Reform/Progressive Conservative crack forms

[The Green Barbarian]

Said demagoguery is not saleable.

1. It's not "demagoguery", is truth.
2. The Conservatives need to decide if they want to get in the gutter with the lying Liberals, who say one thing and do another. It's as simple as that.

[hobbyguy]

Said demagoguery is not saleable.

1. It's not "demagoguery", is truth.
2. The Conservatives need to decide if they want to get in the gutter with the lying Liberals, who say one thing and do another. It's as simple as that.

Demagoguery it is indeed.

Demagoguery in general is rooted in a lack of facts and tribalism.

Simple fact: the CPC has a low available voter pool, as their positions are currently out of step with Canadians as a whole. 6 in 10 Canadians won't even consider voting Conservative.

The same kind of number applied to the Liberals yields just over 5 in 10 Canadians will consider voting Liberal. That larger accessible voter pool doesn't show up very strongly in the actual vote, because center and left leaning voters have 2 viable and 1 not so viable choice.

However, there are just enough "strategic voters" within the center and left to overcome "own goals" by some Liberal politicians and the desire for change numbers.

Those numbers do point to an efficiency of the CPC - 33.74/40 = 84.4% efficiency in accessing the available voter pool. That's remarkably good. By comparison the Liberals wind up with a comparable number of 64%. Within that, however, is another metric that matters a lot - CPC voters are extremely unlikely to vote for another party, with only the PPC (who remain outside of the viable zone) being a significant "second choice" option.

"Gutter" politics is indeed a worry. It generally plays into the phenomenon of populist opportunist pols - and that's not good for democracy. Andrew Scheer's "soft on child pornography" directed at Lorne Nystrom is a classic example of that. The sad thing is that it works - as Scheer demonstrated, and too many from bloggers Montreal Simon through to the "Buffalo Chronicle" have latched onto it - with help from mercenaries like Warren Kinsella who has made a career of it.

There is a difference however, between "gutter politics" as Scheer so ably demonstrated, and making a case that an opponent's policy positions are weaker or wrong. The general character of "gutter politics" is that it is personal and aimed at character assassination.

Within the voter pool, there are a significant number of voters who express dislike of "attack ads" and "gutter" politics. The CPC has made that a "bread and butter" item of their politics - and it is demagoguery. https://www.hilltimes.com/2021/08/29/no ... ies/313879

In essence, the CPC reliance on attack ads, reinforced by answering all questions "but Trudeau..." closes off a significant number of voters from being "accessible voters" for them. Add in the so-con "stinking albatross" and you have about 10% of the voter pool. That 10% could be a 5-6% swing fro the Conservatives.

But how to get there without losing the so-cons, who are a bigger chunk of CPC voters???

[The Green Barbarian]

Demagoguery it is indeed.

not in my case, obviously, but let's dig a bit deeper...

Demagoguery in general is rooted in a lack of facts and tribalism.

Ok, thank you for defining "demagoguery"....

Simple fact: the CPC has a low available voter pool, as their positions are currently out of step with Canadians as a whole. 6 in 10 Canadians won't even consider voting Conservative.

And then following up your definition with an actual example of demagoguery and bald-faced lying. Just saying "Simple fact" in front of a lie doesn't make it less of a lie.

The Conservatives aren't "out of step" with Canadian voters, and this continual assumption that there is this homogeneous grouping of Canadian voters that are extremely dense and just blindly accept insanely stupid Leftist policy is not only silly, it's arrogant, and horribly dangerous if you fall into this idiot's trap.

But yes, thank you for giving us such a fine example - demagoguery at it's finest!!

[fluffy]

In essence, the CPC reliance on attack ads, reinforced by answering all questions "but Trudeau..." closes off a significant number of voters from being "accessible voters" for them. Add in the so-con "stinking albatross" and you have about 10% of the voter pool. That 10% could be a 5-6% swing *bleep* the Conservatives.

But how to get there without losing the so-cons, who are a bigger chunk of CPC voters???

How to indeed. The big reason that their default position is one of character assassination and innuendo is that the policies they need to keep in place to hang on to those in favour of maintaining the status quo don't play well to the general public, a public more aware of the roots of the issues facing us than ever before.

[The Green Barbarian]

How to indeed. The big reason that their default position is one of character assassination and innuendo is that the policies they need to keep in place to hang on to those in favour of maintaining the status quo don't play well to the general public, a public more aware of the roots of the issues facing us than ever before.

