# Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

When a federal election is called (sometime this weekend???), you shall vote to elect a member of Parliament to represent you in the House of Commons, where he or she will debate and pass laws on your behalf. Canada is divided into 338 ridings.

Still, we here in ehMacLand have people from coast to coast to coast, and our own currency (ehMacLander Bucks). 

So, now is the time to place your bets on the number of seats each federal party will win when we actually vote. No actual money is involved, and no actual money shall be won. Still, your name shall be inscribed in the ehMacLand Hall of Wonders as being the person who gets closest to the actual election results at the earliest date.

Keep in mind that your selections do not necessarily reflect who you want to see win or who you shall be voting for in your local riding.

Here is my initial prediction to get us moving.

Con. 145
NDP 123
Lib. 65
BQ 4
Grn. 1


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Well here is my best guess for today:
Cons 151
Libs. 110
NDP. 67
BQ. 10
Gran. 0


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I'd be hard pressed to give numbers at this point as in my opinion campaigns do matter. 

I suspect if the election were held today a government would be elected with "training wheels." that is to say a minority government.

It would be a government led by the NDP at this point.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Well here is my best guess for today:
> Cons 151
> Libs. 110
> NDP. 67
> ...


Duly noted. Bonne chance, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I'd be hard pressed to give numbers at this point as in my opinion campaigns do matter.
> 
> I suspect if the election were held today a government would be elected with "training wheels." that is to say a minority government.
> 
> It would be a government led by the NDP at this point.


A valid point. Still, make a prediction and throw your lot to the wind. You may keep changing it as the election campaign moves along.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

I'd bet NDP, I hope Liberal but at the end of the day, anything but Conservative (or, at least, anything that has Harper at the helm.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll come up with my numbers shortly. I suspect if the election were held today it would involve a small minority Conservative government--the more that Mulcair is forced into the open, the more support I suspect he will lose.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

polywog said:


> I'd bet NDP, I hope Liberal but at the end of the day, anything but Conservative (or, at least, anything that has Harper at the helm.)


Numbers, please.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I'll come up with my numbers shortly. I suspect if the election were held today it would involve a small minority Conservative government--the more that Mulcair is forced into the open, the more support I suspect he will lose.


Well, don't wait too long to place your prediction, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Well here is my best guess for today:
> Cons 151
> Libs. 110
> NDP. 67
> ...


Rp, I assume by "Gran." you mean the "Green" party ..................... since the Grandparents Party does not have any members running for Parliament this year.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Numbers, please.


Fair Enough

Con. 95
NDP 126
Lib. 112
BQ 2
Grn. 3


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

polywog said:


> Fair Enough
> 
> Con. 95
> NDP 126
> ...


Merci. Duly noted.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, don't wait too long to place your prediction, mon ami.


Here we go:

CPC: 141
NDP: 112
LPC: 77
BQ: 6
GPC: 2


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I think Rp is close, so . . .

Cons 149
Libs. 110
NDP. 71
BQ. 7
Green. 1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interesting-do you see Mulcair imploding or Trudeau actually doing something to revive the party's lacklustre fortunes?



SINC said:


> I think Rp is close, so . . .
> 
> Cons 149
> Libs. 110
> ...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A lot will depend on how the Baird bit unfolds. While in a micromanaged environment the actions of a top end cabinet minister are more or less irrelevant, the way things work nowadays this has the potential to destroy the CPC.

So I will hold back a few days before making any guesses.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Here we go:
> 
> CPC: 141
> NDP: 112
> ...


Merci, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> I think Rp is close, so . . .
> 
> Cons 149
> Libs. 110
> ...


Merci, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

emacman said:


> a lot will depend on how the baird bit unfolds. While in a micromanaged environment the actions of a top end cabinet minister are more or less irrelevant, the way things work nowadays this has the potential to destroy the cpc.
> 
> So i will hold back a few days before making any guesses.


ok.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How will the winner be determined, Dr. G? Deviation from actual numbers, totaled across each party?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> How will the winner be determined, Dr. G? Deviation from actual numbers, totaled across each party?


The Marquess of Queensberry rules is a code of generally accepted rules in the sport of boxing and political prognostication.

So, here is my initial prediction.

