So why DO so many 'progressives' remain with the Liberals anyhow?

215 posts / 0 new
Last post
Erik Redburn
So why DO so many 'progressives' remain with the Liberals anyhow?

 

Erik Redburn

Reading some comments here lately reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Why do so many progressive voters remain loyal to the federal Liberals (not saying the NDP's the only other option here) even when they don't even stand for popular measures like public health care or sovereignty from the States anymore?

Is it only because of brand name loyalty and the lingering Trudeau mystique among some? Or because they're still widely seen as 'progressive', hearing so little in the media of what they're actually up to Re SSP and the like? Or perhaps there's still philosophical differences with the scarey NDP 'socialists' who might seize all our hard earned property? Or is it mostly the scarey Harper scenario now, where they're still seen as the only other realistic but non-scarey alternative available? Or is there some other subtle intangible I'm missing. I'm curious, living on the West coast where they're only one of three contenders federally and coopted by ex-Socreds provincially. Opinions?

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Erik Redburn

Reading some comments here lately reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Why do so many progressive voters remain loyal to the federal Liberals (not saying the NDP's the only other option here) even when they don't even stand for popular measures like public health care or sovereignty from the States anymore?

Is it only because of brand name loyalty and the lingering Trudeau mystique among some? Or because they're still widely seen as 'progressive', hearing so little in the media of what they're actually up to Re SSP and the like? Or perhaps there's still philosophical differences with the scarey NDP 'socialists' who might seize all our hard earned property? Or is it mostly the scarey Harper scenario now, where they're still seen as the only other realistic but non-scarey alternative available? Or is there some other subtle intangible I'm missing. I'm curious, living on the West coast where they're only one of three contenders federally and coopted by ex-Socreds provincially. Opinions?

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Erik Redburn

Reading some comments here lately reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Why do so many progressive voters remain loyal to the federal Liberals (not saying the NDP's the only other option here) even when they don't even stand for popular measures like public health care or sovereignty from the States anymore?

Is it only because of brand name loyalty and the lingering Trudeau mystique among some? Or because they're still widely seen as 'progressive', hearing so little in the media of what they're actually up to Re SSP and the like? Or perhaps there's still philosophical differences with the scarey NDP 'socialists' who might seize all our hard earned property? Or is it mostly the scarey Harper scenario now, where they're still seen as the only other realistic but non-scarey alternative available? Or is there some other subtle intangible I'm missing. I'm curious, living on the West coast where they're only one of three contenders federally and coopted by ex-Socreds provincially. Opinions?

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Erik Redburn

Reading some comments here lately reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Why do so many progressive voters remain loyal to the federal Liberals (not saying the NDP's the only other option here) even when they don't even stand for popular measures like public health care or sovereignty from the States anymore?

Is it only because of brand name loyalty and the lingering Trudeau mystique among some? Or because they're still widely seen as 'progressive', hearing so little in the media of what they're actually up to Re SSP and the like? Or perhaps there's still philosophical differences with the scarey NDP 'socialists' who might seize all our hard earned property? Or is it mostly the scarey Harper scenario now, where they're still seen as the only other realistic but non-scarey alternative available? Or is there some other subtle intangible I'm missing. I'm curious, living on the West coast where they're only one of three contenders federally and coopted by ex-Socreds provincially. Opinions?

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

Any more questions?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

Any more questions?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

Any more questions?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

Any more questions?

Erik Redburn

That's one plausible theory, let's see if there's any others.

Erik Redburn

That's one plausible theory, let's see if there's any others.

Erik Redburn

That's one plausible theory, let's see if there's any others.

Erik Redburn

That's one plausible theory, let's see if there's any others.

Sean in Ottawa

The triumph of hope over experience.
That's my theory.

Why does Charlie Brown keep going to kick the ball when Lucy pulls it away?

They keep changing leaders and people keep wanting to trust the new person with the new line even though the pattern remains the same.

Maybe the saying you can fool some people all the time and you can fool all people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time is not true.

I hear from some of these people that they want to vote for a party that can govern and will once in a while do good things rather than a party that they believe can't get elected. (I don't buy it but this is what they say.)