I'd say that this is 100% wrong. The "default position of character assassination and pure innuendo" is totally what the CPC's opponents hang their hats on, as we say with the continual stream of disgusting prevarication flowing from the CPC's main opponent's camp. Literally nothing these people were saying about the CPC was/is true, just as nothing in the above statement is true. But it doesn't really matter, does it? As long as enough gullible fools buy into this bunk, then hey, why not just keep going to that horrible zero integrity well?

Such horrible demagoguery from the CPC's opponents. Something that they really need to capitalize on.

[Ka-El]

The big reason that their default position is one of character assassination and innuendo is that the policies they need to keep in place to hang on to those in favour of maintaining the status quo don't play well to the general public, a public more aware of the roots of the issues facing us than ever before.

Along with the growing recognition that many conservative ideas are as extremist as their socialist counterparts who are just as far from centre, and that we won't solve or even effectively address the challenges facing us today using the same right-wing thinking that created them.

[fluffy]

Along with the growing recognition that many conservative ideas are as extremist as their socialist counterparts who are just as far from centre, and that we won't solve or even effectively address the challenges facing us today using the same right-wing thinking that created them.

They can see no distinction between "a little less capitalist" and "extreme socialist". There's a world of distance in there.

[hobbyguy]

How to indeed. The big reason that their default position is one of character assassination and innuendo is that the policies they need to keep in place to hang on to those in favour of maintaining the status quo don't play well to the general public, a public more aware of the roots of the issues facing us than ever before.

I'd say that this is 100% wrong. The "default position of character assassination and pure innuendo" is totally what the CPC's opponents hang their hats on, as we say with the continual stream of disgusting prevarication flowing from the CPC's main opponent's camp. Literally nothing these people were saying about the CPC was/is true, just as nothing in the above statement is true. But it doesn't really matter, does it? As long as enough gullible fools buy into this bunk, then hey, why not just keep going to that horrible zero integrity well?

Such horrible demagoguery from the CPC's opponents. Something that they really need to capitalize on.

LOL. LOOK at your own signature - it is part of the CPC demagoguery.

The constant CPC aficionado attempts to project their own and the CPC attack based strategy on others is just foolish.

The attack based CPC outlook and strategy just ain't cutting it any more. 99.9% of the attacks by the CPC are on the Liberals. In the last election the CPC vote share went down. Yup, it worked for the CPC in 06, 08, 11. But.... the vote share has declined ever since 11. It didn't work in 15, or 19, or 21. People get tired of the "cry wolf" nonsense from the CPC - especially when the CPC has a dog's breakfast of unpalatable policy/positions.

Interesting to note: I estimated that the CPC has thrown away about 6% of the vote share based on 10% of voters being policy/position swing voters. In 2011 the CPC got 39.6% of the vote. In 2021 the CPC got 33.7% of the vote - yup a 6% difference.

O'Toole's attempt at middle ground was obviously inauthentic and so did not work. All it did was drive some voters to the PPC (which didn't really matter much as where the PPC were significant factors, the CPC won handily anyway).

The real killers for the CPC in 2015 and 2019 were the so-con diehards, many of whom were infiltrators from the Campaign Life Coalition. They helped O'Toole and the CPC not gain any ground once again. O'Toole may, or may not be "pro-choice" and a "protector of LGBTQ2S+ rights" (I personally think not because he would not spend political capital to do so in 2021). IF that is what the CPC party wants - then must boot the Campaign Life Coalition infiltrators out.

That would trigger a a rebuild for the CPC, something it has not done since '06. In essence, the CPC constantly being the official opposition and without a hope of governance is up to the CPC. Carry being the same tired old CPC that refuses to acknowledge modernity and science - and what you see is what you get.

There is a danger for the CPC that could develop courtesy of Singh and the NDP - the resilience of the Singh/NDP vote may push the Liberals a tad to the right in search of votes with their next leader. That would slam the door on any future attempts by the CPC to expand their accessible votes.

Mind you, there is nothing wrong with the CPC choosing the alternate path, just being happy to essentially be an AlSask rump opposition (as the Reform party was) and largely giving up on the rest of the country. That also is entirely up to the CPC.

