Well liberals, so Ignatieff is going to buy the quebec vote with a new

[punked]

You're the one that put it out there, not me, I simply AGREED with your statement...

You wouldn't be having a problem facing facts like most NDPers now would you?

You seem a little too upset, but don't worry, Layton knows what he's doing and I'm sure he'll find a way to save himself and you from having to "put up or shut up"...

You don't understand how the NDP works in Canadian politics. They drag all the parties to the left, I wish they would win but I will take them being their over the Liberals winning anyday. Can you imagine what a different place Canada would be with out the NDP dragging the Liberals and Cons to the left kicking and screaming? Having two right wing parties is hard enough but at least the NDP keeps them both in the middle somewhat.

PS you might not know this but just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't.

Edited March 18, 2011 by punked

[nicky10013]

Yah but how far you play it out shows how your results will be. In 2004 Martin waited till the last week of the election, in 2006 it was 2 weeks out, in 2008 Dion used it the first day, it truly shows how bad it is for you guys when Liberals including the Leader are playing it before the election. Ouch big loss coming eh?

What did I just say about being an hubris filled ideological political novice?

[punked]

What did I just say about being an hubris filled ideological political novice?

Was it something about a pot or a kettle?

[nicky10013]

Was it something about a pot or a kettle?

When did I predict the outcome of an election before it was even called? Do you even know what this analogy means?

[punked]

When did I predict the outcome of an election before it was even called? Do you even know what this analogy means?

So we can make a bet right now. If the Liberals win the election I wont post here any more if the Liberals lose you wont? I can tell you right now we have an April election they are losing, they actually have nothing and are sitting at 23% right now.

[gordiecanuk]

More people need to vote with their brains instead of their hearts. Voting with your brains results in a Conservative vote. Voting with your heart involves fantasy and romanticized ideas, it brings these voters to the Liberals or the NDP.

So brainy people vote for lower taxes, increased spending and massive deficits??? It that's what Conservative voters consder intellignce, then you can have it.

Actually, when you look at the demographics that go along with the polls, you'll find Conservative voters have the lowest levels of education....but don't worry, I'm sure your friend thinks you're smart.

[nicky10013]

So we can make a bet right now. If the Liberals win the election I wont post here any more if the Liberals lose you wont? I can tell you right now we have an April election they are losing, they actually have nothing and are sitting at 23% right now.

I'm not betting either way because I truly don't know what's going to happen. If you were older than 12 you'd know that elections have a life of their own. Who brings down the government and why and frankly entire platforms have nothing to do with who wins or loses.

It all comes down to one issue. One defined issue that doesn't come to light until midway through the campaign or after. It's not usually one that people generally predict. Polls swing violently throughout which is why I don't trust 23%. Let's not forget that Kim Campbell, who was far more popular than Chretien at the time, took her party from the one of the largest majorities in Canadian history to 2 seats. Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, but to say we can predict an election outcome before hand is pure stupidity.

Could 23% hold? Absolutely, but the only person unknown in a field of knowns in regards to a very bored electorate is Michael Ignatieff and he's proven he's been able to shock before.

Considering how nasty this election is going to be, no one should be making any bets.

[punked]

I'm not betting either way because I truly don't know what's going to happen. If you were older than 12 you'd know that elections have a life of their own. Who brings down the government and why and frankly entire platforms have nothing to do with who wins or loses.

It all comes down to one issue. One defined issue that doesn't come to light until midway through the campaign or after. It's not usually one that people generally predict. Polls swing violently throughout which is why I don't trust 23%. Let's not forget that Kim Campbell, who was far more popular than Chretien at the time, took her party from the one of the largest majorities in Canadian history to 2 seats. Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, but to say we can predict an election outcome before hand is pure stupidity.

Could 23% hold? Absolutely, but the only person unknown in a field of knowns in regards to a very bored electorate is Michael Ignatieff and he's proven he's been able to shock before.

Considering how nasty this election is going to be, no one should be making any bets.

