Outremont:
38% NDP, 32% Lib, 14% BQ
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot:
49% BQ, 32% CPC, 6% NDP, 5% Lib
Roberval-Lake-Saint-Jean:
43% CPC, 37% BQ, 12% Lib, 4% NDP
Source
Chantal Hebert – “a disaster-in-the-making..”
Outremont:
38% NDP, 32% Lib, 14% BQ
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot:
49% BQ, 32% CPC, 6% NDP, 5% Lib
Roberval-Lake-Saint-Jean:
43% CPC, 37% BQ, 12% Lib, 4% NDP
Source
Chantal Hebert – “a disaster-in-the-making..”
Alby, in Roberval-Lake-Saint-Jean, are you cheering for the Conservatives to lose or the separatist party to win?
Andrew, no you didn’t post any data about Canadian electoral behaviour. Read the book “Absent Mandate” if you want to actually research Canadian voting patterns and the effect of media on elections. There’s lots of other material, so enjoy.
Double heh and I would add HAH!
Who cares if the separatists win, I want Quebec out of Canada too. Only then will the game end.
“Civil servants make good coin these days, which means they are sensitive to high marginal tax rates and big new spending schemes.”
Even without the inherent racism, Andrew, you blew your cover with this one. Dreaming in technicolour you are, if you believe this to be true. No, not sensitive to “high marginal tax rates”, just sensitive to any tax rate at all.
“Read the book “Absent Mandate”.”
I have, many years ago. Funny you should mention that. Anyway, it is dated, and too politically correct to be of use. I’m still waiting for the data you promised showing that there are no cleavages in Canada.
Andrew, just because you state something, doesn’t make it the truth – and that includes your various denigrations of people’s intelligence.
The Liberals advocate ‘race quotas’? You must be kidding. Even though I dislike the Liberals, I’ve never heard of them using the ‘race’ term. So, please, andrew – with your ironclad data base – tell us when/where the Liberals advocate ‘race quotas’.
Now – there’s no such thing as ‘race’ in the human species; we are only ONE species. There are most certainly different variations within this species: hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, body shape. But apart from these superficialities, cognitively -we are the same.
So, your attempt to correlate one of these superficial variations – which are genetically controlled and have NOTHING to do with cognition, with an action of cognition (voting preference) is specious. Wrong. Untrue. Invalid.
By the way – why is a ‘careerist’, which presumably means ‘someone who has a career’ (eg doctor, lawyer, chemist, biologist, etc)..why do you denigrate such behaviour? Hmmm?
No, you haven’t provided any data whatsoever that correlates skin colour and voting behaviour.
And after all, the example given by stephen, of Italians, who are ‘white’ and yet vote Liberal – well, this denies your assumption. Yet you say that it doesn’t. Is this another example of you stating that because YOU, Andrew, say something, that it is The Truth?
Andrew – the tactic that you use, constantly, of telling readers that IF they don’t accept your views, THEN, they are ignorant, uneducated, unintelligent blah blah – is a childish tactic. And logically fallacious. You are essentially saying: ACCEPT what I say because I, The Great Andrew, say it. No questions allowed, no dissent. I, The Great Andrew, Know Everything.
You know, andrew – I don’t think you do know – never mind everything – but what you are talking about.
Your correlation of skin colour and voting preference is pure baloney. There is NO correlation; it’s specious, it’s spurious, it’s invalid.
Now, if you want to correlate Recent Immigrant Vote and political party – then, that would be valid. Or ethnic/cultural group and political party – you might be able to do that. But skin colour?You see – those variables are both social (immigration-political party; cultural group and political party). Your error is that one of your variables is a biological value. Fallacious.
Try again – and stop telling us that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is uneducated. People here, andrew, are for the most part, highly educated. Heck – they might even know more than you do.
PS folks if you want to “raise your game” and discuss Canadian politics at an appropriate (i.e. my) level, read “Game Theory and Canadian Politics” by Tom Flanagan, it’s like $19.99 and worth every penny. I’m playing chess and you’re playing with yourselves, basically.
