April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[MoneyGuy]

I don't have time to read all of this thread and it may be here, but can someone give a site where there are riding-by-riding predictions rather than the rural/urban/Edmonton/Calgary/overall? I know it's here somewhere and will go looking.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Don't care what his credentials are, you feel the hate when reading that.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Means nothing though, he is an extremely biased writer because of his union affiliation, and it is clear in that manifesto if you read it as such.

So he has no credibility, to the point that you suggest that he is totally misrepresenting or fabricating Ms. Smith's position and comments, despite a long and apparently quite distinguished career in journalism, based entirely on the fact that he was a "trade union communicator"? Come on.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Don't care what his credentials are, you feel the hate when reading that.

I also feel hatred when I see a quote from someone who is likely to be the premier who has stated that moderate cigarette consumption reduces the risk of traditional disease... unless the first part of that quote was, "50 years ago..." there is no excuse. Cigerettes kill people, end of story, they are bad. Look through the risk factors for diseases, half of them have smoking as a risk factor, to suggest otherwise is absolutely insane.

If someone can find me one reputable medical journal that was put out since the polio vaccine came out that shows the health benefits of moderate cigarettes I would be amazed. Until then that quote is quite damning.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I don't have time to read all of this thread and it may be here, but can someone give a site where there are riding-by-riding predictions rather than the rural/urban/Edmonton/Calgary/overall? I know it's here somewhere and will go looking.

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.ca/
There is a link for riding predictions near the top

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I also feel hatred when I see a quote from someone who is likely to be the premier who has stated that moderate cigarette consumption reduces the risk of traditional disease... unless the first part of that quote was, "50 years ago..." there is no excuse.

If someone can find me one reputable medical journal that was put out since the polio vaccine came out that shows the health benefits of moderate cigarettes I would be amazed. Until then that quote is quite damning.

Well until we see the whole quote that is jumping to conclusions.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So he has no credibility, to the point that you suggest that he is totally misrepresenting or fabricating Ms. Smith's position and comments, despite a long and apparently quite distinguished career in journalism, based entirely on the fact that he was a "trade union communicator"? Come on.

Yes...he has a very clear and concise agenda, which is fine and completely understandable....but also takes away from anything he writes as far as journalistic integrity....happens both ways all the time.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Damning how?

She's unwilling to agree to measures I'm guessing most Albertans would support. Seems odd from a populist movement. Redirecting revenues to programs to curb youth smoking are a waste of money because they won't work as they haven't in the past. Having free votes potentially on the issue is laughable, because whats going to stop tobacco companies from influencing members votes?

[Jacks]

I would suspect this is much like the red light district quotes. The big scary quote was something like "Calgary might as well open up a red light district" when you read the whole quote it was something like "If the police don't enforce the laws then Calgary might as well open up a red light district. Anyone who offers a portion of a sentence as damning evidence usually has a reason for cutting the other part of the sentence.

[Regular_John]

Went to the advanced polls this morning, no real wait but seemed to be a constant flow of 2-3 people coming in & out at all times. The ballot box itself seemed to be pretty dang stuffed this morning as well.

I'll be out of town during the actual election here, so I'm gonna miss all the fun. In b4 "that's it, I'm moving" when the results are tallied.

[Knalus]

Booga boogie booooogggaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!



Remember how she also wanted more prostitutes??


Scaaaaary!?!


I can't believe you guys are falling for this kind of bull. How easily are you manipulated?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Yes, a $300 cheque will help a low income person more than a $300 cheque will help a high income person. Obviously. However, $600 (as a cheque, or better yet, as programming) will help a low income person a lot more than a $300 cheque for them and a $300 cheque for a high income person for whom said $300 will have no meaningful impact (as you've said.) It is a totally regressive, stupid idea, that hurts poor people.

I worked a casino night just after the Ralph bucks came out. We did awesome business, but it was quite unsettling. To half the people it seemed this was found money and they just wanted to blow it, the other half seemed (ok, I'm judging here) to be not very well off and hoping to parlay it into something bigger. Either way it strikes me that a one time or periodic lump sum can't be the most efficient way to use the money.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well until we see the whole quote that is jumping to conclusions.