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

Sean in Ottawa

The triumph of hope over experience.
That's my theory.

Why does Charlie Brown keep going to kick the ball when Lucy pulls it away?

They keep changing leaders and people keep wanting to trust the new person with the new line even though the pattern remains the same.

Maybe the saying you can fool some people all the time and you can fool all people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time is not true.

I hear from some of these people that they want to vote for a party that can govern and will once in a while do good things rather than a party that they believe can't get elected. (I don't buy it but this is what they say.)

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

Sean in Ottawa

The triumph of hope over experience.
That's my theory.

Why does Charlie Brown keep going to kick the ball when Lucy pulls it away?

They keep changing leaders and people keep wanting to trust the new person with the new line even though the pattern remains the same.

Maybe the saying you can fool some people all the time and you can fool all people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time is not true.

I hear from some of these people that they want to vote for a party that can govern and will once in a while do good things rather than a party that they believe can't get elected. (I don't buy it but this is what they say.)

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

Sean in Ottawa

The triumph of hope over experience.
That's my theory.

Why does Charlie Brown keep going to kick the ball when Lucy pulls it away?

They keep changing leaders and people keep wanting to trust the new person with the new line even though the pattern remains the same.

Maybe the saying you can fool some people all the time and you can fool all people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time is not true.

I hear from some of these people that they want to vote for a party that can govern and will once in a while do good things rather than a party that they believe can't get elected. (I don't buy it but this is what they say.)

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

MCunningBC

I agree it has to do with the meaning of that term "progressive". When Liberals use that term, they mean the same thing that most media personalities mean when they say they are "centrist" or "moderate". They mean liberal on "social issues" (really, sexual and moral matters rather than social issues such as social insurance, or health and education), but conservative on economic issues.

And, as with the Greens' meaning of the words environmental and sustainable, there's a hidden clause behind the words. The Liberal who is "progressive" is not at all interested in organized labour and may even see them as a serious menace, picturing them as throwbacks, Neanderthals and luddites. It means, IOWs, a Yuppie or at least purely white collar vision of modern society.

MCunningBC

I agree it has to do with the meaning of that term "progressive". When Liberals use that term, they mean the same thing that most media personalities mean when they say they are "centrist" or "moderate". They mean liberal on "social issues" (really, sexual and moral matters rather than social issues such as social insurance, or health and education), but conservative on economic issues.

And, as with the Greens' meaning of the words environmental and sustainable, there's a hidden clause behind the words. The Liberal who is "progressive" is not at all interested in organized labour and may even see them as a serious menace, picturing them as throwbacks, Neanderthals and luddites. It means, IOWs, a Yuppie or at least purely white collar vision of modern society.

MCunningBC

I agree it has to do with the meaning of that term "progressive". When Liberals use that term, they mean the same thing that most media personalities mean when they say they are "centrist" or "moderate". They mean liberal on "social issues" (really, sexual and moral matters rather than social issues such as social insurance, or health and education), but conservative on economic issues.

And, as with the Greens' meaning of the words environmental and sustainable, there's a hidden clause behind the words. The Liberal who is "progressive" is not at all interested in organized labour and may even see them as a serious menace, picturing them as throwbacks, Neanderthals and luddites. It means, IOWs, a Yuppie or at least purely white collar vision of modern society.

MCunningBC

I agree it has to do with the meaning of that term "progressive". When Liberals use that term, they mean the same thing that most media personalities mean when they say they are "centrist" or "moderate". They mean liberal on "social issues" (really, sexual and moral matters rather than social issues such as social insurance, or health and education), but conservative on economic issues.

And, as with the Greens' meaning of the words environmental and sustainable, there's a hidden clause behind the words. The Liberal who is "progressive" is not at all interested in organized labour and may even see them as a serious menace, picturing them as throwbacks, Neanderthals and luddites. It means, IOWs, a Yuppie or at least purely white collar vision of modern society.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Because most Canadians don't follow politics closely enough to realize that whenever a Liberal says anything vaguely progressive, s/he's lying.

