Calgary North Hill Under the Radar

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by First Lady

As I stated, I am not an anaylst and it was done in fun.... didn't realize it would be so contraversial....

People are already strongly jaded about politics and politicians. It doesn't matter if it was "in fun" or not, it was misleading. You're running to be a representative, you make a public post under your own name, you should be responsible for what you post.

Sure, CP is generally an anonymous forum, but this is posted on a public blog.

I'm sorry Jane, I'm just trying to hold you to the high standard I expect of one of my public representatives.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Oh god, no....

That's good; you don't sound like Michelle....

Just an aversion to self-aggrandizing politicians, especially those representing a party that basically fractured soon after its inception and can't scourge up enough warm bodies to run a full slate.

So is would seem, a particular aversion to this warm body.

Nothing personal, mind you.

Don't worry, would take much more than this for me to take it personally.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Rathji, maybe you didn't read it either, but it's not propaganda.

propaganda
noun
information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

This is how politics works. I am not surprised nor condemning her for her tactics, because everyone does it.

As I said in my post, I would feel the same way about the post regardless of which party (or candidate) wrote it. The only reason I don't object to it being on the boards is that she is someone I would consider a member of the boards who contributes on at least a semi regular basis.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by First Lady

So is would seem, a particular aversion to this warm body.

Sorry, but seeing as to that your personal blog is prominently linked on your official campaign site, what you write has to be considered at face value. Playing fast and loose doesn't cut it.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Sorry, but seeing as to that your personal blog is prominently linked on your official campaign site, what you write has to be considered at face value. Playing fast and loose doesn't cut it.

Well face value would include this statement I made;

I am not a political strategist that can fully analyze the outcome with any certainty; but let's explore a potential scenerio for fun.

There is only one place where I stated facts:

First a couple of facts:
- voter turnout has been 10-11000 for the last three elections, total electors has been fairly constant around 22000.
- this election the total electors has gone up to nearly 27000, roughly a 15% increase.
- this is the first time in many elections that there are six candidates running.

The rest is personal opinion and as stated "speculation".....

Guess I could have just said I will steal enough votes from Kyle to allow the Liberal candiate come up the middle..... that would have been boring....LOL.... Instead I went for an interesting, perhaps far flung outcome..... or loose and fast as you say....

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Oh god, no....

Just an aversion to self-aggrandizing politicians, especially those representing a party that basically fractured soon after its inception and can't scourge up enough warm bodies to run a full slate.

Nothing personal, mind you.

Are you talking about the alliance or the wildrose alliance. Because if you are talking about the WRA they really weren't given a whole lot of time to choose a full slate.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Are you talking about the alliance or the wildrose alliance. Because if you are talking about the WRA they really weren't given a whole lot of time to choose a full slate.

I don't think time is a valid excuse. The Alliance has been around since 2004.

I was not with the Alliance during the 2004 election, but there were a lot of "name on ballot" candidates. This time round the Wildrose Alliance has a much higher number of calibre candidates with greater potential.

In terms of development time; what worked against us was that people were not really looking for a viable alternative until October 2007. Being a small party; it has been difficult to garner media attention since 2004.

It was not until our stance on the Royalty Review that, that changed. It has renewed the interest in a viable alternative. As did Paul's performance in the debate; he surprised a lot of people.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Are you talking about the alliance or the wildrose alliance. Because if you are talking about the WRA they really weren't given a whole lot of time to choose a full slate.

Well, the WallFlower Alliance pretty much imploded upon inception (old hat for the countless permutations of the fringe right in Alberta, so that's no surprise). Bane of any group comprised of Rugged Individualists, I suppose.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

He may have won with the lowest percentage of the riding's popular vote, but by saying it was the "narrowest margin of all the PCs in Calgary" is quite the spin, and may be considered misleading.

You are right; I did word that poorly. As indicated I am not an analyst, misuse of term was an error on my part. I will correct it.
Thanks Bobble.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Guess I could have just said I will steal enough votes from Kyle to allow the Liberal candiate come up the middle..... that would have been boring....LOL.... Instead I went for an interesting, perhaps far flung outcome..... or loose and fast as you say....

Maybe punditry is best left to the pundits and campaigning to the campaigners?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Maybe punditry is best left to the pundits and campaigning to the campaigners?

Maybe. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[moncton golden flames]

John Chan, the NDP candidate for North Hill, stopped by my house last night to chat. I asked him if there was going to be debate between candidates, he replied "not as of now, the Conservative candidate does not want to participate." DOWN WITH BLUE!

