The Hook

Name some?

There are plenty of smart people out there who don't vote NDP.

G West , I had to chuckle.

I guess if we turned the NDP into a Tony Blair party which kept the faith with the Thatcherite policies against unions and the poor, Wilf would be happy. Whether he would ever vote NDP is doubtful. Whether the popularity would increase is even more so.

Bring on the coalition

There is little if any difference between the Conmen and the Liberals - the only hope for a decent outcome is a coalition.

And luke, what's with the personal remark directed at zalm?

Quebec was once a liberal stronghold - wow, that kind of analysis you just don't find in this neighbourhood much anymore.

Thanks!

Oh and Wilfrid, if you're such a great Liberal, why not at least spell your hero's name properly?

Wilfred Laurier...

Did you read the previous post??? That's why! ;)

Tonight : "Liberals on parade"

" There are plenty of smart people out there who don't vote NDP."

Name 3.

"Did you read the previous post??? That's why! ;)"

Would that be the post from Canada's apparently "smartest" riding saying Canada has 280-something seats?

Wilf

"There is one thing for sure, Frank, that the Liberals are much closer to forming a majority then the NDP will ever be."

A bold statement indeed. And here I was under the impression until tonight of course that the NDP was on the verge of going from under 20% to forming a federal majority.

Wilf

"The votes needed to form a Liberal government will come from the Cons."

If you look back over my posts you will see I said the exact same thing.

Luke

"The federal NDP has already lost ~1/3 of their vote in many polls. Perhaps it might slip further but that's slim pickin's."

Sounds like something I already said and which you disagreed with. Pourquoi?

"And yes, the "Chunky Campbell Soup" Con vote is also vulnerable in the areas that I have described above. Understand the respective geographic areas, the ridings therein, the demographics, and historical voting patterns and then that might make some sense."

And there you have it, one wonders why we will even bother spending the money on the next election when the Bloc, NDP, Green and Con vote is already in the bag for Iggy.

Shall I order the champagne now for you?

Luke

"Understand the respective geographic areas, the ridings therein, the demographics, and historical voting patterns and then that might make some sense."

With all that said, your predictions before the last election didn't pan out although you kept changing them with each new poll or update on Democratic Space.

Like I said

The stupid people get as many votes as the ones who understand that voting sensibly requires a certain amount of enlightened self-interest.

Those who think that the party of Paul Martin, who balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and working poor, is the answer to their problems aren't very smart.

But then, over time, those same stupid people keep electing Liberals who aren't any different from the occasional Conservative bunch who manage to win about 20% of the time.

Continuing to make the same bad decisions time after time is certainly a 'problem' - pretending things aren't going to be ok until Mike Ignatieff gets power is just another repetition of that same faulty thinking.

The fact is, we don’t have a democracy in this country and right now we’re ruled by a dictator whose name is Pee Wee Rambo.

Great choices Canadians make – no wonder so many of us look longingly at the illusion of ‘change’ south of the 49th.

Frank...

Frank, that's not a reasonable comment. Perhaps a tad of emotion involved therein. ;)

I dunno how to explain it simply. OK, let's put it this way. The Harper Cons tide swept right into the City of Vancouver in 2008. Overtaking Richmond, the North Shore, almost Burnaby Douglas.

And that was under the helm of the incompetent, "Green Shift" Dion who would make BC's Carole James look like the next coming of JFK. :)

I would suggest to you that the political tide will move outward under the helm of centre-right Iggy in the next go 'round.

Political analysis is complex stuff. Really.

And Now Some Political Humour...

g west:

And yes, the NDP's federal vote will decrease once again in the next go 'round. It has been decreasing considerably in BC since the 1960's. ;)

In that same vein, the last BC federal Ipsos poll was quite an eye opener:

Con: 52%
Lib: 20%
NDP: 13%
Green: 13%

I agree completely

This: Political analysis is complex stuff. Really. is probably the most sensible thing you've ever written here luke.

And that's why we don't pay much attention to what certain posters say.

The voters who exercise enlightened self-interest are not voting either Conservative or Liberal luke. The idiots who should be voting for socialism and fairness haven't the sense to recognize the lies they get from Harper Ignatieff and company.

