in the end, the real election will be between horwath and wynne. again.
and, ford's potential to eat into recent immigrant votes just makes this struggle for the left that much more important.
Monday, March 19, 2018
horwath's biggest advantage, right now, is of course that she's not wynne.
i don't mean that horwath needs to come up with a precise answer that is going to appeal to everybody. that would be impossible.
what i mean is that wynne has already helped horwath tremendously by going out of her way to blur the differences between them. a sitting premier should have an incumbency advantage; wynne has wiped that away, by adopting virtually every position horwath has presented and by going out of her way to have them appear essentially the same.
again: in a situation where a premier is popular, this is a good idea as it makes the change option seem pointless. why vote for a change when they're both the same? but, in a situation where a premier is unpopular, it abolishes the incumbency advantage. why vote for wynne when horwath is basically the same, and represents the change that everybody wants?
this is the thing that wynne will probably never acknowledge.
horwath still must differentiate herself. not on a specific thing like a dental plan, or a marijuana policy. but, overall. she has to convert "basically the same, but a change" into "a change for the better".
where wynne is, right now, she should be campaigning on how much of a dramatic change the scary ndp would be - she wants voters to exaggerate the difference, and be fearful of it.
i don't mean that horwath needs to come up with a precise answer that is going to appeal to everybody. that would be impossible.
what i mean is that wynne has already helped horwath tremendously by going out of her way to blur the differences between them. a sitting premier should have an incumbency advantage; wynne has wiped that away, by adopting virtually every position horwath has presented and by going out of her way to have them appear essentially the same.
again: in a situation where a premier is popular, this is a good idea as it makes the change option seem pointless. why vote for a change when they're both the same? but, in a situation where a premier is unpopular, it abolishes the incumbency advantage. why vote for wynne when horwath is basically the same, and represents the change that everybody wants?
this is the thing that wynne will probably never acknowledge.
horwath still must differentiate herself. not on a specific thing like a dental plan, or a marijuana policy. but, overall. she has to convert "basically the same, but a change" into "a change for the better".
where wynne is, right now, she should be campaigning on how much of a dramatic change the scary ndp would be - she wants voters to exaggerate the difference, and be fearful of it.
to be clear: wynne thinks she can block horwath by copying her.
that only works when you're in a dominant position.
horwath is, in fact, in the dominant position, right now. and, wynne's attempts to block her by copying her are actually going to aid her.
so, horwath now needs to give people a reason to vote ndp instead of liberal.
that only works when you're in a dominant position.
horwath is, in fact, in the dominant position, right now. and, wynne's attempts to block her by copying her are actually going to aid her.
so, horwath now needs to give people a reason to vote ndp instead of liberal.
if they split the vote, is there some way we could repeat 1985, and put the liberals and ndp in coalition?
that's not what happened in 1985; in 1985, the liberals got 37% of the vote.
if we end up in a situation where they both have around 25-30%, the liberals could be wiped off the map as they end up second everywhere. and, kathleen wynne will be personally responsible - not for her policies, which are popular, but for her narcissistic and nihilistic strategies.
she's campaigning from a position of strength, while in a position of abject weakness.
she may be incapable of admitting weakness.
that's not what happened in 1985; in 1985, the liberals got 37% of the vote.
if we end up in a situation where they both have around 25-30%, the liberals could be wiped off the map as they end up second everywhere. and, kathleen wynne will be personally responsible - not for her policies, which are popular, but for her narcissistic and nihilistic strategies.
she's campaigning from a position of strength, while in a position of abject weakness.
she may be incapable of admitting weakness.
wynne is maybe the worst politician i've ever seen.
so, in a scenario where she needs to be drawing contrasts between herself and horwath, she is instead trying to copy her positions and make the choice between them blurry. and, if that reality holds, ford wins by splitting the vote.
and, i'm actually starting to lose patience with her. her incompetency here is really singularly bizarre. and, it's pissing me off enough to consider voting against her out of spite.
i mean, talk about reckless.
horwath needs to define herself differently than wynne, so voters are given a clear choice and don't accidentally elect a mental midget because the premier can't admit that she's - personally - too unpopular to be running.
so, in a scenario where she needs to be drawing contrasts between herself and horwath, she is instead trying to copy her positions and make the choice between them blurry. and, if that reality holds, ford wins by splitting the vote.
and, i'm actually starting to lose patience with her. her incompetency here is really singularly bizarre. and, it's pissing me off enough to consider voting against her out of spite.