[fluffy]

Well said hobbyguy. That strikes me as an accurate assumption of the current state affairs at the federal level. That there is significant internal strife within the CPC is obvious, and the schisms that initially led to the birth of the Reform Party survive to this day. The only common ground between the far right former Reform Party membership and center-right former Progressive Conservative from the Brian Mulrooney days is a desire to usurp the Liberals and return to power in Ottawa. They brought no significant new policies to the table this past election, and the little they did produce was so obviously liberal policy done up in a blue jacket that the centrist voters O'Toole was trying to woo saw through it easily.

There is still, and always has been, an underlying desire within the CPC in general to push their version of rule-by-privilege upon an unsuspecting public, that throwing a few pennies at the voters' feet in the forming of tax reductions and give-aways will turn their eyes away from the true nature of the party as one more intent on fooling the voters than actually representing them. It's in their blood.

In the end, the Liberals aren't a whole lot better, but they are better in that their devotion to spending on the social safety net does say a lot in terms of promoting some semblance of both economic and social equality.

Your take on the rising popularity of Mr. Singh and the NDP is also accurate. If one were to move their political viewfinder towards the left, the same differences that exist between the Libs and the CPC also exist between the Libs and the NDP, albeit in a view further to the left. This goes to a lot of the reasons being discussed in neo-liberalism threads, where our current economic structure of deregulation has led to a feeding frenzy among the one-percenters, a group perceived by many to be the controlling interest in right wing parties.

[The Green Barbarian]

LOL. LOOK at your own signature - it is part of the CPC demagoguery.

LOL - no it's "true", and also a response to the non-stop LPC demagoguery.

The constant CPC aficionado attempts to project their own and the CPC attack based strategy on others is just foolish.

And yet the true fools in this story are the LPC aficionado attempts to project their own and the LPC attack-based strategy on others. The constant lying, mega-prevarication and fear-mongering by LPC aficionados only helps the CPC in the long run, as it exposes the true demagoguery at work in their opponents.

The attack based CPC outlook and strategy just ain't cutting it any more.

And as we've seen the LPC losing two elections in a row, clearly their outlook and strategy just ain't cutting it anymore either. So what will cut it? If the LPC would stop with the fear-mongering, and bald-faced lying, in my opinion, that would go a long way, but we know who is running the LPC right now, and that's all they know - bald-faced lying, anything to do to win.

So the CPC has to decide, are they going to descend to the level of demagoguery of their opponents? Or do they keep taking the high road against the blight that is upon this nation, a party run by people with zero integrity, who will say whatever it takes to win? That's something that will probably cause a lot of inward thinking, as no one should have to descend to such horrible depths as the CPC's opponents have descended. That's a path to true evil and ultimate failure, as the CPC's opponents have found out two elections in a row now.

[crookedmember]

The Reform/Alliance CPC can either split in two, or continue to be the Loser's Club indefinitely.

The slow-witted social conservatives force the moribund party to take unpopular positions on abortion, gay rights, climate change and mandatory vaccination, to name just a few.

If the Liberals were stupid enough to park on the wrong side of every issue, they would keep losing elections too.

They can give Elmer Fudd the boot as leader, but that won't help them. They have to boot the crazies.

[The Green Barbarian]

If the Liberals were stupid enough to park on the wrong side of every issue, they would keep losing elections too.

And yet the Liberals are obviously stupid, because they have kept losing elections.

They can give Elmer Fudd the boot as leader,

Who is Elmer Fudd?

but that won't help them. They have to boot the crazies.

The thing is though, the CPC doesn't have to worry about the far Left screwing their chances of winning elections like their opponents do. If anyone needs to "boot the crazies", it's the CPC's opponents.

[fluffy]

The Reform/Alliance CPC can either split in two, or continue to be the Loser's Club indefinitely.

But politics is politics, and one big losers' club has a better chance of gaining power than two little losers' clubs. The trouble for the CPC is that they are a single losers' club in name only, their reality is that they are still two losers' parties fighting each other for control.

[Ka-El]

They can give Elmer Fudd the boot as leader,

Who is Elmer Fudd?

Who's dimples? Is Hillary a Republican now?
American "Thinkers" want to know

[The Green Barbarian]

Who's dimples?

I don't know. Who is "Elmer Fudd"?

Is Hillary a Republican now?

Hillary who?

American "Thinkers" want to know

Well there aren't too many "Canadian thinkers" around here, that's for sure.