They'd rather support a parties that use ethic differences and distrust to pit one community against another.

Enlightened self interest implies that you vote not just for yourself, but to advance the status and well-being of the whole society.

As stump says, it's called civilization and we don't know much about it here in Canada.

ERRATUM

there's a redundant 'a' in the foregoing.

para 4 should read: They'd rather support parties that use ethic differences and distrust to pit one community against another.

ANOTHER ERROR

that should be 'ethnic' not 'ethic' although, there is a way that ethics could be bent to serve political purposes - the kind of thing Liberals and Conmen know about as well.

But There's Nobody Left (No Pun Intended)

g west:

But the voter's decisions described above seem to say that there's nothin' else to vote for and there's nothin' left over for any other parties.

Where are you from? Mars? :)

Interesting....

"The voters who exercise enlightened self-interest are not voting either Conservative or Liberal luke"

So, Garth, I assume that anyone who does not hold opinions the same as yours in not "enlightened."

If life were so simple! Just do as Garth does and Utopia will follow!

I disagree

And I find your personal aspersions are offensive.

Where are you from? Pluto?

The very clear point I was trying to make is that the voters (and poll responders) you are constantly talking about are STUPID. Stupid to continue making the same disastrous choices about their own futures and the lives of their children.

GET IT?

If they were smart they would not continue to vote for parties who are bought and paid for by less than 200,000 corporate and individual puppet masters - whose puppets run the system as their own private fiefdom - doling out, from time to time, a few baubles to the ignorant masses along with a series of lies which seem, despite all evidence to the contrary, to impress a great many adults who ought to know better.

Just keep beating yourself over the head luke - but don't ask me to explain it to YA.

And forget the emoticons - you aren't funny.

I see, Gath....

"The very clear point I was trying to make is that the voters (and poll responders) you are constantly talking about are STUPID."

So, Garth, the 85% of Canadians who do not support the NDP are stupid. Is that view endorsed but the party leadership?

WILFRID

My remarks are perfectly clear and tranparent; they require no futher clarification.

If you belong, as you may well do, to that elite class of Canadians who own a home, don't have a mortgage and earn your living from capital gains, dividends or have an income upon which you pay the top marginal rate of tax (about 43.7% in this province in 2008) then self-interest would tell you to vote for either Pee Wee or Michael - enlightened self-interest is quite another thing - for everyone.

So Garth

If 85% don't support your party, does that mean that all of said 85% are part of the "elite?" Or, are only 15% of Canadians "enlightened" and therefore not part of the "elite." Your leader is not exactly impoverished.

Isn't it slightly arrogant to assume 85% of all Canadians are stupid?

Luke

"Frank, that's not a reasonable comment."

So its reasonable to suggest that Bloc votes, Con votes, Green votes and NDP votes will go Liberal but its suddenly unreasonable to ask if I should order the champagne for you? Understood.

"Political analysis is complex stuff. Really."

Yes it is, but instead of analysis you insist on worshipping at the altar of polling. In doing so you ignore both logic and history. I prefer to stand with the latter and they tell me there is no way Iggy has the ability to draw votes in bushels from all 4 of the other parties as you suggest. To insist otherwise, as you keep doing, is simply telling yourself Liberal lies and believing them.

But as I said earlier, by all means continue. I understand why you do so.

WILFRID

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't belong to any political party and I don't speak for any political party? It must be at least a dozen times now.

I speak for myself. You can agree with me or disagree as you wish - but continuing to post the kind of thing you so frequently do is just silly and a waste of my time.

If you care to find out what any political party believes and supports there are ways to gain that knowledge.

DON’T ASK ME.

My position is, as far as I'm capable of describing it, a morally and ethically sound position that would - if it were more widely subscribed to - improve the world and the chances of our grandchildren having some resources and beauty left to share with their offspring.

Continuing along the road we currently follow leads to disaster - all humbly in my opinion.

cheers.

The Benefits of Age

"Continuing along the road we currently follow leads to disaster - all humbly in my opinion."

