Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The headline says "Federal Election 2015: Costly Campaign All About Saving Taxpayers' Money, Harper Says" and John Doe presented it as a quote from Harper. You can decide how you want to interpret his words but he did not say that. Let's stick to the facts please, there will be enough made up rhetoric this campaign.

Seriously? You read that as a quote from Harper?

For the second time (at least), it was not a quote. I didn't put it in quotation marks. I didn't claim it was a quote. If you read the post by edslunch, you can see exactly what Harper said and by my interpretation, and apparently by many others' interpretations, that was exactly what he was trying to imply.

I find it odd that those that have a problem with my post are trying to blame me for something that I did not do, yet don't seem to have any comment on what Harper said.

EDIT: I have edited the offending posts so that there should be no confusion for future readers.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Seriously? You read that as a quote from Harper?

For the second time (at least), it was not a quote. I didn't put it in quotation marks. I didn't claim it was a quote. If you read the post by edslunch, you can see exactly what Harper said and by my interpretation, and apparently by many others' interpretations, that was exactly what he was trying to imply.

I find it odd that those that have a problem with my post are trying to blame me for something that I did not do, yet don't seem to have any comment on what Harper said.

Haha, this is just Jacks warm up, you're in for a treat when things really start heating up.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by John Doe

For the second time (at least), it was not a quote. I didn't put it in quotation marks. I didn't claim it was a quote.

Here's what you said.

So, Harper says that he started the campaign now in order to save taxpayer's money.

From that I thought that you meant that Harper said that he started the campaign now in order to save taxpayer's money.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Says the guy who won't discuss the issues and instead launches two personal attacks.

Pretty sure I've been here discussing the issues for years.

You, however, are demonstrating why people like you, Resurrection and Tinordi only drag this forum down.

[DownInFlames]

11 weeks of this bull####. No thanks.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm really interested in seeing how the Calgary vote goes. I don't except the vote here shifting to the NDP as it did in the provincial election. I think my riding has a pretty solid and respectable Conservative nomination, Len Webber. I haven't been able to find an NDP or Liberal running yet.

The Liberal candidate in Calgary Confederation is Matt Grant, a lawyer with BDP. Justin was at his campaign office this afternoon for a rally.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by John Doe

What can I say, you got me there. Nowhere does he say what you have in quotations (notice, however, I didn't use quotation marks when I wrote my post).

What he did say is this:I took this to mean (as it also appeared to mean to the person who wrote the article) that he was saying that he was saving the taxpayers money by not using government resources, meanwhile neglecting to mention that is precisely what he has been doing for a number of years and also neglecting to mention that half of every dollar spent by the parties is refunded back to the parties through rebates after the election. He also failed to mention that his government recently changed the law so that they would also be able to spend about twice as much this election and half of this new spending would have to be paid by the tax payers.

Please note that what I wrote above is my interpretation of what he said and not his exact words. That is why I didn't use quotation marks to signify that those were his words.

Edit: beaten to the punch by edslunch

I think Harper was indirectly targeting Trudeau's "Conservative advertising in the guise of government advertising" criticisms. Whether or not he was trying to argue he is saving taxpayer money this way (and he probably is), he also diminishes one of Trudeau's talking points.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Here's what you said.

From that I thought that you meant that Harper said that he started the campaign now in order to save taxpayer's money.

Again, I never intended to say that those were his exact words. I did intend to say (in my own words) that was what he was implying.

He said this:

“As it my intention to begin campaign-related activities and it is also the case for the other party leaders, it’s important that these campaigns be funded by the parties themselves, rather than taxpayers,” the Conservative leader said.

I took this to mean that he was having the parties pay for the campaigns rather than the taxpayers, thus saving the taxpayers money, even though he didn't say those exact words.

He also said this:

“I feel very strongly that if we’re going to begin our campaigns, if we’re going to run our campaigns, those campaigns need to be conducted under the rules of the law, that the money come from the parties themselves not government resources, parliamentary resources or taxpayer resources,” he said.

I took this to mean that the money was not coming from taxpayers resources, thus saving the taxpayers money, even though he didn't say those exact words.

He also said this:

The call, he added, was about making sure all parties are “operating within the rules and not using taxpayers’ money directly.”

I took this to mean that Harper was saying that the money was not coming directly from taxpayers, thus implying that they were saving the taxpayers money, even though he didn't say those exact words.

Hopefully this post (along with my edited clarification of the two offending earlier posts and later clarifying posts) is sufficient to satisfy you that I did not mean to imply that Harper used the exact words that I used.

More importantly to me, what do you think about what he did say? If you have a different interpretation of what he said would you be so kind as to share it with me?

[killer_carlson]

I tried to make it through Justin trudeau's interview on Power and Politics on CBC newsworld. I had to turn the channel within the first 2 minutes. I am afraid if he ever becomes PM.

The interviewer had Michelle Rempel on earlier and really grilled her hard. Some really difficult questions. Rempel did.... ok... going to be tough for the conservatives to avoid the "aren't we in a recession?" questions.

