CPC 2017: Bernier vs Alexander

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:

At this point it doesn't appear that many will drop out prior to the ballot being finalized or convention. 

And there isn't really any point to drop out now......its about leverage....for example, say both Alexander and O'Toole have ~4-5% support among the party and they're being courted by both Bernier and O'Leary. Waiting until the March deadline, they both might be trying to get another couple percentage points (translated into ridings) more, well knowing they will never win the leadership, in the hopes of "giving" their endorsement to one of the likely winners that (in the backroom) offers them a plum cabinet spot in exchange.

 

 

[Derek 2.0]

And from  CHANTAL HÉBERT:

 

Quote

 

Maxime Bernier has collected more money than any of his rivals and the largest number of contributions. There are fewer Conservative members in Quebec than in the other large provinces. Given that, his tally suggests he has a broader base. In the big picture, that matters. With every riding worth the same number of leadership votes regardless of the size of its membership, it is not good enough to have the most boots on the ground if those are concentrated in a single region.

 

Bernier had a fundraising head start on most of the competition. But he collected more than half of his 2016 funds over the last three months of the year, at a time when all but O’Leary had joined the race. The party’s first bilingual debate took place during that period. By all indications, Bernier scored points for being able to debate in both French and English, a skill that most of his rivals do not command.

 

 

Also:

 

 

Quote

 

Despite coming to the battle later than the previous three, Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer raised more money than Chong and almost caught up to Leitch in the last quarter. The former speaker of the House of Commons scored points this month when former Conservative minister Chuck Strahl joined his campaign. Strahl is respected across the Reform/Tory divide. Scheer has a strong regional base in the Prairies, but the region has a relatively modest number of leadership votes. Strahl is well placed to open up doors in British Columbia.

 

 

Of the nine other candidates who entered the race before the end of last year, Ontario MP Erin O’Toole — who served in Harper’s cabinet over the final months of the Conservative mandate — has done best on both caucus endorsements and fundraising. If victory in May ends up belonging to whoever is the second choice of the largest number of Conservatives, he could be this campaign’s dark horse.

 

 

As I've said earlier, Bernier, Scheer and O'Toole are going to be my top three picks.....Bernier will be my top pick (likewise most of my extended family that are party members, absent my brother that is going O'Toole first). Last year, my wife and I (and my father and mother) all maxed the donation limit on Mad Max, and are holding off until the end of the month to donate again.......for this year, we were thinking of donating ~$500 to each of our top three, but now we're considering $500 to Max and the balance to one of O'Toole and Scheer as a plan "B".

 

 

[PIK]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

There's a peterson running?

https://www.petersonleader.ca/

 

And I hope people are listening to this guy. Check him out.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, PIK said:

https://www.petersonleader.ca/

 

And I hope people are listening to this guy. Check him out.

Yeah, I checked his web site after posting. I don't like his immigration policy. In particular, where he writes:

I will introduce smarter immigration policies, using tiered security screening and increased terrorist surveillance, while saying No today and forever to a values test for citizenship.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Argus

[PIK]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yeah, I checked his web site after posting. I don't like his immigration policy. In particular, where he writes:

I will introduce smarter immigration policies, using tiered security screening and increased terrorist surveillance, while saying No today and forever to a values test for citizenship.

What exactly.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, PIK said:

What exactly.

The expressed indignation about values screening. I would never hire someone without an interview. Why would we bring over immigrants without one?

Edited February 7, 2017 by Argus

[Newfoundlander]

20 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

And there isn't really any point to drop out now......its about leverage....for example, say both Alexander and O'Toole have ~4-5% support among the party and they're being courted by both Bernier and O'Leary. Waiting until the March deadline, they both might be trying to get another couple percentage points (translated into ridings) more, well knowing they will never win the leadership, in the hopes of "giving" their endorsement to one of the likely winners that (in the backroom) offers them a plum cabinet spot in exchange.

 

 

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. A candidate would need to quit prior to the voting process for their endorsement of another candidate to have any impact.

