Canada Kicks Ass
Quebec Elections

REPLY

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



AKZ @ Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:51 pm

The campaign for the Quebec election is on.

The good thing about it: The PQ is slumping in the polls :P


36% PLQ
29% PQ
25% ADQ

   



AKZ @ Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:56 pm

The separatists must be upset at the polls, which is too funny to ignore :D


$1:
Mario Dumont is surging in several regions and for the first time making inroads in Montreal as his Action democratique du Quebec continues to lure voters away from the Liberals and the Parti Quebecois, according to a new Gazette poll.

The three-way race is so close that had Quebecers voted this week, they would have re-elected Liberal Premier Jean Charest - but with a minority government, according to the Leger Marketing survey.

The results suggest the ADQ could have won 20 of the 125 ridings up for grabs - 15 more than the party had when the election was called two weeks ago. Eleven of the new seats would have been gains from the Liberals, the rest from the PQ.

Support for the PQ, meanwhile, is collapsing.

Andre Boisclair's leadership is dragging down the party across the province - even in such Pequiste strongholds as Saguenay-Lac St. Jean and eastern Montreal.

"Andre Boisclair's leadership has been catastrophic for the PQ,"
.

The poll, conducted between Saturday and Wednesday for The Gazette, Journal de Montreal and TVA, pegs Liberal support at 36 per cent, the PQ at 29 per cent and the ADQ at 25 per cent.




Montreal Gazette

   



fire_i @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:15 am

The PQ is likely to be going through the toughest moments in its history : the party is basically torn to pieces by the first-hour separatists. These comprise a large chunk of the party, have always been its extreme branch and hold tremendous power over the leadership of the PQ. Most of them are aging (read : 60+ years old) and know they're going to die soon, so they in turn create some kind of feeling of 'urgency' that separation *has* to be done while they're alive (read : in at most 5 years), and that even though even a separatist, after analyzing the situation, can only come to the conclusion that now would be the absolute worst time to actually call a referendum. One, it'd fail ; Two, if it miraculously passed, it'd be by an infinitesimal margin and would be contested nearly continuously for years and on ; Three, you have to be a complete moron not to realize you just DON'T go and seccess from a country without at least planning ahead for 10 years or so before actually calling the referendum (And for the love of, don't aim for 50.1% approval, aim for 60% ; even though I'll always say 50%+1 is the one and only bar that should be employed, it doesn't mean you don't have to aim for a 'safer' level).

And I'm ranting here.

Basically what I'm saying here is, the PQ is bound to spend the next 5 to 15 years under the control of the 'oldies', who want strictly nothing, and I emphasize nothing, other than a successful referendum (I'd bet a toonie they don't even care if Quebec crashed and burned within 10 years after the referendum). Since that view is far from being shared by the Québécois, even the separatists, the PQ ends up severely restricted by its "immediate referendum upon arrival to power" promise.

It's kind of sad actually, because their poor showing in the election will send a misinterpretated message that the responsible and realistic fiscal frame they've limited their promises to is a good way not to be elected... that may sound farfetched, but do you think the hardline separatists will blame the PQ's crash on the referendum? They'll have to find something else, and while the chief seems like obvious scapegoat material, they won't limit themselves to that. And I bet they'll get their point across, even though it's flawed.

I have to say, I'm MAD at the Liberals, but I want them re-elected. A PQ government would just be too dangerous (I definitely don't want to see a 3rd referendum now), and I hate the ADQ with fiery passion (What a bunch of jokes!).

Perhaps a minority Liberal government..?

Honeslty I'm almost happy I don't have the right to vote yet, I'd feel compelled to voting yet this time I'd just dislike every single party, even the third parties, so what the Hell would I do?

   



hurley_108 @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:30 am

Question for the Québécois here: how much of this do you think has to do with the fact the Liberals were turfed federally? Were people voting PQ because they hated the LPC?

   



fire_i @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:41 am

To an extent, the Cons's presence cuts into PQ votes as they drive a rather open-ended type of federalism, as opposed to the ultra-centralizationist Liberals. This makes so soft separatists (and autonomists) tend to shy away from the PQ, mostly to the advantage of the ADQ, but also a little bit in favor of the PLQ.

However, had the Cons maintained the hardline centralisation policy the Libs followed, chances are the aforementionned voters would have remained in the PQ's ranks.

I don't think it's really the party that's in power that affects the provincial vote in Quebec rather than the type of federalism the federal ruling party applies. For example, f the Libs turned into decentralizationists and took power again, chances are the ADQ and PLQ would keep the votes they've just taken away from the PQ.

Of course this is far from being the only reason of the PQ's downfall. You have to add it up to the poor leadership exerced by Boisclair and the few votes 'stolen' by Québec Solidaire (as well as some other minor factors).

