Tho' I guess that's based on a sample space of one.
What I'm getting at, is that in that next election, I would very strongly consider voting Liberal. For the first time in my life, ever.
For me it's the environment, it's the environment, it's the environment. (Stupid.) Which is Dion's strong point, and it's clearly Harper's weak point. How much general outrage has there been over the government position on Kyoto recently? From my point of view, at least, I saw a lot. I think Dion is just the Liberal candidate to make that bite Harper back in the ass.
He is for me.
And the pundits after the election talked a lot about it, making me think that I'm not the only one. Granted, I'm kinda "odd" for someone who has basically been a lifelong PC supporter... but I'll bet my feelings aren't totally different from the "swing voters" who went PC last election because of the perceived complacency and sense of entitlement (of which AdScam, etc. were symptoms) in the Liberal party (and which has also been one of my bigger gripes with them), and whose votes are really still up for grabs.
A lot of people voted PC in January to "teach the Liberals a lesson" and have sobered up pretty quick in the last month. Dion could very well present an appealing hangover cure.
Also helped by the fact that he's not one of the Liberal "Old Guard."
Anyway, that's my two bits. And since I'm a computer scientist, not a political scientist, those two bits are probably worth diddly squat, so I'll now shut up.
Well, my qualifications in this case aren't as a political scientist, but as a Québecois. I mean I pray every day that Québec elections will move away from the nation issue and on to real, substantive issues, but we're still far from that yet. Ignatieff and Duceppe nearly restarted that fire again but surprisingly Harper saw what was happening and decided to extinguish it, and managed to bring the whole house over. In embracing the nation issue, Harper might have created the space for Dion to focus on the environment, which Québécois care a lot about and means that we will have an election this spring.
But Dion is really not well liked in Québec. Québec Liberal delegates were completely appalled at the choice last night. It's possible to win a federal election if the Bloc takes Québec away from you, but it's much harder if the Conservatives make gains there.
I mean, there's time for Dion between now and March to ingratiate himself to a lot of Québécois, and Harper has made the job easy for him with his stances on Kyoto and Afghanistan, but it's awfully short.
And Ignatieff much less so outside thereof. As mulled over ad infinitum by the aforementioned pundits prior to the convention.
It was lose-lose for the Liberals in that respect... but there are a lot more swing voters in the ROC than in Quebec... especially since non-Liberal voters dans la belle province have two ways to split their vote; most outside only have one.
But like I said above, sample space of one. One longtime Reform-Alliance-PC supporter.
I'm with you on that one. I normally vote NDP, but I'd be pretty comfortable voting for Dion given his environmental standpoint. I wouldn't have voted for Ignatieff or Rae.
plus the political whiny spam the NDP has been sending me of late is making me seriously reconsider my allegiance to that party...
Perhaps I'm naive - but the Reform Party, the Liberals, and the NDP all stand for the same thing: capitalism, inequality, oppression, war, violence, racism, etc. Why is one better than the other? Whether subtle or blatant, it's all the same. Similarly, the great Democratic breakthrough in the US is just more of the same. What happened to the revolutionary left? Still buying into the blackmail of the Soviet Union or Mao?
While you are excoriating me for paying attention to electoral politics, I was actually laying out CUPE3903's newspaper out of my own good time during the Liberal convention, as an undergraduate student, without pay and without funding, whereas most of your other SSHRCC-funded, so-called revolutionary colleagues couldn't be bothered to help out.
As for your actual message, apples and oranges are all fruits, but I still prefer one over the other.
I'm sure you are aware that FGS regulations prohibit SSHRC funded students from engaging in employed work on campus as a matter of policy. Consequently, I'm not a member of 3903.
If the 3903 newspaper refers to "Critical Times," it was founded, if I'm not mistaken, by SSHRC funded students, as it were, and, when I was in first year PhD, the editorial board consisted largely in SSHRC funded students. (I don't know who is involved with it now.) But "Critical Times" isn't (wasn't?) a 3903 newspaper, a project of the faculty association, the GSA and 3903. All the same, I can't speak to the revolutionary desires (or lack thereof) of my colleagues - I rarely see them or talk to them as it is!