If you go back a couple threads you’ll see people wrongly attributing the growth out west to economic activity. It’s also due in no small part to the western cities having high Native populations.
Natives have the highest birthrate of any ethnic group in Canada.
Only someone with my knowledge and reasoning ability could put two and two together and correctly analyze the situation:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007031.html
Isn’t it cool to see a “real time” example of how political correctness leads to sh!tty conclusions, and how superior my intellect is?
Andrew the burden of proof is on you, to prove that “brown” people vote differently than the rest of us, not me. BTW, when did I claim “brown” people have same voting patterns as rest of population? I just don’t believe it, given that Canada has no discernable voting cleavages. ET is right, your opinion is not an authority or proof of anything. Actually I could care less, anyway; have a great weekend.
Dear Superior Intellect Andrew,
The article you referenced in your 9:15 post was definitely referring to economic, as opposed to population growth. For example, from the link:
“His optimism appears well placed. With its real gross domestic product forecast to grow by 4.7 per cent this year, Saskatoon will knock Calgary off its perch as Canada’s fastest-growing census metropolitan area.”
Cheers,
Nice try at burnage, felis, but economic growth, particularly in a welfare state, is a function of population growth.
I have to agree with Andrew. I find his data and arguments convincing, dominant even. I sure feel grateful that he’s sharing his knowledge with timorous and ignorant folks like us.
Yet again, another astounding correlation. And this time, with a causal implication, i.e., that Economic growth is a function of population growth. In a welfare state. Heh.
Try those two variables in the ME and in Africa, which have some of the highest population growth ratios in the world – and yet – no economic growth. In fact, they have the opposite.
I suggest you try some valid correlations, such as economic growth could be correlated with urbanization, ie, the reduction of a peasant class level; or the growth of a middle class; or the dev’t of a transportation infrastructure etc etc.
But correlating population growth and economic growth and saying that both rise together. Nope.
Of course, since you self-define yourself as Invincible, All-Knowing, Superior Intellect blah blah – then, you ought to know all of this anyway. So, why don’t you?
Again, gai feifen ahfen yam.
Hope you all pay kate for renting her space for your little tete a tete.
As a civil servant in Ottawa (please don’t flame me, I work in a small but decent agency), you would be surprised at how many civil servants vote conservative. And how many are quietly pleased with the Harper government….at least in my sector (health).
Valencia . . . I live in Ottawa and I am VERY reassured by your comment. I think the civil servant’s perception of the political scene is of value.
Back to the topic. What do you think the voter turnout will be, for a by-election. Usually this is very low, but if by chance it goes over 40% that would mean more than who wins. It would mean voters have paid attention. If libs win one riding, the size of the win compared to past wins will tell the story. IF the NDP win, before they get to high on their horse, check their percentage in the other two ridings. Are there any greens running, or rhino.
Dion is acting brave right now. What choice does he have. If they lost Outremont, that will be bad enough, but if the Conservatives also take a seat, the knives will be out for him. The MSM will turn on him, and it might become his tipping point. I don’t think anyone can realistically predict what would happen then.
If on the other hand, Liberals take one seat (best case scenario apparently) and Bloc take two, shutting out the Conservatives, Dion might get cocky, make a rookie mistake, and force an election.
Either way, Harper is in the drivers’ seat. If Liberals get shut out, no way Dion will want election and will end up looking really silly when he can’t go along with Layton on new Kyoto bill and Afghanistan debate.
Dion has done a poor job in Quebec and it seems he does not have a good organization in the three ridings. A lot of the Liberals’ strength has been their organization, message massage and nimble leadership. This time around, their core organizational people, spin doctors and senior leader types are on the sidelines.
The tables have turned. Now the Grits have the rookie leader yet to be bloodied in a general election, a divided party with key personnel gone, and a small war chest. The Tories have lots of money, fair to good leadership, and a leader who, while not the charismatic type, is seen as doing a reasonably good job by mainstream Canada, despite the Lib’s attempt at mythmaking and projection.