   



AKZ @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:20 pm

You separatists should read this before making any accusations. Feast your eyes on that suckers !

Voilà que le PQ recourt une nouvelle fois à sa tactique, devenue coutumière, consistant à salir son adversaire.

$1:
Le PQ accuse le chef de cabinet du premier ministre Jean Charest d'avoir détourné des sommes d'argent durant la campagne référendaire de 1995. Mais les manoeuvres du PQ durant cette campagne soulèvent également plusieurs questions.


$1:
Cette fois, c'est par la voix de sa députée Diane Lemieux que le PQ accuse le chef de cabinet du premier ministre Jean Charest, Stéphane Bertrand, d'avoir détourné une certaine somme au profit du camp du NON, lors du référendum de 1995. Ce qui choque le plus dans ce nouvel épisode est le fait que le PQ s'acharne à vouloir faire croire qu'il détiendrait le monopole absolu de la vertu.


$1:
C'est pourquoi l'enquête du Directeur général des élections, que mène le juge Bernard Grenier à la suite de la publication d'un livre des militants indépendantistes Normand Lester et Robin Philbot, devrait s'étendre également aux multiples manoeuvres et tactiques douteuses du gouvernement du PQ de cette époque et du camp du OUI. Car si le but d'une enquête de cet ordre vise vraiment à assurer la transparence et l'honnêteté du processus démocratique, plusieurs faits et agissements du camp indépendantiste doivent également être examinés en profondeur.


$1:
Parmi les questions qui doivent être posées, il n'y a pas que ce viol de démocratie que constitue l'affaire des bulletins de vote rejetés à des taux massifs par des scrutateurs zélés nommés par le PQ dans certaines circonscriptions à forte prédominance fédéraliste (11,61 %, soit 5426 votes dans Chomedey, entre autres). Plusieurs éléments concernant les fonds publics dépensés par le gouvernement Parizeau en propagande et manoeuvres partisanes, de même que des dépenses jamais comptabilisées de la campagne du OUI, n'ont pas, à ce jour, été l'objet d'enquête sérieuse


$1:
Le PQ affectionne de parler d'Option Canada, accusé notamment dans le livre de Lester et Philpot d'avoir financé la soirée référendaire du NON. Mais il ferait bon de regarder aussi du côté du Conseil de la souveraineté, disposant d'un budget de 4438376 $ (financé au moins à 85 % à même les fonds publics par le gouvernement Parizeau), qui dépensa 196443 $ pour la soirée référendaire du OUI. De plus, en pleine campagne référendaire, ce même organisme a reçu du Secrétariat à l'avenir du Québec une subvention de 1882462 $, pour des dépenses prétendument faites avant la période référendaire, sans que cette prétention n'ait été jusqu'ici confirmée hors de tout doute.


$1:
Qu'en est-il des nombreux organismes indépendantistes actifs durant toute la campagne référendaire (du genre, entre de multiples autres : Artistes pour la souveraineté, Les Jeunes souverainistes, Mouvement National des Québécois, Partenaires pour la souveraineté de la Montérégie) qui ont dépensé des sommes considérables pour vanter les mérites de leur option, sommes dont on ignore la provenance et qui ne seront jamais comptabilisées par le OUI? Où sont les états financiers de ces organismes?



Talk all you want about Option Canada, all you separatists. You can kiss my white ... [but]

Usually the media such as TVA can be bias, but here is a real story. Can you digest the facts?

This is Federalism at its best, therefore take it as it is :D

   



Canadian_Mind @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:58 pm

Foran english canadian who is intrested in the election, could you translate that, or summarise the message?

   



Canadaka @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:04 pm

there is translate buttons in the top right of each post, as well as a "translate this page" at the bottom.

Down with the PQ!

   



fire_i @ Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:44 pm

The referendum was damn fishy. It probably wouldn't have been had any side won with a significant margin. With such a close call though, it's certain both sides will want to discredit the other with accusations, right or wrong.

It seems to me we'll never really know where there was fraud, of which scale the frauds were, and if they had any impact on the result. It's probably best that way. 12 years of whining, maybe it'd be time for people to, you know, move on instead of dwelling on the past only?

   



AKZ @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:46 pm

Here are the latest poll results:

Date
LIB 33%
PQ 30%
ADQ 30%


It's getting tighter. But still.... The Liberals are still in advance. Which means, there won't be any referendum called anytime soon.

Here is an article about the little coke sniffing friend Boisclair: Image

$1:
Even if he forms a minority government .......Parti Quebecois leader Andre Bosiclair says he will try and hold the party’s promised sovereignty referendum


Good luck, you coke sniffing..... asswhipe.

$1:
Boisclair rapidly slipped back into his standard line that despite polls placing the PQ behind the Liberals and Action democratique du Quebec – the ADQ is even beating the PQ among francophone voters alone – he still thinks he can form a majority government.


