2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

haha. I really really want to watch the Wire but haven't yet because it's not in HD. 1st world problems.

It was remastered into HD! David Simon actually stepped in to oversee. He says parts are not as good and some are, but gave it his blessing.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by morgin

It was remastered into HD! David Simon actually stepped in to oversee. He says parts are not as good and some are, but gave it his blessing.

Woot woot! I can now finally see Senator Clay Davis and how his contempt for the Olympics unfolded.

[Trojan97]

Was there ever anything discussed about a potential anchor tenant for the 5-7k arena? I know the idea was that it would essentially replace the Corral but it just seems pointless to build something of that size to host WWE house shows and Disney on Ice a handful of times a year beyond it being used for rec/minor hockey on the regular.

[zamler]

There was an organized no side? If there was I didn't see any of that the only people that hounded me were yes crusaders and damn they were super pushy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Woot woot! I can now finally see Senator Clay Davis and how his contempt for the Olympics unfolded.

Irony (and spoiler) alert: Clay might be more corrupt than the IOC.

[tripin_billie]

Originally Posted by zamler

Barber? You must be over 50.

I'm under 50 and grew up always going to Pete's Barbershop in the Co-op shopping center on Macleod Trail.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Irony (and spoiler) alert: Clay might be more corrupt than the IOC.

Clay would have taken bribe money from the "Yes" and "No" organizers to facilitate victory (behind closed doors), then do exactly nothing, and then privately "sincerely" apologize when speaking to Yes and take all the credit when speaking to No.

[goodyear]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It wasn't just that they magically found cost savings when pressed against a deadline, it's that they found cost savings on the line item that is most likely to be well over budget. It was simply not believable. You wanna say they cut out funding something else, fine. But cutting $150 million from security? Laughable.

[Manhattanboy]

I would be interested in a breakdown of the results by age group.

In any event, the bid was flawed in several ways and it was as one poster noted easy for the NDP to commit funds subject to a yes vote. Even if the bid was clearly defined and provided for new facilities and other legacy infrastructure, in today's day and age it appears a yes vote would have been improbable.

[Wormius]

Was it even a bid though? I thought it was still in development. I thought the plebiscite killed it before it got fully fleshed out and turned into a proper proposal.

[Ozy_Flame]

Would have been great to have "If No, what do you want to see instead" and left it a blank fill-in answer. Some of the answers would have been amazing.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I would be interested in a breakdown of the results by age group.

I'm thinking if only people younger than 50 voted, the yes side would have won, but it would still have been close.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Would have been great to have "If No, what do you want to see instead" and left it a blank fill-in answer. Some of the answers would have been amazing.

I think mine would have been:

"Give me a million dollars, a team of my choosing, and six months, and I'll come back with a spreadsheet for your consideration."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fire

I'm thinking if only people younger than 50 voted, the yes side would have won, but it would still have been close.

I strongly doubt that. I think if the voting age cut off was 50, the "Yes" side would have won at least 60-40. But we'll never know - from what I could tell, there was no way to identify from the ballot who had cast the ballot.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by RM14

Pure incompetence by city council, bidco, other two levels of government, and the people. We as a society cant even plan a vote woth 6 months lead time and have the real facts in order.

London calling.

Hold our beer.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Fire

I'm thinking if only people younger than 50 voted, the yes side would have won, but it would still have been close.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I strongly doubt that. I think if the voting age cut off was 50, the "Yes" side would have won at least 60-40. But we'll never know - from what I could tell, there was no way to identify from the ballot who had cast the ballot.

18-34 demographic was the most opposed to the bid.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3929...treet-Ab-Nov12

Page 8.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I strongly doubt that. I think if the voting age cut off was 50, the "Yes" side would have won at least 60-40. But we'll never know - from what I could tell, there was no way to identify from the ballot who had cast the ballot.

60-40 in that age range would basically mean the No side won the remaining brackets at like 80-20. That seems far too optimistic, and it ignores the Mainstreet poll that shows under 34 were the group most against hosting. I think the final vote tells you that while the 50 and under crowd supported this, it wasn't overwhelming support. I would guess something like 53-47 is more realistic.

[Coach]

Does this mean its for sure not happening? I recall it being a "non-binding" plebiscite. is 56% enough of a majority to not bring it?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Coach

Does this mean its for sure not happening? I recall it being a "non-binding" plebiscite. is 56% enough of a majority to not bring it?

There is a debate and vote on Monday. I can't see them proceeding after the strong message sent.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by nik-

18-34 demographic was the most opposed to the bid.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3929...treet-Ab-Nov12

Page 8.

Gah! Mainstreet poll! Run!


I know it's all we have, but with 48 people in the 18-34 age group, I'm having rouble seeing how that's a big enough sample to say anything about it. Only 264 people in total answered. May as well be reading a used piece of toilet paper.


And the weird part is they got 896 people to answer all the other questions. Was this polled separately? Only include Calgarians? Who knows, the methodology doesn't' mention it. Along with that, we see the 18-34 age group has a +- 7.22%, presumably for the sample size of 896 people, so it is going to be much higher for the 264 people polled.


EDIT:

I see in the other tables 264 respondents were form Calgary, so that answers that. They should probably note that somewhere. Actually they should probably just go out of business already.