The world as been ending for a long time now and various prophets have been riding that train for a very long time now and you are just another one, Garth.

Perversely, Garth, I agree with your somewhat,and I understand the passions of youth. However, I have been hearing lefties screaming the sky is falling for a very long time and we work within a political process. That process is actually working at the moment because Harper is moderating his neocon platform big time, something that will really miff his party and lead to his ouster. This will take time and this is something that firebrands do not have much of. Assuming that people who do not share your views are stupid is simply silly and great folly.

"our grandchildren having some resources"

Just how many kids do you have, Garth? I'd wager none.

g west...

And that's gotta be the Tyee comment of the day.

Carole James is lookin' for a new political strategist.

Interested? :)

THAT WAS A REASONABLE COMMENT

I never said that people were stupid because they don't agree with me - I said they are stupid because they don't recognize what they are doing to themselves and the world....remember, I said enlightened self interest.

In the end, we're all in this together and, if we don't start recognizing that we are being lied to and deceived and that we are not acting in the best interests of society as a whole, ourselves and our families...and that's what's important.

That, and the future.

As to the personal questions - they simply have no relevance; I will say, and that's all I'll say, that you would lose that wager...my concern for the future is NOT academic.

My personal life is none of your business – as yours is none of mine.

Good idea....

"Carole James is lookin' for a new political strategist."

Of course, a poll means nothing unless it confirms your preconceived conclusions but Carole is 14 points behind. If she is a good pol she should be shakin' her her boots and should be doin' something about closing that gap. She needs a strategist big time to close that gap.

But then again, she and her supporters are convinced they are gonna win poll or no poll, so she don't need no stinkin' strategist!

Wilf

Maybe Carole will hire you guys as her strategists. Within days you'll be predicting an NDP landslide based on a 2% rise in some poll.

I seriously doubt it luke

You already have the blue ribband for this:

Where are you from? Mars?

or this:

Political analysis is complex stuff. Really.

or this:

Frank, that's not a reasonable comment. Perhaps a tad of emotion involved therein

or this:

If ya wanna be a political strategist, ya better follow the trends over time. ;)

or this:

Shhhhh... be vewy, vewy quite. zalm might be listening and use his magical wand... perhaps even swat you through your screen.

or this:

Woahhhhh, hold on to your horses and that saddle of yours.

I couldn't hold a candle to your candidates for comment of the day dude - and that's just on this thread.

What would you say those little gems constitute?

G

"What would you say those little gems constitute?"

Good old fashioned Liberal pie-in-the-sky thinking.

Any moment now the voters of 4 other parties are going to vote Liberal. It'll happen, Luke and Wilf have convinced themselves.

Frank

Of course, polls mean nothing to you since the conclusion doesn't support your preconception. However, the January 19 Mustel polls states this for the upcoming provincial election:

Liberal: 47%

NDP: 33%

Green: 16%

Of course, Carole has a 100% chance of winning because these polls are always wrong. They are not scientific. Carole has only to pen her victory speech.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20090119.pdf

g west...

Out of context as usual. ;)

Seriously dude, you need a vacation. :)

Praise the messiah and pass the pork

The reason for the delusion of course is that when you convince yourself that you are at the centre of Canada's "silent majority" its only logical that whatever leader you take a shine to you think will be the choice of most other Canadians.

After all, everyone that doesn't think like you is an extremist Reformer or a communist and can be ignored. In fact its better if they're ignored.

Right Luke?

Right Wilf?

By the way, all the best champagne comes from somewhere else so I assume even your planned Liberal victory party won't help the trade balance eh?

Frank,,,

Chill out and have a good night! :)

Ummm

A random sample, contacted by phone, is about as meaningful as the Tyee's little polls - sent out be email every week.

You're right about it not being scientific...I didn't get too excited when Mustel had the NDP leading either - so I think I can stand it when they're down a few points (with 14% undecided).

I'm still waiting to cash in on that 100% guarantee of yours though Wilf, can we get Frank to hold the money?

Wilf

"Of course, polls mean nothing to you since the conclusion doesn't support your preconception."

