* far in countering some of Lotuslander's basic facts; that given BCs electoral history and the overall nature of its electorate, it's not wise to *overstate* the degree of toxic-option hatred that Christy Clark engenders, and especially in an era when things have been looking iffy-underperformance for the NDP nationwide (most recently the Yukon election, which many were predicting "confidently" that the NDP would win).  The thing is, I wouldn't subscribe to Lotuslander's "NDP = my alimony-grubbing b*tch of an ex-wife" hyperbolic tone, either.

[adma]

I see the ON NDP trolling flakes at it again... posting extraneous or off-topic messages.... akin to a rogue Jehovah's Witness sect. Too funny.

It's no more "ON NDP trolling talk" than my earlier extraneous/off-topic posted link was "non-West Van modernist hysterical preservationist talk".  Okay?

(In related news, I guess this'd be your cup of tea... https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2016/12/10/windsor-area-custom-renovation-in-time-for-christmas.html )

[adma]

And again, to be fair, Lotuslander...in many respects, my position re BC electoral prospects is significantly *closer* to yours than Adam T's position is.  In fact, if you want proof, look back to a serious argument I had with him around the beginning of the year re the likeability-or-unlikeability, far-right-or-moderation, electability-or-non-electability of Christy Clark--it certainly wasn't NDP-shill talk on my part.

However, I also made a point of striking a "disinterested observer" position, because, well, I'm *not* in any explicit political camp.  In fact, I haven't actually actively worked for any party or candidate in at least a decade.  Therefore, I'm shilling for neither the NDP nor for Christy Clark--it helps me to be an agile "free-of-mind" electoral witness.

By comparison, what you're doing is shilling, and it compromises your tone of observation.  And in fact, it's counter-productive insofar as I'm actually *embarassed* to be, if not bullish, at least "bullish-allowance" re BCLiberal prospects or BCNDP non-prospects, because you're likely to go all blowhard "see?  I was right!"
To which I respond...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMaUBeaiHnQ

[adma]

I'm not sure what you're referring to.  The only thing I recall is the I called, which I still believe, that Christy Clark is a narcissist who has no interest in public policy other than to the degree that it gets her into the spotlight.  She is an absolutely terrible and completely phony person.  Though, as I believe I also wrote at the time, a lot of people say that she can also be a genuinely nice person in personal dealings.

But you see, it's those kinds of characterizations (or for that matter, DL's characterization of Alberta's past "rabidly rightwing government") that fuel the sneers of a Lotuslander.  He gets his jollies out of beating the cr@p out of candy-a$$ wimps like you, so to speak--you're an easy mark for him, and it's an "easy markness" that he projects onto anyone (including myself) who has, er, "issues" with his bombastic Viagra-fueled form of political judgment.

I mean, I'm not altogether *denying* what you're saying about Christy Clark; but hey--she's a politician;-) And from my chosen "disinterested" position, I can channel the sentiment of "indifferent middle" voters for whom BCLiberal remains (like the Alta PCs long remained, even through the Klein years) a safe-choice comfort option unless they're convinced/coerced otherwise.  And in that case, you're ironically handicapped by "knowing her too well"...

[adma]

Hahaha! Oh man... I almost fell outta of my chair with your comedic relief! As for the rest of your illusory rhetoric... par for the course for the rogue ON NDP Jehovah's Witness sect. Sigh.

Damn DL's going to need aloe for that sick burn.

Again, the way Lotuslander phrases it, "rogue ON NDP Jehovah's Witness sect" might as well be a metaphor for "crazy moneygrubbing b*tch of an ex-wife".

[adma]

The BC Green Party - the elephant in the room for the 2017 election.

Bit of history. Was formed back in 1983 after the formation of the German Green Party, which was co-founded by Petra Kelly in 1980. BC Greens have always been considered a fringe party led by flaky leaders and never have had much media attention.

In your fast-forward to 2013 you seem to have forgotten 2001, when under Adrienne Carr they got a *lot* of media attention through seeming poised to pick up the BCNDP spoils and threaten them for 2nd place--they fell short, but their 12% share that year remains their highest to date...

