May In
Chalk one up for the blogosphere: Elizabeth May joins the debate.
This has a couple of effects: first, I no longer feel obliged to vote for which ever wingnut the Greens are running in my riding. Second, it has just cost Dion whatever faint hope he had of winning the election. Third, it has just cost the NDP a few seats.
So here is my question: why were the geniuses in the CPC war room opposing this? Could it be that they were smart enough that they knew they would lose?
September 11th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Not sure how it will help the Greens. Every time I have a kind thought towards that party May opens her mouth and kills it off. I’ll not be able to take them seriously until they replace her with someone who isn’t constantly dodging men in white suits carrying large nets.
And this won’t be happening anytime soon given the propensities of the average Green.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:30 am
I think it was his female problem they were worried about. Harper has a problem with a lot of female voters. For reasons that aren’t entirely apparent to me he comes off very badly: authoritarian, smug, cold, untrustworthy.
Given this reaction what they really didn’t want was a national media debate where Harper will condescend and interact with May in a way which will put off a large portion of women voters.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Oh goodie, now the public can hear May’s coffee shop talk assessemnts of science and economics….this campaign just became entertaining.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:42 am
It has also cost Harper votes as he will face a better debater who has no interest in not stripping him naked on anything she feels to discuss.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Jay, I know this is wrong but I could not care less about the Canadian election. I want Harper to win but you just get the feeling it doesn’t really matter who gets in, nothing much changes. On the other hand, I am enthralled by the US election and am following that very closely. I feel, rightly or wrongly, that the result of that election will ultimately have much more of an impact on my life than the Canadian one. And on the U.S. one, I desperately don’t want Obama to win – he is dangerous.
P.S. This doesn’t mean I won’t be checking your blog everyday as usual.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Off topic, but for some reason your blog has disappeared from Google, at least when I’ve looked for it over the last 2 days. Googling “jay currie” brings up an old blog of yours plus references in other blogs (apparently you’re a “bigot” – did you know that?), but not the thing itself. It might be my problem, but I don’t see how.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
As a non-Canadian I have a query. How, if at all, do the left-wing parties co-operate in first-past-the-post Canadian elections? They don’t seem to formally ally, as far as I can tell – they can’t swap preferences (as in Australia) or run joint primaries (as in the US) or run joint party lists (as in Germany). They don’t even seem to have simple “standing-down” electoral pacts, like the Right and Left coalitions in France or the Lib-Lab pacts in the UK (official and top-down before the 1930s, unofficial and bottom-up in 1997).
Yet relations between the Liberals and NDP, in particular, seem quite cordial. Liberal PMs appoint New Democrats as Senators, Lieut Governors and even Governor-General (Schreyer). Is there some sort of formal or informal understanding in place? Does it help that the different parties are dominant in different elections around the country?