what the liberals need to do is define an actual ballot question - a reason for people to put down the bong and go vote - and then call an election as soon as possible.
if there was any other reason to vote yesterday besides the fact that it had been four years since the last time, they would have gotten enough people out for the majority.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
what do i think about the results of the election, as a canadian rather than a mathematician?
this isn't the worst case scenario - but it's close to it, and more or less exactly what i was trying to avoid. the ndp lost 2 of it's three seats here (which wasn't projected by anybody), but kept the one i'm in. the liberals won the seat next to me, and the conservatives won the seat below me. i was hoping the liberals could take this seat, but they lost to an ndp candidate that is now more useless than he ever was.
walking around the riding yesterday, it was clear enough where the class divisions exist. i didn't see any signs on my street, or even really in my little area. but, the liberal signs were lined up and down the single homes, while the ndp signs were lined up on the row houses. in this particular race, this is actually backwards - brian masse was the more bourgeois candidate, with more conservative values and with less of a history of doing real activism, on top of less of a history of actually governing. unlike her, he's really demonstrated little interest in the actual well-being of the actual people that live in this riding, which is one of the least wealthy in the country. as mentioned: sandra pupatello was clearly the better candidate, on any potential meaningful metric. but, those party affiliations can sometimes die hard, i guess, leading people to make decisions that are simply not supported by the evidence. in an election where the area rejected the ndp, this riding bucked the trend, held to friendship over logic and made the wrong choice. *shrug*.
but, i got out and voted because i was hoping to prevent a minority with this specific configuration of power and i got more or less what i was trying to stop.
it's not as bad as it could be because the ndp don't really have any meaningful leverage. and, let us all dispel with the ridiculous notion that the ndp - who just lost half their caucus, and are led by a thirty-something year old with no executive experience at all - are going to actually play any role in governing over the next four years. they're not. if you thought that electing the ndp would hold the liberals accountable, that they'd threaten the liberals with an early election if they didn't stop the pipeline, then you've got this backwards - the liberals will be ordering the ndp to vote for the budget, or else. the ndp will not want an election; next time could be even worse.
but, that doesn't change the fact that we now have a dangerous religious extremist holding the balance of power, a man who has no meaningful life experiences to draw upon, and who interprets the world through a filter of faith and belief rather than through evidence or logic. that puts the country on a dangerous path towards backwardsness and ignorance. the liberals may find him easy to manipulate, but manipulating him means playing into his perceptions, which is going to bring out the worst elements and instincts in the liberal party. if my intent was to vote for the secular left as best as i possibly could, to try and block the increasing influence of religion in government in the most effective way available to me, the existing configuration of power is just about as bad as i could imagine it. singh & trudeau aren't going to see eye-to-eye on much of anything else - this is going to be a government that is oriented towards faith as a governing principle, due to the fact that it's what's on the actual table.
i would plead with the liberals to resist this, to put reason over passion in their deliberations with the government, and to not be afraid to go back to the polls.
the liberals are at a crossroads here. they are the country's (indeed, western culture's) historical secular political movement, but they've been toying with moving away from that for quite a long time, now. unfortunately, i'm not sure that they realize the importance of their secular history in terms of their actual existence, or in defining the separation of the new democrat and liberal political traditions, anymore. and, powerful people in the liberal party even seem keen to jettison liberalism in favour of "progressivism" - an error that would decimate the party forever.
but, here we have it in front of us, in the starkest terms possible: it is going to be the task of the liberal party over the course of this minority parliament to resolve it's identity crisis. will it re-embrace it's history as a secular party, or will it align with the religious left in an attempt to redefine itself as an extension of the "progressive" movement?
my vote next time around may very well depend on the answer to this.
but, let's understand what happened.
in the east, the liberals were only down by amounts proportional to turnout, and it didn't hurt them because their opponents were down, too. but, the ndp were nearly obliterated as a consequence of their rejection of secularism - even losing parts of their base to the conservatives. what is the obvious lesson for the liberals, here? is the religious left a path to victory in canada?
in the west, they lost large amounts of support as the price of not being the conservative party. if the answer to holding support in the west is being the conservative party, how sustainable is it for the liberals to use that as a path to hold power?
if turnout had not decreased, they would have probably won seats in ontario and not lost as many in quebec. and, how do you maintain turnout in canada? the answer is by appealing to the secular left, and getting serious about policies that get us out to vote - the policies that were abandoned in 2015.
if the liberals interpret this as a need to move right, that's a shot in the foot. and, if they get lost in a faith-based coalition with the christian left, they'll end up destroying their own brand.
i would have had - excuse the language - faith in the old liberal party to figure this out right.
but, i half expect the younger trudeau to choose passion over reason.
we know he's his mother's, at least.
this isn't the worst case scenario - but it's close to it, and more or less exactly what i was trying to avoid. the ndp lost 2 of it's three seats here (which wasn't projected by anybody), but kept the one i'm in. the liberals won the seat next to me, and the conservatives won the seat below me. i was hoping the liberals could take this seat, but they lost to an ndp candidate that is now more useless than he ever was.
walking around the riding yesterday, it was clear enough where the class divisions exist. i didn't see any signs on my street, or even really in my little area. but, the liberal signs were lined up and down the single homes, while the ndp signs were lined up on the row houses. in this particular race, this is actually backwards - brian masse was the more bourgeois candidate, with more conservative values and with less of a history of doing real activism, on top of less of a history of actually governing. unlike her, he's really demonstrated little interest in the actual well-being of the actual people that live in this riding, which is one of the least wealthy in the country. as mentioned: sandra pupatello was clearly the better candidate, on any potential meaningful metric. but, those party affiliations can sometimes die hard, i guess, leading people to make decisions that are simply not supported by the evidence. in an election where the area rejected the ndp, this riding bucked the trend, held to friendship over logic and made the wrong choice. *shrug*.
but, i got out and voted because i was hoping to prevent a minority with this specific configuration of power and i got more or less what i was trying to stop.
it's not as bad as it could be because the ndp don't really have any meaningful leverage. and, let us all dispel with the ridiculous notion that the ndp - who just lost half their caucus, and are led by a thirty-something year old with no executive experience at all - are going to actually play any role in governing over the next four years. they're not. if you thought that electing the ndp would hold the liberals accountable, that they'd threaten the liberals with an early election if they didn't stop the pipeline, then you've got this backwards - the liberals will be ordering the ndp to vote for the budget, or else. the ndp will not want an election; next time could be even worse.
but, that doesn't change the fact that we now have a dangerous religious extremist holding the balance of power, a man who has no meaningful life experiences to draw upon, and who interprets the world through a filter of faith and belief rather than through evidence or logic. that puts the country on a dangerous path towards backwardsness and ignorance. the liberals may find him easy to manipulate, but manipulating him means playing into his perceptions, which is going to bring out the worst elements and instincts in the liberal party. if my intent was to vote for the secular left as best as i possibly could, to try and block the increasing influence of religion in government in the most effective way available to me, the existing configuration of power is just about as bad as i could imagine it. singh & trudeau aren't going to see eye-to-eye on much of anything else - this is going to be a government that is oriented towards faith as a governing principle, due to the fact that it's what's on the actual table.
i would plead with the liberals to resist this, to put reason over passion in their deliberations with the government, and to not be afraid to go back to the polls.
the liberals are at a crossroads here. they are the country's (indeed, western culture's) historical secular political movement, but they've been toying with moving away from that for quite a long time, now. unfortunately, i'm not sure that they realize the importance of their secular history in terms of their actual existence, or in defining the separation of the new democrat and liberal political traditions, anymore. and, powerful people in the liberal party even seem keen to jettison liberalism in favour of "progressivism" - an error that would decimate the party forever.
but, here we have it in front of us, in the starkest terms possible: it is going to be the task of the liberal party over the course of this minority parliament to resolve it's identity crisis. will it re-embrace it's history as a secular party, or will it align with the religious left in an attempt to redefine itself as an extension of the "progressive" movement?
my vote next time around may very well depend on the answer to this.
but, let's understand what happened.
in the east, the liberals were only down by amounts proportional to turnout, and it didn't hurt them because their opponents were down, too. but, the ndp were nearly obliterated as a consequence of their rejection of secularism - even losing parts of their base to the conservatives. what is the obvious lesson for the liberals, here? is the religious left a path to victory in canada?
in the west, they lost large amounts of support as the price of not being the conservative party. if the answer to holding support in the west is being the conservative party, how sustainable is it for the liberals to use that as a path to hold power?
if turnout had not decreased, they would have probably won seats in ontario and not lost as many in quebec. and, how do you maintain turnout in canada? the answer is by appealing to the secular left, and getting serious about policies that get us out to vote - the policies that were abandoned in 2015.
if the liberals interpret this as a need to move right, that's a shot in the foot. and, if they get lost in a faith-based coalition with the christian left, they'll end up destroying their own brand.
i would have had - excuse the language - faith in the old liberal party to figure this out right.
but, i half expect the younger trudeau to choose passion over reason.
we know he's his mother's, at least.
so, i argued the conservatives were going to get spanked in ontario because they were way down there from 2015.
and, they did lose quite a few suburban and exurban seats. do they have any left?
but, they were only down a little rather than a lot, and they seem to have gotten an assist by rural ndp voters that helped them make up for the losses.
so, their numbers seem flat, but they're actually inflated - they will likely lose some of those seats pretty fast, while there's less evidence that they'll be competitive in the 905 again any time soon.
i was expecting those ndp votes to swing green, and maybe they would have if ms. may prioritized these areas a little more strongly.
and, they did lose quite a few suburban and exurban seats. do they have any left?
but, they were only down a little rather than a lot, and they seem to have gotten an assist by rural ndp voters that helped them make up for the losses.
so, their numbers seem flat, but they're actually inflated - they will likely lose some of those seats pretty fast, while there's less evidence that they'll be competitive in the 905 again any time soon.
i was expecting those ndp votes to swing green, and maybe they would have if ms. may prioritized these areas a little more strongly.
i was tired last night, i'd been up since before sunrise and had done a lot of walking, so let's try to get this across again.
i got the west almost perfect - i claimed ndp-15, liberals-15, greens-4, conservatives-rest. if jwr joins the greens, i almost nailed it.
i argued the models were overselling the bloc, who would get closer to 30 than 40. they got 32. i argued that they'd be shut out of montreal; they were. i claimed the liberals were being lowballed and they would win the province with about 40 seats; they ended up with 35. i argued that the conservatives would get 13 seats in the east (including quebec); they got 14.
i argued that the ndp were experiencing a bradley effect in the polling and would win roughly 5 seats east of winnipeg, all in ontario; they got 8, 6 in ontario. i pointed out the possibility of the greens causing chaos in the maritimes, and they did in fact score an unexpected upset win. i had the liberals at 27 seats in the maritimes; they got 26.
i argued that the liberals would sweep toronto and ottawa and pick up seats in the 905 as well as in smaller urban centres like windsor, and they did.
but, i argued that the conservatives would experience a massive vote split in rural ontario due to everybody moving to the greens, and that did not happen - and that is where i was substantively wrong, and what cost me my prediction. but, i should make the point clearer - it's less that i was wrong and more that the polling was wrong. i can only rely on the data, which had the greens in double digits in rural ontario; that simply didn't happen. if the polling had the greens where they ended up, i would have fallen in line with predictions of a liberal minority.
the thing is that it made sense to me to have everybody move to the greens - racist new democrats (and i don't like singh, but for different reasons than them), scared conservative property owners & pissed off liberals, alike. it was a perfect storm. and the numbers looked like 2000 - i will defend the argument.
but, it didn't happen - the greens got 6% when the polling had them at 16%. so, blame them...
that said, i acknowledged that it seemed like a stretch; i saw the data, but realized it was kind of unusual, too. so, i corrected myself - i claimed the following numbers in ontario were more likely, roughly, and gave myself some room for error on top of it:
liberals - 95
conservatives - 21
ndp - 5
but, i'm still off. why?
i still overshot the effect.
i was looking very carefully at the polling, which had the liberals roughly flat (they finished down about 3 points, which is roughly flat), the conservatives down by 8-10 points (they finished down about 3, which is actually roughly flat), the ndp roughly flat (they were. literally.) and the greens up by like 10-12 points (they finished up by around 3). so, in working this through my bullshit detector, i reasoned that, even if the greens only took 5% instead of 10% from the conservatives, it would still be a good bite, so long as it was localized in rural ridings - and still enough to let the liberals squeeze through, so long as they polled roughly flat. so, i was essentially arguing that the greens and conservatives would split the vote, and let the liberals up the middle; if it was really bad, it could wipe the conservatives out, but if it was a more moderate split, it would just knock them down on their ass - and leave them with 20+ seats.
but, it just evaporated entirely; it didn't happen at all. the greens were up by a few points, but it didn't pool anywhere, and they appear to have had little effect, whatsoever.
what did happen in the rural areas was a movement from the ndp to the conservatives, which allowed them to make up for their losses in the 905 by stealing a few seats from the liberals and the ndp that they may have a hard time keeping in the long run.
if the greens ever get their break in ontario, my projection for this election may be prophetic - it's what would happen if the greens were to actually get that kind of bump. the results in the east are instructive. and, the polling presented the signal, too. but, it didn't happen this time...
what i actually should have done, the error i actually made, was that i should have given myself a larger error bar - i should have talked about 30 seats instead of 15.
i'm going to make a series of posts before i move on.
i got the west almost perfect - i claimed ndp-15, liberals-15, greens-4, conservatives-rest. if jwr joins the greens, i almost nailed it.
i argued the models were overselling the bloc, who would get closer to 30 than 40. they got 32. i argued that they'd be shut out of montreal; they were. i claimed the liberals were being lowballed and they would win the province with about 40 seats; they ended up with 35. i argued that the conservatives would get 13 seats in the east (including quebec); they got 14.
i argued that the ndp were experiencing a bradley effect in the polling and would win roughly 5 seats east of winnipeg, all in ontario; they got 8, 6 in ontario. i pointed out the possibility of the greens causing chaos in the maritimes, and they did in fact score an unexpected upset win. i had the liberals at 27 seats in the maritimes; they got 26.
i argued that the liberals would sweep toronto and ottawa and pick up seats in the 905 as well as in smaller urban centres like windsor, and they did.
but, i argued that the conservatives would experience a massive vote split in rural ontario due to everybody moving to the greens, and that did not happen - and that is where i was substantively wrong, and what cost me my prediction. but, i should make the point clearer - it's less that i was wrong and more that the polling was wrong. i can only rely on the data, which had the greens in double digits in rural ontario; that simply didn't happen. if the polling had the greens where they ended up, i would have fallen in line with predictions of a liberal minority.
the thing is that it made sense to me to have everybody move to the greens - racist new democrats (and i don't like singh, but for different reasons than them), scared conservative property owners & pissed off liberals, alike. it was a perfect storm. and the numbers looked like 2000 - i will defend the argument.
but, it didn't happen - the greens got 6% when the polling had them at 16%. so, blame them...
that said, i acknowledged that it seemed like a stretch; i saw the data, but realized it was kind of unusual, too. so, i corrected myself - i claimed the following numbers in ontario were more likely, roughly, and gave myself some room for error on top of it:
liberals - 95
conservatives - 21
ndp - 5
but, i'm still off. why?
i still overshot the effect.
i was looking very carefully at the polling, which had the liberals roughly flat (they finished down about 3 points, which is roughly flat), the conservatives down by 8-10 points (they finished down about 3, which is actually roughly flat), the ndp roughly flat (they were. literally.) and the greens up by like 10-12 points (they finished up by around 3). so, in working this through my bullshit detector, i reasoned that, even if the greens only took 5% instead of 10% from the conservatives, it would still be a good bite, so long as it was localized in rural ridings - and still enough to let the liberals squeeze through, so long as they polled roughly flat. so, i was essentially arguing that the greens and conservatives would split the vote, and let the liberals up the middle; if it was really bad, it could wipe the conservatives out, but if it was a more moderate split, it would just knock them down on their ass - and leave them with 20+ seats.
