My my, the dogs are barking now

Don’t accuse the NB Tories of being lost in cyberspace. They have cranked up the blogosphere spin machine in the past few days. The CBC blog has six new comments this morning – everyone hammering poor ol’ Shawn Graham.

Somebody told me before the election that both the Libs and Tories were paying folks to disseminate their messages throught blogosphere. Give that Sara G. a raise!

My old friend over at the Sorry Centrist’s blog is down this am (10 am) but Spink about It is cranky that Jacques Poitras ‘shut down’ comment because of partisan spin. Check back this morning, Spink, you will be happy.

The “Progress for New Brunswick” blog posted Al Hogan’s front page story about the 50 to 45 lead for the PCs. Too bad, Bristol has been disclaiming that ‘panel’ in every media outlet they can find pointing to their ‘poll’ which shows a 46-46 dead heat.

I can’t find a lot of desperate Liberal bloggers. NB Politico keeps reworking his predictions – in favour of the PCs in some cases.

An interesting blog recently has been the Times & Transcript election blog. It too features some hammering of Shawn G. but mostly there are no comments at all to poor Clarissa’s questions. Don’t feel bad, Clarissa. Some of my best posts have gone uncommented and in some cases not read.

So, I guess we could say from the lack of desperation in the Liberal corner of the blogosphere, they are feeling quite confident while the Tory frantic keystrokes may indicate some concern.

But the eight people or so that actually write partisan comments most likely doesn’t constitute a good sample of the public.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to My my, the dogs are barking now

  1. Anonymous says:

    Just a couple of notes. The tory bloggers have definitely come out shrill lately, but that shouldn’t paint a picture of the tory party. Again, I don’t think it partisan if somebody complains about not getting Graham to answer questions.

    The scariest thing about this is that even those liberals out there don’t seem to be voting ‘for’ the party, but mostly against Lord. But of course the opposite is not true, if you are for the government, well, basically you agree with what they are doing (or don’t know any better)

    I haven’t heard any single liberal platform piece that people have touted as “I’m for the liberals because I want…..” Of course I don’t know that many people.

    No doubt small woodlot owners are happy to hear about guarantee pricing, although whether they can be believed or not is another question.

    One complaint about bloggers that I suppose I should shut up about because I wasn’t blogging (to be fair I just thought of it) is that polling predictions seemed very vague.

    In politics, a good percentage of votes are aligned along organizations and interests, but I saw little in the way of associated people’s votes with specific policies.

    So to use the above examples, areas which have a large number of small woodlot owners (I don’t know where they are but it can be found out) would see those votes going to the liberals as they are the only ones talking about it.

    Areas with autism, likewise have seen more attention from the liberals, and I’m not sure of this but I heard that rural areas seem to have this as more of an ‘open’ problem that is not being addressed.

    And you can go down the list from there. I would think that would be basic in making election predictions, rather than the ‘X seems real popular and has a lot of experience’ or some such thing.

    I’m posting this here because unlike other bloggers I haven’t seen predictions here so you’re less likely to take offense-even though no offense is intended, like I said, I’m free to do that work as well.

  2. PoliticsNB says:

    You noticed that to eh David? I’ve been seeing some frantic keyboard banging around the blogosphere myself by the Conservative partisans. I think some are indeed becoming worried that the “change” mantra may really begin settle in over the final weekend….many of those comments are getting pretty nasty….

  3. Anonymous says:

    Just one more point. While I’ve seen many bloggers, as well as here, have links and make references to CBC’s blog, I visited there for the first time and yet couldn’t find any links to other bloggers. Perhaps I missed them, but I think that’s sort of scummy for the CBC to not return the favour, particularly when we are paying their salary.

  4. David Campbell says:

    In fairness to Bristol, it’s Al Hogan putting the spin on the ‘panel’ numbers and not the polling firm. Also, I saw the details from the Bristol ‘poll’ of over 1,000 people and I would have to say it’s methodology should be sound. But remember, last time Bristol was projecting a large Tory win which ended up being within 1 point of the CRA prediction. This time, the Bristol ‘poll’ and CRA poll (and the CTV poll) are all just about the same (a 2 point swing among decided voters).

  5. David Campbell says:

    I am not sure that the election has anything to do with Shawn Graham. You or I have no idea how he will govern. We can guess. Maybe with the help of Desserud we can guess in an educated fashion but we cannot say for sure. So the issue of being ‘against Lord’ but not ‘for Shawn’ is a good observation, anon. But unless the opposition has ridiculous and potentially dangerous policy platforms, I think people are right to make elections a referendum on the party in power rather than an endorsement of the opposition. Bernard Lord was almost untouched by the media in 1999. Now, granted the media has had more time to get to know Shawn Graham but I still think it doesn’t make sense to spend all the time and effort trying to critique what kind of Premier Graham might or might not make when we have a real live Premier with real live results. That should be the focus of the discussion. Whether or not after two terms in power, the public believes that they deserved a third.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I sort of agree, but not really. Remember, that in our country an electoin is the ONLY democratic voice that citizens have in the decision making process. Sure, they can lobby and write letters, but that doesn’t mean anything.

    In such a place elections should involve people far more than it does. Setting up a ‘platform’ that includes everything but says nothing like the liberals, or making promises that you had seven years to implement like the tories doesn’t serve very many democratic ideals.

    Ideally, at least to me, a vague pretense toward democracy would have party’s floating issues early on, and having various forms of debate to settle what people want, or if you prefer, what they need. As the weeks progress, new issues come up, which would let both parties float their ideas, have input from the population, then in the end people would choose which party most holds to their various ideals and the party’s would need not be so inflexible (which usually means vague).