See because I am older then 12 years I understand the way politics in Canada actually works. To move people you actually need something besides "Come on we are the Liberals". Elections in Canada are usually mundane things and the electoral history shows when an incumbent PM goes into an election you can only expect a swing of 6 points at the very very extreem. The gap is just to big for the Liberals sorry to tell you.

Kim Campbell isn't Harper it was her first election and she ran like it was her first election. Lets get serious Liberals keep hoping for 93 over again this aint 93 it aint even close. Kim Campbell is more like the Liberal leader then the Conservative leader to be quite honest here if we want to be real.

What Michael Ignatieff shock are you talking about? Would it be when he lost the leadership race to Dion? Was it when he took a ridding that voted 55% Liberal before him and only got 43% of the vote? He is a bad politician look at his history Niki lets be serious you are talking about the guy who lost Dion.

I am making a bet right now, we are going to get the same parliament we have right now with 20 seats changing hands but canceling each other out.

[gordiecanuk]

He is a bad politician look at his history Niki lets be serious you are talking about the guy who lost Dion.

Remember in the leadership race between Iggy Rae and Dion that Mike and Bob were the heavy favourites. Anyone who's ever been to the track will tell you, when the odds are split between the favourites, bet on the long shot.

[nicky10013]

See because I am older then 12 years I understand the way politics in Canada actually works. To move people you actually need something besides "Come on we are the Liberals". Elections in Canada are usually mundane things and the electoral history shows when an incumbent PM goes into an election you can only expect a swing of 6 points at the very very extreem. The gap is just to big for the Liberals sorry to tell you.

Kim Campbell isn't Harper it was her first election and she ran like it was her first election. Lets get serious Liberals keep hoping for 93 over again this aint 93 it aint even close. Kim Campbell is more like the Liberal leader then the Conservative leader to be quite honest here if we want to be real.

What Michael Ignatieff shock are you talking about? Would it be when he lost the leadership race to Dion? Was it when he took a ridding that voted 55% Liberal before him and only got 43% of the vote? He is a bad politician look at his history Niki lets be serious you are talking about the guy who lost Dion.

I am making a bet right now, we are going to get the same parliament we have right now with 20 seats changing hands but canceling each other out.

First of all, if you knew how Canadian politics worked you'd know rather than an up and down vote of party members, it's actually a delegate system like the democrats do it in the US. He was actually first in the leadership race, Bob Rae was second and Dion was third. Gerard Kennedy was 4th, threw his delegates to Dion and he came up through the middle and all of a sudden the third placed candidate won. The constitution changed and that won't happen in future leadership conventions, but if a straight vote were to take place electing a leader by 1 voter per member Ignatieff would've won easily. That also quashes the notion that you know more about the LPC than I do, but really, who's counting here? Not you, you probably couldn't count in the first place.

Furthermore, where did I ever say Campbell was Harper? I specifically said she wasn't. All I said was that strange things can happen in elections. Actually, they almost always do. You just can never count on them going your way.

Furthermore, I never said that platforms don't matter. I just said elections are decided usually on one major policy issue. It helps to have a platform in order to deal with that. However, they're no where near as important as you're suggesting. Harper in 2008 had no platform at all yet, he won seats.

Edited March 18, 2011 by nicky10013

[punked]

First of all, if you knew how Canadian politics worked you'd know rather than an up and down vote of party members, it's actually a delegate system like the democrats do it in the US. He was actually first in the leadership race, Bob Rae was second and Dion was third. Gerard Kennedy threw his delegates to Ignatieff, Dion came up through the middle and all of a sudden the third placed candidate won. The constitution changed and that won't happen in future leadership conventions, but if a straight vote were to take place electing a leader by 1 voter per member Ignatieff would've won easily. That also quashes the notion that you know more about the LPC than I do, but really, who's counting here? Not you, you probably couldn't count in the first place.

Furthermore, where did I ever say Campbell was Harper? I specifically said she wasn't. All I said was that strange things can happen in elections. Actually, they almost always do. You just can never count on them going your way.

Furthermore, I never said that platforms don't matter. I just said elections are decided usually on one major policy issue. It helps to have a platform in order to deal with that. However, they're no where near as important as you're suggesting. Harper in 2008 had no platform at all yet, he won seats.

