Evening Star Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 The conservatives have figured out how to win... by uniting the right.. Cullen is going in the right direction here If you honestly believe ndp or lpc will win another election on their own you're dead wrong, we're not in the 90's anymore things are different.. we know the conservatives have the numbers.. its simple math They won with 39% of the vote.. the other parties will NOT get 39% alone, not with this vote split of the left FACE IT The Alliance and PCs merged. They didn't pull some half-assed 'joint nomination' scheme in certain ridings while running against each other in other ridings. If someone wants to advocate a merger, I could at least take that idea seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) I am seriously pissed at you people, I don't want to see any of you complain about Harper and the Conservatives winning the majority election with 24% of canadians voting for them democracy and the electoral system is not broke, your fricking brains are broke do the fricking math!!!!! the party with the most mps wins the right = cpc the left = lpc ndp left vote split cpc vote won't split = cpc victory Fricking DUH ndp + lpc = win cpc = lose DUH Edited March 5, 2012 by olpfan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 The Alliance and PCs merged. They didn't pull some half-assed 'joint nomination' scheme in certain ridings while running against each other in other ridings. If someone wants to advocate a merger, I could at least take that idea seriously. I am 100% for a merger it makes sense splitting the left vote means failure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Olp1fan, even if I were to accept your premises, which I don't, you still haven't shown why Cullen's idea is any good. xpost OK, you realize that what Cullen is proposing is not a merger, right? Edited March 5, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Olp1fan, even if I were to accept your premises, which I don't, you still haven't shown why Cullen's idea is any good. Forget cullens idea, what we need is a merger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Olp1fan, even if I were to accept your premises, which I don't, you still haven't shown why Cullen's idea is any good. xpost OK, you realize that what Cullen is proposing is not a merger, right? I realized that, Cullen doesnt go far enough.. In my opinion to get the numbers to defeat the Torys we need to unite liberals and ndp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I guess someone is a Liberal now seeing this is the system they approved as policy in January. Nope because I know when the Liberals approve anything the leader can just change on the fly if they want to so what is the point. I in the NDP the leader is bound by the what is passed at convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I am 100% for a merger it makes sense splitting the left vote means failure The Liberals I think are destined to take one more crack at an election before merger talks become serious again. They will want to be in the driver's seat (aka official opposition) if a merger is to occur. The NDP's hold on official opposition is shall we say questionable and the Liberals are not naive to that. They know they could easily form official opposition next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 The Liberals I think are destined to take one more crack at an election before merger talks become serious again. They will want to be in the driver's seat (aka official opposition) if a merger is to occur. The NDP's hold on official opposition is shall we say questionable and the Liberals are not naive to that. They know they could easily form official opposition next time. We'll have to endure 5 more years of a conservative majority then because of both their selfish attitudes.. they need to put Canada first, not their egos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I could respect his idea more if he were advocating an outright merger. There is just no sensible reason why NDP candidates should run competitively against Liberals in some ridings and co-operate with them in other ridings. Are they two different parties with different agendas who are competing with each other or are they not? It's so half-baked and actually leads me to question his judgment more generally. And, as you note, he hasn't even run it by the Liberals. When MPs get elected on their own (or their party's) merits and then decide to co-operate on certain issues in the House, that's an ENTIRELY different thing. Edit: I think I've been convinced to leave him off my ballot. Another edit: Your last sentence leads to another problem with this: it assumes that Liberal and NDP voters all oppose the Conservatives more than they oppose each other or even more than they support their own party. In my opinion, that's not a safe bet. I think there are, for example, many Liberal voters in suburban Ontario who would prefer the CPC to the NDP and NDP voters in Quebec and the Prairies who might choose the BQ or CPC over the NDP. I completely agree. Tom Mulcair is seriously the only logical person for the leadership. Regardless what people outside the party are saying, he won Quebec for the NDP. Layton put him in charge of the NDP's campaign there and he worked directly with Layton on their Quebec strategy. He's the only one with a clear and focused agenda to court other progressive and independent voters across the nation. Others in the party may attack him and say he's moving away from their progressive roots, but I write that off as jilted unionists that think the party should be all about them. Those elements, to me anyway, are to the NDP as the social conservatives are to the CPC. At the end of the day, I'm just trying to imagine each of the candidates in a debate against Stephen Harper and Bob Rae (chances are he'll end up leader). The only one I can see holding his or her own is Tom Mulcair and maybe Peggy Nash, but she's not fiscally minded enough imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 We'll have to endure 5 more years of a conservative majority then because of both their selfish attitudes.. they need to put Canada first, not their egos If Rae does get the permanent leadership, merger talks could be more likely I suppose. He has always seemed very open to the idea, more so than most of the Liberal elite. I just don't see that party caving so easily. There is still alot of the old guard (Martinites) left that would most likely defect to the Conservatives or quit politics if that happened. If they were in the driver's seat, it would be more likely as they would see it as an easy way to win back power. The Liberals gain nothing if they merge now with a 100+ seat NDP opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Really? Instead of selecting multiple choices on a ballot we'll just hold multiple federal elections? I think asking voters to make multiple choices gets complicated as well. IMO, people should vote for their primary candidate and a single alternative on the ballot. That's the simplest