Which is? Is it not rude to imply I have a preconception without stating what it is?

Gordon really should hire you, the campaign is 4 months away and you've already declared victory.

I'm thankful you've deigned to share with us plebes the results from your crystal ball called Mustel.

luke -

Your statements WERE out of context - I totally agree with that.

Thanks again for the apology, I really appreciate it when you observe the posting rules here.

Frank...

Frank, the one thing I can be 100% sure of is that the NDP will not be forming a Federal government any time soon.

I also feel the federal Liberals are on their way to beating Harper. Will they achieve a majority? Time will tell.

Your sarcasm is just silly, Frank because 85% of Canadian voters do not support your party's ideas. The NDP is not going to win the next federal election, nor does it stand much chance in the next BC provincial election. This is because not enough people vote NDP. Pretty simple.

"I assume even your planned Liberal victory party won't help the trade balance eh?"

This is nonsense and childish.

Luke

Chill out? Just because I think you need to turn down the volume of your giddiness I.V.?

Wilf - are you backing down?

Or is someone else posting in your place?

I thought YOU wrote this:
"Of course, Carole has a 100% chance of winning because these polls are always wrong. They are not scientific. Carole has only to pen her victory speech."

Frank....

"Which is? Is it not rude to imply I have a preconception without stating what it is?"

Frank, you have decided Carole will win next time, just like you did in 2005. You do not agree with the Mustel poll because it does not support the belief.

Mark these words, Frank:

Gordon Campbell will win a third term.

I will let you have the last word, one of your very witty retorts, but remember what I just said. Carole is not going to win. I suspect you already know that.

Wilf

"Frank, the one thing I can be 100% sure of is that the NDP will not be forming a Federal government any time soon."

Brilliant! My god man, I hope you've called the Vancouver Sun with that scoop.

"I also feel the federal Liberals are on their way to beating Harper. Will they achieve a majority? Time will tell."

Time? You and Luke have already declared Liberal majorities from here to Mars in every election everywhere.

"Your sarcasm is just silly, Frank because 85% of Canadian voters do not support your party's ideas."

Oh I'm chastened. Your sarcasm is so much more high-brow than mine. I apologize for making you and Luke look utterly ridiculous. Better luck next time.

"This is because not enough people vote NDP. Pretty simple."

A logic you have always failed to apply to your Liberals. One day you'll connect the dots, too bad today wasn't that day.

"This is nonsense and childish."

Yes it was. Next time I hope you'll do better Wilfred (sic).

"Time? You and Luke have

"Time? You and Luke have already declared Liberal majorities from here to Mars in every election everywhere."

Show me where, Frank.

"Brilliant! My god man, I hope you've called the Vancouver Sun with that scoop."

Well, at least you have admitted defeat. Ever ask yourself why?

Wilf

"Frank, you have decided Carole will win next time, just like you did in 2005."

You're a liar but that's okay Working Man, you're bad at that too.

"You do not agree with the Mustel poll because it does not support the belief."

And you agree with it because the Liberals are ahead. But then you agreed with it even before they made the phone calls.

"Gordon Campbell will win a third term."

Wow, coming from a fervent Liberal that really means a lot.

"but remember what I just said. Carole is not going to win. I suspect you already know that."

You actually contradicted yourself in the same post. Way past bedtime?

Wilf

"Show me where, Frank."

In this thread.

"Well, at least you have admitted defeat. Ever ask yourself why?"

Well I'm tempted to say its because we don't know how many seats are in BC, but that's more your speed. So I'll say its because we don't get enough votes.

Of course I could say its for the reason you've stated for the last 5 years which is that we're not named "Liberals".

welching

So you are welching on the bet Wilf?

Just can't trust Liberals to keep their word I guess.

Oh well, live and learn Frank.

BTW, what's with the Canucks?

Liberal bedtime

Don't you Liberal faithful have a prayer meeting at 6am where you all face Ottawa? That's going to come awfully early if you don't hit the hay. And god knows you aren't helping your cause here tonight.

G

"BTW, what's with the Canucks?"

Besides the fact they suck?

Not much.

Oh well the San Jose game was almost a good one. I should have turned the tv off a little earlier though.