but, it just evaporated entirely; it didn't happen at all. the greens were up by a few points, but it didn't pool anywhere, and they appear to have had little effect, whatsoever.
what did happen in the rural areas was a movement from the ndp to the conservatives, which allowed them to make up for their losses in the 905 by stealing a few seats from the liberals and the ndp that they may have a hard time keeping in the long run.
if the greens ever get their break in ontario, my projection for this election may be prophetic - it's what would happen if the greens were to actually get that kind of bump. the results in the east are instructive. and, the polling presented the signal, too. but, it didn't happen this time...
what i actually should have done, the error i actually made, was that i should have given myself a larger error bar - i should have talked about 30 seats instead of 15.
i'm going to make a series of posts before i move on.
i'm sluggish; it's cold in here. at this point, i actually want the temperature to fall so i can turn the heat on. i get tired and unproductive when it gets cold....
but, once i find a way to get the temperature up enough in here that i have enough blood flow to my brain that i can think, we're going to do a detailed analysis this morning and then put this aside.
i do not expect to leave this basement again until at least oct 31st and i want something concrete done by then.
but, once i find a way to get the temperature up enough in here that i have enough blood flow to my brain that i can think, we're going to do a detailed analysis this morning and then put this aside.
i do not expect to leave this basement again until at least oct 31st and i want something concrete done by then.
the liberals could get over 160 when the smoke clears, but i'm conceding a minority. what happened?
i had the numbers for the ndp and liberals and bloc pretty close, and my seat counts are pretty good everywhere except ontario, although i don't think i overexaggerated the ontario numbers by more than the models underexaggerated them; i made the right correction but overcompensated on the greens splitting the rural vote, which didn't happen. the bradley effect seemed to be a real thing. it seems like i got the 905 right, but we'll need to wait. i mentioned that if i got something wrong, it would be on the greens not splitting the vote, so it's not like i'm that surprised, but i argued it shouldn't affect the outcome - and was wrong on that point.
i more got nailed on the crumbs.
so, i had the ndp at 20 and the bloc at 30; actual numbers were 23 or 24 and 32. that's 5 or 6 seats i had given the liberals. i had the conservatives at 13 in the east and they got 14; i'm going to be off by a handful out west, too.
these are minor errors, but they made my big error - the greens running low in ontario - matter when i argued it shouldn't.
so, my number was 195, and i pointed out that i might be off by about 15 in ontario. in fact, i was off by about that, then missed a number of seats that the conservatives unexpectedly picked up due to ndp support switching to the conservatives, including in kenora and essex. that was something i didn't factor in - that the conservatives may also benefit from low ndp support.
so, i was wrong about the greens splitting the vote, but anticipated it; i was right about the liberals benefiting from weak ndp support, but i missed anticipating the conservatives also benefiting from weak ndp support. final numbers are not in, but if i lowballed the conservatives by a few points, it's because i had the ndp higher than they actually got. that cost me another few seats in ontario.
i'm sleepy. we'll do this better after i take a nap.
but, of all the claims i made, i got most of them right. and, i think i beat the models, and that my criticisms of the models were correct, even if i went too far, and i didn't always provide a better proposal; i was right to point out they were wrong, but my corrections had problems of their own.
i had the numbers for the ndp and liberals and bloc pretty close, and my seat counts are pretty good everywhere except ontario, although i don't think i overexaggerated the ontario numbers by more than the models underexaggerated them; i made the right correction but overcompensated on the greens splitting the rural vote, which didn't happen. the bradley effect seemed to be a real thing. it seems like i got the 905 right, but we'll need to wait. i mentioned that if i got something wrong, it would be on the greens not splitting the vote, so it's not like i'm that surprised, but i argued it shouldn't affect the outcome - and was wrong on that point.
i more got nailed on the crumbs.
so, i had the ndp at 20 and the bloc at 30; actual numbers were 23 or 24 and 32. that's 5 or 6 seats i had given the liberals. i had the conservatives at 13 in the east and they got 14; i'm going to be off by a handful out west, too.
these are minor errors, but they made my big error - the greens running low in ontario - matter when i argued it shouldn't.
so, my number was 195, and i pointed out that i might be off by about 15 in ontario. in fact, i was off by about that, then missed a number of seats that the conservatives unexpectedly picked up due to ndp support switching to the conservatives, including in kenora and essex. that was something i didn't factor in - that the conservatives may also benefit from low ndp support.
so, i was wrong about the greens splitting the vote, but anticipated it; i was right about the liberals benefiting from weak ndp support, but i missed anticipating the conservatives also benefiting from weak ndp support. final numbers are not in, but if i lowballed the conservatives by a few points, it's because i had the ndp higher than they actually got. that cost me another few seats in ontario.
i'm sleepy. we'll do this better after i take a nap.
but, of all the claims i made, i got most of them right. and, i think i beat the models, and that my criticisms of the models were correct, even if i went too far, and i didn't always provide a better proposal; i was right to point out they were wrong, but my corrections had problems of their own.
Monday, October 21, 2019
you know, i've noticed this before - whenever my computer gets into a crash/reboot cycle, the thing they go after is adblock.
that seems to be the thing the cia is most concerned about - that i watch the fucking ads.
listen...
i have no fucking interest at all in the ads. there is a 0% possibility that i'm going to even look at them, except maybe to laugh at them. the only way i'm going to ever click on an ad is by accident.
you can't brainwash me. i'll close me eyes. i'll scream "la-la-la". i just won't watch it.
and, the more i see an advertisement for your product, the less likely i am to want to buy it. like, the act of seeing an ad is enough. i don't care what the ad's about - it's mere existence is enough to get me to boycott you.
i actually think i'm at the ultra-paradoxical stage with it, where over-exposure to advertising has brought me to the point where i get a negative reaction to it. nothing about the ad really matters to me - just knowing it exists is enough to make me hate you.
i've mentioned before that i couldn't live on an internet with ads. if they somehow break adblock, if they take this away, if they force the ads on me, i'm going to end up going to the library and reading books instead. it's actually one of the reasons i stopped watching tv.
i just can't handle it. and, i'll fight it as hard as i can.
i was being lazy in leaving my computer on and my internet on. so, if you want to get aggressive with me, i'll go back to disconnecting from the internet when i'm not using it. that's fine.
that seems to be the thing the cia is most concerned about - that i watch the fucking ads.
listen...
i have no fucking interest at all in the ads. there is a 0% possibility that i'm going to even look at them, except maybe to laugh at them. the only way i'm going to ever click on an ad is by accident.
you can't brainwash me. i'll close me eyes. i'll scream "la-la-la". i just won't watch it.
and, the more i see an advertisement for your product, the less likely i am to want to buy it. like, the act of seeing an ad is enough. i don't care what the ad's about - it's mere existence is enough to get me to boycott you.
i actually think i'm at the ultra-paradoxical stage with it, where over-exposure to advertising has brought me to the point where i get a negative reaction to it. nothing about the ad really matters to me - just knowing it exists is enough to make me hate you.
i've mentioned before that i couldn't live on an internet with ads. if they somehow break adblock, if they take this away, if they force the ads on me, i'm going to end up going to the library and reading books instead. it's actually one of the reasons i stopped watching tv.
i just can't handle it. and, i'll fight it as hard as i can.
i was being lazy in leaving my computer on and my internet on. so, if you want to get aggressive with me, i'll go back to disconnecting from the internet when i'm not using it. that's fine.
i want to clarify a point in case it's unclear.
if singh hangs around for a few elections, if he can hold off the inevitable leadership challenge, he could end up with a bigger and more durable coalition than layton could put together. this isn't really a question of total appeal - there's lots of indo-canadians here, and the religious left has a history here, too.
but, any kind of longterm coalition or tent that singh is going to build is going to be dramatically different than layton's - and the outcome of this election is probably going to be more about breaking up layton's lingering coalition than building singh's new one.
the older parties, the liberals and conservatives, have roots in their communities that go back centuries. that's not true of the ndp, which shifts in allegiances through different leadership phases. tommy douglas' base was drastically different than broadbent's, which was different than layton's, and singh's will be unrecognizable from any as well, should he be able to build it. so, if you're building a model, it would not be a good idea to rely on past ndp results the same way you'd rely on past liberal results. the same thing is true of the bloc, even if it's only going through it's second shift. remember - it started off as a splinter of the conservatives.
douglas was a religious reformer, a prairie populist, that preached the "social gospel" of wealth redistribution, as well as fire and brimstone for the gays. he supported eugenics, and opposed abortion. he was wildly popular amongst farmers, but viewed rather derisively by people in the cities that saw him as a bit of a nut. in the end, he was pushed out by the first lewis, a socialist jew, who tried to swing the party to the hard left. it wasn't even until broadbent in the late 70s that they became the union party, and only after unionism had started to decline. layton took over after nafta ripped them apart and tried to convert them into a party of latte liberal urbanites that supported small businesses, family values and social programs. in the end, he built a coalition of quebecois leftists, rural libertarians, young people and advocates for the urban poor. mulcair, a right-leaning former quebec cabinet minister who ran on eliminating the deficit, lost quebec and lost young people, but kept some of the party's legacy in tact. this is what singh inherited: a dying union movement, skeptical anti-poverty advocates and a mish-mash of rural parties.
singh is not going to do well with much of any of these groups. his coalition may include students, if he can hold them, but he's not going to win back quebec. he has a lot of work to do in winning over antipoverty activists, as well, and in the end may abandon them. his coalition is more likely to include ethnic voters in the 905 and in vancouver that have historically leaned a little right, but see something of themselves in him. and, where his religious beliefs are a liability in winning secular leftist voters, he may find it an asset in winning votes in more upscale, ethnic-dominated areas of vancouver and toronto.
so, how do you fix the model?
you need the data first.
if singh hangs around for a few elections, if he can hold off the inevitable leadership challenge, he could end up with a bigger and more durable coalition than layton could put together. this isn't really a question of total appeal - there's lots of indo-canadians here, and the religious left has a history here, too.
but, any kind of longterm coalition or tent that singh is going to build is going to be dramatically different than layton's - and the outcome of this election is probably going to be more about breaking up layton's lingering coalition than building singh's new one.
the older parties, the liberals and conservatives, have roots in their communities that go back centuries. that's not true of the ndp, which shifts in allegiances through different leadership phases. tommy douglas' base was drastically different than broadbent's, which was different than layton's, and singh's will be unrecognizable from any as well, should he be able to build it. so, if you're building a model, it would not be a good idea to rely on past ndp results the same way you'd rely on past liberal results. the same thing is true of the bloc, even if it's only going through it's second shift. remember - it started off as a splinter of the conservatives.
douglas was a religious reformer, a prairie populist, that preached the "social gospel" of wealth redistribution, as well as fire and brimstone for the gays. he supported eugenics, and opposed abortion. he was wildly popular amongst farmers, but viewed rather derisively by people in the cities that saw him as a bit of a nut. in the end, he was pushed out by the first lewis, a socialist jew, who tried to swing the party to the hard left. it wasn't even until broadbent in the late 70s that they became the union party, and only after unionism had started to decline. layton took over after nafta ripped them apart and tried to convert them into a party of latte liberal urbanites that supported small businesses, family values and social programs. in the end, he built a coalition of quebecois leftists, rural libertarians, young people and advocates for the urban poor. mulcair, a right-leaning former quebec cabinet minister who ran on eliminating the deficit, lost quebec and lost young people, but kept some of the party's legacy in tact. this is what singh inherited: a dying union movement, skeptical anti-poverty advocates and a mish-mash of rural parties.
singh is not going to do well with much of any of these groups. his coalition may include students, if he can hold them, but he's not going to win back quebec. he has a lot of work to do in winning over antipoverty activists, as well, and in the end may abandon them. his coalition is more likely to include ethnic voters in the 905 and in vancouver that have historically leaned a little right, but see something of themselves in him. and, where his religious beliefs are a liability in winning secular leftist voters, he may find it an asset in winning votes in more upscale, ethnic-dominated areas of vancouver and toronto.
so, how do you fix the model?
you need the data first.
i'm not going to break this down in too much detail; i've done this in the past. but, i want to use this chart to explain why this kind of modelling doesn't work well in these kinds of situations.
what he's doing is taking national and regional polls and trying to cram the results into local ridings. he may look to past results in specific regions, but that's just going to confuse the outcome, if you try to separate it from context - sometimes, when you overcomplicate, you just confuse things. and, then you've got rounding - so he adds an extra 3.5 ndp seats as a consequence of rounding error. it's bizarre.
so, i look at this and i see 2.6 seats for the ndp in the east and the initial question i ask is "where". and, if your model throws out 2.6 seats (are you rounding up or flooring on that? or threatening to cut the seat in half and giving it to the one that objects?), and you can't find where they actually are, you need to pull back from the model, right?
well, i took a look through the map, and the only seat he's calling for the ndp is the one in st john's, newfoundland. so, his map contradicts his model. so much for mr. fournier.
he would appear to actually be calling for liberals 24, conservatives 7, ndp 1. if the ndp are lucky - that seat is listed as a toss-up.
likewise, i can only find one seat for the ndp in quebec, and it's in montreal, and isn't outremont. crucially, he has the bloc listed second, probably because they did well in that riding in the duceppe years. but, an urban riding that voted for duceppe isn't going to find blanchet nearly as appealing - this is a statistical relic, and all you're doing by bringing in duceppe numbers is confusing the reality of it.
that's probably true for the bloc across the province. blanchet may appeal to the nationalist core of the old bloc, but he's lost the social democratic bent that gave them their actual electoral victories. if they stick with the ndp - and vote qs provincially - that's going to leave the bloc uncompetitive in montreal. and, that is indeed likely the difference between the 30% they're at and the 40%+ they ran at under duceppe. but, how many seats do qs have, in a riding system that is more favourable to them?
if the ndp hang on, it will indeed likely be on the island.
but, i wouldn't count on it...
likewise, he has them winning three toss-up seats in toronto (despite local polling having the liberals running at 70% in the 416), holding three very close ridings in hamilton, holding a toss-up in london, and holding a toss-up in windsor, along with two more likely ridings here. so, that's ten seats, if you add them up - but at least seven of them are a coin toss. he also has them winning five seats in northern ontario based on the strength of ndp results ten or fifteen years ago, when all of the polling i'm aware of has singh doing exceedingly poorly with rural voters, for obvious reasons. and, three of them are toss ups.
so, that's fifteen seats - but ten of them are a coin toss, and that coin toss relies on the premise that people look at jagmeet singh and see jack layton, a pretty sketchy premise, given the actual data in front of us.
i penciled them in at five, and i was being conservative when i did.
i counted five liberal seats in the prairies (4 in wininipeg + ralph), and 2 ndp seats (niki ashton + one in saskatoon). so, why does he have the numbers he does? where? show me. his model is going to overshoot conservative numbers in winnipeg, on the strength of the conservative rural vote, and this actually happens every election, and the pollsters just don't fucking learn. so, when i said 5-7 in winnipeg, i was undoing the aggregates on purpose. but, still - he needs his numbers to accurately reflect his actual map, or he's just demonstrating that his model is flawed.
we agree that alberta will probably go entirely conservative, and by large margins. except he still has the ghost of linda duncan holding on...
i can count 13 ndp seats and 9 liberal seats on the map - numbers that are at least consistent, and that i have less disagreement about, even if it's by accident.
so, on his map, he has the ndp winning 32 seats, including ten very tentative wins in ontario that rely on singh getting the layton vote out. i had them at 20, give or take a reasonable error in bc. what i need to do to put the numbers in line is take that layton phantom effect out of the numbers - something i'm more than willing to do - and round them back down out east.
so, singh will need a divine intervention to get to 37 - and maybe he's into that, but i'm not. my numbers do not attempt to quantify the effect that jack layton's ghost will have on current ndp voters, many of whom were toddlers at the turn of the century, and are consequently more realistic...
again: the difference is those ten toss-up votes in ontario, and another handful in quebec and out east, which there's not any convincing evidence for - it's a relic of an over-reaching model. essentially all of the 15-17 seats should be liberal at the end of the day. the exaggerated bloc seat totals is also a relic of duceppe that is neither justified by the current political alliances nor by the actual numbers. that takes the ndp down to 20, the bloc down to 30 and the liberals all the way up to 161 - and is all in the east.
