• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2011

Dont knock the Rhino's. They were on the local TV news here in Montreal last night.

You see, one of their long standing promise is that, like all other parties, they would not fulfil any of their promises if elected.

Problem is (apparently, dixit local CTV news) they also promised they would abolish the law of gravity. When the owner of Cirque du Soleil went in space, he took one of the Rhino party election badge and filmed it floating freely in (you guessed it) zero gravity: So its a fail for the Rhino as they kept at least one of their promise. The piece was well made.
 
So when the Rhinos fail to keep their promise they keep their promise thereby failing to keep their promise thereby keeping their promise......

I like it.
 
Kirkhill said:
So when the Rhinos fail to keep their promise they keep their promise thereby failing to keep their promise thereby keeping their promise......

I like it.

They also promised to change the side of the road we drive on to the left. They planned to do this in a phased manner, starting with semis.
 
Interesting take on the debate from Global News:

Article Link

Debate fails to change voters' minds: poll
Canadians think Harper won the debate but they haven't changed their minds about the strengths and weaknesses of the leaders.

Read it on Global News: Debate fails to change voters' minds: poll

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most interesting part of the piece are the poll results which clearly show that the respondents favour Mr Harper. He seems to have stayed on message, and is considered the most equipped to deal with the most pressing concerns these voters have.

Two questions surprised me, but not necessarily the outcome:

Before: Forgetting about their policies for a moment, who do you find to be the most likeable. That is, the person you would most like to go out for a beer or coffee with?

Stephen Harper 25%
Michael Ignatieff 10%
Jack Layton 53%
Gilles Duceppe 6%
Don’t know 6%

After: Forgetting about their policies for a moment, who do you find to be the most likeable. That is, the person you would most like to go out for a beer or coffee with?

Stephen Harper 24%
Michael Ignatieff 11%
Jack Layton 55%
Gilles Duceppe
Don’t know 3%

Before: Which party leader do you think is the most visually attractive?

Stephen Harper 29%
Michael Ignatieff 9%
Jack Layton 35%
Gilles Duceppe 8%
Don’t know 18%

After: Which party leader do you think is the most visually attractive?

Stephen Harper 31%
Michael Ignatieff 9%
Jack Layton 38%
Gilles Duceppe 10%
Don’t know 12%

Certainly doesn't illustrate much traction for the "Mr Harper = evil, ogre" meme. From this survey, it looks like Mr Ignatieff still thought of as the least likeable, which has been a key election issue for his campaign.

BTW, I'm finding Global to be remarkably balanced in its coverage, but that could just be luck at this point.
 
Which party leader do you think is the most visually attractive?
And when they're all equally attractive, I guess you have to vote for congeniality  ::)
 
The numbers are interesting. 40% is considered what is needed to achieve a majority but no one seems to be saying it at this point (even though the graph has shown a fairly consistent line). Of course, there is still a long way to go.

If anything, there are at least 19 registered political parties in Canada, so a debate will be rather cumbersome at best. Maybe an internet Forum (Politics.ca?) could be established for them  >:D
 
57Chevy said:
Ignatieff is likely to win a lot of votes on this one, especially in and around Montreal
Got mine  :D


"This government has patched the Champlain Bridge enough," he said. "It's time for a new bridge. It's that simple."

He said work on a new bridge would start early in the mandate of a Liberal government.

"I'm going to give everyone in this riding a new bridge in exchange for your votes!!!"
Sounds more like a bribe if you ask me.... but nobody did.
 
I wonder who's funding this site??

http://www.shitharperdid.ca.nyud.net/

There's a drawing of Stephen Harper holding a cat beside random quotes relating to things he has done in the past few years like:

Stephen Harper is a cold hearted jerk and a horrible detective.

In 2010, Harper eliminated funding for Sisters in Spirit. An internationally praised organization leading investigations into 600 cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls.

There is a button that you press that refreshes the "quote", but it seems as though there are only a handful. I keep getting the same ones over and over..