Didn't see if there was an NDP interview or not.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think Harper was indirectly targeting Trudeau's "Conservative advertising in the guise of government advertising" criticisms. Whether or not he was trying to argue he is saving taxpayer money this way (and he probably is), he also diminishes one of Trudeau's talking points.

I agree.

Look, I know that he had to come up with a reason for why he dropped the writ so early and I am convinced that the real reason was so that they would have a large spending advantage over the other parties so he couldn't say that. I just think that the one that they came up with was extremely lame. Come up with something better or just ignore the question. Don't insult our intelligence.

[Resolute 14]

You overestimate the average voter. Hyper engaged people see through it.

The average voter only reads the newspaper from time to time. All they see is "the parties should be funding their own campaigns". And that can lead to a great many inferences, few of which actually hurts Harper.

[Vulcan]

The real reason Harper is having a long campaign is because it will benefit the Tories.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper could call an election as early as this Sunday. How much money each party has in their coffers is difficult to assess. But according to an analysis by The Canadian Press of the parties' financial returns to Elections Canada, the Conservatives, at a national level, had raised $20.1 million by the end of last year. The Liberals followed with $15 million and the NDP with $9.5 million.

But more crucially, the Tories electoral district associations ended the year with net assets of more than $19 million –more than the riding associations of the Liberals, New Democrats, Greens and Bloc combined, The Canadian Press found. Liberal riding associations reported a total of about $8 million in net assets, NDP associations more than $4.4 million, the Greens at almost $1.2 million and the Bloc at about $410,000.


Pre-campaign, there are no limits to what a party can spend — spending rules only kick in once the writ is dropped and the campaign has officially begun. In a typical 37-day election period, each party can spend a maximum of $25 million. For each additional day the limit is increased by 1/37th, or an extra $675,000, meaning an 11-week campaign would allow parties to spend more than $50 million.

Throwing a curve to the 35-day campaign strategy

And a longer campaign could benefit the Tories in a number of ways. Most of the parties have operated under a 35-day campaign strategy, calculating how much money was needed to purchase advertising and media spots while ensuring enough money was in reserve to blanket the airwaves during the last pash at the end of the campaign.

"Then boom, all of a sudden, now you find out you've got to make that same money last twice as long," Wieder said. "The Tories had this plan already and had already anticipated it which gives them a huge advantage."

Not only do the Tories have the advantage of money on hand, they are also better at raising money during the campaign.

"The Conservatives are better at grassroots fundraising than the other parties," said political scientist Tom Flanagan, former Conservative campaign manager. "And the best time to raise money is an election campaign because that's when people are most interested in it. So this gives you a longer period to do your fundraising with your grassroots."

Here's the kicker, it's actually going to cost taxpayers more for this long campaign since the parties will be spending more.

During a campaign, parties can also take advantage of the campaign rebate, meaning taxpayers subsidize 50 per cent of what the parties spend on a national campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07...n_7901736.html

[Resolute 14]

Of course he's timing it for his party's greatest benefit. That is obvious under any majority.

[Slava]

I think Harpers best timing might have been about a year ago when the economy wasn't in a recession. They can't avoid that, and when the piling on about 8 consecutive deficits gains momentum they might wish this campaign was only 28 days.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Of course he's timing it for his party's greatest benefit. That is obvious under any majority.

The thing is that this long campaign is costing the taxpayer more contrary to what he stated.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Pretty sure I've been here discussing the issues for years.

You, however, are demonstrating why people like you, Resurrection and Tinordi only drag this forum down.

Sometimes you do discuss the issues but if you don't like the conclusion you make a personal attack. It's the sign of a loser.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I tried to make it through Justin trudeau's interview on Power and Politics on CBC newsworld. I had to turn the channel within the first 2 minutes. I am afraid if he ever becomes PM.

The interviewer had Michelle Rempel on earlier and really grilled her hard. Some really difficult questions. Rempel did.... ok... going to be tough for the conservatives to avoid the "aren't we in a recession?" questions.

Didn't see if there was an NDP interview or not.

I just watched the show (had to pvr it!) and I am very curious to know why you had such a reaction to Trudeau's interview. I didn't hear anything outrageous and on the few occasions where he did try to avoid answering the questions Rosie Barton came back with the question again he did answer her.

Rempel was on with an NDP and Liberal candidate. If she is going to answer questions the way she did (basically attacking the other candidates rather than defending the Conservative's record), then yes, things are going to be tough for her and the Conservatives. She frankly sounded like she was in Question Period and I don't think that style will cut it during the election, at least later on when the majority of people start paying attention.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sometimes you do discuss the issues but if you don't like the conclusion you make a personal attack. It's the sign of a loser.

I tried to move on. You chose to go back with a hilariously sanctimonious statement. Perhaps you need to spend some time reviewing your own behavour.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well I'd say this thread is going well so far.

[KelVarnsen]

#11morepainfullongweeks