Will money and arrogance cost Christy Clark the election?

[mr.bandaid]

Who do you see as a viable replacement, mr.b?

Sadly I am not totally up on who all the contenders are other than what we have in our riding and a few of the more charismatic member of all the parties. It would sure be nice to see someone in that seat that could play nice in the sandbox with all the players in politics and in the public service. We have had years of battles. We also need a leader who will spend the time it takes to run government out of Victoria where it is centralized and not hide from the work it takes to be there. This minority though expected is a shame but it will have the legislature doing what it is supposed to be doing and that is meeting and debating. Some here may see that as a waste of time but while I was in School board I learned the most debating those contentious issues in meetings, so I found debate valuable. It also belays the fears of secrecy.

I edited my response so that there would be no confusion over what you posted and what I have. Not sure why the whole quote thing didn't work for me this time.

[The Green Barbarian]

Christy Clark.

It is past time for Horgan to move on.
He has a horrible, bully-boy, image.

Can't see him working well with Liberals or Greens.

How about cowboy Adrian Dix?

[neilsimon]

You must have missed Weaver's interview where he said Horgan was a hot head and that Christy was much easier to work with.

People keep bringing up Horgan's character as the reason that the Greens will go with the BC Liberals. This is not school-yard politics. Weaver and the Greens will go with whoever makes most sense after weighing up a wide range of factors. At the end of the day, these guys are professionals, not kids.

I also feel that Weaver's comments were tactical in nature, to pull otherwise BC Liberal voters into voting Green and judging by comments made both here and elsewhere, I believe that it probably worked. The Greens may very well end up forming a government with the BC Liberals because it results in a stronger majority, but they might also go to work with the NDP because they are closer ideologically. Either way, I suspect they will consider Horgan's temperament as secondary to other much more important factors.

[George+]

Ahhh...yes, Barkerville..great spot.

If the hat fits...wear it.

Doesn't work for Norm.

[The Green Barbarian]

Ahhh...yes, Barkerville..great spot.

If the hat fits...wear it.
.

Or in this case, if you think you've got the election won, sit in Barkerville trying on stupid hats as you sit on your fat NDP *bleep*.

[hobbyguy]

I still see the NDP tooters not facing up to the reality.

The Liberals lost vote share to a progressive party - to the Greens.

The NDP lost vote share to a progressive party - the Greens. The NDP had a higher vote share with the Dix debacle.

The Liberal "status quo" platform didn't cut it for urban voters.

The NDP "grievance" platform only cut it for urban voters.

The Greens progressive platform made ground up everywhere.

The NDP were only able to exploit Liberal mistakes - which were primarily in urban areas. The NDP lost ground in the rest of the province.

NDP arrogance cost them more than any arrogance cost the Liberals. The NDP had a wide open path to victory, and they fumbled the ball again, getting narrower support than they had in 2013.

The NDP can't become more progressive, it is not in their DNA. The Liberals can. Both will have to chase the Greens who had the best platform save one issue. The future only gets darker for the NDP.

[George+]

Barkerville is not open yet.

Maybe from 2013?

I honestly cannot think of anyone who could lead the Fiberals worse than Clark.

You seem to be a little testy....sour grapes?

[George+]

The Greens are totally opposite of the Cons/Lieberals.

They will need the NDP to progress and balance them out.

But tis amazing how the Fiberals suddenly want to dance!

[neilsimon]

I still see the NDP tooters not facing up to the reality.
...
The NDP lost vote share to a progressive party - the Greens. The NDP had a higher vote share with the Dix debacle.

Numbers suggest a very slight increase in support (39.71% to 39.86%), but if you have an accurate source otherwise, please share.

...NDP arrogance cost them more than any arrogance cost the Liberals. The NDP had a wide open path to victory, and they fumbled the ball again,

Wouldn't entirely disagree with you there, but in fairness, they weren't the only party to fumble it. Neither of the big two should be particularly happy with their results.

The NDP can't become more progressive, it is not in their DNA. The Liberals can. Both will have to chase the Greens who had the best platform save one issue. The future only gets darker for the NDP.

Your continued portrayal of the NDP as a one note party is just not believable, nor is it adequately supported by any evidence you have provided. I get the feeling that I'm not the only one who doesn't buy it.

[Urban Cowboy]

Not with the NDPee they don't.

See how easy it is to resort to the same game, as your constant use of Fiberals and Lieberals?

[Hurtlander]

The NDP lost vote share to a progressive party - the Greens. The NDP had a higher vote share with the Dix debacle.
.

No, that is not true according to elections BC numbers. You must been using the same creative math techniques that the BC Liberals use to show a budget surplus.

[maryjane48]

you must be referring to made up or shredded numbers

[George+]

Great time for the left to unite and represent 60% of the voters.

When elected...ALL the voters!

[Urbane]

Great time for the left to unite and represent 60% of the voters.

When elected...ALL the voters!

Many of those Green voters were Liberals who want their party to start listening more. Many were from those on the left who couldn't stomach the idea of voting NDP. More people didn't want the NDP in power than didn't want the Liberals in power.

[neilsimon]

Many of those Green voters were Liberals who want their party to start listening more. Many were from those on the left who couldn't stomach the idea of voting NDP. More people didn't want the NDP in power than didn't want the Liberals in power.

That's an unproven assumption. We do know that more people voted for candidates other than NDP candidates, than voted for NDP candidates (which is true for all parties), rather than "more people didn't want the NDP in power than didn't want the Liberals in power". It is a false assumption to treat a vote for party A as a vote against party B and particularly so when there are more than 2 parties. Therefore, we cannot say how many didn't want the NDP in power (except that it is almost certainly less than 61%), anymore than we can say how many didn't want the BC Liberals in power (except that it is almost certainly less than 60%).