the truth is that i've barely heard any prince.
a little. enough to conclude it's not my thing...and not much more.
i'm not quite that old, and it was never in the list of seminal influences of anything i really liked. i think reznor is probably the closest thing to a prince fan in my own list of influences.
so, i don't talk much about prince.
because i'm not much of a fan.
i did have a michael jackson phase when i was very young.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
actually, this is going to get weird, because i'm going to be reposting reposts.
for example, i reposted the following posts from 2012 in 2016:
jan 14, 2016
i'm sorting through old posts, trying to shut down my facebook politics page from 2012. it's interesting to read certain things.
16 October 2012
so, it's mcguinty v. trudeau.
there's the challenger that people were expecting. i had john manley at the top of the list, but mcguinty was never far down; despite what he's said about completing his third term, that he would run for the liberal leadership when the opportunity is right has been obvious for a while now. it's also obvious that he's doing this now precisely because he's concerned that if trudeau gets in then he'll be there for the next thirty years.
this is actually an interesting race, because it's likely going to determine if the liberals are going to present a third centre-right option or swing out to the left of the ndp. mcguinty will not be substantially different from harper or mulcair, but trudeau just might be.
28 September 2012
several years ago, before he even ran for mp, i remember seeing some old videos of justin trudeau floating around on youtube. he was doing some kind of campus speaking tour, i think some time in the late 90s. the topic was the decline of western civilization, and how young people growing up in canada need to prepare themselves for a future where the nexus of global power, wealth and influence resides in asia, rather than in america – and the consequences of such a shift. these videos no longer appear to be available on youtube, but i'm sure they'll surface over the course of the next few months as conservative attack ad fodder.
of course, it wasn't the first time i'd heard somebody say something like that, but coming from such a source (while he was not in the public eye at the time, he was still the oldest and most visible son of what amounts to canada's version of thomas jefferson), it was rather shocking. such statements would threaten to shatter the delusions that continue to be held by much of canada's middle class.
"civilizations rise and fall.".
he was elected as an mp not long after i saw those videos. over the last few years, he's played the media fairly well. his supposedly controversial statements have in fact been widely popular, and when pushed his responses have been both surprisingly phrased to appeal to an extremely socially liberal audience as well as surprisingly nuanced.
the point i'm getting to is that i think that baby trudeau is a bigger wild card than many observers will recognize on first glance because he has the potential to eat back into the ndp; when contrasted against mulcair's cold, business-person exterior the flippant trudeau is going to come off very, very well with younger voters. the newspapers are going to write him off as a liberal aristocrat, being floated by the party leadership. it remains to see if this is going to be the case or not. however, he really hasn't seriously defined his political stances yet, so it's going to be hard to determine if the commentary is accurate or sensational on a wide variety of topics. however, this is where the next few months of campaigning for the liberal leadership are going to be very interesting - he's going to have to finally do precisely that. judging from those clips i saw on that campus tour, as well as the select commentary he's provided, i think there may be more of interest in his views than one might expect.....
there have been multiple polls suggesting that if an election were to be held tomorrow and baby trudeau were to be the liberal party candidate then we'd be back at a liberal majority. the liberal party may be currently broken, but it's still the most successful democratic political apparatus (measured in terms of political wins) that's ever existed, anywhere. as i've said repeatedly: it's the fucking british liberal party. it's not going to pass up on that kind of opportunity.
the question is whether or not it realizes that trudeau's popularity is due partly to his name and partly to his attitude, the precise attitude that the press is going to deride him for. given that we're talking about the liberal party, and it's long history of charismatic leaders, i'm sure it does.
a couple of key policy differences, accompanied with the ndp's move to the right, could position the liberals to their left. judging from what i've heard so far from baby trudeau, i think that's where his mind just might be.
so, this is going to get interesting.
for example, i reposted the following posts from 2012 in 2016:
jan 14, 2016
i'm sorting through old posts, trying to shut down my facebook politics page from 2012. it's interesting to read certain things.