I am interested to see if the rest of that quote ever does come out. I think that the lucky thing for Smith is that this came out on the weekend when people are doing other things, not thinking of elections and enjoying the weather. If this came out a week ago then I am sure she would be getting hammered hard.

That being said if you want to defend your gal you can likely go to the library and look through some microfilm, I am sure that the quote would be there.

As it looks right now she seems to be a politician who puts intentionally ignores scientific evidence in order to fit her personal views... but as you say it is just a snippit of a quote from someone who does have an axe to grind, so it could just be that it was intentionally taken out of context.... Regardless that still does look pretty damning.

Honest question: if it turns out that quote is accurate, would that change your opinion/who you would vote for?

[photon]

I think she's a plant by the Koch brothers.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

She's unwilling to agree to measures I'm guessing most Albertans would support. Seems odd from a populist movement. Redirecting revenues to programs to curb youth smoking are a waste of money because they won't work as they haven't in the past.

I assume you have some evidence that youth programs don't work?
Raising taxes can be a deterrent but you have to be careful not to go too far or it becomes a profitable black market business which we already have seen.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

whats going to stop tobacco companies from influencing members votes?

In theory nothing, same as the chance of them influencing government legislation.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I would suspect this is much like the red light district quotes. The big scary quote was something like "Calgary might as well open up a red light district" when you read the whole quote it was something like "If the police don't enforce the laws then Calgary might as well open up a red light district. Anyone who offers a portion of a sentence as damning evidence usually has a reason for cutting the other part of the sentence.

Why don't we play a game where we suggests contexts where that quote isn't totally outrageous. I'll go first:

"Only a tobacco industry shill like Mr. Thompson would stand here and lie to you by saying that the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75% or more." Who wants to go next?

Incidentally, I would have agreed with Ms. Smith for once had that red light district quote been accurate. Calgary should open up a red light district.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I worked a casino night just after the Ralph bucks came out. We did awesome business, but it was quite unsettling. To half the people it seemed this was found money and they just wanted to blow it, the other half seemed (ok, I'm judging here) to be not very well off and hoping to parlay it into something bigger. Either way it strikes me that a one time or periodic lump sum can't be the most efficient way to use the money.

Gambling, booze and technology (for nerds like me) is where most of the money likely went. It would have been something really interesting to research actually as to the long term effect of the Ralph Bucks, I think it would have added almost nil to the Alberta economy and 5 years later I bet that the average citizens life hasn't been impacted by the money in any way.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I am interested to see if the rest of that quote ever does come out. I think that the lucky thing for Smith is that this came out on the weekend when people are doing other things, not thinking of elections and enjoying the weather. If this came out a week ago then I am sure she would be getting hammered hard.

That being said if you want to defend your gal you can likely go to the library and look through some microfilm, I am sure that the quote would be there.

I can guarantee you that the PC party has gone through every letter of every word written and every second of audio on Smith already.

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Honest question: if it turns out that quote is accurate, would that change your opinion/who you would vote for?

If she said that smoking is somehow good for you? yes.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Abacus poll, April 18-19
Overall support:
Wildrose: 41%
PC: 31%
NDP: 13%
Liberal: 12%

Calgary:
Wildrose: 44%
PC: 29%
NDP: 12%
Liberal: 13%

Edmonton:
Wildrose: 29%
PC: 36%
NDP: 16%
Liberal: 17%

Outside both cities:
Wildrose: 52%
PC: 28%
NDP: 11%
Liberals: 6%

From those numbers, it doesn't appear that the Leech/Hunsberger issue is having much effect on this campaign.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why don't we play a game where we suggests contexts where that quote isn't totally outrageous. I'll go first:

"Only a tobacco industry shill like Mr. Thompson would stand here and lie to you by saying that the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75% or more." Who wants to go next?

Okay.
Compared to heavy cigarette consumption, 3+ packs per day, the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75% or more.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why don't we play a game where we suggests contexts where that quote isn't totally outrageous. I'll go first:

"When it comes to mental health, like schizophrenia and alzheimers, some studies would say the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75% or more. At the same time other health effects of tobacco use still have the negative effects we all now know about."


.

How's that one?