สูตรเล่นสล็อตผ่านมือถือ_ฟรีเครดิต100บาท_เคล็ดลับบาคาร่า

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
bekayne
2019 Polls
bekayne

New Nanos

Lib? 37.6% / Con? 36.6% / NDP 12.8%

And some interesting leadership numbers

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYTJhNmM3ZWQtYjc5Mi00NTRmLTgyZWItO...

JeffWells

Iceberg dead ahead, NDP. Sinking, no doubt you'll blame the masses in steerage who had bad feelings about your hard starboard turn.

josh

NDP?are now closer to the Greens than they are to 20%.?

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP has reason to be concerned. This is a point that no leader has come back from.

To describe this place you have to consider a couple things about the historic lows that happened previously:

The first under seven percent was the 1993 result and the leader did not get a second kick at the can. The second was Alexa, she did get a second chance after only getting 11% but this was a gain of 4 points from the previous election. The third was Alexa again declining back to 8.5% (still better than her predecessor) but she did not get another try. For the last 15 years the party was doing better, Mulcair led the party to a decline that was still much higher than this and did not get a second try.

This certainly is a bad polling result to have less than a year to an election.

With the distribution of support it would likely bring the NDP to the lowest number of seats ever. Possibly a wipeout.

With the Greens at 8% there would be speculation as to whether the party would ever rise again. This would not be unfair. Should E May retire and that party move to a sustainability party -- more left social sustainability as well as environmental, the NDP would have no reason to exist.

The good news would come from an effective merger with the Green party. If that is the place environmentalists and those left of the Liberals end up, it would be in a better position to make a difference. The NDP once could have been that party, and perhaps it may get a shot in the future, but the Greens could easily end up getting their chance.

This may be a lot worse for the party than it is for the principles and ideas within the party that many here care about.

I apologize to the loyalists here -- my loyalty is more to the ideas and principles than it is to any stucture or party. I want an electoral representation of better ideas than what we get from the capitalist parties. I have chosen the NDP as the best chance of that so far but if it does not earn that, then it is fair to look for other vehicles. I am sure I am not the only one thinking this and that is why Singh and the NDP are in this much trouble.

JKR

Nanos: January 25, 2019:

Liberals:?37.6%

Conservatives:?36.6%

NDP:?12.8%

Greens:?8.1%

BQ: 3.0%

People's:?1.2%

?

bekayne

JKR wrote:

People's:?1.2%

In 1993, The National Party got 1.4%, but that was?without a leader in Parliament and not being part of the debates.

JeffWells

I suppose I'm optimistic, because I believe there is a huge potential constituency on the left which is going woefully, even historically, underserved by Canadian politics. But IMO one of three things need to happen: the NDP bottoms out and reconstitutes itself according to its first principles; May is replaced and the Green Party seizes the vacuum on the left; something entirely new arises.

All I know is there is a tremendous vacuum, and something will move to fill it after the election.

Sean in Ottawa

JeffWells wrote:

I suppose I'm optimistic, because I believe there is a huge potential constituency on the left which is going woefully, even historically, underserved by Canadian politics. But IMO one of three things need to happen: the NDP bottoms out and reconstitutes itself according to its first principles; May is replaced and the Green Party seizes the vacuum on the left; something entirely new arises.

All I know is there is a tremendous vacuum, and something will move to fill it after the election.

This is how I feel. Wherever the left goes will become what that NDP is or could be with or without the name. Better to have it gone than perform badly becuase the appearance of the there being no void slows the process of filling it.

As it is either the NDP or the Greens provide a potential vehicle but a new one can be created.

As I have said here before, I would love to see something based on the premiss of social and environmental sustainability. I feel the NDP was supposed to be about social sustainability and the Greens about environmental sustainability. Put both concepts together and you have a really important political idea.

I would even like a name: the Sustainability Party.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

?

As I have said here before, I would love to see something based on the premiss of social and environmental sustainability. I feel the NDP was supposed to be about social sustainability and the Greens about environmental sustainability. Put both concepts together and you have a really important political idea.