Aided, of course, by a few pretendy progressives who present themselves as leader while shamelessly attacking any truly progressive alternative. Basil Hargrove. Maude Barlow. Elizabeth May.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Because most Canadians don't follow politics closely enough to realize that whenever a Liberal says anything vaguely progressive, s/he's lying.

Aided, of course, by a few pretendy progressives who present themselves as leader while shamelessly attacking any truly progressive alternative. Basil Hargrove. Maude Barlow. Elizabeth May.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Because most Canadians don't follow politics closely enough to realize that whenever a Liberal says anything vaguely progressive, s/he's lying.

Aided, of course, by a few pretendy progressives who present themselves as leader while shamelessly attacking any truly progressive alternative. Basil Hargrove. Maude Barlow. Elizabeth May.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Because most Canadians don't follow politics closely enough to realize that whenever a Liberal says anything vaguely progressive, s/he's lying.

Aided, of course, by a few pretendy progressives who present themselves as leader while shamelessly attacking any truly progressive alternative. Basil Hargrove. Maude Barlow. Elizabeth May.

KeyStone

Well,

There are many reasons.

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

2) The NDP are horribly disorganized and those that work with the NDP soon lose hope of them ever winning anything.

3) The NDP has a lot of special interests groups that don't always play so nicely together.

4) The NDP really hasn't shown that it understands economics and occasionally comes out with some pretty wild and implausible ideas on changing the economy. This coupled with constantly painting corporations as evil, does little to instill confidence that they know how to run a country.

5) Rick Smith.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

7) The NDP is not very accomodating of people that are not deemed to be progressive enough. There are as many intolerant people on the left as on the right, and the NDP seems to have a monopoly.

8) Some people don't look good in orange.

9) The NDP treats their volunteers like garbage.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.

KeyStone

Well,

There are many reasons.

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

2) The NDP are horribly disorganized and those that work with the NDP soon lose hope of them ever winning anything.

3) The NDP has a lot of special interests groups that don't always play so nicely together.

4) The NDP really hasn't shown that it understands economics and occasionally comes out with some pretty wild and implausible ideas on changing the economy. This coupled with constantly painting corporations as evil, does little to instill confidence that they know how to run a country.

5) Rick Smith.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

7) The NDP is not very accomodating of people that are not deemed to be progressive enough. There are as many intolerant people on the left as on the right, and the NDP seems to have a monopoly.

8) Some people don't look good in orange.

9) The NDP treats their volunteers like garbage.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.

KeyStone

Well,

There are many reasons.

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

2) The NDP are horribly disorganized and those that work with the NDP soon lose hope of them ever winning anything.

3) The NDP has a lot of special interests groups that don't always play so nicely together.

4) The NDP really hasn't shown that it understands economics and occasionally comes out with some pretty wild and implausible ideas on changing the economy. This coupled with constantly painting corporations as evil, does little to instill confidence that they know how to run a country.

5) Rick Smith.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

7) The NDP is not very accomodating of people that are not deemed to be progressive enough. There are as many intolerant people on the left as on the right, and the NDP seems to have a monopoly.

8) Some people don't look good in orange.

9) The NDP treats their volunteers like garbage.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.

KeyStone

Well,

There are many reasons.

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

2) The NDP are horribly disorganized and those that work with the NDP soon lose hope of them ever winning anything.

3) The NDP has a lot of special interests groups that don't always play so nicely together.

4) The NDP really hasn't shown that it understands economics and occasionally comes out with some pretty wild and implausible ideas on changing the economy. This coupled with constantly painting corporations as evil, does little to instill confidence that they know how to run a country.

5) Rick Smith.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

7) The NDP is not very accomodating of people that are not deemed to be progressive enough. There are as many intolerant people on the left as on the right, and the NDP seems to have a monopoly.

8) Some people don't look good in orange.

9) The NDP treats their volunteers like garbage.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.

melovesproles

I don't agree with all of Keystone's points but I think these ones are important:

quote:

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.


