09.23.2015 07:19 AM

KCCCC Day 52: the Yogi Berra edition 

  

  • Yogi Berra has died. The beloved All Star and World Series champion catcher was 90. The reason why the Jays lost in an extra inning, last night, was because God is a Yankee fan. Obviously. 
  • Yogi, along with being arguably the most famous baseball player ever, was also the source of many famous aphorisms. As such, to honour him, we of course intend to apply his wisdom to the Canadian election campaign. Of course. Here goes. 
  • “It ain’t over until it’s over.” What does this mean in the context of a Canadian election? Well, plenty. This has been the election without end – and, even when it ends, it will not have ended. That’s because we are almost certainly going to be looking at a minority Government, and another bloody election will take place not so long afterwards. So it truly is not over. And won’t be anytime soon. 
  • “I always thought that record would stand until it was broken.” What did our gentle muse mean by this? Well, hard to say. There’s one thing is for sure: all of the previous records in Canadian politics – that the NDP would never form government in Alberta, that Liberals could not win a fourth consecutive terms in Ontario, that Stephen Harper cannot possibly win a majority after three unsuccessful tries – well, all of those records were broken, weren’t they? We are in a time of undeniable change. None of the old rules or conventions seem to apply.
  • “In baseball, you don’t know nothing.” This gem applies to baseball, but it obviously applies to the Canadian polling industry, as well. They seem to get things wrong more often than they get things right, these days. The examples are legion. So, to those of you poking through the entrails of Nanos’ “power index” (whatever that is), or Whomever’s “likely voters” (ditto) – good luck to you. Nobody really knows how things are going to turn out, anymore, which makes it a lot more fun again.
  • “I never said most of the things I said.” This witticism can clearly apply to all three major party leaders. After all, all of them have seemingly adopted positions that are decidedly at odds with the positions they held in the past. Mulcair is against deficits and for fighter jets. Trudeau is for anti-terror legislation but against actually fighting terrorists. Harper was against letting in more refugees, until he was. And so on. It’s hard to keep track without a program, folks.
  • “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” In other words, a big choice is coming your way in less than four weeks, and none of us knows which choice to make. None of the leaders are popular enough to clearly win. None of the political parties are popular enough, either. In baseball, as in life, three-way ties are not permitted. Therefore, get ready for extra innings, folks! 

69 Comments

  1. Leslieville Bill says:

    Let’s not forget, “The other teams could make trouble for us if they win.” RIP Yogi.

    • Mervyn Norton says:

      Theoretically, Harper could “win” the most seats at only 113 (if Lizzy keeps hers and the two main opposition parties split the rest at 112 apiece) but he would quickly lose a confidence vote in the House, being replaced with an informal coalition. “No Question, Period” (as Evan Solomon used to say on CBC Radio’s The House.

      • RogerX says:

        How in heaven’s name would a capitalist Liberal party prop up a socialist NDP party, or vice versa?

        Big Business interests with deep roots within the Liberal party would not accept a pro-union NDP, and vice versa!

        The only ‘informal’ coalition would be a Capitalist Con & Lib accord to Stop Mulcair! Kapishe?

  2. Brent Crofts says:

    “Nobody goes there anymore because it’s too crowded”.
    My personal favourite. Not sure I can link it to Canadian politics, though 😉

  3. Matt says:

    Technically, Harper isn’t for letting in more refugees is he? They’ve announced measures, specifically regarding Syrian refugees, to speed up the processing, and to meet their goal 15 months earlier then originally planned, but the number of refugees coming hasn’t changed.

    Unless I missed it.

  4. Matt says:

    You’re pretty well connected with people in all the parties. Are you hearing anything from them about what the parties internal polls are showing?

    Do they indicate as close a race as the public polls or does the internal polling tend to focus more on specific ridings rather than the national picture?

    • Warren says:

      Yep. Tories most likely to win.

      • Matt says:

        Thanks.

        I found it odd that yesterday, seemingly out of the blue, Trudeau was talking about how he couldn’t invision any circumstance in which he’d support keeping Harper as PM in a minority parliament and he would seek to bring a minority CPC government down immediately after the first Speech from the Throne.

        Just kept thinking that doesn’t sound like a guy that’s supposed to be leading the polls.

