2017 British Columbia election

[adma]

Hey: properly done, it can serve a purpose ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

[adma]

In any event, one non-MSM outlet already seems to have picked up the story tonight... I am as straight as an arrow, but I believe that this is a gay publication (never heard of it before):

You pride yourself of being oh-so media-connected and aware and savvy, yet ***you've never heard of DailyXtra before?!?!?!?***  What kind of bubble are you in?!?

Come to think of it, your need to qualify yourself with "I am as straight as an arrow" sounds like you're in some kind of 1986ish suspended animation where Gay Pride celebrations were to be avoided like the gay plague.  Look, kiddo; it's 2017.  It doesn't mean you have to follow it religiously or agree with the viewpoints within, but DailyXtra is a perfectly normal and accepted part of the Vancouver mediasphere.  You don't have to fear people spotting that article in your uncleared cache and thinking "uh-oh, Lotuslander's a closet case".  It's not Grindr or anything; it's not going to give you some kind of cyber-gay-cooties, it's not going to lead to endless popups advertising Hot Men! etc etc.

Frankly, you sound as clueless as...
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/07/26/doug_ford_blasts_margaret_atwood_over_libraries_says_i_dont_even_know_her.html

[adma]

Oh FFS. The same loony/ideological nutbar trolls posting yet contributing nothing to this thread. Run along.

So the queer press is loony/ideological nutbar to you?  O-kay....

[adma]

Its easy to dismiss IVR polls as "junk" but unlike online polls which are based on online panels that may or may not be representative of the electorate - IVR is based on random digit dialling of the the entire population...and in the last federal election as well as in just about all of the last few provincial elections - IVR polls have been pretty accurate in predicting the result - certainly no worse than old-fashioned live-interviewer phone polls.

It's "junk" to those like Lotuslander whose preferred approach to elections is more like playing the stock market (as per his Sauder/UBC comment) than anything.

[adma]

BTW, the BC Greens are heavily targeting the 2 Kamloops ridings and Andrew Weaver has been there a few times already. Van Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer/Global BC political affairs reporter Keith Baldrey were on Kamloops radio station CHNL a few weeks back discussing provincial political scene. Both brought up that they are hearing rumblings that the BC Greens may actually finish 2nd in both Kamloops seats. I will believe it when I see it.

There ought to be a drinking game for each time Lotuslander namedrops Keith Baldrey.

Anyway, any such breakthrough on the WeaverGreens' part will depend on them hitting a certain "1993 Preston Manning Reform Populist" nerve (i.e. that which cannibalized from the federal NDP more than PCs).  Maybe that's why Lotuslander's so hyped up over them...

[adma]

Sounds to me like you're cherrypicking a mediocre-quality poll in order to reinforce your vested anti-IVR/anti-NDP interests.

[adma]

Yes, we know your beef about IVR; you've been saying it a zillion times as if that's the *only* thing that matters in this election.  My cherrypicking/mediocre poll comment was not about IVR in general; it was about JMI's Kamloops poll in particular.  Look; if we're dealing with an 8% Communist figure, we're not even talking about a poll that operates on an Environics/Mainstreet level.  (And please, don't reopen the "what about the BC Cons?" issue.)

[adma]

You are a liar and a troll and everybody here knows it.  I honestly have no idea why you keep posting here. I think pretty much every poster here has you on ignore.  Again, for not paying on the bet you lost to me and for 'doxing' me, I again ask the mod here to ban you from this website.

Hahahaha. Pffft. What a maroon. You are what negatively stereotypes BC across Canada - a fringe, loony left-wing BC flake. Now run along and put me on your ignore list.

Ho-hum, recycling the old "loony left-wing flake" bashing.  Can it; it's juvenile.

But that said, the answers lie in between.  I actually agree with you on how, in certain respects, the 1991 election *actually* transpired--but at the same time, I agree with Adam T. that the Liberals had already been building up their game in 1986 (remember: they only got .5% in 1979, and 2.7% in 1983), and that was the foundation from which they were operating in 1991.  So, the BCGrits were already operating with that eventuality in mind, which is why they made a point of nominating more credible candidates than would have been the case a decade earlier--a sort of "electoral credibility banking".  There are parallels where all that + an exemplary debate (or at least soundbite) performance led to an electoral jackpot; Manitoba's Carstairs Liberals in 1988 comes to mind, or even the federal "Le Bon Jack" phenomenon in 2011.  In fact, in some ways the BC Liberals were actually *saved* by their still-limited legislative gains in 1991; by and large the best people won, and the caucus was relatively accidental-flake-free, which formed a solid foundation for the Gordon Campbell era.