With number 6, I don't think the problem is 'working families' but just the growing tendency of the NDP to sound scripted and repetitive. It insults the intelligence of the voter, makes the party sound stale and unoriginal and it turns a lot of people off. The Greens are doing a better job of coming off as a fresh alternative and it isn't just because of their name. At a time when voter malaise with the mainstream parties is at an all time high, the NDP should be trying to sound fresh and looking at how to tap into the current mood.

In BC, I think the provincial parties are having an effect on the national polling numbers. The provincial greens have quite a good progressive platform on justice and education, and are more credible than the NDP when it comes to electoral reform(as it benefits them more).

Personally, I'm so sick of helicopters and American funded teched out police squads every summer being used to hunt down hippies in my neighbourhood for growing pot plants that I'm attracted to the Green's clear statement on the subject.

Combined with the pandering to the right of Farnsworth and the less than clear messages of James on PR, I know a lot of people who traditionally have voted NDP but are considering the Greens in the next provincial election. This has the danger of spreading to the Federal election. So I think the NDP is crazy to be so concerned with trying to peel off Liberals who clearly will vote for any sad sack wearing red instead of the growing Green threat.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ]

melovesproles

I don't agree with all of Keystone's points but I think these ones are important:

quote:

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.


With number 6, I don't think the problem is 'working families' but just the growing tendency of the NDP to sound scripted and repetitive. It insults the intelligence of the voter, makes the party sound stale and unoriginal and it turns a lot of people off. The Greens are doing a better job of coming off as a fresh alternative and it isn't just because of their name. At a time when voter malaise with the mainstream parties is at an all time high, the NDP should be trying to sound fresh and looking at how to tap into the current mood.

In BC, I think the provincial parties are having an effect on the national polling numbers. The provincial greens have quite a good progressive platform on justice and education, and are more credible than the NDP when it comes to electoral reform(as it benefits them more).

Personally, I'm so sick of helicopters and American funded teched out police squads every summer being used to hunt down hippies in my neighbourhood for growing pot plants that I'm attracted to the Green's clear statement on the subject.

Combined with the pandering to the right of Farnsworth and the less than clear messages of James on PR, I know a lot of people who traditionally have voted NDP but are considering the Greens in the next provincial election. This has the danger of spreading to the Federal election. So I think the NDP is crazy to be so concerned with trying to peel off Liberals who clearly will vote for any sad sack wearing red instead of the growing Green threat.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ]

melovesproles

I don't agree with all of Keystone's points but I think these ones are important:

quote:

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.


With number 6, I don't think the problem is 'working families' but just the growing tendency of the NDP to sound scripted and repetitive. It insults the intelligence of the voter, makes the party sound stale and unoriginal and it turns a lot of people off. The Greens are doing a better job of coming off as a fresh alternative and it isn't just because of their name. At a time when voter malaise with the mainstream parties is at an all time high, the NDP should be trying to sound fresh and looking at how to tap into the current mood.

In BC, I think the provincial parties are having an effect on the national polling numbers. The provincial greens have quite a good progressive platform on justice and education, and are more credible than the NDP when it comes to electoral reform(as it benefits them more).

Personally, I'm so sick of helicopters and American funded teched out police squads every summer being used to hunt down hippies in my neighbourhood for growing pot plants that I'm attracted to the Green's clear statement on the subject.

Combined with the pandering to the right of Farnsworth and the less than clear messages of James on PR, I know a lot of people who traditionally have voted NDP but are considering the Greens in the next provincial election. This has the danger of spreading to the Federal election. So I think the NDP is crazy to be so concerned with trying to peel off Liberals who clearly will vote for any sad sack wearing red instead of the growing Green threat.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ]

melovesproles

I don't agree with all of Keystone's points but I think these ones are important:

quote:

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.


With number 6, I don't think the problem is 'working families' but just the growing tendency of the NDP to sound scripted and repetitive. It insults the intelligence of the voter, makes the party sound stale and unoriginal and it turns a lot of people off. The Greens are doing a better job of coming off as a fresh alternative and it isn't just because of their name. At a time when voter malaise with the mainstream parties is at an all time high, the NDP should be trying to sound fresh and looking at how to tap into the current mood.