Edited to add:

I found a Globe article that interviews the website's creator...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/scatological-attack-on-stephen-harpers-record-goes-viral/article1984598/

 
Lookup info:


Daily visitors: 119Daily pageviews: 224
DNS: 128.112.139.27.ip4.nyucd.net
128.208.4.199.ip4.nyucd.net
132.170.3.33.ip4.nyucd.net
143.215.131.197.ip4.nyucd.net
171.66.3.181.ip4.nyucd.net
212.235.189.114.ip4.nyucd.net

Stats & Details

Whois

IP Whois



No Whois? Thats odd....
 
Equally interesting, the IP addresses seem to be hosted at foreign universities. I saw Princeton, UWash, Berkley, UC Florida, GIT, Stanford, and even University of Ljubljana. Digging a little deeper I get:

Registrant:
Coral Content Distribution Network
  c/o Michael Freedman
  35 Olden Street
  Princeton, NJ 08540
  US

  Domain Name: NYUCD.NET


Makes one raise an eyebrow.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Content_Distribution_Network

Using the CDN, by adding .nyud.net at the end of the url, prevents the site from getting 'slashdotted' (reduces load).

Running Whois on shitharperdid.ca

Domain name: shitharperdid.ca
Domain name status: registered
Creation date: 2011/04/13
Expiry date: 2012/04/13
Updated date: 2011/04/13

Registrar name: DomainsAtCost Corp.
Registrar number: 45

Name servers
DNS 1 hostname: ns1.ecobytes.net
DNS 2 hostname: ns2.ecobytes.net
 
The side-bar on electoral reform has been split to here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692/post-1036214.html#msg1036214
 
Last night in French, and similar in English debat:

Iggy: "If Mr. Harper receives more seats than us, he is going to try to form a government. If I receive more seats, it will be me who forms a government,” he said. “And both will seek the confidence of Parliament. Those are the rules of our Constitution.”

Why Iggy if the CPC gets more seats they get to "try" to form the government, but if the LieLiberals get the votes you will "form" the government.

Coalition?
 
Rifleman62 said:
Last night in French, and similar in English debat:

Iggy: "If Mr. Harper receives more seats than us, he is going to try to form a government. If I receive more seats, it will be me who forms a government,” he said. “And both will seek the confidence of Parliament. Those are the rules of our Constitution.”

Why Iggy if the CPC gets more seats they get to "try" to form the government, but if the LieLiberals get the votes you will "form" the government.

Coalition?

While I trust no politician to keep their word, Mr Ignatieff had this to say last night:

"If Mr. Harper gets more seats than us, he'll try to form government. If I get more seats, it's me who will try to form government," Ignatieff said in an exchange with Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe.

"Those are the rules in our constitution," he told Duceppe. "I can work with you, with Mr. Layton, but not in a coalition."

He was similarly emphatic during the english debate. The opposition is bound and determined to deny the Conservatives the opportunity to govern in a minority, regardless of the will of the electorate. The challenge now is to hold Mr Ignatieff to account for his position.

In the greater sense, this election is also about the leader's futures. Anything less than a majority for Mr Harper might see his replacement within two years. A loss of seats, that much sooner. If the Liberals lose seats, or even fail to gain, it might be "night of the long knives" for Mr Ignatieff. Mr Layton is perhaps the safest right now. His party loves him, and as they don't expect him to be PM, will keep him around. Only his health will influence his remaining leader for now.
 
Yet another slide in seats projected for the Conservative and yet another gain projected for for the Liberals, according to aggregated polls, in this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/
CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS

11-04-14.PNG

April 14, 2011 Projection - Conservative Minority Government

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011

Liberals gain in Ontario and Quebec

With the two debates now completed, we're entering the final 19 frantic days of the campaign. Three of the polls added to the projection this morning, from COMPAS, Innovative Research, and EKOS, are all pre-debate polls, while only one-third of today's missive from Nanos was taken after the English language debate.

However, I think last night's French debate has a greater chance of having an influence on the campaign. I was expecting a big performance by Jack Layton, as the newfound support the party has in Quebec required some buttressing in the debate. While Layton performed well enough, I don't think he did anything to push his party into second place on election night in the province, and I think we might even see his numbers drop.

Stephen Harper was not very present and will likely not see any boost in Quebec, but both Gilles Duceppe and Michael Ignatieff had a good showing in the debate. Ignatieff performed better in French than he did in English, and was very strong when the debate turned to Quebec's place in Canada. My own perception is that he might have done enough to put himself head and shoulders over Layton and Harper as the federalist option.