        • bobbie says:

          You’re right. It doesn’t…unless of course you believe in what the polls are trying to sell.

          I think that if anything voters in this election have a chance to revenge vote against the pollsters and MSM in a big way. They kind of already are IMO, given that despite the efforts of the MSM and pollsters the public is STILL not even close to being engaged in this election.

          Trudeau’s grasping and his frantic tone of late to me suggests desperation…not leadership or anything close to it.

        • Jon says:

          To me, he sounded like he’s trying to capitalize on some minor momentum by motivating soft Dippers to switch to him. More votes will move Liberal if he becomes the clear anti-Harper choice, he’s trying to make that happen.

  5. Joe says:

    Took Dear Wife to the cancer clinic the other day and while waiting I overheard what may be the deciding factor in this election. Three people were discussing the election and one said to the others, “I don’t want any promises”. The other two agreed as did I.

  6. BlueGritr says:

    Warren, care to speculate why JT made the pronouncement: wouldn’t support SH as PM in a minority parliament. And why say that now? Your thoughts?

    • Warren says:

      He wants to secure the affections of New Democrats and keep his own troops happy. But if Mulcair offers him a shitty deal, and Harper offers him a good one, he’ll take the latter.

      The morning after the vote, all their huffing and puffing on coalitions etc. will be shown for what it is: bullshit.

      • Matt says:

        But doesn’t that talk run the risk of suppressing his own vote and maybe even the NDP vote?

        Some MAY look at the polls and his statement and think “well if Harper gets a minority the Libs and NDP will defeat him and take power. No need for me to vote.”

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          CPC to voters: You know where Trudeau stands now. If you don’t want another election any time soon, vote Conservative.

        • Maps Onburt says:

          I guarantee there are VERY few Conservative supporters thinking anything like that… they want to get Harper the strongest possible mandate to guard against the ills of the left. Having Trudeau say he wants to go to the Left of the NDP has energized the true blue Tory base as you can’t imagine. Remember that most of us became Conservatives because of what we saw happen under Trudeau Senior. We couldn’t organize a sock drawer when Martin was finance minister and taking care of the deficit. Once he did the big flip flop to lead the Liberals and we saw massive money pits open up again, the Liberals lost it. Trudeau tacking MUCH further left, has fired us up as never before. I’d campaign for Tom before I’d vote for Trudeau or waste my vote to let him sneak up the middle.

          • Mike says:

            And I bet you would also cut off your nose to spite your face.

            I just don’t understand the irrational feelings conservatives have towards Trudeau. You seriously have to go back 40 years, to what his father did, to justify how your going to vote in 2015? Are you a Hatfield or a McCoy?

      • chuckercanuck says:

        So why would Harper leave if he wins a minority? Why not stay, especially if the minority is expected to be short-lived and he could roar back to a majority?

        If he asked me, I’d tell him to stay – stealing the title of that Paul Wells book, “the longer I’m prime minister”…

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          This is Harper’s last hurrah. Wins a minority, he’ll stick it out for best part of a year or so, and then launch a leadership convention. He’s not the type to bail out and leave everyone in the lurch.

          And if he wins a majority, maybe 18 months.

          Hopefully Brad Wall has his ducks in a row by then, eh?

      • KBab says:

        I just can’t see it happening Warren. Harper is poison, may as well drop cyanide if you’re going to prop him up. No way Liberals support a Conservative minority. They know Harper’s one great wish is to destroy the Liberals absolutely.

        And I am not certain that the Cons would want Liberal support anyway.

        Mulcair may be tempted, but his caucus among others would lynch him for it.

        This is an election like no other. Throw out the old templates, they don’t fit.

        • Matt says:

          Mulcair echoed Trudeau’s statement today.

        • RogerX says:

          But Big Business interests with connections to the Liberal party will not permit them to support a pro-union NDP government. The Liberals are not a socialist party and they will never prop up a NDP socialist party. The only way the NDP can govern is with a clear majority, and that’s still doubtful. Again:

          Harper Conservatives + (Justin?) Liberals = Capitalist Coalition Government (if necessary)

  7. Derek Pearce says:

    I don’t know that I agree with you that the Libs & NDP would support a Con minority govt. I really think they’d have some kind of accord-but-not-coaltion a la Peterson/Rae 1985.