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, Newfoundlander said:

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. A candidate would need to quit prior to the voting process for their endorsement of another candidate to have any impact.

 

Which is why I said:

 

Quote

Waiting until the March deadline

 

As in when the ballot is finalized.

[Newfoundlander]

Ok then.

[PIK]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

The expressed indignation about values screening. I would never hire someone without an interview. Why would we bring over immigrants without one?

I think it was a value test it self, not interviews or vetting,that he was talking about.

Edited February 8, 2017 by PIK

[Argus]

12 minutes ago, PIK said:

I think it was a value test it self, not interviews or vetting,that he was talking about.

What are you going to ask in an interview? What do you ask in a job interview? I mean, the resume has already told you they have the experience and education for the job, or you wouldn't have called them in for an interview, right? So the job interview is to determine how well they'll fit in, what their drive and motivation is, where they see themselves going, how dedicated and determined they are to work there, how adaptable they are and whether they're a self starter and yet will follow guidelines. 

Why would we not be seeking similar things when interviewing potential immigrants?

Edited February 8, 2017 by Argus

[PIK]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

What are you going to ask in an interview? What do you ask in a job interview? I mean, the resume has already told you they have the experience and education for the job, or you wouldn't have called them in for an interview, right? So the job interview is to determine how well they'll fit in, what their drive and motivation is, where they see themselves going, how dedicated and determined they are to work there, how adaptable they are and whether they're a self starter and yet will follow guidelines. 

Why would we not be seeking similar things when interviewing potential immigrants?

I see your point, my mistake.

[taxme]

On 1/18/2017 at 10:37 PM, Omni said:

You really think so? I live in BC and I'll be damned if I can find a French speaker anywhere around here.

Maybe you just have a little argus style paranoia goin' on.

At one time speaking french as a need for a PM did not exist before papa trudeau came along. Now try and get a good paying management job in the federal government in Ottawa without speaking french. You must speak french. Preferably be a francophone. Bilingual today, french tomorrow is here. It is that no one can or wants to see this.  

[August1991]

In all honesty, I haven't read through all this thread.

Given the CPC voting system, I reckon that it will be the Second Choice who decides: hence, my Alexander vs. Bernier OP.

=====

For some, Leitch, O'Leary, Chong are first choices. But these candidates are last on Second Choices.  

[Newfoundlander]

I doubt Alexander will be high on many people's ballots.

As well from people I've spoken to Chong could be high on the ballots of Bernier, Raitt and O'Toole supporters, and vice versa.

Leitch and O'Leary probably won't have a great deal of support after their first choices. 

 

[Argus]

57 minutes ago, Newfoundlander said:

I doubt Alexander will be high on many people's ballots.

As well from people I've spoken to Chong could be high on the ballots of Bernier, Raitt and O'Toole supporters, and vice versa.

Leitch and O'Leary probably won't have a great deal of support after their first choices. 

 

You realize that despite the horror her immigrant stance has evoked from the national media the only poll on the subject showed 80% liked it among Conservatives supporters, right? As for O'Leary, if his people are being at all honest about all the money he's raising and all the new members he's signing up, well, combine that with thee undeniable fact he's pretty much the only one with a shot at unseating Trudeau next election and LOTS of people will be considering him.

[Newfoundlander]

48 minutes ago, Argus said:

You realize that despite the horror her immigrant stance has evoked from the national media the only poll on the subject showed 80% liked it among Conservatives supporters, right? As for O'Leary, if his people are being at all honest about all the money he's raising and all the new members he's signing up, well, combine that with thee undeniable fact he's pretty much the only one with a shot at unseating Trudeau next election and LOTS of people will be considering him.

I'm well aware. If we're citing polls though, they've shown these two in particular are the most polarizing candidates. 

The only reason Leitch has become a competitor is because of her immigration position, prior to announcing it she had little to no traction in the race. While Conservatives may not oppose her idea it doesn't mean they care enough about it to vote for her, and why else would someone vote for her?

