News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 2.1K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.5K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 768     0 

2015 Federal Election

BUMP:

Glen McGregor @glen_mcgregor
A big pollster has some stunning national horserace numbers out soon. Preliminary results have NDP out in front. pic.twitter.com/8WiQ1FPtU3
Click to expand...

Wow...

Tabatha Southey
@TabathaSouthey
At what point is the Supreme Court of Canada allowed to issue an Official Notification of Being Tired of Your Shit?
#OmarKhadr
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Didn't realize this thread existed.

So the question I posed in the Ontario Election thread is that I am beginning to question whether strategically voting for Liberals this federal election is the right way to go about strategic voting. Depending on orange momentum, Mulcair's popularity, and Trudeau's inexperience/incompetence (see Bill C-51) the NDP may actually have a better chance than the Liberals in defeated Harper.

What do people think? Is the strategic vote going to go towards the NDP federally like in Alberta?
 
Where's there's talk of "coalition", what do they mean?

When I see "coalition", I think of two political parties, normally adversaries, undergoing a "temporary" merger of sorts. See this link for a good explanation. I can see members from both parties being in the cabinet.

This is opposed to a "minority". See link. Instead of a "merger", some other party may give their support (votes in parliament) to get bills passed. The supporting party does not have members in the cabinet.

There was talk about a "coalition" between the NDP and the Liberals, to defeat the Conservatives in the next election. I think that to avoid a splitting of votes, a "coalition" maybe a way to defeat the Conservatives. Maybe not formally, but based on the individual riding to avoid splitting the votes.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Where's there's talk of "coalition", what do they mean?

When I see "coalition", I think of two political parties, normally adversaries, undergoing a "temporary" merger of sorts. See this link for a good explanation. I can see members from both parties being in the cabinet.

This is opposed to a "minority". See link. Instead of a "merger", some other party may give their support (votes in parliament) to get bills passed. The supporting party does not have members in the cabinet.

There was talk about a "coalition" between the NDP and the Liberals, to defeat the Conservatives in the next election. I think that to avoid a splitting of votes, a "coalition" maybe a way to defeat the Conservatives. Maybe not formally, but based on the individual riding to avoid splitting the votes.
Click to expand...
That's what a coalition is. A coalition government is always formal as far as I now. If not, it's a minority government.

I don't think we've had one since the war. But the UK just had a rare one. Which didn't work very well for the junior party, which got blamed by the electorate for capitulating to the majority.
 
WislaHD said:
Didn't realize this thread existed.

So the question I posed in the Ontario Election thread is that I am beginning to question whether strategically voting for Liberals this federal election is the right way to go about strategic voting. Depending on orange momentum, Mulcair's popularity, and Trudeau's inexperience/incompetence (see Bill C-51) the NDP may actually have a better chance than the Liberals in defeated Harper.

What do people think? Is the strategic vote going to go towards the NDP federally like in Alberta?
Click to expand...

Latest polls put the NDP ahead of the Liberals federally, so they could very well be the ABC strategic voting choice.
See threehundredeight.com.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Where's there's talk of "coalition", what do they mean?

When I see "coalition", I think of two political parties, normally adversaries, undergoing a "temporary" merger of sorts. See this link for a good explanation. I can see members from both parties being in the cabinet.

This is opposed to a "minority". See link. Instead of a "merger", some other party may give their support (votes in parliament) to get bills passed. The supporting party does not have members in the cabinet.

There was talk about a "coalition" between the NDP and the Liberals, to defeat the Conservatives in the next election. I think that to avoid a splitting of votes, a "coalition" maybe a way to defeat the Conservatives. Maybe not formally, but based on the individual riding to avoid splitting the votes.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, and I don't think it's ever happened in Canada before, if a minority government gets elected and then suffers a non-confidence vote almost immediately the Governor General can either call another election or allow a coalition of opposition parties to form the government. That coalition must have enough members and be solid enough that they won't also suffer from a non-confidence vote.
 
Latest Nanos poll has Liberals and PC's still in the lead, but also seeing the NDP trend upwards (Though I don't see how, as the last Nanos poll still had the NDP at 25%, so no change at all)..

"The Nanos poll shows the Conservatives with a numeric lead at 32.9 per cent of support among poll respondents, and the Liberals trailing at 31.3 per cent. And while the NDP came in at 25.2 per cent, their numbers have been trending up since February, according to pollster Nik Nanos."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nano...ie-as-ndp-trend-upward-nanos-survey-1.2378838
 
Last edited:
Éric Grenier ‏@308dotcom 2m2 minutes ago
Federal projection updated: CPC 122-159 (32%), LPC 87-123 (30%), NDP 78-105 (25%), GPC 2 (7%), BQ 0-1 (4%). #cdnpoli
Click to expand...

So, even if Harper does win, it won't be close to a majority.

Daniel Dale ‏@ddale8 35s36 seconds ago
Jeb Bush just called for the re-election of Stephen Harper (in comments at an event in New Hampshire), @JamesPindell reports.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then...

Carrie Dann ‏@CarrieNBCNews 38m38 minutes ago
Jeb Bush dings Obama for bad relationship with... Canada. "It’s hard to imagine how you can have a bad relationship with Canada."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here's how I see it. The cons have been in charge of the jail since 2006, right? That's nine years. In numerology terms, add 4 more years to get 13 which will mean bad luck to them in the 2019 election.

So the liars better hang on to their seats or else they'll be on the wrong side of the slammer c.2019.
 
With Mulcair and the NDP leading the polls, and having nearly three times as many seats as the Liberals, how can the Liberals claim to be the main alternative to the Conservatives? It will be very difficult for them them to turn it around, I think.
 
So, Harper is scared of a televised debate. Doesn't he want to go on about that "budget surplus" or that he is "tough on crime?"
 
I think the debates are mostly about who should participate.

Some think the debates should only involve those Parties have a reasonable chance of forming government, or being official opposition. Others think that every Party that has a seat in the House should be allowed to enter.

Maybe the final conclusion will be that the Broadcasting consortium will hold two debates with a number of Parties participating, and there will be a few other debates that focus only on the 3 main Parties.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top