Leader's Mistake In This Election Campaign

[Liberalman]

Stephen Harper’s first mistake in this campaign

Stephen Harper’s first major mistake was to back out of a one on one debate with Michael Ignatieff that Harper challenged in the first place.

With all the attack ads from the Conservatives Stephen Harper would have had no problems winning the debate unless the attack ads have false information in
them.

I am dedicating this thread to all the leaders in all the parties who make mistakes in their election campaigns, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and whoever is running for Prime Minister of Canada

Then at the end we can see if their mistakes made any difference on their final election standings.

 

[lone wolf]

His first mistake was to nail his tongue to the word "coalition"....

 

[Colpy]

Stephen Harper’s first mistake in this campaign

Stephen Harper’s first major mistake was to back out of a one on one debate with Michael Ignatieff that Harper challenged in the first place.

With all the attack ads from the Conservatives Stephen Harper would have had no problems winning the debate unless the attack ads have false information in
them.

I am dedicating this thread to all the leaders in all the parties who make mistakes in their election campaigns, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and whoever is running for Prime Minister of Canada

Then at the end we can see if their mistakes made any difference on their final election standings.

Well, Count Ignatieff's mistake was voting to defeat the government in the first place.....he must be in a hurry to get back to Harvard.

 

[SLM]

His first mistake was to nail his tongue to the word "coalition"....

Ah yes, the "c" word. I could die a very happy woman if I never had to hear that word again.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, all the parties, but particularly the Conservatives desperately need some new material.

 

[TenPenny]

Stephen Harper’s first mistake in this campaign

Stephen Harper’s first major mistake was to back out of a one on one debate with Michael Ignatieff that Harper challenged in the first place.

Harper didn't back out of a debate. He never agreed to enter one. You can't back out of something you never entered.

I think Harper's first mistake was not distancing himself and his party from those who don't have any ethics, and those who don't understand the distinction between party functions and government functions.

Ignatieff could probably make some ground by highlighting the ethical behavior of the Conservative cabinet ministers, but perhaps he wants to try to stay on the high ground. Harpers ridiculous ads denigrating Ignatieff for coming back to Canada would be nicely counteracted by a list of quotes by Harper insulting Atlantic Canada, and pretty much everyone else in the country. They're not hard to find, after all.

 

[Liberalman]

Another mistake Stephen Harper is making is limiting questions that reporters are allowed to ask like 4 per subject and some appearances no reporters questions.


Voters will look at this as a candidate with something to hide.

 

[Mowich]

I am not at all pleased by the performance of Stephen Harper this week. He has to loosen up and come down to earth. So far, from what I have seen, Ig is playing very well with the folks on the campaign trail. He is coming across in a much more relaxed manner than in the previous election. The libs also released a very effective, IMHO, ad which addresses the Conservatives anti-ignatieff ads very well.

I know Steve has a problem with the press and loose lips but he has to realize how it is playing across the nation with a media hungry for anything that will show the leaders in a bad light. They love the quip by Ig about the chicken crossig the road - it is little things like this that stick in people's minds long after the event.

 

[#juan]

Liberals benefit from Harper gaffs
Nevertheless, for the third election in a row those who want to preserve and enhance a progressive social and economic agenda for the country have to rely on the Liberals getting more seats than the Conservatives -- and governing with some kind of support from the NDP and the Bloc. If that happens, the kind of government we get will be largely determined by the balance of Liberal and NDP seats in the House.
The irony is that when Harper does his now-predictable drop from the high 30s in the polls, it is the Liberals who benefit. Last week was typical. For several weeks Harper was pushing into potential majority territory -- enough polls that it looked like a trend. But whenever he gets this close, Harper demonstrates his arrogance and lack of impulse control. He does something brazenly stupid. This time it was defending the lies of Bev Oda, his minister of international co-operation. It brought him down from a 12.5 point lead over the Liberals to just 5 points. But it also whacked the NDP from nearly 19 per cent to just 14.5 per cent.
It seems that when people get scared of Harper, some of them abandon the NDP for the Liberals as a stop-Harper strategy. But the only way the next parliament will produce anything resembling progressive policies is for the balance of power to shift towards the NDP. Ignatieff is hostile to a formal accord or a coalition, an idea he already killed once. He will not be easily persuaded if the NDP has even fewer seats this time around and he has more.
Will there be a real contest of ideas in this election? Not likely. Federal politics are now so constricted by geographic and demographic considerations and by the calculus of voter preferences that many of the issues that progressives care about, given their stated values, might not get any play. The number of issues that appear to be off the electoral table include child care, democratic reform (proportional representation), climate change, Canada's place in the world, fair taxes, and the obscene gap between rich and poor. No party will make these leading campaign issues.
And again, there is no talk of a coalition by either the NDP or the Liberals. Perhaps if the NDP had publicly pushed for such an accord, and forced Ignatieff to explain why he opposes one, it could have protected its left flank from the policy poaching now being conducted by the Liberals -- pushing to identify four or five policies they were both committed to.