Con. 145
NDP 123
Lib. 65
BQ 4
Grn. 1 

If the Cons get 155, I have a -10. If the NDP gets 125, I have an additional -3. If the Libs get 85, I get another -20 score. So, I am -33 if my BQ and Grn. forecast is correct. Still, this is a -33 on July 31st. So, whomever gets the closest on the earliest date wins, just like in the scoring of boxing (In boxing, judging is a relatively straightforward matter, based on who lands the greater number of punches). So, whomever gets the smallest negative score (assuming that someone does not get it just exactly correct), wins ................ unless there is a tie for this negative score. Then, whomever gets the lowest negative score at the earliest date, will be declared the winner, and have his/her name enshrined in the ehMacLand Hall of Wonders.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

polywog said:


> I'd bet NDP, I hope Liberal but at the end of the day, anything but Conservative (or, at least, anything that has Harper at the helm.)


I hope the Conservatives win, but sadly the same intoxicated/drugged lemmings that voted Wynn will vote for NDP or Liberals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Interesting-do you see Mulcair imploding or Trudeau actually doing something to revive the party's lacklustre fortunes?


I think that Mulcair is a very dangerous man for Canada, period. And he is no Jack Layton, instead with the charisma of a mafia hitman.

I also think as more and more news leaks out of Alberta about the devastation the new NDP government is wreaking on Alberta already with known anti this and that people from Toronto being appointed to senior civil service jobs, the public will see just how bad the NDP can be and retract their support federally. With oil from this province dominating the GNP of this country, an anti oil premier and party is just plain bad news.

Those who cannot stomach the Cons, will then vote Liberal as their only other option.

Anyone who supports or votes NDP will place Canada in peril.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

I favour "proportional representation" rather than "first past the post" head counts, so I am starting a poll of where one might put a vote today, recognizing that there is a (long) campaign ahead which will (should) change things.

The Unofficial ehMac Pre-election Poll - ehMac.ca


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FPTP is my homeboy!


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

This can change of course and the one place I don't have a good sense of is Ontario where the election will be decided. Currently finishing up the last leg of my family's BC tour on Salt Spring Island. My good buddy sync would love it here: people openly smoking weed, lots of tattoos and piercings, and a widespread disdain for Harper and his ilk. Spent the earlier part of the summer in Quebec, NB and NS - same general dislike of Harper and his thugs - certainly few oil party votes there.

Can't wait for Nigel to take the stand soon. That will further blunt any surge by the oilers.

Anyway here it goes:

NDP - 144
Oilers - 112
Libs - 76
BQ - 4
GP - 2


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> My good buddy sync would love it here: people openly smoking weed, lots of tattoos and piercings, and a widespread disdain for Harper and his ilk.


First off, it's SINC, capitalized & spelled correctly, thankyouverymuch.
Second, who said anything about tattoos & piercings?
Third, I hope you take advantage of the opportunity to drop by Gerry's grave & pay your respects. I, for one, would appreciate the effort.
Fourth, we don't have to worry about the pot smokers' vote. They'll be too stoned to pull themselves off the couch, away from their bongs & potato chips...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you're taking your family on a tour of Canada's most popular opium dens, I've no doubt that's exactly what sort of support you'd find!



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> This can change of course and the one place I don't have a good sense of is Ontario where the election will be decided. Currently finishing up the last leg of my family's BC tour on Salt Spring Island. My good buddy sync would love it here: people openly smoking weed, lots of tattoos and piercings, and a widespread disdain for Harper and his ilk.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> This can change of course and the one place I don't have a good sense of is Ontario where the election will be decided. Currently finishing up the last leg of my family's BC tour on Salt Spring Island. My good buddy sync would love it here: people openly smoking weed, lots of tattoos and piercings, and a widespread disdain for Harper and his ilk. Spent the earlier part of the summer in Quebec, NB and NS - same general dislike of Harper and his thugs - certainly few oil party votes there.
> 
> Can't wait for Nigel to take the stand soon. That will further blunt any surge by the oilers.
> 
> ...


Damn. Thought we were rid of him.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Hey no prob dropping by a cemetery - I can take a photo if you like. I wasn't around during your friend's time. Where is he burried?

They'll be putting Elizabeth May in for another term here. No contest. 

No sign of opium at all. Just pot. Can smell it in Vancouver, Tofino and Salt Spring. It will be legal here soon enough judging from the local papers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Can smell it in Vancouver, Tofino and Salt Spring. It will be legal here soon enough judging from the local papers.


It should be legal. No sense stopping people from wasting their brains away on the stuff at public expense. At least they're quiet.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I put marijuana front and center in the smokescreen issue category. Want to divert attention from the cons concerted attempts to erode the constitution, just wail about how Canadian society is going to pot.