[adma]

In your fast-forward to 2013 you seem to have forgotten 2001, when under Adrienne Carr they got a *lot* of media attention through seeming poised to pick up the BCNDP spoils and threaten them for 2nd place--they fell short, but their 12% share that year remains their highest to date...

Even in 2001, the BC Greens didn't receive that much media attention. It was a campaign whereby the media focused upon the BC Lib's Campbell and BC NDP's Dosanjh. Remember that one quite well.

Then BC Green leader Adrianne Carr was basically a twin of Elizabeth May and the then BC Greens were a party of/for granola bar eaters. As for the "spoils"? Not much there when ya have a 77 BC Lib - 2 BC NDP rout.

If you "remember that one quite well", you don't remember the election *I* remember.  And what I remember is that the NDP fell into such disgrace and ignominy, the hitherto *truly* marginal GP (just under 2% of the provincial vote in 1996!) rose as an alternative disgruntled-left option to the point where they were virtually equalling the NDP in opinion polling.  And *that* got the media focussed upon the Carr wild card/spoiler element almost as much as the decreed "primary" Campbell/Dosanjh race--certainly an advance contradiction of your claim of its being "a fringe party led by flaky leaders [which] never [had] had much media attention."  True, the NDP (surely boosted by incumbents' dead cat bounces) reassumed its traditional 2nd place position by e-day; but even w/a deflated vote relative to earlier polling, the Carr Greens still jumped from 2% to 12.4%.  Those were provincial-level figures unprecedented for *any* Green entity in Canada.  *And*, you can blame "media attention" in part for this--that's what you get when an unforeseen outside force ("flaky" or not) threatens to upset the binary status quo.

Though of course to you, it "conveniently" doesn't matter because it was a 77 Lib-2 NDP election in the end, with the Greens shut out.  Well, just more confirmation of my judgment that when it comes to the poll-by-poll sensuality of psephology and the subtler tales that elections tell, you're a lousy lay--and honestly, even if the judgment *is* well founded through their political limitations, the way you try to drive in the point re May/Carr/Sterk still has an undercurrent of flaky-broad-bashing misogyny about it.  (Of course, Andrew Weaver's male, and for you that changes everything, I guess.  Premier Clark notwithstanding.)

[adma]

Now the "greenest" seat in BC is Nelson-Creston. Bar none. No doubt about that. So I went over to the Election Prediction Project website for the 2001 BC election and reviewed the comments therein for the riding. Low and behold Bernard von Schulmann made a post therein - the same BvS who I referred to in an earlier post herein who is a self-described "centrist environmentalist" and former BC Green Party member.

His take on the "green" riding of Nelson-Creston on April 21, 2001?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah. That's right. A 3rd place prediction for the BC Greens. And he was pretty well "bang-on" with his prediction compared to the actual result... BC Lib: 39%/BC NDP: 32%/BC Green: 22%!

Of course, you should consider that the "Corky Evans populism" element skewed things on behalf of the NDP in that N-C race, whatever the "inherent" Green strength.  And, 22% was still pretty good under the circumstance.  Plus, whatever the 2001 circumstance, as we all know, the Green-strength (if not *winning* strength, then at least *polling* strength) centre of gravity's subsequently shifted to May/Weaver territory--or just generally, away from the N-C "granola belt" to places where the NDP's already weak and they could serve as a safe Red Tory/Green Liberal option proxy--more "Weaver-esque" than "Carr/May/Sterk-esque", if you will.  (Think Whistler as opposed to Nelson.)

[adma]

Sigh. I should have previously been much more clearer.

Again. Back pre-2001 and during the 4-week 2011 election writ period, both Mustel and Ipsos-Reid were the only BC pollsters. And both were "CATI" pollsters.