i mean, talk about reckless.
horwath needs to define herself differently than wynne, so voters are given a clear choice and don't accidentally elect a mental midget because the premier can't admit that she's - personally - too unpopular to be running.
i decided walking in that it would be a better strategy to be honest about small things (like marijuana, and j-walking - which i'm brutal about), because if i told him i hadn't, and he thought i was lying, i'd be less likely to get approved than if i told him i had.
by being honest about the pot, and denying using other drugs, i established a level of trust that may have been decisive, in the end.
i mean, i don't think he would have believed me if i lied about the pot. he couldn't prove i was lying, but it might not matter. and then i'm in much bigger trouble...
by being honest about the pot, and denying using other drugs, i established a level of trust that may have been decisive, in the end.
i mean, i don't think he would have believed me if i lied about the pot. he couldn't prove i was lying, but it might not matter. and then i'm in much bigger trouble...
i admitted to smoking marijuana in the past when i was doing my nexus interview.
the question was whether i've done "any drugs". i said i'd smoked some marijuana, previously.
the interviewer shrugged.
"any other drugs?"
i lied and said no.
the card showed up in the mail a few weeks later. and, i now have advanced clearance to the united states....
the point is that this is bullshit. it's all discretionary. the reality is that i'm not very scary when sober (and even less so when stoned), and that fact won out in the end.
trudeau is unlikely to face many problems, unless he applies for residency, which is not impossible. if he ends up in hollywood, he may be better off not applying for anything.
i can't believe we let all these war criminal former presidents in our own country, though. the younger bush, especially, should be arrested at the airport.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/19/trudeau-could-be-barred-from-u-s-after-hes-pm-because-he-smoked-pot-u-s-lawyer/
the question was whether i've done "any drugs". i said i'd smoked some marijuana, previously.
the interviewer shrugged.
"any other drugs?"
i lied and said no.
the card showed up in the mail a few weeks later. and, i now have advanced clearance to the united states....
the point is that this is bullshit. it's all discretionary. the reality is that i'm not very scary when sober (and even less so when stoned), and that fact won out in the end.
trudeau is unlikely to face many problems, unless he applies for residency, which is not impossible. if he ends up in hollywood, he may be better off not applying for anything.
i can't believe we let all these war criminal former presidents in our own country, though. the younger bush, especially, should be arrested at the airport.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/19/trudeau-could-be-barred-from-u-s-after-hes-pm-because-he-smoked-pot-u-s-lawyer/
how does putin get these ridiculous numbers? aren't they beyond credulity?
in russia, election rig you - which means that if they're going to fuck with it, they'll go all out. 99%.
99.9%.
and, then they'll drag the seventeen poor bastards that dared vote otherwise on to tv, and insult them for it.
russia knows how to rig an election, alright. and, 75% is not a rigged election.
in russia, election rig you - which means that if they're going to fuck with it, they'll go all out. 99%.
99.9%.
and, then they'll drag the seventeen poor bastards that dared vote otherwise on to tv, and insult them for it.
russia knows how to rig an election, alright. and, 75% is not a rigged election.
so, how does this happen, then?
these are the results:
vladimir putin - 75.0 pct (liberal-conservative party - united russia)
pavel grudinin - 13.3 pct (communist party - literally)
vladimir zhirinovsky - 6.3 pct (these are literally fascists)
so, imagine walking into a polling booth and having the following options in front of you:
1) liberal-conservatives (or just 'capitalists')
2) the historical soviet/communist party of russia
3) fascists
which of these options would you prefer?
it's a non-choice. so, 75% is actually absolutely believable, when you recognize the reality of the options.
and, is this so outrageous, in comparison to other democracies?
corbyn & may got over 82% of the vote, together. so, if there was a conservative-labour party in the uk, no doubt led by the ghost of winston churchill, it would have been more popular than putin. a liberal-conservative party would have received over 70% of the vote in the last canadian election. and a democratic-republican party would get over 95% of the vote.
if we stop to consider the nature of our two-headed monsters, it doesn't seem so different does it? and, a little bit of historical knowledge will bring out the following stark truth: liberal-conservative and democratic-republican are real historical entities.
at some point, united russia will split into liberal and conservative factions. for the time being, the capitalist class sees it in it's self interest to remain united, rather than to divide and conquer.
the fascists probably aren't a serious threat.
but, the communists are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)