Lowest Liberal Vote Since 1867

137 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tommy_Paine

Dion was lamenting the lack of fundraising in the Liberal Party, and that the next Liberal leader should be someone who can raise funds.

Yet another reason I'm supporting Joe Volpe for Dion's replacement. That man can even get money from kids!

The Liberals blame Dion, Dion blames lack of fundraising like it's something entirely new.

But, since the rules were changed on donations, the Liberals have not adjusted the way the NDP and Conservatives have. After these many years, I can't believe it's from lack of trying. There's something more fundamental going on here.

The donation limits can't even come close to a down payment on a government contract, so why would anyone contribute to the Liberal Party?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Tommy_Paine

Dion was lamenting the lack of fundraising in the Liberal Party, and that the next Liberal leader should be someone who can raise funds.

Yet another reason I'm supporting Joe Volpe for Dion's replacement. That man can even get money from kids!

The Liberals blame Dion, Dion blames lack of fundraising like it's something entirely new.

But, since the rules were changed on donations, the Liberals have not adjusted the way the NDP and Conservatives have. After these many years, I can't believe it's from lack of trying. There's something more fundamental going on here.

The donation limits can't even come close to a down payment on a government contract, so why would anyone contribute to the Liberal Party?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Tommy_Paine

Dion was lamenting the lack of fundraising in the Liberal Party, and that the next Liberal leader should be someone who can raise funds.

Yet another reason I'm supporting Joe Volpe for Dion's replacement. That man can even get money from kids!

The Liberals blame Dion, Dion blames lack of fundraising like it's something entirely new.

But, since the rules were changed on donations, the Liberals have not adjusted the way the NDP and Conservatives have. After these many years, I can't believe it's from lack of trying. There's something more fundamental going on here.

The donation limits can't even come close to a down payment on a government contract, so why would anyone contribute to the Liberal Party?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Tommy_Paine

Dion was lamenting the lack of fundraising in the Liberal Party, and that the next Liberal leader should be someone who can raise funds.

Yet another reason I'm supporting Joe Volpe for Dion's replacement. That man can even get money from kids!

The Liberals blame Dion, Dion blames lack of fundraising like it's something entirely new.

But, since the rules were changed on donations, the Liberals have not adjusted the way the NDP and Conservatives have. After these many years, I can't believe it's from lack of trying. There's something more fundamental going on here.

The donation limits can't even come close to a down payment on a government contract, so why would anyone contribute to the Liberal Party?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

From Liberals and losers and long-legged schmoozers and things that go bump in the night:
Good Lord deliver us.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm ]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

From Liberals and losers and long-legged schmoozers and things that go bump in the night:
Good Lord deliver us.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm ]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

From Liberals and losers and long-legged schmoozers and things that go bump in the night:
Good Lord deliver us.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm ]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

From Liberals and losers and long-legged schmoozers and things that go bump in the night:
Good Lord deliver us.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm ]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Needs further bumping just to annoy the hell out of any Liberals passing by.

Fidel

They should have elected 81 MP's on election day!! They won't mind propping up the Tories for a while longer and take their chances on winning, oh, maybe an exaggerated minority next time. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Did I mention that this was the lowest Liberal popular vote since 1867?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

For pity's sake, Malcolm, get a life and move on with it!

Tommy_Paine

*guffaw*

Fidel

I think this would be an opportune time for high end Liberals to push for electoral reform. It's time for cooperation and productive alliances.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]For pity's sake, Malcolm, get a life and move on with it![/b]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[QB][/QB]

No offence Malcolm just using your quote to bump this to the top for fun.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

MSpector, would you deny me this little indulgence? You know that Liberal catastrophe brings me joy.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I wonder, at what point does indulgence become spamming?

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I think this would be an opportune time for high end Liberals to push for electoral reform. It's time for cooperation and productive alliances.[/b]

No deals with the enemies of the Bolsheviks!

After all Liberals! Tories! Same old story. 11020 time the Liberal stoogeocrats supported the phoney-baloney neo-Liberal agenda supported by Pakistan General Zia by absenting themselve from votes in parliment.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]I wonder, at what point does indulgence become spamming?[/b]

I'm not sure. But as long as other people are posting things on the thread, I'm pretty sure i'm not there yet.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Lowest popular vote and second lowest seat count.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

And now, they can't raise money.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]Lowest popular vote and second lowest seat count.[/b]

Third=lowest, actually, 1958 (50 seats) and 1984(40)were lower.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

mmmmm 1958 mmmm

madmax

I had to find the thread most fitting for this garbage from "Vote for the Environment"

[url=http://liberalparty20.blogspot.com/2008/11/vote-for-environment-co-found... Vote for the environment[/url]

Funny they pulled this one out to show their success.

quote:

Do you feel votefortheenvironment.ca played a role in the Conservative failure to win a majority?