That ought to be funny. They (PQ) cannot even hold a lead héhéhéhé.

Separatists are nothing. Nothing I tell ya. They don't seem to understand the real cause. Again, not understanding what is the real purpose. They want one thing and nothing else. They suck !!!

   



Numure @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:29 pm

Makes ya wonder that even with a weak leader, they get 30%.

   



AKZ @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:14 am

Numure Numure:
Makes ya wonder that even with a weak leader, they get 30%.


To say the least, Charest is still ahead in the polls. But.... consider polls don't mean much. They are still polls, which do not represent the entire population,

That being said, Boisclair is still a coke sniffing bitch. (André Arthur called him a whining little girl lol XD )

   



Elvis @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:11 am

Tien un autre sondage ce matin

$1:
Sondage: le PQ prend les devants

Presse Canadienne samedi 17 mars 2007

Montréal

Un nouveau sondage place, pour la première fois de la campagne électorale, le Parti québécois en avance dans les intentions de vote.

Une enquête Strategic Council-Globe and Mail-CTV, réalisée mercredi et jeudi auprès de 1000 répondants, après le débat télévisé des chefs, indique que le PQ récolte maintenant 32 pour cent d'appui, après répartition des indécis dont la proportion n'est pas précisée.

Le Parti libéral recueille 30 pour cent de la faveur populaire, contre 26 pour cent pour l'Action démocratique.

Le Parti vert obtient 7 pour cent des intentions de vote contre 5 pour cent pour Québec solidaire.


linky

Mets ça dans ta pipe AKZ le parti liberal du Québec est en train de devenire le parti des anglais avec moin de 24% dans le Québec Français :twisted: et ça sa veux dire un gouvernement minoritaire PQ avec ADQ comme opposition officiel et le PLQ dans le dalot.

   



Numure @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:55 am

Avec un système de compté, comme nous avons, les intentions de vote ne veulent rien dire. C'est le parti qui receuille le plus de siège, qui gagne l'élection. Donc sur ce, j'ai vraiment hâte au jours d'élections, c'est la campagne électorale Québécoise la plus imprédictible depuis longtemps.

Et AKZ, tes attaques personnel continue, font une grandes croix sur ta crédibilité. Utilisé des arguments de André Arthur, n'aide pas du tout.

   



fire_i @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:24 am

Les participes passés et l'infinitif, Numure. Les participes passés et l'infinitif. :P

I'll write the rest of this post in English so everyone can understand.

The Libs have one advantage and one disadvantage with the ridings system : their votes are very heavily concentrated in western Montreal ridings which they simply cannot lose, so when they're getting schooled in the polls, they at least still can manage to obtain a few dozen deputies.

On the other hand, them leading in the polls isn't necessarilly as much of a good sign for them as it should be since the same phenomenom makes it harder for them to see their high popular support being translated into more seats at the Assemblée Nationale (mostly because outside of western Montreal, I believe every single riding is mostly francophone : since they strike low among francophones, the Libs have a very hard time getting seats out there).

Still, the Lib vote tends to be underrated. Liberal is almost synonimous to stability in Quebec politics, so "last-minute" undecided people tend to go towards them to have 4 years of nearly complete stability before thinking about everything all over again come the next election. Basically, the polls tend to underestimate the Lib votes.

The ADQ is strong this year, very strong. However, their voting base is extremely weak, being mostly made of protest voters, uninformed voters and people who traditionally are péquistes. Dumont's campaign has been based on vague ideas and his own good image : up to now, in the current circumstances, it seems like this was the best choice.

However, the ADQ has a glaring set of weaknesses : one, its platform is completely unrealistic, second, its constitutionnal position regarding the future of Quebec is unclear, third, its team is often dubbed as the weakest of the 3 main parties, fourth, it's starting to be blamed for high levels of demagogy and, finally, both the PLQ and PQ apparently will gun for it until the end of the campaign. Considering the ADQ's undecisive base, I wouldn't be surprised to see them crash in the polls before the end of the campaign (and even if it doesn't happen, they'll have to pull quite the performance in the house if they don't want to see their support start down the drain at the begginning of the next elections).

The PQ, on the other hand, sees the opposite phenomenom : generally speaking, if they get schooled in polls, they also get schooled when it comes to winning ridings : yet when they're leading the polls, or even if they're trailing slightly, they have very very high chances of winning.

The above dynamics may change with the rise of the ADQ, but for this election it still stands.

Now, some specific events concerning this campaign and only it :

The Libs have thus far waged a steady, calm campaign, hoping Boisclair and Dumont, who honestly are both rather unprofessional, would kill themselves off. The problem for the Libs is, neither of them crashed and Charest and his team were unable to turn their campaign on a more agressive stand : result, they have to rely on their 4 years of government to draw voters... but they arguably were the worst government ever seen in Quebec for their first 3. Their poor judgement of Dumont and Boisclair, combined with their slow campaign, causes them to slowly lose the speed they managed to build up just before the campaign.

