Calgary North Hill Under the Radar

[Bobblehead]

But outside of the WRA faithful, will many people will vote for them for any reason other than a protest vote?

They are pretty far off the centre; looking at the links off FirstLady's blog (outside of CP) the links go to ABFreedom (from the masthead - "We have no time for Moonbats or left wing Loonies, so if you get out of hand, which I determine, you'll be banned."), Ezra Levant, The Modern Separatist, and so on (see he blog for hyperlinks). All are welcome to their opinions, and these are opinions that First Lady apparently shares, but they are views pretty far off what the majority of the voting electorate would seem to be willing to espouse.

So what is the Wildrose -Alliance?
Outside of the far right wing and separatists, who are going to vote for this party?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So what is the Wildrose -Alliance?
Outside of the far right wing and separatists, who are going to vote for this party?

Disenchanted centre-right conservatives who feel the PC party is stale, spend happy, arrogant and listless. We all know there's a lot of them in Alberta, likely the majority of those 16% undecideds and the rest are probably grudgingly decided to vote PC due to WRA concerns and Lib/Dipper disdain. Ironically, the more powerful the WRA gets, the more moderates will have to of been accomodated, and the more moderate they will become... likely pushing the zealots to the fringe, and back to a fringe party.

If they fail to accomodate the numerous socially moderate centre-rights, they will remain a fringe party and someone else will come up and take their place.

[Slava]

^^Its a pure protest vote. Nothing more, nothing less. In Alberta though its more acceptable to "spew vitriol" from the right wing for some reason.

[Don Benji]

John Chan appears to have a ton of support in the area. His signs are all over the place. It's odd to see so many NDP signs in Calgary. Never thought I'd see the day.
I don't think he'll be close to winning but a significant increase is certainly possible.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

^^Its a pure protest vote. Nothing more, nothing less. In Alberta though its more acceptable to "spew vitriol" from the right wing for some reason.

One could also argue the same for the Green Party in Alberta.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Don Benji

John Chan appears to have a ton of support in the area. His signs are all over the place. It's odd to see so many NDP signs in Calgary. Never thought I'd see the day.
I don't think he'll be close to winning but a significant increase is certainly possible.

I noticed that too driving through that riding yesterday. I think he's doing a great job of door-knocking either personally or by campaigners on his behalf. I noticed a person drapped in his NDP signs walking up the street with a clipboard on the highly visable Northmount/Cambrian Drive intersection. However that being said Brain Mason himself could walk up to my door numerous times during the campaign and unless he physically hit me really hard in the head each time I'd never vote for them.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

^^Its a pure protest vote. Nothing more, nothing less. In Alberta though its more acceptable to "spew vitriol" from the right wing for some reason.

I think every party not lead by Stelmach will be praying for that lucrative protest vote... every other party is hopeless without it, including the Liberals. There just aren't that many left-leaning centrists in Alberta.

I think the far right vitriol offends most people, but since the median voter in Alberta is probably a social centrist that leans to the right slightly economically , the far left propaganda seems like the greater lunacy, since its further from them on the spectrum.

[Slava]

Its funny. In my time on the campaign trail I think that the latest and greatest thing that everyone claims now is to be "fiscally conservative". Strangely though I bet that if we started a thread here you would get a number of different answers about what that really means/is. I also think that everyone thinks that they are centrist, or in the majority...but again this is a moving target.

As far as "left leaning centrists" I actually tend to think that this is the largest segment of voters...but the least represented by the parties we have.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its funny. In my time on the campaign trail I think that the latest and greatest thing that everyone claims now is to be "fiscally conservative".

In theory it 'is' the greatest thing out.

Problem is like you said, everyone has a different viewpoint of what fiscally conservative is. I don't think that will change anytime soon either.

[Slava]

Just out and about this morning there is a riding that could have a real surprise in NE calgary. I honestly haven't looked at the name of the riding, but there is an Independent Conservative candidate named Ron Leech there. He has a lot of signs up, at least in the areas that I was in. (I'm talking about signs on private property...which means a lot of commited voters).

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just out and about this morning there is a riding that could have a real surprise in NE calgary. I honestly haven't looked at the name of the riding, but there is an Independent Conservative candidate named Ron Leech there. He has a lot of signs up, at least in the areas that I was in. (I'm talking about signs on private property...which means a lot of commited voters).

Its definitely going to be a battlefield. While we may disagree on politics and who we perceive as the median Alberta voter, voting patterns since 1992 tend to indicate that there are a huge amount of "conservatives." Many of these conservatives are disenchanted and/or unhappy. Whether they swing left, or right, independent or protest will greatly affect the electoral results.

