April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bunk

You ripped off my name.

Ahh not so! You're are simply Bunk. I am THE Bunk, and if anyone knows anything about The Bunk, you'll know what my cologne is too

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I assume you are talking about conscience rights? that is the only social policy that people seem to have a problem with. If you are concerned about that then you probably won't like the PC's either since the guy standing over Redford's right shoulder (Morton) is the second most powerful member of the party and authored Bill 208, google it

Morton is also the only candidate I've been able to find that even references conscience rights on their campaign website.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I don't think that photo has anything to do with the WRA and everything to do with Globe and Mail insisting on pushing the Alberta stereotype. Why the rural pic, and not the one of her in Vulcan flanked by Kirk and Spock, or one outside the south hospital or any other of thousands of photos taken by the party. All you have to do is look at that photo for your answer: Ranchland, horses, cowboy hat, blue jeans, wire fences, mountains in distance... all that was missing was a pumpjack spewing oil and two guys shooting revolvers in the air to complete the caricature.

Typical garbage from a paper with the audacity to run an article that "Alberta moves to the present" when Redford became our first female Premier. The article itself was sheer stupidity. The Wildrose hasnt even won yet, how can one even begin to predict Election 2016?

I presumed that the party would control the photo used by the Globe in these circumstances. However, as you point out, that may well not be so. If I was wrong (please keep in mind that I refuse to admit that I was wrong unless forced to in the face of overwhelming evidence!), I will happily take back my criticicms of the photo and patiently await another opportuntiy to criticise the Wildrose Alliance.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

They did a profile of the Alberta Party leader on the radio this morning, I can never remember his name.

Anyway, the funny part was when he said he plans to form government in the next 5 years. Good luck with that buddy.

I like that he picked 5 years. The next election would be within 4 years, so he adds an extra year there for no reason in particular. You just know how well thought out that goal must be!

[The Goon]

I just thought it was a nice picture. Yeesh.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I presumed that the party would control the photo used by the Globe in these circumstances. However, as you point out, that may well not be so. If I was wrong (please keep in mind that I refuse to admit that I was wrong unless forced to in the face of overwhelming evidence!), I will happily take back my criticicms of the photo and patiently await another opportuntiy to criticise the Wildrose Alliance.

You could be right, but judging from the stink that one journalist from the Edmonton Journal made about the WRA issuing a press release countering his article, I doubt the party can tell the papers, especially a national one, which photo to use in its articles.

You may get other opportunities to take issue with the Wildrose Party, but this one is pure Globe being partisan and pushing regionalist stereotypes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

You know its election season when the "secret agenda" of a picture is coming into play.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by The_Bunk

But the Wildrose aren't really a fiscal return to the where the PCs are. In fact from what I can see they just simply intend on spending the same amount of money or more, just in different focus areas. But as someone who believes strongly not so much in fiscal conservatism but rather fiscal responsibility and efficiency, the Wildrose platform hardly qualifies as either.

I agree, all parties are proposing lots of spending.

Originally Posted by The_Bunk

If we get the dividend, its likely because of high oil prices, which unto themselves have negative consequences on the general public generally in the form of higher expenses.

True but the dividends have no affect on oil prices so you have the expense either way.

Originally Posted by The_Bunk

But lets be real. The Libs/NDP have no shot, and the PCs are seemingly either way too overconfident or they're accepting of their demise, because they sure aren't doing much to boost their support. I'll be shocked at this point in anyone but the Wildrose forms the next government

The Libs and NDP are toast but the PC's can still win. There was talk about a Liberal win last election and the PC's ended up winning a huge majority. The Liberals were also supposed to win in 1993 and the PC's ended up with a majority. Nothing counts until election day.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

I like that he picked 5 years.

He couldn't say they would form gov this election..... with only 30 candidates registered... I doubt they will hit 44.

The next election would be within 4 years, so he adds an extra year there for no reason in particular. You just know how well thought out that goal must be!

Election could be in less than 4 if we have a minority government.
Or if PC's win and change the "election season"; in which case they could revert to the old 5 year max.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I like that he picked 5 years. The next election would be within 4 years, so he adds an extra year there for no reason in particular. You just know how well thought out that goal must be!

Maybe he knows something we don't and was planning on 1 year of minority government?

Darn, FL beat me to it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The Libs and NDP are toast but the PC's can still win. There was talk about a Liberal win last election and the PC's ended up winning a huge majority. The Liberals were also supposed to win in 1993 and the PC's ended up with a majority. Nothing counts until election day.

In 1993 the PCs were only trailing in the polls prior to the writ being dropped. By the time Ralph called the election he had basically stolen the Libs election platform (Which was based on restraining spending and getting out of crown corporations) and thus was ahead of the Libs by the time the election was called.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

In 1993 the PCs were only trailing in the polls prior to the writ being dropped. By the time Ralph called the election he had basically stolen the Libs election platform (Which was based on restraining spending and getting out of crown corporations) and thus was ahead of the Libs by the time the election was called.

Oops, guess my memory is slipping. Thanks for the correction

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

In 1993 the PCs were only trailing in the polls prior to the writ being dropped. By the time Ralph called the election he had basically stolen the Libs election platform (Which was based on restraining spending and getting out of crown corporations) and thus was ahead of the Libs by the time the election was called.

I think the Liberals were close to winning that year, but then Decore messed up the abortion question with about five days to go.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

He couldn't say they would form gov this election..... with only 30 candidates registered... I doubt they will hit 44.



Election could be in less than 4 if we have a minority government.
Or if PC's win and change the "election season"; in which case they could revert to the old 5 year max.

It's possible, I agree, but not really likely (for more than one reason!).

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think the Liberals were close to winning that year, but then Decore messed up the abortion question with about five days to go.

I remember that too, maybe the Libs gained in the polls during the campaign?

Wikipedia says that the Tories went into the election with the lead.

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by Slava

I like that he picked 5 years. The next election would be within 4 years, so he adds an extra year there for no reason in particular. You just know how well thought out that goal must be!

Communists like to plan in 5 year increments.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by The_Bunk

Ahh not so! You're are simply Bunk. I am THE Bunk, and if anyone knows anything about The Bunk, you'll know what my cologne is too

Ugh, it's just going to create confusion. Can't you go with something else?

[GP_Matt]

I am not sure if more names are still in the queue with Elections Alberta or not, but it looks like only the WRA and the NDP filled all 87 ridings with the PC's at 86, the Liberals at 75 and the Alberta Party at 30. I think it is fair to limit the debate to only those parties that could possibly win the election.

Edmonton Strathcona is interesting as only the NDP and WRA have candidates listed. It could be a true majority wins election.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I am not sure if more names are still in the queue with Elections Alberta or not, but it looks like only the WRA and the NDP filled all 87 ridings with the PC's at 86, the Liberals at 75 and the Alberta Party at 30. I think it is fair to limit the debate to only those parties that could possibly win the election.

Edmonton Strathcona is interesting as only the NDP and WRA have candidates listed. It could be a true majority wins election.

4:30 today was deadline wasn't it? Or did they extended it till tomorrow due to holiday?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Ugh, it's just going to create confusion. Can't you go with something else?

If you can tell me how exactly I can change my name I'll go with something else to avoid the confusion...