16 October 2012
so, it's mcguinty v. trudeau.
there's the challenger that people were expecting. i had john manley at the top of the list, but mcguinty was never far down; despite what he's said about completing his third term, that he would run for the liberal leadership when the opportunity is right has been obvious for a while now. it's also obvious that he's doing this now precisely because he's concerned that if trudeau gets in then he'll be there for the next thirty years.
this is actually an interesting race, because it's likely going to determine if the liberals are going to present a third centre-right option or swing out to the left of the ndp. mcguinty will not be substantially different from harper or mulcair, but trudeau just might be.
28 September 2012
several years ago, before he even ran for mp, i remember seeing some old videos of justin trudeau floating around on youtube. he was doing some kind of campus speaking tour, i think some time in the late 90s. the topic was the decline of western civilization, and how young people growing up in canada need to prepare themselves for a future where the nexus of global power, wealth and influence resides in asia, rather than in america – and the consequences of such a shift. these videos no longer appear to be available on youtube, but i'm sure they'll surface over the course of the next few months as conservative attack ad fodder.
of course, it wasn't the first time i'd heard somebody say something like that, but coming from such a source (while he was not in the public eye at the time, he was still the oldest and most visible son of what amounts to canada's version of thomas jefferson), it was rather shocking. such statements would threaten to shatter the delusions that continue to be held by much of canada's middle class.
"civilizations rise and fall.".
he was elected as an mp not long after i saw those videos. over the last few years, he's played the media fairly well. his supposedly controversial statements have in fact been widely popular, and when pushed his responses have been both surprisingly phrased to appeal to an extremely socially liberal audience as well as surprisingly nuanced.
the point i'm getting to is that i think that baby trudeau is a bigger wild card than many observers will recognize on first glance because he has the potential to eat back into the ndp; when contrasted against mulcair's cold, business-person exterior the flippant trudeau is going to come off very, very well with younger voters. the newspapers are going to write him off as a liberal aristocrat, being floated by the party leadership. it remains to see if this is going to be the case or not. however, he really hasn't seriously defined his political stances yet, so it's going to be hard to determine if the commentary is accurate or sensational on a wide variety of topics. however, this is where the next few months of campaigning for the liberal leadership are going to be very interesting - he's going to have to finally do precisely that. judging from those clips i saw on that campus tour, as well as the select commentary he's provided, i think there may be more of interest in his views than one might expect.....
there have been multiple polls suggesting that if an election were to be held tomorrow and baby trudeau were to be the liberal party candidate then we'd be back at a liberal majority. the liberal party may be currently broken, but it's still the most successful democratic political apparatus (measured in terms of political wins) that's ever existed, anywhere. as i've said repeatedly: it's the fucking british liberal party. it's not going to pass up on that kind of opportunity.
the question is whether or not it realizes that trudeau's popularity is due partly to his name and partly to his attitude, the precise attitude that the press is going to deride him for. given that we're talking about the liberal party, and it's long history of charismatic leaders, i'm sure it does.
a couple of key policy differences, accompanied with the ndp's move to the right, could position the liberals to their left. judging from what i've heard so far from baby trudeau, i think that's where his mind just might be.
so, this is going to get interesting.
at
19:04
so, the next period is from jan 10th to june 19th, when the music blog reappears, and it's about 500 pages, mostly from the primary phase of the election.
i found the primaries more interesting than the general; i didn't tune out entirely after bernie lost, but i never really saw trump as substantively different than clinton, or clinton as worth supporting for any other reason than to beat trump, so i more or less gave up on the election having an acceptable outcome when the candidates were announced.
i suspect a lot of americans had that feeling, too - and it's probably why trump won.
we'll see in the end if i want to carry through with this or not, but i should at least get a skeleton up.
remember that the main focus is the master list for the aleph discs.
i found the primaries more interesting than the general; i didn't tune out entirely after bernie lost, but i never really saw trump as substantively different than clinton, or clinton as worth supporting for any other reason than to beat trump, so i more or less gave up on the election having an acceptable outcome when the candidates were announced.
i suspect a lot of americans had that feeling, too - and it's probably why trump won.
we'll see in the end if i want to carry through with this or not, but i should at least get a skeleton up.
remember that the main focus is the master list for the aleph discs.