C'est la vie.

Look on the bright side

They did get a point!

G

Watch it, you're sounding like a Liberal.

You know, day after possibly the biggest defeat in their history but certain to win a big majority in the very next election perhaps only a year away because they have a new leader that most people don't know anything about but will love regardless of which party they currently support.

The Mustel Poll... :)

Now that the Punch [Frank] and Judy [g west] Show has wound up... :)

Bill Tieleman, former NDP strategist, was on CKNW on Monday. Yep, I heard it while drivin'.

And Tieleman, with his considerable political experience, certainly understands the significance of Mustel.

In fact, Tieleman made a statement on CKNW to this effect:

Bill reads the Tyee. He'll likely remember that.

Now Frank and g west... let's go after Tieleman again. ;)

Luke

Switching to provincial politics?

No argument from me. I'll repeat what I've been saying as long as I've been on the Tyee. BC is an extremely right-wing province and the Libs will win even if the entire Liberal cabinet was found in bed with underage boys.

As for Tielman, he's persona non-grata with me as my discussion with him and his little sidekick Tsukamis on his website will attest.

And...

And just to clarify, I'm HAPPY the NDP doesn't appeal to the far-to-the-right Manning and Harper supporters like your party does.

Frank... Just Couldn't Resist... :)

So you're that other poster???!!!! :D

Happy

Happy's a good guy in spite of never agreeing with me. But if he and I were the same person you'd think we'd agree on something wouldn't you?

No problem luke

Why do you think I didn't get too excited about Evi Mustel's poll that put the NDP almost equal with Campbell in November?

Mustel is a joke - like most polls - and especially random phone polls.

As far as disagreeing with Bill Tieleman goes, did you have a point about that?

Because, if you've been paying attention (and I actually think you haven't) you'd know that both Frank and I absolutely disagree with Bill's conclusions about the coalition too.

Let me know when you have some real news.

And, like I said, if you expect to be anything more than comic relief you'd be wise to cut the personal crap - you're sounding a lot like Alex Tsakumis and that's not meant as a compliment - he actually lasted about two posts here at Tyee. (Something else you undoubtedly didn't notice)

g west...

I knew you would show up again.

That's not a surprising comment considering your historical commentary. :)

Seasoned and intelligent BC political strategists certainly think otherwise.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/accuracy.php

And those results have been BANG-ON.

Ya might just finally learn somethin' yourself. ;)

Luke

Polls are not the basis of responsible government. A month ago polls declared the Coalition dead. Now polls are declaring Harper dead.

Which is it?

Why should I care?

Reasoned arguments based on logic and facts hold up, arguments based on polls are shredded as fast as a different poll result can be found.

Being the guy that delivers drive-by polling results is fine if that's as high as you aspire.

Frank...

Federal polls are another animal... more complex... 5 parties.... the Cons, the Libs, the NDP, the Greens, the BQ... and a variety of other national/geographic political dynamics.

This Mustel poll is all about little ol' BC. Simple. Three parties. Simple.

With that out of the way, Mustel showed a 3% lead in favour of the NDP at this point in time prior to the May, 2005 election.

That same Mustel poll showed that Campbell had a 36% approval rating back then. Today that's 50%, a 14% gain.

In other words, that's a 17% turnaround in favour of the Liberal's standing and a 14% turnaround in favour of Campbell's approval rating compared to this point in time leading into the May, 2005 election.

That's a HUGE reversal. Political strategists understand the significance of same, albeit I don't expect you to. ;)

Luke

"That's a HUGE reversal. Political strategists understand the significance of same, albeit I don't expect you to. ;)"

Thanks for clarifying that. I realize that, unlike you, I'm too stupid to figure out something as complicated as percentages. What it must be like to be so smart I can only dream about.

What does Mustel say about Shakespeare? Do they have a poll saying 75% think his work is pointless?

Thank god we no longer need education and literacy when we have polls to do our thinking for us. Or at least for some of us.

Luke

Getting personal again. Have you actually 'read' the rules here.

If I felt I could get away with it, I'd reply in kind, instead I'll just push the offensive button.