But you're applying post-facto inside-baseball 2016 judgment there.  If we go back to 2001-in-real-time, ***it did not matter whether they were "CATI" pollsters or not.  Misleading or not, obsolete-by-today's-standards or not, their numbers made an impression and defined the narrative.***  

Its like some daffy, asinine suggestion that because we all now know that the pre-Soundscan Billboard charts were "fixed", they're totally irrelevant in judging the pre-1990 pop/rock musical context.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's like saying that for the Vancouver-to-Kamloops traveller, once the Coquihalla was built, the old Trans-Canada route via the Fraser River Canyon and Cache Creek "no longer mattered"--out of sight, out of mind except to a "fringe element" of dumb Griswoldian tourists and hair-shirt afficionados of creative highway anachronism.  (Never mind that the Coquihalla is as boring as xxx.  But to you, the *old* way might be boring as xxx; well, it's not my fault that you're an uninspired jerk.)

  Thus your desire to put your thumb on the 2001 BC Lib-landslide scale while totally dismissing the fact that the losers, and the scale of loss, and the schisms that underlay said loss were *at least* as important an element of the media coverage...and, "fringe" or not, the rise of the Greens at the apparent expense of the NDP was an important element in all of that.  It *didn't matter* whether the Greens were poised to win seats or not--even if they won no seats, even if the NDP only won two, they're an important element.  (And even if the Greens *were* fringe, at moments of political despair and/or impasse never dismiss the "reach" that fringe elements might have among voters--something that should be especially clear in these days of Trump and Ford and UKIP.)

No different from Chretien sweeping Ontario federally in 1993/97/2000.  To you, all that matters are the winners; to me, it's was just as fun to dissect how things shook out among the losers, i.e. the sexy "bigger picture"...

[adma]

As an aside, this is back.

http://www.electionprediction.org/2017_bc/index.php

[adma]

Yeah. Saw that within past 1/2 hour as well. Nobody saw that coming. At all. Unfortunate and big surprise. BTW, Vicki Huntington was a greenish red tory and the daughter of 1980's- era federal PC cabinet minister Ron Huntington (West Vancouver federal riding).

Actually, West Van was then called "Capilano"; and Huntington was barely "80s-era" in cabinet, having served Joe Clark and retiring right before the Mulroney landslide.

[adma]

Btw/ Lotuslander's usual big-penis bile and DL's "Crooked Christy" business, this thread's giving me a pretty big whiff of cum grano salis.  Just saying.

It's like they're a pair of suitors battling for the affection of a fair damsel like Lil' Ole Me, not knowing that I feel they're both blowhard creeps who aren't worth my time.

(But hey; maybe that's a reflection of how sharply polarized and nuance-free BC electoral politics *always* has been.)

[adma]

Adma. You're just another hardcore Toronto NDPer with another one of your typical snide "drive-by" comments. Hundreds of other threads for ya to go to. Go troll/pollute those. Leave this one alone.

In case you didn't notice, my knock was collectively aimed *both* at yourself *and* at DL.  It's about tone, not partisanship.

The moment we can arrive at a certain BC election-discussion decorum that isn't hijacked by retrograde hack-political-operative cant, I'm happy

[adma]

Lotuslander is a troll plain and simple.  There is no question he is well informed, but all that means is he is a well informed troll.

Well, I don't deny that he has a lot of the ground-level knowledge--but it's *how* one uses it and expresses it that matters.  That is, if you're to fall back on trollspeak and insufferable remind-us-every-time-how-great-he-is Keith Baldrey fawning, you're undermining your own authority.  And my distancing myself from the Lotuslander/DL battle isn't so much "both sides are equally bad" as "both reps of either side are equally bad".  In fact, I'd argue that the better approach to these kinds of political-overviews is less condemnatory than that of an affectionately, strategically wry jaded bystander with a clear window into the lay of the land--not unlike this forum's mod, Hash.  
Unfortunately, Lotuslander's no Hash.

[adma]

Though favourability/unfavourability polls do not necessarily equate with electoral choice in the end.  (And in a way, Rachel Notley in Alberta faces an inverse situation--high favourables vs low reelectability)

[adma]

Though favourability/unfavourability polls do not necessarily equate with electoral choice in the end.  (And in a way, Rachel Notley in Alberta faces an inverse situation--high favourables vs low reelectability)

Notley's had approval ratings in the 30-35% range for about a year now.