I would even like a name: the Sustainability Party.

Yes to the first, and no to that particular name change.?

A couple of my biggest priorities:?

1. Oppose the Conservatives at all costs. There's nothing good going to ever come out of the Con agenda that we can support. If they sount like they have a good idea, they're lying.

2. Learn to be more inclusive of new ideas.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

?

As I have said here before, I would love to see something based on the premiss of social and environmental sustainability. I feel the NDP was supposed to be about social sustainability and the Greens about environmental sustainability. Put both concepts together and you have a really important political idea.

I would even like a name: the Sustainability Party.

Yes to the first, and no to that particular name change.?

A couple of my biggest priorities:?

1. Oppose the Conservatives at all costs. There's nothing good going to ever come out of the Con agenda that we can support. If they sount like they have a good idea, they're lying.

2. Learn to be more inclusive of new ideas.

I do not know if you are a Liberal but truly spoken like a Liberal.

One of the tactical mistakes from the last election is Mulcair did exactly that. He fought the Conservatives while getting reamed by the Liberals.

We should fight right wing opinions and shell games and political opponents: this includes if they are being advocated by the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Greens or within the NDP.

Mulcair blew the last election arguably becuase he did not call out Trudeau on his bullshit regarding the middle class. Mulcair could have introduced some reality to the conversation by speaking about what the median income Canadains earn is and how the Liberal Middle class tax cut soared well above that. Instead he campaigned agaisnt the losing party and did not see that he was losing to the Liberals.

It is not the NDP's role to clear the road for the Liberals it is their role to challenge anyone between them and government. Otherwise, they should not run. People in 2015 were not hoodwinked by the Conservatives -- a third wanted those policies. It was the Liberals who most misrepresented their program. It was unconsionable that Mulcair did not challenge that. In the next election it may again be the Liberals who try misrepresentation. In that eleciton the Conservatives will not be certain to be on the defensive like they were in 2015. In the upcoming election the NDP will have to fight on two fronts at least both Liberals and Conservatives -- in a battle for survival.

Pardon me for suggesting that anyone who thinks the NDP should concentrate on only one of them is probably an advocate for the other.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

?

As I have said here before, I would love to see something based on the premiss of social and environmental sustainability. I feel the NDP was supposed to be about social sustainability and the Greens about environmental sustainability. Put both concepts together and you have a really important political idea.

I would even like a name: the Sustainability Party.

Yes to the first, and no to that particular name change.?

A couple of my biggest priorities:?

1. Oppose the Conservatives at all costs. There's nothing good going to ever come out of the Con agenda that we can support. If they sount like they have a good idea, they're lying.

2. Learn to be more inclusive of new ideas.

I do not know if you are a Liberal but truly spoken like a Liberal.

One of the tactical mistakes from the last election is Mulcair did exactly that. He fought the Conservatives while getting reamed by the Liberals.

We should fight right wing opinions and shell games and political opponents: this includes if they are being advocated by the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Greens or within the NDP.

Mulcair blew the last election arguably becuase he did not call out Trudeau on his bullshit regarding the middle class. Mulcair could have introduced some reality to the conversation by speaking about what the median income Canadains earn is and how the Liberal Middle class tax cut soared well above that. Instead he campaigned agaisnt the losing party and did not see that he was losing to the Liberals.

It is not the NDP's role to clear the road for the Liberals it is their role to challenge anyone between them and government. Otherwise, they should not run. People in 2015 were not hoodwinked by the Conservatives -- a third wanted those policies. It was the Liberals who most misrepresented their program. It was unconsionable that Mulcair did not challenge that. In the next election it may again be the Liberals who try misrepresentation. In that eleciton the Conservatives will not be certain to be on the defensive like they were in 2015. In the upcoming election the NDP will have to fight on two fronts at least both Liberals and Conservatives -- in a battle for survival.

Pardon me for suggesting that anyone who thinks the NDP should concentrate on only one of them is probably an advocate for the other.

