For the most part the U.S political climate has remained the same. The White House resident is still a democrat, the senate is still controlled by democrats and the House is controlled by Republicans. But I think in all it is a win for left wing of the country, and shows to some extent the fact that America has at least in my mind moved little bit more towards the left of the political spectrum.
In the Presidential election Obama didn't win popular vote wise as much as he did in 2008. This of course doesn't prove that America has moved to the right, because we have to look at previous elections and look for a trend. The trend I see is that many former swing states have started to lean towards the democrats, and many former Republican states have started to become the new swing states.
Michigan and Pennsylvania have been called swing states for quite some time, but they haven't voted for a republican since 1988! The state of New Mexico was also called a swing state and even voted for Bush in 2004, but the Hispanic vote which is growing in New Mexico, and is increasingly voted Democrat ensured Obama would win New Mexico by a 10% margin (which rivals other more staunchly democratic states like Washington). The state of Virginia which before 2008 has voted Republican since 1964 has became increasingly a democratic state. The state of North Carolina before 2008 has voted Republican since 1976. In 2004 Bush won the state by more than 12%, and now Romney only wins by a mere 3%.
As it can be seen a Democrat candidate has an easier way to 270 electoral votes versus any generic Republican candidate, because many states have become increasingly democratic due the increasing minority demographics in the U.S which currently vote staunchly democrat and the Youth vote increasing involvement.
For example in the year 2000 Only 15% of voters were of the age 18-29 and by a margin of 13% they voted for Gore. In 2008 18% of voters were 18-29 and Obama carried it by more then 34%. In 2012 the portion increased again and is now 19% and they still vote by an overwhelming margin of 23% for the democrats.
As for minorities in 2000 80% of voters were white, in 2008 only 74% were white and in 2012 only 72% are white. The Republican party is only winning this demographic, and have improved there numbers among whites since 2000. Bush in 2000 got 54% of the white vote Romney got 59%. The Reason this landslide majority among white's doesn't easily propel someone to the presidency is because of the minority vote, which feel they are being pushed away by the Republicans.
Among African Americans the percentage has remained relatively constant with around 90% something of all African Americans voting Democratic, but the reason this is dangerous is because the African American voting population is increasing. From 9%-13% (between 2000 and 2012)
Among Hispanics there is a different story. They have also increased there share of the voting population from 7% -10% (between 200 and 2012), but they have also increasingly started to move towards the blue candidate. In 2004 44% of Hispanics voted for Bush, In 2008 only 32% and in 2012 27%. The same is true for the Asian population as well.
It can be seen that demographics of America's voting population has made dramatic changes to some states voting habits as the Republican party is increasingly becoming a party made up of primarily white people and seems to be pushing away the other minorities. If any Republican wishes to get elected president continually pushing away minorities and not reaching out will cause the demise of the Republican party.
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." A Liberal-supporting, environmentalist blog. We blog according to our opinions, not those of the party or government. Free speech must win and that's why we have this blog. The views of two Montrealers and a Libertarian.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Monday, September 03, 2012
Last Second Projection!
The poll that get's the last say is Leger Marketing August 31st. The Poll shows a new development that seems to be supported by past polls. That the CAQ will have more votes then the Liberals, and the PQ will win a government. But votes don't translate into seats, and in fact I think Won't win more seats or votes come election night
While I say Francois Legault still won't win his party has shown that it can in fact hold it's 28%. Leger Marketing shows that CAQ support is even among older voters and middle age voters who tend to be more reliable , while it's support is low among young voters who tend to be less reliable. While the Liberals support is only high among voters older then 65 and below or average on all other age groups especially youth. The PQ on the other hand have gain some support among some middle age voters, but still is weak among retired or soon to retire voters. This tells us that the Liberals and the CAQ have some gains they can make on election day if there is low youth turnout.
Still 28% of voters can change their minds. This is bad news for the CAQ because among it's voters 37% said they could change their minds, while only 27% Liberal and a low 15% PQ. This plays to the advantage of the PLQ, because there lost votes didn't go to the PQ it went to the CAQ and on election day the most likely transfer of votes will be between CAQ voters to PLQ. But the PQ can also make gains as 34% of Quebec Solidaire voters and Option National two other separatist parties also could change there minds.
Pauline Marois has been leading in the polls since the beginning with the exception of that one fringe poll showing Charest would win. Now 53% of Quebec thinks she will form the next government. But 76% think that it will be a minority, but if the polls are right it's not out of the question that the PQ will get a majority. 308.com actually has Marois in Majority territory, but a very small one.
I will post my complete projection at 1pm. In case any new poll comes out.
While I say Francois Legault still won't win his party has shown that it can in fact hold it's 28%. Leger Marketing shows that CAQ support is even among older voters and middle age voters who tend to be more reliable , while it's support is low among young voters who tend to be less reliable. While the Liberals support is only high among voters older then 65 and below or average on all other age groups especially youth. The PQ on the other hand have gain some support among some middle age voters, but still is weak among retired or soon to retire voters. This tells us that the Liberals and the CAQ have some gains they can make on election day if there is low youth turnout.
Still 28% of voters can change their minds. This is bad news for the CAQ because among it's voters 37% said they could change their minds, while only 27% Liberal and a low 15% PQ. This plays to the advantage of the PLQ, because there lost votes didn't go to the PQ it went to the CAQ and on election day the most likely transfer of votes will be between CAQ voters to PLQ. But the PQ can also make gains as 34% of Quebec Solidaire voters and Option National two other separatist parties also could change there minds.
Pauline Marois has been leading in the polls since the beginning with the exception of that one fringe poll showing Charest would win. Now 53% of Quebec thinks she will form the next government. But 76% think that it will be a minority, but if the polls are right it's not out of the question that the PQ will get a majority. 308.com actually has Marois in Majority territory, but a very small one.
I will post my complete projection at 1pm. In case any new poll comes out.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
When Is A Religious Symbol Not Religious?
I have been going over the arguments I have presented why it is hypocritical for the PQ to want to eliminate religious symbols in public areas, but yet still keep the crucifix. But after much deep consideration I have come to the conclusion that I am wrong.
Because fundamentally is the crucifix itself being in the national assembly a religious statement, and can symbols that can be characterized as religious be able to get government funds? For example if the crucifix is broken and needs repair should taxpayers pay for it?
In this situation I find myself agreeing with the PQ and complacently disagreeing with my former post. That the crucifix does have historical reasons to be in the national assembly. It is a historical artifact, and like many historical artifacts in the world they do have religious meaning. For example in Mount Royal there is a big cross and many historical places that we preserve can be characterized as religious.
That doesn't mean simply because we invest in repairing or preserving these symbols that we are therefor endorsing a religion or another but rather that we are preserving it's historical meaning. For example the UN does spend money on preserving many very historical sites which can in some cases be a religious site, It doesn't mean that we endorse the religion the symbol may represent to some people but rather the protection of an old historical site.
On the question of whether people should be able to wear religious symbols in public I do still disagree with them, because I believe we should live in a very tolerant society that allows people in most cases (with very few exception) the ability to wear whatever we want as long as it is decent of course. Which means Hijabs, Kipahs, Kirpans etc... should be allowed to be worn by anyone anywhere in public.
In conclusion the crucifix should be allowed to stay in the national assembly, because it is historical.
Because fundamentally is the crucifix itself being in the national assembly a religious statement, and can symbols that can be characterized as religious be able to get government funds? For example if the crucifix is broken and needs repair should taxpayers pay for it?
In this situation I find myself agreeing with the PQ and complacently disagreeing with my former post. That the crucifix does have historical reasons to be in the national assembly. It is a historical artifact, and like many historical artifacts in the world they do have religious meaning. For example in Mount Royal there is a big cross and many historical places that we preserve can be characterized as religious.
That doesn't mean simply because we invest in repairing or preserving these symbols that we are therefor endorsing a religion or another but rather that we are preserving it's historical meaning. For example the UN does spend money on preserving many very historical sites which can in some cases be a religious site, It doesn't mean that we endorse the religion the symbol may represent to some people but rather the protection of an old historical site.
On the question of whether people should be able to wear religious symbols in public I do still disagree with them, because I believe we should live in a very tolerant society that allows people in most cases (with very few exception) the ability to wear whatever we want as long as it is decent of course. Which means Hijabs, Kipahs, Kirpans etc... should be allowed to be worn by anyone anywhere in public.
In conclusion the crucifix should be allowed to stay in the national assembly, because it is historical.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Premier Legault? Not Happening !!!!!!!!!
With current polls putting Francois Legault a close third to the other two major political parties many are wondering whether Francois Leagualt will be able to make it all the way and win government in this election. There are many reasons to suspect that the CAQ will make major gains in this election and that they will no doubt out do the ADQ, but when it comes to the question of whether they can achieve a government, but I think they won't.
First it's very easy to look at the polls and say that the surge in CAQ support may give Legault the support he needs to form a government. A poll done on August 16th have the CAQ at 27%, QLP at 28% and the PQ at 33%. This poll suggest that the CAQ can make this a three way race, but if we look deaper into the numbers you will know why the CAQ won't end up victories September 4th.
In the Leger Marketing poll they asked people who said they would vote one way if their choice was final or if they could change there minds on election day. The PQ and the PLQ both scored high among there supporters. With 71% of PQ supporters and 64% of PLQ supporters saying that there choice was final. The CAQ on the other hand has half it's supporters saying they could change their minds on election day. This shows that the CAQ support is weak and that his party's support is the most liquid of the three major parties. Meaning he has most to lose and the least to gain as Quebec Liberal supporter and PQ supporters seem to have more then CAQ supporters made up their minds.
Also when asked who in the people's opinion will form the next government the CAQ placed third with 15%, behind the PLQ and PQ with 26% and 37% respectfully. Which shows that a large number of CAQ supporters don't see the CAQ getting elected which means that the party itself isn't sure it will win even though their polling like they could.
Even with all this the CAQ have a lot going for them when asked who can bring better access to health care, who can stop corruption and who can balance the budget Francois Legault wins beating the other leaders by a large margin. But when it comes to election night the CAQ won't reach where they are in the polls as there voters are less sure about the party. When it comes to election night CAQ voters will be more likely to stay at home or change there minds and vote for someone else then PQ or PLQ voters.
See The Poll Here
First it's very easy to look at the polls and say that the surge in CAQ support may give Legault the support he needs to form a government. A poll done on August 16th have the CAQ at 27%, QLP at 28% and the PQ at 33%. This poll suggest that the CAQ can make this a three way race, but if we look deaper into the numbers you will know why the CAQ won't end up victories September 4th.
In the Leger Marketing poll they asked people who said they would vote one way if their choice was final or if they could change there minds on election day. The PQ and the PLQ both scored high among there supporters. With 71% of PQ supporters and 64% of PLQ supporters saying that there choice was final. The CAQ on the other hand has half it's supporters saying they could change their minds on election day. This shows that the CAQ support is weak and that his party's support is the most liquid of the three major parties. Meaning he has most to lose and the least to gain as Quebec Liberal supporter and PQ supporters seem to have more then CAQ supporters made up their minds.
Also when asked who in the people's opinion will form the next government the CAQ placed third with 15%, behind the PLQ and PQ with 26% and 37% respectfully. Which shows that a large number of CAQ supporters don't see the CAQ getting elected which means that the party itself isn't sure it will win even though their polling like they could.
Even with all this the CAQ have a lot going for them when asked who can bring better access to health care, who can stop corruption and who can balance the budget Francois Legault wins beating the other leaders by a large margin. But when it comes to election night the CAQ won't reach where they are in the polls as there voters are less sure about the party. When it comes to election night CAQ voters will be more likely to stay at home or change there minds and vote for someone else then PQ or PLQ voters.
See The Poll Here
Monday, August 13, 2012
Charest Will Win
I'm calling it right now. A Liberal minority government. Polls show that the PQ is leading right now with the support of those alienated by Charest's stance on education and their view of him being corrupt. But, I think that when time comes to vote, a significant portion of the PQ support will simply go with what they know best: the Liberals. They will reason that the tuition increases were not all that bad and that Charest didn't do all too bad on corruption. Besides, the PQ wants a referendum and when time comes to actually take action and vote, they will not support the PQ.
