https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriclaimed
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
zero bills have been passed. trudeau hasn't done anything to directly harm himself yet - although he's done some things he doesn't want to get into the habit of - so there's really no reason to disapprove of him, considering he hasn't done anything yet.
it upholds what everybody knew: that the liberal/ndp vote is extremely fluid, and has a large swing component to it. but it doesn't present any other useful finding.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-approval-ratings-polls-1.3363911
DickStorm
In less than 6 weeks
- Launched missing and murdered aboriginal women inquiry
- Banned Oil tankers from the Northern Coast of BC
- Ordered Justice Ministers to get to work on Marijuana Legalization
- Already landed refugee's in Canada
- Already implemented a tax cut for the middle class
AND signed a climate agreement in mere weeks and Harper couldn't do it in the ten years he was in power.
jessica murray
i know your job is to spin things around to the party's benefit, but there really isn't anything substantive in that list. it's good to see him following through and everything. but, you shouldn't expect to see a reaction until we see the results of these commissions.
don't misunderstand me: i don't see any reason to expect to see a decrease in support any time soon. i think he's made some bad pr decisions that might hurt him if they continue, but it's going to be a while before that works itself out, if it does. and, it's going to be a catalytic thing.
DickStorm
A climate pact that people have been trying to put together for decades is nothing substantive? HAHA the Convo ends there.
jessica murray
well, it really isn't. it's not the agreement that people have been trying to put together for decades - it's just another colossal failure that will not prevent emissions. and, we were hardly a dominant factor in it's construction, anyways.
the government will not be judged on whether or not it signs agreements. it will be judged on whether or not it reduces emissions.
that's substantive. a non-binding pledge to uphold harper's baseline emissions reduction targets is certainly not.
jplondon
well. i certainly can't disagree with you there.
nor can i agree with you, either.
what exactly did you just say?
jessica murray
what i said is that the polls at this point don't say anything.
jplondon
polls never say anything but what a representative sample though when the poll was taken.
the moment they are released, they are instantly history.
but, watching the people who are down in those polls get worked up over them is most amusing.
they also serve as a handy distraction from them doing what they could to reverse the numbers.
jessica murray
well, there's some pretty convincing mathematical theory that suggests that polling can be a very useful *snapshot* of the public's perspective on things, even with small sample sizes. but, you are right that that snapshot fades very quickly.
in this circumstance, all i'm trying to say is that it's not useful to read much into this. it's just reflecting continued elation at the change of government.
--
Undefinedcolor
New Democrats have to use research to find out why voters chose to vote Liberal.
It's better to use the scientific approach and make some changes.
I suspect that the problem is ND foreign policy, but I don't have an ounce of proof.
Get that proof and make the changes. That's what I would do.
jessica murray
i would normally lean considerably left of the ndp, but i did vote for the liberals. it wasn't foreign policy related at all.
the primary factor was that i did not like my local ndp candidate (cheryl hardcastle). she did win in the riding, here in windsor. she struck as a kind of an anti-science hippie. on the other hand, the liberal candidate in the region was campaigning on a repeal of nafta. i didn't think that would happen, mind you, but i thought he would be a better representative of the region. so, that was the primary consideration, for me: the quality of the local candidate.
i was also alienated a little by mulcair's apparent rightward leanings. i preferred legalization to decriminalization. i thought the liberals' idea of top-down spending was a better approach to climate change than carbon trading.
broadly speaking, the ndp swung to the right of the liberals, and i reacted to that.
but, the dominant issue was really seriously the quality of the local candidate.
there was also the fact that, when fored to consider the possibility of the ndp actually governing, issues like proportional representation and senate reform started to become more important. i'm very much opposed to pr, especially. it didn't matter much when i knew i was voting for a third party. it became a more important consideration when they had a real chance of winning. there was a collection of issues like this. their position on the clarity act was another one of them.
it upholds what everybody knew: that the liberal/ndp vote is extremely fluid, and has a large swing component to it. but it doesn't present any other useful finding.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-approval-ratings-polls-1.3363911
DickStorm
In less than 6 weeks
- Launched missing and murdered aboriginal women inquiry
- Banned Oil tankers from the Northern Coast of BC
- Ordered Justice Ministers to get to work on Marijuana Legalization
- Already landed refugee's in Canada
- Already implemented a tax cut for the middle class
AND signed a climate agreement in mere weeks and Harper couldn't do it in the ten years he was in power.
jessica murray
i know your job is to spin things around to the party's benefit, but there really isn't anything substantive in that list. it's good to see him following through and everything. but, you shouldn't expect to see a reaction until we see the results of these commissions.
don't misunderstand me: i don't see any reason to expect to see a decrease in support any time soon. i think he's made some bad pr decisions that might hurt him if they continue, but it's going to be a while before that works itself out, if it does. and, it's going to be a catalytic thing.
DickStorm
A climate pact that people have been trying to put together for decades is nothing substantive? HAHA the Convo ends there.
jessica murray
well, it really isn't. it's not the agreement that people have been trying to put together for decades - it's just another colossal failure that will not prevent emissions. and, we were hardly a dominant factor in it's construction, anyways.
the government will not be judged on whether or not it signs agreements. it will be judged on whether or not it reduces emissions.
that's substantive. a non-binding pledge to uphold harper's baseline emissions reduction targets is certainly not.
jplondon
well. i certainly can't disagree with you there.
nor can i agree with you, either.
what exactly did you just say?
jessica murray
what i said is that the polls at this point don't say anything.
jplondon
polls never say anything but what a representative sample though when the poll was taken.
the moment they are released, they are instantly history.
but, watching the people who are down in those polls get worked up over them is most amusing.
they also serve as a handy distraction from them doing what they could to reverse the numbers.
jessica murray
well, there's some pretty convincing mathematical theory that suggests that polling can be a very useful *snapshot* of the public's perspective on things, even with small sample sizes. but, you are right that that snapshot fades very quickly.
in this circumstance, all i'm trying to say is that it's not useful to read much into this. it's just reflecting continued elation at the change of government.
--
Undefinedcolor
New Democrats have to use research to find out why voters chose to vote Liberal.
It's better to use the scientific approach and make some changes.
I suspect that the problem is ND foreign policy, but I don't have an ounce of proof.
Get that proof and make the changes. That's what I would do.
jessica murray
i would normally lean considerably left of the ndp, but i did vote for the liberals. it wasn't foreign policy related at all.
the primary factor was that i did not like my local ndp candidate (cheryl hardcastle). she did win in the riding, here in windsor. she struck as a kind of an anti-science hippie. on the other hand, the liberal candidate in the region was campaigning on a repeal of nafta. i didn't think that would happen, mind you, but i thought he would be a better representative of the region. so, that was the primary consideration, for me: the quality of the local candidate.
i was also alienated a little by mulcair's apparent rightward leanings. i preferred legalization to decriminalization. i thought the liberals' idea of top-down spending was a better approach to climate change than carbon trading.
broadly speaking, the ndp swung to the right of the liberals, and i reacted to that.
but, the dominant issue was really seriously the quality of the local candidate.
there was also the fact that, when fored to consider the possibility of the ndp actually governing, issues like proportional representation and senate reform started to become more important. i'm very much opposed to pr, especially. it didn't matter much when i knew i was voting for a third party. it became a more important consideration when they had a real chance of winning. there was a collection of issues like this. their position on the clarity act was another one of them.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)