at
18:57
you're supposed to think i'm wrong; that's how this works - if what i was saying was conventional, i wouldn't be interesting.
and, i might be wrong. sure.
we'll find out.
but, i'm used to being written off; don't think that's going to phase me.
please recognize that the idea is that you're supposed to follow the argument and decide what you think, not take me on authority. i'm not producing decrees, here. and i'm not looking for mindless followers.
and, i might be wrong. sure.
we'll find out.
but, i'm used to being written off; don't think that's going to phase me.
please recognize that the idea is that you're supposed to follow the argument and decide what you think, not take me on authority. i'm not producing decrees, here. and i'm not looking for mindless followers.
at
18:52
great.
now, this smokestack next door has her friends over. maybe we've found the source of the windsor hum?
i'm considering lobbing al bundy jokes out the window.
ladies: i know grazing season is starting, but you seem to be lost; the grass is over there.
now, this smokestack next door has her friends over. maybe we've found the source of the windsor hum?
i'm considering lobbing al bundy jokes out the window.
ladies: i know grazing season is starting, but you seem to be lost; the grass is over there.
at
17:11
well...
there's currently not any smoke coming up from downstairs.
the woman next door is, however, chain smoking outside my window.
she appears to have been drunk before noon - cigarettes and vodka, the breakfast of champions.
this place is full of real winners.
so, i'm going to have to wait a few hours to clean up the bedroom. i've cleaned up the kitchen.
i want to start looking for something, but i'm going to give the situation one more chance. i could still cancel the application, remember.
and, i think i need to know how they're going to be admitting new tenants. are they going to make new tenants sign a no smoking clause? i didn't know this was coming, and it might be what she was talking about; while there is not a new law banning smokers, she may have been referring to the company's new lease policy when she was talking about a "law banning smoking inside" and how "existing tenants are grandfathered". i mean, she sounded like she was just full of shit. but, i can at least put together a broken thought, now. if so, i like my chances on this space becoming more habitable. because this is also a screen - smokers are bad tenants, all around. they're bad people, broadly speaking. a no smoking policy is going to mean a safer building, all around.
i would expect that rents in non-smoking buildings will be higher than rents in smoking buildings.
and, that smoking buildings are going to be horrifically disgusting carcinogenic tinder boxes....
there's currently not any smoke coming up from downstairs.
the woman next door is, however, chain smoking outside my window.
she appears to have been drunk before noon - cigarettes and vodka, the breakfast of champions.
this place is full of real winners.
so, i'm going to have to wait a few hours to clean up the bedroom. i've cleaned up the kitchen.
i want to start looking for something, but i'm going to give the situation one more chance. i could still cancel the application, remember.
and, i think i need to know how they're going to be admitting new tenants. are they going to make new tenants sign a no smoking clause? i didn't know this was coming, and it might be what she was talking about; while there is not a new law banning smokers, she may have been referring to the company's new lease policy when she was talking about a "law banning smoking inside" and how "existing tenants are grandfathered". i mean, she sounded like she was just full of shit. but, i can at least put together a broken thought, now. if so, i like my chances on this space becoming more habitable. because this is also a screen - smokers are bad tenants, all around. they're bad people, broadly speaking. a no smoking policy is going to mean a safer building, all around.
i would expect that rents in non-smoking buildings will be higher than rents in smoking buildings.
and, that smoking buildings are going to be horrifically disgusting carcinogenic tinder boxes....
at
13:18
we'll have to see how the courts interpret this, but the intent seems to be to make it easier for the landlord to evict smokers.
the residential tenancies act says nothing about smoke, and this observation is actually explicitly stated in the new lease. but, by including a smoking section in the lease, the landlord can conceivably remove a tenant for breaching the lease.
further, the smoking section is explicitly treated differently than the pets section; prohibition against pets is explicitly stated as void.
so, the government appears to be telling the courts that landlords have the right to discriminate on these grounds - and that is the appropriate legal language. we'll see what the courts say.
but, i don't expect that this new lease process will withhold a legal challenge - i expect that the court will strike down the smoking provision as overly broad.
unfortunately.
