Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[wingmaker]

I find it funny that Mulcair is the one getting roasted for this. Harper started all of this by refusing to take part in the traditional debate format and instead hand picking the debates that suit his timing and his agenda. For Mulcair and Trudeau they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. They either conform to Harper's choices or they debate amongst themselves in addition to debating Harper, opening themselves up to the conservatives picking apart the extra debates and slamming them after the fact. Debates are highly volatile events that can swing either in your favour or out of it very quickly.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Jacks

This narrative that the parties are avoiding debates is mind bottling. In the past there have been 2 debates. This time there are going to be as many as 7. The first debate is available for streaming on multiple websites and TV channels and in what looks to be 6 languages.

Edit: I mean to say that there will be plenty of debates and chances for people to see the leaders. Having debates that are missing leaders is silly though.

The problem is the proliferation of boutique debates and parties making the arrangements. The previous consortium debates had the benefit of being nationally broadcast and a must-attend for all leaders. Having said that the format was getting long in the tooth vis a vis new communication channels

The right answer is to have an independent commission manage the debates

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Jacks

This narrative that the parties are avoiding debates is mind bottling. In the past there have been 2 debates. This time there are going to be as many as 7. The first debate is available for streaming on multiple websites and TV channels and in what looks to be 6 languages.

Edit: I mean to say that there will be plenty of debates and chances for people to see the leaders. Having debates that are missing leaders is silly though.

Yes, there are plenty of debates. My two main problems with the new set-up are:
- there will be fewer people able to watch the debates than before even with the online streaming.
- the debates will be smaller in scope (each will deal with specific areas such as the economy, etc.). This will allow the participants to avoid debating issues that they are weak on and will not give the electorate an accurate view of their candidacy.

I have the same problem with leaders unwilling to answer questions. Reporters are there to represent us and tell us what the politicians are doing/saying. That is their job. If leaders refuse to answer to the media, then they are in essence refusing to answer to us.

Edit: Once again, beaten by edslunch!

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Well then that brings in the Trudeau option. He'll debate anyone, anywhere, anytime in English or French.

Could a Mulcair-Harper fight see Trudeau go right up the middle?

To your first point, Trudeau's willingness to debate would only help the opposing parties. When put on point, or when having to speak off the cuff, he drives his foot in his mouth and swallows. Hard.

To your question, I do think Harper/Mulcair debates could maaaybe push some voters to swing to the Libs, but not enough to make a difference.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I suppose there is more to Alberta's prosperity than pipelines, and O&G certainly shouldn't dictate the political agenda, but between Notley nixing Keystone and soft on going West, and Mulcair shooting down going East, Alberta is in for a world of hurt.

I really don't get why people keep harping on this. How is it possible to go soft on something that has 0% chance of happening. BC is done with it. There is zero appetite for that pipeline to go through here, and Clark is avoiding it like the plague because it's a political hand grenade.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

I find it funny that Mulcair is the one getting roasted for this. Harper started all of this by refusing to take part in the traditional debate format and instead hand picking the debates that suit his timing and his agenda. For Mulcair and Trudeau they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. They either conform to Harper's choices or they debate amongst themselves in addition to debating Harper, opening themselves up to the conservatives picking apart the extra debates and slamming them after the fact. Debates are highly volatile events that can swing either in your favour or out of it very quickly.

That would be risky on the part of the Conservatives. It could work out the way you described, or it could emphasis the perception that they are hiding something and that they only care about a select portion of Canadians.

That said, I think that all bets are off is there is a profound shift in the polling. If that were to happen I would expect that the willingness to attend the debates would change signifianctly.

[Jacks]

Well all I can say is that last few debates organized by the consortium have been awful. I prefer the idea of debates on specific topics since we will might get some real policy and interaction by the leaders. Trying to stuff 10 topics with 5 leaders into 2 hours meant that a party leader would only have a minute or 2 to lay out their ideas on pretty major topics. Then all of the droning on after their time was up and talking over each other was annoying.

As for the idea that the debates are less accessible? I totally disagree, if anything they are more accessible and certainly more interactive, especially in the increasingly digital age.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well all I can say is that last few debates organized by the consortium have been awful. I prefer the idea of debates on specific topics since we will might get some real policy and interaction by the leaders. Trying to stuff 10 topics with 5 leaders into 2 hours meant that a party leader would only have a minute or 2 to lay out their ideas on pretty major topics. Then all of the droning on after their time was up and talking over each other was annoying.

As for the idea that the debates are less accessible? I totally disagree, if anything they are more accessible and certainly more interactive, especially in the increasingly digital age.

I hope that you're sitting down because I totally agree. The leaders should debate every week. I don't need to see them touring cheese factories or whatever as photo-ops. The can announce policy during the day and debate in the evening; its not that hard.

If I was Trudeau I would show-up to every debate and if Mulcair and Harper fail to show for whatever reason its their loss. Go out, trounce May and people will take notice. Frankly if those other two are too stupid to realise it will give him an hour to tee off with no reply from them, that's their own problem.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

To your first point, Trudeau's willingness to debate would only help the opposing parties. When put on point, or when having to speak off the cuff, he drives his foot in his mouth and swallows. Hard.

