he's looking a lot more relaxed, and this came off relatively well.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-interview-1.3219479

this is the surreal side of big data and micro-polling.

the campaign has likely determined that this is a little voice inside of some people's heads, and they're trying to enforce what they think these people are thinking, subconsciously.

it's more creepy than comical.

www.cbc.ca/news/trending/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-not-perfect-ad-1.3219282

silversaab
The party with the greatest number of seats always gets an opportunity to form a government but if it fails to have the confidence of the house it is incumbent on Parliament to try to form a working agreement between parties to govern.

Jessica Murray
technically, the existing prime minister gets the first chance. so, under the rules of the system, if harper were to come in second, or even third, he would have first crack at forming a government. but, he needs to get the confidence of the house, first. if he fails, then the governor general needs to call on the party "most likely to gain the confidence of the house" - and that's going to be hard to figure out, although it will almost certainly be the party with the most seats.

the elder trudeau won the popular vote, but he came in second in the seat count. he *did* defer to the party with the largest seat count, although the political calculations at the time also suggested it was smarter to let clark hang himself than it was to govern in a coalition with the ndp. and, if you look at the situation today, that's also what the younger trudeau is really saying - it's not in his interests to place mulcair in power, he'd rather let the conservatives sit in a minority and hope the situation turns around in his favour.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-interview-peter-mansbridge-1.3218597

well, his father also "allowed" clark to govern for a few months in the name of democracy. c'mon, peter, you should know that you need to carefully pick apart pierre's words to get to what he's actually saying. goofy headline.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-interview-peter-mansbridge-1.3218597

meh. i think it's targeted largely at seniors. but, you have to remember that tv advertising is mostly a seniors game now, in the first place, because young people (which i'm describing pretty ridiculously as under 40) don't watch much tv in real-time; when we do, we set pvrs or stream things online, or even buy dvds. if it's intent is "don't freak out, old folks" - well, maybe it gets it's point across. i guess it's the "stay calm" meme in tv ad form. but, i think it will probably barely register at all for most people. it's like wallpaper. and, the few non-seniors that pay attention are going to get the message that this is an old guy appealing to old people.

i think it's well understood that the polling for the ndp for many years has exceeded election results because young people are less likely to vote. and, that might be a better read out of it: the ndp may be concerned that it's lead in the polls may not translate into actual votes, and is trying to appeal more to a demographic that is more likely to actually cast a ballot. the problem is that older people tend to lean right. but, as many have pointed out, this is broadly irrational. and, if i was mulcair, and i was looking to get seniors to vote, i'd be campaigning on health care - not clawing back the transfer increases until the budget balances.

as i've said elsewhere, i don't think it will do much harm. but, i don't think it will have a large effect, either.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-ndp-mulcair-family-1.3218473

noninfo
Nanos has cons at 26%.Not a NDP or Lib friendly pollster.
This guy is messing with the numbers big time.

Jessica Murray
any polling that puts the conservatives under 30% consistently is difficult to believe - they have never polled that low. well, except when they were split in two.

it's a faint signal right now (and i'm not actually doing any real math, i'm just looking at bar graphs), but i'm convinced that there is a swing towards "other" happening in alberta - and that this will become more obvious over the next few weeks. this is essentially wildrose voters swinging right. it's not clear who is benefiting, because it's just going in as "other". chp? social credit? libertarian?

29% is a a disaster. 28% is a historic low. 27% is adding insult to injury. these numbers are arbitrary, but when you start getting lower than that there has to be some kind of force on the right that's siphoning votes out of the spectrum.

it's the only way i can take these numbers seriously.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-sep8-1.3218215

he's just not analyzing the root cause correctly. and his answer is consequently a formula to exacerbate the problem. although he is half right: we can't take them all. and, while the only short term solution is getting as many out as possible, where to put them is a harder question to answer.

and, then there's this:

"We don't, you know, elect a bunch of parties who then, as in some countries, get together and decide who will govern."

well, we kind of do, actually.

he's mentioned he'd step down if he loses before. and, i don't think this a plot. i don't think it takes a lot of psychological analysis to conclude that he doesn't want to work with the opposition, or compromise on bills or really stick around at all if he's not in charge. i'd even think it likely that he'll resign his seat.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-peter-mansbridge-interview-stephen-harper-1.3218348

am i correct in deducing that the national average of “other” is 2%, but the value in alberta is 4%?