And what about the CAQ? Why won't Quebecers vote for Francois Legault's party? Because, so far the party has not proven to be a serious choice. They seem like disorganised buffoons. Charest is just feeding off this. And so, Charest will win the same way Harper did: by making sure that only the Liberals seem in control of the situation while the other parties blow themselves up.
And what about the CAQ? Why won't Quebecers vote for Francois Legault's party? Because, so far the party has not proven to be a serious choice. They seem like disorganised buffoons. Charest is just feeding off this. And so, Charest will win the same way Harper did: by making sure that only the Liberals seem in control of the situation while the other parties blow themselves up.
Charest had a field day with this, saying: “If I understand it correctly, François Legault will run the Twitter account and organize cocktail fundraisers, while Jacques Duchesneau will run the rest of the government.” Marois also pounced, accusing the CAQ of “improvisation” and calling them “amateurish.” In other words, not ready to govern.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
PQ Proposes New Language Law!
The PQ leader Pauline Marois is proposing new language laws and a her version of secularism. Both of which will make Quebec much worse off. The new Language laws or as Marois would like to put it "a new Bill 101" would harm the most vulnerable people in Quebec society. These People are the anglophone population.
New laws like instituting bill 101 in small business that used to be exempts of such laws would make it harder for the anglophone population to get a job or even keep there job. Now business with as few as 11 people would have to comply to bill 101.
But not all the new language laws will harm the anglophone population. Other rules the PQ are proposing like barring most francophone and anglophones from attending English CEGEP's. Will make it difficult for many to become bilingual. And statistically bilingual Quebecers make more money then there uni-lingual francophone counterparts. This isn't just an issue that will effect anglophones, because trying to reduce the Quebec's populations English language skills will harm the Quebec as a whole.
Yet Marois tries to defend her language laws by using the same old fear tactics that the french language will die if we don't.
Read More Here
New laws like instituting bill 101 in small business that used to be exempts of such laws would make it harder for the anglophone population to get a job or even keep there job. Now business with as few as 11 people would have to comply to bill 101.
But not all the new language laws will harm the anglophone population. Other rules the PQ are proposing like barring most francophone and anglophones from attending English CEGEP's. Will make it difficult for many to become bilingual. And statistically bilingual Quebecers make more money then there uni-lingual francophone counterparts. This isn't just an issue that will effect anglophones, because trying to reduce the Quebec's populations English language skills will harm the Quebec as a whole.
Yet Marois tries to defend her language laws by using the same old fear tactics that the french language will die if we don't.
"Our identity is so important. We are French people in North America. We are a small minority. If we don't wage this battle, we could lose this identity."
'If we don't wage this battle, we could lose [our] identity,'
"We have abandoned the defence of our language," she told reporters, saying the use of the French language is on the decline, particularly in Montreal.
Read More Here
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Charest Strategy: Family!
Jean Charest new proposal to give parents who send their kids to public primary school will get 100 dollars every year helps many people, because Many parents today are having trouble affording school supplies for their children. This plan will effect the parents of over 450,000 children who go to public primary schools in Quebec.100$ a year isn't a lot, but for many families it is good assistance.
Another Proposal by the Quebec Liberals to try and get young family voters was announced Sunday.This plan is to help business create daycares in workplaces. Another much needed assistance to families in Quebec which have a very hard time finding daycares. This proposal did come with some bad news, which was that the cost of daycare's will rise by the cost of living.
It seems the Liberal Party has mapped out it's strategy in this election. Since they can't get younger voters for obvious reasons then they are going for family voters. The PQ have yet to make any move on the campaign trail to attract these group of voters, which may be a fatal mistake for them as adults tend to vote more often then young people which seems to be the group they are courting.
Read More Here
Another Proposal by the Quebec Liberals to try and get young family voters was announced Sunday.This plan is to help business create daycares in workplaces. Another much needed assistance to families in Quebec which have a very hard time finding daycares. This proposal did come with some bad news, which was that the cost of daycare's will rise by the cost of living.
It seems the Liberal Party has mapped out it's strategy in this election. Since they can't get younger voters for obvious reasons then they are going for family voters. The PQ have yet to make any move on the campaign trail to attract these group of voters, which may be a fatal mistake for them as adults tend to vote more often then young people which seems to be the group they are courting.
Read More Here
Monday, August 06, 2012
Quebec Solidaire And The PQ
Amir Khadir was the first Quebec Solidaire member of the national assembly, and now the Quebec Solidaire seems poised to try and gain another seat right next to Amir Khadir's. In the riding of Gouin the Co-President of the Quebec Solidaire Francois David is campaigning to try and get her party a second seat in the National Assembly.
In the last election Francois David got 7987 votes while the PQ candidate Nicholas Girard (who is also running in 2012) got 10276 votes. In total that about 2,300 votes difference, which may be a lot for the Quebec Solidaire to get. Especially with the PQ riding higher in the polls then they did in 2008, but the Quebec Solidare seems to be doing a very local campaign. In which they will be concentrating a lot more of there time on Gouin and Mercier (Amir Khadir's riding).
In 2008 Amir Khadir unseated a PQ MNA to get elected, if Francois David get's elected September 4th she will also unseat a PQ member of national assembly. What does this mean to the PQ chances of forming government. In an election so close the Quebec Solidaires two seat could make it or break it for the PQ. Francois David had this to say:
So now one can safely assume when making riding projections that if their is a minority government one can safely assume that the QS will be supporting the PQ.
Read more here
In the last election Francois David got 7987 votes while the PQ candidate Nicholas Girard (who is also running in 2012) got 10276 votes. In total that about 2,300 votes difference, which may be a lot for the Quebec Solidaire to get. Especially with the PQ riding higher in the polls then they did in 2008, but the Quebec Solidare seems to be doing a very local campaign. In which they will be concentrating a lot more of there time on Gouin and Mercier (Amir Khadir's riding).
In 2008 Amir Khadir unseated a PQ MNA to get elected, if Francois David get's elected September 4th she will also unseat a PQ member of national assembly. What does this mean to the PQ chances of forming government. In an election so close the Quebec Solidaires two seat could make it or break it for the PQ. Francois David had this to say:
« Si à la fin de la campagne, il manque un seul comté pour que le PQ forme un gouvernement majoritaire, et bien je suis ouverte à dialoguer avec lui », a-t-elle lancé.Which in English means that she would be open to having dialogue with the PQ after the election if they are missing one MNA to form a Majority government. And one would believe it very likely that the Quebec Solidaire would support the PQ form a government.
So now one can safely assume when making riding projections that if their is a minority government one can safely assume that the QS will be supporting the PQ.
Read more here
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Marco Rubio for VP? Part 2
I will now provide the answer to the final question and give the recap as well as the overall score and compare all three VP candidates I have so far analysed.
Final Question
Does Rubio come with baggage?
He does have a lot of political experience, but Marco Rubio doesn't have any executive experience, which is what Mitt has been screaming about when he talks about how he has a lot of executive experience making tough decisions. It would be hard to explain why the we must have a someone who has worked in the private sector and knows how to make executive decisions Mitt Romney would chose someone who has been in Politics for his entire working life. Rubio has Legislative experience as Senator and state congressman. This is not just a slight disadvantage, and will for sure make some questions about Rubio being pick. John Kasich worked in the private sector very recently for 8 years and Chirs Christie did have a job as a lawyer as well as executive experience as a governor.
To Recap?
Rubio will have an enormous amount of support coming with him on the ticket,and he would defiantly help Romney in some must win states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa as well as New Hampshire. He also seems to have a clean record and shows no major disadvantage. Which is why many people in the Republican party are hoping Romney will chose Rubio. The only problem he did state before he isn't interested in running for VP, but that hasn't stopped many before.
Here is all the scoring of all three candidates with some slight changes
Score Marco Rubio John Kasich Chris Christie
Can he Help carry a state 4/4 1/4 2/4
Motivate a group 3/3 1/3 2/3*
Does he come with Baggage 1/3 2.5/3 2.5/3
Total 8/10 4.5/10 6.5/10
* The Reason I changed Christie's 3 to a 2 was because I found it unfair I gave him a 3 out of three for motivating the tea party and Marco the same score for motivating the tea party and getting Latino votes.
Final Question
Does Rubio come with baggage?
He does have a lot of political experience, but Marco Rubio doesn't have any executive experience, which is what Mitt has been screaming about when he talks about how he has a lot of executive experience making tough decisions. It would be hard to explain why the we must have a someone who has worked in the private sector and knows how to make executive decisions Mitt Romney would chose someone who has been in Politics for his entire working life. Rubio has Legislative experience as Senator and state congressman. This is not just a slight disadvantage, and will for sure make some questions about Rubio being pick. John Kasich worked in the private sector very recently for 8 years and Chirs Christie did have a job as a lawyer as well as executive experience as a governor.
To Recap?
Rubio will have an enormous amount of support coming with him on the ticket,and he would defiantly help Romney in some must win states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa as well as New Hampshire. He also seems to have a clean record and shows no major disadvantage. Which is why many people in the Republican party are hoping Romney will chose Rubio. The only problem he did state before he isn't interested in running for VP, but that hasn't stopped many before.
Here is all the scoring of all three candidates with some slight changes
Score Marco Rubio John Kasich Chris Christie
Can he Help carry a state 4/4 1/4 2/4
Motivate a group 3/3 1/3 2/3*
Does he come with Baggage 1/3 2.5/3 2.5/3
Total 8/10 4.5/10 6.5/10
* The Reason I changed Christie's 3 to a 2 was because I found it unfair I gave him a 3 out of three for motivating the tea party and Marco the same score for motivating the tea party and getting Latino votes.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Marco Rubio for VP? Part 1
Like I did for Christie and Kasich I will now analyse the benefits and the disadvantages of Marco Rubio as a VP choice.
First Question
Does he help carry any state?
Marco Rubio is the Senator from Florida which does for some reason always seem to be in the center of political campaigns. The only issue is Rubio isn't very popular in his state. Current polls have him with 46% disapproval and 41% approval, but I will explain why Rubio can still help Romney win Florida soon. Rubio like Christie can help carry states that are very pro Tea party. Like Iowa, Missouri and New Hampshire. Although it should be noted that Missouri is already leaning for Romney Iowa would still be a toss up and so would New Hampshire. But unlike Christie though he can get Latino voters. Which may help Romney in states like Nevada, New Mexico, Colardo and even Florida. This makes Rubio a very attractive candidate when it comes to electoral calculations.
Does he attract a group Romney can't?
Yes he does! Not only would the so called "crown prince of the Tea Party" be able to motivate the Tea party movement which has been very slow to go full out supporting Romney, but Rubio would also get Latino voters which helped Obama get elected in 2008. Exit polls in Rubio's senate race showed that Rubio got 55% of the Latino votes while Obama in 2008 won the Latino vote by 57% in Florida and 67% nationwide. If Rubio is the VP candidate he could attract many Latino voters which is a very crucial block for the Obama campaign especially in Florida where Latino voters already vote more Republican than the national average.
I will provide the answer, the recap as well as the score for all the three VP candidates that I have so far analysed on Sunday at 7.
First Question
Does he help carry any state?
Marco Rubio is the Senator from Florida which does for some reason always seem to be in the center of political campaigns. The only issue is Rubio isn't very popular in his state. Current polls have him with 46% disapproval and 41% approval, but I will explain why Rubio can still help Romney win Florida soon. Rubio like Christie can help carry states that are very pro Tea party. Like Iowa, Missouri and New Hampshire. Although it should be noted that Missouri is already leaning for Romney Iowa would still be a toss up and so would New Hampshire. But unlike Christie though he can get Latino voters. Which may help Romney in states like Nevada, New Mexico, Colardo and even Florida. This makes Rubio a very attractive candidate when it comes to electoral calculations.