what's left is the question of the 905 and urban ontario - will the conservatives get 37 seats in ontario as the model suggests or 6 as i trollingly lowballed them at? the fact is that the 905 polls have them well ahead, meaning they're poised to not just hold but pick up. and, we'll see if the greens can split or not, but, i acknowledge the sketchiness of this in my write-up, and i'm less confident in really pushing it down.
as has become the norm, this election will be won or lost in the 905. and, if we split the difference between 37 and 7, you still have the liberals with 176 seats.
i tried to avoid this until the last minute, but there you go.
what he's doing is taking national and regional polls and trying to cram the results into local ridings. he may look to past results in specific regions, but that's just going to confuse the outcome, if you try to separate it from context - sometimes, when you overcomplicate, you just confuse things. and, then you've got rounding - so he adds an extra 3.5 ndp seats as a consequence of rounding error. it's bizarre.
so, i look at this and i see 2.6 seats for the ndp in the east and the initial question i ask is "where". and, if your model throws out 2.6 seats (are you rounding up or flooring on that? or threatening to cut the seat in half and giving it to the one that objects?), and you can't find where they actually are, you need to pull back from the model, right?
well, i took a look through the map, and the only seat he's calling for the ndp is the one in st john's, newfoundland. so, his map contradicts his model. so much for mr. fournier.
he would appear to actually be calling for liberals 24, conservatives 7, ndp 1. if the ndp are lucky - that seat is listed as a toss-up.
likewise, i can only find one seat for the ndp in quebec, and it's in montreal, and isn't outremont. crucially, he has the bloc listed second, probably because they did well in that riding in the duceppe years. but, an urban riding that voted for duceppe isn't going to find blanchet nearly as appealing - this is a statistical relic, and all you're doing by bringing in duceppe numbers is confusing the reality of it.
that's probably true for the bloc across the province. blanchet may appeal to the nationalist core of the old bloc, but he's lost the social democratic bent that gave them their actual electoral victories. if they stick with the ndp - and vote qs provincially - that's going to leave the bloc uncompetitive in montreal. and, that is indeed likely the difference between the 30% they're at and the 40%+ they ran at under duceppe. but, how many seats do qs have, in a riding system that is more favourable to them?
if the ndp hang on, it will indeed likely be on the island.
but, i wouldn't count on it...
likewise, he has them winning three toss-up seats in toronto (despite local polling having the liberals running at 70% in the 416), holding three very close ridings in hamilton, holding a toss-up in london, and holding a toss-up in windsor, along with two more likely ridings here. so, that's ten seats, if you add them up - but at least seven of them are a coin toss. he also has them winning five seats in northern ontario based on the strength of ndp results ten or fifteen years ago, when all of the polling i'm aware of has singh doing exceedingly poorly with rural voters, for obvious reasons. and, three of them are toss ups.
so, that's fifteen seats - but ten of them are a coin toss, and that coin toss relies on the premise that people look at jagmeet singh and see jack layton, a pretty sketchy premise, given the actual data in front of us.
i penciled them in at five, and i was being conservative when i did.
i counted five liberal seats in the prairies (4 in wininipeg + ralph), and 2 ndp seats (niki ashton + one in saskatoon). so, why does he have the numbers he does? where? show me. his model is going to overshoot conservative numbers in winnipeg, on the strength of the conservative rural vote, and this actually happens every election, and the pollsters just don't fucking learn. so, when i said 5-7 in winnipeg, i was undoing the aggregates on purpose. but, still - he needs his numbers to accurately reflect his actual map, or he's just demonstrating that his model is flawed.
we agree that alberta will probably go entirely conservative, and by large margins. except he still has the ghost of linda duncan holding on...
i can count 13 ndp seats and 9 liberal seats on the map - numbers that are at least consistent, and that i have less disagreement about, even if it's by accident.
so, on his map, he has the ndp winning 32 seats, including ten very tentative wins in ontario that rely on singh getting the layton vote out. i had them at 20, give or take a reasonable error in bc. what i need to do to put the numbers in line is take that layton phantom effect out of the numbers - something i'm more than willing to do - and round them back down out east.
so, singh will need a divine intervention to get to 37 - and maybe he's into that, but i'm not. my numbers do not attempt to quantify the effect that jack layton's ghost will have on current ndp voters, many of whom were toddlers at the turn of the century, and are consequently more realistic...
again: the difference is those ten toss-up votes in ontario, and another handful in quebec and out east, which there's not any convincing evidence for - it's a relic of an over-reaching model. essentially all of the 15-17 seats should be liberal at the end of the day. the exaggerated bloc seat totals is also a relic of duceppe that is neither justified by the current political alliances nor by the actual numbers. that takes the ndp down to 20, the bloc down to 30 and the liberals all the way up to 161 - and is all in the east.
what's left is the question of the 905 and urban ontario - will the conservatives get 37 seats in ontario as the model suggests or 6 as i trollingly lowballed them at? the fact is that the 905 polls have them well ahead, meaning they're poised to not just hold but pick up. and, we'll see if the greens can split or not, but, i acknowledge the sketchiness of this in my write-up, and i'm less confident in really pushing it down.
as has become the norm, this election will be won or lost in the 905. and, if we split the difference between 37 and 7, you still have the liberals with 176 seats.
i tried to avoid this until the last minute, but there you go.
so, to summarize, themes are:
1) the ndp retreats from secularism and gets wiped out of the east as a result of it.
2) the greens had an opportunity to walk into the vacuum left by the ndp but squandered it, opting to a run as a rural christian party, instead. they will see almost no gains, but they may take a good bite out of the conservative vote in the east.
3) the conservatives are in the process of packing up and going back to where they came from, but they're taking their time in doing it.
4) the bloc are half-back. not really. last gasp....last hurrah...
5) the liberals win by default - because they're the natural governing party.
1) the ndp retreats from secularism and gets wiped out of the east as a result of it.
2) the greens had an opportunity to walk into the vacuum left by the ndp but squandered it, opting to a run as a rural christian party, instead. they will see almost no gains, but they may take a good bite out of the conservative vote in the east.
3) the conservatives are in the process of packing up and going back to where they came from, but they're taking their time in doing it.
4) the bloc are half-back. not really. last gasp....last hurrah...
5) the liberals win by default - because they're the natural governing party.
so, i stopped for a second around 23:00 last night and crashed, unexpectedly, instead. i had a few system crashes over the weekend (i suspect that csis is trying to stop me from spreading russian propaganda about the election at the last minute :\) which forced me to retrace my steps a few times but, the master is updated and synced, now, and ready to be broken apart.
the sewers never really resolved themselves this week, forcing me to run the water for most of the weekend, and exposing that the p-trap may be a dominant but not a total cause. the temperature seems to have something to do with it. and, i'm increasingly suspecting that the natural gas is wired incorrectly through the piping, because there seems to be excess natural gas in the lines, as well. it's a subtle difference in smell, and i wouldn't have been able to tell the difference even a few months ago. but i'm (unfortunately) gaining the experience to differentiate it. i need a plumber to figure this out. as far as i can tell, he just still hasn't come home yet so the lines are still sitting dry upstairs. i'll need to send him a note when i get back this morning...
i need to pick up an rx balance and get some end-of-the-month grocery shopping in so it does look like i'm going to vote this morning. i haven't seen any last minute voting shifts that change my analysis - i still think the liberals are headed to a majority, and the ndp "surge" is mostly just a bullshit bradley effect, except in bc. and, the conservatives are actually probably headed for the lowest levels in the east that anybody's seen in decades.
so,
- expect the ndp to poll in the 20s in bc and in the low teens almost everywhere else. weak ndp support east of the rockies will be a theme. they may keep most of their seats in bc, but it's going to be brutal elsewhere, and expect calls from the east for jagmeet singh to resign immediately.
- expect the liberals to poll in the 40s in ontario, quebec and the east and the 20s (or lower) in the west. exceedingly weak liberal support west of winnipeg will be a theme. but, it may make little difference in terms of actual seats if they get out the vote in the east. they're essentially set to lose seats they don't have much chance of competing in by even larger margins than they've ever lost them before. justin may turn out to be the less popular trudeau, in alberta.
- expect the conservatives to poll as high as 70% in the west, but as low as 10% in quebec (and in the 20s in ontario and the east). weak conservative support east of winnipeg will be a theme. expect people to be taken aback and surprised by low support levels in ontario. scheer took a hard right turn in the last weeks of the campaign that could have long-term consequences. the narrative over the next few years may be how the conservatives are retreating to their roots as a western protest party, and their decline in ontario may actually just be starting - it could get worse for them.
- expect the greens to poll in the teens in the far west of bc, in rural ontario and in the eastern provinces and lower than that elsewhere. the greens will not get the breakthrough people projected earlier in the campaign, but they have put themselves on the map nonetheless, perhaps unexpectedly (and for some people undesirably) as a primarily rural party that does not do well in the urban cores. i don't know of any other rural green party. but, they seem to be attracting the same kind of rural voters that picked sanders over clinton in 2016 by large margins, and it could throw a serious wrench into conservative support levels here. they ran on jesus, that's what happens when you do that. but, it's good for democracy to give the conservatives a run for the rural vote, too. i'm disappointed in the green campaign, too - they could have and should have run as a secular environmentalist alternative to the liberals, not as a christian left alternative to the conservatives and ndp. greens should be running on the future; maybe it wasn't purposeful, but by picking up ideas like the responsibility to protect and by focusing on christian values, they ran on the past and scared urban people (including me) off. it's not going to win them seats in the rural east, but it may split the vote enough to let the liberals win in unexpected places.
- expect the bloc to poll in the high 20s or low 30s in quebec, and to be shut out of montreal, which will expose the limitations of flirting with running on the right in far left quebec. they seem to think this is a smart strategy; i think the results will demonstrate that it's not. so, expect a moderate increase in bloc support, but also expect them to come up against a brick wall in terms of seat counts and to find themselves with little opportunity to expand further. the bloc may win their core base of constituents back, but the strategy they used is a dead-end, and opens up more questions than answers. it's going to be another four years of soul searching for the bloc...
as it is, my vote is local, not national.
if i were to use a ranked ballot (which is the electoral reform i'd prefer), i'd vote like this:
1. green
2. liberal
3. ndp
the election will be a tight race between an incumbent ndp mp with a bourgeois voting record (he's not a hard leftist new democrat) and a popular former liberal mpp that is known for anti-poverty activism. as an odsp recipient, as well as a secular leftist, my self interest is to vote for the local liberal candidate. she'll be a prominent voice to the left of justin trudeau, but she's also well connected enough to the banking establishment to actually get heard. brian masse will sit in the house as a representative of the wealthy autoworkers, and nobody else, and essentially just get ignored. as mentioned: from a purely local perspective, this is actually not that hard of a choice. she's obviously the better candidate.
the conservatives will probably finish a distant third, but conservative voters in an area like this are also mostly recent immigrants and the fact that upwards of a third of the region (if not the riding, right now) is recent immigrants opens some questions as to the strength of the conservative vote. it's a mostly white riding, with large numbers of international students from india (who i presume mostly cannot vote.) and a muslim (mostly arab) minority of something like 5%+. the conservatives have run conservative muslims here in the past, but are opting for a pro-market east asian this time around in an attempt to key in on the ethnic vote. we'll see which approach works out better for them (i suspect the former). in this election, the conservatives are unlikely to seriously compete, but the trendlines are something to keep an eye on. there's some evidence that the conservatives may be more competitive in the riding next door, which has a larger ethnic voting bloc that would naturally lean to the right.
it will be close - potentially very close. a few votes could swing this. so, i feel compelled to vote.
one last time....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the sewers never really resolved themselves this week, forcing me to run the water for most of the weekend, and exposing that the p-trap may be a dominant but not a total cause. the temperature seems to have something to do with it. and, i'm increasingly suspecting that the natural gas is wired incorrectly through the piping, because there seems to be excess natural gas in the lines, as well. it's a subtle difference in smell, and i wouldn't have been able to tell the difference even a few months ago. but i'm (unfortunately) gaining the experience to differentiate it. i need a plumber to figure this out. as far as i can tell, he just still hasn't come home yet so the lines are still sitting dry upstairs. i'll need to send him a note when i get back this morning...
i need to pick up an rx balance and get some end-of-the-month grocery shopping in so it does look like i'm going to vote this morning. i haven't seen any last minute voting shifts that change my analysis - i still think the liberals are headed to a majority, and the ndp "surge" is mostly just a bullshit bradley effect, except in bc. and, the conservatives are actually probably headed for the lowest levels in the east that anybody's seen in decades.
so,
- expect the ndp to poll in the 20s in bc and in the low teens almost everywhere else. weak ndp support east of the rockies will be a theme. they may keep most of their seats in bc, but it's going to be brutal elsewhere, and expect calls from the east for jagmeet singh to resign immediately.
- expect the liberals to poll in the 40s in ontario, quebec and the east and the 20s (or lower) in the west. exceedingly weak liberal support west of winnipeg will be a theme. but, it may make little difference in terms of actual seats if they get out the vote in the east. they're essentially set to lose seats they don't have much chance of competing in by even larger margins than they've ever lost them before. justin may turn out to be the less popular trudeau, in alberta.
- expect the conservatives to poll as high as 70% in the west, but as low as 10% in quebec (and in the 20s in ontario and the east). weak conservative support east of winnipeg will be a theme. expect people to be taken aback and surprised by low support levels in ontario. scheer took a hard right turn in the last weeks of the campaign that could have long-term consequences. the narrative over the next few years may be how the conservatives are retreating to their roots as a western protest party, and their decline in ontario may actually just be starting - it could get worse for them.
- expect the greens to poll in the teens in the far west of bc, in rural ontario and in the eastern provinces and lower than that elsewhere. the greens will not get the breakthrough people projected earlier in the campaign, but they have put themselves on the map nonetheless, perhaps unexpectedly (and for some people undesirably) as a primarily rural party that does not do well in the urban cores. i don't know of any other rural green party. but, they seem to be attracting the same kind of rural voters that picked sanders over clinton in 2016 by large margins, and it could throw a serious wrench into conservative support levels here. they ran on jesus, that's what happens when you do that. but, it's good for democracy to give the conservatives a run for the rural vote, too. i'm disappointed in the green campaign, too - they could have and should have run as a secular environmentalist alternative to the liberals, not as a christian left alternative to the conservatives and ndp. greens should be running on the future; maybe it wasn't purposeful, but by picking up ideas like the responsibility to protect and by focusing on christian values, they ran on the past and scared urban people (including me) off. it's not going to win them seats in the rural east, but it may split the vote enough to let the liberals win in unexpected places.
- expect the bloc to poll in the high 20s or low 30s in quebec, and to be shut out of montreal, which will expose the limitations of flirting with running on the right in far left quebec. they seem to think this is a smart strategy; i think the results will demonstrate that it's not. so, expect a moderate increase in bloc support, but also expect them to come up against a brick wall in terms of seat counts and to find themselves with little opportunity to expand further. the bloc may win their core base of constituents back, but the strategy they used is a dead-end, and opens up more questions than answers. it's going to be another four years of soul searching for the bloc...
as it is, my vote is local, not national.
if i were to use a ranked ballot (which is the electoral reform i'd prefer), i'd vote like this:
1. green
2. liberal
3. ndp
the election will be a tight race between an incumbent ndp mp with a bourgeois voting record (he's not a hard leftist new democrat) and a popular former liberal mpp that is known for anti-poverty activism. as an odsp recipient, as well as a secular leftist, my self interest is to vote for the local liberal candidate. she'll be a prominent voice to the left of justin trudeau, but she's also well connected enough to the banking establishment to actually get heard. brian masse will sit in the house as a representative of the wealthy autoworkers, and nobody else, and essentially just get ignored. as mentioned: from a purely local perspective, this is actually not that hard of a choice. she's obviously the better candidate.
the conservatives will probably finish a distant third, but conservative voters in an area like this are also mostly recent immigrants and the fact that upwards of a third of the region (if not the riding, right now) is recent immigrants opens some questions as to the strength of the conservative vote. it's a mostly white riding, with large numbers of international students from india (who i presume mostly cannot vote.) and a muslim (mostly arab) minority of something like 5%+. the conservatives have run conservative muslims here in the past, but are opting for a pro-market east asian this time around in an attempt to key in on the ethnic vote. we'll see which approach works out better for them (i suspect the former). in this election, the conservatives are unlikely to seriously compete, but the trendlines are something to keep an eye on. there's some evidence that the conservatives may be more competitive in the riding next door, which has a larger ethnic voting bloc that would naturally lean to the right.
it will be close - potentially very close. a few votes could swing this. so, i feel compelled to vote.
one last time....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Sunday, October 20, 2019
it's not about a division of powers. we have these constitutionally enshrined, but they're fairly fluid on a lot of points. we could do most of what singh is talking about.