Want to divert attention from how the Liberals were the ones to get us into Afghanistan, just point out the tax revenues Canada is missing out on by not legalizing pot.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> This can change of course and the one place I don't have a good sense of is Ontario where the election will be decided. Currently finishing up the last leg of my family's BC tour on Salt Spring Island. My good buddy sync would love it here: people openly smoking weed, lots of tattoos and piercings, and a widespread disdain for Harper and his ilk. Spent the earlier part of the summer in Quebec, NB and NS - same general dislike of Harper and his thugs - certainly few oil party votes there.
> 
> Can't wait for Nigel to take the stand soon. That will further blunt any surge by the oilers.
> 
> ...


Duly noted.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Here is my second prediction.

Con. 139
NDP 127
Lib. 67
BQ 4
Grn. 1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Here is my second prediction.
> 
> Con. 139
> NDP 127
> ...


That will be for the historical records only--your first prediction stands as your bet.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> That will be for the historical records only--your first prediction stands as your bet.


No, as I stated, you may change your predictions at any time. The earliest closest "bet" wins. So, everyone is able to make multiple speculations as the course of the campaign goes along. Someone is bound to make a major "gaff" which might change one's position as to the final results. So, place your bets over and over and over again. Someone will be the closest with the + and - system. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Updated prediction following debates and numbers coming in on the Oilers pre-election spending. Nigel testifying this week should help further de-greasification of the Oilers: 

NDP - 150
Oilers - 105
Libs - 79
BQ - 2
GP - 2


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think people have lost interest in that story months go. Maybe some libs are following it as their fortunes decline.



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Updated prediction following debates and numbers coming in on the Oilers pre-election spending. Nigel testifying this week should help further de-greasification of the Oilers:
> 
> NDP - 150
> Oilers - 105
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I think people have lost interest in that story months go. Maybe some libs are following it as their fortunes decline.


Interesting points came out at the trial today, but no smoking gun, so this story will dissolve over the next few week.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Another adjustment following today's Nigel interrogation -

NDP - 155
Oilers - 97
Libs - 82
BQ - 2
GP - 2


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

To what aspect of that rather mild questioning do we owe your massive swing, oh skip?



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Another adjustment following today's Nigel interrogation -
> 
> NDP - 155
> Oilers - 97
> ...


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Macfury said:


> To what aspect of that rather mild questioning do we owe your massive swing, oh skip?


Vroom, vroom,vroom.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Vroom, vroom,vroom.


No, that's not what I asked. I wanted to know what aspect of the trial you felt was swaying voters.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> ......... I wanted to know what aspect of the trial you felt was swaying voters.


For my own part, I think what is swaying voters is the growing conviction that either Harpo knew more than he let on, i.e. he has been lying, or else he has no idea what is happening in his own PMO, i.e. he is incompetent.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Not to be argumentative, but surely the posters here know the political difference between "lying" and not telling the whole truth? I am presuming that some of you have never either been audited or ran a political campaign. Selective responses are the hallmark of politics, which the average person may contend is an out right lie, but politics deems not telling contextually the whole truth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't see the whole Duffy case as particularly interesting to the public at large. If anything, Duffy comes across as an ungrateful fool. The intricate details are barely digested by most people.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I don't see the whole Duffy case as particularly interesting to the public at large. If anything, Duffy comes across as an ungrateful fool. The intricate details are barely digested by most people.


I think you misread the situation. Most people I meet and talk with are beginning to smell a whiff of the taint of Harpo's hand in the matter. Some of the most politically unaware people I know are the folk in my dialysis group and every one of them notices it. They mostly started the hearings as Con-men supporters but are changing.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> I think you misread the situation. Most people I meet and talk with are beginning to smell a whiff of the taint of Harpo's hand in the matter. Some of the most politically unaware people I know are the folk in my dialysis group and every one of them notices it. They mostly started the hearings as Con-men supporters but are changing.....


Well, looks like he lost the dialysis vote!


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Whoo hoo another stellar day at the Harper/PMO trial. And another alteration of my prediction:

NDP - 157
Oilers - 92
Libs - 85
BQ - 2
GP - 2


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hoo boy Skip--you really are pleasuring yourself over that trial! Maybe something else will happen tomorrow and your numbers will change again.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Whoo hoo another stellar day at the Harper/PMO trial. And another alteration of my prediction:
> 
> NDP - 157
> Oilers - 92
> ...