Given the context of the time, I also disagree with the assessment of BCTV polls as "junk polls"--junk, maybe, to the geeks that populate this forum; but in those pre-Internet days when the masses still gathered around the TV screen for their evening news regimen, they carried a lot of clout, even if there was arguably a touch of push-poll or confirmation bias about them--the latter borne out by how they didn't *quite* capture the final result.

I think, in the end, we all should quit these accusations and counter-accusations re what is or isn't a junk poll (or at least, heavy-handedly bandying around the term "junk poll", which is as obnoxious as duels over what is or isn't "fake news").  I mean, there are obvious signals/cases of "junkiness" (like, taking the BC Cons electorally seriously in 2017); but it might be more useful to simply strategically regard it *all* as one form or another of "junk" which provides useful trend and pattern data all the same, cum grano salis or not.  Distill it all, and form our own conclusions with a touch of "chance allowance", and let everything fall as it may and draw more conclusions from *that*.

It's a reason why, in my heart, I prefer post-mortem analysis to prediction analysis, and why I do *not* like to predict percentages, seat numbers, etc--any or this sports-pool/playing-the-stocks  boring-dude type of stuff.  I don't mind *witnessing* them in boards like this one; I just don't like to participate--I'd rather sponge off the rest of you, who are, in the end, no more "junky" than the polls you deride....

[adma]

Haha. I see the NDP cultists continue to inhabit this site. C'est la vie. Nothing like a major BC poli site (whereby I have been a mem for over 10 years) inhabited by centre-left/centre/centre-right folk sans the NDP cultists akin to here. It is what it is.

You're dodging.  To reiterate a point, this is what you predicted

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[adma]

One note about polling in the BC election. We were treated to lots of pontificating about how "only traditional CATI polls are of any value" and about how any poll done by IVR or based on an online panel was supposedly a "worthless junk poll".

In the end, the CATI polls that were done were actually the WORST! Final online and IVR polls all more or less nailed it the province-wide vote as dead even or a 1 point gap. The only outlier was the CATI by Innovative which had the BC Liberals 5 points ahead. The only other CATI polling i saw was a series of four riding polls by Oracle all on Vancouver Island...each of which grossly overestimated BC Liberal support.

Can we finally put to bed this notion that only CATI polls are the "gold standard" and that everything else is worthless. It clearly isnt true anymore. i acknowledge that mainstreet's riding polls by IVR were also all dreadful - but a growing challenge in doing riding polls in urban ridings is the impossibility of getting riding based cell phone numbers.

To be precise though, all of that pontificating came from our resident troll. 

To repeat what he predicted...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, Lotuslander was grandiosely declaring himself the expert of all experts.  He, and only he, knew the way things were going; the rest of us were NDP snowflakes.

And, look what happened to this so-called "expert".  Blown credibility in an instant.  *Nobody's* gonna take that putz seriously anymore.  He's no winner; he's just a bum--*regardless* of whether the BC Liberals get their majority in the end.



Wonder if he'll be hiding in the bushes, Sean Spicer-style...

[adma]

Haha. Posters here are always entertaining. Love it. But caveat emptor.

Van Sun's Vaughn Palmer, Global BC's Keith Baldrey & Globe and Mail's Justine Hunter have been live on Shaw TV over the past hour discussing the BC election. Lottsa interesting nuggets, which now provides some logical sense as a backdrop into Metro Vancouver's 2017 results.

For example, just Surrey, a major municipality in Metro Vancouver... the BC Libs lost ~20,000 votes compared to the 2013 BC election. So what happened to these votes in 2017? While some went to the BC NDP, more went to the BC Greens, while the majority just stayed home. Never saw that coming.

Again, that's just Surrey.

It's known as drilling down into the numbers and voter migration.

And yep. CATI is the gold standard in BC. Bar none.

You don't get it.  And all you're doing is offering post-mortem banalities courtesy of Shaw TV (much of which has already been gone over in this thread, so it isn't exactly *new* to us, at least through deductive reasoning), trying to cover up and deflect from your incompetent quackery in the name of election forecasting.  I mean, you are to election forecasting what Lyle Lanley is to monorails...

[adma]

To be precise, I think you were the only person here who took him seriously before this.

Lotuslander owes you money, remember.

[adma]

I've explained to you three times already about when I decide to look at your posts.

But again...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lotuslander's technique, as you see, is *do not acknowledge failure*.  *Do not acknowledge that you flopped in your forecast*, even if your blowhard manner of proclaiming your expertise practically *demands* greater scrutiny than the norm.  And when the flop's brought to your attention, then double down on the "NDP zealots/flakes" invective, i.e. the accusers are a bunch of loser poopy-pants.

Incidentally, on LL's 2017 election blog, he offers this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if he was so against-the-grain close to the mark in 2013, what happened in 2017?!?