www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/047-2229E~2/$File/2229E(Static).pdf
the residential tenancies act says nothing about smoke, and this observation is actually explicitly stated in the new lease. but, by including a smoking section in the lease, the landlord can conceivably remove a tenant for breaching the lease.
further, the smoking section is explicitly treated differently than the pets section; prohibition against pets is explicitly stated as void.
so, the government appears to be telling the courts that landlords have the right to discriminate on these grounds - and that is the appropriate legal language. we'll see what the courts say.
but, i don't expect that this new lease process will withhold a legal challenge - i expect that the court will strike down the smoking provision as overly broad.
unfortunately.
www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/047-2229E~2/$File/2229E(Static).pdf
at
12:35
well, she's right.
i'm not sure how much of a ballot issue it is, though.
it might help her keep some of those seats in toronto - but they probably weren't going to swing, anyways.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/01/wynne-denounces-fords-plan-to-develop-greenbelt-as-wrong-on-so-many-levels.html
i'm not sure how much of a ballot issue it is, though.
it might help her keep some of those seats in toronto - but they probably weren't going to swing, anyways.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/01/wynne-denounces-fords-plan-to-develop-greenbelt-as-wrong-on-so-many-levels.html
at
12:01
i needed to catch up on some sleep. i'm awake now....
it actually seems pleasant in here, right now.
you don't learn a lot from a physical. my blood pressure is 110/70, after a brisk walk on a nice day, so that's in a healthy range. i'll get my blood work done at the end of the week and go back mid-month.
he's never heard of estradiol hemihydrate and can't comment on the chemical differences. he'd refer me to the specialist in town, but the specialist in town won't talk to me, because he doesn't think i'm effeminate enough. *shrug*.
i'm not going to switch meds without a good talk with somebody. i might call the specialist myself.
i got my puffer refilled...
the rest of the day was spent grocery shopping, and i got a lot of the month's purchasing done, as lots of things were on sale. but, i can't find any chocolate soy.
i crashed in the evening and again overnight. i wanted to clean in here this morning but will do it today, instead.
i also woke up to a familiar annoyance: an air conditioner.
:(.
i don't understand why people don't enjoy the heat. we're tropical animals. we're supposed to like it when it's 30 degrees out.
right now, i'm in the frustrating scenario of having to deal with smokers outside and an a/c downstairs, and i don't know what is going to be worse. am i going to want to keep the windows closed because of the smokers, or open them because of the a/c?
this is such a disgusting, saddening scenario. and, again: i like the space, but the problem is the people around me.
it would be nice if i could just open the window - a/c or not - to let the fresh air in. you'd think that's a pretty basic human request. alas...
at least i have the bay windows. i'm hoping the temperature comes up nicely due to the sunlight through the glass fairly soon.
it actually seems pleasant in here, right now.
you don't learn a lot from a physical. my blood pressure is 110/70, after a brisk walk on a nice day, so that's in a healthy range. i'll get my blood work done at the end of the week and go back mid-month.
he's never heard of estradiol hemihydrate and can't comment on the chemical differences. he'd refer me to the specialist in town, but the specialist in town won't talk to me, because he doesn't think i'm effeminate enough. *shrug*.
i'm not going to switch meds without a good talk with somebody. i might call the specialist myself.
i got my puffer refilled...
the rest of the day was spent grocery shopping, and i got a lot of the month's purchasing done, as lots of things were on sale. but, i can't find any chocolate soy.
i crashed in the evening and again overnight. i wanted to clean in here this morning but will do it today, instead.
i also woke up to a familiar annoyance: an air conditioner.
:(.
i don't understand why people don't enjoy the heat. we're tropical animals. we're supposed to like it when it's 30 degrees out.
right now, i'm in the frustrating scenario of having to deal with smokers outside and an a/c downstairs, and i don't know what is going to be worse. am i going to want to keep the windows closed because of the smokers, or open them because of the a/c?
this is such a disgusting, saddening scenario. and, again: i like the space, but the problem is the people around me.
it would be nice if i could just open the window - a/c or not - to let the fresh air in. you'd think that's a pretty basic human request. alas...
at least i have the bay windows. i'm hoping the temperature comes up nicely due to the sunlight through the glass fairly soon.
at
10:46
it's less that ford's strategy is bad, and more that it's a lot more forward thinking than his detractors might imagine and that it actually needs more time than this to unravel.
ford might not win this election, or stick around to fight the next one. but, he might be laying the groundwork for the next fifty years of politics in the province. and, he might relegate the liberal party of ontario to the kind of upper class ivory tower that the lib dems live in, in the process.
the liberals really do need those immigrant votes. but, the immigrants are conservatives. #.