....if he were to win a majority.
but, the liberals won't even talk to them about most of this stuff. and, i'm left convinced that we're better off avoiding the waste of time of minority governance, in context,, and agitating directly, instead.
singh is not going to have much leverage.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
....if he were to win a majority.
but, the liberals won't even talk to them about most of this stuff. and, i'm left convinced that we're better off avoiding the waste of time of minority governance, in context,, and agitating directly, instead.
singh is not going to have much leverage.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i want to make a comment about the ndp's housing proposals.
first, i should point out that the greens had a better platform on that issue, so i would have picked them over the ndp, if it came down to it. and, i'm moaning about it all of the time, so why don't i just go ahead and do that?
if the ndp (or the greens.) were anywhere close to actually governing, this would be a relevant point to make. but, the ndp are not going to win this election - and i think they'll actually finish a distant 4th.
there are some issues where a minority party leader can make a very big impact, but housing is not one of them, and the reason is because of the way we fund it. it hasn't always been this way, but a liberal government in 2019 is going to treat a housing strategy as a primarily provincial concern. so, it might make some aspirational guarantees, or something. but, the kind of housing plan that singh is pushing for is not going to be on the table. it just isn't.
nor is dental, pipelines or most of the other things being talked about - many of which are also primarily provincial responsibilities, at the current time.
what is actually on the table? well, they seem serious about some kind of pharmaceutical plan, but the legislation to this nationally would be pretty messy. are they going to open up the canada health act? are they going to threaten to withhold funding if quebec or alberta refuses to go along with it? it seems unlikely.
and, i question the ndp's own commitment to the environment, let alone mr. trudeau's. for all of notley's scorn for being ignored, i have little doubt who holds more influence in the party. mr. singh sounds quite a bit like mr. trudeau did not too long ago, on the environment. but, that is nonetheless what a tough agreement from the ndp is likely to look like - planting the trees that doug ford cancelled. it will be presented as a strong win after tough negotiations, too.
it's easy to tell me about pearson, and ms. may will be happy to do so, but my dead father was in grade school at the time. that was a different era, with different challenges.
as mentioned: i might have a different perspective if mr. singh was an entirely different person, with an entirely different perspective. but, as it is, i don't see what he can actually accomplish in a minority government, and i'm not convinced he'll hold support where it's important. rather than stand against the government to stop these pipelines, he's likely to stand with the government on...well, everything.
so, on some level, i may agree with the ndp on housing, it is true. but, that''s something i'll give more thought to in the next provincial election, where it matters.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
first, i should point out that the greens had a better platform on that issue, so i would have picked them over the ndp, if it came down to it. and, i'm moaning about it all of the time, so why don't i just go ahead and do that?
if the ndp (or the greens.) were anywhere close to actually governing, this would be a relevant point to make. but, the ndp are not going to win this election - and i think they'll actually finish a distant 4th.
there are some issues where a minority party leader can make a very big impact, but housing is not one of them, and the reason is because of the way we fund it. it hasn't always been this way, but a liberal government in 2019 is going to treat a housing strategy as a primarily provincial concern. so, it might make some aspirational guarantees, or something. but, the kind of housing plan that singh is pushing for is not going to be on the table. it just isn't.
nor is dental, pipelines or most of the other things being talked about - many of which are also primarily provincial responsibilities, at the current time.
what is actually on the table? well, they seem serious about some kind of pharmaceutical plan, but the legislation to this nationally would be pretty messy. are they going to open up the canada health act? are they going to threaten to withhold funding if quebec or alberta refuses to go along with it? it seems unlikely.
and, i question the ndp's own commitment to the environment, let alone mr. trudeau's. for all of notley's scorn for being ignored, i have little doubt who holds more influence in the party. mr. singh sounds quite a bit like mr. trudeau did not too long ago, on the environment. but, that is nonetheless what a tough agreement from the ndp is likely to look like - planting the trees that doug ford cancelled. it will be presented as a strong win after tough negotiations, too.
it's easy to tell me about pearson, and ms. may will be happy to do so, but my dead father was in grade school at the time. that was a different era, with different challenges.
as mentioned: i might have a different perspective if mr. singh was an entirely different person, with an entirely different perspective. but, as it is, i don't see what he can actually accomplish in a minority government, and i'm not convinced he'll hold support where it's important. rather than stand against the government to stop these pipelines, he's likely to stand with the government on...well, everything.
so, on some level, i may agree with the ndp on housing, it is true. but, that''s something i'll give more thought to in the next provincial election, where it matters.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
again.
i would feel comfortable voting for ujjal dosanjh.
and, i would feel comfortable voting for niki haley (not actually, she's terrible.).
but, i don't feel comfortable voting for jagmeet singh, and i don't feel comfortable voting for elizabeth may, either. in fact, i don't feel comfortable voting for elizabeth may for exactly the same reason that i don't feel comfortable voting for jagmeet singh.
i'll let you work out what that means, and what it doesn't. but, remember: i don't actually care what you think of me, and i won't let your opinion of me affect my existence in any way at all.
you mean nothing to me.
at all.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i would feel comfortable voting for ujjal dosanjh.
and, i would feel comfortable voting for niki haley (not actually, she's terrible.).
but, i don't feel comfortable voting for jagmeet singh, and i don't feel comfortable voting for elizabeth may, either. in fact, i don't feel comfortable voting for elizabeth may for exactly the same reason that i don't feel comfortable voting for jagmeet singh.
i'll let you work out what that means, and what it doesn't. but, remember: i don't actually care what you think of me, and i won't let your opinion of me affect my existence in any way at all.
you mean nothing to me.
at all.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, i realized earlier this evening (it's the morning, now. wow.) that my links for the month of november, 2013 are all out of sync, and i'd have to go back and correct them as best i can. i just want to post a short clarifying update about that.
what happened was that my headphones broke in the first week of november, when i was in the process of remastering inri001, the second cassette demo. i clearly remember just putting the last few tracks through the same izotope patch i'd been using, uploading inri003 without touching it and then waiting for the cord to come in - which didn't happen until early december.
so, i had a month to wait, and no way to move forward on the remaster. what i had at the time was a pair of traveling sennheisers with noise cancellation in them, which were useless for mastering.
so, i focused on the write-ups, and just uploaded everything mostly raw, focusing mostly on editing the tracks to remove simpsons samples. the actual remastering didn't happen until the first week of december, and i deleted a lot of posts when that happened, something i regret.
a few months later, i lost a hard drive and the raw data for the remastering i'd done over the previous months. as the tracks i uploaded in november were transitional, i didn't have them saved anywhere. so, they ended up entirely lost.
i'm trying to be as accurate as possible, which means i want links to the exact tracks i uploaded over the month, which were neither the originals from 1998/1999 nor the remasters i did in december. the tracks are closest to the files from 1998, which are mostly only available as bonus tracks, if they have vocals. if they're instrumentals, i should have original streams available.
so, many of the links i'm going to post for inri015 and inri021 over november are either going to be to "download only" bonus material or to actual dead links, and it has to be that way because the actual data is lost.
that flips over when i get my phones back in early december, but i didn't repost anything when i uploaded it. so, this is going to be awkward - i'll need to do a full album update, all at once on top of all of the dead links....
i want to finish updating the file before i stop to eat.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
what happened was that my headphones broke in the first week of november, when i was in the process of remastering inri001, the second cassette demo. i clearly remember just putting the last few tracks through the same izotope patch i'd been using, uploading inri003 without touching it and then waiting for the cord to come in - which didn't happen until early december.
so, i had a month to wait, and no way to move forward on the remaster. what i had at the time was a pair of traveling sennheisers with noise cancellation in them, which were useless for mastering.
so, i focused on the write-ups, and just uploaded everything mostly raw, focusing mostly on editing the tracks to remove simpsons samples. the actual remastering didn't happen until the first week of december, and i deleted a lot of posts when that happened, something i regret.
a few months later, i lost a hard drive and the raw data for the remastering i'd done over the previous months. as the tracks i uploaded in november were transitional, i didn't have them saved anywhere. so, they ended up entirely lost.
i'm trying to be as accurate as possible, which means i want links to the exact tracks i uploaded over the month, which were neither the originals from 1998/1999 nor the remasters i did in december. the tracks are closest to the files from 1998, which are mostly only available as bonus tracks, if they have vocals. if they're instrumentals, i should have original streams available.
so, many of the links i'm going to post for inri015 and inri021 over november are either going to be to "download only" bonus material or to actual dead links, and it has to be that way because the actual data is lost.
that flips over when i get my phones back in early december, but i didn't repost anything when i uploaded it. so, this is going to be awkward - i'll need to do a full album update, all at once on top of all of the dead links....
i want to finish updating the file before i stop to eat.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
he still has 11 days to respond. i've heard nothing at all, at this point.
right now, i'm planning to file on november 1st for two court orders:
1) an order to hire a plumber.
2) an order to ensure that the temperature in the unit is at least 20 degrees celsius at all times.
both landlord obligations are in the residential tenancies act.
it's an open and shut case of obvious negligence.
my aim at this time is for him to carry out his responsibilities under the law. so, i'm not going to immediately be seeking damages. it will only be if he refuses to abide by the court order that i'll be seeking compensation for his negligence.
right now, i want him to solve the problem, not for him to write me a check.
i'm hoping i can drag this out long enough to get a space in subsidized housing; the root cause of these perpetual landlord negligence problems is the fact that they're forcing disabled people to use market housing. this is what happens - complete negligence. i have to take him to court to get him to turn the heat on...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
right now, i'm planning to file on november 1st for two court orders:
1) an order to hire a plumber.
2) an order to ensure that the temperature in the unit is at least 20 degrees celsius at all times.
both landlord obligations are in the residential tenancies act.
it's an open and shut case of obvious negligence.
my aim at this time is for him to carry out his responsibilities under the law. so, i'm not going to immediately be seeking damages. it will only be if he refuses to abide by the court order that i'll be seeking compensation for his negligence.
right now, i want him to solve the problem, not for him to write me a check.
i'm hoping i can drag this out long enough to get a space in subsidized housing; the root cause of these perpetual landlord negligence problems is the fact that they're forcing disabled people to use market housing. this is what happens - complete negligence. i have to take him to court to get him to turn the heat on...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's becoming more and more clear that, while the cause of the smell is gas entering the unit from the sewer via the cleanout, and likely faulty p-traps, the thing that's actually driving the pump that sets in is temperature. i'm seeing this as the temperature comes up and down this week.
when it's a lot colder in the sewer than it is in the apartment, there would be a transfer of energy into the sewer, which would displace the air and send it up here. i suspected that earlier, but it's only becoming that much more clear as we're actually doing this experiment.
the correct answer, for now, is to turn the heat up to better dissipate the energy. and, when the heat is on, the issue actually mostly resolves itself. the thing is that it isn't 20 degrees in here - so by refusing to turn the heat on when he's obligated to, he's worsening an existing plumbing problem. and, i really have no option but to compensate by trying to find ways to put more energy into the ground, which include: running the hot water through the pipes, dumping hot water into the cleanout.
as far as i can tell, he actually hasn't come home yet.
and, i really need a plumber to tell me (him) how to stop that from happening, asap.
if he doesn't stop ignoring me soon, he's going to have a messy, expensive lawsuit on his hands.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
when it's a lot colder in the sewer than it is in the apartment, there would be a transfer of energy into the sewer, which would displace the air and send it up here. i suspected that earlier, but it's only becoming that much more clear as we're actually doing this experiment.
the correct answer, for now, is to turn the heat up to better dissipate the energy. and, when the heat is on, the issue actually mostly resolves itself. the thing is that it isn't 20 degrees in here - so by refusing to turn the heat on when he's obligated to, he's worsening an existing plumbing problem. and, i really have no option but to compensate by trying to find ways to put more energy into the ground, which include: running the hot water through the pipes, dumping hot water into the cleanout.
as far as i can tell, he actually hasn't come home yet.
and, i really need a plumber to tell me (him) how to stop that from happening, asap.
if he doesn't stop ignoring me soon, he's going to have a messy, expensive lawsuit on his hands.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Saturday, October 19, 2019
yeah, i'm in tonight. it's a combination of things - i am actually feeling a tad better (i'm at like 95%, now), but it didn't warm up quite as much as forecast, and, despite feeling a little better, i still don't really feel like smoking anything at all tonight.
i'm kind of happy in my blanket tonight, actually, and don't really want to leave it. it happens. i'm more interested in getting through 2013 - as it will be final when i do. like, that's the end of that. forever.
i wanted to start the journal off in mid-1989, as well, and was hoping i'd already be there. but, i'm going to wait until christmas before i get antsy about it. i may do the full six months at once, and start off in 1990. or, i may get a journal for christmas and reflect back a little, just starting fresh in 1990.
i don't think i can put aside the time to live full time in my 9 year old self, so i think i'm looking at infrequent alter-reality updates for a bit, anyways. i will need to plan this out by looking at things like release dates, and trying to figure out specific life events. christmas...
i could be done november by monday, anyways. really.
for right now, the update is that the master document is entirely synced and finished. and ready to cut up. it's 350 pages, smaller than the last few, and will shrink even more because a lot of it is email relics. there's 70 html files to deal with, but i think this is the last month like that for a good while.
i also wanted to get january, 2014 done before i fire up the music pc, so let's hope i can get through this by the end of the week.
and, if i'm in for most of the winter, let's hope 2-3 days turnover time is realistic for most months. can i get to the end of 2017 by christmas?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm kind of happy in my blanket tonight, actually, and don't really want to leave it. it happens. i'm more interested in getting through 2013 - as it will be final when i do. like, that's the end of that. forever.
i wanted to start the journal off in mid-1989, as well, and was hoping i'd already be there. but, i'm going to wait until christmas before i get antsy about it. i may do the full six months at once, and start off in 1990. or, i may get a journal for christmas and reflect back a little, just starting fresh in 1990.
i don't think i can put aside the time to live full time in my 9 year old self, so i think i'm looking at infrequent alter-reality updates for a bit, anyways. i will need to plan this out by looking at things like release dates, and trying to figure out specific life events. christmas...
i could be done november by monday, anyways. really.
for right now, the update is that the master document is entirely synced and finished. and ready to cut up. it's 350 pages, smaller than the last few, and will shrink even more because a lot of it is email relics. there's 70 html files to deal with, but i think this is the last month like that for a good while.
i also wanted to get january, 2014 done before i fire up the music pc, so let's hope i can get through this by the end of the week.
and, if i'm in for most of the winter, let's hope 2-3 days turnover time is realistic for most months. can i get to the end of 2017 by christmas?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
byzantine history is really truly surreal and fascinating and horrible, all at the same time. any would be prince, or dauphin, should be far more well-versed in it's intricacies than i am.
i think the best way to describe it is like something out of star trek, when you periodically had kirk and the gang run into these creatures that were so far ahead of them that the humans couldn't even recognize the truth as it was. the byzantines existed past the initial fall of rome, all the way through the dark ages and into the beginning of the renaissance, although they were drastically reduced by the time the latter started. there is even a theory - backed up by evidence in the form of migration - that a substantive underpinning of the renaissance, as it existed in rome itself, was a consequence of the collapse of constantinople as a major power. but, i digress.