system. It doesn't involve multiple elections and it doesn't require people to rank candidates that they may not want to vote for at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 If Rae does get the permanent leadership, merger talks could be more likely I suppose. He has always seemed very open to the idea, more so than most of the Liberal elite. I just don't see that party caving so easily. There is still alot of the old guard (Martinites) left that would most likely defect to the Conservatives or quit politics if that happened. If they were in the driver's seat, it would be more likely as they would see it as an easy way to win back power. The Liberals gain nothing if they merge now with a 100+ seat NDP opposition. If they are as concerned as the direction canada is being taken by harper they will suck it up but i am afraid they do not care as long as they have their pension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) If they are as concerned as the direction canada is being taken by harper they will suck it up but i am afraid they do not care as long as they have their pension The Liberals really when it is all said and done care about one thing, power, but on their terms. Think if Martin had have won say 3-5 more seats in 2004? He most likely would have made some sort of arrangement with Jack Layton and the NDP and could have governed as a majority. Its amazing how things have unfolded. Edited March 5, 2012 by UofGPolitico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) I am seriously pissed at you people, I don't want to see any of you complain about Harper and the Conservatives winning the majority election with 24% of canadians voting for them democracy and the electoral system is not broke, your fricking brains are broke do the fricking math!!!!! the party with the most mps wins the right = cpc the left = lpc ndp left vote split cpc vote won't split = cpc victory Fricking DUH ndp + lpc = win cpc = lose DUH There are Liberals that would rather vote for the Conservative Party than the NDP or even a merged Liberal-Democrat Party. There are NDP members that wouldn't vote at all if the party merged into a Liberal-Democrat Party. 1+1 in this case does not equal 2. It's not simple math. Hell, we could just unite all the parties and the winning party can get 100% of the popular vote in every election. Edited March 5, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 There are Liberals that would rather vote for the Conservative Party than the NDP or even a merged Liberal-Democrat Party. There are NDP members that wouldn't vote at all if the party merged into a Liberal-Democrat Party. 1+1 in this case does not equal 2. It's not simple math. Hell, we could just unite all the parties and the winning party can get 100% of the popular vote in every election. Exactly. People forget the united right under the Conservatives in their first election (2004) got a vote share that was 7 points off the combined Alliance/PC vote in 2000. People underestimate how much of the Liberal base are right-leaning Blue Liberals. Many of them (predominantly in Ontario) ran to Harper last year out of fear the NDP may actually form a government. NDP/Liberals merge, most of those voters will stay with the Conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 We'll have to endure 5 more years of a conservative majority then because of both their selfish attitudes.. they need to put Canada first, not their egos Don't be ridiculous. The Conservative only held a minority until this most recent election. Contrary to Harper's lies about our political system, if the NDP and Liberals combined form a majority, a coalition is a perfectly legal and reasonable prospect for political stability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 There are Liberals that would rather vote for the Conservative Party than the NDP or even a merged Liberal-Democrat Party. There are NDP members that wouldn't vote at all if the party merged into a Liberal-Democrat Party. 1+1 in this case does not equal 2. It's not simple math. Hell, we could just unite all the parties and the winning party can get 100% of the popular vote in every election. Exactly. People forget the united right under the Conservatives in their first election (2004) got a vote share that was 8 points off the combined Alliance/PC vote in 2000. People underestimate how much of the Liberal base are right-leaning Blue Liberals. Many of them (predominantly in Ontario) ran to Harper last year out of fear the NDP may actually form a government. NDP/Liberals merge, most of those voters will stay with the Conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 s. Many of them (predominantly in Ontario) ran to Harper last year out of fear the NDP may actually form a government. Do you have proof or is that just made up bs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 s. Many of them (predominantly in Ontario) ran to Harper last year out of fear the NDP may actually form a government. Do you have proof or is that just made up bs? Political scientists and commentators have said it. No, I myself do not have proof, but its a common theory out there. For the Cons to have jumped 5 pts in Ontario those votes had to have came from somewhere, and logically speaking that would be the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Political scientists and commentators have said it. No, I myself do not have proof, but its a common theory out there. For the Cons to have jumped 5 pts in Ontario those votes had to have came from somewhere, and logically speaking that would be the Liberals. speculation then, no polls to back it up gotcha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 speculation then, no polls to back it up gotcha Where do you propose they came from them? LOL. What is your speculation? The Liberals vote share in Ontario dropped 8 points. The Conservatives rose 5, the NDP rose 7 and the Greens lost 4. I mean we could theorize all we want, but if you look at it logically, its not hard to see where that "speculation" came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) For me to even consider supporting a merger, I'd need to see someone propose a coherent set of principles and policies for the new merged party (and, obviously, they'd have to be ones I could support), something beyond desperation and a desire to win/beat the other guy. Edited March 5, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm just trying to imagine each of the candidates in a debate against Stephen Harper and Bob Rae (chances are he'll end up leader). The only one I can see holding his or her own is Tom Mulcair and maybe Peggy Nash, but she's not fiscally minded enough imo. I don't think Peggy Nash holds her own even in the NDP leadership debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofGPolitico Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I don't think Peggy Nash holds her own even in the NDP leadership debates. The Conservatives would love it if she were to win lol. I think they really are only scared of Muclair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.