Duceppe started off slowly but also woke up at this point of the debate. While he didn't have a home run performance, I think he shored up his own support and we may see his numbers return to the usual 38-40% that the party had enjoyed for the months running up to the campaign.

But in the meantime, the four polls in this projection update (in addition to Nanos's poll from April 8-10 which has been returned to the model) have caused things to swing.

Changes.PNG


The Conservatives have dropped 0.1 point to 38.9% and one seat to 151, while the Liberals are up 0.1 point to 28.2% and two seats to 75.

The New Democrats are steady at 33 seats, and have picked up 0.1 point to reach 16.8% in the projection. The Bloc Québécois is down 0.3 points to 8.8% nationally and one seat to 49, while the Greens are unchanged at 6% support.

Projection+Change.PNG


For the most part, the Conservatives have held firm. They gained 0.1 and 0.2 points in the Prairies and Quebec, respectively, while dropping 0.1 and 0.2 points in Ontario and Atlantic Canada.

More damaging is the drop of 0.4 points to 40.9% in British Columbia, especially considering the gain of 0.4 points and 0.2 points by the New Democrats and Liberals.

The Liberals did not see their support shift very much out west, but it did shift out east. The Liberals have gained 0.4 points in Ontario and now trail the Conservatives 41.9% to 35.4%, a gap of 6.5 points. In Quebec, the party is up 0.4 points to 20.7%, while the Liberals have regained the lead in Atlantic Canada with a 0.3 point gain there.

The New Democrats had a good gain in BC and another in Quebec, but the drop in Ontario (though small) is unfortunate for them.

And the Bloc Québécois had a very bad movement, dropping 0.6 points to only 36.7% in Quebec.

The two seats changes have come in Ontario and Quebec. The Liberals have retaken Brampton - Springdale from the Conservatives, meaning incumbent Ruby Dhalla is the favourite once again. In Quebec, the Liberals have also retaken Brossard - La Prairie, held by Alexandra Mendes when the government fell. These are both Liberal seats that are returning to the party in the projection. The Liberals are two seats away from starting to make actual gains.

That will likely take place in Ontario, though a few seats in Atlantic Canada and Quebec are also on the bubble. The Liberals are within 1.1 points of the Conservatives in Ajax - Pickering, Kitchener - Waterloo, and Vaughan, the last riding looking all the more likely to return to the Liberal fold after yesterday's events there.

But several other ridings are also on the tipping point. The Liberals trail the New Democrats by 2.5 points or less in Trinity - Spadina and Sudbury, while they are within three points of the Conservatives in Mississauga - Erindale and Kitchener Centre.

Generally speaking, the projection is behind emerging trends. So while we can't know whether the Liberals will continue to grow their support in the polls, we have a good idea that they will grow in the projection as older polls are dropped off and the more recent reality (putting the Liberals neck-and-neck with the Tories) takes more place in the model. The great thing about the projection, though, is that if the recent Liberal "surge" in the province dissipates, the projection will almost immediately stop the Liberals from moving forward. It treats gains with a raised eyebrow until they can be proved by consistent results.

Note that the riding projections have now been updated to reflect all the independent and minor party candidates. Nominations have closed and Elections Canada has the final tallies of candidates, so the projection is now up to date on how the "Other" vote will likely turn.

For the smaller parties, they have each been given the average result the party managed in the last election in ridings in which they presented candidates. So, for example, the Marxist-Leninists (the party with the most candidates outside of the major five, believe it or not!) receive 0.3% of the vote in every riding in which they have a candidate. That can go up or down depending on how much "room" the other parties provide. The amount of support assumed to go to each minor party in the ridings in which they have a candidate is as follows:

Progressive Canadian 1.2%, Christian Heritage 1.0%, First Peoples 1.0%, Rhinoceros 0.7%, Canadian Action 0.4%, Animal Alliance Environment Voters 0.3%, Western Block 0.3%, Marxist-Leninist 0.3%, Communist 0.2%, Libertarian 0.1%, Marijuana 0.1%, Pirate 0.1%, United 0.1%.

