[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I doubt that the CPC "talking points" include saying Harper will lose to JT, but I won't let facts get in the way of you attempting to look witty.

Oh, they most definitely do. You can't ramp up the CPC Fear and Loathing Machine against someone that is not a threat. So the CPC message is not just that Justin is a "pretty boy" with no substance (to quote Johnny C). But also that that the electorate is so stupid they will vote for style over substance, and therefore he may actually win. For negative politics, you need to create a sense of urgency and fear.

Why not, instead, try to run the campaign on the basis that Harper has been good for Canada? That Harper has been a steady hand at the helm? Both sellable points in my opinion.

But instead it's back to negative campaigning, and attack politics, and that's why I hope it blows up in their faces, like it did for Kim Campbell and John McCain.

Oh, there'll be plenty of time for that, don't worry.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Oh, they most definitely do. You can't ramp up the CPC Fear and Loathing Machine against someone that is not a threat. So the CPC message is not just that Justin is a "pretty boy" with no substance (to quote Johnny C). But also that that the electorate is so stupid they will vote for style over substance, and therefore he may actually win. For negative politics, you need to create a sense of urgency and fear.

Why not, instead, try to run the campaign on the basis that Harper has been good for Canada? That Harper has been a steady hand at the helm? Both sellable points in my opinion.

But instead it's back to negative campaigning, and attack politics, and that's why I hope it blows up in their faces, like it did for Kim Campbell and John McCain.

I've yet to see any CPC material or representatives using the talking points you suggest, so perhaps it's just your imagination running a little wild.

Canadians always vote style/perception/image/anger over substance. Our electorate is ill-informed....if only Canadians were as involved and informed about politics as many of us are, we'd make much more informed decisions. We only get what we demand out of our leaders.

I'm sure all campaigns will have a mixture of positive and negative messages. The CPC will work to define the new Liberal leader before he or she can. Why? Because it WORKS.

[Bodah]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Oh, they most definitely do. You can't ramp up the CPC Fear and Loathing Machine against someone that is not a threat. So the CPC message is not just that Justin is a "pretty boy" with no substance (to quote Johnny C). But also that that the electorate is so stupid they will vote for style over substance, and therefore he may actually win. For negative politics, you need to create a sense of urgency and fear.

Why not, instead, try to run the campaign on the basis that Harper has been good for Canada? That Harper has been a steady hand at the helm? Both sellable points in my opinion.

But instead it's back to negative campaigning, and attack politics, and that's why I hope it blows up in their faces, like it did for Kim Campbell and John McCain.

Oh jeeezus....

Are you smoking the curtains again ?

You know there's a difference between our opinion and CPC official talking points, ads etc... Which I have yet to see regarding Trudeau, and probably wont be for awhile since the election is some time away.

[Jonny_C]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I've yet to see any CPC material or representatives using the talking points you suggest, so perhaps it's just your imagination running a little wild.

Canadians always vote style/perception/image/anger over substance. Our electorate is ill-informed....if only Canadians were as involved and informed about politics as many of us are, we'd make much more informed decisions. We only get what we demand out of our leaders.

I'm sure all campaigns will have a mixture of positive and negative messages. The CPC will work to define the new Liberal leader before he or she can. Why? Because it WORKS.

Good response. I was thinking about replying before I saw yours. +5

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Oh, they most definitely do. You can't ramp up the CPC Fear and Loathing Machine against someone that is not a threat. So the CPC message is not just that Justin is a "pretty boy" with no substance (to quote Johnny C). But also that that the electorate is so stupid they will vote for style over substance, and therefore he may actually win. For negative politics, you need to create a sense of urgency and fear.

Why not, instead, try to run the campaign on the basis that Harper has been good for Canada? That Harper has been a steady hand at the helm? Both sellable points in my opinion.

But instead it's back to negative campaigning, and attack politics, and that's why I hope it blows up in their faces, like it did for Kim Campbell and John McCain.

I've yet to see any CPC material or representatives using the talking points you suggest, so perhaps it's just your imagination running a little wild.

Canadians always vote style/perception/image/anger over substance. Our electorate is ill-informed....if only Canadians were as involved and informed about politics as many of us are, we'd make much more informed decisions. We only get what we demand out of our leaders.

I'm sure all campaigns will have a mixture of positive and negative messages. The CPC will work to define the new Liberal leader before he or she can. Why? Because it WORKS.

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work for Kim Cambell. Didn't work for John McCain. Running a little wild? I'll play that one back to you when elction politics come into play. I'm pretty sure what the CPC message will be. We'll see.

I really think the attack politics may not work this time.

