quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
I believe that Malcolm is talking percentage.

---

Thanks, Threads.

I'd have tought even the thickest Liberal would have been able to follow,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:

Thanks, Threads.

I'd have tought even the thickest Liberal would have been able to follow,

'Parently not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
I voted NDP,
how thick is that?
Would you vote for someone who withdrew from the election.
ditto on thick,
buddy.

---

From what I've read in your other childish rants, you're a Liberal who loaned us your vote, and your pissed that we aren't all swooning in gratitude.

If you don't want to grow up and discuss the topic, why don't you just get your bottle and go back to bed?

[ 15 October 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
Yes, that's right - 1867. Not 1967. 1867.

---

It is possible they did worse than any election INCLUDING 1867, since a large proportion of the popular vote in that election is unknown.

Would it be sweeter if it was "since Confederation?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Here's Wikipedia's entry on the 1867 general election, with percentage vote shares for all parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1867

---

quote:

---

I am likely a lonely voice within the party making this argument, though, so it looks like we will have our third leadership race in five years starting in days or weeks.

Here's my prediction on how this will all unfold:

1. There will be 9-12 candidates who end up running;

2. Between them they will spend $2-3 million that the party desperately needs;

3. The race will be testy and divisive - this is politics after all, and the stakes are high. Comments will be made about each candidate that could (I should say, will) be used by the Tories in a commercial to named later;

4. With 9-12 candidates, the "frontrunner" will fail to get more than 35% on the first ballot;

5. The winner will likely win the last ballot roughly 55-45% - leaving about half the party feeling like they were screwed;

6. If I were going to Vegas, I would bet on "the field" winning over either of the "frontrunners" that the media will anoint, thus castrating the new leader from the start as a "compromise" choice;

7. Within minutes of the new leader winning in Vancouver, the Conservative party will have TV commercials on the air branding the new leader as elitist/weak/a socialist/left-handed/a Leafs fan/or some other equally silly label;

8. The new leader will want to strike back but will be told there is no money for competing ads and that he/she needs to still raise $1-million to pay off the leadership debt;

9. The new leader will be facing a divided caucus (since less than half of caucus will support any candidate) that will immediately start going to the media (unnamed, of course) to undermine the new leader's authority;

10. The party will still be a mess organizationally/messaging-wise/strategically/technologically and in every other way that matters to win elections (i.e. the party will not have done anything to renew or reform itself during the race);

11. Just as the new leader realizes all this, Harper will start introducing 10 confidence motions a week in the house and challenge the new leader to drop a writ for an election the party isn't ready for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

Unknown: 34%

---

The Conservative and Liberal-Conservatives defeated the Liberals and the Anti Confederation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

Unknown: 34%

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

Unknown: 34%

---

[ 21 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Yet another reason I'm supporting Joe Volpe for Dion's replacement. That man can even get money from kids!

The Liberals blame Dion, Dion blames lack of fundraising like it's something entirely new.

But, since the rules were changed on donations, the Liberals have not adjusted the way the NDP and Conservatives have. After these many years, I can't believe it's from lack of trying. There's something more fundamental going on here.

The donation limits can't even come close to a down payment on a government contract, so why would anyone contribute to the Liberal Party?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
For pity's sake, Malcolm, get a life and move on with it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[QB][/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think this would be an opportune time for high end Liberals to push for electoral reform. It's time for cooperation and productive alliances.

---

No deals with the enemies of the Bolsheviks!

After all Liberals! Tories! Same old story. 11020 time the Liberal stoogeocrats supported the phoney-baloney neo-Liberal agenda supported by Pakistan General Zia by absenting themselve from votes in parliment.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I wonder, at what point does indulgence become spamming?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
Lowest popular vote and second lowest seat count.

---

Liberal Vote for the environment

Funny they pulled this one out to show their success.

quote:

---

Do you feel votefortheenvironment.ca played a role in the Conservative failure to win a majority?

Well, yeah. When you look back at the site, there's no doubt we had an effect.

We had three weeks to ask hundreds of thousands of Canadians to trust us - it was a huge barrier to overcome.

I think it was a success to reach so many Canadians -- evene without the media putting us out there.

As far as actual results, if you do look at riding like Edmonton-Strathcona , Linda Duncan (NDP) beat Rahim Jaffer (Conservative) by 400 votes.

If you look at Google Analytics, we had 13000 visits from Edmonton. It's only one factor, but, yes, I think we had an effect in Edmonton Stratchona.

---

Apparently, they need a Leader who sends a populist message like Jack Layton did in 08.

quote:

---

What should the Liberals do to increase their viabilty in the West?

I'm convinced the Liberal brand isn't broken. If they can bring in a leader with a populist message and an authencity to cut through the garbagey, spin-doctoring they can win an election.

I think the Liberal Party is in the perfect position for that.

---

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

The only one coming close to being inspiring in the last election was Green Party leader Elizabeth May...but none of the leaders were inspiring to Canadians to get them involved in the political process.

---

I read this kind of stuff (coming out of a partisan liberal's mouth) and I think - really? Not one Green elected. Oh yes, I see that they gained in popular vote, but in the next election, the Greens will not have a friendly liberal party helping to raise the Green's profile, or their leader, as it actually decreased the liberal vote.

Also, Kevin Grandia was being highly partisan in his statement (without disclosing he is partisan), with his sweeping statement "but none of the leaders were inspiring to Canadians to get them involved in the political process", in ignoring, for instance Layton's consistent 2nd place leadership numbers throughout the race, and increase of seats for the NDP.

Grandia made sweeping assumptions (which I think he knows are bull but that is a another storyline for a different point I would make later) that he has no legitimate proof to actually valid his inferences. What I suggest here is that he made a faulty "cause and effect" relationship of where "A type behaviour resulted in B outcome." There might be some correlation between the two but there is not enough evidence to show that votefortheenvironment actually had a cause/effect relationship.
And yes, I am going there with some stats notions here:

quote:

---

Correlation and causality

Main article: Correlation does not imply causation

The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be validly used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction).

A correlation between age and height in children is fairly causally transparent, but a correlation between mood and health in people is less so. Does improved mood lead to improved health; or does good health lead to good mood; or both? Or does some other factor underlie both? Or is it pure coincidence? In other words, a correlation can be taken as evidence for a possible causal relationship, but cannot indicate what the causal relationship, if any, might be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bagkitty:
Bump to your heart's content Malcom, especially since you mention Linda Duncan's win in Edmonton Strathcona I feel like indulging you. That mention alone is worth another three or four bumps.

---

Ironically, I was thinking to bump this. But then MadMax did it for me, bless him.

But BagKitty, I'll mention every NDP gain, one post at a time, if it will continue to buy your indulgence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
...he is "dangerous" because it's about manipulating the public into a scheme of selecting a party who actually doesn't represent their interests.

---