Well, yeah. When you look back at the site, there's no doubt we had an effect.

We had three weeks to ask hundreds of thousands of Canadians to trust us - it was a huge barrier to overcome.

I think it was a success to reach so many Canadians -- evene without the media putting us out there.

As far as actual results, if you do look at riding like Edmonton-Strathcona , Linda Duncan (NDP) beat Rahim Jaffer (Conservative) by 400 votes.

If you look at Google Analytics, we had 13000 visits from Edmonton. It's only one factor, but, yes, I think we had an effect in Edmonton Stratchona.


Apparently, they need a Leader who sends a populist message like Jack Layton did in 08.

quote:

What should the Liberals do to increase their viabilty in the West?

I'm convinced the Liberal brand isn't broken. If they can bring in a leader with a populist message and an authencity to cut through the garbagey, spin-doctoring they can win an election.

I think the Liberal Party is in the perfect position for that.


Does vote for the environment take credit for the
Lowest Liberal Vote since 1867?

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Edmonton Strathcona was the one success they could mention outloud.

The rest of their successes were in re-elcted Conservative MPs in seats where voteagainsttheenvironment told people to vote Liberal where the Liberals were running third.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Bump to your heart's content Malcom, especially since you mention Linda Duncan's win in Edmonton Strathcona I feel like indulging you. That mention alone is worth another three or four bumps.

Fidel

Hey what's up with the other wing of the big business big money party? Who's their next colonial administrativeship hopeful? They were robbed of a few seats by this backward electoral system, too, but for some reason I think they'll keep quiet about it.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

janfromthebruce

quote:


The only one coming close to being inspiring in the last election was Green Party leader Elizabeth May...but none of the leaders were inspiring to Canadians to get them involved in the political process.

I read this kind of stuff (coming out of a partisan liberal's mouth) and I think - really? Not one Green elected. Oh yes, I see that they gained in popular vote, but in the next election, the Greens will not have a friendly liberal party helping to raise the Green's profile, or their leader, as it actually decreased the liberal vote.

Also, Kevin Grandia was being highly partisan in his statement (without disclosing he is partisan), with his sweeping statement "but none of the leaders were inspiring to Canadians to get them involved in the political process", in ignoring, for instance Layton's consistent 2nd place leadership numbers throughout the race, and increase of seats for the NDP.

Grandia made sweeping assumptions (which I think he knows are bull but that is a another storyline for a different point I would make later) that he has no legitimate proof to actually valid his inferences. What I suggest here is that he made a faulty "cause and effect" relationship of where "A type behaviour resulted in B outcome." There might be some correlation between the two but there is not enough evidence to show that votefortheenvironment actually had a cause/effect relationship.
And yes, I am going there with some stats notions here:

quote:

Correlation and causality

Main article: Correlation does not imply causation

The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be validly used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction).

A correlation between age and height in children is fairly causally transparent, but a correlation between mood and health in people is less so. Does improved mood lead to improved health; or does good health lead to good mood; or both? Or does some other factor underlie both? Or is it pure coincidence? In other words, a correlation can be taken as evidence for a possible causal relationship, but cannot indicate what the causal relationship, if any, might be.


[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation]source[/url]

That said, in some ways I hope he remains "ignorant" and doesn't dig deeper into the real meaning because that might make him more "dangerous." On the other hand, if he can sell to the wider public that his voting site has "legitimacy" and enough buy into that fallacy of "cause and effect relationship" where there is none (or there is a correlation but he doesn't want people to know what that might be)than he is "dangerous" because it's about manipulating the public into a scheme of selecting a party who actually doesn't represent their interests.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by bagkitty:
[b]Bump to your heart's content Malcom, especially since you mention Linda Duncan's win in Edmonton Strathcona I feel like indulging you. That mention alone is worth another three or four bumps.[/b]

Ironically, I was thinking to bump this. But then MadMax did it for me, bless him.

But BagKitty, I'll mention every NDP gain, one post at a time, if it will continue to buy your indulgence.

I have a Liberal friend. (I know it's shocking, but it's true.) I love the colour his face turns when I simply say, "1867."

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]...he is "dangerous" because it's about manipulating the public into a scheme of selecting a party who actually doesn't represent their interests.[/b]

Exactly, it is all about manipulating people from their votes, to benefit his partisan interests.

Fidel

So two lousy election results in a row and they're all ready to ditch their fearless leader. And this is the same wise and fearless leader who pretty much declared all his election promises could be cancelled due to the disintegrating neoliberal western world setup which his own party supported for years and years.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I'm back from a Mexican vacation.  It's cold here and there's snow on the ground.  Bumping this thread will a) annoy Liberals and b) improve my mood.

Fidel

Hope you had a good time and didn't bump into any disaffected former Liberal supporters, Malcolm. They sure can be an earful-earache  sometimes Smile

Michelle

Long thread.

Pages

Topic locked