Incidentally, I've noticed a lot of Chandler signs in SE Calgary too... I wonder if he's a factor.

Also, to comment on your previous post... I'd would say the centre-left voter is overrepresented and splintered moreso than the centre-right. The Liberals, NDP and Green Party all have significant policy that cater to that group of people (with the NDP and Green getting fairly radical left). The biggest enemy of the Liberals is the NDP, as they (and now the Greens) vote-split the left, and I think the Dippers pride themselves on playing spoiler. Up until now, the other centre-right/right parties (Social Credit, etc.) have not been factors in splitting the centre-right vote. Should be interesting now to see how the WRA and these independent conservatives sway the vote percentages.

[Slava]

^ I have also seen a fair number of Chandler signs in Egmont. I think that he is a factor there, but more of a vote-splitter. I was down-right shocked to see as many Leech signs as I did! I know that some don't put much into sign counts...but like I mentioned before those are commited voters in an election where there are a large percentage of undecideds.

Chandler is a well-known guy...for better or for worse. He has the name recognition though, and in a riding that has no incumbent that could be a big point in his favour.

[Thunderball]

^ I'd say that Calgary-Egmont is a favorite to go Red... I can see Chandler, PCs and the WRA splitting the right vote enough for the Liberal faithful to sneak in, especially if the hard left voters there strategic vote.

[flamey_mcflame]

I just started reading this thread tonight and after seeing the back and forth between the two of you, I've reached these conclusions.

A) Reggie doesn't like Jane and the party she's associated with. However, there seems to be a lot of anger and bitterness rather than a disagreement with Jane's views

B) Jane seems to keep apologizing/explaining her responses to Reggie as if he is actually her opponent in the riding. Why waste your time debating someone who just gets off on attacking you regardless of your apologies or explanations.

C) You two keep continuing this endless procession for days which indicates some sort of psychological attachment you two have.

D) As much as people might like the fiscal ideas of WIldrose Alliance. There social views are outdated. Paul Hinman lost all the momentum in the debate when it came to child care and he suggested that Albertans should be focused on family friendly policies. I.E. Man work, woman cook and feed children. Your party actually assumes that the majority of people want to go back into time when there was this supposed "golden era" of humanity. It's a myth and most people actually enjoy the way things or otherwise your party would garner more than the rural vote and the " I hate change" vote.

E) One last thing, I haven't heard of either you or the PC candidate prior to today. Nor should it matter, you vote for a party's platform and policies, not someone's picture on a lawn sign and brochure. Only fools vote for an individual MP. As if that one person is gonna vote against party lines or get the leader to change his government plans. Good grief.

My prediction for your party Jane, WA gets to keep its one seat...maybe.

[flamey_mcflame]

I still don't understand why there isn't a party that exists provincially or federally that would appeal to me and the myriad of others out there. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal and modern. Is that dichotomy impossible??
Oh well, as long as the NDP gets reduced to 1 or 2 seats after this election, I'll be happy. That party gets way too much media pub and attention for its irrelevance in this province. This party has been riding on its past semi-glory federally to think they actually mean anything to today's voters.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

I still don't understand why there isn't a party that exists provincially or federally that would appeal to me and the myriad of others out there. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal and modern. Is that dichotomy impossible??
Oh well, as long as the NDP gets reduced to 1 or 2 seats after this election, I'll be happy. That party gets way too much media pub and attention for its irrelevance in this province. This party has been riding on its past semi-glory federally to think they actually mean anything to today's voters.

I don't think its impossible... I just think that party hasn't been brought into being yet. Thing is, those two positions tend to stick with other positions:
Socially Liberal... Economically Leftist (to pay for the social liberalism)
Socially Moderate... Economically Moderate (balanced outlook)
Socially Conservative... Economically Right (hard line economics for hard line lifestyles)

I don't think people have really been offered the option of both moderate social policy and real fiscal conservatism. Therefore, for now it becomes a question of priority. Economics are my priority, so I'll vote WRA.

I know Hinman and his brood will never be able to force in their social agenda. However, I think a lot of people would be pleased with their fiscal agenda. They also have next to no hope of forming government anyway... but its a good protest vote for now, and a kick to the PCs collective ass to right their ship or be eventually replaced.

I also know that inherently, the stronger that party becomes, there will be a limit to their vote potential as they are. There will be a much greater need to moderate toward the median voter and to jettison strong social conservative voices like the Hinmans and Byfields of that party back to the fringes and replace them with people that share a more moderate and progressive social policy.

