April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

I thought it was interesting that every time there was an open floor Redford was always the first in there.

You mean Smith right? at least for the last half anyway.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I wouldn't be shocked to see them rebrand themselves as something else, at least provincially.

They were slaughtered in the last election and still kept the name. They seem to be in denial that the Liberal brand is toxic in Alberta.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The truth is that actual debates rarely change anything during an election, because almost nobody actually watches them.

I think there is still a percentage of people for who the debate is one of the few things they base their voting on.

I'm so immersed in the online world (news websites, forums, FB, Twitter) that it still surprises me when I meet someone who's only source of news is what they see on TV or maybe on the radio while in vehicle.

My mother is a perfect example of this. She reads the local weekly paper, occasionally listens to radio and watching news (once) daily.

I'm going to call her today actually, because she had one major concern about Danielle and I'm curious if the debate changed that for her at all.

Originally Posted by darklord700

Redford also needed to hire a make up artist. She looked down right mean most of the time.

Not sure make-up can make you look non-mean, unless of course you are going for the Joker look.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think for most of the Liberal candidates its a resume filler, I ran as a Liberal Candidate in 2012 type of thing.

I didn't see Smith as tentative or nervous, I thought that she was the best public speaker in the bunch, she didn't get flustered or panic, she was very calm. She didn't go for the knockout punch, and she didn't go into a nasty attack but I think that she realized that the Liberal and NDP would open up a lot of the hatchet attacks on Redford last night.

Someone earlier said that Redford looked premier like. I really disagree, at times she looked flustered and angry, her opening remarks were terrible compared to the rest and her closing was relatively weak.

Raj Sherman did very well, but his message was incredibly mixed to me, we are selling oil at $110.00 a barrell yet we have to raise taxes.

To me, none of them did a good job on the health care debate. Smith did score solid points with me with the its not the money that we spend its how we spend it.

Redford got absolutely slaughtered on the no meet committee and on her pay raise.

She lost major points to Mason when she accused him basically of lying after he pulled out her quote from the Hansard.

The one thing that's clear in this election is that most Albertan's are pissed at the Conservatives and this is shaping up to be a punishment vote, Redford I think did little positive to allay that direction. I think that the ongoing polls going into the last few days are going to be interesting, I doubt that the NDP is going to gain ground. I would expect that badly organized campaign or not that the Libs will take votes from the Conservatives as a protest vote ala Jack Layton and the NDP, but it won't be as significant.

Any chance for momentum or a strong week of campaigning by the PC's is pretty much lost, they have to go into desparation damage control mode, she didn't do enough to help herself.

I dont' think that Wildrose gained or lost anything last week, they're likely to form the government if they make sure that they gain a chunk of the undecided I think its going to be close to a WRA majority.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I think there is still a percentage of people for who the debate is one of the few things they base their voting on.

I'm so immersed in the online world (news websites, forums, FB, Twitter) that it still surprises me when I meet someone who's only source of news is what they see on TV or maybe on the radio while in vehicle.

My mother is a perfect example of this. She reads the local weekly paper, occasionally listens to radio and watching news (once) daily.

I'm going to call her today actually, because she had one major concern about Danielle and I'm curious if the debate changed that for her at all.




Not sure make-up can make you look non-mean, unless of course you are going for the Joker look.

Ok hands up everyone straw poll, how many people would change your votes back to the PC's if Redford had come out in Joker makeup and started her opening statement with "Do you know how I got these scars?"

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Jacks

You mean Smith right? at least for the last half anyway.

Not at all. Every time there was an opening Redford seamed to pounce. I don't recall Smith ever being the first in there especially towards the last half when it was mostly commercial breaks. The only time I remember Smith trying to jump in was when the discussion was opened between Mason and herself, and they had that little "you go first, no you go first" volley.

[Notorious Honey Badger]

I may actually vote PC's this time just because of the presence of Wild Rose party. Makes me ill to my stomach.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think for most of the Liberal candidates its a resume filler, I ran as a Liberal Candidate in 2012 type of thing.

I thought about this resume padding angle, but with Wikipedia wouldn't the employer just look up the election and see that she only received 5% of the vote?

[Rathji]

As a follow up to my irritation over illegally placed signs, I sent emails to both WRP candidates whose illegally placed signs have been bothering me.

Wayne Anderson replied extremely quickly saying he would look into it, but has yet to follow up. I was not able to check the signs that bothered me as of last night.

Bill Jarvis took a little bit longer to reply but when he did informed me that the signs in question had been removed. He also pointed out that I was not actually in his riding, which I found interesting as it obviously didn't impact his decision to respond to my complaints.

Last night I noticed the first Ric McIver sign which had been improperly placed as well, but it would appear he does not have an email address to be contacted at. I don't know how he thinks that not having an email address is a good thing in this age. edit: He has added the email address to his website in response to my query.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah but then you can say "How many of your other prospective employees got 5% in an election? Huh?". Might be a terrible argument but no doubt someone will use it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I thought about this resume padding angle, but with Wikipedia wouldn't the employer just look up the election and see that she only received 5% of the vote?