That's still not bad, considering--esp. compared to Christy's 21-to-57.

The thing about the BCLibs is: however unpopular the leadership, barring some unforeseen third-party upheaval (and no, the Greens aren't *quite* at that level yet, not even under Weaver) the *only* viable governing alternative is the "Socialist Hordes".  By comparison, Team Christy is commonly viewed as the safe, sane, solid middle-of-the-road choice, and a lot of voters are willing to forgive for that reason.  OTOH where they *can* be tripped up is for being "politics as usual", i.e. Christy as a Hillary figure vs either Donald or Bernie.  And that's why BC provincial elections have seldom been classic pre-Notley Alberta PC-scale slam dunks.

By comparison, the even more unpopular Wynne in Ontario has the right-of-centre Ontario PCs as well as the NDP to ward off.

[adma]

Why does this forum get so nasty and snide when talking about BC, of all places? This must be the only place where discussions about Israeli elections end up less controversial than discussing Vancouver politics.

Lotuslander.

[adma]

Why does this forum get so nasty and snide when talking about BC, of all places? This must be the only place where discussions about Israeli elections end up less controversial than discussing Vancouver politics.

Lotuslander.

Correction. The NDP has a certain sect within that treats the NDP as a "church". The so-called Jehovah's Witness/Scientology sect within the NDP that views any criticism as heresy & blasphemy.

Certainly Adma & DL - all from Toronto, Ontario fit that mold as well as Adam T. In centrist political circles these types are referred to as the "loony left". It is what it is.

Actually, Lotuslander, I was tipped on your identity and it seems like, for all your self-proclaimed "expertise", you leave a pretty shallow Google footprint other than a Twitter account and, through said Twitter account, this.

https://bcelection2017-87ridings.blog/

And judging from the "About" page, there's something about your tone that still seems like it hasn't matured much beyond your Grade 5/7 epiphanies.  I mean, the Superbowl and Arnie as cultural references?

Indeed, you may have become infatuated with infrastructure and "economic growth stuff"; but there doesn't seem much...culture.  Or history.  Or dimension beyond suspended-animation juvenilia.  And maybe this tweet says it best about how culturally stunted and pathetic you are.

https://twitter.com/Lotuslander1000/status/628048052599701504

As I've suggested before: to me, elections and election stats can be a sensual, multidimensional thing--even in binary BC.  In fact, I've just been on a bender with the 2015 federal stats for BC, correlating with polling maps and the like.  And really...once you're deep into that, raw partisanship, "loony left" or not, doesn't matter.  It all gains added dimension; you sense nuances even within the results for "loser" parties.  And it helps balance a person.

It has dimension, in the same way that a long, satisfying road trip has dimension, that--as I've said before--choosing the Trans-Canada over the Coquihalla has dimension.  

Though it now seems from your infrastructural obsession that indeed, you probably *would* prefer the Coquihalla because it represents "progress".

But anyway...to me, elections aren't just like the Superbowl.  They *supercede and transcend* the Superbowl.

In the end, Lotuslander, your so-called grand gestures and your self-proclaimed "centrist circle" knocks on the "loony left" remind me of Trump.  You display your so-called unequaled expertise and authority the way that Trump displays his so-called impeccable taste in decoration and women.
But what we, the "loony left" "losers", see behind Trump's boasts is parvenu vulgarity to the nth degree and a plastic doll from Slovenia.  But oh,  I guess we're "just jellus".

You may see yourself as "centrist"; but what I see is a philistine.  Political-analysis "authority" in a tasteless-blowhard package.

[adma]

So, will you kindly agree to put me on your "ignore list" as well? Hell... I would have blocked you loony-left NDP "church" types, if that option was available herein, long ago.

I don't put anyone on ignore lists.  Because that's placing myself on your juvenile level.

Oh, and it wasn't Adam T. who tipped me.