Calgary Centre Federal By-election - Nov 26 (UPDATE - Crockatt wins for CPC)

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I wish Nenshi would stay neutral in provincial and federal elections. He has to work with the winner and it doesn't do Calgary any good to have ill will between levels of government.

I disagree, he is representing the city and has every right to push on the parties and their candidates in regards to agendas and plans that will affect us.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I disagree, he is representing the city and has every right to push on the parties and their candidates in regards to agendas and plans that will affect us.

He has the right to do it but I don't think it's helpful. Almost all politicians stay out of other elections for a reason. Quite often the person you are being critical of ends up winning and now you have to deal with them for the next few years. There are plenty of people pushing the candidates, that's not Nenshi's job. Look at the Provincial election, some CPC members couldn't help themselves and came out in support of WR candidates, now we have a bitter relationship between our provincial and federal governments. That isn't helpful.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Jacks

He has the right to do it but I don't think it's helpful. Almost all politicians stay out of other elections for a reason. Quite often the person you are being critical of ends up winning and now you have to deal with them for the next few years. There are plenty of people pushing the candidates, that's not Nenshi's job. Look at the Provincial election, some CPC members couldn't help themselves and came out in support of WR candidates, now we have a bitter relationship between our provincial and federal governments. That isn't helpful.

Certainly saw that in the most recent provincial election!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

He has the right to do it but I don't think it's helpful. Almost all politicians stay out of other elections for a reason. Quite often the person you are being critical of ends up winning and now you have to deal with them for the next few years. There are plenty of people pushing the candidates, that's not Nenshi's job. Look at the Provincial election, some CPC members couldn't help themselves and came out in support of WR candidates, now we have a bitter relationship between our provincial and federal governments. That isn't helpful.

Well, in fairness he's not so much pushing FOR a candidate as pushing AGAINST one.

However, since that candidate is the one most likely to win the election, your point is a good one. Nenshi is a different breed, and I like that he speaks his mind--but there's no question that a toxic relationship between him and the MP for Calgary Centre (should she win) is not helpful to anyone.

[Bunk]

He's pushed her to show up to a forum. He's not saying anything against her or any of her party's positions. It's not "pushing against" anyone. In fact he's been quite complementary of the Feds willingness to talk about a new infrastructure program.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bunk

He's pushed her to show up to a forum. He's not saying anything against her or any of her party's positions. It's not "pushing against" anyone. In fact he's been quite complementary of the Feds willingness to talk about a new infrastructure program.

That's a fair distinction--but she may see it as an attack on her, whether that's fair or not.

On the merits, I side with him in any case. Hopefully she loses, and then it will be sort of a moot point.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a fair distinction--but she may see it as an attack on her, whether that's fair or not.

True, but any view of it being an attack on her is completely HER fault. She is the one that chose the terrible "I was already committed to door knocking" excuse to not attend the forum put on by the rockstar mayor of Canada. That kind of thing gets noticed, even more so when you have only attended one debate prior to that.

If there was only one debate that a candidate could choose to attend in this race, it would probably be that one. Why on earth would you decline?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

True, but any view of it being an attack on her is completely HER fault. She is the one that chose the terrible "I was already committed to door knocking" excuse to not attend the forum put on by the rockstar mayor of Canada. That kind of thing gets noticed, even more so when you have only attended one debate prior to that.

If there was only one debate that a candidate could choose to attend in this race, it would probably be that one. Why on earth would you decline?

Well, the one reason to decline is that if she believes she's en route to winning currently, she has nothing to gain by participating in a debate, and plenty to lose--particularly if she's garbage at debates, which seems to be the case.

One wonders how such an obviously unsuitable candidate won the nomination; hopefully voters find a way to punish the tories for it, if only as an implicit demand for more competent talent in their ranks.

Mind you, I've received literature from both her and Chris Turner, but nothing from Harvey Locke. Anyone know if there's a funding issue with his campaign?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, the one reason to decline is that if she believes she's en route to winning currently, she has nothing to gain by participating in a debate, and plenty to lose--particularly if she's garbage at debates, which seems to be the case.

One wonders how such an obviously unsuitable candidate won the nomination; hopefully voters find a way to punish the tories for it, if only as an implicit demand for more competent talent in their ranks.

Mind you, I've received literature from both her and Chris Turner, but nothing from Harvey Locke. Anyone know if there's a funding issue with his campaign?

No, definitely not. With a spending limit the problem isn't having enough money, its trying to make sure they allocate what they're allowed to spend wisely.

Did you get the piece where Turner never actually mentions the Green party? That was a rather odd piece!

[Senator Clay Davis]

What saddens me is that if a candidate who more or less tries to avoid the process can get elected just by having CPC next to their name, then I have a hard time believing a certain Calgary West MP will have any difficulty getting re-elected again.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

What saddens me is that if a candidate who more or less tries to avoid the process can get elected just by having CPC next to their name, then I have a hard time believing a certain Calgary West MP will have any difficulty getting re-elected again.