I doubt very much we will have an election before Feb 09 unless the opposition forces one, so Libs must win at least one seat on Monday for that to happen. These byelections will likely decide if we will have an election this year.
Please stay on topic
I left Quebec because I was offered a nice deal to work in Alberta. It was difficult to leave, but I think I am better off here and flying back more than a few times per year.
Quebec’s issue has always been that the French-speaking majority has been underrepresented in business leadership. That is no longer true. As les Quebecois have come to discover this (and the internet’s power) over the past while they are throwing off the backwards weight of separatism and deciding to join in.
Maybe we could all separate from Ontario now.
“The Liberals advocate ‘race quotas’? You must be kidding. Even though I dislike the Liberals, I’ve never heard of them using the ‘race’ term. So, please, andrew – with your ironclad data base – tell us when/where the Liberals advocate ‘race quotas’.
Now – there’s no such thing as ‘race’ in the human species; we are only ONE species. There are most certainly different variations within this species: hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, body shape. But apart from these superficialities, cognitively -we are the same.”
ET, with all due respect to you as anthropologist, you are continually off base on this theme. Race is an intraspecific phenomenon. It has nothing to do with speciation. Persistent, genetically derived pleiomorhism with phenotypic consistency while maintaining reproductive contiguity, is what makes a race. Just because anthropologists don’t wish to recognise human races doesn’t make them invalid.
The Liberals do advocate “race quotas”, they just won’t call it that. Its implicit in the charter’s protection of visible minorities, and its explicit in the federal government’s hiring practices. The Liberals are neither transparent for race, nor ethnicity, nor gender.
To illustrate how bad things are for Dion, read this Travers article:
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/256930
Like I said in other posts, if Libs get shut out in byelections (not a given yet, byelections are notoriously hard to predict), the MSM will turn on him, and demand change of leadership.
Travers’ article would just be the beginning.
There’s another theory going on out there.
Even if the Libs are shut out on Monday, the puppet-masters will convince Dion to force an election.
It’s the theory of cut-your-losses-while-you-can, of course, since the Libs, indistinguishable from the NDP, would then have nowhere to go but down.
Every time the Lib strategists call our leader ‘President’ Harper, suggesting a right-wing American lapdog, Harper shades further left.
The Libs can’t leapfrog to the right, like Joe Clarke tried to do because then they’d get wiped out like the PC party did .. and even a four-year-old would be able to call them hypocrites.
It would be a good time for our politicians to call for a movement to Unite the Left (Lib/NDP/Bloc/Green) since they all of the same big brother ilk.
With Outremont on the line, you would figure the real heavyweights of the Liberal party, Chretien, Manley, McKenna, and many others, would step up for the Party(where is Lapierre?). Instead, 50 people show up for a rally?
On the other hand, the very afternoon Dion won the Grit leadership, Jean Chretien and Brian Tobin were having a nice little chat about when Brian would like to go for the leadership. Dion had an slow start, went negative on Harper on his very first press conference, then skulked away all hurt when the big fat bully gave him a taste of hardball politics, of which the Libs are past masters.
It seems Martin did more damage to the Grits than originally thought. For a party so steeped in power, it is curious to see the paucity of high profile talent right now. They can’t purposefully be trying to get rid of Dion; not yet anyway, say, by in effect throwing an election.
Or, they may get rid of Dion, elect a new leader quickly, then keep Tories off balance, using their fixed election date legislation against them to prevent an early drop of the writ, and gain strength and raise much needed cash. Maybe the A team will get back in, and Dion will become the Diefenbaker of his era, though without ever sitting in the PM’s office.
Monday will be an interesting night, no doubt. It may even be a watershed day in politics, when the mainstream parties prepare for the big one in 09.
“Maybe the A team will get back in, and Dion will become the Diefenbaker of his era, though without ever sitting in the PM’s office.”
Closer to being more like the Kim Campbell, in almost every way….
Yes, Skip I see you point about Kim Campbell. I was referring to the fact Diefenbaker was outsted by his party (“The Night of the Knives”), in a coup led by Dalton Camp.