Does he attract a group Romney can't?
Yes he does! Not only would the so called "crown prince of the Tea Party" be able to motivate the Tea party movement which has been very slow to go full out supporting Romney, but Rubio would also get Latino voters which helped Obama get elected in 2008. Exit polls in Rubio's senate race showed that Rubio got 55% of the Latino votes while Obama in 2008 won the Latino vote by 57% in Florida and 67% nationwide. If Rubio is the VP candidate he could attract many Latino voters which is a very crucial block for the Obama campaign especially in Florida where Latino voters already vote more Republican than the national average.
I will provide the answer, the recap as well as the score for all the three VP candidates that I have so far analysed on Sunday at 7.
Marois Startegy Clever, But Will It Work?
In an effort to try and win the election Marois asked student Protesters to hold a truce on strikes until the election is over. Future confrontations with Police Marois said would benefit Charest Law and Order agenda.
She is right if there are major confrontations with police that leads to mass social unrest Charest will be seen as the person who can fix it all, and Marois will look like she is siding with the protesters. Also mass riots will take the issue of corruption and even tuition hikes off the view of the public. Just like it did a few months ago, because the issue become not whether we should reduce tuition, but how do we stop this unrest? Right now the more militant student group called La CLASS is considering whether or not to listen to Marois advice.
What Most probably will happen is that there will be some student protest, but there will be less. Whether the protest will be the main issue on voters mind has yet to be seen.It is clear more then ever that how to solve civil unrest will play a major factor in this election, but will it be the main theme of the election is yet to be seen.
She is right if there are major confrontations with police that leads to mass social unrest Charest will be seen as the person who can fix it all, and Marois will look like she is siding with the protesters. Also mass riots will take the issue of corruption and even tuition hikes off the view of the public. Just like it did a few months ago, because the issue become not whether we should reduce tuition, but how do we stop this unrest? Right now the more militant student group called La CLASS is considering whether or not to listen to Marois advice.
What Most probably will happen is that there will be some student protest, but there will be less. Whether the protest will be the main issue on voters mind has yet to be seen.It is clear more then ever that how to solve civil unrest will play a major factor in this election, but will it be the main theme of the election is yet to be seen.
“It would certainly be good to hold a truce,” Ms. Marois said on Thursday. “I invite students and those who marched in the streets to march towards their voting booths on election day and send a clear message to this government.”
Ms. Marois made the plea as she unveiled plans to freeze tuition fees for 100 days if the PQ forms the next government, promising a public forum to examine university funding. She said a PQ government would index any potential tuition fee hikes to the cost of living.
Friday, August 03, 2012
Boussole Électorale
Which is french for Electoral Compass. The French version came almost right after an election on September 4th was certain on RDI. The English version is now Available on the CBC.
So, find out who you would vote for!
Alor, trover qui vous voteriez pour!
I got the Liberals as my first choice, take your try now.
So, find out who you would vote for!
Alor, trover qui vous voteriez pour!
I got the Liberals as my first choice, take your try now.
And They Are Off.. PQ Lead!
In a snap poll done just a few days ago shows the PQ may form the next government. According to the poll the PQ will get 39% and the Liberals will get 38%, while the CAQ will get 14% and the Quebec Solidare as well as the green party will get 4 and 3 percent respectively.
The Reason this shows that the PQ will form the government is, because when only polling francophone people who tend to decide most of Quebec's ridings come election night the PQ have a strong lead. With 43% saying they will vote PQ and only 32% saying they will vote Liberal.The Most surprising thing about this poll is that at the end of July the CAQ was hovering around the low 20's.
Another reason to suspect that the PQ are in the Lead is that according to the survey PQ voters are more excited to vote than Liberal. With 96% of PQ supporters polled said that they were sure they would vote in this election. The Liberals didn't even get close to that number among there supporters.
Still the election is still anyone's game. In Quebec in only takes a few weeks for everyone to change there minds completely .
Read more here
The Reason this shows that the PQ will form the government is, because when only polling francophone people who tend to decide most of Quebec's ridings come election night the PQ have a strong lead. With 43% saying they will vote PQ and only 32% saying they will vote Liberal.The Most surprising thing about this poll is that at the end of July the CAQ was hovering around the low 20's.
Another reason to suspect that the PQ are in the Lead is that according to the survey PQ voters are more excited to vote than Liberal. With 96% of PQ supporters polled said that they were sure they would vote in this election. The Liberals didn't even get close to that number among there supporters.
Still the election is still anyone's game. In Quebec in only takes a few weeks for everyone to change there minds completely .
Read more here
Thursday, August 02, 2012
John Kasich for VP? Part 2
And now as promised the final question as well as the recap and the overall score.
Third Question
Does John Kasich Bring any Baggage?
John Kasich does come with some small pieces of baggage. Let's begin with the less serious. John Kasich is undecided on whether Ohio should allow more use of casino's which traditionally most Republicans are against it, but again John is undecided so you can't attack a lot on that, and this is a very unimportant. The more serious baggage John as a VP nominee may face is a controversy he had with a police officer back in 2008. Where a police man pulled him over and gave him a ticket for not yielding to an emergency vehicle, and he admitted to wrong doing. The problem was that even after he admitted to doing wrong he then called the police man an idiot for doing his job. These are very small almost not worthy mentioning issue's.
To Recap
If Romney picks John Kasich there seems to be no gain for the Republican candidate. John doesn't motivate any group Romney is lacking, He also doesn't even help carry his own state. John also doesn't have any negative attributes, which means that he would be a safe choice for Romney. Because he wouldn't cause any damage or gain.
Scoring
Does he help Carry any state 1/4 (I gave him the one, because he wouldn't make Romney lose a state)
Does he motivate a group 1/3 (I gave him one because he doesn't unmotivated a group)
Does he have any baggage 2.5/3 (Because he brings very little baggage)
Total 4.5/10
Third Question
Does John Kasich Bring any Baggage?
John Kasich does come with some small pieces of baggage. Let's begin with the less serious. John Kasich is undecided on whether Ohio should allow more use of casino's which traditionally most Republicans are against it, but again John is undecided so you can't attack a lot on that, and this is a very unimportant. The more serious baggage John as a VP nominee may face is a controversy he had with a police officer back in 2008. Where a police man pulled him over and gave him a ticket for not yielding to an emergency vehicle, and he admitted to wrong doing. The problem was that even after he admitted to doing wrong he then called the police man an idiot for doing his job. These are very small almost not worthy mentioning issue's.
To Recap
If Romney picks John Kasich there seems to be no gain for the Republican candidate. John doesn't motivate any group Romney is lacking, He also doesn't even help carry his own state. John also doesn't have any negative attributes, which means that he would be a safe choice for Romney. Because he wouldn't cause any damage or gain.
Scoring
Does he help Carry any state 1/4 (I gave him the one, because he wouldn't make Romney lose a state)
Does he motivate a group 1/3 (I gave him one because he doesn't unmotivated a group)
Does he have any baggage 2.5/3 (Because he brings very little baggage)
Total 4.5/10
John Kasich For VP? Part 1
This is a part of my continuing quest to research every possible VP pick before Romney announces them. Today I will analyse John Kasich. He is the governor of Ohio. His name has been thrown around as a VP candidate over the past weeks.
I will be using the same format I used for when I researched Chris Christie , where I will pose some of the very important questions of choosing a VP and score them.
Let start with the first question
Does he Help Romney carry any state?
John Kasich is the Governor of the all important swing state of Ohio, which so far has the longest holding record of voting for the winner. The only issue he isn't popular in the state. His current approval rating in his state is 41% and disapproval is 44% according to a recent poll. Even when people of his state where asked who would make the best VP choice for Romney the current Governor came in 3rd place behind Rubio and Christie. While this doesn't mean Romney will lose any votes nominating Kasich doesn't seem like it would help the ticket. Other than that Kasich has no benefit for Romney in any other state.
Can he get any group Romney can't get?
The best answer to this question for Romney is usually either Hispanic voters or Tea Party voters (as they aren't so motivated to go out and vote). Unfortunately for Kasich he isn't well known by the country and Tea Party people don't very much know him. So he's hardly someone who can excite the base. According to exit polls he won the Governor race in 2010 by getting the demographics most Republicans rely on. He doesn't much motivate any group to come out and vote for him.
Later today I will post the nest question as well as the recap and his overall score.
I will be using the same format I used for when I researched Chris Christie , where I will pose some of the very important questions of choosing a VP and score them.
Let start with the first question
Does he Help Romney carry any state?
John Kasich is the Governor of the all important swing state of Ohio, which so far has the longest holding record of voting for the winner. The only issue he isn't popular in the state. His current approval rating in his state is 41% and disapproval is 44% according to a recent poll. Even when people of his state where asked who would make the best VP choice for Romney the current Governor came in 3rd place behind Rubio and Christie. While this doesn't mean Romney will lose any votes nominating Kasich doesn't seem like it would help the ticket. Other than that Kasich has no benefit for Romney in any other state.
Can he get any group Romney can't get?
The best answer to this question for Romney is usually either Hispanic voters or Tea Party voters (as they aren't so motivated to go out and vote). Unfortunately for Kasich he isn't well known by the country and Tea Party people don't very much know him. So he's hardly someone who can excite the base. According to exit polls he won the Governor race in 2010 by getting the demographics most Republicans rely on. He doesn't much motivate any group to come out and vote for him.
Later today I will post the nest question as well as the recap and his overall score.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Harper's Religious Agenda?
Does Stephen Harper's religion affect government policy? He is associated with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, an evangelical group. We all know how these evangelical groups have managed to shape policy in the US, helping create policies that aren't based on reason and science. Stephen Harper seems to be doing the same thing in Canada, cutting funding for research and ignoring environmental investigations. If there is an organisation that controls some areas of government policy, then we should know about it.
Therefore, I agree with Lawrence Martin: Stephen Harper's religion is fair game when his policies emulate the goals of his religion. It could be guilt by association: just because he is a member of that religious group, doesn't necessarily mean his policies are controlled by it. But, more likely, it's a way for him to impose his beliefs on government policy or keep his grassroots happy. Whatever the case, because the line between policy and religion for Stephen Harper has become increasingly blurred, his religion is fair game.
Therefore, I agree with Lawrence Martin: Stephen Harper's religion is fair game when his policies emulate the goals of his religion. It could be guilt by association: just because he is a member of that religious group, doesn't necessarily mean his policies are controlled by it. But, more likely, it's a way for him to impose his beliefs on government policy or keep his grassroots happy. Whatever the case, because the line between policy and religion for Stephen Harper has become increasingly blurred, his religion is fair game.
Because Stephen Harper otherwise appears to be a clear-headed rationalist, there is some wonder about the motivation for these impulses, including the question of whether they are triggered by his evangelical beliefs. The Prime Minister is a member of the Alliance Church, more specifically the Christian and Missionary Alliance.Read more at the Globe and Mail.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
No Green Candidate in Etobicoke Center
In a surprising move Elisabeth may said that she would urge her party not to run a candidate in Etobicoke center a riding that may be forced to have a by-election. First let`s state how much this could help the Liberal party if the Greens didn`t run a candidate. The May 2nd 2011 result was
Conservative Ted 21,661
Liberal Borys 21,635
NDP Ana 7,731
Green Katarina 1,454
Marxist Leninist Sarah 149
Now with the Greens not running a candidate this is good to be true, but some would say that the high in the polls NDP may grab the riding. Following a current forum research poll Ontario since 2011 has changed a lot.
Change in percentage since 2011 (in Ontario)
Conservative 40% (-4.4%)
NDP 30.0% (+4.4%)
Liberal 23.0% (-2.3%)
Green ¸ 6.0% (+2.2%)
The only thing that is clear is that the Conservatives are down NDP is up and Liberals are just about where they have been since May. So even with the NDP most probably going up in this riding they don`t seem like they will win. Even if Liberals lose support in the riding we can still win, because the Conservatives might lose more support, but in such a close contest having no Green Party candidate does help Liberals chances in the riding.
