2011 Canadian Election Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Why would anyone take her seriously? Everytime I see her on camera, I think she must have slept in a ditch the night before and brushed her teeth with a stick of butter.

Seriously, I laughed and felt really guilty at the same time.

[CaptainCrunch]

One of the larger dollar promises on the cons side is a loan guarantee to Atlantic Canada for their hydro power, can we really call a loan guarantee a spending promise?

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Seriously, I laughed and felt really guilty at the same time.

x 2.

Seriously......brushed her teeth with a stick of butter, lol!

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

You've just spent three pages alleging that the Conservatives are every bit as left wing as the Liberals.

No I did not. I've just spent the last three pages alleging that the Conservatives are every bit the Revenue Hogs as the other parties. I never once said that they were at all left-wing... Burning public revenue does not in and of itself = Left or Right wing. The Tories burn through governemnt revenue just as much as the other guys but they burn through it on the things that Right-wingers like to burn it on.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One of the larger dollar promises on the cons side is a loan guarantee to Atlantic Canada for their hydro power, can we really call a loan guarantee a spending promise?

Since a loan guarantee is a promise by one party to assume the debt obligation of a borrower if that borrower defaults then in my mind yes. It's better then a straight handout but the possibility of public expenditure on the project means that dollars need to be allocated towards the possibility until such time as the debt is paid by the principle party to the loan.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I would suspect anything beyond 45% has got to be considered a real landslide. (Interesting find, btw)

To be honest, the only percentage I'm really interested in this time is what percentage of eligible voters did so.

If it ends up under 60% again (and definitely if it decreases), I may change my stance on mandatory voting. There's just no reason we can't get two-thirds of Canadians to make an educated vote every so often. Sadly, I suspect we'll see a new low....55%.

Well call me cynical but I think that even if we get a 70% turnout only a very small fraction of that would be an educated vote.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Well call me cynical but I think that even if we get a 70% turnout only a very small fraction of that would be an educated vote.

Oh, for sure! I do realize that it's a bit of a pipe dream.

To be honest, I'd be happy (as a starting point) if the average voter could do three things:

1. Name at least three party leaders.
2. Clearly identify at least ONE reason they are choosing a party over the others.
3. Show up on election day.

I think that would be a pretty big step in the right direction.

I realize the list shows significant contempt for the average Canadian voter. I'm not actually trying to be mean, which is the sad part.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Oh, for sure! I do realize that it's a bit of a pipe dream.

To be honest, I'd be happy (as a starting point) if the average voter could do three things:

1. Name at least three party leaders.
2. Clearly identify at least ONE reason they are choosing a party over the others.
3. Show up on election day.

I think that would be a pretty big step in the right direction.

I realize the list shows significant contempt for the average Canadian voter. I'm not actually trying to be mean, which is the sad part.

BAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Like that will happen.

I'd be more interested in seeing the voter age breakdown.

Because frankly young people suck.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Well call me cynical but I think that even if we get a 70% turnout only a very small fraction of that would be an educated vote.

Call me cynical, but I don't mind low voter turnout. Look at America's last election. Their voter turnout increased significantly, but how many of these new voters do you think were actually educated on the issues versus people that just voted for Obama because he's cool? If people are going to vote Liberal because they think Harper is a dork or vote Conservative because they think Ignatieff has a creepy smile then I'd rather they just stay home and not bother.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Because frankly young people suck.

Hey! I resemble that statement.

[MarchHare]

how many of these new voters do you think were actually educated on the issues versus people that just voted for Obama because he's cool?

The number of people who voted for Obama just because he's cool is almost certainly less than the number of people who voted against Obama just because he's black.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The number of people who voted for Obama just because he's cool is almost certainly less than the number of people who voted against Obama just because he's black.

Combine that with the fact that a lot of people voted for Obama because Sarah Palin though really doable was a disaster.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The number of people who voted for Obama just because he's cool is almost certainly less than the number of people who voted against Obama just because he's black.