Also, I think Hinman wasn't totally wrong with his childcare diatribe... but was saying it for the wrong reasons. Children need to be in loving, caring environments wherever possible. Insititutional daycare is not ideal... but some people don't have that choice. Many people do though... and rather than asking the woman to be barefoot and pregnant with child in pure regressive style, the government should extend incentives to fathers, mothers, grandparents, relatives, older siblings and stay-at-home family friends to watch the children. That has the two-prong benefit of reducing daycare space for those who truly need it, and encouraging the family (in whatever way, shape or form people choose).

[flamey_mcflame]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Also, I think Hinman wasn't totally wrong with his childcare diatribe... but was saying it for the wrong reasons. Children need to be in loving, caring environments wherever possible. Insititutional daycare is not ideal... but some people don't have that choice. Many people do though... and rather than asking the woman to be barefoot and pregnant with child in pure regressive style, the government should extend incentives to fathers, mothers, grandparents, relatives, older siblings and stay-at-home family friends to watch the children. That has the two-prong benefit of reducing daycare space for those who truly need it, and encouraging the family (in whatever way, shape or form people choose).

Thanks for the reply Thunderball. You bring up some good points. The whole childcare issue is one that could take a long time to debate. For me, it really narrows down to this. I think the consumer mindset and philosophy has overridden personal responsibility and choice. You see, people need to have 2000 sq feet house, 3 cars, boat, vacation property,etc. These have become financial needs rather than wants. What happens?? People who choose to have children now feel its the government and taxpayer's responsibility that they have all these "needs" and still have fiscal help for their children. If you choose to acquire these goods, then you have to make sacrifices. If you want children, fine. But its your social and fiscal responsibility to not burden the taxpayer by your decisions. This consumer society suddenly makes all these wants=needs. Therefore, I have to subsidize their lifestyle with my tax dollars. I hate that my financially and socially smart decisions allow others to make unwise decisions because they know that they have this social net supported by tax dollars. I'd rather this province wouldn't tax and spend to support people who do not think long term,responsibly and fairly. It just doesn't seem right.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Thanks for the reply Thunderball. You bring up some good points. The whole childcare issue is one that could take a long time to debate. For me, it really narrows down to this. I think the consumer mindset and philosophy has overridden personal responsibility and choice. You see, people need to have 2000 sq feet house, 3 cars, boat, vacation property,etc. These have become financial needs rather than wants. What happens?? People who choose to have children now feel its the government and taxpayer's responsibility that they have all these "needs" and still have fiscal help for their children. If you choose to acquire these goods, then you have to make sacrifices. If you want children, fine. But its your social and fiscal responsibility to not burden the taxpayer by your decisions. This consumer society suddenly makes all these wants=needs. Therefore, I have to subsidize their lifestyle with my tax dollars. I hate that my financially and socially smart decisions allow others to make unwise decisions because they know that they have this social net supported by tax dollars. I'd rather this province wouldn't tax and spend to support people who do not think long term,responsibly and fairly. It just doesn't seem right.

I'm right there with you. You are today a product of both your own past decisions and circumstances. Those who wish for the efforts of others to erase their own bad choices in life should take a hike. The systems and policies these people propose cheapen the efforts of those who made smart choices and provide incentives to make bad choices.

[Slava]

I would agree with you guys about the social safety net...if it was more truthful!

I don't know anyone who has made terrible decisions based on the social safety net being there to support them. I do know of people who faced horrendous accidents and trauma in their lives though who were able to overcome their temporary situation because of the safety net being there to help them when they clearly needed help.

Its trite to suggest that everyone using the social programs is doing so because of poor decisions, or is trying to take advantage of the system. Sure, a very small percentage is...but you can't base your system on the lowest common denominator.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I would agree with you guys about the social safety net...if it was more truthful!

I don't know anyone who has made terrible decisions based on the social safety net being there to support them. I do know of people who faced horrendous accidents and trauma in their lives though who were able to overcome their temporary situation because of the safety net being there to help them when they clearly needed help.

Its trite to suggest that everyone using the social programs is doing so because of poor decisions, or is trying to take advantage of the system. Sure, a very small percentage is...but you can't base your system on the lowest common denominator.

I would disagree with that. I would peg it closer to 50% +. People who drop out of school, people who get addicted to drugs, child pregnacy's (multiple ones at that), people with no drive to improve there lives.

I agree that it is needed to help the people that really need it but I will not agree that it is a very small percentage.