    It also creates an area for the dozens of issues that don’t even come up in our typical elections (and I suspect purposely).

    That way, it has people becoming involved, and has party’s at least pretending to listen, rather than banking on an ‘either-or’ situation which lets opposition parties benefit from some voter dissatisfaction, and governing parties benefitting from some voter’s fear of change.

    That would be far more ‘democratic’, and to me, far more desirable. Of course that’s not the way it is, and only an active population can change that, so we’lll just have to see about that:)

  7. David Campbell says:

    I can’t believe I am saying this but I think I am more cynical than you. As I recall the Tory platform in 1999, what they said and what they did were considerably different (not including the 200 days of change). They said they’d have real job creation targets. They didn’t. They said they’d get rid of spin doctors and replace them with real doctors. They didn’t. They said they would have a ‘made in NB’ solution to economic development. We’re still waiting to see that. Then the came out with that overwhelming opus called a Prosperity Plan which has disappeared along with is many ‘targets’. Now we have a Five in Five. Good luck. The point is that the Liberals (like the Tories) can say anything they want and it has very limited correlation to how they will actually govern (at least if we take the Tories as the model). Again, I may be cynical, but I think someone else deserves a kick at the can and I’m sure you will ever know from any platform how someone will actually govern.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I must have been vague because that exactly was my point, although I think I am more cynical in not thinking the liberal “get us off equalization” and “worst to first” is any different.

    Because people are not involved, parties need to ‘sell’ themselves. Like a car they need to tell people what they can do. If you’ve ever bought a lousy car from a used salesman you know what I mean. You say something to get a certain response, even though you are lying through your teeth.

    Saying “we’re going to be prosperous” is really ludicrous if you think about it and I doubt anybody actually took that seriously, just like people may not take ‘worst to first’ seriously but vote along other lines, as I said, against the other guy.

    I’m certainly not touting the conservatives here. I’ve never voted for Lord, never will. I’m at this blog posting fairly regularly because it is saying something very important, and I’ve actually put out flyers advertising the blog because of the simple reason to vote liberal: seven years of Lord has done nothing to move the province forward.

    However, that doesn’t address the election issue. It’s easy enough to put out concrete strategies, the only reason the liberals don’t is because when you do, you can get into trouble for it. However, if people actually played a part in the electoral system then the “solutions” could be better managed.

    Take for example one issue, which is calculating student need by including parents income. The liberals say they will change that, but does including that change make sense when you are also promising $2000 grants to students? That first year student whose parents have money ‘on paper’ but couldn’t afford their child’s education is now benefitting from a grant anyway, so doesn’t need as much money.

    I was one of those students by the way, my parents had five kids, and while ‘technically’ they had money, they were putting money away because as a radar tech in the military my father needed kidney dialysis from exposure to radiation and was not expected to survive. So I don’t think they could be faulted for putting money away (don’t worry, he got out and is fine). The question is, are both needed, is one better than the other? More to the point, what about simply having an office which analyzes every student needs and meets them?

    But both ‘incentives’ are not necessary, and thats something that would come out in week one if all parties were discussing secondary education and people could respond (through blogs, phone in shows, editorials, etc.). Then it would be discoverd “Ok, so we DON”T need both of these, we can axe one”.

    Under the current circumstances a move like the above would be ‘flip flopping’ or ‘indecisive’, when it would really be what it was, listening to the constituency.

    Again, thats not tory touting, thats a suggestion as to how a more democratic electoral campaign may look. I don’t think that’s ‘cynical’, if I were cynical I wouldn’t be posting such comments at all since its not the present reality. But politics is change. Governments and styles of governments come and go, hell, planets and stars come and go, to assume that everything will always be this way is pretty illogical. And DEFINITELY won’t be the same come next election in New Brunswick:)

  9. David Campbell says:

    My question is why did your dad need to save money for health care expenses? The second point is that the government’s definition of who is ‘rich’ and who is not in New Brunswick is pretty laughable. I make a pretty good income but I will definitely not be able to pay my kids’ full tuition and board to university. If my daughter is excluded from some student loan program I will not be a happy camper.

  10. Cooker boy says:

    I will bet you anything that graham pulls a McGuinty if he gets elected Premier on Monday.

    Promise everything under the sun, then say that the Lord Govt left us in so bad a shape that we can’t afford most initiatives we promised.

  11. Anonymous says:

    First, they weren’t saving for health care expenses, like I said, he wasn’t expected to survive more than a year, they were saving so that six people could survive on a widower’s salary.

    Second, that was just an example, I wasn’t providing a solution to educational policy I was outlining its parameters. There are numerous ways to fund things, from providing enough funding for a university so they can lower tuition, to offering grants, to examining all the various economic factors in each students life to determine their needs. The point for that is, is there ONE solution, are there many, and wouldn’t it be far better if parents and taxpayers were involved in creating the program that meets their needs instead of a party making all kinds of promises to everybody, and perhaps fulfilling none.

    I do tend to agree with one criticism of the tories, and thats that the solution for liberals always seems to be creating more bureaucracy. While that MAY be beneficial, the devil is in the details. Education doesn’t need a new bureaucracy, it needs funding and programs.

    That’s exemplified by the above poster- how likely is it that Graham pulls a McGuinty and says ‘oops, I guess I was wrong after all, we can’t do this’.

    If voters are supposed to decide these things, wouldn’t it be more prudent to have ALL the information, not a “let’s vote for this guy cuz the other guy’s been a putz”