Independents are given 0.7%. When more than one minor party or independent candidate is present in a riding, their results are combined. So, for example, in South Surrey - White Rock - Cloverdale the Other vote is currently 4%, divided between a Progressive Canadian candidate, a Christian Heritage candidate, and three independents. The Others in this riding are assigned 4.3% of the vote, but because of the space available in the riding projection their vote has been reduced to 4%.

We are approaching the half-way point in the campaign but advance polling occurs over the Easter weekend (not some sort of anti-Christian plot: advance poll dates are set by regulation n days before the general election date) so this is good news for the anti-Harper factions. 

 
ModlrMike said:
He was similarly emphatic during the english debate. The opposition is bound and determined to deny the Conservatives the opportunity to govern in a minority, regardless of the will of the electorate. The challenge now is to hold Mr Ignatieff to account for his position.

Well, that's the Constitution for you.  If parties holding more seats in total than the Conservatives think they can run the Government, they can suggest to the Governor-General that they be given the chance.  Kind of like Stephen Harper did in 2004 when he formed his own "coalition" with "socialists and separatists" to try to take power, and sent a letter to Adrienne Clarkson to that effect.  The text of that letter is here: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/text-of-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-by-layton-and-duceppe-118672384.html among other places.

Last time I checked, nowhere on the ballot I'll cast is my will with respect to who I want to govern, and whether I want a majority or a minority.  Under our system, I vote for who I want to represent my riding in Parliament and that's all.  Neither is there any constitutional requirement that the party with the most seats, should it not have a majority, form the government.

ModlrMike said:
In the greater sense, this election is also about the leader's futures. Anything less than a majority for Mr Harper might see his replacement within two years. A loss of seats, that much sooner. If the Liberals lose seats, or even fail to gain, it might be "night of the long knives" for Mr Ignatieff. Mr Layton is perhaps the safest right now. His party loves him, and as they don't expect him to be PM, will keep him around. Only his health will influence his remaining leader for now.

I suspect this will be Mr. Ignatieff's only kick at the can, for sure, but I also have to wonder if the knives will come out for Mr. Harper, being unable to actually convince the electorate to give him a majority repeatedly.  I do have to wonder, in the case of both parties, who will be their successors.  I can't say I can think of anyone who is really impressive such that I'd consider them to be the man waiting in the wings.
 
You conveniently fail to recognize that Mr Ignatieff should be bound by his word. You can't call Mr Harper untrustworthy, and not hold his opposite number to the same standard.

I don't disagree that constitutionally there's good legal standing. Asking the GG to consider other options, is not the same as telling them you're the only option.

Had Mr Ignatieff not categorically (twice) ruled out the possibility of coalition, then that would be another matter.
 
ModlrMike said:
You conveniently fail to recognize that Mr Ignatieff should be bound by his word. You can't call Mr Harper untrustworthy, and not hold his opposite number to the same standard.

They're politicians.  I don't consider any of them particularly trustworthy.  Frankly, if they get the Bloc & NDP to agree to some basic governing principles that are amenable to all and choose to put themselves forward even as a formal coalition to govern, I see absolutely no problem with that.  I couldn't care less that the BQ are a bunch of separatist pricks, they hold a lot of seats all the same, and on issues they can find some common ground I don't see any reason for them not to put themselves forward as an option to govern.
 
Again - Harper vetted the current Governor-General and asked him what he would do in such circumstances.  We know this from an interview with Johnston.  We do not know his answers to Harper but as he was appointed, it can't be all that displeasing.  It is a legitimate constitutional opinion that the alternative to a Conservative minority might very well be new elections as the Governor-General might very well consider himself bound by the prime minister's decision.  If the Liberal Party expects a chance to govern with only 1/4 of the seats, they might very well have a surprise.  It would not be unusual for the Governor-General to say 1/4 of the seats is not enough.  If the Liberals show up with a coalition agreement as a basis to govern, the Governor-General might very well say that it is contrary to their word in the election campaign and as such undemocratic.  Prediction - Harper majority or new elections.
 
Despite the continuing drip in the 308 numbers I still think that the Tories have a shot at a majority.  I figure that the more this election is seen as an unnecessary snorer with the same players touting the same lines then the greater the likelihood that more people will stay home and watch the playoffs.  In that case a motivated Tory base is likely to be the determining factor.
 
Back
Top