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

John Chan, the NDP candidate for North Hill, stopped by my house last night to chat. I asked him if there was going to be debate between candidates, he replied "not as of now, the Conservative candidate does not want to participate." DOWN WITH BLUE!

So he can't have a debate without the PC candidate?

Seems to me that if the PC candidate wasn't there, he'd be getting much more bad press than if he was.

[Slava]

I'm no political analyst either (more like an armchair quarterback with a vested interest I'd say!). But Jane, you are dreaming in technicolor here. I drive around that constituency all the time, and just yesterday was when I realised that you were the candidate there.

I did know thiw before, from CP...but truthfully I forgot. Yesterday was the first sign of yours that I saw. They say every sign on private property is worth 10 votes...using that rough formula you should have about 900 signs on private property so far. I have to guess that you're about 850 short of that tally?

Good luck though! I don't mean this to be a total slam against you or what you're trying to accomplish. I know that candidates always hope for the best come election day. I know that the NDP in Lethbridge during the federal election wake-up on election day thinking (at least a little, tiny bit) like "maybe people will all vote for me out of pity." Of course I'm not suggesting that you would only garner support that way...but you're predicting your vote total to eclipse your own party polling rates by around 40-45%!!

[Azure]

yeah or not.

nm.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Azure

Problem reading much?

His electable status is 'unknown'....is how I read it.

You're making something over absolutely nothing.

No problem reading whatsoever.

Someone who has previously been successful in getting elected might have better dibs on "electable" status over someone who hasn't and previously ran under a different name. To discount a former School Trustee as a nobody is laughable considering the source.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm no political analyst either (more like an armchair quarterback with a vested interest I'd say!). But Jane, you are dreaming in technicolor here. I drive around that constituency all the time, and just yesterday was when I realised that you were the candidate there.

I did know thiw before, from CP...but truthfully I forgot. Yesterday was the first sign of yours that I saw. They say every sign on private property is worth 10 votes...using that rough formula you should have about 900 signs on private property so far. I have to guess that you're about 850 short of that tally?

Signs, like all campaign materials are not free....until donations come in it is hard to place the order and get them out. As the campaign has progressed donations have increased, thus investment in materials can increase.

I would have to disagree with the every sign worth 10 votes. By that calculation Trevor Grover would have blown everyone out of the water in Calgary Elbow; he had at least 1000 lawn signs out.

Either way I am not going into this with any expectations; it would be great to achieve a higher percentage than I did in Elbow.

Good luck though! I don't mean this to be a total slam against you or what you're trying to accomplish. I know that candidates always hope for the best come election day. I know that the NDP in Lethbridge during the federal election wake-up on election day thinking (at least a little, tiny bit) like "maybe people will all vote for me out of pity." Of course I'm not suggesting that you would only garner support that way...but you're predicting your vote total to eclipse your own party polling rates by around 40-45%!!

Actually I don't consider it a prediction; I simply painted a possible outcome based on speculation. I likely could come up with 2 or 3 more; with different outcomes.
Did I spin it in my favour? Damn right....

If I were to make a prediction, it would be something like this.....

The successful candidate in Calgary North Hill will likely win by less than 1000 votes and with a percentage of votes somewhere between 37-42.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

No problem reading whatsoever.

Someone who has previously been successful in getting elected might have better dibs on "electable" status over someone who hasn't and previously ran under a different name. To discount a former School Trustee as a nobody is laughable considering the source.

I don't see it that way.

His 'electable' status is unknown....meaning there is a possibility that while he has run been elected before, it doesn't necessarily translate into success in this provincial election.

Seriously, I don't see it as a personal attack of any kind. But it probably could have been worded better.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Someone who has previously been successful in getting elected might have better dibs on "electable" status over someone who hasn't and previously ran under a different name. To discount a former School Trustee as a nobody is laughable considering the source.

I have never said he is a "nobody". Simply an "unknown"...just like me....
It was not a personal attack.

Why can't you get past this?

You're not the guy that I turned down at the door the other day.... asking me out on a date... are you?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't see it that way.

His 'electable' status is unknown....meaning there is a possibility that while he has run been elected before, it doesn't necessarily translate into success in this provincial election.

Yeah, no kidding. I guess that's why they count ballots.

Odds are though that the guy might know a thing or two (or three) about running a successful campaign versus an also-ran.

How many incumbents get re-elected? Name recognition is a pretty big deal, even crossing over to a different level of office in the same town.

Originally Posted by Azure

Seriously, I don't see it as a personal attack of any kind. But it probably could have been worded better.

Certainly it was a personal attack. Just not a very clever one.