There's no reason not to pay attention to electoral politics, but, at the same time, there is no reason to believe that electoral politics can ever have a revolutionary promise.
YUFA stopped funding the paper, so it's the GSA and CUPE, and in the three months I've been involved, I have had very little contact with the GSA, and more with CUPE.
As for the revolutionary promise of electoral politics, well duh. I bear no illusions, but the differences are significant enough to keep paying attention.
I'll bite on the U.S. part. The democratic changeover *is* different. It's not all the way the way someone who is lefty would like, true. But it's an end to things like taking away Habeus Corpus.
In fact, I didn't vote for the Dems because I thought they were the best or because I thought getting out of Iraqw would be easy or a solution to anything. I voted strictly on not living under a regime that's slowly edging towards totalitarian.
The Democrats may be corrupt, liars, ineffective, what have you, but they are not dictators.
The Military Commissions Act (or whatever it is called) remains in effect. If it is going to fail, it'll be at the Supreme Court and not through the machinations of elected representatives. Of course, the problem there is that a case needs to get before the Supreme Court which, without habeus corpus, is nearly impossible. Besides, the suspension nof habeus corpus is "only" for non-citizens. At this point, at least. Although there are ways around that inconvenience - "extraordinary rendition," for instance.
Further, it is worth keeping in mind - as you surely know - that American politics has little party discipline. Many Democrats are worse than many Republicans. There's very little in the way of a party line. The most effective strategy, at this conjuncture, is through propositions - for instance, raising the minimum wage.
Yes it still stands, however, no more things like it can be done now. Also, since those non-citizens (which include immigrants who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism) cannot bring their cases to the supreme court, *anyone* can challenge the law in supreme court flat out. Any bill can be challenged for constitutionality.
There are only a few democrats that are worse than republicans in the ways that actually count. Corruption and philandering I don't count because they exist in every aspect of life in all kinds of people.
The most possible thing to get at this time is actually some form of guest worker or amnesty program for immigrants, because even the President wants that.
Beyond that, actually, the wall that's supposed to be built...is not being built at all, according to the Border Angels organization that gives food and other aid to border crossers. If it *is* built, it will not stop anything. People will just go around, at their peril, but many will still make it.
You haven't convinced me that the democrats are the same as the republicans as the parties stand today. I'm not buying it. There may be a lot of similarities on their personal wealth and background, and the center of the spectrum may have moved right from where it once was, and certainly I'd prefer something rather farther left than they are, but voting them in could be a first step unless we have the defeatist attitude that they are just the same.
By the people doing the rest I meant grassroots orgs, not piddly minimum wage legislation. That won't help undocumented people.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 09:17 am (UTC)I thought Harper just lost the next federal election...
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 10:00 am (UTC)What I'm getting at, is that in that next election, I would very strongly consider voting Liberal. For the first time in my life, ever.
For me it's the environment, it's the environment, it's the environment. (Stupid.) Which is Dion's strong point, and it's clearly Harper's weak point. How much general outrage has there been over the government position on Kyoto recently? From my point of view, at least, I saw a lot. I think Dion is just the Liberal candidate to make that bite Harper back in the ass.
He is for me.
And the pundits after the election talked a lot about it, making me think that I'm not the only one. Granted, I'm kinda "odd" for someone who has basically been a lifelong PC supporter... but I'll bet my feelings aren't totally different from the "swing voters" who went PC last election because of the perceived complacency and sense of entitlement (of which AdScam, etc. were symptoms) in the Liberal party (and which has also been one of my bigger gripes with them), and whose votes are really still up for grabs.
A lot of people voted PC in January to "teach the Liberals a lesson" and have sobered up pretty quick in the last month. Dion could very well present an appealing hangover cure.