In BC, I think the provincial parties are having an effect on the national polling numbers. The provincial greens have quite a good progressive platform on justice and education, and are more credible than the NDP when it comes to electoral reform(as it benefits them more).

Personally, I'm so sick of helicopters and American funded teched out police squads every summer being used to hunt down hippies in my neighbourhood for growing pot plants that I'm attracted to the Green's clear statement on the subject.

Combined with the pandering to the right of Farnsworth and the less than clear messages of James on PR, I know a lot of people who traditionally have voted NDP but are considering the Greens in the next provincial election. This has the danger of spreading to the Federal election. So I think the NDP is crazy to be so concerned with trying to peel off Liberals who clearly will vote for any sad sack wearing red instead of the growing Green threat.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ]

KenS

quote:


The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.

There are still a significant number of people clearly left [by any measure] who consistently vote for the Liberals. And that isn't all explained by 'strategic voting' [them voting for the candidate with the chance of winning for a particular election].

KenS

quote:


The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.

There are still a significant number of people clearly left [by any measure] who consistently vote for the Liberals. And that isn't all explained by 'strategic voting' [them voting for the candidate with the chance of winning for a particular election].

KenS

quote:


The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.

There are still a significant number of people clearly left [by any measure] who consistently vote for the Liberals. And that isn't all explained by 'strategic voting' [them voting for the candidate with the chance of winning for a particular election].

KenS

quote:


The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.

There are still a significant number of people clearly left [by any measure] who consistently vote for the Liberals. And that isn't all explained by 'strategic voting' [them voting for the candidate with the chance of winning for a particular election].

Jonas

So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

Jonas

So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

Jonas

So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

Jonas

So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

KenS

quote:


So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

Either you did not understand my point [immediately above] or you are ignoring it.

Take the quote marks away from "progressive". Operationalize it as people who are pretty left wing on some kind of substantive measuring [where you place something like 6-7% of the population]. Then ask them who they vote for- and you will find a very high proportion vote for the Liberals.

Its hard to nail down what that really implies. But it does tell us that there is more to it than simply that the NDP is too left for too many people, and/or that the definition of 'progressive' is too mushy, or the other typical stock answers.

KenS

quote:


So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

Either you did not understand my point [immediately above] or you are ignoring it.

Take the quote marks away from "progressive". Operationalize it as people who are pretty left wing on some kind of substantive measuring [where you place something like 6-7% of the population]. Then ask them who they vote for- and you will find a very high proportion vote for the Liberals.

Its hard to nail down what that really implies. But it does tell us that there is more to it than simply that the NDP is too left for too many people, and/or that the definition of 'progressive' is too mushy, or the other typical stock answers.

KenS

quote:


So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

Either you did not understand my point [immediately above] or you are ignoring it.

Take the quote marks away from "progressive". Operationalize it as people who are pretty left wing on some kind of substantive measuring [where you place something like 6-7% of the population]. Then ask them who they vote for- and you will find a very high proportion vote for the Liberals.

Its hard to nail down what that really implies. But it does tell us that there is more to it than simply that the NDP is too left for too many people, and/or that the definition of 'progressive' is too mushy, or the other typical stock answers.

KenS

quote:


So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

Either you did not understand my point [immediately above] or you are ignoring it.

Take the quote marks away from "progressive". Operationalize it as people who are pretty left wing on some kind of substantive measuring [where you place something like 6-7% of the population]. Then ask them who they vote for- and you will find a very high proportion vote for the Liberals.

Its hard to nail down what that really implies. But it does tell us that there is more to it than simply that the NDP is too left for too many people, and/or that the definition of 'progressive' is too mushy, or the other typical stock answers.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by KenS:
[b]There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.[/b]

And they are just about as "scientific" as [url=http://www.politicalcompass.org/]this nonsense[/url].

I challenge your assertion that the "leftmost" 6 or 7 percent of the population, in its majority, consistently votes Liberal. You may have some quasi-scientific evidence to back it up, but I doubt if it would stand up to rigorous analysis.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by KenS:
[b]There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.[/b]

And they are just about as "scientific" as [url=http://www.politicalcompass.org/]this nonsense[/url].