Oilers = Conservatives?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)




----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't really get that cartoon. Duffy hasn't even managed to hold back Nigel Wright. If Duffy were up for election I could see the point.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)




----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)




----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You can collect all of the partisan editorial cartoons you want, but the Duffy trial is only a huge deal to the media--and to the people in your dialysis group, rgray.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You can collect all of the partisan editorial cartoons you want, but the Duffy trial is only a huge deal to the media--and to the people in your dialysis group, rgray.


Well you've made clear that that is your personal opinion.......


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> You can collect all of the partisan editorial cartoons you want, but the Duffy trial is only a huge deal to the media--and to the people in your dialysis group, rgray.


Macfury, I think that the comment about "and to the people in your dialysis group" was uncalled for in your comment.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, I think that the comment about "and to the people in your dialysis group" was uncalled for in your comment.


Thank you Dr.G. MacFury is trying to use a Harpo-esque technique to discredit opinion he doesn't like.

I strongly resent MacFury's implication that my dialysis group is my only source of information on public opinion!!!

I am faculty at two major universities and I can tell you that the faculty lounges, classes (~size 350+) and student halls alike are full of discussion on the Duffy (or Puffy as he was known in the press gallery) matter. The feeling is that the whole affair was begun on a lie (Senator for PEI) and continues because it is clear that the lie continues in Harpo's denial of knowledge of details of the payment which is contradicted by testimony. With an ill conceived plot to discredit the senate (ironically the senate does this all by itself) Harpo has changed the focus of the campaign from the issue of leadership, which is what he wanted, to the issue of trust against which he does not measure well - by his own hand. Harpo has undermined himself.

The same is true of the general public as measured in the local coffee shops and bars, and also amongst my clients who are a diverse group of artists, engineers, consultants, doctors and academics.

As for "leadership" Harpo likes to "bang on" about how his party are the masters of the economy, except for the fact that everyone I talk to notices that Harpo and the Con-men have driven the economy into deficit and recession, while giving away money to groups that are not necessarily the most needy.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rgray said:


> Thank you Dr.G. MacFury is trying to use a Harpo-esque technique to discredit opinion he doesn't like.
> 
> I strongly resent MacFury's implication that my dialysis group is my only source of information on public opinion!!!
> 
> ...


No problem, rgray. I just don't like name-calling of this nature, regardless of the thread.

I had hoped that this thread would be one for the number predictions, and to leave the back and forth discussions about each party or party leader in the Canadian Political thread.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's the only group you mentioned rgray. I though you would find it amusing, but if any offense was taken I apologize unconditionally.




rgray said:


> Thank you Dr.G. MacFury is trying to use a Harpo-esque technique to discredit opinion he doesn't like.
> 
> I strongly resent MacFury's implication that my dialysis group is my only source of information on public opinion!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I see most of those cartoons as little more than wishful thinking of the media party hoping to take down Harper. 

Duffy scammed us for $90,000 and the Conservatives even payed it back. I wish that was the case in other scandals.
The media has been relentless in their attempts to make political hay from this "scandal" meanwhile its crickets over NDP bilking tax payers for $2.75 million in salaries for satellite offices. Not a word of Justin Trudeau making hundreds of thousands charging speaking fees (to charities of all groups) all the while he was being paid as a member of parliament and absent from parliament.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I see most of those cartoons as little more than wishful thinking of the media party hoping to take down Harper.
> 
> Duffy scammed us for $90,000 and the Conservatives even payed it back. I wish that was the case in other scandals.
> The media has been relentless in their attempts to make political hay from this "scandal" meanwhile its crickets over NDP bilking tax payers for $2.75 million in salaries for satellite offices. Not a word of Justin Trudeau making hundreds of thousands charging speaking fees (to charities of all groups) all the while he was being paid as a member of parliament and absent from parliament.


It reminds me of the US media declaring over and over that Donald Trump's campaign has "imploded"--as the rank and file disobeys their predictions.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)




----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> It's the only group you mentioned rgray. I though you would find it amusing, but if any offense was taken I apologize unconditionally.


Accepted.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

I'm glad you accepted Macfury's apology rgreyo
Now if you could only spell Harper's name.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It reminds me of the US media declaring over and over that Donald Trump's campaign has "imploded"--as the rank and file disobeys their predictions.


True. What is strange is that networks like CNN are looking at his surge as real and with cause, while the conservative networks like Fox are discounting Trump as a "flash in the pan" and a candidate with no room to grow. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Fox has become very much aligned with the RINO Republicans--they don't like to have their candidate (Jeb Bush) overlooked.