Conservative Ted 21,661
Liberal Borys 21,635
NDP Ana 7,731
Green Katarina 1,454
Marxist Leninist Sarah 149
Now with the Greens not running a candidate this is good to be true, but some would say that the high in the polls NDP may grab the riding. Following a current forum research poll Ontario since 2011 has changed a lot.
Change in percentage since 2011 (in Ontario)
Conservative 40% (-4.4%)
NDP 30.0% (+4.4%)
Liberal 23.0% (-2.3%)
Green ¸ 6.0% (+2.2%)
The only thing that is clear is that the Conservatives are down NDP is up and Liberals are just about where they have been since May. So even with the NDP most probably going up in this riding they don`t seem like they will win. Even if Liberals lose support in the riding we can still win, because the Conservatives might lose more support, but in such a close contest having no Green Party candidate does help Liberals chances in the riding.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Release the Budget at the Beginning of the Year
Not having information to make decisions concerning our country can be quite dangerous sometimes. Especially when it has to do with government spending and more importantly, where the government is spending.
This is caused by estimates of government spending being released before the budget. So, it's impossible to estimate the costs of the budget, the most important piece of legislation each year. The way to fix this is simply time limits. The budget sets out government spending for the year. So, it only makes sense that it should be released at the beginning of the year. While the committee suggests February 1 as a due date, I would go even further. I would set it at about mid-January. That way, it is clear at the beginning of the year what the government will do and it will be easy to estimate exactly where the money is being spent.
The other proposal, which was to give the Parliamentary Budget officer more power is also a good idea. There is never too much transparency on fiscal matters.
Read about it at the Globe and Mail.
This is caused by estimates of government spending being released before the budget. So, it's impossible to estimate the costs of the budget, the most important piece of legislation each year. The way to fix this is simply time limits. The budget sets out government spending for the year. So, it only makes sense that it should be released at the beginning of the year. While the committee suggests February 1 as a due date, I would go even further. I would set it at about mid-January. That way, it is clear at the beginning of the year what the government will do and it will be easy to estimate exactly where the money is being spent.
The other proposal, which was to give the Parliamentary Budget officer more power is also a good idea. There is never too much transparency on fiscal matters.
Read about it at the Globe and Mail.
Monday, July 16, 2012
OECD Report Debunks Protesters Claim
A new OECD report says lower tuition isn`t the solution to give more people access to university. In Quebec even when we had the lowest tuition in the country we still had one of the lowest university enrollment rate in the developed world.
According to the report whether a young Canadian goes to university is dependent on many factors. The main factors the report finds is whether your parents have gone to university or not. If your parents have gone to university you are 4.6 times more likely to go to university yourself.
This Report seems to dismiss the protestors belief that the tuition hike will cause the ``death of accessibility `` It is true though that poorer income families have a hard time sending their kids to school, but the OECD report offers better suggestions then lower tuition to solve that problem
According to the report whether a young Canadian goes to university is dependent on many factors. The main factors the report finds is whether your parents have gone to university or not. If your parents have gone to university you are 4.6 times more likely to go to university yourself.
This Report seems to dismiss the protestors belief that the tuition hike will cause the ``death of accessibility `` It is true though that poorer income families have a hard time sending their kids to school, but the OECD report offers better suggestions then lower tuition to solve that problem
The most effective way to increase access to higher education would be to simply give direct tuition grants to the three groups the least likely to attend university: lower-income households, rural and aboriginal Canadians and, most important, those who did not have a parent attend university.Read more here
Sunday, July 15, 2012
More Prisons and More Double Bunking
The Conservative party again proves itself to be the party that enacts policy without proper research. New to this long list is Vic Toews statements about double bunking. With Billions of dollars being flooded into the correctional system one would hope that some of the new cells in existing facilities would reduce double bunking. But the conservative say the expansion to the prison system won`t be used to reduce double bunking.
Double bunking is when a cell which was initially built for one prisoner has two inside. This is being increasingly used in Canada and the Conservative party is offering no help to this issue.
Read more here
Double bunking is when a cell which was initially built for one prisoner has two inside. This is being increasingly used in Canada and the Conservative party is offering no help to this issue.
The percentage of inmates sharing cells built for one has more than tripled since 2004. Incidents of prison violence have also risen.Corrections Canada states that double bunking is ``inappropriate as a permanent accommodation`` .The UN also recommends against such practice. The government`s non logical policies when it comes to double bunking will cause more violence inside the prisons and lead to major risks of correctional workers inside prisons
“It’s going to become more dangerous for us, but at the end of the day, when the inmate ends up back on the street, is the public any safer? Not under this government,” said Jason Godin, Ontario regional president for the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. “Part of our mandate is the rehabilitation process. And, quite frankly, [that is] being lost.”This government is so busy putting people in jail for small offences that they show little interest about rehabilitation and the safety of government employees.
Read more here
Monday, July 09, 2012
A Doctor, A Rabbi and A Nobel Laureate Walk Into.. (part 2)
The Governments response to leaving many well deserving people of help is that (given by a spokesperson):
I think it is outrages that a country that has been practically portrayed itself as an immigrant country doesn't do as much as it can to ensure that people who are treated badly in other countries have a place where they can start a whole new life.
Yet according to our government this "reform" is needed and will save 20 million dollars. 20 million dollars is what we are talking about here. Hey I have an idea had Harper not spent the 20 million dollars on those consultants (remember those to help balance the budget, which according to Harper during the 2011 election he and only he could do) we could afford helping people who are in need.
I believe that their is a legitimate concern about pointless refugee claims, but this reform is in no way going to ensure that people who have a legitimate claim to seek refuge here will receive it.
Read more here
“Right now, nearly 95 per cent of people who come here from the European Union and claim asylum either withdraw or abandon their own claim,” said the spokesman, because they cannot make a legitimate case for asylum. He added that 100 per cent of people who come from the European Union register for welfare.First just because 95% percent of people can't support their refugee claim does that make the other 5% not deserving at all, and second saying that 100 percent of them register for welfare is a silly fact. This is because it should come to no surprise to Harper that people who are refugee's and have suffered and treated badly in their own country do require help. How is this bad! This is reality! People who are poor require help!
I think it is outrages that a country that has been practically portrayed itself as an immigrant country doesn't do as much as it can to ensure that people who are treated badly in other countries have a place where they can start a whole new life.
Yet according to our government this "reform" is needed and will save 20 million dollars. 20 million dollars is what we are talking about here. Hey I have an idea had Harper not spent the 20 million dollars on those consultants (remember those to help balance the budget, which according to Harper during the 2011 election he and only he could do) we could afford helping people who are in need.
I believe that their is a legitimate concern about pointless refugee claims, but this reform is in no way going to ensure that people who have a legitimate claim to seek refuge here will receive it.
Mr. Wiesel, who survived the Auschwitz death camp to become a renowned scholar and political activist in the United States, said this week in a written statement obtained by The Globe and Mail that he stands in solidarity with the Toronto Rabbis. The rabbis said it is wrong for the government to designate some countries as being “safe” and to deny payments for medical treatments obtained by asylum seekers from those places.
Read more here
Sunday, July 08, 2012
A Doctor, A Rabbi and A Nobel Laureate Walk Into... (Part 1)
The Conservative cuts to refugee Health Care have sparked some controversy. And now doctors all around Canada as well as a Toronto Rabbi group from Toronto and even Elie Wisel a Nobel Laureate are joining together against these cuts.
The "reform" the Harper Government is proposing will designate which countries Canada considers safe and which Canada considers not safe. The people who come from the countries that Canada considers safe will receive no benefits what so ever. The safe country list and the not safe country list will be presented soon, but it is expected that Hungary will be on the safe list.
The Problem is that Canada main source of Asylum seekers are from Hungary and many of which are roma. A group that has been treated very badly especially in the last few years by the society in Hungary. The reforms will also effect countries that are not on the safe list no longer are able to get many services including:
Read More here
The "reform" the Harper Government is proposing will designate which countries Canada considers safe and which Canada considers not safe. The people who come from the countries that Canada considers safe will receive no benefits what so ever. The safe country list and the not safe country list will be presented soon, but it is expected that Hungary will be on the safe list.
The Problem is that Canada main source of Asylum seekers are from Hungary and many of which are roma. A group that has been treated very badly especially in the last few years by the society in Hungary. The reforms will also effect countries that are not on the safe list no longer are able to get many services including:
payments for prescription drugs, vision care and dental coverage. They are entitled to medical health coverage only if it is of “an urgent or essential nature.”This "reform" will take away help from legitimate refugee's and will again tarnish Canada's record on the world stage.
The top country of origin for refugee claimants in Canada is Hungary, and the majority of those refugees are Roma, a group that has had a strong bond with the Jews dating back to the Second World War.
As a former refugee, together with the Toronto Board of Rabbis, I feel morally compelled to remain on the side of other uprooted men and women everywhere,” said Mr. Wiesel, who was a keynote speaker two years ago at a conference on anti-Semitism in Ottawa that was organized with the help of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, the minister behind the refugee reforms. “Today, as yesterday, a nation is judged by its attitude towards refugees,” Mr. Wiesel wrote.
Read More here
Thursday, July 05, 2012
It's "NOT" Right to Give Oda All the Blame.
Elisabeth May wrote a very interesting post on the Green Party website that I suggest you read. I do agree that 16$ for orange juice is a complete waste. As well was the overly expensive trips by Limo funded by the tax payers. And yes misuse of public money definitively warrants criticism. Her resignation is long overdue, but let's look at the big picture. There is loads of waste in government that get's no criticism at all. Elisabeth May presents one, which is the over 20 million on security Harper has which is over twice as much was given to previous PM's.
So for us to complain so much on Bev Oda is fine as long as we don't allow the other wasteful spenders like Harper and Tony Clement go unpunished. The poster boy (or rather girl) for wasteful government shouldn't be Oda. There have been many other MP's much more deserving of the criticism, and don't get any.
Read More here
It is also expensive: Overtime has gone through the roof, and the budget of the PMPD, as the unit is called, is set to reach $20-million this year, or twice the 2006 cost. The Prime Minister’s Office and the RCMP say the increase in costs is justifiable, since security concerns are growing and threats are now taken more seriously.I want to go even further. There is a lot of waste in government, and even though it only represents a small fraction of the budget it is still there. Money spent unethically no matter how much is still money spent unethically. So yes I welcome the departure of $16 orange juice, but when will the guy who spent millions on Gazebo's and fake lakes go?
So for us to complain so much on Bev Oda is fine as long as we don't allow the other wasteful spenders like Harper and Tony Clement go unpunished. The poster boy (or rather girl) for wasteful government shouldn't be Oda. There have been many other MP's much more deserving of the criticism, and don't get any.
Read More here
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Chris Christie VP? Part 2
As promised time to continue with question three and four as well as the recap as well as Christie's scoring.
Third Question
Does he come with any baggage?
Well unemployment in New Jersey is higher then the national average. Chris Christie comes with a record seen by many democrats as helping the wealthy. Which continues the talking points that the Republicans only care for the wealthy. But none of these things would really harm the base. The true baggage would be that one Christie believes in Climate Change. Last year he even stated this
Romney says we don't know what is causing global warming. Chris Christie at least admits humans have some effects on the planet's temperature. Another piece of baggage"I can’t claim to fully understand all of this," he said. "Certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role it’s time to defer to the experts."
Recap
Christie would be very little help on the political map, because Missouri, New Hampshire and Iowa the only states I see any more support for Romney because of Christie. Missouri which has already supported McCain in 2008 will support Romney anyway. New Hampshire will only lean more towards Romney and it only has 4 electoral votes and Iowa would still be up for grabs. Christie would still be a star candidate for the tea party. So The Question is "is Romney trying to move towards the middle a bit more or is he still moving towards the right." If Romney picks Christie the answer to that question will be easy. In Total Christie is a does very little to bring in new people to the party and only seems capable of bringing Republicans who may not vote to vote, which of course helps Romney, but maybe not enough.
the score is based on the three question
Does he help carry any state 2/4
Does he help get a group that would otherwise be neglected 3/3
Does he have any baggage 2.5/3
Christie's score is 7.5/10
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Chris Christie VP? Part 1
As promised I will go throw some of the people Romney may pick as his VP candidate in this election. Today's VP prospective is Chris Christie.