Tell me more about how the Liberal leader lost to Dion. I don't care how the system works if he can't run a leadership race and lost one of the least popular Liberal leaders ever what does that say about him? Not my fault the Liberals have the worst system in the world, it might interest you to know every other party in federal politics have a one member one vote system because they are modern parties that aren't stuck in the 1800s.

[nicky10013]

Tell me more about how the Liberal leader lost to Dion. I don't care how the system works if he can't run a leadership race and lost one of the least popular Liberal leaders ever what does that say about him? Not my fault the Liberals have the worst system in the world, it might interest you to know every other party in federal politics have a one member one vote system because they are modern parties that aren't stuck in the 1800s.

And? At least attack the PArty for that...oh...wiat, you can't because they changed it.

At the very least stop pretending to be an expert on the Liberal Party. You don't know anything about politics in general but everyone is allowed an opinion because of our open system, but to really know the party you've got to be in it for a while. Something tells me you never have. For someone who knows more than me (despite never having actually ever gone to a meeting) you seem to actually know nothing about how the party actually works.

[punked]

And? At least attack the PArty for that...oh...wiat, you can't because they changed it.

At the very least stop pretending to be an expert on the Liberal Party. You don't know anything about politics in general but everyone is allowed an opinion because of our open system, but to really know the party you've got to be in it for a while. Something tells me you never have. For someone who knows more than me (despite never having actually ever gone to a meeting) you seem to actually know nothing about how the party actually works.

Yah a whole 15 years after all the other parties and not with out a huge internal fight.

When did I ever say I haven't ever been to a Liberal meeting or Convention for the that matter? I don't remember saying that ever?

Edited March 18, 2011 by punked

[nicky10013]

Yah a whole 15 years after all the other parties and not with out a huge internal fight.

When did I ever say I haven't ever been to a Liberal meeting or Convention for the that matter? I don't remember saying that ever?

Well, lets just say this. If you went to the convention you would've known which way the convetion actually worked. You didn't. I had to explain it to you. I think that's patently obvious.

Second, you had no idea how the policy process actually works. If you had been to a meeting you'd realize that there was a call for policy a LONG time ago and that it starts with the riding associations, goes to regional policy conventions, then provincial, then finally federal. However, you didn't. Strike two.

Third strike - there wasn't any huge internal fight within the LPC. It came in, quite quietly as matter of fact, around the same time Ignatieff got the leadership.

[punked]

Well, lets just say this. If you went to the convention you would've known which way the convetion actually worked. You didn't. I had to explain it to you. I think that's patently obvious.

Second, you had no idea how the policy process actually works. If you had been to a meeting you'd realize that there was a call for policy a LONG time ago and that it starts with the riding associations, goes to regional policy conventions, then provincial, then finally federal. However, you didn't. Strike two.

Third strike - there wasn't any huge internal fight within the LPC. It came in, quite quietly as matter of fact, around the same time Ignatieff got the leadership.

I was speaking specifically to the fact that in the last Convention there was an hour of Debate on Policy and resolutions and all other resolutions were voted to be sent off to no name land to be voted on. AND pointing out the NDP had 20+ hours of debate on policy at their convention in the same year.

[Molly]

Punked... please, please, please, please PLEASE stop spelling riding with a double d.

I'm begging you. It ab-so-lutely drives me 'round the twist. I'll live with 'lead' for 'led' and ignore 'loose' for 'lose' wherever those errors appear, but I -just- -cannot- -do- 'ridding' for 'riding'.

Please!

[GWiz]

Punked... please, please, please, please PLEASE stop spelling riding with a double d.

I'm begging you. It ab-so-lutely drives me 'round the twist. I'll live with 'lead' for 'led' and ignore 'loose' for 'lose' wherever those errors appear, but I -just- -cannot- -do- 'ridding' for 'riding'.

Please!

Awwww, I thought he was just ridding himself of his obvious frustrations about the NDP...

[madmax]

Punked... please, please, please, please PLEASE stop spelling riding with a double d.