your polling has put the conservatives not far from their historical floor, which is more believable. and you’ve got big sample sizes and proven methods. but, other polling firms are consistently putting them in the mid 20s – numbers that the national conservative party has only ever seen when it’s fractured on it’s RIGHT.

so, it’s getting harder and harder to deny that they’re polling in the 20s. but, that requires an explanation, and “they’re voting for the ndp” kind of doesn’t cut it. demographics change over time, sure. maybe the country is on the brink of a generational overhaul. it does happen. but, i think that occam’s razor means paying close to attention to this “other” vote, first. you’re actually doing this right, so you’re probably the best firm to draw attention to this to.

www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/09/three-way-tie-as-voters-try-and-sort-out-who-can-solve-the-economy/

that shrinking conservative vote in alberta doesn’t seem to be going to the other parties. 54–>47, with movements from the other parties wavering amongst themselves, within a small margin. where are those voters actually going? are they provincial wildrose voters?

www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/08/fractured-country-produces-tight-and-unpredictable-race/

i think you need to be careful with this line of reasoning.

i'm not one to fall into the orwellian language of contemporary social activism, but they have a term for this - they call it "silencing". no, not them - you. i know. it's ironic. and logically problematic. but, they nonetheless have somewhat of a point. telling people to shut up is telling people to shut up, regardless of the context.

i think it's an error to assume this was merely a comedic routine. i mean, we can see she was trying to draw attention to herself, sure. but, you've got some emo running in the background, so i'm going to assume you know a little about punk rock - you create a ridiculous platform for the purpose of getting a serious message across, not the other way around. i think it's more that she was making a point by being shocking, rather than she was being shocking for the sake of being shocking.

and, the purpose of anybody doing this is to start a discussion.

so, let's have this discussion, then. is over-eating to the point of being unhealthy something protected by individual rights that we should accept as a personal choice, or is it anti-social behaviour that affects everybody negatively and that society has a collective right to try and coerce people away from?

but, keep in mind that while the obese may be a minority, they're a third of the population. that's larger than virtually any other minority you could articulate.

i think she made a very cogent point, and you've merely strengthened her argument.

but, i've gleaned from another post here that this woman is a canadian. and i need to interject a cultural difference related to our health care systems.

even on the other side of the forced insurance scheme that is obamacare, the united states remains a society where people pay for their own health care. whatever the inefficiencies in such a system, an american individual is ultimately responsible for funding the consequences of their own health decisions. should they decide to be obese (and spare me the nonsense), then the costs for this decision will ultimately come out of their own pocket. such a system more or less seems to shield the individual from the sort of criticism in the original post.

in canada, we have a single payer system. what that means is that we all pay into a system of limited resources to take care of each other. over-eating is consequently not a victimless crime, as the resources used to treat obesity are siphoned out of other, more legitimate uses. it's not just obesity. it's smoking. it's intravenous drug use. the consequences of all of these things are preventable, and because the society pays for care collectively, it reserves the right to try and coerce others into behaviour that reduces the social costs.

it is out of this different health care delivery system that the idea of fat shaming - and smoke shaming - becomes entirely justified. it's not restricted to an individual choice, it's also a public health issue regarding the use of public funds and the expenditure of public resources.

now, this isn't entirely divorced from the american system - there are not infinite health resources in america. but, the artificial scarcity produced by high costs buffers the effects on the system, somewhat - but only somewhat. at the end of the day, the obese are still siphoning out resources as a consequence of preventable health issues created by making bad choices.

the idea that we ought to be able to do whatever we want, and fuck everybody else, is very american. but it is not sustainable. and it is not canadian. whether you like her video or not, there are hard truths in it that we all need to grapple with.

---

Nana M
correlation: a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things

mjsteele42
He was making fun of her mispronouncing the word.  She was saying it as though it had a hyphen: "co-relation."

phnexOice
I don't know if the pronunciation is a Canadian thing, or if she's just an idiot, most likely the latter.

deathtokoalas
i think you might want to take a closer look at the word and think really carefully about how it was constructed and what it means.