dagblog - Comments for "CANADA VOTES 2011: DECISION DAY"

Thanks. stardust.

Flavius — Wed, 04 May 2011 14:55:09 +0000

In reply to Quinn, Canuck; you may like

Thanks. stardust.

Quinn, Canuck; you may like

we are stardust — Wed, 04 May 2011 02:52:28 +0000

In reply to CANADA VOTES 2011: DECISION DAY

Quinn, Canuck; you may like this upbeat video from Democracy Now! ;o)

I'm well aware of the

Flavius — Tue, 03 May 2011 21:26:00 +0000

In reply to I tend to think of those

I'm well aware of the McCarthy campaign. I heard him speak in peraib on several occasions during the preceding decade and on TV with his outstanding nomination of Stevenson in 1960. And for years afterward I heard Paul Gorman's discussion of that campaign on WBAI..

There was certainly pent up opposition to Johnson. And support. He decided not to run and Nixon won. So we know that what happened didn't work. We'll never know what would have happened if he ran. I simply list him as one of the uninterrupted series of occasions when the Democrats mounted opposition to a sitting President who then lost.

I'm sorry I think Nader's 97,000 florida votes had a lot to do with Gore's defeat.

Once the tide unexpectedly

acanuck — Tue, 03 May 2011 19:20:53 +0000

In reply to CANADA VOTES 2011: DECISION DAY

Once the tide unexpectedly turned two weeks ago, everybody knew this election was going to be a wild ride -- a crapshoot. An NDP majority looked out of reach, but everything else was on the table.

The key problem: The right was united in a single party, and the center-left was split two ways (three in Quebec). The Conservatives never moved much beyond the 40% support they had going in, so the question was how the remaining 60% would get split. Our first-past-the-post electoral system compounded the vote-splitting problem; ridings were won or lost by margins of a few dozen votes. (The Liberal candidate in my riding conceded defeat just after midnight last night, only to pull ahead half an hour later; that seat is headed for a recount.)

Already, people on the center-left are calling for a fix to both parts of the problem. The NDP has long backed a transferable-vote or instant-runoff system, which would have denied Harper a majority. And respected voices from both parties are calling for a Liberal-NDP merger. Interviewed last night, Bob Rae (Ignatieff's likely successor) pointedly declined to rule that out.

I favor both an instant-runoff (but single-riding) system, and a merger of the center-left parties. And over the next four years, the New Democrats are going to have to work like hell to consolidate their hold on Quebec.

Of the party's 103 or so MPs, more than half are now from that province -- and all but one of those Quebec MPs are rookies. Most were nominated as cannon fodder, with no hope -- much less expectation -- they might be elected. There was a joke during the campaign that some of the younger candidates could use their legislative staff to research their term papers. Some might do just that, as they put their studies on hold and head to Ottawa.

At some point, I'll try to lay out how a Tory majority could affect the next four years, especially in foreign policy. Shorter version: Canada will follow the U.S. lead in whatever military intervention it undertakes.

I tend to think of those

Obey — Tue, 03 May 2011 19:02:26 +0000

In reply to I don't necessarily disagree

I tend to think of those 'successful' left-wing challenges you mention as symptoms of strategic failure on the part of the incumbent rather than the causes. 1968 - Johnson had approvals stuck around 35%, and it was pretty clear that he was going to lose, no matter who he was up against. McCarthy was no genius campaigner, he was AWFUL. Go back and read the contemporary accounts But even though he was awful he drew massive support because of the pent-up opposition to Johnson.

1980 I don't know much about, so I'll leave that aside. As for 2000, Gore won a solid majority of the popular vote so losing in the Electoral College can ONLY be pinned on piss poor electioneering - bad campaign priorities as regards where to invest time and money. Nader had nothing to do with it. It's more likely that Nader just raised turnout than that he turned any serious number away from the Dems. He was after all just a protest candidate. If his voters had been denied the possibility of protest, they wouldn't have voted for the Dems. The only reason they DID vote was to signal a protest to the Dem party neoliberalism.

In short, I think these historical "lessons", about the unequivocal evil of left-wing challenges, have been over-learned. There is a paranoid aversion on the left when it comes to making demands, especially when their demands indisputably align with the party leadership's self-interest. And so they make no demands and get ignored. It hurts the left, it hurts the party, it hurts the country.

I don't necessarily disagree

Flavius — Tue, 03 May 2011 18:42:25 +0000

In reply to Not idealist. Just pragmatic.

I don't necessarily disagree with much of the above.I'm considerably to the left of Obama on Health Care, Taxes, Afghanistan and Education. For starterers.

Accordingly I have nothing whatsoever against his moving left.To the contrary. But what I am completely against is repeating the errors of 1968, 1980 and 2000. when an idealistic challenge to the Democratic establishment was successful.

In electing Nixon, Reagan and Bush

While I'd be delighted if all of my positions were his positions , in November 2012 I'll be ringing door bells on his behalf even if he remains stubbonrly in the center.

The no end of a lesson we learned yesterday is that a ruthless right wing minority will win every time if its running against a divided opposition.

Not idealist. Just pragmatic.

Obey — Tue, 03 May 2011 13:00:19 +0000

In reply to Flavius is looking at it from

Not idealist. Just pragmatic. In 2010 the electorate was on the left - public option, anti-bank, tax hike on the rich. And the Dems stayed stubbornly in the center. ... and got killed! Iggy and the libs' strategy was a carbon copy of the Dems' midterm strategy: lose and whine about the electorate!

It was a dumb strategy in 2010, it was a dumb strategy in 2011, and it will be a dumb strategy for Obama in 2012.

Flavius is looking at it from

Verified Atheist — Tue, 03 May 2011 12:47:59 +0000

In reply to That is looking at it totally

Flavius is looking at it from the pessimists' (AKA the pragmatics) point-of-view, while I'd argue you're looking at it more from an idealists' point-of-view. I'll throw in my Polly-Anna-ish point-of-view (which I think nonetheless all of us would agree with) and say what we really need is some form of rank-ordering/instant run-off type of voting system where a Bernie Sanders' third-party (I think it would take more than just a primary this time around) wouldn't result in splitting the liberal vote.

That is looking at it totally

Obey — Tue, 03 May 2011 12:39:36 +0000

In reply to Let us face the matter

That is looking at it totally wrongly, Flavius. The center-left liberals disintegrated because there is no longer a constituency for their brand of soft-core neo-liberalism. The electorate had moved further left. That may or may not be the case in the US, but if it is the case, the right response is ... to demand Obama move in that direction. The wrong response is to hope as you do that no credible politician who speaks to the needs and values of the people shows up, or that if he or she does show up ... to hope that he or she fails.

Let us face the matter

Flavius — Tue, 03 May 2011 12:07:44 +0000

In reply to CANADA VOTES 2011: DECISION DAY

Let us face the matter squarely
As a commercial people should
We have learned no end of a lesson
It will do us no end of good

Kipling.

So the NDP had a great election. Be careful what you wish for. Harper now has an impregnable majority. How do you spell Pyrrhic?

Believe me I'd have been delighted by an NPD majority. And maybe the long run benefit to Canada of a vigorous opposition is worth the price of five years of what Harper will proclaim ,and treat, as his mandate.

Acanuck and Quinn when they get up can tell us .It's their country and that's their call.

For myself , I don't wish Bernie Sanders to have a great primary run here in 2012 , followed by Paul Ryan bringing his unattractive combination of pious platitudes and heartless indifference to the Treasury or where-ever Palin/Trump/Huckabee/Romney/Daniels/Bachman/Gingrich decides to install him.