Dr.G. said:


> True. What is strange is that networks like CNN are looking at his surge as real and with cause, while the conservative networks like Fox are discounting Trump as a "flash in the pan" and a candidate with no room to grow. We shall see.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

rgray said:


>


History Repeats !!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

One difference: there was no wrongdoing or cover-up. Only Mike Duffy is on trial.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Fox has become very much aligned with the RINO Republicans--they don't like to have their candidate (Jeb Bush) overlooked.


They are far more than "Republicans in name only", Macfury. Still, while some of their "journalists" are pushing a more conservative mind set, the "mainstream" conservatives that they pander to are not following their lead. I agree that they don't like their preferred candidate, Jeb Bush, "overlooked" or behind in the polls to the likes of Donald Trump. Should prove to be an interesting Republican national convention. This could be shaping up to be another 1912 or 1948 presidential election. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't believe FOX is primarily interested in conservatism. They are primarily interested in Republicanism.



Dr.G. said:


> They are far more than "Republicans in name only", Macfury. Still, while some of their "journalists" are pushing a more conservative mind set, the "mainstream" conservatives that they pander to are not following their lead. I agree that they don't like their preferred candidate, Jeb Bush, "overlooked" or behind in the polls to the likes of Donald Trump. Should prove to be an interesting Republican national convention. This could be shaping up to be another 1912 or 1948 presidential election. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rgray said:


> History Repeats !!!!
> 
> View attachment 59441





Macfury said:


> One difference: there was no wrongdoing or cover-up. Only Mike Duffy is on trial.


True. Pres. Nixon resigned before he was to face articles of impeachment. 

An interesting article by Andrew Coyne.

Sympathy for Stephen Harper: Imagine that everyone you trusted had lied to you | National Post


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I don't believe FOX is primarily interested in conservatism. They are primarily interested in Republicanism.


Not anymore. The mainstream Republican "elite" is being shut out of on-air exposure on Fox. The northeastern "base" of fiscally conservative Republicans have not had the same clout given the onset of the religious right and the Tea Party. I doubt the likes or Pres. Nixon, Barry Goldwater, or possibly even Pres. Reagan would have much support from many of the FOX commentators these days ............... certainly not with their viewership.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Not anymore. The mainstream Republican "elite" is being shut out of on-air exposure on Fox. The northeastern "base" of fiscally conservative Republicans have not had the same clout given the onset of the religious right and the Tea Party. I doubt the likes or Pres. Nixon, Barry Goldwater, or possibly even Pres. Reagan would have much support from many of the FOX commentators these days ............... certainly not with their viewership.


You're dreaming Dr. G--the "northeastern base" is exactly the opposite of fiscally conservative. That's why the rank and file Republicans are rejecting their candidates. FOX News would probably support any Republican candidate once elected to office--Nixon, Reagan, Goldwater. However, they would probably turn on Reagan and Goldwater in the primaries.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> One difference: there was no wrongdoing or cover-up.


Social psychology says if you repeat something often enough, people will come to believe it.

Of course this effect is independent of truth value.

The concept is used in advertising all the time..........


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The media has repeated the mantra that the PMO is on trial--not Duffy--but I don't think they have succeeded.



rgray said:


> Social psychology says if you repeat something often enough, people will come to believe it.
> 
> Of course this effect is independent of truth value.
> 
> The concept is used in advertising all the time..........


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The media has repeated the mantra that the PMO is on trial--not Duffy--but I don't think they have succeeded.


And conservative supporters repeat that "there was no wrongdoing or cover-up" but that isn't working either....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> And conservative supporters repeat that "there was no wrongdoing or cover-up" but that isn't working either....


I believe it can be safely said that it is changing nobody's mind, except anecdotally.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Time for another adjustment.

NDP - 165
Oilers - 87
Libs - 83
BQ - 1
GP - 2


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No vote-splitting in Skippy's imaginary world!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Time for another adjustment.
> 
> NDP - 165
> Oilers - 87
> ...


I assume that when you write Oilers you mean the NDP?


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Dr.G. said:


> I assume that when you write Oilers you mean the NDP?


Correct. The tar sands party.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Correct. The tar sands party.


ok


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Correct. The tar sands party.


Don't you mean the Cons and not the NDP ( since you already have them leading )


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Time for another shift in the numbers:

NDP - 162
Libs - 89
Oilers - 85
BQ - 1
GP - 1


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Time for an update from me ....................

