you have to wonder if there's a psychological complex at play, as if liberals are subconsciously wired to perceive of conservatives as the establishment and consequently react less in opposition to and more in subversion of. the liberal purpose seems to be to conquer the conservative establishment, right? otherwise, you're not a liberal. you're an anarchist. this is what drives the liberal - the will to overwhelm the conservative. and, you have to wonder if the conservative understand this, at least well enough to feign super powers. this ultimately puts the conservative in the superior bargaining position, due to what is really a liberal inferiority complex to overwhelm the so-called conservative establishment. liberals are hardwired to concessions due to their will to overcome this feigned battle that exists in their minds. the state is consequently inherently conservative, and truly libertarian ideas must be sought outside of it.

if i'm forced to choose in the end, i'll pick horvath over brown because at least you can maybe pressure her from the left. that would probably ultimately be a step sideways, but it could set up a step forwards.

let's just hope that ontario does not choose to take a step backwards by re-electing the conservatives.

and, let's be mindful of splitting the vote: which may in the end mean abandoning the liberals.

if they get decimated and end up in third place, maybe they'll learn the lesson, this time?

but i repeat: if you're concerned about protecting public resources, the ndp are far preferable to the conservatives.

yes: kathleen wynne is extremely unpopular. but, it's because she's pushing through free market reforms that voters typically associate with the conservatives. so, it does not necessarily follow that the conservatives will benefit from her unpopularity. and, if they do, it will likely be because the vote splits.

it took quite a few years and a change of premier, but the liberals in ontario have finally made the error that is the death knell of liberal governments everywhere: they geared policy around trying to appeal to conservatives.

the same thing happens every single time the liberals try this foolish tactic: the vote splits. this is partly a consequence of the conservative press taking advantage of them, like they're patsies, and partly a consequence of liberal strategists fundamentally misunderstanding conservative priorities.

what happened this time is that kathleen wynne decided that, because the debt was a liability with right-leaning voters, she would sell off the hydro grid. this would raise money to pay off the debt. that would in turn make her more popular with conservative voters and she'd win a sweeping victory.

but, it turns out that conservative voters actually oppose privatization measures and that the party always carried through with them without popular support. that's why the conservatives lost their dynasty - because while the media and the banks and the other branches of the conservative party establishment all supported privatization, it was incredibly unpopular amongst voters. if we rewind back to the day of old tory dynasty in ontario, that is before reagan-thatcher, they always supported public utilities. they built most of them! oops? yeah. this is an error that was foreseeable and should be pinned directly on the premier. this is a political error that she should not have made and that many pundits - myself included - saw coming.

but, is she cooked? is this done? not yet.

"Patrick Brown scores the highest of the party leaders at being Premier, with just one quarter of the vote (26%), and he is almost tied with “none of the above” (24%). Then comes Andrea Horwath, with a fifth of the vote (19%) and Kathleen Wynne with about one tenth (12%). One fifth don’t offer an opinion (19%)."

what the polling is saying is that voters hate privatization. they do not like it. they do not like it in a boat. they do not like it in a moat. they do not like privatization, no ma'am!

but they don't like conservatives, either.

there's been a huge swing from "liberal, i guess" to "they're all fucking terrible".

the election is very much in play. i think andrea horwath is a conservative-in-socialist's clothing. she won't stand up and argue against the market, she'll just promise tax rebates. but, watch out for the ndp. because, in the end, if we've decided that the liberals must be replaced, it's not going to be because we think they're spending too much.

my preferred outcome is that wynne gets the message, realizes her error and reverses course with enough time left to save the government. this wasn't ideological, it was pragmatic. and she should really be relieved to realize she was wrong.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2640/pcs-continue-to-lead-strongly-in-ontario/

you know, i've been assuming all this time it was a he. sure, it could have been a she. and, it could have been a gender non-conforming individual, too. i really don't remember at all. at all. but i'll continue to make the basic heteronormative assumption of it being a he, anyways.

there's an incubation period. it's a few months. rough? sure. but it's not immediate, and usually later than sooner.

so, if i got it at the lab, i wouldn't already be feeling it. and, if i got it in the blackout, i'd be feeling it right about now. ugh.

that's actually teachable. the symptoms were correlated with the blood work, but could not have been caused by it.

i hope he enjoyed it. i don't remember it. and i hope i fight this off.

what are the polls at nowadays, anyways?

november average:

liberals 47
conservatives 28
ndp 14
greens 6
bloc 4

the liberals got about 39% in the election last year. they seem to have picked up extra support from both the conservatives and the ndp. the green party is very hard to poll and we should be very careful drawing conclusions, but i think that substantial bleed from the ndp to the greens right now makes a lot of sense.

the greens, for example, have been consistent in their opposition to nafta. and for the right reasons.

but, has the country fallen head over heels for this guy, or what? don't jump to conclusions. i'll tell you what the average voter sees when they look at the options.

1) the prime minister. cool guy. legalizing pot!
2) some lady that took stephen harper's job. but she's a temp worker.
3) that weird guy with the beard that got fired and won't leave.
4) that old lady that seems reasonable, but she'll never win, right?
5) separatists!

it's a process of elimination, guys. there's nobody on the ballot. of course he's polling at 50%.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2016/12/november-2016-federal-polling-averages.html

my actual opinion - and i have stated this repeatedly - is that i do not believe that either of these measures will reduce emissions, that the government knows it and that this is something between political theatre and a policy for wealth redistribution.

i'm consequently neither opposed nor in favour of it. although i'll take the check in the mail that is no doubt coming, thanks. very kind of you.

but, that does not mean that emissions targets cannot be met.

let's not lose sight of the infrastructure funding. that's something that can make a real difference, and something that my vote is more contingent on.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-climate-deal-1.3888244