 

[Mowich]

As this thread is about all the leaders, I have to mention that Jackie's continual rant about 'when he is prime minister' has to be the lamest statement in this campaign. Only the most blindly dedicated and somewhat mentally challenged NDP supporter would believe it to have even a grain of truth.

 

[lone wolf]

Gotta admit.... The thought has entered your mind - as intended ;-)

 

[Liberalman]

Allowing Conservative campaign

workers to deface opposing candidate election sign is another mistake They did this last election

 

[CDNBear]

Allowing Conservative campaign

workers to deface opposing candidate election sign is another mistake They did this last election

Do you have any proof it was con campaign workers?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Allowing Conservative campaign

workers to deface opposing candidate election sign is another mistake They did this last election

Defacing election signs is a big no-no. The claim that it was done by opposing
candidate workers is one Hell of a statement. Can you please post a LINK to
the source backing up this claim?

Whatever story the picture above came from (I'm assuming) would most likely
have a story to go along with it at that LINK. Something like this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/04/02/cv-election-graffiti-signs-keon.html

Keon made it clear he wasn't pointing fingers at other candidates, and said his
campaign had referred the matter to the Ottawa Police Service.

 

[CDNBear]

Here Ron,

Liberal's posters defaced with rifle-target symbols | Decision 2011 | News | Toronto Sun

And yet another partisan hack is exposed as a liar. That's two for me today.

 

[YukonJack]

Mistakes? Ingatieff for being Ignatieff and Layton for being Layton.

 

[Colpy]

Allowing Conservative campaign

workers to deface opposing candidate election sign is another mistake They did this last election

The obvious....I doubt this was done by campaign workers.......probably pissed off gun owners. You know, the ones the Liberals lied to, stole from, treated like criminals, and generally abused for the 11 years before Harper took over.

Usually campaign workers are from the very settled and conventional part of society.............not vandals.

This is, of course, completely unacceptable.....it borders on threat.

BTW, in 2008 EVERY Conservative sign in my immediate area had the face smashed out.

Vandals come in both blue and red.

Oh. The Conservative candidate won........this stuff just pisses people off against vandals.

BTW, from Ron's link posted below (the CBC, of course!)

The threatening graffiti comes after the January shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, whose Arizona district had previously been placed in rifle-scope crosshairs on a Facebook page belonging to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin

Baloney.

The districts marked out in the Republican campaign literature were marked with SURVEYOR'S symbols, not rifle crosshairs.

Small visual difference, HUGE suggestive difference.

 

[lone wolf]

Maybe people are getting tired of election signs cluttering up their neighbourhoods....

 

[Durry]

I just saw a poll that indicated about 48%(?), of Canadians would support a coalition between Libs and NDP. What's with that??? Just who wants two elected losers to run your country ???
Must be people from the east ??

 

[Ron in Regina]

There might very well be a LINK to support the claim made above that hasn't
been posted yet.

 

[Colpy]

I just saw a poll that indicated about 48%(?), of Canadians would support a coalition between Libs and NDP. What's with that??? Just who wants two elected losers to run your country ???
Must be people from the east ??

The idea that people would support a "unite the left" coalition does NOT mean they'd vote for them....

I think it is an idea worth considering.....and I'm a hardcore Conservative.