First does he help carry any states Romney may have Trouble.
Short answer- Yes but not where you think . First he is indeed Governor of New Jersey, but this state is very blue and his approval rating in his own state is low 40%. His disapproval rating also low 40%. In fact It may be extremely strange that in November both the Romney and Christie won't win their own home states. Christie can't help in any of his bordering states, because New York is too blue already Delaware is not only Blue but Biden's home state and east Pennsylvania doesn't look like it will change it's mood for Christie. The only states I can see a push for Romney would be Iowa, New Hampshire and Missouri which I will explain in question two.
Second question
Can he get any group Romney can't get?
This is a solid yes. The Tea Party which has ever so slowly been coming closer to Romney would adore a Christie on the ticket. This would definitely drive the solid Tea party supporters to the polls. This will for the most part only solidify the support Romney would most likely get. The only states that would come with more backing from the tea party would be Missouri New Hamshire and Iowa. Missouri McCain got in 2008 so let's just give that to Romney. New Hampshire which right now is considered a swing state would if Christie is chosen may lean more towards Romney. First Because Romney is from the neighboring state of Massachusetts, and this state has huge Tea party support. Iowa is more difficult. Yes it does have a lot of Tea party support, but Obama is very strong here.
I will continue The next day with question 3 and the recap as well as his scoring.
First does he help carry any states Romney may have Trouble.
Short answer- Yes but not where you think . First he is indeed Governor of New Jersey, but this state is very blue and his approval rating in his own state is low 40%. His disapproval rating also low 40%. In fact It may be extremely strange that in November both the Romney and Christie won't win their own home states. Christie can't help in any of his bordering states, because New York is too blue already Delaware is not only Blue but Biden's home state and east Pennsylvania doesn't look like it will change it's mood for Christie. The only states I can see a push for Romney would be Iowa, New Hampshire and Missouri which I will explain in question two.
Second question
Can he get any group Romney can't get?
This is a solid yes. The Tea Party which has ever so slowly been coming closer to Romney would adore a Christie on the ticket. This would definitely drive the solid Tea party supporters to the polls. This will for the most part only solidify the support Romney would most likely get. The only states that would come with more backing from the tea party would be Missouri New Hamshire and Iowa. Missouri McCain got in 2008 so let's just give that to Romney. New Hampshire which right now is considered a swing state would if Christie is chosen may lean more towards Romney. First Because Romney is from the neighboring state of Massachusetts, and this state has huge Tea party support. Iowa is more difficult. Yes it does have a lot of Tea party support, but Obama is very strong here.
I will continue The next day with question 3 and the recap as well as his scoring.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
NDP Hits First Wall.
I knew since the beginning that the NDP attempts to keep it's support in Quebec will pose them problems in the west. Yes the oil sands comments aren't going to give Mulcair a lot of new friends in the west. The Dutch Disease comments which I think is very off.
For those of you unaware of what Dutch Disease is. It is an economic theory is that oil development rises the dollar and makes exports too expensive. Mulcair says that this is happening in Canada, and therefor is harming jobs in the east. Mulcair's also stated that the western Primers are like the puppets of the Prime Minister.I think that is insulting to the three premiers.
I think any plan that involves taxing oil industries, which are a big driver for growth in the west should also come hand in hand with money to develop green energy jobs especially in the west. Therefor we aren't discouraging growth in the west, but promoting long term substainable jobs for western Canadians.
To summarize this whole situation I think Stephane Dion puts it best "We already have one divisive leader he is Stephen Harper we don't need a second one"
For those of you unaware of what Dutch Disease is. It is an economic theory is that oil development rises the dollar and makes exports too expensive. Mulcair says that this is happening in Canada, and therefor is harming jobs in the east. Mulcair's also stated that the western Primers are like the puppets of the Prime Minister.I think that is insulting to the three premiers.
Mulcair has said that while shifting international trade patterns are responsible for some of the 500,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Canada, "everyone concludes that more than half of them are being lost because we’re maintaining the Canadian dollar artificially high."Mulcair continues to stand by his comments that the west should be slowed down to help the east. Even though a new report have come out, and said that Dutch Diseas is hardly effecting Canadian manufacturing.
It says it has caused "small surmountable problems for most manufacturing industries and larger challenges for the public finances of resource-rich provinces."I don't think that we should be looking at the west as if it is the problem like Mulcair has portrayed it, but look at the west the solution. Yes the western Canada is polluting more, so obviously they must be part of the solution. I think we should always look at providing jobs for all Canadians.
I think any plan that involves taxing oil industries, which are a big driver for growth in the west should also come hand in hand with money to develop green energy jobs especially in the west. Therefor we aren't discouraging growth in the west, but promoting long term substainable jobs for western Canadians.
To summarize this whole situation I think Stephane Dion puts it best "We already have one divisive leader he is Stephen Harper we don't need a second one"
west, but also a plan to develop a green energy sector and provide thousands of jobs for people in the west.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
I Need A Million!
John Baird helped out the Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch by helping them get 1 million dollars in federal money. The money that went to Chabad was out of a program to increase accessibility of disabled people. The expansion project that Chabad will be building is claimed to also include accessibility to disabled people. The application for this project was send by an Ottawa rabbi that is apparently Baird's friend and constituent.
The application that the Canadian organization sent to Ottawa was one of 355 application. Only 5 received federal funding. Of the 355 projects proposed this particular one got a very low grading. In fact the rating was so low that it didn't qualify except John Baird jumped in with the help of the minister of human resources to get this project 1 million dollars.
This is plain wrong. Organizations should only receive money from a program if they are the best applicants for that money. No matter what the application that shows is most worthy to get the money. The same goes for a job. The best and most qualified person should get the job. No MP or Minister should be able to jump in and say who should get this money. This is the people's money that is being mismanaged (to be polite).
This is nothing new! Tony Clement spend millions of dollars on his riding during the G8 and G20 summit that had nothing to do with the actual conference, and don't even get me started on the 2 million dollar fake lake.
So since the Conservative seem to be giving money to just about anyone may I kindly ask the government for 1 million dollars. I promise to spend some of it to make my house wheel chair accessible.
Read more here
The application that the Canadian organization sent to Ottawa was one of 355 application. Only 5 received federal funding. Of the 355 projects proposed this particular one got a very low grading. In fact the rating was so low that it didn't qualify except John Baird jumped in with the help of the minister of human resources to get this project 1 million dollars.
This is plain wrong. Organizations should only receive money from a program if they are the best applicants for that money. No matter what the application that shows is most worthy to get the money. The same goes for a job. The best and most qualified person should get the job. No MP or Minister should be able to jump in and say who should get this money. This is the people's money that is being mismanaged (to be polite).
This is nothing new! Tony Clement spend millions of dollars on his riding during the G8 and G20 summit that had nothing to do with the actual conference, and don't even get me started on the 2 million dollar fake lake.
So since the Conservative seem to be giving money to just about anyone may I kindly ask the government for 1 million dollars. I promise to spend some of it to make my house wheel chair accessible.
Read more here
Saturday, May 12, 2012
America Moving Forward!
No previous president while in office has ever stated that he is for the legal recognition of gay marriages. And Today the U.S not only has a president , but also a Vice President that support the people of the same sex getting married. America on the other hand is divided. 50% according to a new poll support gay marriage while 48% of Americans don't. This may show that only a marginal majority of Americans support gay marriage, but the number is rising. Two years ago I wrote a blog post showing only 42% of Americans supporting gay marriage.
Romney on the other hand supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So as it can be seen this is a very divisive issue in the election. But the Republicans don't want to talk about it. Why? because they have nothing to gain but the support of their base. The Republicans would rather continue the discussion on the economy where their Republican candidate is for some reason according to some polls better to handle the economy.
I say all in all the election won't be effected much by this, but the big win I take away from this is Americans are becoming more tolerant of having people of the same sex marry each other. In Canada gay marriage has been legal for quite some time now, and well the sky hasn't fallen down!
Romney on the other hand supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So as it can be seen this is a very divisive issue in the election. But the Republicans don't want to talk about it. Why? because they have nothing to gain but the support of their base. The Republicans would rather continue the discussion on the economy where their Republican candidate is for some reason according to some polls better to handle the economy.
I say all in all the election won't be effected much by this, but the big win I take away from this is Americans are becoming more tolerant of having people of the same sex marry each other. In Canada gay marriage has been legal for quite some time now, and well the sky hasn't fallen down!
Sixty percent of Americans polled were unchanged in their support of the president after he publicly backed same-sex marriage.Read more here
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Quebec Students Should Take It!
A tentative deal has been made and agreed by all student groups including La CLASSE. I personally feel that this deal is pointless. It is a political maneuver to try and claim victory on both sides. Even though Tuition will rise for the next 7 years by over 250$ every year (instead of over 320$ for 5 years ) their will be no increase in the cost of education. Because surcharges will be eliminated which are valued the same amount as the tuition increase. So pretty much everything stays the same our tuition rises, but students won't even have to pay a dime more.
Now all that is left in this conflict seems to be the approval of students associations. Which I didn't think would be too hard. But already yesterday 6 Colleges and 10 university facilities voted against the agreement. I am still amazed by these students who are rejecting an offer to go back to a practical freeze on education cost. I am worried that a protest on tuition hikes will soon become a protest on the idea of tuition at all which will be even more dangerous.
The Quebec governments shouldn't make any new concession. This deal is sweet enough. I guess all that is left is too see what the rest of Quebec student facilities have to say.
Now all that is left in this conflict seems to be the approval of students associations. Which I didn't think would be too hard. But already yesterday 6 Colleges and 10 university facilities voted against the agreement. I am still amazed by these students who are rejecting an offer to go back to a practical freeze on education cost. I am worried that a protest on tuition hikes will soon become a protest on the idea of tuition at all which will be even more dangerous.
The Quebec governments shouldn't make any new concession. This deal is sweet enough. I guess all that is left is too see what the rest of Quebec student facilities have to say.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Liberals Growing Irrelevance In West.
The Liberal party has a major problem. We seem for the most part since May 2nd 2012 to be up from our election results. All major projections have us gaining some dozens or more seats and racking up a few more votes. But in the West is our major problem. In Western Canada the Provincial parties although not completely similar to the national party do offer enormous showing of how Liberal values fair in the province. The answer isn't so well
In fact Saskatchewan and Manitoba had election recently. In the Manitoba provincial election 2011 the Liberal party got 8% of the vote (4% down from last time around) while the NDP and the PC got well over 40%. The Liberal party only got 1 seat (from their 2 last time around) and that was only given to the leader of the party. In Manitoba they practically have a two party system with a little dot of red in Winnipeg.
In Saskatchewan the situation was just plain sad. The Liberals even before the election were somewhat irrelevant politically getting 9% of the vote in 2007 and no seats. In 2011 is when the situation got sad. The Liberal party only had 9 candidates running out of the 57 ridings. The Green Party ofManitoba Saskatchewan at least had a full slate. The election result was predictable. No seats and only 0.6% of the vote. The Green party of Manitoba no surprise got third place in the vote count with 3%.
If you look at the polls for the national Liberals they are third place in the parries while the NDP and the Tories battle it out. Although there are signs of hope. In Alberta the Liberals did get pushed into third place and did lose a lot of votes as well as seats, but the fact remains that we didn't lose it to the NDP. Second pace went to the Wildrose. Not that this should bring comfort, but the fact remains we did 900 more votes and 1 seat more then the NDP. Which makes us the Progressive leaders in Alberta's politics for the next few years.
But the Liberal Party still has major challenges out in the west and they must tackle them now! Our party can't rebuild only in Toronto and Montreal. We need to look to the west!