The PQ, a year ago, scored over 50% in polls. Everyone thought it'd crush the Liberals. Yet Boisclair came on the scene, and after a very short honeymoon, everything went ballistic for the Péquistes and they dropped to a low of 29% in the early campaign. At the beggining of it, no one wanted to listen to Boisclair except his sympathizers and people who are very interested in politics : your average guy just changed channels when he saw him on TV.

Then there was his appearance on the extremely popular TV show Tout Le Monde En Parle, where most of the crew is sympathetic to his cause (not openly, but it shows). His performance there was very good, so people warmed up a bit.

At the debate, after a *terrible* start, Boisclair had the immense luck of not being targetted by either Charest or Dumont and managed to pull back a "comeback" and end on a very strong note after repeatedly sending Dumont in the cables.

Dumont had another huge advantage in that despite clearly losing the debate overall, he was the strongest player in the early stages of the debate while maintaining the best image all along : being that most of his voting base is made of protest voters and other rather indecisive people who seriously tend to only watch the start of the debate, he very possibly managed to protect his assets despite his poor showing when it came to what he had to say.

Charest had a debate similar to his campaign : slow, steady, defensive, unspectacular. One exception : unlike his campaign, it seemed it worked well for him. Sadly, Dumont's stunt (I'll explain that just below) seems to have somehow managed to hurt Charest. I blame the electors's stupidity here, because honestly we'd all have all the reasons in the world to slap Dumont in the face really hard.

There's a rule in the debate stating no one can show or quote an undeclared document of any kind. Yet, despite agreeing to the rule without questionning, around mid-debate, Dumont whipped out an (undeclared) note. This summer, in Montreal, an overpass crumbled, killing 5 people. The note was about this event and Dumont, quoting a part of the note, said it was proved the overpass was in poor shape and that the Liberal government knew it while in power. Later on, we'd learn that the note also stated NOTHING should be done about it and that the alleged damage was only superficial : the real damage, which caused the overpass to crumble, had been unnoticed through the inspection. This caused Dumont to be attacked from all angles, not only because he broke the debate's rules, but also because he only quoted the parts he needed just to hurt Charest and remained silent about the context despite its crucial importance.

Dumont's stunt worked however since it destabilized Charest during the debate, probably "scaring" him off enough to force him to remain on the defensive : this prevented Charest from getting an opportunity to finally steer away from defense and go on the offensive (and not just for the debate, but for the whole campaign, making this small event a major turnpoint). Yet, as the ADQ suffered from the move too, one must wonder if Dumont didn't just swap enemies by aiding Boisclair slightly. One thing's for certain, that's not what he intended.

Since day one we've had a 3-man dogfight between a weakening PQ and PLQ and a strenghtening ADQ. I however am positive this will not last much longer : Dumont has been unbelievably weak recently, being unable to complete his good image with valuable ideas. "Il n'a pas de contenu", as we say in French. Had the PQ and PLQ left things at it, chances are Dumont would have avoided problems, but both parties want him dead it seems so he's going to have a hard time until the end of the campaign as everyone's going to point out his unrealistic and overall poor program.

All the while, Boisclair, who honestly has been average at best, still somehow appears to finally be in position to convey his message. The public opinions still sees him as boring and uninteresting, but it warmed up juuuust enough for him to try and get the most attention in the last week. All along he's always been #3 in news reports and other medias, so that'll be new to him. Basically, it's his chance.

The extremely low expectations people have of Boisclair are almost a blessing to him : he doesn't even need to be good, he just needs to be passable and people are likely to be impressed enough to give him a chance. He seems like a bad campaigner to me, so oddly this situation helps him more than it hurts him.

Charest has one last week to turn his campaign around. If he doesn't, he'll keep slowly falling in the polls, but should manage a rather good score considering the underestimation of Liberal votes. If he however manages to do this, he might just prevent Boisclair from using the last week of the campaign to build up his battered support through increased attention as the Libs would steal the hot seat, which could give Charest the win. IMO, Charest's results will decide who wins : a good week, he wins, an average of bad week, Boisclair wins.

As for Dumont, I'd say he's close to the point of non-return, where his credibility and that of his party would be damaged so much his base would simply suddenly disintegrate and flock back to other parties, mostly the PQ. Should that happen, Charest's job would be rendered that much harder.

Wow, I can't believe I wrote so much. I basically explained the entire campaign here.

EDIT: And thank God I CPed that post in Wordpad. Obviously my browser crashed at the very moment I was posting this monster. ;)

   



REPLY

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next