the period we call rome "byzantium" is pretty much exactly the period where the remnants of roman and greek civilization were defending themselves against a multi-directional onslaught from the barbarian world, a process that took a thousand years for the romans to finally lose. and, in that period, the theme that constantly reinforces itself is just how much more advanced the romans really were. if we had a modern concept of species at the time, we may have been tempted to label the romans superhuman in intellect, at that junction. there really was a substantive difference, then.
so, the thing that comes up over and over again is these roman generals that just effortlessly treat these barbarians in their complicated configurations as figures on a risk board. if you look at maps from the period, it restricts the roman empire, proper, as greece, turkey, the balkans and (usually) southern italy, but the actual reality is that they were the hegemonic power all the way around the black sea, and they had the ability to project power all the way over the steppes, and far into central asia. the generals in constantinople no doubt had a better understanding of the intricacies of the tribal allegiances in the steppes than the tribes in the steppes did, themselves. i mean, they kept histories, to start with - the barbarians didn't. the difference between understanding reality in segments of centuries or millennia, or understanding it in segments of decades (at most), is pretty daunting in managing the world.
this wasn't without consequence. by the end, the barbarians saw the imperial throne with contempt, and spoke of little more than treachery in the context of alliances - in the end, nobody trusted the emperor or his generals anymore. but, that was a process that took centuries, and there wouldn't have been an empire to defend had these manipulations not run their course.
i tend to have little patience for people that want to understand history through a lens of morality, and i actually find it scary to hear people talk about geopolitics in these moralistic terms. if the byzantines had stuck with their allies without reference to changing facts on the ground, they would have been raped and slaughtered in no time.
america likes to pretend it has a history in roman civilization, but it constantly demonstrates that it doesn't understand the subtleties of it. moscow is the true third rome, not washington. and, we should let the empire govern.
if america seeks to be the empire, it needs to throw it's bible away and read more machiavelli.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i think the best way to describe it is like something out of star trek, when you periodically had kirk and the gang run into these creatures that were so far ahead of them that the humans couldn't even recognize the truth as it was. the byzantines existed past the initial fall of rome, all the way through the dark ages and into the beginning of the renaissance, although they were drastically reduced by the time the latter started. there is even a theory - backed up by evidence in the form of migration - that a substantive underpinning of the renaissance, as it existed in rome itself, was a consequence of the collapse of constantinople as a major power. but, i digress.
the period we call rome "byzantium" is pretty much exactly the period where the remnants of roman and greek civilization were defending themselves against a multi-directional onslaught from the barbarian world, a process that took a thousand years for the romans to finally lose. and, in that period, the theme that constantly reinforces itself is just how much more advanced the romans really were. if we had a modern concept of species at the time, we may have been tempted to label the romans superhuman in intellect, at that junction. there really was a substantive difference, then.
so, the thing that comes up over and over again is these roman generals that just effortlessly treat these barbarians in their complicated configurations as figures on a risk board. if you look at maps from the period, it restricts the roman empire, proper, as greece, turkey, the balkans and (usually) southern italy, but the actual reality is that they were the hegemonic power all the way around the black sea, and they had the ability to project power all the way over the steppes, and far into central asia. the generals in constantinople no doubt had a better understanding of the intricacies of the tribal allegiances in the steppes than the tribes in the steppes did, themselves. i mean, they kept histories, to start with - the barbarians didn't. the difference between understanding reality in segments of centuries or millennia, or understanding it in segments of decades (at most), is pretty daunting in managing the world.
this wasn't without consequence. by the end, the barbarians saw the imperial throne with contempt, and spoke of little more than treachery in the context of alliances - in the end, nobody trusted the emperor or his generals anymore. but, that was a process that took centuries, and there wouldn't have been an empire to defend had these manipulations not run their course.
i tend to have little patience for people that want to understand history through a lens of morality, and i actually find it scary to hear people talk about geopolitics in these moralistic terms. if the byzantines had stuck with their allies without reference to changing facts on the ground, they would have been raped and slaughtered in no time.
america likes to pretend it has a history in roman civilization, but it constantly demonstrates that it doesn't understand the subtleties of it. moscow is the true third rome, not washington. and, we should let the empire govern.
if america seeks to be the empire, it needs to throw it's bible away and read more machiavelli.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
stop.
why do we have public education?
why do we spend all of this money and expend all of these resources on this?
surely, it's primarily because we understand the importance of an informed populace for the maintenance of democracy, right?
or, at least, we used to, anyways.
nowadays, we seem to be content with the premise that people are too stupid for democracy to work, and they need to be brainwashed in order to be told what to do. and, if we hold to this mentality, if we continue to refuse to educate our kids, we will have a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it is at least true that a society that can't work out what is true and what isn't cannot be a democratic one.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
why do we have public education?
why do we spend all of this money and expend all of these resources on this?
surely, it's primarily because we understand the importance of an informed populace for the maintenance of democracy, right?
or, at least, we used to, anyways.
nowadays, we seem to be content with the premise that people are too stupid for democracy to work, and they need to be brainwashed in order to be told what to do. and, if we hold to this mentality, if we continue to refuse to educate our kids, we will have a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it is at least true that a society that can't work out what is true and what isn't cannot be a democratic one.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
actually, there is something we can do about it - we can educate our kids to be smart enough to know how to process information intelligently.
this kind of thing shouldn't work on an educated and informed populace. and, this is the actual question we need to ask here: how did we let our education system devolve to the state where people can't figure this out?
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2019/10/18/theres-little-canada-can-do-to-stop-the-flow-of-false-viral-stories-from-buffalo-website.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
this kind of thing shouldn't work on an educated and informed populace. and, this is the actual question we need to ask here: how did we let our education system devolve to the state where people can't figure this out?
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2019/10/18/theres-little-canada-can-do-to-stop-the-flow-of-false-viral-stories-from-buffalo-website.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you think i'm being facetious?
so, for a while the late romans had these bulgars, initially a turkic tribe, sitting on their border, who were a threat to their well-being. unruly bulgarian barbarians could interrupt trade routes, or even threaten civilians around the danube. but, there were always barbarians in this region, and the romans learned that you have to just fucking deal with it.
so, what they did was study the tribal configurations and try to find ways to divide and conquer the barbarians, so they would fight against each other, instead. and, they learned a valuable lesson - there was a powerful nation to the north of the bulgars, namely the rus, that could be brought into imperial service.
so, this is what they did, for hundreds of years - whenever the bulgars got restless, they'd send money to the rus, who would threaten the bulgars from the north. this drew them away from the danube, thereby securing the roman areas.
in the mean time, they would send emissaries to the bulgar areas in an attempt to civilize them. and, over time, the bulgars would be romanicized, christianized and even slavicized, which brought them into the empire. yet, as had happened for centuries, they were merely replaced by a new barbarian threat, the moment they were assimilated. so it goes.
this barbarian management strategy is actually what led to the alliance between the rus and the romans, which is arguably still the dominant geopolitical reality in the region, today.
trump is an idiot, we'll agree on that point. but, be careful who you're calling ignorant. you might see that backfire.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, for a while the late romans had these bulgars, initially a turkic tribe, sitting on their border, who were a threat to their well-being. unruly bulgarian barbarians could interrupt trade routes, or even threaten civilians around the danube. but, there were always barbarians in this region, and the romans learned that you have to just fucking deal with it.
so, what they did was study the tribal configurations and try to find ways to divide and conquer the barbarians, so they would fight against each other, instead. and, they learned a valuable lesson - there was a powerful nation to the north of the bulgars, namely the rus, that could be brought into imperial service.
so, this is what they did, for hundreds of years - whenever the bulgars got restless, they'd send money to the rus, who would threaten the bulgars from the north. this drew them away from the danube, thereby securing the roman areas.
in the mean time, they would send emissaries to the bulgar areas in an attempt to civilize them. and, over time, the bulgars would be romanicized, christianized and even slavicized, which brought them into the empire. yet, as had happened for centuries, they were merely replaced by a new barbarian threat, the moment they were assimilated. so it goes.
this barbarian management strategy is actually what led to the alliance between the rus and the romans, which is arguably still the dominant geopolitical reality in the region, today.
trump is an idiot, we'll agree on that point. but, be careful who you're calling ignorant. you might see that backfire.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the romans referred to this kind of thing as "barbarian management".
there's a very long history of it and a very rich literature around it.
and, it's a necessary part of running an empire - there are going to be irrational barbarians that you have to deal with.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there's a very long history of it and a very rich literature around it.
and, it's a necessary part of running an empire - there are going to be irrational barbarians that you have to deal with.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Friday, October 18, 2019
i want to post some comments about syria, though.
it's clear at this point that if trump ever understood what he's doing then he already forgot. the premise that the turks are going to slaughter civilians by the thousands is not real, and the kurds are clearly not going to leave on their own. so, i don't know how you make sense of trump's analysis of his own behaviour. but, that's pretty normal - he's often incoherent, and he often contradicts himself in the same sentence.
a part of my position on this matter from the start is that the kurds need to pick better friends. they shouldn't have expected perpetual protection from the hegemon; that was not realistic, regardless of who is president, in the long run. this was not if, but when.
but, everybody else in the region - the russians, the turks, the syrians, the iranians, the saudis - have a much clearer understanding of what happens next. so, even if the truth is that trump got tricked into this, by who we don't know, he still made the right choice, by accident.
how is this supposed to work? well, we saw a preview of it a while back. the goal, here, is syrian territorial integrity, in the end, which requires pushing the kurds out - the war can't end until the kurds go home. they don't want to leave, though. so, how do you get them out?
1) the turks threaten to bomb them. if they just threaten them, and they're rational, that should be enough to get them to leave - they should know they can't win and give up. unfortunately, the kurds have demonstrated repeatedly that they're not rational actors, that they think they can beat the odds through manifest destiny or whatever other ridiculous thing, and you can't manipulate them through incentives or game theory like that. they don't seem to have that department in their military, unlike all the state actors involved.
2) so, if you can't treat the kurds rationally, if you have to bomb them to get them to move, what you do next is offer the syrians up as protectors. the western media is presenting this as some kind of catastrophe, but it's exactly what the plan should have been from the start. by integrating the kurds back into assad's forces, and maybe you even have them fight a few battles together, you reconstruct a concept of syrian nationality in the kurdish rebels. by fighting side by side, they once again become brothers.
3) the turks have to play along, here, in order to get this to work. yes, they have to blow up a few cities, kill a few civilians. c'est la guerre. it's not like a lot of people haven't already died, here, or the united states isn't already responsible for truly outrageous levels of carnage. but, they're not there to massacre civilians. err, i mean - tell that to the kurds, sure, let them believe that. the turks want to slaughter you like it's 1915, kurds. boo! it's not real, though - the turks know what will happen if they do that. and, what is the evidence? i think the death toll is a few dozen civilians, at this point. i'm sorry to call them collateral, but they won't leave. they won't act rationally. it is, in many ways, their own fault.
4) then, once the syrians have reestablished themselves as the dominant and rightful force in the region, the turks pull back - as they intended to from the start.
so, what is this about?
it's about scaring the kurds back into assad's arms.
and, i know that the saudis and their muppets in washington hate that, but it's the responsible way to get this done and over with.
if trump understood what he did, that's what he'd be saying, right now.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's clear at this point that if trump ever understood what he's doing then he already forgot. the premise that the turks are going to slaughter civilians by the thousands is not real, and the kurds are clearly not going to leave on their own. so, i don't know how you make sense of trump's analysis of his own behaviour. but, that's pretty normal - he's often incoherent, and he often contradicts himself in the same sentence.
a part of my position on this matter from the start is that the kurds need to pick better friends. they shouldn't have expected perpetual protection from the hegemon; that was not realistic, regardless of who is president, in the long run. this was not if, but when.
but, everybody else in the region - the russians, the turks, the syrians, the iranians, the saudis - have a much clearer understanding of what happens next. so, even if the truth is that trump got tricked into this, by who we don't know, he still made the right choice, by accident.
how is this supposed to work? well, we saw a preview of it a while back. the goal, here, is syrian territorial integrity, in the end, which requires pushing the kurds out - the war can't end until the kurds go home. they don't want to leave, though. so, how do you get them out?
1) the turks threaten to bomb them. if they just threaten them, and they're rational, that should be enough to get them to leave - they should know they can't win and give up. unfortunately, the kurds have demonstrated repeatedly that they're not rational actors, that they think they can beat the odds through manifest destiny or whatever other ridiculous thing, and you can't manipulate them through incentives or game theory like that. they don't seem to have that department in their military, unlike all the state actors involved.
2) so, if you can't treat the kurds rationally, if you have to bomb them to get them to move, what you do next is offer the syrians up as protectors. the western media is presenting this as some kind of catastrophe, but it's exactly what the plan should have been from the start. by integrating the kurds back into assad's forces, and maybe you even have them fight a few battles together, you reconstruct a concept of syrian nationality in the kurdish rebels. by fighting side by side, they once again become brothers.
3) the turks have to play along, here, in order to get this to work. yes, they have to blow up a few cities, kill a few civilians. c'est la guerre. it's not like a lot of people haven't already died, here, or the united states isn't already responsible for truly outrageous levels of carnage. but, they're not there to massacre civilians. err, i mean - tell that to the kurds, sure, let them believe that. the turks want to slaughter you like it's 1915, kurds. boo! it's not real, though - the turks know what will happen if they do that. and, what is the evidence? i think the death toll is a few dozen civilians, at this point. i'm sorry to call them collateral, but they won't leave. they won't act rationally. it is, in many ways, their own fault.
4) then, once the syrians have reestablished themselves as the dominant and rightful force in the region, the turks pull back - as they intended to from the start.
so, what is this about?
it's about scaring the kurds back into assad's arms.
and, i know that the saudis and their muppets in washington hate that, but it's the responsible way to get this done and over with.
if trump understood what he did, that's what he'd be saying, right now.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
me?
i don't give a fuck if you're so goddamned stupid that you actually think i'm a racist.
i know i'm not, and i know people that know me know i'm not, so why the fuck would i care what you think?
i want you to think that i'm honest. that's what i want.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i don't give a fuck if you're so goddamned stupid that you actually think i'm a racist.
i know i'm not, and i know people that know me know i'm not, so why the fuck would i care what you think?
i want you to think that i'm honest. that's what i want.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, i'll remind you that these were the bc numbers in 2015:
liberals -35%
conservatives - 30%
ndp - 26%
"surging" from 14 to 23 at the last minute isn't much of a win, when you're still down 2-3 points - that's still going to lose you some seats.
that is, if it's happening at all - if the truth isn't just that people don't want you to think they're racist.
the liberals ar5e supposed to do better than this
liberals -35%
conservatives - 30%
ndp - 26%
"surging" from 14 to 23 at the last minute isn't much of a win, when you're still down 2-3 points - that's still going to lose you some seats.
that is, if it's happening at all - if the truth isn't just that people don't want you to think they're racist.
the liberals ar5e supposed to do better than this
see, even this goofy online propaganda says the same thing.
all logic suggests that if the ndp are experiencing growth, it should be at the expense of the liberals, in some combination - in conjunction with undecideds and greens perhaps, and conservatives if it's strong, but there should be some swing, there.
but, the liberals are actually up.
there's a big swing from the undecideds, and a small swing from the conservatives and from the greens. who are the liberals pulling from, then?
i'm actually not surprised about the numbers in bc - i expected them to hold some seats there, unless the greens really picked up momentum, and they haven't. i've made this point explicitly; the spectrum is different in bc, and the ndp are broadly seen differently, there. they might even have a base there, which they don't even have in saskatchewan any more.
but, even this looks phony.
i think they're going to be disappointed, in the end.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
all logic suggests that if the ndp are experiencing growth, it should be at the expense of the liberals, in some combination - in conjunction with undecideds and greens perhaps, and conservatives if it's strong, but there should be some swing, there.
but, the liberals are actually up.
there's a big swing from the undecideds, and a small swing from the conservatives and from the greens. who are the liberals pulling from, then?
i'm actually not surprised about the numbers in bc - i expected them to hold some seats there, unless the greens really picked up momentum, and they haven't. i've made this point explicitly; the spectrum is different in bc, and the ndp are broadly seen differently, there. they might even have a base there, which they don't even have in saskatchewan any more.
but, even this looks phony.
i think they're going to be disappointed, in the end.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if i don't get a sufficient response on the plumbing, the case i file is going to focus on the heat, as well.
the law says that the heat needs to be above 20 degrees celsius. that's not an opinion - that's the law. i'd rather it was closer to 25; i would have the heat on until june, and turn it on in september. so, i need to get a thermometer down here and start documenting it...
if i get a rational response on the plumbing, i'll overlook it, as i have been for some time. but, i'm not going to hold back, if i have to file - i'm going to throw the book at him, all at once.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the law says that the heat needs to be above 20 degrees celsius. that's not an opinion - that's the law. i'd rather it was closer to 25; i would have the heat on until june, and turn it on in september. so, i need to get a thermometer down here and start documenting it...
if i get a rational response on the plumbing, i'll overlook it, as i have been for some time. but, i'm not going to hold back, if i have to file - i'm going to throw the book at him, all at once.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i had to lie down for a few hours (i didn't actually sleep. but i was so exhausted i couldn't move, for some reason that might be related to the air quality. i don't know...), but the first run through the master document is in fact now done.
it's very cold in here. and, i didn't get a chance to seriously address the drain. so, i'm going to need to deal with laundry and stuff, get something to eat and then presumably actually sleep.
i should get a second pass in soon enough, and then i'll get to start posting to pretty soon. again: there's not plot this month, it's almost entirely blogging and music. which is what i wanted....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's very cold in here. and, i didn't get a chance to seriously address the drain. so, i'm going to need to deal with laundry and stuff, get something to eat and then presumably actually sleep.
i should get a second pass in soon enough, and then i'll get to start posting to pretty soon. again: there's not plot this month, it's almost entirely blogging and music. which is what i wanted....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
also, the sewers are acting up again...
and, yes, i can tell the difference between a sewer gas and a gas leak. the sewer gas comes out of the cleanout. the gas leak comes out of the heater. given that they're on opposite sides of the closet, it's not hard to figure out, so long as you stay on top of it, which i have.
so, we're going to have to dump another 50L or so down there before i get to bed..