In fact Saskatchewan and Manitoba had election recently. In the Manitoba provincial election 2011 the Liberal party got 8% of the vote (4% down from last time around) while the NDP and the PC got well over 40%. The Liberal party only got 1 seat (from their 2 last time around) and that was only given to the leader of the party. In Manitoba they practically have a two party system with a little dot of red in Winnipeg.
In Saskatchewan the situation was just plain sad. The Liberals even before the election were somewhat irrelevant politically getting 9% of the vote in 2007 and no seats. In 2011 is when the situation got sad. The Liberal party only had 9 candidates running out of the 57 ridings. The Green Party of
If you look at the polls for the national Liberals they are third place in the parries while the NDP and the Tories battle it out. Although there are signs of hope. In Alberta the Liberals did get pushed into third place and did lose a lot of votes as well as seats, but the fact remains that we didn't lose it to the NDP. Second pace went to the Wildrose. Not that this should bring comfort, but the fact remains we did 900 more votes and 1 seat more then the NDP. Which makes us the Progressive leaders in Alberta's politics for the next few years.
But the Liberal Party still has major challenges out in the west and they must tackle them now! Our party can't rebuild only in Toronto and Montreal. We need to look to the west!
Friday, May 04, 2012
la CLASSE It's Not About The Money!!
Broad coalition of the Association for a student union solidarity (CLASS) has offered a few ideas to eliminate tuition in Quebec by 2016. They say they have a plan to pay for the increase by:
1. Transfer 142-284 million in research spending towards education
2. Freeze hiring of some senior executives, wages and eliminate bonuses
3. Stop building satellite campuses (campuses that is physically away from the main university center)
4. Implement 0.14% tax on financial institutions
For me it isn't about the money it is about the principle. For me the 321 dollar increase is just a matter of the cost of education going up and students paying their fair share. It is no surprise that the cost of education should go up. Simply because of inflation the cost of teachers and education goes up. Likewise so does income (although sometimes not evenly). The fact is that I believe students should pay some part of their education or for that matter parents should. People should invest in their own education.
We shouldn't make education something only the rich can afford we should make education something everybody can afford. I think that even with the increase in tuition education is accessible, because of government grants and the fact that it isn't that expensive. The fact is students should pay for some parts of their education. Under the Charest plan students would in the end pay 17% of tuition. With 35% of the money from the increase going to help low income students pay for university.
The whole argument that accessibility will go out the window is silly. In fact Quebec even at the lowest tuition levels a few years ago had one of the lowest enrollment rate in universities in the developed world. As we can see tuition wasn't a factor other factors are stopping kids from graduating high school.
The Class proposes a solution to eliminate tuition, but for me the money isn't the problem. If the government should do the 4 solutions La Class proposes is irrelevant. It is just a principle that students should pay for some of their tuition. If let's say the government of Quebec finds an extra 200 million dollars in waste that money should either go to eliminating the deficit or better yet spend on eliminating poverty, hiring more doctors, building new hospitals, put into infrastructure etc... It is a matter of priority of where money should go if any new tax is levied or any spending is cut. It is not the matter of just finding the money.
Read More here
1. Transfer 142-284 million in research spending towards education
2. Freeze hiring of some senior executives, wages and eliminate bonuses
3. Stop building satellite campuses (campuses that is physically away from the main university center)
4. Implement 0.14% tax on financial institutions
For me it isn't about the money it is about the principle. For me the 321 dollar increase is just a matter of the cost of education going up and students paying their fair share. It is no surprise that the cost of education should go up. Simply because of inflation the cost of teachers and education goes up. Likewise so does income (although sometimes not evenly). The fact is that I believe students should pay some part of their education or for that matter parents should. People should invest in their own education.
We shouldn't make education something only the rich can afford we should make education something everybody can afford. I think that even with the increase in tuition education is accessible, because of government grants and the fact that it isn't that expensive. The fact is students should pay for some parts of their education. Under the Charest plan students would in the end pay 17% of tuition. With 35% of the money from the increase going to help low income students pay for university.
The whole argument that accessibility will go out the window is silly. In fact Quebec even at the lowest tuition levels a few years ago had one of the lowest enrollment rate in universities in the developed world. As we can see tuition wasn't a factor other factors are stopping kids from graduating high school.
The Class proposes a solution to eliminate tuition, but for me the money isn't the problem. If the government should do the 4 solutions La Class proposes is irrelevant. It is just a principle that students should pay for some of their tuition. If let's say the government of Quebec finds an extra 200 million dollars in waste that money should either go to eliminating the deficit or better yet spend on eliminating poverty, hiring more doctors, building new hospitals, put into infrastructure etc... It is a matter of priority of where money should go if any new tax is levied or any spending is cut. It is not the matter of just finding the money.
Read More here
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Alberta Election Tomorrow!
With Alberta seeming to have the choice between one right wing party and well another even more right wing party it seems like Alberta will have it's first most exciting election in a long time. With the Wildrose holding onto a lead and the PC slightly edging upwards tomorrow is going to be something to watch. For political Junkies like me this is very exciting. So here are my projections for tomorrow night. As you can see I give the Wildrose a strong lead, because the PC a few days ago I thought might be able to really bridge the gap, but the latest polling says otherwise.
Wildrose : 41% 46 seats (Majority)
PC :34% 38 seats
Liberals :12% 0 seats
NDP :12% 3 seats
Alberta Party:1% 0 seats
As you can see even though the Alberta Liberals have the same percentage as the NDP they end up with no seats, because there votes isn't as concentrated in specific areas like the NDP. It is a shame that the Alberta Liberals will go from official opposition to no seat status even though they may come up with more votes than the NDP. I guess this only proves we need democratic reform, because as you can see the Liberals will get a substantial amount of support, but no seats to represent those people. Also the Wildrose will get a majority even though they didn't get the majority of the seats.
Wildrose : 41% 46 seats (Majority)
PC :34% 38 seats
Liberals :12% 0 seats
NDP :12% 3 seats
Alberta Party:1% 0 seats
As you can see even though the Alberta Liberals have the same percentage as the NDP they end up with no seats, because there votes isn't as concentrated in specific areas like the NDP. It is a shame that the Alberta Liberals will go from official opposition to no seat status even though they may come up with more votes than the NDP. I guess this only proves we need democratic reform, because as you can see the Liberals will get a substantial amount of support, but no seats to represent those people. Also the Wildrose will get a majority even though they didn't get the majority of the seats.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
NDP Not Legalizing Pot
The NDP seems to want to lag behind the Liberals when it comes to the smart on drugs plan. The NDP apparently according to George Soule the NDP wants to decriminalize pot (making it no longer illegal to have). While the Liberals are now the only party fully in favor of legalizing and taxing marijuana. The main difference is that marijuana will be legal to buy and sell, and the NDP will only allow someone to have it without facing prison time.
But George Soule said that the NDP would want before decriminalizing a study to be done. A study! I can't believe I am hearing this from the NDP. Asking for a study when it comes to Marijuana a subject that has been studied hundreds of times over is like asking for a study on tobacco. This is a delay tactic! We don't need a study on marijuana we need to get over this issue and legalize it already!
Policy Review
NDP seems to support having a study on the matter, and possibly decriminalizing it.
Conservatives want to put people with six pot plants in jail for six months.
Liberals want to radically move away from the "War on Drug" agenda as soon as possible and legalize the plant that has proven to reduce crime in many countries.
Read more here
But George Soule said that the NDP would want before decriminalizing a study to be done. A study! I can't believe I am hearing this from the NDP. Asking for a study when it comes to Marijuana a subject that has been studied hundreds of times over is like asking for a study on tobacco. This is a delay tactic! We don't need a study on marijuana we need to get over this issue and legalize it already!
Policy Review
NDP seems to support having a study on the matter, and possibly decriminalizing it.
Conservatives want to put people with six pot plants in jail for six months.
Liberals want to radically move away from the "War on Drug" agenda as soon as possible and legalize the plant that has proven to reduce crime in many countries.
Read more here
Friday, April 20, 2012
The Way to Toronto's Heart is Public Transit!
A message to local Liberals, provincial Liberals and even federal Liberals. People want public transit funded! In a recent poll 74% of people in Toronto said that they would favor a 0.5% sales tax increase if it meant that the money would go to public transit in Toronto. With all areas having a majority of no less then 67% of people supporting it. If the Liberal party of Canada wants to get back the riding rich city of Toronto and it's suburbs it has got to jump on the public transpiration system.
Environics’ Darren Karasiuk said this debate has made people more willing to consider a tax to pay for transit expansion.Public transit is the way to go when it come to improving the environment , the economy and traffic. Liberals have somewhat seen this opportunity by proposing a high speed rail system, but if Liberals want to get the daily commuters of Montreal we have to look at local transportation and infrastructure. Remember the Stephane Dion 70 billion dollar infrastructure fund . We need more policies like that were people can see the results right before there eyes. It seems the public is ready for it and so should the Liberals be.
“I can’t think of a time transit and transportation has received as much attention as they have in the last few months,” he said. “The public recognizes this as an issue and they’re ready to think and have a meaningful conversation about it.”
The poll’s suggestion that 905 voters back the tax may be its most important finding. The suburbs are the key battleground in provincial and federal elections. They also have less transit infrastructure and far lower ridership numbers than the city.Read more here
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Climate Skeptic In The West
It seems I have one more reason I don't want the Wildrose alliance to win. But Alberta's according to recent polls have them at a 7% point lead. The PC are in second, the NDP and the Liberals way far behind.
Read more here
Yes the Wildrose is saying that the science isn't settled, and therefor don't have a major plan to reduce emissions. Even though 97% of climate scientist agree that humans are causing man made climate change. Even the PC in the oil rich province of Alberta agree that global warming is real and CO2 emissions are causing it. This isn't just Danielle Smith personal belief this is party policy.
"We have always said the science isn't settled and we need to continue to monitor the debate,"
A Wildrose official confirmed Smith's statement reflects a longtime party policy.I don't know why I didn't remember this before Rick Mercer went with Danielle Smith for a day and they discussed global warming, and she admitted her skepticism of climate change. I think that having one of the most polluting provinces in Alberta led by a party that doesn't believe in a science that is fully settled ruins any chances of achieving the needed 80% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050.
Read more here
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Harper Meet Keedle. Your Black!
I an surprise of events Harper told Canada that the War on Drugs have failed. Now when I heard this I was on the verge of an aneurysm. Harper a Prime Minister who in the time of lowest crime rates in Canadian history put in place minimum sentencing and continued a U.S style War on Drugs crusade is now admitting that the war on drugs is over. But don't hold your breath the 10 billion dollars (or one accounting error) are still going to be built.
Read more here
"What I think everybody believes," Harper said, "is that the current approach is not working. But it is not clear what we should do."So Harper doesn't support the War on Drugs, but his crime bill says otherwise. Harper can't have it both ways. He can't say he doesn't support the War on Drugs then pass bills in the House of Commons that continues the same reckless crime policy that even the U.S is moving away from. Unless Harper chucks his crime bills and puts money into rehabilitation this statement makes him a hypocrite.
Drugs, he said, "are illegal because they quickly and totally — with many of the drugs — destroy people's lives."The Liberal Party of Canada has had a clear stance on this. Stop the Americanization of our Prison system and end the support of drug cartels and legalizing pot!
Read more here
Saturday, April 14, 2012
"Tory Spin" That Is An Understatement
The Conservatives government released a report that states they have emitted 692 megatonnes of CO2 in 2010. Which is by the way an increase of 2 megatonnes. The Conservative government should take no credit on the environment at all. Since they cut billions of dollars in Green jobs initiative and undid the Kyoto accord. Since 2006 it was clear Harper would do nothing to achieve Kyoto. Now this report only shows us that nothing is being done. The Conservative plan to reduce emissions to 607 megatonnes. The Environment Minister (no surprise) has a complete different spin on it.