Con. 119
NDP 103
Lib. 113
BQ 2
Grn. 1


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Tom Mulcair as PM would end Canada's fight with ISIS - Politics - CBC News
while Tom as at it - he could invite ISIS to Canada and offer them welfare.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

macintosh doctor said:


> Tom Mulcair as PM would end Canada's fight with ISIS - Politics - CBC News


It is not as far fetched as it sounds. However, as I have repeatedly stated, where is the Arab League and other Middle Eastern countries in all this? The real fear is Africa.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Rps said:


> It is not as far fetched as it sounds. However, as I have repeatedly stated, where is the Arab League and other Middle Eastern countries in all this? The real fear is Africa.



You mean like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon who have taken on the bulk of refugees?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Rps said:


> It is not as far fetched as it sounds. However, as I have repeatedly stated, where is the Arab League and other Middle Eastern countries in all this? The real fear is Africa.


their goal is to spread - Islam to all. Its working.. refugees are everywhere now, plus a few ISIS are mixed in.. I wondered why they are fleeing ? is their country not worth fighting for?

Serbia - they stayed and fought.
Ukraine - they stayed and fought
Haiti - they stayed
Egypt - they stayed and fought.
yemen - they stayed and fight

there is an under lying situation that we are missing.



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> You mean like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon who have taken on the bulk of refugees?


he means emerites, uae, brahrain, aubu dabi and dubai plus saudis = 0


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

macintosh doctor said:


> their goal is to spread - Islam to all. Its working.. refugees are everywhere now, plus a few ISIS are mixed in.. I wondered why they are fleeing ? is their country not worth fighting for?


Frankly, I'm not sure you have seen photos of the cities after Assad or ISIS goes through. They look like Dresden WWII. There is nothing left.

What about the relief effort offered by Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon - these countries deserve accolades not religious taunts.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Frankly, I'm not sure you have seen photos of the cities after Assad or ISIS goes through. They look like Dresden WWII. There is nothing left.
> 
> What about the relief effort offered by Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon - these countries deserve accolades not religious taunts.


First of all Turkey - is a pit stop. Plus they will do what ever suits their interests - which ever way the wind blows.. 
Lebanon - has always had millions of Syrians inside their country - in fact they were being ruled/bullied by them at one point. 









just wait - when he wins. Canada will have a massive refugee situation going to the US.. :lmao: [ i already have my real estate agent on speed dial. ]


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

The empirical evidence of settling Syrian refugees defies what you are stating. Pew research has documented the problem for years.

Here's a sample:

The growing number of Syrian refugees | Pew Research Center

This is going off topic. Suggest you start a Syrian refugee thread for your rants.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You own Syrian refugee ideas are grossly misinformed Jimbo. Why don't you post that nonsense in its own thread?



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> The empirical evidence of settling Syrian refugees defies what you are stating. Pew research has documented the problem for years.
> 
> This is going off topic. Suggest you start a Syrian refugee thread for your rants.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> The empirical evidence of settling Syrian refugees defies what you are stating. Pew research has documented the problem for years.
> 
> This is going off topic. Suggest you start a Syrian refugee thread for your rants.


You brought up the Syrian refugees situation in a thread about Canada elections. 
Feel free to start a thread for Syrians.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

macintosh doctor said:


> You brought up the Syrian refugees situation in a thread about Canada elections.
> 
> Feel free to start a thread for Syrians.



Actually I responded to Rps's post and you intervened with your rhetoric. Too much BS to let pass.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Actually I responded to Rps's post and you intervened with your rhetoric. Too much BS to let pass.


Yes, your responses need to go into a separate junk thread.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Macfury said:


> Yes, your responses need to go into a separate junk thread.


You can always block me. Feel free.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Actually I responded to Rps's post and you intervened with your rhetoric. Too much BS to let pass.












again you derailed with the syrians - i only jumped in.. I guess Me Bad for joining you.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Well one more derailment then - how do y'all feel about Harper's $15B arms deal with the Saudis?

Odd isn't it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> again you derailed with the syrians - i only jumped in.. I guess Me Bad for joining you.


I was hoping that this thread would be just speculations re the numbers of seats each party might win.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Well one more derailment then - how do y'all feel about Harper's $15B arms deal with the Saudis?
> 
> Odd isn't it.


better the Canadian's make some money rather than the US or worse Russia or Iran, hope that answers your question. Plus we can chalk it up as 'export' rather nothing at all.
Not mention the Saudi's were going to spend the money regardless, at least its coming to Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jimbo needs all the threads here--nobody listens to him at home...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Conservative 122
Liberals 118
NDP 95
BQ 2
Green 1


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Conservative 120
Liberals 130
NDP 84
BQ 3
Green 1


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Libs 136
Cons 110
NDP 88
BQ 3
Grn 1


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Libs 136
> Cons 110
> NDP 88
> BQ 3
> Grn 1


Hope you are more accurate than I am, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Chronicle Herald

Four Nova Scotia races still too close to call | The Chronicle Herald

Going to be interesting in my riding, and province.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Libs 136
> Cons 110
> NDP 88
> BQ 3
> Grn 1


skippythebushkangaroo, you win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You were the most accurate in your speculation. Kudos from a grateful nation. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

What can I say other than I am honoured. I was quite sure of the win. And thought that if Quebec came through it was majority territory. 