Why can't you just make your points without the personal ad hominem crap?

And

You find it surprising that Mustel pats itself on the back effusively?

They're in the business of selling themselves luke, not a big surprise.

If they want to impress me, they're going to have to establish the demographic 'fit' of their sample to reality.

They haven't, and with an undecided set of 14% I just don't find them convincing - especially when the kind of swings they're describing are taken into consideration.

The point is, in the end, you can believe what you like - the idea that you have carte blanche to cast aspersions at anyone who 'dares' to disagree with you is offensive.

I've mentioned your age before, and it has gotten me in trouble so I won't do it this time. I will say that your actions indicate a certain lack of maturity and we'll see how that pans out.

In any case, if you make another personal remark about me, I'm going to send a letter to the editor - I'm tired of it.

Deal with issues.

g west...

The thinnest skin in the west. :)

The finger that points....

"The point is, in the end, you can believe what you like - the idea that you have carte blanche to cast aspersions at anyone who 'dares' to disagree with you is offensive."

The finger that points has three pointing back. Comical, really.

Wilf

You've forgotten this:

"Just how many kids do you have, Garth? I'd wager none."

Did someone else post that for you?

I've already provided a long list of the things luke has said. Remember?

Furthermore, the suggestion that people, in a general way, vote against their own and society's best interests was a very carefully constructed argument - never once put in a 'personal' or ad hominem way.

Furthermore, I think that in many other countries - which I have named - that government works better for all concerned when people do behave in a more inclusive way relative to what constitutes a decent and civilized society.

The point is that people like you and me, or luke and me, can have a reasonable discussion about our differences and about what voting behavior means.

Personal remarks, as I define them, involve you, or he saying that I am something or other as a person and that's what you're doing.

I don't do that - and I only complain about it because the rules here don't allow it.

Have a look back at the kind of disagreements I have with Happy (on one or another of the ferry stories) and you'll see that we don't agree on many issues either.

However, the discussions between us don't degrade into the name calling that we've seen in these comments.

I don't have a thin skin at all - but I do have a large collection of cautions from the editors because I'm not prepared to simply sit back and let people I don't agree with treat me with disrespect.

I'm a peaceful person but I'm not a pacifist and it is simply unfair that the rules here are not equitably enforced. When you or luke do it and it’s not caught by the editors or when pushing the offensive button has no effect what would you expect me to do?

So, let's argue about whether or not Liberal policies are good or bad for society as a whole but let's leave the personal stuff out of it.

Okay.

AND YOU'VE JUST DONE IT AGAIN ABOVE HERE WITH THAT - WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING luke.

"The point is that people

"The point is that people like you and me, or luke and me, can have a reasonable discussion about our differences and about what voting behavior means."

As long as we agree with your preconceptions, right Garth?

"the rules here are not equitably enforced"

The rules here are not equally enforced, Garth and you know it. You and Frank get away with your stuff because you support the editorial bias of the Tyee. The fact that two people are allowed to monopolise all discussion is not good for the Tyee's credibility, nor is the fact that anyone who presents a contrary opinion gets banned.

I will let you have the last word now.

Actually

A friend of mine did some research on that subject. You're suggestion isn't credible - luke says way more and posts far longer stuff than G West or Frank - who is often gone from these pages for months at a time.

As for editorial bias, you're goint to have to talk to David Beers about that cause I think you just delivered another personal slur.

Wilf

I haven't even been here for most of the last 3 months.

Sounds like someone needs to go have a good cry.

The intelligence of voters

Anyone who claims the "voter" has a brain merely needs to look at history.

Hitler for one.

George W Bush won a second term,excuse me,how did that happen?

I have never heard of a ex-president being booed at the hand-over of power ceremony.George W Bush was ready to cry or have someone shot.

Even in the last US election 45% of the voters, cast their ballot for the 300 year republican John Mccain.

In other words,in the US and here in Canada you could run an "orange pilon" for office and they would receive 1/3 of the vote---Which means that the majority of voters have NO BRAIN,eh WILF?

error

Should state - 300 year old republican John Mccain.