I'm fully aware of your position but it's a catch-22 that we can't avoid. The biggest danger to Canada is allowing the Conseravtives to get back in power.?

How we go about doing that without splitting the left down the middle is the difficult question. Encouragement could perhaps be on the horizon in the US right now as the people begin to accept what they view as socialism in Bernie or Orasio-Cortez and a few others. It's never been anywhere near as acceptable in that country and the effect is sure to carry over the border to Canada. Both our Liberals and the NDP will need to? race to claim those people. The bright light on the horizon would be something similar to the destruction of the Cons in the same way they were destroyed in 93.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

How we go about doing that without splitting the left down the middle is the difficult question.

Thank you for clarifying that you are a Liberal giving advice to the NDP that is in the interest of the Liberal party.

No NDP supporter would make this conclusion. Those who think there is a left that includes the Liberals are either Liberals or Conservatives accusing the Liberals of being left.

One of the most right wing governments in Canadian history was in 1993. Real NDP supporters tend to view this as a function of the NDP losing party status and influence as a threat to the Liberals. They consider the greatest threat of a right wing government comes from a Liberal party faced with a right wing party with no fear from the left. NDP supporters consider the loss of party status for the NDP to be the greatest threat.

Those who think the NDP are too far to the right are no longer NDP supporters and may vote for smaller parties or not vote.

Those who think that losing party status is worth it if you elect Liberals instead of Conservatives are called Liberals.

Let me remind you that your so-called catch-22 situation was a product of Trudeau's broken promise on electoral reform.

***

The NDP's number one priority now, if you are a supporter, is survival. Those who say otherwise are bullshitting if they pretend to be NDP.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

?

Those who think that losing party status is worth it if you elect Liberals instead of Conservatives are called Liberals.

I didn't say it was, I said that the number 1 priority was to stop the Conservatives. That calls for grabbing the the Cons that desert the sinking ship and do it without splitting the left vote. This is pretty basic logic Sean.

?

Quote:
The NDP's number one priority now, if you are a supporter, is survival. Those who say otherwise are bullshitting if they pretend to be NDP.

Yeah o.k. But talking the way Kropotkin talks, for one example, is not representative of anything close to survival. And he, and some others of the old guard don't want to talk about socially responsible capitalism because they call it an 'oxymoron'.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Tell me Monto the fake NDP'er. What have you done on the by-election in Nanaimo and why are you? on this board harassing left wing posters instead of working on E-day. Elections 101 is get out the vote and you are here being an self appointed voice of the left on E-day. LMAO

Sean in Ottawa

Yes - good point. Most of us are too far away to help but he says he is voting today so lives in the riding.

But also provincial and federal is not the same. Even a federal Liberal might vote NDP provincially given the provincial Liberals appear closer to federal Conservatives so often.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

?

Those who think that losing party status is worth it if you elect Liberals instead of Conservatives are called Liberals.

I didn't say it was, I said that the number 1 priority was to stop the Conservatives. That calls for grabbing the the Cons that desert the sinking ship and do it without splitting the left vote. This is pretty basic logic Sean.

?

Quote:
The NDP's number one priority now, if you are a supporter, is survival. Those who say otherwise are bullshitting if they pretend to be NDP.

Yeah o.k. But talking the way Kropotkin talks, for one example, is not representative of anything close to survival. And he, and some others of the old guard don't want to talk about socially responsible capitalism because they call it an 'oxymoron'.

Capitalism as an objective is not socially responsible. Among NDP supporters the only question is how much you might choose to restrain it. Socially responsible capitalism to me sounds like a Liberal concept. an NDP supporter might argue about how far to socialism we could go and still get elected and whether or not that is a reasonable consideration. We don't tend to extoll any specific kind of capitalism. You might want to get out and meet some NDP supporters sometime.

Aristotleded24

montgomery wrote:
The biggest danger to Canada is allowing the Conseravtives to get back in power.