...which isn't to give him too much credit: he's an effect and not a cause. but, if he can convincingly swing all these conservative immigrants, they might be very hard to swing back.
and, we might have little choice but to support the ndp to hold off the conservatives, everywhere outside of that ivory tower.
ford might not win this election, or stick around to fight the next one. but, he might be laying the groundwork for the next fifty years of politics in the province. and, he might relegate the liberal party of ontario to the kind of upper class ivory tower that the lib dems live in, in the process.
the liberals really do need those immigrant votes. but, the immigrants are conservatives. #.
...which isn't to give him too much credit: he's an effect and not a cause. but, if he can convincingly swing all these conservative immigrants, they might be very hard to swing back.
and, we might have little choice but to support the ndp to hold off the conservatives, everywhere outside of that ivory tower.
at
03:04
mild correction: it seems like what i was imagining already happened.
my hypothetical riding ceased to exist a cycle or two ago. the ndp have already won all of those ridings, and the liberals are already polling third in a lot of places.
that means that a tory swing of this nature may have the potential of being absolutely trivial. or, it could let horwath come up the middle in certain places.
my riding should be being targetted by ford. it has a large conservative muslim minority that has succeeded in electing a right-wing lebanese mayor, amongst other things. the conservatives are running a right-wing muslim in the riding that is no doubt opposed to teaching sex ed. so, this is the kind of audience that ford's message is designed for.
the riding was held by liberals for years, until the ndp finally broke through; these were the results of the last election:
ndp - 41
liberals - 38
conservatives - 14
given that the ndp are holding steady, or even up, the conservatives would need an almost total collapse in liberal support to win this riding. they'd need more than ten points just to come in second.
but, there is some reason to think that they may, in fact, be running more than ten points up.
if the result of the election is this:
ndp - 39
conservatives - 35
liberals - 19
...then that ends up as a big boost in conservative support, on paper. but, the ndp hold the riding.
london north is another example where the liberals have already ceded ground over the last few cycles, but they still hold the seat. this is the result of the last election:
liberals - 36
ndp - 30
conservatives - 27
if the liberals lose ten points here, and 6 of it goes to ford, you end up with:
ndp - 34
conservatives - 33
liberals - 26
and, that is one of ford's better chances for a pick-up. even the numbers in brampton and etobicoke and mississauga, ford nation, are pretty daunting, for the conservatives - they need 15-20% swings, and are often in third place.
i had my numbers out of date. but, the idea stands: if you go through and look at the ridings one-by-one, it becomes clear that if this swing is localized amongst urban immigrants (ford's base.) *and* ndp support holds then the number of ridings where conservatives can win seats by attracting liberal voters is actually quite low.
so, even if the popular vote does shoot up, it might not lead to much of a substantive difference.
ford needs to hold that old tory demographic, and swing seats in the liberal fortress, if he wants to actually win. those are the seats the conservatives might actually flip. and, all evidence i've seen suggests that he's not doing well in this demographic of rich white liberals - or that he ever has done well with them.
my hypothetical riding ceased to exist a cycle or two ago. the ndp have already won all of those ridings, and the liberals are already polling third in a lot of places.
that means that a tory swing of this nature may have the potential of being absolutely trivial. or, it could let horwath come up the middle in certain places.
my riding should be being targetted by ford. it has a large conservative muslim minority that has succeeded in electing a right-wing lebanese mayor, amongst other things. the conservatives are running a right-wing muslim in the riding that is no doubt opposed to teaching sex ed. so, this is the kind of audience that ford's message is designed for.