Easily defended

Interviewer - "So I looked up your election results and you got like 75 votes in that election"

Interviewee - "Hey, I was running as a Liberal . . . in Alberta"

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

I may actually vote PC's this time just because of the presence of Wild Rose party. Makes me ill to my stomach.

Never before have I experienced an election where all parties involved had major platform defining issues that turned my stomach. At this point, I am sure my choice will boil down to my personal impression of the candidates involved in my riding.

I know quite a few people that feel the same way, and are looking to me for advice on the issue as someone who is generally informed about these things. Anyone else noticing this as well?

[yads]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Raj Sherman did very well, but his message was incredibly mixed to me, we are selling oil at $110.00 a barrell yet we have to raise taxes.

I actually thought he addressed that quite well. The party stance is that they don't want to be as reliant on energy prices for budgeting as previous governments. So they want more stable funding through good times and bad and invest more in the heritage fund.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think for most of the Liberal candidates its a resume filler, I ran as a Liberal Candidate in 2012 type of thing.

Is it even a good idea to promote your political leanings on your resume? As an undergrad in the late 90s, I was president of my university's Young Liberals chapter. I was also a campaign volunteer for two Liberal MLAs in New Brunswick before I moved to Alberta in 2002. I leave that experience off my resume, though (especially in Calgary).

I suppose it's a little bit different if you're an actual candidate, as that info will easily be found through a quick Google search of your name by any recruiter, so there's no point hiding it. I'm not sure if running for an unpopular party and getting less than 10% of the vote is even worth the effort if all you expect from it is resume filler. It seems as though that might do more harm than good.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Is it even a good idea to promote your political leanings on your resume? As an undergrad in the late 90s, I was president of my university's Young Liberals chapter. I was also a campaign volunteer for two Liberal MLAs in New Brunswick before I moved to Alberta in 2002. I leave that experience off my resume, though (especially in Calgary).

I suppose it's a little bit different if you're an actual candidate, as that info will easily be found through a quick Google search of your name by any recruiter, so there's no point hiding it. I'm not sure if running for an unpopular party and getting less than 10% of the vote is even worth the effort if all you expect from it is resume filler. It seems as though that might do more harm than good.

I wouldn't do it either. That being said, aside from this board, I don't think its actually a huge detriment. Most people recognize that people involved in politics on either side of the spectrum are good people, and generally active in their communities as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by yads

I actually thought he addressed that quite well. The party stance is that they don't want to be as reliant on energy prices for budgeting as previous governments. So they want more stable funding through good times and bad and invest more in the heritage fund.

But doing that through personal taxes is a bad strategy imho.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Never before have I experienced an election where all parties involved had major platform defining issues that turned my stomach. At this point, I am sure my choice will boil down to my personal impression of the candidates involved in my riding.

I'm getting this as well. The more I know about each party's key platforms, the less I want to pick a party to actually vote in. All of them seem so unappealing.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Never before have I experienced an election where all parties involved had major platform defining issues that turned my stomach. At this point, I am sure my choice will boil down to my personal impression of the candidates involved in my riding.

I know quite a few people that feel the same way, and are looking to me for advice on the issue as someone who is generally informed about these things. Anyone else noticing this as well?

I agree - I can accept no party having a platform that perfectly matches my outlook, but when each party has policies that I'm strongly opposed to it's hard to decide who to support. I'll be looking closely at the individual candidates as well as the parties, and at the end of the day I guess I'll have to hold my nose and vote for the least of several evils (or perhaps the evil most likely to defeat the greatest evil).

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

I thought Smith was very timid and at times I forgot she was there. Smith had a real chance to come of sounding like a leader, but she missed it. I thought it was interesting that every time there was an open floor Redford was always the first in there. It was the open floor moments where Smith should have done more.

Originally Posted by Jacks

You mean Smith right? at least for the last half anyway.

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Not at all. Every time there was an opening Redford seamed to pounce. I don't recall Smith ever being the first in there especially towards the last half when it was mostly commercial breaks. The only time I remember Smith trying to jump in was when the discussion was opened between Mason and herself, and they had that little "you go first, no you go first" volley.

Not even close, I scanned through the video. Here are the stats when the floor was open to free debates.

Question #1: Health care.
First to speak: Smith (Sherman had just stopped talking).
Question #2: Oil revenues and taxes.
First to speak: Redford (Smith had just stopped talking).
Question #3: Free votes, referendums, concience rights.
First to speak: Redford (Smith had just stopped talking).
Question #4: No meet commitee.
First to speak: Sherman (Redford had just stopped talking).
Question #5: Education funding.
First to speak: Smith (Mason had just stopped talking).
Question #6: Flip flops, trust.
First to speak: Mason (Smith had just stopped talking).
Question #7: Energy dividends.
First to speak: Smith (Mason had just stopped talking).
Question #8: Balance of power in minority government.
First to speak: Smith (Sherman had just stopped talking).

Smith was first in the free debate 4 out of 8 times. 3 out of the other 4 times Smith had just finished speaking when they open the free debate up. Redford was the first in two times, and both times Smith had just finished speaking. What debate were you watching?

[burn_this_city]

It's probably been posted already but where can I watch the debate online?