Why? Are you worried that Andrew Scheer is going to sign onto the TPP, allow a trade agreement that thows dairy farmers under the bus, wastes tax dollars on a pipeline to the coast whose economic viability is questionable and facing stiff opposition along its route, and throw Canada Post workers under the bus in a bitter labour dispute? Justin Trudeau has already done that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JeffWells wrote:

I suppose I'm optimistic, because I believe there is a huge potential constituency on the left which is going woefully, even historically, underserved by Canadian politics. But IMO one of three things need to happen: the NDP bottoms out and reconstitutes itself according to its first principles; May is replaced and the Green Party seizes the vacuum on the left; something entirely new arises.

All I know is there is a tremendous vacuum, and something will move to fill it after the election.

It's hard to understand why May insists on hanging on to the GPC leadership.? She's had the job for donkey's years, has never won any seat for the party other than her own-and she appears to have made some sort of agreement with the LPC not to try to gain any more in exchange for the LPC giving her a perpetual "leader's courtesy".? She has refused to try to connect with the social movements, even though those are the only area of the progressive sphere of politics that has shown any life or passion since the Nineties.? She did not support the Quebec students.? She's made no effort ever to connect with labour.? She doesn't even seem-correct me if I'm wrong about this-to be interested in the LEAP.? May seems utterly uninterested in expanding the GPC's vote base past the largely imaginary "PC's with recycling baskets" demographic her party has always treasured above all others.

She get's a leader's courtesy as a leader of...what, exactly??

May can fairly be called the monarch of an imaginary realm.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

May has always liked the idea of a Small Party.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

May has always liked the idea of a Small Party.

The kind where she doesn't even have to put out snacks.

brookmere

Ken Burch wrote:
she appears to have made some sort of agreement with the LPC not to try to gain any more in exchange for the LPC giving her a perpetual "leader's courtesy".

In fact the Liberals have stood aside for May just once, in 2008. Riding was Central Nova and it was won by Conservative Peter MacKay.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The NDP has reason to be concerned. This is a point that no leader has come back from.

To describe this place you have to consider a couple things about the historic lows that happened previously:

The first under seven percent was the 1993 result and the leader did not get a second kick at the can. The second was Alexa, she did get a second chance after only getting 11% but this was a gain of 4 points from the previous election. The third was Alexa again declining back to 8.5% (still better than her predecessor) but she did not get another try. For the last 15 years the party was doing better, Mulcair led the party to a decline that was still much higher than this and did not get a second try.

This certainly is a bad polling result to have less than a year to an election.

With the distribution of support it would likely bring the NDP to the lowest number of seats ever. Possibly a wipeout.

With the Greens at 8% there would be speculation as to whether the party would ever rise again. This would not be unfair. Should E May retire and that party move to a sustainability party -- more left social sustainability as well as environmental, the NDP would have no reason to exist.

The good news would come from an effective merger with the Green party. If that is the place environmentalists and those left of the Liberals end up, it would be in a better position to make a difference. The NDP once could have been that party, and perhaps it may get a shot in the future, but the Greens could easily end up getting their chance.

This may be a lot worse for the party than it is for the principles and ideas within the party that many here care about.

I apologize to the loyalists here -- my loyalty is more to the ideas and principles than it is to any stucture or party. I want an electoral representation of better ideas than what we get from the capitalist parties. I have chosen the NDP as the best chance of that so far but if it does not earn that, then it is fair to look for other vehicles. I am sure I am not the only one thinking this and that is why Singh and the NDP are in this much trouble.

I certainly agree that the federal party is in trouble. Some of the provincial sections, not so much, and there is a great deal of overlap between the federal and provincial sections, so the party as a whole is not in trouble. After the federal NDP gets decimated, here is how the provincial sections will stand. The BC NDP will still be in charge of the government. The Alberta NDP will have the second-best ever election result in its history (unless the seat count falls below 17). The Ontario NDP will still be in charge of the Official Opposition. There is a chance that the Saskatchewan NDP becomes relevant next year. Sure the federal result will be a setback, but I don't think the case for ditching the NDP as a whole will be that simple and straightforward.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The NDP has reason to be concerned. This is a point that no leader has come back from.