I challenge your assertion that the "leftmost" 6 or 7 percent of the population, in its majority, consistently votes Liberal. You may have some quasi-scientific evidence to back it up, but I doubt if it would stand up to rigorous analysis.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by KenS:
[b]There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.[/b]

And they are just about as "scientific" as [url=http://www.politicalcompass.org/]this nonsense[/url].

I challenge your assertion that the "leftmost" 6 or 7 percent of the population, in its majority, consistently votes Liberal. You may have some quasi-scientific evidence to back it up, but I doubt if it would stand up to rigorous analysis.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by KenS:
[b]There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.[/b]

And they are just about as "scientific" as [url=http://www.politicalcompass.org/]this nonsense[/url].

I challenge your assertion that the "leftmost" 6 or 7 percent of the population, in its majority, consistently votes Liberal. You may have some quasi-scientific evidence to back it up, but I doubt if it would stand up to rigorous analysis.

KenS

quote:


I challenge your assertion that the "leftmost" 6 or 7 percent of the population, in its majority, consistently votes Liberal.

Those are your words, not mine. I said a high proportion vote Liberal.

I don't know about you- but even 20-30% who are identified as left voting Liberal tells us something... even if we don't know exactly what to chalk it up to.

Voter behaviour is much more complex than the models partisan junkies carry in their heads.

But it really isn't that hard to see why it would be true. A lot of left identified folks [and remember we're not just talking activists here] are pretty totally disengaged from electoral politics. When and if those folks vote its a pretty short term instrumentalist act.

And even those who have some degree of engagement often see the Liberal party as the best available vehicle for seeing something like what they want to happen move towards reality. IE, they aren't just voting for candidates more likley to win, they are giving their support to the Lberal Party, as institution, as the best vehicle for [eventually] seeing something happen they idenify with.

We're talking about what happens, not whether or how 'deluded' people are.

I'm not a political scientist or an academic, so I don't file away voter behaviour studies I have seen. I think I have a good track record for remembering and relaying. I remember the general thrust of studies. I don't remember how high a proportion of left identifieds usually vote Liberal. But even 50% of the [b]general population[/b] [not just activists in circulation and who talk in discussion forums] would not surprise me.

It isn't just politicians like Rae and Dosanjh who turn to the Liberal party. There is an endless historical stream of them running from Hazen Argue to Buzz Hargrove who were widely seen as left by anyone's measure. They are just the tip of the iceberg for the thousands of nameless folks who are part of the public space we call politics.

KenS

quote:


I challenge your assertion that the "leftmost" 6 or 7 percent of the population, in its majority, consistently votes Liberal.

Those are your words, not mine. I said a high proportion vote Liberal.

I don't know about you- but even 20-30% who are identified as left voting Liberal tells us something... even if we don't know exactly what to chalk it up to.

Voter behaviour is much more complex than the models partisan junkies carry in their heads.

But it really isn't that hard to see why it would be true. A lot of left identified folks [and remember we're not just talking activists here] are pretty totally disengaged from electoral politics. When and if those folks vote its a pretty short term instrumentalist act.

And even those who have some degree of engagement often see the Liberal party as the best available vehicle for seeing something like what they want to happen move towards reality. IE, they aren't just voting for candidates more likley to win, they are giving their support to the Lberal Party, as institution, as the best vehicle for [eventually] seeing something happen they idenify with.

We're talking about what happens, not whether or how 'deluded' people are.

I'm not a political scientist or an academic, so I don't file away voter behaviour studies I have seen. I think I have a good track record for remembering and relaying. I remember the general thrust of studies. I don't remember how high a proportion of left identifieds usually vote Liberal. But even 50% of the [b]general population[/b] [not just activists in circulation and who talk in discussion forums] would not surprise me.

It isn't just politicians like Rae and Dosanjh who turn to the Liberal party. There is an endless historical stream of them running from Hazen Argue to Buzz Hargrove who were widely seen as left by anyone's measure. They are just the tip of the iceberg for the thousands of nameless folks who are part of the public space we call politics.

Pages