I'm begging you. It ab-so-lutely drives me 'round the twist. I'll live with 'lead' for 'led' and ignore 'loose' for 'lose' wherever those errors appear, but I -just- -cannot- -do- 'ridding' for 'riding'.

Please!

RIDDING RIDDING RIDDING RIDDING

MUWHHAAAAAAAUUUU

[GWiz]

RIDDING RIDDING RIDDING RIDDING

MUWHHAAAAAAAUUUU

Chanting like that to get rid of punked may or may not help... But thanks for trying...

[fellowtraveller]

Personally I don't much care whether we get an NHL team in Winnipeg or not... The Arena's been built and it's AHL franchise is doing just fine...

The arena is too small. AHL franchises cost a fraction that it takes to run an NHL team.

[fellowtraveller]

$7,500 for season tickets? From what orifice are you extracting these figures?

Ummm, from the actual cost in Canadian cities for NHL season tickets...... Oilers tickets range from about $2500 for nosebleeds to $11,000 for the best seats. $7500 per seat is not at all unreasonable, double that if you have a friend or companion willing to spend three hours in your company. Then there is is beer, parking, food and babysitters......

This isn't the Moose or the Goldeyes.......

That's $15K per pair, every year.

People keep saying Winnipeg has changed and gotten wealthier since the Jets fled last time. Here's a newsflash: the NHL has gotten much, much more expensive too. Good luck, you'll need it.

The situation is even worse in an even smaller economy in Quebec City.

Edited March 18, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[Black Dog]

Ummm, from the actual cost in Canadian cities for NHL season tickets...... Oilers tickets range from about $2500 for nosebleeds to $11,000 for the best seats.

Wrong.

Gold club season seats: $6786.90, nosebleeds $1225.

$7500 per seat is not at all unreasonable, double that if you have a friend or companion willing to spend three hours in your company. Then there is is beer, parking, food and babysitters......

This isn't the Moose or the Goldeyes.......That's $15K per pair, every year.

Average household income in Winnipeg is higher than Montreal. Winnipegers also have some of the highest levels of discretionary income in the country.

People keep saying Winnipeg has changed and gotten wealthier since the Jets fled last time. Here's a newsflash: the NHL has gotten much, much more expensive too.

And you used to be able to get a quart of milk for a nickel. What's you rpoint?

[Black Dog]

Anyone interested in a look at the economic impact of pro sports would be advised to check out Marc Rosentraub's 1997 book, Major League Losers.

Or just look at the case study of the Seattle Supersonics.

[fellowtraveller]

Gold club season seats: $6786.90, nosebleeds $1225.

WRONG! Those are 2008 prices. Check your own link. Gold club tickets are $236 each in 2010/11, and no doubt going up. Multiply that by 41 home games plus a few pre season tickets, and you get no change from $11,000 per seat for golds. All other seats have commensusrate increases.

$7500 per year is a reasonable estimate for a reasonable seat.

That is what it MUST cost in Winterpeg too, you cannot operate with less revenue since the NHL is driven by their gate. You also need to expand your new arena immediately, it is too small.

That's the problem with you guys, you could not afford the team in the 90s and you cannot accept that nothing has really changed.

Average household income in Winnipeg is higher than Montreal.

Meanigless, as the average income earner cannot possibly afford tickets to NHL games anyway. Montreal is a much larger city with many more wealthy people who can afford the $15,000 cost of a pair of very average season tickets. NHL hockey is not affordable for the ordinary working man. Edited March 19, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[BubberMiley]

That is what it MUST cost in Winterpeg too, you cannot operate with less revenue since the NHL is driven by their gate. You also need to expand your new arena immediately, it is too small.

I wish you were right, because I don't want to see the NHL come back to Winnipeg. They're a pathetic, bush-league organization that are unapologetic with underhanded, illegal deals to suck hundreds of millions of dollars from communities. That Glendale deal is beyond sleazy. The city is supposed to pay the prospective owner $100 million upfront for parking rights the city already owns? And $27 million a year for "arena maintenance fees"?

With Winnipeg being, obviously, a smaller market, how long would it take before they were trying the same deals here?

Unfortunately, all indications are we are about to find out.