the riding was held by liberals for years, until the ndp finally broke through; these were the results of the last election:
ndp - 41
liberals - 38
conservatives - 14
given that the ndp are holding steady, or even up, the conservatives would need an almost total collapse in liberal support to win this riding. they'd need more than ten points just to come in second.
but, there is some reason to think that they may, in fact, be running more than ten points up.
if the result of the election is this:
ndp - 39
conservatives - 35
liberals - 19
...then that ends up as a big boost in conservative support, on paper. but, the ndp hold the riding.
london north is another example where the liberals have already ceded ground over the last few cycles, but they still hold the seat. this is the result of the last election:
liberals - 36
ndp - 30
conservatives - 27
if the liberals lose ten points here, and 6 of it goes to ford, you end up with:
ndp - 34
conservatives - 33
liberals - 26
and, that is one of ford's better chances for a pick-up. even the numbers in brampton and etobicoke and mississauga, ford nation, are pretty daunting, for the conservatives - they need 15-20% swings, and are often in third place.
i had my numbers out of date. but, the idea stands: if you go through and look at the ridings one-by-one, it becomes clear that if this swing is localized amongst urban immigrants (ford's base.) *and* ndp support holds then the number of ridings where conservatives can win seats by attracting liberal voters is actually quite low.
so, even if the popular vote does shoot up, it might not lead to much of a substantive difference.
ford needs to hold that old tory demographic, and swing seats in the liberal fortress, if he wants to actually win. those are the seats the conservatives might actually flip. and, all evidence i've seen suggests that he's not doing well in this demographic of rich white liberals - or that he ever has done well with them.
at
02:53
it is possible that the tories could be running at 45% and not only lose but barely pick up a few seats. and it is possible that the ndp could even go down a few points and still win a dozen seats.
this is first past the past in a multi-party system.
but, as mentioned - i don't think the evidence that they're even running at 40% is really very strong.
this is first past the past in a multi-party system.
but, as mentioned - i don't think the evidence that they're even running at 40% is really very strong.
at
00:23
given that my hypothetical riding looks like windsor or london or waterloo, it's entirely possible for the conservatives to be up by 5-10% in "southwestern ontario" and not actually win any seats - because they already have all the rural seats, and they'd need to be up by 15-20% to actually swing any urban seats.
these are rough numbers, but the point i'm making is accurate.
so, these regional polling categories have the potential to be deeply misleading.
these are rough numbers, but the point i'm making is accurate.
so, these regional polling categories have the potential to be deeply misleading.
at
00:16
we're dealing with small movements within low-balled margins of error here, but if i'm correct that the tory numbers are being inflated in the media due to unreported high levels of undecideds, then you would expect to see the conservative numbers fall over the next few weeks - and that would not mean that they're losing ground, or that the other parties are gaining, but just that the undecideds are slowly registering properly in the sample.
so, you should indeed expect the race to narrow; you shouldn't interpret that as the race changing.
i'm more interested in the following observations:
1) everybody is starting to run out of time, here.
2) when you see both parties inch up by about the same amount, it suggests a high potential for vote splitting.
as mentioned: ontario actually tends to split rather nicely. don't get complacent, but don't start freaking out yet, either. it's hard for conservatives to win here....
the conservatives dominate the rural areas, and the ndp & liberals have their own regions of strength, depending mostly on class demographics. there's not a lot of battlegrounds. so, the traditional fear of a split vote is actually rather minimal, here - i would suspect there's actually a larger swing between the ndp and conservatives than between the ndp and liberals in much of upper middle class fortress toronto, meaning that if the liberals lose these seats it's not going to be due to the split but due to rich liberals voting for ford, an unlikely scenario.
the situation is rather that ford's unusually strong appeal to recent immigrants is going to pull from both parties in areas where the conservatives aren't usually considered competitive - like here in windsor - thereby creating the appearance of a split. and, this could indeed no doubt be largely resolved by consensus candidates. but, it's not quite the same thing as we usually talk about.
further, the ndp are actually up relative to where they've been over most of the last twenty years. so, i suspect that a closer analysis of the data is going to mostly suggest a collapse in the multicultural component of the liberal vote in these urban ridings, with stasis or even gains for the ndp. so, you need to ask where the liberal vote is really coming from and really going. and, there are a few spots where this could even counter-intuitively help the ndp.