I don't know, perhaps, but you'd be kidding yourself if there weren't a ton of people that just voted for Obama because he is black as well. The point is, people made stupid, uneducated votes on both sides of the political spectrum.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The number of people who voted for Obama just because he's cool is almost certainly less than the number of people who voted against Obama just because he's black.

Over 95% of black voters voted for Obama. Although about 90% voted for Kerry so the racial thing is kind of moot.

About 44% of white voters voted for Obama. However Mccain only won the older, white demographic. Obama cleaned up with young voters as well.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

You pay down the debt and deficit in the good years, not in the years of recovery.

Unfortunately, the Cons did not apply this principle 2005-2008.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SebC

Unfortunately, the Cons did not apply this principle 2005-2008.

I thought they did pay down the debt?

[octothorp]

Interesting piece in the G&M about the detainee documents that are set to be released in the next couple weeks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1970557/

I had been wondering myself why nothing about the detainee controversy had come up as a major talking point, but I guess it's pretty clear: the opposition knows that it's going to resurface in a big way midway through this campaign without them needing to bring it up. Either the documents come out, and the media spends a couple weeks focused on this major, embarrassing screw-up for the Tories, or the Tories appeal the release of the documents in court, which simply reinforce the narrative that a) there's something really embarrassing in the documents, and b) this is a government of secrecy and suppression.
Add that looming issue to the fact that every day there's another negative story about the Conservatives (news today that they threw a 19-year-old out of an event because she had a picture of herself with Ignatieff on Facebook, while another man was denied entry because he had an NDP bumper sticker).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I would suspect anything beyond 45% has got to be considered a real landslide. (Interesting find, btw)

To be honest, the only percentage I'm really interested in this time is what percentage of eligible voters did so.

If it ends up under 60% again (and definitely if it decreases), I may change my stance on mandatory voting. There's just no reason we can't get two-thirds of Canadians to make an educated vote every so often. Sadly, I suspect we'll see a new low....55%.

One thing worth noting is that, thanks to the Liberals, refusing to cast a ballot could be considered making an educated decision. It was the Chretien Liberals that introduced the vote subsidy as part of its "fundrasing reforms" that were designed to try and cripple the Reform Party while maintaining the Liberals' own financial base.

Consequently, when you mark your X, you are also giving that political party access to your wallet. The truth is, if you don't like any of the candidates or parties, you have a greater incentive, and perhaps a duty, to not vote.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Interesting piece in the G&M about the detainee documents that are set to be released in the next couple weeks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1970557/

I had been wondering myself why nothing about the detainee controversy had come up as a major talking point, but I guess it's pretty clear: the opposition knows that it's going to resurface in a big way midway through this campaign without them needing to bring it up. Either the documents come out, and the media spends a couple weeks focused on this major, embarrassing screw-up for the Tories, or the Tories appeal the release of the documents in court, which simply reinforce the narrative that a) there's something really embarrassing in the documents, and b) this is a government of secrecy and suppression.
Add that looming issue to the fact that every day there's another negative story about the Conservatives (news today that they threw a 19-year-old out of an event because she had a picture of herself with Ignatieff on Facebook, while another man was denied entry because he had an NDP bumper sticker).

This is just the media trying to run with something. You can't tell me that other parties don't keep a good eye on who's attending their events. I'm quite sure when the Liberals released their "Family Pack" that they knew each and every person in the hall to make sure there were no chance of opposition.

When I watched this story on TV this morning, both reporters from CBC and CTV were just amazed that this could ever happen.

Also does anyone know when Ignatieff is planning a trip to Alberta or Saskatchewan? (If he comes at all) I'd like to know if they will be filtering who's allowed into his rally or if just any Albertan can attend.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I thought they did pay down the debt?

Getting rid of a $13 billion annual surplus takes a bit of time.

[Torture]

nm