He's had no difficulty in the past; there's no reason to suspect anything will change in that respect in the future.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

He's had no difficulty in the past; there's no reason to suspect anything will change in that respect in the future.

While this is true, I'm not sure he's had a run of gaffes/goofs as bad as he's had the last 18-24 months, enough stuff that would ensure defeat for the average MP. I would have hoped he's maybe be at least vulnerable, but this race indicates he can probably make another 3-5 gaffes and still win comfortably.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

While this is true, I'm not sure he's had a run of gaffes/goofs as bad as he's had the last 18-24 months, enough stuff that would ensure defeat for the average MP. I would have hoped he's maybe be at least vulnerable, but this race indicates he can probably make another 3-5 gaffes and still win comfortably.

Honestly, I'm not sure he'll ever top the "Nelson Mandela is a terrorist" gaffe. That one didn't hurt him at all in the end.

He's not well-liked personally by many people, and the fact that he's basically a back-bencher after being in the caucus for just as long as Stephen Harper is an indication of the regard his peers have for him. But the fact is, this city is the Tories' home base, and people vote for the party, not the candidate.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, definitely not. With a spending limit the problem isn't having enough money, its trying to make sure they allocate what they're allowed to spend wisely.

Did you get the piece where Turner never actually mentions the Green party? That was a rather odd piece!

I only got one thing from Turner. But here's the thing: I'm a longtime resident of the constituency and a former member of the Liberal party. How am I not on Harvey Locke's lists? That makes no sense to me--how are they targeting their likely voters if a guy like me is falling through the cracks?

I suppose I should give his office a call, but now I kind of feel like playing hide-and-seek.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I only got one thing from Turner. But here's the thing: I'm a longtime resident of the constituency and a former member of the Liberal party. How am I not on Harvey Locke's lists? That makes no sense to me--how are they targeting their likely voters if a guy like me is falling through the cracks?

I suppose I should give his office a call, but now I kind of feel like playing hide-and-seek.

I'm not involved in the campaign at all, I just know some good friends who are, so I couldn't really say.

In general the byelection has me frustrated though. All of the progressives can agree on so many things. The one thing they can't agree on though is just to take a common-sense view and unite behind one guy so that they can advance all of their interests. Its so pathetic to watch from point of view.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not involved in the campaign at all, I just know some good friends who are, so I couldn't really say.

In general the byelection has me frustrated though. All of the progressives can agree on so many things. The one thing they can't agree on though is just to take a common-sense view and unite behind one guy so that they can advance all of their interests. Its so pathetic to watch from point of view.

I agree. At this point, I'm just going to cast my vote for the progressive that's closest to Crockatt in the polls, and I doubt I'm alone.

For what it's worth I would have leaned to Locke in a perfect world too, so it's not like it's a pure strategic vote. But if a poll came out Nov. 25th that had Turner ahead of him, I might change my mind.

[Knut]

I am not sure what to do at this point.

I am usually a steadfast CPC supporter, but I am getting a little pissed off at their useless candidates in the Calgary ridings. Anders etc. Crockett seems like another one of them.

A scare like this could do the CPC wonders if they actually have to start putting solid candidates into place.

Looks like i need to look into the Liberals for the first time in my life.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not involved in the campaign at all, I just know some good friends who are, so I couldn't really say.

In general the byelection has me frustrated though. All of the progressives can agree on so many things. The one thing they can't agree on though is just to take a common-sense view and unite behind one guy so that they can advance all of their interests. Its so pathetic to watch from point of view.

Looks to me like there's a group of people pretty devoted to Chris Turner that's hi-jacked this process. Hard to see how in a formerally solid conservative riding that there's enough votes for both his campaign and Locke's that still has one of them standing on top at the end.

I've read Turner's campaign materials and it seems he's really trying to downplay his party while promoting himself. He obviously thinks an association with Elizabeth May isn't a winning one for Calgary and on that front I probably agree.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not involved in the campaign at all, I just know some good friends who are, so I couldn't really say.

In general the byelection has me frustrated though. All of the progressives can agree on so many things. The one thing they can't agree on though is just to take a common-sense view and unite behind one guy so that they can advance all of their interests. Its so pathetic to watch from point of view.

Agreed it's fascinating to watch. As someone with a more Libertarian bent to my views it's also quite ironic.

[Bunk]

One thing that became clear in the Cities Matter forum is that each of the three 'progressive' candidates have far more in common than not.

Each though thinks that voters should coalesce around them. Each have a valid argument one way or another. The problem is that if it doesn't actually happen, none will win.

I say, rock-paper-scissors. I'm only half-joking.