Canada is back. 

Much thanks for the thread Dr. G. !!!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> What can I say other than I am honoured. I was quite sure of the win. And thought that if Quebec came through it was majority territory.
> 
> Canada is back.
> 
> Much thanks for the thread Dr. G. !!!!


No problem. Paix, mon ami. :clap: :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> skippythebushkangaroo, you win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You were the most accurate in your speculation. Kudos from a grateful nation. Paix, mon ami.


Wow--for a win it was a mile off. We are a terrible group of prognosticators!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Wow--for a win it was a mile off. We are a terrible group of prognosticators!


True. Still, he was the closest with his predictions. I did not expect the NDP to implode and the Conservatives to lose as many fairly safe ridings that they did to the Liberals.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Yes it was quite a spanking. Never again republican.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> True. Still, he was the closest with his predictions. I did not expect the NDP to implode and the Conservatives to lose as many fairly safe ridings that they did to the Liberals.


I could have only dreamed of the NDP implosion. I was almost afraid to predict such a thing for fear of jinxing it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I could have only dreamed of the NDP implosion. I was almost afraid to predict such a thing for fear of jinxing it.


Who would have predicted a Liberal majority?????


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Who would have predicted a Liberal majority?????


The NDP implosion!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The NDP implosion!


At least the NDP have a leader.

So what's next for the shattered Party of One? 

Will there have to be a whole new Conservative coalitions built in the imagined Nirvana of the next Great Leader?

Maybe that could be the next thread? Probably not a thread as it seems no one want's to consider the fate of the Canadian Conservative Coalition.

The Conservatives are in disarray in those Excited States and putting on a Clown Show with the Donald as the ring leader.

A Canadian reality show, much like, the Republican circus for President reality show?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> At least the NDP have a leader.
> 
> So what's next for the shattered Party of One?
> 
> ...


I think that both the NDP and the Conservative party needs to move more to the center. If PM Trudeau governs well, he might be able to replicate this majority win in the next federal election. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thin the NDP lost in part because it moved too far to the centre to suit its base--there was no longer any risk in supporting Trudeau..



Dr.G. said:


> I think that both the NDP and the Conservative party needs to move more to the center. If PM Trudeau governs well, he might be able to replicate this majority win in the next federal election. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I imagine a leadership contest will be next. If the NDP has any sense it will also conduct a leadership review after Mulcair snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.



BigDL said:


> At least the NDP have a leader.
> 
> So what's next for the shattered Party of One?
> 
> ...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I imagine a leadership contest will be next. If the NDP has any sense it will also conduct a leadership review after Mulcair snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.


I heard it is in the NDP constitution on one of the politico shows.

I have not heard who is the next great leader for the Conservatives. Why is no one talking about the already needed replacement for OGL? Interim leader? Anyone? Anyone?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I heard it is in the NDP constitution on one of the politico shows.
> 
> I have not heard who is the next great leader for the Conservatives. Why is no one talking about the already needed replacement for OGL? Interim leader? Anyone? Anyone?


You are either deaf, blind or ignorant. The subject, along with possible candidates, has been all over msm for days now.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> You are either deaf, blind or ignorant. The subject, along with possible candidates, has been all over msm for days now.


I am ignorant. 

I'm ignorant of yours, MF, VD and Fexl's views here at Ehmac, who shall unite the right once again. All ya'all have little to say with regard to the next leader. Why are you all being so coy with your opinions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

To be honest, BigDL, of the people showing interest so far, only Jason Kenney seems like a reasonable choice. Not interested in Doug Ford or Lisa Raitt. I would personally hope that a sacrificial interim leader is called to serve for at least six months while gauging interest from a broader scope of candidates, beyond those currently in the public sphere.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I am ignorant.
> 
> I'm ignorant of yours, MF, VD and Fexl's views here at Ehmac, who shall unite the right once again. All ya'all have little to say with regard to the next leader. Why are you all being so coy with your opinions.