consider an urban riding where the last election had this result:
liberals: 38
ndp: 33
conservatives: 21
greens - 8
an eight point swing from the liberals to the conservatives in this riding, along with a two point swing from the liberals to the ndp, would have the following outcome:
ndp: 35
conservatives: 29
liberals: 28
greens: 8
(and the greens do in fact do that well in many urban ontario ridings at the provincial level)
an eight point swing in an urban space would be a huge accomplishment for the tories in ontario. but it wouldn't be enough. and, this is what the numbers aren't taking into account: the tories win seats in the sticks by huge margins, and are uncompetitive in the cities, so they need to make up a very large amount of ground in order to actually swing seats.
it doesn't seem likely that ford is going to swing 15-20% in urban ridings, especially not with goofy candidates, and he'd have to do it to win.
i would like to see more targetted data on exactly where these swings are happening; i'm assuming that the swing is mostly happening in urban ridings, and amongst recent immigrants, but this is a deduction based on what we know about the candidates, and not hard empirical data. if the swing is actually happening in more affluent neighbourhoods, then this could be a harder election. but, the liberals are apparently still ahead in toronto.
i'm still predicting a coalition government.
but i'm still pointing out that the data isn't so great.
so, you should indeed expect the race to narrow; you shouldn't interpret that as the race changing.
i'm more interested in the following observations:
1) everybody is starting to run out of time, here.
2) when you see both parties inch up by about the same amount, it suggests a high potential for vote splitting.
as mentioned: ontario actually tends to split rather nicely. don't get complacent, but don't start freaking out yet, either. it's hard for conservatives to win here....
the conservatives dominate the rural areas, and the ndp & liberals have their own regions of strength, depending mostly on class demographics. there's not a lot of battlegrounds. so, the traditional fear of a split vote is actually rather minimal, here - i would suspect there's actually a larger swing between the ndp and conservatives than between the ndp and liberals in much of upper middle class fortress toronto, meaning that if the liberals lose these seats it's not going to be due to the split but due to rich liberals voting for ford, an unlikely scenario.
the situation is rather that ford's unusually strong appeal to recent immigrants is going to pull from both parties in areas where the conservatives aren't usually considered competitive - like here in windsor - thereby creating the appearance of a split. and, this could indeed no doubt be largely resolved by consensus candidates. but, it's not quite the same thing as we usually talk about.
further, the ndp are actually up relative to where they've been over most of the last twenty years. so, i suspect that a closer analysis of the data is going to mostly suggest a collapse in the multicultural component of the liberal vote in these urban ridings, with stasis or even gains for the ndp. so, you need to ask where the liberal vote is really coming from and really going. and, there are a few spots where this could even counter-intuitively help the ndp.
consider an urban riding where the last election had this result:
liberals: 38
ndp: 33
conservatives: 21
greens - 8
an eight point swing from the liberals to the conservatives in this riding, along with a two point swing from the liberals to the ndp, would have the following outcome:
ndp: 35
conservatives: 29
liberals: 28
greens: 8
(and the greens do in fact do that well in many urban ontario ridings at the provincial level)
an eight point swing in an urban space would be a huge accomplishment for the tories in ontario. but it wouldn't be enough. and, this is what the numbers aren't taking into account: the tories win seats in the sticks by huge margins, and are uncompetitive in the cities, so they need to make up a very large amount of ground in order to actually swing seats.
it doesn't seem likely that ford is going to swing 15-20% in urban ridings, especially not with goofy candidates, and he'd have to do it to win.
i would like to see more targetted data on exactly where these swings are happening; i'm assuming that the swing is mostly happening in urban ridings, and amongst recent immigrants, but this is a deduction based on what we know about the candidates, and not hard empirical data. if the swing is actually happening in more affluent neighbourhoods, then this could be a harder election. but, the liberals are apparently still ahead in toronto.
i'm still predicting a coalition government.
but i'm still pointing out that the data isn't so great.
at
00:09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)