That is the narrative. The Conservatives have underestimated him before at their own peril (see Patrick Brazeau). I will reserve judgment on his debating ability until after I see him debate.

[2Stonedbirds]

I'm just going by what I've seen from him in the past when a mic is shoved in front of him, and he's put on the spot.

I'm sure he will be prepared for a debate, but cannot be prepared for anything and everything thrown at him. Unless he has a script, he pulls out the classic "ummm uhhh umm aaaaaand ummmm ya". He hasn't convinced me he's much more than a parties weak attempt to cash in on "rock star" value and not just another empty suit.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm just going by what I've seen from him in the past when a mic is shoved in front of him, and he's put on the spot.

I'm sure he will be prepared for a debate, but cannot be prepared for anything and everything thrown at him. Unless he has a script, he pulls out the classic "ummm uhhh umm aaaaaand ummmm ya". He hasn't convinced me he's much more than a parties weak attempt to cash in on "rock star" value and not just another empty suit.

That's my opinion too. He doesn't seem to do to well when put on the spot. We'll just have to see how the debates go for it to be confirmed I guess.

Agree on the second part as well. They went for a guy with name recognition rather than the person most qualified for the job.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I hope that you're sitting down because I totally agree. The leaders should debate every week. I don't need to see them touring cheese factories or whatever as photo-ops. The can announce policy during the day and debate in the evening; its not that hard.

I agree but if you have a debate every week then you need to also set a hard timeline on the length of the election (which we should have anyway). Having 10 or 11 debates would be a bit much. Having a 7 week election with 6 debates, 3 french and 3 english, would be a sweet spot IMO.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm just going by what I've seen from him in the past when a mic is shoved in front of him, and he's put on the spot.

I'm sure he will be prepared for a debate, but cannot be prepared for anything and everything thrown at him. Unless he has a script, he pulls out the classic "ummm uhhh umm aaaaaand ummmm ya". He hasn't convinced me he's much more than a parties weak attempt to cash in on "rock star" value and not just another empty suit.

What have you seen from Harper that makes you think he has great debating skill? His creepy robotic stare at the camera? His completely uncharismatic delivery?

I think that the CPC is more worried about Trudeau than they care to admit. If he has charisma and doesn't look foolish against Harper not once or twice but 5-7 times on national TV that suddenly thrusts him back into the race, which is disaster for them.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Slava

What have you seen from Harper that makes you think he has great debating skill? His creepy robotic stare at the camera? His completely uncharismatic delivery?

I think that the CPC is more worried about Trudeau than they care to admit. If he has charisma and doesn't look foolish against Harper not once or twice but 5-7 times on national TV that suddenly thrusts him back into the race, which is disaster for them.

Is it really a disaster though? The path to a CPC majority is a lot easier with the Liberals and NDP splitting the vote. I think the CPC would prefer he stay viable for as long as possible.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Is it really a disaster though? The path to a CPC majority is a lot easier with the Liberals and NDP splitting the vote. I think the CPC would prefer he stay viable for as long as possible.

Harper hasn't really had any real threat since coming into power. Dion and Ignatieff really stuggled to get their message across.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Is it really a disaster though? The path to a CPC majority is a lot easier with the Liberals and NDP splitting the vote. I think the CPC would prefer he stay viable for as long as possible.

I agree. There are 78 seats in Quebec. If the Liberals are not even relevant there, the CPC is in trouble, overall, I think. I can't see that many of the votes going to the Bloc instead, and almost none to the CPC.

[corporatejay]

Curious, why do people put so much faith in debates? Because it shows that a person can think on their feet? Who cares? Wouldn't you prefer them to think about more reasonably well thought out answers?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

To your first point, Trudeau's willingness to debate would only help the opposing parties. When put on point, or when having to speak off the cuff, he drives his foot in his mouth and swallows. Hard.

To your question, I do think Harper/Mulcair debates could maaaybe push some voters to swing to the Libs, but not enough to make a difference.

Just saying that if people are disgusted about leaders not debating, here is a guy who is.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm just trying to figure out - are people suggesting that debates between just Mulcair and Harper, without any of the other leaders, are a realistic possibility?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I agree. There are 78 seats in Quebec. If the Liberals are not even relevant there, the CPC is in trouble, overall, I think. I can't see that many of the votes going to the Bloc instead, and almost none to the CPC.

The CPC are somewhat competitive in the Quebec City region. They could realistically get 10+ seats if things go well for them. As for the Bloc, they should do better than last election, it would be hard for them to do worse.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm just trying to figure out - are people suggesting that debates between just Mulcair and Harper, without any of the other leaders, are a realistic possibility?

I don't think anyone is saying that. Trudeau and May haven't ruled out any debates that I know of and Duceppe will surely be in for any French debates. Harper has said he won't attend the consortium debates but hasn't ruled anything else out that I know of. Mulcair is kind of up in the air at this point.