CPC Campaign Strategy: Fear, Fear and More Fear

[Riverwind]

If a party wants to advertise a coalition or anything as an option, they can. But it is stupid to do so, because it automatically suggests your party is surrendering its chances to win a Majority.

Make up your mind. You can either argue that the any that parliamentary rules are prime determinant of legitimacy and any action done that follows those rules is legitimate or you can argue that the representations made during an election campaign are the prime determinant of legitimacy .

If you choose the former then you must accept that Emerson's defection was perfectly legitimate and the people complaining have no right to do because it followed the 'rules'.

If you choose the latter then Emerson deserves criticism but it also means that any coalition that is not advertised as an option during the campaign is not legitimate either.

[jdobbin]

If you choose the former then you must accept that Emerson's defection was perfectly legitimate and the people complaining have no right to do because it followed the 'rules'.

Emerson's defection was legitimate. It was just hypocritical of Harper to criticize it in other parties.

[Alta4ever]

From the Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1279929/

You do realize this whole artical is speculation right?

[jdobbin]

You do realize this whole artical is speculation right?

But this isn't.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/...ty.html?ref=rss

"Let me be clear about this, we need to win a majority in the next election campaign," Harper said. "I am not just saying that because we need to win a few more seats."

He said that if the Conservatives don't succeed in getting a majority he predicted the Liberals will govern in a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

"If they get together and force us to the polls, we have to teach them a lesson and get back there with a majority, and make sure their little coalition never happens," said Harper.

[waldo]

edit: duplicate post

clearly... the specter of the "ominous coalition" will be one of the main themes played out by the Conservatives... as Conservatives prepare to, as Harper states, "teach them a lesson".

Edited September 10, 2009 by waldo

[noahbody]

But this isn't.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/...ty.html?ref=rss

Something said to rally supporters at an event closed to the media, doesn't exactly mean it will be the main theme of the campaign. So, it is speculation at this point. It's a pretty weak appeal in my eyes and would likely help Ignatieff more than the Conservatives. Not saying the war room won't go for it, just that it is speculation.

From the same article:

Harper's speech was videotaped by someone in the audience and a copy of the address was sent to the Liberal Party of Canada, which sent it to CBC News. The Liberals claim the tape shows that Harper doesn't want to work with the other parties in Parliament and therefore justifies Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff's threat to force an election.

With comments like that, I think the Liberal war room isn't exactly full of geniuses either.

[Smallc]

I would almost bet that if enough people saw the story, the Conservatives will have a temporary dip in the polls.

[waldo]

[madmax]

Emerson's defection was legitimate. It was just hypocritical of Harper to criticize it in other parties.

Thank you.

[madmax]

I'd be surprised if all those talking points weren't in the fall election.

[Molly]

Yes, there are many things that are deeply immoral, and beyond the pale for anyone with the faintest shred of integrity..... yet manage to slide under the legal bar. That defection is one of 'em... in terms of parliamentary legitimacy.

I still question whether it constitutes a legal fraud with respect to the voters of that riding... but that question is doomed never to be addressed.

Water under the bridge insofar as there will be no prosecution, but present and compelling in terms of what it says about the moral character of our Prime Minister.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Molly

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The election hasn't even been called yet and folks are trying to pick the winner based on partisan ideology. Don' t you folks think we need to hear what these partisan groups are saying they will do first? I mean really folks the platforms are not clearly defined yet, so how do make an informed choice?

[Molly]

Since when do 'platforms' tell you much about what a party will do when in office?

Cynicism alert: If all you base a vote on is what you learn during a campaign, then you aren't well enough informed to be trusted with a vote.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The point I am trying to make is that we need to decide who to vote for based on what they are saying. It is all we have to judge them with.

[Wild Bill]

The point I am trying to make is that we need to decide who to vote for based on what they are saying. It is all we have to judge them with.

Finally! Someone is being objective instead of blindly partisan!

Jerry, you keep this up on this board and you're gonna wind up feeling very, very lonely!

[Molly]

Have you not been listening to 'what they have been saying' for the last several years?

I have.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Good then you will have noticed that they change their positions from time to time. The thing to do is wait until the platforms are set and then judge them accordingly.

[Topaz]

Did they so called coalition you mention take control of the government and run the government?

No? Then this so called coalition you mention didn't exist.

Harper's coalition with the other two lead us to one of three elections called by the Tories, so yes he did have control.

[M.Dancer]

Harper's coalition with the other two lead us to one of three elections called by the Tories, so yes he did have control.

Try again.

[Topaz]

The point I am trying to make is that we need to decide who to vote for based on what they are saying. It is all we have to judge them with.

All the older voter trusted what Harper said about the Interest Income and they found out different. It depends on the person and Harper says things all the time and he is NOT believable anymore.

[Topaz]

The election hasn't even been called yet and folks are trying to pick the winner based on partisan ideology. Don' t you folks think we need to hear what these partisan groups are saying they will do first? I mean really folks the platforms are not clearly defined yet, so how do make an informed choice?

I 1000% agree with you. Here is the west it seems people pick a party and stick with it no matter what and I think that creates problems. Harper should be judged on HIS actions and his promises in and out of the Commons. As far as Iggy goes, like Harper, we only have his words and promises to decide and then IF/WHEN he does get to the PMO, then we can judge HIM on his actions and promises kept.

[jdobbin]

Something said to rally supporters at an event closed to the media, doesn't exactly mean it will be the main theme of the campaign. So, it is speculation at this point. It's a pretty weak appeal in my eyes and would likely help Ignatieff more than the Conservatives. Not saying the war room won't go for it, just that it is speculation.

So no chance that he isn't going to use words like separatist and socialist in a campaign. Okay. Gotcha.

With comments like that, I think the Liberal war room isn't exactly full of geniuses either.

So you very much believe Harper wants Parliament to work. Any evidence of that?

[madmax]

I mean really folks the platforms are not clearly defined yet, so how do make an informed choice?

Last years CPC platform was...

Harper is driving the BUS and Dion is sitting too close to me.

This year the LPC platform is

Ignatieff wants to drive the BUS, and its ok if Harper sits beside me, we are going the same way.

The NDP platform is...

Hey Look, Its Steve and Iggy hanging onto the porcelin bus again.

Don't forget to flush, and remember to wash your hands. People think you stink, and take a breath mint.

Got some Irish Spring forsale. Deal or No Deal.

Edited September 10, 2009 by madmax

[nicky10013]

There are many things that politicians can do legally but would be illigitimate in the eyes of the public. For example, it was perfectly legal for David Emerson to switch to the CPC right after the election but I doubt any of the supporters of the coalition accepted that choice simply because it was legal under the rules of parliament.

You can be for it or against it, but to view it as illegitimate is just horrible education. To have the governing party disseminating said information is even yet more despicable. There's no excuse for it.

[eyeball]

There are many things that politicians can do legally but would be illigitimate in the eyes of the public. For example, it was perfectly legal for David Emerson to switch to the CPC right after the election but I doubt any of the supporters of the coalition accepted that choice simply because it was legal under the rules of parliament.

There is a simple way to resolve this. Call an election and run on a platform where a coalition is advertised as an option and let the votes fall where they may. Running a campaign where a coalition is not mentioned or outright rejected makes that option illegitimate once elected.

Who needs to campaign if there's no election? You can just as easily base a campaign on the merits of a coalition after the fact.