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, yes, i can tell the difference between a sewer gas and a gas leak. the sewer gas comes out of the cleanout. the gas leak comes out of the heater. given that they're on opposite sides of the closet, it's not hard to figure out, so long as you stay on top of it, which i have.
so, we're going to have to dump another 50L or so down there before i get to bed..
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
yeah, i'm putting the chances of going out tomorrow at roughly 10%.
the actual reason is that my throat is still a little raw. i never really made it up past 90% health - i may have gotten a little worse a few days ago, and then kind of flatlined around it. i'm certainly feeling relatively healthy and everything, but maybe bicycling across detroit in 15 degree weather (and back in 10 degree weather) isn't the best idea right now.
i'll see how i feel tomorrow.
it's also going to depend on if i can actually patch that tire or not, and i don't want to look at it until i wake up, which should be in the morning.
this master document tends to misbehave fairly predictably. the computer flat out crashed last night when i was sleeping; i don't seem to have lost anything, but i don't see any good reason for the crash, either. and, the document froze on me this afternoon, making me start over on the time consuming web page section, after i was half done.
i'm half done again and have it saved, at least. but it should be done by now. alas...
i was hoping for before noon; it looks like before i crash makes more sense. and, if i'm in, i should get most of it done with by the time i leave the house again next, which would be monday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the actual reason is that my throat is still a little raw. i never really made it up past 90% health - i may have gotten a little worse a few days ago, and then kind of flatlined around it. i'm certainly feeling relatively healthy and everything, but maybe bicycling across detroit in 15 degree weather (and back in 10 degree weather) isn't the best idea right now.
i'll see how i feel tomorrow.
it's also going to depend on if i can actually patch that tire or not, and i don't want to look at it until i wake up, which should be in the morning.
this master document tends to misbehave fairly predictably. the computer flat out crashed last night when i was sleeping; i don't seem to have lost anything, but i don't see any good reason for the crash, either. and, the document froze on me this afternoon, making me start over on the time consuming web page section, after i was half done.
i'm half done again and have it saved, at least. but it should be done by now. alas...
i was hoping for before noon; it looks like before i crash makes more sense. and, if i'm in, i should get most of it done with by the time i leave the house again next, which would be monday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
what are the eight seats that the ndp have in ontario, and how safe are they?
- three in windsor
- one in london
- two in hamilton
- two in the north (one of them is sort of sudbury, the other is an "unsettled" or largely indigenous area)
the federal ndp do not currently have any seats in ottawa or toronto.
in years past, hamilton was "safe" for the ndp. but, trudeau won seats here in 2015, and it's an overwhelmingly white union town. when the numbers were hovering around 10%, this was vulnerable. at 15-16%, they could maybe hold on - but if they dip any lower than that, don't be surprised if the liberals win these seats.
the london seat is vulnerable, as it's a three-way race. the sudbury seat is vulnerable, as the liberals do well here - it's more like rural quebec than rural ontario.
the ndp has, in recent decades, done very well in the northern areas - northern quebec, northern ontario, northern manitoba, northern saskatchewan and northern bc, too. the ndp will probably hold this. if anything is safe, it's this.
what's left is windsor, and the riding i'm in is not safe, because there's a very strong challenger. the riding to the south of here actually usually leans conservative. and the riding i used to be in is actually a bit more wealthy, and arguably more vulnerable than the one i'm in. it has voted liberal in the past...
again: if the numbers are trending up, these are the places they're trending in, and there's reason to think they'll hold them. but, if there's actually a bradley effect at play, and those numbers we saw last month were more accurate, there's not really any compelling evidence to think they can hold any of these seats, except that one in the far north.
they don't really have a base of voters in this province.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
- three in windsor
- one in london
- two in hamilton
- two in the north (one of them is sort of sudbury, the other is an "unsettled" or largely indigenous area)
the federal ndp do not currently have any seats in ottawa or toronto.
in years past, hamilton was "safe" for the ndp. but, trudeau won seats here in 2015, and it's an overwhelmingly white union town. when the numbers were hovering around 10%, this was vulnerable. at 15-16%, they could maybe hold on - but if they dip any lower than that, don't be surprised if the liberals win these seats.
the london seat is vulnerable, as it's a three-way race. the sudbury seat is vulnerable, as the liberals do well here - it's more like rural quebec than rural ontario.
the ndp has, in recent decades, done very well in the northern areas - northern quebec, northern ontario, northern manitoba, northern saskatchewan and northern bc, too. the ndp will probably hold this. if anything is safe, it's this.
what's left is windsor, and the riding i'm in is not safe, because there's a very strong challenger. the riding to the south of here actually usually leans conservative. and the riding i used to be in is actually a bit more wealthy, and arguably more vulnerable than the one i'm in. it has voted liberal in the past...
again: if the numbers are trending up, these are the places they're trending in, and there's reason to think they'll hold them. but, if there's actually a bradley effect at play, and those numbers we saw last month were more accurate, there's not really any compelling evidence to think they can hold any of these seats, except that one in the far north.
they don't really have a base of voters in this province.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
what are the fifteen seats the liberals can win in the west?
- about seven-ten seats around vancouver
- ralph
- about five-seven seats around winnipeg
what are the fifteen seats the ndp can win?
- a few in manitoba
- a few in saskatchewan
- probably not that one in edmonton
- the ndp have historically won seats in both urban and rural brtish columbia. there's likely at least ten there for them, if they're still running over 20%.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
- about seven-ten seats around vancouver
- ralph
- about five-seven seats around winnipeg
what are the fifteen seats the ndp can win?
- a few in manitoba
- a few in saskatchewan
- probably not that one in edmonton
- the ndp have historically won seats in both urban and rural brtish columbia. there's likely at least ten there for them, if they're still running over 20%.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i think i'm ready to make a final forecast. i'll let you know if this changes.
these are nik's numbers for yesterday:
conservative - 28.8
liberals - 28.7
ndp 17.3
greens - 8.6
bloc - 5.6
people's - 1.6
lost - 0.4
undecided - 9.0
over the last week, the liberals and conservatives have been more or less flat, while the undecideds have moved to the ndp.
i think this is a bradley effect. but, i suspect a lot of these voters are also a little younger and unlikely to actually vote. so, i'm going to to split the difference, and readjust:
conservative - 28.8
liberals - 28.7
ndp 15.0
greens - 8.6
bloc - 5.6
people's - 1.6
lost - 0.4
undecided - 11.3
this is where turnout matters, and i where i introduce jessica's theorem, aka the fundamental principle of canadian elections: the conservatives do terrible with undecided voters. they get maybe 20% of them. the greens also tend to underperform, and while it looked otherwise earlier, it doesn't look that way anymore. let's get them 5%. i'm also just going to give the bloc an extra 1% and the ppc an extra 0.475% and leave it at that.
that leaves 7% to distribute between the liberals and the ndp, and the results of the election will depend on how that works.
as mentioned, i think there is a bradley effect, but i'm actually going to point more to the liberal ground game. i've yet to see an election where it works out the other way, at least. so, i'm going to give the liberals 5% of this and the ndp the rest.
lib - 33.7 %
con - 31.1 %
ndp - 17.0 %
greens - 9.2%
bloc - 6.6 %
ppc - 2.1 %
those numbers are not that strange. but, you need to look regionally to understand the results.
the ndp and conservatives are outperforming their average in the west, and underperforming it in the east; the liberals, the opposite. so, i'm going to split the country in half. there are 104 seats in the west, and 231 seats in the east. there are also 3 seats in the north.
in the west, including bc, the conservatives seem likely to win by large margins, while the ndp and liberals fight it out for second place. in 2015, the totals in the west were as follows:
liberals - 29
conservatives - 54
ndp - 20
greens - 1
at current numbers, ignoring any bradley effect, the ndp may be able to keep their existing seats if the decrease in liberal support does not benefit the conservatives too much, and the increase in green support does not affect them too negatively. i think this is all too optimistic for the ndp. rather, we're going to take them down by a few seats. it does not, however, appear as though the greens are likely to make a breakthrough, after all. rather, i would expect the conservatives to gain a number of seats from the liberals in the west, and the outcome will look something like:
liberals - 15
conservatives - 70
ndp - 15
greens - 4
defeating the liberals will be pyrrhic for the anti-pipeline forces in bc, but the question really remains open: does the federal ndp even oppose the pipeline in the first place? the greens are your best bet here, in the long run. but, i'm not voting for them on monday, either - i get it.
in the east, the 2015 totals were rather different:
liberals - 152
conservatives - 45
ndp - 24
bloc - 10
greens - 0
at current numbers, the ndp are likely to lose all of their 16 seats in quebec (where they are down at least 15 points) and some, but not all, of their seats in ontario (where they are roughly flat). it would not appear as though they will gain seats in ontario, anyways; how many they lose would appear to rely on the strength of the presumed bradley effect. i see little evidence that they're going to pick up seats in the east. that will leave them with around 5 seats, at best.
the liberals are also roughly flat in ontario, but the conservatives are down dramatically, at the apparent benefit of the greens. this combination - ndp & liberals flat, conservatives down, greens up - is just about the best outcome that the liberals could possibly ask for. they may only steal a seat or two from the ndp in ontario, but they should steal 25+ from the conservatives, and in areas that are usually conservative locks, too.
expect something like this in ontario:
liberals - 110
conservatives - 6
ndp - 5
in 2015, quebec was a complicated four-way race that was difficult to call, resulting in split races with weird results. with the retreat of the ndp (mostly to the benefit of the bloc), you should see something more predictable in this election: the bloc should sweep the rural areas, while the liberals sweep montreal, gatineau and the south shore urban spaces and the conservatives nab a few seats in quebec city. that means you should expect the conservatives to lose a few seats, actually - and that the liberals may be able to hold steady, if they're lucky. but, the bloc will be the big winners here.
i do want to temper this slightly, though. i haven't seen a poll with the bloc above 30%, yet. they used to poll way, way higher than that in the duceppe years, and it does open up a few questions - is there enough lingering ndp support to help the liberals on the split? how may seats can they actually win with 30%?
i'm going to suggest the following in quebec:
liberals - 40
bloc - 30
conservatives - 8
ndp - 0
in 2015, the liberals won all 32 eastern seats, and ran over 50% in all four provinces. nobody predicted that. they have nowhere to go but down, but they are still leading the region by a good margin in all of the polling that i've seen. the greens may beat the ndp in this region, but they are taking support from the ndp itself, and i don't see any evidence that they'll actually win anywhere. that said, the east is likely to actually like elizabeth may for who she is, so some space for an upset should be accounted for.
that said, i think the reality is that the conservatives are not actually running much higher here than they were in 2015, and that the movement on the left is largely to be mostly inconsequential. it would be very unlikely for the liberals to sweep the region a second time, but nobody else is really stepping up, either.
something like the following is likely:
liberals - 27
conservatives - 5
ndp - 0
greens - 0
that adds up to a big win for the liberals in the east:
liberals - 177
bloc- 30
conservative - 19
ndp - 5
yeah. ontario...
there's three seats in the north, and they usually vote liberal.
so, here's my prediction:
liberals - 195
conservatives - 89
bloc - 30
ndp - 20
greens - 4
that would be a liberal majority.
what are some issues to draw attention to?
as mentioned, the greens are a wild card out east, but they're also a wild card in rural ontario. if they underperform in ontario, you could see the conservatives lose a few less seats; if they overperform, they could lose a few more. likewise, the greens could produce some confusing results in the east, but i'm not predicting it.
there's some possibility that the ndp could overperform these results in bc, as well, but we're talking a few seats, and i would consider that error.
in 2015, i tallied up 169 seats for the liberals - one seat short of a majority. so, my prediction was a strong liberal minority or a weak liberal majority (subject to error). most of the models actually predicted a harper minority, although some of the smarter kids clued in at the very end - but nobody that i know of predicted a liberal majority, except one forum poll released a few hours before the vote. the reason they got it right was because they picked up a last minute mass movement to the liberals in quebec, specifically. and, that was my error - i was suggesting a stronger showing by the bloc. i overestimated the bloc tally by 15 seats - the amount the liberals were short by. i was also dead-on with my conservative numbers.
if i'm wrong in 2019, it will likely be an overestimate by the liberals of roughly the same amount, and probably in ontario. but, 195 seats is actually a fairly comfortable majority, and i can eat that and still get the outcome right.
so, that's my prediction: a weak or comfortable liberal majority, but a liberal majority, nonetheless.
the liberals are still supposed to do better than this
these are nik's numbers for yesterday:
conservative - 28.8
liberals - 28.7
ndp 17.3
greens - 8.6
bloc - 5.6
people's - 1.6
lost - 0.4
undecided - 9.0
over the last week, the liberals and conservatives have been more or less flat, while the undecideds have moved to the ndp.
i think this is a bradley effect. but, i suspect a lot of these voters are also a little younger and unlikely to actually vote. so, i'm going to to split the difference, and readjust:
conservative - 28.8
liberals - 28.7
ndp 15.0
greens - 8.6
bloc - 5.6
people's - 1.6
lost - 0.4
undecided - 11.3
this is where turnout matters, and i where i introduce jessica's theorem, aka the fundamental principle of canadian elections: the conservatives do terrible with undecided voters. they get maybe 20% of them. the greens also tend to underperform, and while it looked otherwise earlier, it doesn't look that way anymore. let's get them 5%. i'm also just going to give the bloc an extra 1% and the ppc an extra 0.475% and leave it at that.
that leaves 7% to distribute between the liberals and the ndp, and the results of the election will depend on how that works.
as mentioned, i think there is a bradley effect, but i'm actually going to point more to the liberal ground game. i've yet to see an election where it works out the other way, at least. so, i'm going to give the liberals 5% of this and the ndp the rest.
lib - 33.7 %
con - 31.1 %
ndp - 17.0 %
greens - 9.2%
bloc - 6.6 %
ppc - 2.1 %
those numbers are not that strange. but, you need to look regionally to understand the results.