Candidates like Obhrai, Saxton, Lemieux, Peterson, and Trost, appear to have little to no support so when they drop off their numbers will hardly impact the overall race. Alexander and Blaney may get enough support to have a little influence. It's the other seven - O'Leary, Bernier, Leitch, Chong, O'Toole, Scheer and Raitt - who will likely have the most support in the race that their second, third, fourth, etc. choices will influence the race. There's a good chance that people's second and third choice will have similar views as their first choice. Due to O'Leary's high profile and focus on economics he probably has a better shot at being ranked high on almost anyone's ballot. However, where does Leitch's second place support come from? Raitt and Chong have been pretty aggressive in their attacks against her so it'd be surprising if their supporters were ranking Leitch very high. Her and O'Toole are also been very different. Some of Scheer's supporters may like her and possibly some of Bernier's Quebec supporters. If O'Leary were to drop off it's difficult to say who his supporters might choose as their second choice. 

Leitch in particular would appear to have the least room for growth. While she's spoken about some different issues, she is predominantly seen as a one issue candidate. 

[?Impact]

My guess at ranked ballots is that the highly polarizing candidates will not get second shot. O'Leary can be polarizing, but some of the others might be more so. There are several safe second choices, like Chong that might be able to get through between their first and second choices. O'Leary's advantage is he will be one of the leaders in the first choice, and might get enough second choice to take the win. I think it will come down to how many safe second choices there are, which means they will need to differentiate themselves.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Newfoundlander said:

I'm well aware. If we're citing polls though, they've shown these two in particular are the most polarizing candidates. 

The only reason Leitch has become a competitor is because of her immigration position, prior to announcing it she had little to no traction in the race. While Conservatives may not oppose her idea it doesn't mean they care enough about it to vote for her, and why else would someone vote for her?

Yeah. I agree. In fact, I said much the same about myself a short while back. I like that aspect of her policy, but I don't like her demeanor or presentation and don't think she has a prayer of winning a national election.

But I think you're wrong about O'Leary. I think he's going to figure fairly high on anyone's ballot simply because he espouses very conservative financial principles and he's very well-known - and thus more likely to win a national election than the likes of Alexander or Bernier.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

My guess at ranked ballots is that the highly polarizing candidates will not get second shot. O'Leary can be polarizing, but some of the others might be more so. There are several safe second choices,

LIke Joe Clark was?

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

LIke Joe Clark was?

So what do you think are the most important leadership qualities that Clark lacked? Apply them to the Liberal party and tell us who should be leader.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So what do you think are the most important leadership qualities that Clark lacked? Apply them to the Liberal party and tell us who should be leader.

He lacked anything remotely like charisma, for one thing. He also had the worst phony laugh in political history. Harper wasn't a huge lot better, but he projected a gravitas Clark never managed. I don't think the Conservatives need another passionless boring man at their helm if they're going to fight Trudeau.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

He lacked anything remotely like charisma, for one thing. He also had the worst phony laugh in political history. Harper wasn't a huge lot better, but he projected a gravitas Clark never managed. I don't think the Conservatives need another passionless boring man at their helm if they're going to fight Trudeau.

So substance takes a second seat to presentation?

b.t.w., There was a lot I liked about Manning, as well as a lot I didn't concerning substance.  On presentation however he had low marks. 

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So substance takes a second seat to presentation?

 Worked pretty well for the Liberals. Remember Prime Minister Robert Stanfield? No? Guess why?

Quote

b.t.w., There was a lot I liked about Manning, as well as a lot I didn't concerning substance.  On presentation however he had low marks. 

No, he had passion. He didn't have a sexy voice or pretty face. So what? He spoke passionately about things he believed in and you could tell he believed in them.

And no, I don't want presentation without substance. But it would be nice to have both.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Argus

[?Impact]

The new format for the debate is a bit better, but it really showed what poor choices there were in the first round. I can't image having Leitch as PM, that shrill voice screaming at Canadians every day would drive us all to commit suicide. 

 

On to round 2.