Lowest Liberal Vote Since 1867

137 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

Shit show Liberals. That'll teach them.

Fidel

Shit show Liberals. That'll teach them.

Parkdale High Park

quote:


Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867]http://en.w...


Unknown: 34%

Parkdale High Park

quote:


Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867]http://en.w...


Unknown: 34%

Parkdale High Park

quote:


Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867]http://en.w...


Unknown: 34%

Parkdale High Park

quote:


Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867]http://en.w...


Unknown: 34%

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

self-indulgent bump

I just love the thread title.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

self-indulgent bump

I just love the thread title.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

self-indulgent bump

I just love the thread title.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

self-indulgent bump

I just love the thread title.

Doug

It might be tough to do a lot better.

quote:

I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.

Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:

1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;

2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;

3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;

4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;

5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;

6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;

7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;

8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;

9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;

10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);

11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.


[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.WEmail18/BNS... to be Liberal[/url]

Doug

It might be tough to do a lot better.

quote:

I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.

Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:

1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;

2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;

3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;

4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;

5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;

6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;

7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;

8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;

9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;

10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);

11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.


[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.WEmail18/BNS... to be Liberal[/url]

Doug

It might be tough to do a lot better.

quote:

I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.

Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:

1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;

2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;

3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;

4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;

5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;

6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;

7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;

8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;

9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;

10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);

11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.


[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.WEmail18/BNS... to be Liberal[/url]

Doug

It might be tough to do a lot better.

quote:

I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.

Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:

1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;

2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;

3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;

4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;

5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;

6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;

7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;

8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;

9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;

10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);

11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.


[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.WEmail18/BNS... to be Liberal[/url]

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


Now THAT's shoddy recordkeeping.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Or did Canada actually elect a Marxist government in 1867 but the reporting officers just refused to admit it?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


Now THAT's shoddy recordkeeping.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Or did Canada actually elect a Marxist government in 1867 but the reporting officers just refused to admit it?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


Now THAT's shoddy recordkeeping.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Or did Canada actually elect a Marxist government in 1867 but the reporting officers just refused to admit it?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


Now THAT's shoddy recordkeeping.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Or did Canada actually elect a Marxist government in 1867 but the reporting officers just refused to admit it?

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Probably a little shoddy recordkeeping, a few missing records, inconsistency in how votes for independent candidates were attracted.

In any event, glad to bum the thread because I presume the title annoys Liberals - and I like annoying Liberals.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Probably a little shoddy recordkeeping, a few missing records, inconsistency in how votes for independent candidates were attracted.

In any event, glad to bum the thread because I presume the title annoys Liberals - and I like annoying Liberals.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Probably a little shoddy recordkeeping, a few missing records, inconsistency in how votes for independent candidates were attracted.

In any event, glad to bum the thread because I presume the title annoys Liberals - and I like annoying Liberals.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Probably a little shoddy recordkeeping, a few missing records, inconsistency in how votes for independent candidates were attracted.

In any event, glad to bum the thread because I presume the title annoys Liberals - and I like annoying Liberals.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

A further self-indulgent bump

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

A further self-indulgent bump

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

A further self-indulgent bump

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

A further self-indulgent bump

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

must continue to rub Liberals' faces in this.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

must continue to rub Liberals' faces in this.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

must continue to rub Liberals' faces in this.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

must continue to rub Liberals' faces in this.

madmax

That 1867 link is very telling.

The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.

Much like today, Liberal voters stayed home, or more importantly voted Conservative in many swing ridings. And we still have various Anti Confederation forces at work [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .

madmax

That 1867 link is very telling.

The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.

Much like today, Liberal voters stayed home, or more importantly voted Conservative in many swing ridings. And we still have various Anti Confederation forces at work [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .

madmax

That 1867 link is very telling.

The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.

Much like today, Liberal voters stayed home, or more importantly voted Conservative in many swing ridings. And we still have various Anti Confederation forces at work [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .

madmax

That 1867 link is very telling.

The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.

Much like today, Liberal voters stayed home, or more importantly voted Conservative in many swing ridings. And we still have various Anti Confederation forces at work [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


Independents got 0% so I guess they just called all Independents Unknowns. I wonder if that changed when the first Independent got elected and ceased to be an Unknown?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


Independents got 0% so I guess they just called all Independents Unknowns. I wonder if that changed when the first Independent got elected and ceased to be an Unknown?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


Independents got 0% so I guess they just called all Independents Unknowns. I wonder if that changed when the first Independent got elected and ceased to be an Unknown?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


Independents got 0% so I guess they just called all Independents Unknowns. I wonder if that changed when the first Independent got elected and ceased to be an Unknown?

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

bump

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

bump

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

bump

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

bump

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


In the days of John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party it was hard to tell the various Liberals apart. "Shoals of loose fish" he once called them. It was the first Dominion election, with an evolving party system. Like many new countries, a local baron would get elected, take a look around, and see what party looked like the best bet for his riding's interests. Or just join the winner.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


In the days of John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party it was hard to tell the various Liberals apart. "Shoals of loose fish" he once called them. It was the first Dominion election, with an evolving party system. Like many new countries, a local baron would get elected, take a look around, and see what party looked like the best bet for his riding's interests. Or just join the winner.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


In the days of John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party it was hard to tell the various Liberals apart. "Shoals of loose fish" he once called them. It was the first Dominion election, with an evolving party system. Like many new countries, a local baron would get elected, take a look around, and see what party looked like the best bet for his riding's interests. Or just join the winner.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
[b]

Unknown: 34%[/b]


In the days of John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party it was hard to tell the various Liberals apart. "Shoals of loose fish" he once called them. It was the first Dominion election, with an evolving party system. Like many new countries, a local baron would get elected, take a look around, and see what party looked like the best bet for his riding's interests. Or just join the winner.

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

madmax

bump

madmax

bump

madmax

bump

madmax

bump

Pages

Topic locked