"This is not a blip. This is a continuing trend and when you look at the statistics revealed in today's report noting that, yes, emissions have grown since 1990 — 22 years ago — by 17 per cent, Canada's economy has grown by more than 60 per cent," the minister said.Case in point by 2012 according to the Kyoto protocol that Harper disgracefully undid we are suppose to this year be 6 percent below 1990 levels. First Even though this is the 2010 report I don't expect at all that the 2011 report will show us reaching our Kyoto target .Second I don't expect the numbers to get any lower in the next coming years as well. In fact when the numbers for 2011 come out I am almost ready to bet a Canadian penny that the emissions will go up, because it is easy to reduce emissions when the economy is in a standstill. With the inaction coming from Ottawa it won't be surprising that Harper. It seems that Hannah Mckinnon puts it right.
"The government would be better off to stop wasting its time trying to spin their abysmal record on climate change into anything positive," wrote Hannah McKinnon of Climate Action Network in a statement to CBC News.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Inheritance Tax on Rich Popular!
According to a new poll I wrote about some days ago the inheritance tax on the rich is apparently popular.
Because if all 31% are against and Harper conservatives support is at 32% it shows that only the right is against it.,and Harper in the last election got 40% of the vote that leaves for the sake of argument the people who jumped to the right wing party since 2004 and gave Harper his majority. If the Liberals support a Death Tax it would get the people we need from the Conservative party to our party. Now I am not saying this will help us win election, but obviously it won't hurt us in elections.
that 69 per cent of Canadians support the introduction of an inheritance tax on any estate valued at more than $5 million.I have been talking about this for some time. Which I still holds can provide 3 billion dollars and it wouldn't even allow major taxes to be payed by the top 1-2% of Canadians. The rich in the U.S don't seem to mind and some rich are even asking that their taxes go up. The "Buffet Rule." It seems the center of Canada is with this plan.
Because if all 31% are against and Harper conservatives support is at 32% it shows that only the right is against it.,and Harper in the last election got 40% of the vote that leaves for the sake of argument the people who jumped to the right wing party since 2004 and gave Harper his majority. If the Liberals support a Death Tax it would get the people we need from the Conservative party to our party. Now I am not saying this will help us win election, but obviously it won't hurt us in elections.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Cut Money To Health for Aboriginals (Apprently their Healthy enough)
Aboriginal communities require an enormous amount of aid. We known for many many years that aboriginal communities have one of the highest rates of poverty and have very high rates of health problems. Bob Rae hit the right nail on the head when he said Attawapiskat is our third world.
I think this shows the priorities of our Conservative government. they are willing to do almost anything imaginable to balance the budget from eliminating trivial things like the penny to eliminating funding to a first nations group that is of no doubt requires much more money then just a minor 4 million, but when you talk about fighter jets or Corporate tax cuts money isn't an object all of a sudden. Fiscally responsible NO! Morally responsible Hell NO!
"We talk a lot about the Third World, we talk about Haiti, we talk about poverty in other parts of the world," he said. "This is our Third World. It's right here at home. These are our fellow citizens."Governments have for years haven't done much for the aboriginal communities. Harper unfortunately has no excuse to continue this inaction. The National Aboriginal Health Organization has been told the government will not be funding the 4.4 million dollars to this organization. 4.4 million. To put that in prospective the elimination of the penny is going to save the government 11 million. Also the F35 contracts cost 15-25 billion.
I think this shows the priorities of our Conservative government. they are willing to do almost anything imaginable to balance the budget from eliminating trivial things like the penny to eliminating funding to a first nations group that is of no doubt requires much more money then just a minor 4 million, but when you talk about fighter jets or Corporate tax cuts money isn't an object all of a sudden. Fiscally responsible NO! Morally responsible Hell NO!
Read More here
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Rick out Romney a Shoe Win to Win
With Rick Santorum suspending his campaign (A.K.A I am quitting this race) Romney is for sure going to win his nomination. Ron Paul is staying and so is apparently Newt Gingrich. These people don't have high polling numbers or neither the money to move forward. So now that the slow march to the nomination is practically over ( I am now moving my intentions to possible V.P choices) I will research every likely V.P hopefully I will have the time before Romney announces.
It seems like Ron and Newt won't let the march go so well, but hey it fun to hear them speak and especially the debates. I don't think Romney will go to another debate considering why rock the boat that has just caught wind. Romney has bigger things to worry about like the fact that women don't have such a high apporval of him and the fact that independents don't either. Other problems include a somewhat growing U.S economy and Obama's approval rating flirting with 50%.
So to recap Obama and Biden VS. Romney and ?. I love watching U.S elections they are always so much fun to watch.
It seems like Ron and Newt won't let the march go so well, but hey it fun to hear them speak and especially the debates. I don't think Romney will go to another debate considering why rock the boat that has just caught wind. Romney has bigger things to worry about like the fact that women don't have such a high apporval of him and the fact that independents don't either. Other problems include a somewhat growing U.S economy and Obama's approval rating flirting with 50%.
So to recap Obama and Biden VS. Romney and ?. I love watching U.S elections they are always so much fun to watch.
Meanwhile In Onatario
The recently elected minority in Ontario is going to have to present a budget that is going to need at least 2 members of the opposition to vote in favor in order to stop an election. Dalton Mcguinty is going to need help from the NDP since the Conservatives have stated that they won't support the budget. The NDP haven't quite given an official statement on whether they will vote for the budget or not, but they have brought some ideas to the table. Some of them I like! One of them is to increase the taxes on the richest people in the province. I am in favor of making people who have gotten so much out of the province paying some more to help balance the budget. We need shared sacrifice to pay off our deficits.Dalton Mcguinty is willing to work with the NDP to make the budget.
A poll I wrote about yesterday said a majority are behind the idea that people who are rich should pay more taxes. I think with the Liberals and the NDP working together in Ontario (even though I still think their are many things they should still do) Ontario could get a real progressive budget.
A poll I wrote about yesterday said a majority are behind the idea that people who are rich should pay more taxes. I think with the Liberals and the NDP working together in Ontario (even though I still think their are many things they should still do) Ontario could get a real progressive budget.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
We are More Genourose Then I thought.
According to a new poll done recently a vast Majority of Canadians are willing to pay higher taxes to combat income inequality. As we know income inequality has risen over the past 30 years in Canada and it is something we must tackle and apparently the country as a whole believes that as well.
The survey showed that 77 per cent of respondents agree that widening income gaps are a big problem for Canada that will have long-term consequences and 71 per cent agreed that income inequality undermines Canadian values.Liberals and New Democrats are the strongest supporters of paying more taxes to combat inequality, and interesting enough 58% (that a majority!) of Conservatives also believe in paying more taxes to combat inequality. The poll also asked what Canadians thought about higher Corporate taxes. No surprise 73% of Canadians support making Corporations pay the previous 2008 corporate tax rate. That was Ignatieff's plan in the election (ain't so radical was it) In fact a majority of Conservatives agree in making the corporate tax rate go back to the 2008 level. It seems even Harper's Conservatives don't like to the Harper policy.
The Broadbent Institute says the poll shows that the problem of income inequality is not an ideological one and that even the wealthy agree that they should play their part in addressing it.Read more Here
Friday, April 06, 2012
Way To Stand Out!
The Alberta Liberals released there platform for the upcoming election in 2012. In the platform is a radical policy (at least I think) to try and reduce tuition cost of universities, and apparently try to completely eliminate it by 2025. Alberta tuition is the 4th highest in the world country. Now I do think that tuition in Alberta should not rise and even slightly reduce for now. But to eliminate it I think it comes to a point where the government could better use the money. I am all for forgiving debt to people who want to become doctors, but it get's to a point especially in the future where universities will want money and the government will be too strapped to pay for it. In Quebec the tuition hikes are needed in Alberta a reduce is very welcomed. Being a fiscal conservative I think that high subsidization of education is good and more money for low income families are good as well, but free is too much money. We have to have priorities, and education should be on the top of the list, but our government has other places to put money into especially in Alberta when it comes to Health Care. If lower waiting times and balanced budget's mean students paying some money I think that is fair. Maybe Alberta can afford it, because it has oil , but I still say the money can be better spent. I am still routing for the Alberta Liberals in the 2012 election.
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Finally! Justin Get's Some Good Press
After the swearing in parliament one would just think it would be a slip of the mouth and only end up being a bad day for Justin. Then came along his comments about an Independent Quebec (although I still think the media over did it, I have changed my view on the comment and now think it was wrong for him to say he would support an independent Quebec if Canada became Harper's Canada). But now on to the Good press Justin got this week. Even though he made his opponent bleed (I do hope the senator is okay) he get's points for beating the so called winner coming into the match. Raising money for a good cause no doubt might give Justin some good press he well deserves.
Monday, March 26, 2012
How Can the NDP Win.
The NDP stand right now at 106 seats if they want to win a majority government they would have to win 170 seats. that means they would have to gain 64 seats. With 30 new seats coming into the house of commons this will be very preliminary prediction as the makeup of the riding's aren't made yet. Now since Mulcair is leader let me show you the most plausible way the NDP can get into power.
Let's say because Muclair is leader he keeps all his NDP seats from last time get's the extra 3 seats that have just been awarded to Quebec and even get's 4 more seats in the province let's say 2 from Montreal two from rural areas. That's 7 seats. That gives the NDP 65 out of the 78 seats in the province.
In the Atlantic I don't see much room for them to grow except two seats in Nova Scotia. So let's say they get those two seats. That leaves 55 seats to go and as you can see they can't achieve this with just the east they are going to need Ontario and the west.
In Ontario where they will get 15 extra seats we can assume a large portion would go to Toronto. So it would be safe to say a good 6 would go to the NDP if everything stays the way it is, but if the NDP want power they are going to have to do better. surprisingly enough besides the urban urban center of Toronto the outer core they did horrible. they are going to have to break into the outer part of Toronto and try and grab the south part of the province as well as the rural center part.Pretty much nothing short of a big swing to the NDP almost certanly spells death to any odds of a majority government .If they get that big swing I could see them winning 40 seats and instead of 6 out of the 13 new seats how about 10. that would put the NDP at 72 seats out of the 123 seats Ontario will have in 2015. Now I could say that the NDP would get a majority of the seats in Ontario, but I just don't see that happening. I think this is what they could reasonably expect and maybe even expect less.
That leaves 5 seats to go. In the prairies is where the NDP is really going to have to step up their game, but see this is the difficult part for them as it is hard to get rural votes here and still get urban votes in Ontario and especially many votes in Quebec. so if the NDP get the landslide in Ontario and Quebec I would think it hard to get any seats in Alberta (let alone maybe lose their only seat) and in Saskatchewan I don't see them getting any seats there either. In Manitoba they may get one or two Winnipeg seats, but for the sake of argument let's say it turns out to be a zero gain here.
In BC is where I see them able to those last 5 seats and more. In BC if they want to win the plurality of the votes. They have to get the Liberals practically out of Vancouver win those marginal Conservative seats in the rural areas and win strong rural conservative areas if they wish to win BC. So in conclusion this is the scenario I think is most likely for the NDP to achieve power.
Let's say because Muclair is leader he keeps all his NDP seats from last time get's the extra 3 seats that have just been awarded to Quebec and even get's 4 more seats in the province let's say 2 from Montreal two from rural areas. That's 7 seats. That gives the NDP 65 out of the 78 seats in the province.
In the Atlantic I don't see much room for them to grow except two seats in Nova Scotia. So let's say they get those two seats. That leaves 55 seats to go and as you can see they can't achieve this with just the east they are going to need Ontario and the west.
In Ontario where they will get 15 extra seats we can assume a large portion would go to Toronto. So it would be safe to say a good 6 would go to the NDP if everything stays the way it is, but if the NDP want power they are going to have to do better. surprisingly enough besides the urban urban center of Toronto the outer core they did horrible. they are going to have to break into the outer part of Toronto and try and grab the south part of the province as well as the rural center part.Pretty much nothing short of a big swing to the NDP almost certanly spells death to any odds of a majority government .If they get that big swing I could see them winning 40 seats and instead of 6 out of the 13 new seats how about 10. that would put the NDP at 72 seats out of the 123 seats Ontario will have in 2015. Now I could say that the NDP would get a majority of the seats in Ontario, but I just don't see that happening. I think this is what they could reasonably expect and maybe even expect less.