Also helped by the fact that he's not one of the Liberal "Old Guard."
Anyway, that's my two bits. And since I'm a computer scientist, not a political scientist, those two bits are probably worth diddly squat, so I'll now shut up.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 03:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 08:50 pm (UTC)But Dion is really not well liked in Québec. Québec Liberal delegates were completely appalled at the choice last night. It's possible to win a federal election if the Bloc takes Québec away from you, but it's much harder if the Conservatives make gains there.
I mean, there's time for Dion between now and March to ingratiate himself to a lot of Québécois, and Harper has made the job easy for him with his stances on Kyoto and Afghanistan, but it's awfully short.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 11:02 pm (UTC)And Ignatieff much less so outside thereof. As mulled over ad infinitum by the aforementioned pundits prior to the convention.
It was lose-lose for the Liberals in that respect... but there are a lot more swing voters in the ROC than in Quebec... especially since non-Liberal voters dans la belle province have two ways to split their vote; most outside only have one.
But like I said above, sample space of one. One longtime Reform-Alliance-PC supporter.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-04 04:23 am (UTC)(However when the nationalist Québec voters have to switch allegiances, they do so in a big way.)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 09:03 pm (UTC)I normally vote NDP, but I'd be pretty comfortable voting for Dion given his environmental standpoint. I wouldn't have voted for Ignatieff or Rae.
plus the political whiny spam the NDP has been sending me of late is making me seriously reconsider my allegiance to that party...
whiny spam
Date: 2006-12-03 09:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-03 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-04 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-04 04:52 am (UTC)As for your actual message, apples and oranges are all fruits, but I still prefer one over the other.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-04 05:16 am (UTC)If the 3903 newspaper refers to "Critical Times," it was founded, if I'm not mistaken, by SSHRC funded students, as it were, and, when I was in first year PhD, the editorial board consisted largely in SSHRC funded students. (I don't know who is involved with it now.) But "Critical Times" isn't (wasn't?) a 3903 newspaper, a project of the faculty association, the GSA and 3903. All the same, I can't speak to the revolutionary desires (or lack thereof) of my colleagues - I rarely see them or talk to them as it is!
There's no reason not to pay attention to electoral politics, but, at the same time, there is no reason to believe that electoral politics can ever have a revolutionary promise.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-04 05:47 am (UTC)As for the revolutionary promise of electoral politics, well duh. I bear no illusions, but the differences are significant enough to keep paying attention.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-05 03:03 am (UTC)In fact, I didn't vote for the Dems because I thought they were the best or because I thought getting out of Iraqw would be easy or a solution to anything. I voted strictly on not living under a regime that's slowly edging towards totalitarian.
The Democrats may be corrupt, liars, ineffective, what have you, but they are not dictators.
Everything else we want us up to the people.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-05 03:54 am (UTC)Further, it is worth keeping in mind - as you surely know - that American politics has little party discipline. Many Democrats are worse than many Republicans. There's very little in the way of a party line. The most effective strategy, at this conjuncture, is through propositions - for instance, raising the minimum wage.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-05 04:13 am (UTC)There are only a few democrats that are worse than republicans in the ways that actually count. Corruption and philandering I don't count because they exist in every aspect of life in all kinds of people.
The most possible thing to get at this time is actually some form of guest worker or amnesty program for immigrants, because even the President wants that.
Beyond that, actually, the wall that's supposed to be built...is not being built at all, according to the Border Angels organization that gives food and other aid to border crossers. If it *is* built, it will not stop anything. People will just go around, at their peril, but many will still make it.
You haven't convinced me that the democrats are the same as the republicans as the parties stand today. I'm not buying it. There may be a lot of similarities on their personal wealth and background, and the center of the spectrum may have moved right from where it once was, and certainly I'd prefer something rather farther left than they are, but voting them in could be a first step unless we have the defeatist attitude that they are just the same.
By the people doing the rest I meant grassroots orgs, not piddly minimum wage legislation. That won't help undocumented people.