I don;t actually mind Harper that much, even though I'm a liberal by nature. I think he has been steady at the helm. And I like a politician who doesn't feel the ened to be in front to the camera all the time. I think the economic platform has been excellent. Big dislikes: some of the more ideolgical foreign policy, Vic Toews and the environment. Since I have a vested interest in the environment, I won't be able to vote or the Conservatives. Otherwise I might.

[Jonny_C]

Interesting piece by George Jonas (National Post):

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... aus-reign/

$1:

Choosing a leader is buying a pig in a poke. There are no exams for the really top jobs. Applicants to blue-collar jobs need to demonstrate their proficiency in minor skills, such as driving a car; in major skills, such as driving a country, all prospective prime ministers need to demonstrate is their self-confidence.

There are no schools for tycoons or tyrants. No university offers a degree in national leadership. Kings, dictators and prime ministers learn on the job. First-time candidates have no track records.

The higher the position, the less qualification it requires. You need a PhD to teach “the novel” to graduate students, but for writing the greatest novel you need nothing, not even a high school diploma. To run a cruise ship aground and kill a few dozen passengers you need a master’s ticket from a recognized port authority. To run the ship of state on the rocks and kill millions, all you need is a brown shirt.

How do you select if there’s no test? As the irate Liberal puts it: “Genes used to be called blood. Blood lends legitimacy to succession. Otherwise it’s just a power struggle or a lottery. What predicts better than genes? Maybe they don’t predict all that well, but what predicts better?”

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work for Kim Cambell. Didn't work for John McCain. Running a little wild? I'll play that one back to you when elction politics come into play. I'm pretty sure what the CPC message will be. We'll see.

I really think the attack politics may not work this time.

Most often, it works. It's worked with just about every campaign besides the gaffes by the Liberals and the CPC since Kim Campbell. I don't care what works in America as our political landscape isn't even comparable.

I think a fine balance of attack politics and running on the experience/record of Harper will work. Justin can only play the "Hope" card.

I think the CPC has shown that over the last 8 years that it knows how to run their campaigns without over-doing it.

[EyeBrock]

I’m sure Justin is as capable as the rest of the sales-guys who go into politics. But…..

The whole ‘family-dynasty’ thing seems very old-school and not in a good way. It smacks of desperation but in reality, the Libs are desperate.

I looked at his website’s “Justin’s message”. There is no platform, no identifiable ‘message’, just a load of old vagueness.

What does he stand for?

I’m sure he will do well in the anybody-but-Harper camp but I’m amazed that some of you guys are seeing him as the next Great Hope without knowing what he stands for besides being his father’s son.

Am I missing something here? Are you Libs touting for him just because he’s called Trudeau?

Besides his name he seems to have nothing that earmarks him as a party or national leader.

[Curtman]

I was touting against him until he reversed his position on legalization, and his opponents started their attack campaign.

Now he just represents the best option because he's likeable, and has shown he'll listen to us Liberals when we kick up a fuss.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

I looked at his website’s “Justin’s message”. There is no platform, no identifiable ‘message’, just a load of old vagueness.

No worry.....Dear Leader knows all

[PluggyRug]

So Justin looks into his cup and sees a storm, "ha" he says "must make a vague reference to that in my next speech".

And the audience cheered and cheered and cheered..........

[Jonny_C]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Besides his name he seems to have nothing that earmarks him as a party or national leader.

Exactly Jonas's point. Name recognition gives him a boost. But he may have other things going for him as well - youth, good looks, some charisma - certainly not things to be frowned upon in a candidate, and if people are looking for a change they could be dynamite.

I'm pretty neutral on him, but my view went up a little notch when he spoke out yesterday or the day before about language in Quebec, something that the Conservatives and the NDP, for their own reasons, are reluctant to touch.

It seems to be pretty much a given that he will lead the Liberals into the next election. In that case we will definitely see if he's "got it".

[EyeBrock]

It's just another Lib leader parachuted in because the Libs can't seem to cobble a viable policy alternative to the Kitten-Killer.

It will be a chick with big tits and a tight-top next.

[Jonny_C]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's just another Lib leader parachuted in because the Libs can't seem to cobble a viable policy alternative to the Kitten-Killer.

It will be a chick with big tits and a tight-top next.

Ah, but it could be a golden parachute (or a silver bullet)!

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

I was touting against him until he reversed his position on legalization, and his opponents started their attack campaign.

Now he just represents the best option because he's likeable, and has shown he'll listen to us Liberals when we kick up a fuss.

When we get shitty leaders and bad governments term after term, look towards people like yourself with selfish priorities for the reason why.

You know how crappy things are when a grown man is voting for a man to lead the entire Country based on his stance on weed and that he's "likeable".

Nobody cares about what's good for Canada...it's all about how much money can this guy put in my pocket (or my business) and will s/he allow me to smoke drugs with a clear conscience.