That leaves 5 seats to go. In the prairies is where the NDP is really going to have to step up their game, but see this is the difficult part for them as it is hard to get rural votes here and still get urban votes in Ontario and especially many votes in Quebec. so if the NDP get the landslide in Ontario and Quebec I would think it hard to get any seats in Alberta (let alone maybe lose their only seat) and in Saskatchewan I don't see them getting any seats there either. In Manitoba they may get one or two Winnipeg seats, but for the sake of argument let's say it turns out to be a zero gain here.
In BC is where I see them able to those last 5 seats and more. In BC if they want to win the plurality of the votes. They have to get the Liberals practically out of Vancouver win those marginal Conservative seats in the rural areas and win strong rural conservative areas if they wish to win BC. So in conclusion this is the scenario I think is most likely for the NDP to achieve power.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Muclair has A Prayer!
The NDP have officially gotten their official leader. The result was somewhat expected, but some surprises was the amazing showing that Nathan Cullen made. But now that Muclair is leader it's time to start talking about the political map of Canada. With all new leaders it is very normal for the party to rise in the polling very quickly. Especially in Quebec. I wouldn't even be surprised if we actually had a poll that showed the NDP ahead of the Conservatives. That wouldn't be the first, but it hasn't happened in a long time. I only remember learning that it happened for a short time during the Mulroney days. Nevertheless the NDP will have their moment that is for sure. I expect their polling numbers for the next little while to reach 35% and maybe really close to 50% in Quebec! It will be interesting to see how the NDP intend to bump up their Quebec numbers, but what will be more interesting our the attack ads the Conservatives are so going to use against Muclair. Anyways the NDP had their fun it will be soon that the Liberals will have there's. One Interim down , one to go.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Broken Convention possibility
Romney is the front runner again (and all is back to normal). At this point the only thing that can give Santorum enough delegates for a broken convention is if Gingrich drops out. Santorum could still win more delegates than Romney though. How?
My math Skills at work. You need 1144 delegates to clinch the nomination. If no one get's it then there is a broken convention. Currently of the delegates allocated Romney has a majority which means if things continue as they are Romney is set to get the majority of the delegates therefore winning the nomination. If Santorum surges again or for that matter Gingrich and manage to take 699 delegates of the 1358 delegates still left to be allocated. Now if Gingrich would drop out and endorse Santorum the possibility of a broken convention starts to become impossible. Because in order to have a broken convention it requires that no one have 1144. If Gingrinch endorses Santorum all his delegates go to him. Therefor the delegates can only be divided up in three. The only other person in would be Ron Paul
so to illustrate
if Santorum get's Gingrich's delegates then the delegates count would be.
Romney: 484 (need's 660)
Santorum: 375 (need's 769)
Paul: 69 (need's 1075)
the amount of delegates left are 1358. If Paul doesn't get much delegates as people project then unless the race get's really tight Santorum or Romney lower the chances of neither of them getting 1144. If all four stay and everyone except Romney manage together to get 51.5% of the remaining delegates Romney would face a broken convention
My math Skills at work. You need 1144 delegates to clinch the nomination. If no one get's it then there is a broken convention. Currently of the delegates allocated Romney has a majority which means if things continue as they are Romney is set to get the majority of the delegates therefore winning the nomination. If Santorum surges again or for that matter Gingrich and manage to take 699 delegates of the 1358 delegates still left to be allocated. Now if Gingrich would drop out and endorse Santorum the possibility of a broken convention starts to become impossible. Because in order to have a broken convention it requires that no one have 1144. If Gingrinch endorses Santorum all his delegates go to him. Therefor the delegates can only be divided up in three. The only other person in would be Ron Paul
so to illustrate
if Santorum get's Gingrich's delegates then the delegates count would be.
Romney: 484 (need's 660)
Santorum: 375 (need's 769)
Paul: 69 (need's 1075)
the amount of delegates left are 1358. If Paul doesn't get much delegates as people project then unless the race get's really tight Santorum or Romney lower the chances of neither of them getting 1144. If all four stay and everyone except Romney manage together to get 51.5% of the remaining delegates Romney would face a broken convention
Saturday, March 17, 2012
So Illinois?
In Irder for Santorum to have any chance to stop Romney from getting 1144. He will need to win over big states and mid western states. Illinois is one of the states Santorum needs to win if he still wants to win the nomination. Now if Romney wins today he hasn't won anything yet, but it only continues the slow trail Romney is taking to the nomination. In last three polls that were taken in the past few weeks I have made a poll of polls.
here they are
Romney 37.7%
Santorun 31.3%
Gingrich 13.3%
Paul 7.3%
In the last poll held two days ago Romney lead was 9%. The New York Times has Romney at a 86% of winning. I agree with this poll and project Romney would win by around 8%.
here they are
Romney 37.7%
Santorun 31.3%
Gingrich 13.3%
Paul 7.3%
In the last poll held two days ago Romney lead was 9%. The New York Times has Romney at a 86% of winning. I agree with this poll and project Romney would win by around 8%.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Super Tuesday proejections
A few hundred delegates will be up for grabs today and I have a few projection on who will win which state. In 2008 there was more than 20 states this time only 10. (which makes much easier to follow)
Vermont
This state doesn't have many polls. The last poll was taken in mid February. With Romney at a 7% lead over Santorum, but considering that in mid February Santorum was up in the polls (and now he is down), and that the state borders Massachusetts I would predict this state a solid win for Romney. In second I would say just, because Ron Paul does very well in these New England states he would win second place.
Massachusetts
A poll conducted five days ago had Romney at guess what 56% and his nearest rival Santorum at 16% (important to note 17% undecided. Now it is no guess to say Romney will win Massachusetts.
Virginia
In Virginia only two candidates are running Ron Paul and Romney as none of the other candidates got enough signatures to get on the ballot. a poll done a few days ago has Romney at 69% and Paul at 26%. So again another landslide I predict in the Romney win circle.
Georgia
Former house speaker Newt Gingrinch came from this state. This state might be his only win, but it will be a win none the less. A poll done just one days ago has him at a 20% lead another done just done two days ago has him at a 10% lead, and another also just done two days ago have him at a lead above 20%. It will be interesting to see how big his lead is. The New York Times have him at a 20% lead I think his lead will be over 20% as with the exception of that 10 point lead poll that is where most of the recent one's have him.
Tennessee
Rick Santorum used to have a decent lead here just a few weeks ago, but recently with a new poll coming out two days ago I doubt this will be a clean sweep. In 2008 during Super Tuesday Missouri split in the Republican side three ways (between Romney Huckabee and McCain) Now guess what it is happening again. Polls have Santorum at 30% Romney at 29% and Gingrich at 29%) I say this will be the closest race today, but if I had to chose I would chose Santorum just because Tennessee would seems like a very strong Rick state considering it's south which Romney has trouble with.
Ohio
On March 4th seven polls came out. Since Ohio is seens as the big state in this race I will caculated the averages of all 7 polls to make one polls of polls.
here they are
Romney 34.3%
Santorum 32.7%
Gingrich15.6% Paul 10.9%
The New York Times has Romney winning this state with a two point lead, but still says Santorum has a 35% of winning the state. I think if I had to chose I would say Romney wins Ohio but by a margin no greater then 3%
Oklahoma
Only two polls surfaced in the past few days one having Santorum at a 11% lead another at 8%. This is a state that Romney hasn't tried hard on so it is a safe Rick Santorum state. The lead I would think is around 10% which is about where the New York Times have it
Idaho and North Dakota
I couldn't find a singel poll in these states and the candidates that I know of haven't spent too much time here so I am basing this projection on 2008 results. In 2008 McCain won the state with 70% (this was when Romney and Huckabee both left the race) his next contender was Paul with 24% one of his best showings in 2008. This time I predict that Idaho will go for Paul. In Montana in 2008 Romney won 38% his next rival was Paul with 25%. I think that considering Paul has outdone his 2008 results in each states so far it isn't far fetch to say Paul could win this state.
Alaska
The Last poll taken here was in 2010 October. It still had Huckabee and Sarah Palin as choices. So for this state I go to 2008 where Romney won the state, but Ron Paul again has strong base in this state as well and like Idaho and North Dakota he could make an upset.
Summery
Romney wins
Ohio (1-3% Lead)
Massachusetts (over 30%)
Vermont (over 20%)
Virginia (over 30%)
Santorum
Tennessee (1%-5%)
Oklahoma (10%)
Gingrich
Georgia (20%-25%)
Ron Paul
Idaho (?%)
Montana (?%)
Alaska (?%)
Vermont
This state doesn't have many polls. The last poll was taken in mid February. With Romney at a 7% lead over Santorum, but considering that in mid February Santorum was up in the polls (and now he is down), and that the state borders Massachusetts I would predict this state a solid win for Romney. In second I would say just, because Ron Paul does very well in these New England states he would win second place.
Massachusetts
A poll conducted five days ago had Romney at guess what 56% and his nearest rival Santorum at 16% (important to note 17% undecided. Now it is no guess to say Romney will win Massachusetts.
Virginia
In Virginia only two candidates are running Ron Paul and Romney as none of the other candidates got enough signatures to get on the ballot. a poll done a few days ago has Romney at 69% and Paul at 26%. So again another landslide I predict in the Romney win circle.
Georgia
Former house speaker Newt Gingrinch came from this state. This state might be his only win, but it will be a win none the less. A poll done just one days ago has him at a 20% lead another done just done two days ago has him at a 10% lead, and another also just done two days ago have him at a lead above 20%. It will be interesting to see how big his lead is. The New York Times have him at a 20% lead I think his lead will be over 20% as with the exception of that 10 point lead poll that is where most of the recent one's have him.
Tennessee
Rick Santorum used to have a decent lead here just a few weeks ago, but recently with a new poll coming out two days ago I doubt this will be a clean sweep. In 2008 during Super Tuesday Missouri split in the Republican side three ways (between Romney Huckabee and McCain) Now guess what it is happening again. Polls have Santorum at 30% Romney at 29% and Gingrich at 29%) I say this will be the closest race today, but if I had to chose I would chose Santorum just because Tennessee would seems like a very strong Rick state considering it's south which Romney has trouble with.
Ohio
On March 4th seven polls came out. Since Ohio is seens as the big state in this race I will caculated the averages of all 7 polls to make one polls of polls.
here they are
Romney 34.3%
Santorum 32.7%
Gingrich15.6% Paul 10.9%
The New York Times has Romney winning this state with a two point lead, but still says Santorum has a 35% of winning the state. I think if I had to chose I would say Romney wins Ohio but by a margin no greater then 3%
Oklahoma
Only two polls surfaced in the past few days one having Santorum at a 11% lead another at 8%. This is a state that Romney hasn't tried hard on so it is a safe Rick Santorum state. The lead I would think is around 10% which is about where the New York Times have it
Idaho and North Dakota
I couldn't find a singel poll in these states and the candidates that I know of haven't spent too much time here so I am basing this projection on 2008 results. In 2008 McCain won the state with 70% (this was when Romney and Huckabee both left the race) his next contender was Paul with 24% one of his best showings in 2008. This time I predict that Idaho will go for Paul. In Montana in 2008 Romney won 38% his next rival was Paul with 25%. I think that considering Paul has outdone his 2008 results in each states so far it isn't far fetch to say Paul could win this state.
Alaska
The Last poll taken here was in 2010 October. It still had Huckabee and Sarah Palin as choices. So for this state I go to 2008 where Romney won the state, but Ron Paul again has strong base in this state as well and like Idaho and North Dakota he could make an upset.
Summery
Romney wins
Ohio (1-3% Lead)
Massachusetts (over 30%)
Vermont (over 20%)
Virginia (over 30%)
Santorum
Tennessee (1%-5%)
Oklahoma (10%)
Gingrich
Georgia (20%-25%)
Ron Paul
Idaho (?%)
Montana (?%)
Alaska (?%)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)