To describe this place you have to consider a couple things about the historic lows that happened previously:

The first under seven percent was the 1993 result and the leader did not get a second kick at the can. The second was Alexa, she did get a second chance after only getting 11% but this was a gain of 4 points from the previous election. The third was Alexa again declining back to 8.5% (still better than her predecessor) but she did not get another try. For the last 15 years the party was doing better, Mulcair led the party to a decline that was still much higher than this and did not get a second try.

This certainly is a bad polling result to have less than a year to an election.

With the distribution of support it would likely bring the NDP to the lowest number of seats ever. Possibly a wipeout.

With the Greens at 8% there would be speculation as to whether the party would ever rise again. This would not be unfair. Should E May retire and that party move to a sustainability party -- more left social sustainability as well as environmental, the NDP would have no reason to exist.

The good news would come from an effective merger with the Green party. If that is the place environmentalists and those left of the Liberals end up, it would be in a better position to make a difference. The NDP once could have been that party, and perhaps it may get a shot in the future, but the Greens could easily end up getting their chance.

This may be a lot worse for the party than it is for the principles and ideas within the party that many here care about.

I apologize to the loyalists here -- my loyalty is more to the ideas and principles than it is to any stucture or party. I want an electoral representation of better ideas than what we get from the capitalist parties. I have chosen the NDP as the best chance of that so far but if it does not earn that, then it is fair to look for other vehicles. I am sure I am not the only one thinking this and that is why Singh and the NDP are in this much trouble.

I certainly agree that the federal party is in trouble. Some of the provincial sections, not so much, and there is a great deal of overlap between the federal and provincial sections, so the party as a whole is not in trouble. After the federal NDP gets decimated, here is how the provincial sections will stand. The BC NDP will still be in charge of the government. The Alberta NDP will have the second-best ever election result in its history (unless the seat count falls below 17). The Ontario NDP will still be in charge of the Official Opposition. There is a chance that the Saskatchewan NDP becomes relevant next year. Sure the federal result will be a setback, but I don't think the case for ditching the NDP as a whole will be that simple and straightforward.

You make strong points. I am not sure of the results we will see over time. I think the point I wanted to make is that a large number of NDP supporters care about the principles and policies more than the structure. When the party is the only choice then it can hold it all together. If other options are there, people may feel differently.

As far as I can tell the valuable part is the ideas, principles and people. If the ideas and principles are better represented elsewhere and the people move there then what is left is a name and not, perhaps the best name anyway. I think the party should not take its members for granted or its position as the only option becuase both can change quickly. I do nto think that the provincial and federal parties depend on each other.

Yes, the NDP has been down before and it was in an existential moment. It is there again now. The party has to make sure that it does not get to this often as any one of these times may not end with survival. The good news for the people is that there is a component of society who want these ideas to be represented and I am confident they will be, even if the party as it is currently structured changes.

I feel the NDP is more disconnected than it needs to be given the possibilities in communication technology allows. This disconnection is between itself and members and itself and potential supporters.

I don't pretend to have all the answers but I certainly feel they are worth looking for.

Debater

January 31, 2019

Mainstreet Research

Trudeau Liberals Hold a Narrow Lead Over Scheer Conservatives

37% - LIBERAL

35% - CONSERVATIVE

12% - NDP

7% - GREEN

4% - PEOPLE'S PARTY

https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/trudeau-liberals-hold-a-narrow-lead-over-scheer-conservatives/

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

brookmere wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
she appears to have made some sort of agreement with the LPC not to try to gain any more in exchange for the LPC giving her a perpetual "leader's courtesy".

In fact the Liberals have stood aside for May just once, in 2008. Riding was Central Nova and it was won by Conservative Peter MacKay.

Running only a nominal campaign in her riding is effectivel the same thing.