the ndp and conservatives are outperforming their average in the west, and underperforming it in the east; the liberals, the opposite. so, i'm going to split the country in half. there are 104 seats in the west, and 231 seats in the east. there are also 3 seats in the north.
in the west, including bc, the conservatives seem likely to win by large margins, while the ndp and liberals fight it out for second place. in 2015, the totals in the west were as follows:
liberals - 29
conservatives - 54
ndp - 20
greens - 1
at current numbers, ignoring any bradley effect, the ndp may be able to keep their existing seats if the decrease in liberal support does not benefit the conservatives too much, and the increase in green support does not affect them too negatively. i think this is all too optimistic for the ndp. rather, we're going to take them down by a few seats. it does not, however, appear as though the greens are likely to make a breakthrough, after all. rather, i would expect the conservatives to gain a number of seats from the liberals in the west, and the outcome will look something like:
liberals - 15
conservatives - 70
ndp - 15
greens - 4
defeating the liberals will be pyrrhic for the anti-pipeline forces in bc, but the question really remains open: does the federal ndp even oppose the pipeline in the first place? the greens are your best bet here, in the long run. but, i'm not voting for them on monday, either - i get it.
in the east, the 2015 totals were rather different:
liberals - 152
conservatives - 45
ndp - 24
bloc - 10
greens - 0
at current numbers, the ndp are likely to lose all of their 16 seats in quebec (where they are down at least 15 points) and some, but not all, of their seats in ontario (where they are roughly flat). it would not appear as though they will gain seats in ontario, anyways; how many they lose would appear to rely on the strength of the presumed bradley effect. i see little evidence that they're going to pick up seats in the east. that will leave them with around 5 seats, at best.
the liberals are also roughly flat in ontario, but the conservatives are down dramatically, at the apparent benefit of the greens. this combination - ndp & liberals flat, conservatives down, greens up - is just about the best outcome that the liberals could possibly ask for. they may only steal a seat or two from the ndp in ontario, but they should steal 25+ from the conservatives, and in areas that are usually conservative locks, too.
expect something like this in ontario:
liberals - 110
conservatives - 6
ndp - 5
in 2015, quebec was a complicated four-way race that was difficult to call, resulting in split races with weird results. with the retreat of the ndp (mostly to the benefit of the bloc), you should see something more predictable in this election: the bloc should sweep the rural areas, while the liberals sweep montreal, gatineau and the south shore urban spaces and the conservatives nab a few seats in quebec city. that means you should expect the conservatives to lose a few seats, actually - and that the liberals may be able to hold steady, if they're lucky. but, the bloc will be the big winners here.
i do want to temper this slightly, though. i haven't seen a poll with the bloc above 30%, yet. they used to poll way, way higher than that in the duceppe years, and it does open up a few questions - is there enough lingering ndp support to help the liberals on the split? how may seats can they actually win with 30%?
i'm going to suggest the following in quebec:
liberals - 40
bloc - 30
conservatives - 8
ndp - 0
in 2015, the liberals won all 32 eastern seats, and ran over 50% in all four provinces. nobody predicted that. they have nowhere to go but down, but they are still leading the region by a good margin in all of the polling that i've seen. the greens may beat the ndp in this region, but they are taking support from the ndp itself, and i don't see any evidence that they'll actually win anywhere. that said, the east is likely to actually like elizabeth may for who she is, so some space for an upset should be accounted for.
that said, i think the reality is that the conservatives are not actually running much higher here than they were in 2015, and that the movement on the left is largely to be mostly inconsequential. it would be very unlikely for the liberals to sweep the region a second time, but nobody else is really stepping up, either.
something like the following is likely:
liberals - 27
conservatives - 5
ndp - 0
greens - 0
that adds up to a big win for the liberals in the east:
liberals - 177
bloc- 30
conservative - 19
ndp - 5
yeah. ontario...
there's three seats in the north, and they usually vote liberal.
so, here's my prediction:
liberals - 195
conservatives - 89
bloc - 30
ndp - 20
greens - 4
that would be a liberal majority.
what are some issues to draw attention to?
as mentioned, the greens are a wild card out east, but they're also a wild card in rural ontario. if they underperform in ontario, you could see the conservatives lose a few less seats; if they overperform, they could lose a few more. likewise, the greens could produce some confusing results in the east, but i'm not predicting it.
there's some possibility that the ndp could overperform these results in bc, as well, but we're talking a few seats, and i would consider that error.
in 2015, i tallied up 169 seats for the liberals - one seat short of a majority. so, my prediction was a strong liberal minority or a weak liberal majority (subject to error). most of the models actually predicted a harper minority, although some of the smarter kids clued in at the very end - but nobody that i know of predicted a liberal majority, except one forum poll released a few hours before the vote. the reason they got it right was because they picked up a last minute mass movement to the liberals in quebec, specifically. and, that was my error - i was suggesting a stronger showing by the bloc. i overestimated the bloc tally by 15 seats - the amount the liberals were short by. i was also dead-on with my conservative numbers.
if i'm wrong in 2019, it will likely be an overestimate by the liberals of roughly the same amount, and probably in ontario. but, 195 seats is actually a fairly comfortable majority, and i can eat that and still get the outcome right.
so, that's my prediction: a weak or comfortable liberal majority, but a liberal majority, nonetheless.
the liberals are still supposed to do better than this
the logic the governor-general should use is this:
1) a conservative government will certainly be short-lived.
2) a liberal government might last close to four years.
3) therefore, the liberals should get the first crack.
but, the liberals cannot need to rely on bloc support.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
1) a conservative government will certainly be short-lived.
2) a liberal government might last close to four years.
3) therefore, the liberals should get the first crack.
but, the liberals cannot need to rely on bloc support.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
trudeau and martin both represented governments that had been in power for more than ten years, and resigned because they thought they were at a dead end.
that is probably not the case, here - this is trudeau's second election, he is young, and he would have a realistic chance of quickly winning another majority, should he want one. does he actually want one?
but, what is the actual rule, here? may is technically right, but she's maybe missing the point, as per usual.
what the governor-general is supposed to do is figure out who has the best chance at forming a stable government. the overriding concern is to prevent another election. the conservatives have no clear coalition partner, so allowing them to form a government would be necessitating an election within a year or two - which is what the governor-general is supposed to act to avoid.
it's going to depend on the strength of the minority. if trudeau needs bloc support to pass a budget (in addition to ndp and green support), and the conservatives have more seats, he should resign. but, if he can present a reasonably stable coalition to the governor-general, he should do so, regardless of who has more seats - because the conservatives will fall quickly, regardless.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-modern-canadian-convention-1.5324463
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
that is probably not the case, here - this is trudeau's second election, he is young, and he would have a realistic chance of quickly winning another majority, should he want one. does he actually want one?
but, what is the actual rule, here? may is technically right, but she's maybe missing the point, as per usual.
what the governor-general is supposed to do is figure out who has the best chance at forming a stable government. the overriding concern is to prevent another election. the conservatives have no clear coalition partner, so allowing them to form a government would be necessitating an election within a year or two - which is what the governor-general is supposed to act to avoid.
it's going to depend on the strength of the minority. if trudeau needs bloc support to pass a budget (in addition to ndp and green support), and the conservatives have more seats, he should resign. but, if he can present a reasonably stable coalition to the governor-general, he should do so, regardless of who has more seats - because the conservatives will fall quickly, regardless.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-modern-canadian-convention-1.5324463
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
in 2015, i didn't really vote for justin trudeau. i really voted for stephane dion. but, it was driven by the local choices - my business-liberal local candidate actually ran against nafta, and my ndp candidate was known for being an anti-science hippie in the local activist community.
if i get out of the house on monday to vote - and it should at least be nice out - i'm going to vote for the local liberal candidate, who was a left-leaning cabinet minister in the mcguinty government and a top tier leadership candidate at one point, over my sitting mp, who is a wasted seat in the house. it's one of those elections where the choice, locally, is obvious. sandra pupatello is clearly the better candidate, and if i vote for her, i'm voting for her.
but, i'm also voting for the secular legacy of the liberal party in opposition to the christian legacy of the ndp. and, i'm doing so with the intent of trying to right the party's course.
i don't feel that letting singh or may into government would advance my interests, as a secular leftist; i think it would set me back, by forcing them into consultation with the religious left. i was hoping for something different, but i have to face the facts. and, i do hope the options around a minority government are better in four years. right now, i'd rather give them back a majority, and agitate for change within the party - i think we're better off doing this then putting our hopes in the hands of a fundamentalist sikh, or an equally fundamentalist christian.
so, don't mistake my vote for an endorsement. and, don't mistake me for a trudeau supporter, either. i still want trudeau to resign asap, and i will continue to shit disturb.
i'm just doing what i think is in my own self-interest, as best as it is, in the terms i define it in.
she can win this riding, and i hope she does.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if i get out of the house on monday to vote - and it should at least be nice out - i'm going to vote for the local liberal candidate, who was a left-leaning cabinet minister in the mcguinty government and a top tier leadership candidate at one point, over my sitting mp, who is a wasted seat in the house. it's one of those elections where the choice, locally, is obvious. sandra pupatello is clearly the better candidate, and if i vote for her, i'm voting for her.
but, i'm also voting for the secular legacy of the liberal party in opposition to the christian legacy of the ndp. and, i'm doing so with the intent of trying to right the party's course.
i don't feel that letting singh or may into government would advance my interests, as a secular leftist; i think it would set me back, by forcing them into consultation with the religious left. i was hoping for something different, but i have to face the facts. and, i do hope the options around a minority government are better in four years. right now, i'd rather give them back a majority, and agitate for change within the party - i think we're better off doing this then putting our hopes in the hands of a fundamentalist sikh, or an equally fundamentalist christian.
so, don't mistake my vote for an endorsement. and, don't mistake me for a trudeau supporter, either. i still want trudeau to resign asap, and i will continue to shit disturb.
i'm just doing what i think is in my own self-interest, as best as it is, in the terms i define it in.
she can win this riding, and i hope she does.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i am a hard leftist.
but, i'm also a creature of the enlightenment.
and, at the end of the day, the most important thing for me is to ensure that people motivated by religious views are not able to seize power. that's my meta-spectrum: atheism v. religion. in the name of copernicus, and socrates, and galileo...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, i'm also a creature of the enlightenment.
and, at the end of the day, the most important thing for me is to ensure that people motivated by religious views are not able to seize power. that's my meta-spectrum: atheism v. religion. in the name of copernicus, and socrates, and galileo...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if things were "normal", the conservatives and ndp would be splitting the religious vote, and the liberals would be running high as the default secularists.
but, the liberals are in an identity crisis. and, elizabeth may's hard right turn at the last minute isn't helping, either.
things will have to eventually right themselves.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, the liberals are in an identity crisis. and, elizabeth may's hard right turn at the last minute isn't helping, either.
things will have to eventually right themselves.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
we'll see.
but, understand...
if they come in in the end at 15, 16, 17 then what that means is that the pollsters that had them higher - like nanos - were right the whole time, and that the pollsters that had them lower were wrong. that would still be a very poor showing, and they would still lose a lot of seats. with the ndp, the difference between 19 and 14 is nearly the difference between everything and nothing. but, it wouldn't be the clean wipe that they were facing when they were dwindling around 10-12 in some polls. don't argue that 17% support is a win for jagmeet singh; it's not, especially considering the circumstances. if they had run somebody like meghan leslie, they probably would have beaten the liberals.
if they come in at 10-14, then the pollsters that had them lower were right, and we'll be face to face with a bradley effect that we'll have to talk about. the media certainly set us up for it...
....and, if they do poll higher than that, it's increasingly clear that it's because they're pulling from the right of the spectrum, which is...it's not unpredictable. i predicted that, eventually. it's just ahead of schedule. they were supposed to get decimated this election, and then rebuild as a religious and right-wing party that is most attractive to recent immigrants, allowing the liberals to reclaim their historical position as secularists.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, understand...
if they come in in the end at 15, 16, 17 then what that means is that the pollsters that had them higher - like nanos - were right the whole time, and that the pollsters that had them lower were wrong. that would still be a very poor showing, and they would still lose a lot of seats. with the ndp, the difference between 19 and 14 is nearly the difference between everything and nothing. but, it wouldn't be the clean wipe that they were facing when they were dwindling around 10-12 in some polls. don't argue that 17% support is a win for jagmeet singh; it's not, especially considering the circumstances. if they had run somebody like meghan leslie, they probably would have beaten the liberals.
if they come in at 10-14, then the pollsters that had them lower were right, and we'll be face to face with a bradley effect that we'll have to talk about. the media certainly set us up for it...
....and, if they do poll higher than that, it's increasingly clear that it's because they're pulling from the right of the spectrum, which is...it's not unpredictable. i predicted that, eventually. it's just ahead of schedule. they were supposed to get decimated this election, and then rebuild as a religious and right-wing party that is most attractive to recent immigrants, allowing the liberals to reclaim their historical position as secularists.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i mean, i can tell you that it was predictable that secular leftists - the core of the ndp's base since layton tried to push the religious elements out of the party - would have a hard time voting for a sikh fundamentalist. that's clearly a non-starter for their own voters, and for much of the swing on the left.
but, maybe, the idea of conservatives voting for him is a little easier to get your head around - if they're otherwise exceedingly low information, and don't particularly care about actual policy (which is a lot of conservatives, isn't it?).
and, if you want to reduce it to the religious symbols law, that makes sense, too. the only place in canada that strenuously opposes the bill is alberta - the most conservative province, by a large margin. that's the argument i've been making the whole time: this debate should be between conservatives that support tradition and religious identity, and liberals trying to get rid of it.
as mentioned: i do think there's a bradley effect, here.
but, have we finally figured out how to cut into this unmoveable conservative base?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, maybe, the idea of conservatives voting for him is a little easier to get your head around - if they're otherwise exceedingly low information, and don't particularly care about actual policy (which is a lot of conservatives, isn't it?).
and, if you want to reduce it to the religious symbols law, that makes sense, too. the only place in canada that strenuously opposes the bill is alberta - the most conservative province, by a large margin. that's the argument i've been making the whole time: this debate should be between conservatives that support tradition and religious identity, and liberals trying to get rid of it.
as mentioned: i do think there's a bradley effect, here.
but, have we finally figured out how to cut into this unmoveable conservative base?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i crashed around 19:00 and was up around 2:00.
and, i've got all of the local data in the master document except for the web page stuff, which is next. 70 files. if i can get it done before noon, we're in good shape.
it's a much smaller document - about half of the size of october. the focus is mostly on the music for november, as well, although there's a number of book reviews interspersed. and, dtk starts for real near the end of the month...
i should also have liner notes for inri001, inri003, inri016, inri027, inri028 and inri029 on the way.
so, this could be a productive weekend, if i stay in, as i think i will.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, i've got all of the local data in the master document except for the web page stuff, which is next. 70 files. if i can get it done before noon, we're in good shape.
it's a much smaller document - about half of the size of october. the focus is mostly on the music for november, as well, although there's a number of book reviews interspersed. and, dtk starts for real near the end of the month...
i should also have liner notes for inri001, inri003, inri016, inri027, inri028 and inri029 on the way.
so, this could be a productive weekend, if i stay in, as i think i will.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the sewers have been ok, but now we're getting a gas leak.
is this just the result of turning it on for the year? or is it something more serious?
i also wonder if the two things are interrelated. well, i need a plumber, right?
i still have to run the hot water to burn it off. but, at least i can separate the smells better, now, and figure out what is what.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
is this just the result of turning it on for the year? or is it something more serious?
i also wonder if the two things are interrelated. well, i need a plumber, right?
i still have to run the hot water to burn it off. but, at least i can separate the smells better, now, and figure out what is what.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
as mentioned, i'm not willing to concede movement until i see some polling over 20, and i still haven't.