Perhaps because it is a big decision that requires not only time, but research to form the right opinion? 

I would think you should be more concerned with your own union based leader Mulcair who pretty much destroyed any Layton gains from the last election.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Perhaps because it is a big decision that requires not only time, but research to form the right opinion?
> 
> I would think you should be more concerned with your own union based leader Mulcair who pretty much destroyed any Layton gains from the last election.


Agreed. I really want to see who is up for it first.

BigDL, when Mulcair is deposed, who would you like to see replace him?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Perhaps because it is a big decision that requires not only time, but research to form the right opinion?
> 
> I would think you should be more concerned with your own union based leader Mulcair who pretty much destroyed any Layton gains from the last election.


Why? Mulcair is the leader of the NDP. You disapproved of his leadership last month. You disapprove of his leadership this month and likely next month as well. 

You turned your mind to OGL's failures. I hear Diane Findley is offering to be an interim leader. Is she a viable leader? I haven't any idea if she would. 

You haven't any idea of the internal workings of the NDP, so you should not attempt to pontificate on the NDP. If you any insight regarding the Conservatives then share.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Agreed. I really want to see who is up for it first.
> 
> BigDL, when Mulcair is deposed, who would you like to see replace him?


Who deposed Mulcair?

It is the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois that are presently leaderless parties. 

Consequently the discussion of Parties in need of leaders remain based in reality, in my opinion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't believe he will be at the helm forever--although he has certainly taken to hiding over the past few days.

I gave an honest answer regarding the CPC, so I'll ask you to do the same. Do you personally believe Mulcair should stay on as leader of the NDP over the next six months? If not, who would you like to see take his spot?





BigDL said:


> Who deposed Mulcair?
> 
> It is the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois that are presently leaderless parties.
> 
> Consequently the discussion of Parties in need of leaders remain based in reality, in my opinion.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> You haven't any idea of the internal workings of the NDP, so you should not attempt to pontificate on the NDP. If you any insight regarding the Conservatives then share.


Why would I bother sharing anything with you, an NDP supporter with union ties, especially to the railroad? And yes, I know full well in Canada we have reailways, but the term railroad better fits the Dipper's plan for Canada which Mulcair was able to destroy, yet your fellow union supporters allow him to hang onto the pork barrel as only a Dipper can. That after all is what Dippers are all about. Unions and tax the living hell out of Canadians. Your views on conservatives are well known here and your disrespect for Conservatives is legend. Your signature continues to prove your small minded ways to this day. And you wonder why conservatives won't give you the time of day? Seriously?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Why would I bother sharing anything with you, an NDP supporter with union ties, especially to the railroad? And yes, I know full well in Canada we have reailways, but the term railroad better fits the Dipper's plan for Canada which Mulcair was able to destroy, yet your fellow union supporters allow him to hang onto the pork barrel as only a Dipper can. That after all is what Dippers are all about. Unions and tax the living hell out of Canadians. Your views on conservatives are well known here and your disrespect for Conservatives is legend. Your signature continues to prove your small minded ways to this day. And you wonder why conservatives won't give you the time of day? Seriously?


Fellows, your misdirection and deflections tell everyone you have little hope and have nothing to be proud of with regard to the state of the Conservative movement today.

I will give MF credit for his one post on topic. Good job. 

SINC your hatred of the NDP and of Unions is legendary. I did not know you had the same level of hatred for the railways. You learn something new every day, thanks for that info, my good friend.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Fellows, your misdirection and deflections tell everyone you have little hope and have nothing to be proud of with regard to the state of the Conservative movement today.
> 
> I will give MF credit for his one post on topic. Good job.
> 
> SINC your hatred of the NDP and of Unions is legendary. I did not know you had the same level of hatred for the railways. You learn something new every day, thanks for that info, my good friend.


As usual your comprehension needs some work. There is no hatred involved for railways or railroads, just 'railroading' issues with BS. It is a figure of speech that you apparently could not figure out. 

I am not alone in my rejection of all things NDP. Looks to me that nearly 80% of Canadians who voted had the same sentiments last Monday.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> As usual your comprehension needs some work. There is no hatred involved for railways or railroads, just 'railroading' issues with BS. It is a figure of speech that you apparently could not figure out.
> 
> I am not alone in my rejection of all things NDP. Looks to me that nearly 80% of Canadians who voted had the same sentiments last Monday.


Well I and the NDP are foremost in your thoughts again today, good buddy, thanks for thinking of us.


----------