(Then again, he clearly ran out of gas re sustaining said blog:  5 posts, including analyses of only Burnaby and Surrey, and nothing after March 5 but a CATI-cheerleading polling-methodology post from April 30.  I guess it's only within a pack of granola-munching NDP cheerleaders like ourselves that he can overcompensatingly feel like he's Grand Poobah or something)

[adma]

And remember how Vision Vancouver came about, municipally speaking.

[adma]

Guys, as a troll he is only going to be fueled by us endlessly discussing his terrible analysis. Let's just ignore him and discuss the results ok?

Haha. Comedy central. UNREAL. I have never seen such a pack of ignorant non-BC "NDP trolls/flakes" so apparently threatened by one purportedly measly poster like myself among a large posting net crowd. Just ignore me. Put me on your "Ignore List". Then all is good.

PS. The hardcore NDP "Scientology/Jehovah Witness" sects within the NDP never cease to amaze. Akin to the Christian Heritage Party of "the left".

Memo to moderator: if you need to do selective post deletion (or editing, or probationary measures) in lieu of the outright banning of Lotuslander, use posts/statements like the above as a benchmark.

[adma]

According to the Lascelles conventions and precedents if the legislature rejects Crooked Christy's Throne Speech on Day 1 then the LG must ask the leader of the second largest party to try to form a government and only if he fails is there a new election.

Again, I will defer to constitutional expert Prof. Ron Cheffins from last weekend who has advised 5 (yes 5) BC L-Gs. If the incumbent party is defeated on the Throne Speech, any other potential gov't between NDP/Greens must be a formal accord, in writing, and must have the "Confidence of the House".

A 43 NDP/Green v. 43 Lib + 1 Ind. Speaker does not have "Confidence of the House". Moreover, the Libs would have a 1-seat majority in the "Committee of the Whole" based upon that scenario. Ergo, that scenario is already D.O.A.

You deleted the "Btw we are all waiting for you to explain why all your predictions of how this election would go were so totally, wildly WRONG" part.  Just saying.

[adma]

Guys, as a troll he is only going to be fueled by us endlessly discussing his terrible analysis. Let's just ignore him and discuss the results ok?

Haha. Comedy central. UNREAL. I have never seen such a pack of ignorant non-BC "NDP trolls/flakes" so apparently threatened by one purportedly measly poster like myself among a large posting net crowd. Just ignore me. Put me on your "Ignore List". Then all is good.

PS. The hardcore NDP "Scientology/Jehovah Witness" sects within the NDP never cease to amaze. Akin to the Christian Heritage Party of "the left".

Memo to moderator: if you need to do selective post deletion (or editing, or probationary measures) in lieu of the outright banning of Lotuslander, use posts/statements like the above as a benchmark.

I see he replied to one of my posts. What's the point? I have him on ignore, so the only way I will see it is if someone else quotes him.

I thought of him upon reading this...

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/21/1664423/-Rightwing-Growing-Desperate-for-a-Good-Comedian-Why-Money-Can-t-Buy-Funny?detail=facebook

[adma]

RB loves to put his own spin on things, for some reason and doesn't address it when called out on it. *shrugs shoulders*.

At least RB observes decorum, unlike LL (initials will suffice)

[adma]

Yeah, a BC Liberal sitting as an Independent might be a likelier possibility than triggered byelections.

Incidentally, I don't know historical BC politics in-depth, but besides Gordon Wilson, has there ever been any sitting Lib/Socred MLAs jumping to the NDP?

[adma]

The Greens and NDP might want to run just one candidate between them. The riding may have gone Liberal in the federal election (hard to tell), so anything is possible.

To everyone's surprise, Kelowna-Lake Country actually *did* go Liberal in 2015.  And this was with an assist from the Greens, who opted not to run a candidate there.  Meanwhile, in neighbouring Central Okanagan-S-N (the de facto federal "Kelowna West", and the successor to Stockwell Day's bulwark), the Grits came shockingly close to making it a federal twofer.

Provincially, I think the big-tent BC Liberals are still favoured.

[adma]

I suspect a combination of the left coalescing around the Liberals and some dissatisfied Tories pissed at Harper voting Liberal put them over the top. 

Or, dissatisfied Tory *voters*, many of whom had hitherto viewed the CPC as an only-viable-option "vote of convenience".

Growth and demographic shifts may also be a factor, i.e. newer Kelowna hordes (including retirees) being more "moderate" and less Bible-Belty than their predecessors...

[adma]

Oddly enough, reading btw/the polling subdivision lines, I'd wonder about the BCNDP potential in Abbotsford--at least in the long term, with a bow to creeping ethnoburbanism.  (And particularly if Team Horgan continues its disarming "nice party" pattern.)