...but this swing from the conservatives to the ndp continues to show up.
this is weird. the polling is suggesting a large swing from the conservative party to the socialist party - multiple firms are picking this up. unless a large amount of conservatives became socialists overnight, it's not ideologically driven - this bump, however real or not real it is, and it's still simply not clear, isn't being driven by policy.
so, i'll let you answer the question, is this:
1) random fluctuations driven by various types of sample bias, like the long weekend.
2) a bradley effect.
3) a rising south asian identity vote.
i'm going with a little bit of each.
but, i expect the final numbers to be lower.
regardless, the modelling is misinterpreting this. if we're seeing a big swing from the conservatives to the ndp amongst asian voters, that's going to happen in the 905 (and maybe in vancouver). and, it's going to help the liberals, not the ndp.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
...but this swing from the conservatives to the ndp continues to show up.
this is weird. the polling is suggesting a large swing from the conservative party to the socialist party - multiple firms are picking this up. unless a large amount of conservatives became socialists overnight, it's not ideologically driven - this bump, however real or not real it is, and it's still simply not clear, isn't being driven by policy.
so, i'll let you answer the question, is this:
1) random fluctuations driven by various types of sample bias, like the long weekend.
2) a bradley effect.
3) a rising south asian identity vote.
i'm going with a little bit of each.
but, i expect the final numbers to be lower.
regardless, the modelling is misinterpreting this. if we're seeing a big swing from the conservatives to the ndp amongst asian voters, that's going to happen in the 905 (and maybe in vancouver). and, it's going to help the liberals, not the ndp.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Thursday, October 17, 2019
so, i got a start on this. i'm taking what i think will probably be a more efficient aproach this time, so it should be a bit faster.
but, i just want to stop for a second to double down on what i'm projecting in the election.
first, i'll remind you that i do have a four year degree in mathematics, plus enough credits for a masters (taken while working out a degree in computer science that i stopped a credit short of). i made a hard turn out of academia, because i decided i wanted to be a musician and i was wasting my time with it. i then ended up doing a lot of political activism, and ended up as a prolific blogger, so here i am. i've also worked in polling, as a student. so, referring to me as an "amateur" is a bit of stretch; i'm as qualified to speak on this topic as anybody else that you'll meet.
and i need to get this point across very clearly: it's not that i'm too lazy to model, it's that i actually think it's a bad approach because the sampling frames suck. i'm explicitly dissenting; they're trying to ram square pegs into round holes, and more often than not end up completely wrong regarding anything that's not already obvious. in order to statistically model canadian elections with any kind of accuracy, the way that the computers accept the data has to change very radically. right now, it's largely just garbage in, garbage out.
so, this isn't an amateur approaching this from an ad hoc perspective; this is an expert that is offering a dissenting opinion around the existing methods, and offering a different approach.
but, how do i get a liberal majority when they can barely get 30%, and might not even win the popular vote, and everybody else is suggesting a coin flip minority?
because the regional numbers actually aren't even close.
the conservatives are at 70% in alberta and saskatchewan, the liberals are at 45% in ontario and quebec is a clean split between the liberals and the bloc. when you add it all up, they're tied, nationally, sure. but, in actual fact, the liberals are going sweep the east, and the conservatives are going to sweep the west, as we've seen however many times since wwII - and i don't need a sophisticated modelling algorithm (one that the greens running at 10% in ontario, concentrated into urban ridings, is going to completely break, i might add) to tell me that.
my dissenting opinion is that we're better off fitting the data to past results than trying to interpolate it in real-time.
and, for ontario, which is going to decide this election, the numbers are most similar to the ones in 2000 - where the pcs and reform split the rural vote, handing the liberals a huge majority.
even if that doesn't happen, the conservative numbers in ontario appear to be very low, right now. the rural split with the greens might be stretching, right now. but, a liberal sweep over the 905 is a reasonable projection, and the conservatives simply can't win an election when that's the reality in front of them.
we've seen very weird election results in canada, in the past. run the 1979 data into your model and tell me what it says - i promise you that you won't get a clark minority.
these results could be awful, from a democratic perspective, but that's the norm, here.
don't let that huge conservative lead in alberta skew your analysis - they're not running well in the east, right now, and are not going to win the election.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, i just want to stop for a second to double down on what i'm projecting in the election.
first, i'll remind you that i do have a four year degree in mathematics, plus enough credits for a masters (taken while working out a degree in computer science that i stopped a credit short of). i made a hard turn out of academia, because i decided i wanted to be a musician and i was wasting my time with it. i then ended up doing a lot of political activism, and ended up as a prolific blogger, so here i am. i've also worked in polling, as a student. so, referring to me as an "amateur" is a bit of stretch; i'm as qualified to speak on this topic as anybody else that you'll meet.
and i need to get this point across very clearly: it's not that i'm too lazy to model, it's that i actually think it's a bad approach because the sampling frames suck. i'm explicitly dissenting; they're trying to ram square pegs into round holes, and more often than not end up completely wrong regarding anything that's not already obvious. in order to statistically model canadian elections with any kind of accuracy, the way that the computers accept the data has to change very radically. right now, it's largely just garbage in, garbage out.
so, this isn't an amateur approaching this from an ad hoc perspective; this is an expert that is offering a dissenting opinion around the existing methods, and offering a different approach.
but, how do i get a liberal majority when they can barely get 30%, and might not even win the popular vote, and everybody else is suggesting a coin flip minority?
because the regional numbers actually aren't even close.
the conservatives are at 70% in alberta and saskatchewan, the liberals are at 45% in ontario and quebec is a clean split between the liberals and the bloc. when you add it all up, they're tied, nationally, sure. but, in actual fact, the liberals are going sweep the east, and the conservatives are going to sweep the west, as we've seen however many times since wwII - and i don't need a sophisticated modelling algorithm (one that the greens running at 10% in ontario, concentrated into urban ridings, is going to completely break, i might add) to tell me that.
my dissenting opinion is that we're better off fitting the data to past results than trying to interpolate it in real-time.
and, for ontario, which is going to decide this election, the numbers are most similar to the ones in 2000 - where the pcs and reform split the rural vote, handing the liberals a huge majority.
even if that doesn't happen, the conservative numbers in ontario appear to be very low, right now. the rural split with the greens might be stretching, right now. but, a liberal sweep over the 905 is a reasonable projection, and the conservatives simply can't win an election when that's the reality in front of them.
we've seen very weird election results in canada, in the past. run the 1979 data into your model and tell me what it says - i promise you that you won't get a clark minority.
these results could be awful, from a democratic perspective, but that's the norm, here.
don't let that huge conservative lead in alberta skew your analysis - they're not running well in the east, right now, and are not going to win the election.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i took a look at the tube on my bike a little more closely, and i can't figure out where the hole is. so, i filled it back up, and it came back down again after about an hour.
i can't help but feel i can save this tube, but it'll need to wait a few days. going out on saturday is, in fact, dependent on the bike, due to the distance i'll need to travel. i could in theory hop the rail to grand, but it's still a long ass walk to hamtramck. and, i am morally opposed to using a car (at all.), unless i have to. so, no cabs, no uber. and, i don't have or want a phone, anyways. pretty much the only valid use of combustion engines are ambulances and fire trucks, imo. i'm pretty strict on myself about that...
the options are really walking or biking, and this place is too far to walk and not on any reasonable bus route.
i don't want to take my other bike to detroit, that's what i bought this one for.
so, if i make the choice to go tomorrow or the next day, i'll have to take the whole tire apart, patch it and put it back together again.
for right now, i want to work on the rebuild for the end of 2013.
the sewers held overnight. i'm going to see if i can push it the whole day....
as it is, i'm showered and fed and ready to get at it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i can't help but feel i can save this tube, but it'll need to wait a few days. going out on saturday is, in fact, dependent on the bike, due to the distance i'll need to travel. i could in theory hop the rail to grand, but it's still a long ass walk to hamtramck. and, i am morally opposed to using a car (at all.), unless i have to. so, no cabs, no uber. and, i don't have or want a phone, anyways. pretty much the only valid use of combustion engines are ambulances and fire trucks, imo. i'm pretty strict on myself about that...
the options are really walking or biking, and this place is too far to walk and not on any reasonable bus route.
i don't want to take my other bike to detroit, that's what i bought this one for.
so, if i make the choice to go tomorrow or the next day, i'll have to take the whole tire apart, patch it and put it back together again.
for right now, i want to work on the rebuild for the end of 2013.
the sewers held overnight. i'm going to see if i can push it the whole day....
as it is, i'm showered and fed and ready to get at it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
indeed, pelosi can always be expected to stand up for what's wrong - even when she's in the minority.
she has a history of standing up for what's wrong.
she has a history of standing up for saudi blood money.
and, she has a history of standing up for imperialist wars, too.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
she has a history of standing up for what's wrong.
she has a history of standing up for saudi blood money.
and, she has a history of standing up for imperialist wars, too.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
yeah.
so, the legal stuff is put aside for a few days, and i'm going to put a major push to try to finish 2013 before the end of the weekend.
seriously.
there's minimal amounts of communication with the outside world, at this point, so i think we can rocket through this...
i'm not currently excited about saturday. we'll see how i feel on saturday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, the legal stuff is put aside for a few days, and i'm going to put a major push to try to finish 2013 before the end of the weekend.
seriously.
there's minimal amounts of communication with the outside world, at this point, so i think we can rocket through this...
i'm not currently excited about saturday. we'll see how i feel on saturday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
back in the 90s, the liberals were running a little higher in ontario - around 50% - and the ndp were running a little lower, around 10% (or lower). but, that's not why the liberals virtually swept ontario in three successive elections - 1993, 1997 and 2000. rather, the reason that the liberals swept ontario is that the reform party and "progressive conservative" party split the vote on the right in rural areas, allowing them to come up the middle.
these were the 2000 numbers:
liberals: 51.5%, 100 seats.
reform: 23.6%, 2 seats.
pcs: 14.4%, 0 seats.
ndp: 8.3%, 1 seat.
the ndp appear to be running a little higher, which you can take away from the liberals. this should get the ndp a small number of union seats if they actually run at 15% - but may not even be good for that if they dip much lower.
but, current green numbers are not that different than those pc numbers, and current conservative numbers are not that different than those reform numbers.
so, you can see what might happen.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
these were the 2000 numbers:
liberals: 51.5%, 100 seats.
reform: 23.6%, 2 seats.
pcs: 14.4%, 0 seats.
ndp: 8.3%, 1 seat.
the ndp appear to be running a little higher, which you can take away from the liberals. this should get the ndp a small number of union seats if they actually run at 15% - but may not even be good for that if they dip much lower.
but, current green numbers are not that different than those pc numbers, and current conservative numbers are not that different than those reform numbers.
so, you can see what might happen.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the national numbers continue to flatline. but, nik posted some ontario numbers. thanks, nik.
there are large margins here. and it's one poll. so, be careful. but....
if that is close to being right, what does it say?
liberals: -3.4%
cons: -6.6
greens: +8.2
the ndp are +0.8 which is statistically flat, but i also suspect a bradley effect. i'm not taking their numbers seriously, right now. in the end, i expect they'll be down a few points.
you can look at the file yourself, but i pulled this out for a reason. at 44.8% last election, the liberals won 80 seats in ontario. if the ndp are flat (or down) and the conservatives are way down, they're not just going to keep almost all of those 80 seats, but they're going to pick up an extra dozen urban seats from the conservatives and ndp.
even better for them, that huge boost in green support is actually rural. that's right - the greens are way up in conservative ridings. and the conservatives are way down. that means the greens could actually be handing seats to the liberals on the split.
again, the margins are huge, and i'm operating in them. so, if we end up with the following, in the end:
liberals: 45%
conservatives: 26%
ndp: 15%
greens: 12%
ppc: 2%
....the liberals are going to win 110+ seats in ontario. like, 115, even
and, that's why i think they're on track for a majority.
we'll see what happens.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there are large margins here. and it's one poll. so, be careful. but....
liberals: -3.4%
cons: -6.6
greens: +8.2
the ndp are +0.8 which is statistically flat, but i also suspect a bradley effect. i'm not taking their numbers seriously, right now. in the end, i expect they'll be down a few points.
you can look at the file yourself, but i pulled this out for a reason. at 44.8% last election, the liberals won 80 seats in ontario. if the ndp are flat (or down) and the conservatives are way down, they're not just going to keep almost all of those 80 seats, but they're going to pick up an extra dozen urban seats from the conservatives and ndp.
even better for them, that huge boost in green support is actually rural. that's right - the greens are way up in conservative ridings. and the conservatives are way down. that means the greens could actually be handing seats to the liberals on the split.
again, the margins are huge, and i'm operating in them. so, if we end up with the following, in the end:
liberals: 45%
conservatives: 26%
ndp: 15%
greens: 12%
ppc: 2%
....the liberals are going to win 110+ seats in ontario. like, 115, even
and, that's why i think they're on track for a majority.
we'll see what happens.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
fwiw, we were a part of the initial bombing attack on isis. that was a choice made by harper. trudeau actually ran on withdrawing (like his father should have...), and what happened was that we did a kind of juggling act - we pulled the planes out and shifted support to "training the kurds" instead, which meant we had a small contingent of special forces there. at the time, it seemed like the liberals were doing two things - (1) listening to the experts on the ground, that argued that bombing was not sufficient to actually defeat isis and (2) upholding their historical position on requiring a un mandate to actually fight.
i did support the bombing campaign on isis, which is very rare for me. and, when the commanders said "we need boots on the ground", i supported that, too, as was required. i opposed the 2003 invasion. there are only two imperialist wars i've ever supported, and the other one is wwII. that means i'm drawing a clear parallel between nazis and islamists, but, in fact, i do that all of the time and am actually baffled that others don't see the obvious similarities. what exactly is the difference between a nazi and an islamist? they seem like the same thing, to me. hence, the only good islamist is a dead one! bombing the shit out of them sounded like the right idea, to me; i listened to the generals when they said they need ground troops, too.
over time, it became less clear what was actually happening on the ground. where we fighting isis or supporting it? the liberals had pr reasons for shifting to a support-the-kurds mission, but the whole thing was always shady,
apparently, this ended some time last year. they were pretty quiet about it, because i don't remember hearing about it. but, it kind of just upholds the point - canada left syria 15 months ago, because we decided we'd won. why, exactly, are the americans still there?
and, why is chrystia freeland pushing saudi talking points on the matter, in apparent contradiction to her government's own policies?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-no-longer-training-kurdish-troops-in-iraq-amid-fight-against/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i did support the bombing campaign on isis, which is very rare for me. and, when the commanders said "we need boots on the ground", i supported that, too, as was required. i opposed the 2003 invasion. there are only two imperialist wars i've ever supported, and the other one is wwII. that means i'm drawing a clear parallel between nazis and islamists, but, in fact, i do that all of the time and am actually baffled that others don't see the obvious similarities. what exactly is the difference between a nazi and an islamist? they seem like the same thing, to me. hence, the only good islamist is a dead one! bombing the shit out of them sounded like the right idea, to me; i listened to the generals when they said they need ground troops, too.
over time, it became less clear what was actually happening on the ground. where we fighting isis or supporting it? the liberals had pr reasons for shifting to a support-the-kurds mission, but the whole thing was always shady,
apparently, this ended some time last year. they were pretty quiet about it, because i don't remember hearing about it. but, it kind of just upholds the point - canada left syria 15 months ago, because we decided we'd won. why, exactly, are the americans still there?
and, why is chrystia freeland pushing saudi talking points on the matter, in apparent contradiction to her government's own policies?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-no-longer-training-kurdish-troops-in-iraq-amid-fight-against/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
they're switching back...
https://www.salon.com/2019/07/05/how-did-the-republican-party-become-so-conservative/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
https://www.salon.com/2019/07/05/how-did-the-republican-party-become-so-conservative/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i don't know what colour pill you need to take, but you'd better start popping them, 'cause you're going to need to wake up with this sooner than later.
there's no future in the democrats.
a third party is necessary. and, you'd better get to it, to stop it from ending up in the same co-opted, backwards mess that sanders' campaign ended up in.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there's no future in the democrats.
a third party is necessary. and, you'd better get to it, to stop it from ending up in the same co-opted, backwards mess that sanders' campaign ended up in.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)