    • Matt says:

      It’d be hard, or at least hard to sell the Libs and Dippers suddenly finding common ground on enough topics to be able to work together after spending a couple months ripping each other new butt holes.

      They have gone in such difderent directions and their policy’s are at odds with each other.

      Hell, the CPC and Dippers have more in common policy wise than the Libs and Dippers.

  8. JH says:

    Best comment I saw today could have been a Yogism. Poster referring to journalists called them urinalists. Nailed it in one take!

  9. Al in Cranbrook says:

    And the Notley comes out with this…???

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/alberta-premier-sides-with-hillary-clinton-on-her-opposition-to-the-keystone-xl-pipleline

    Mulcair can kiss his ass goodbye as far as votes in Alberta and Sask. go.

    You just can’t make this s**t up!

  10. Al in Cranbrook says:

    On this count alone, I’d tell both the NDP and the LPC to go pound salt…

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/cbc-tries-to-hide-its-happy-face-as-liberals-and-ndp-vow-to-pump-up-funding-for-public-broadcaster

    As if a GD BILLION $$$ PER YEAR isn’t already waaaaaay too much for that useless #@$&^$%@!!!

    Unfreakinbelievable!!!

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Thinking about this…

      There’s an argument to be made that the CBC should now cease all election coverage, commentary and political programming.

      If this doesn’t constitute a direct conflict of interest, then what the hell does???

      • doconnor says:

        How many hundreds millions of dollars of corporate tax cuts has Bell and Rogers benefited from?

      • RogerX says:

        Yes, but the CBC is fighting for it’s very existence because they are being slowly bled dry of subsidies by the Harper Cons. They are going for broke in this election because another Harper majority would likely finish them off…. sad to say….

        • Matt says:

          Uh, no.

          The CBC isn’t doing well because they, at least on the TV side continue to produce crap shows very few people want to watch.

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          Please explain, just exactly why do we need to spend $1,000,000,000/year on the CBC? What could it possibly offer any more that Canadians cannot get from CTV or Global…or once upon a time, Sun News?

          It’s not like this is the 1950s, when it was CBC on the tube, or nothing. Okay, not exactly nothing; there was the very real threat (mostly in the minds of the usually chronically insecure left) that America was somehow going to integrate Canada as its 51 state, apparently using subliminal mind control messaging secretly imbedded in shows like “I Love Lucy” and “Gunsmoke”. And that unless we had our own Walter Cronkites to put our blind faith in, we’d all eventually become Democrats and Republicans…as opposed to left leaning Progressive Conservatives, and even further left leaning Liberals, or just outright socialist Dippers!

          Aside from, obviously, those whom live to post on CBC comment sections, there’s ample evidence that we’ve outgrown the 1950s…and ’60s, and ’70s…and we could actually through a day, a month, and even a year now without the crutch of the CBC dragging along behind us.

          • JonT says:

            Like prostitution, the CBC has become an indispensable social institution that provides the anti-Conservative, pro-Leftist POV for liberal-minded Canadians… most of whom do not watch or listen to the CBC.

            There are ~7000 CBC employees and averaging out the annual Billion$$$ subsidy per employee it amounts to ~$140,000 each year ‘on average’. And yes, few Canadians view or listen to the CBC, and the per CBC supporter subsidy is somewhere between $800 to $1200 annually. Of course the Friends of the CBC point out that the CBC subsidy is only a measly $28 per year per man, woman and child…. so a family of 4 contributes $112 annually, even though they don’t use it…. while a young single leftist only pays $28.

            Terminating the CBC would mean massive job losses mostly in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal…. although the Quebec government might want to buy their Radio-Canada-ICI provincial propaganda organ. The CBC tentacles are well wound into our society so the only way to wean us of this failure is to slowly squeeze off the subsidy so the pain is not evident.

            Both Liberals and NDP say they will restore funding to the CBC, and one way is to cancel the F-35 which will actually balance out the cost to keep the CBC going for services of little to no value.

      • terence quinn says:

        I think $750MM of tory ads disguised as government ones are a direct conflict of interest.

  11. Bruce Marcille says:

    My prediction: V-Day minus 3 weeks (September 28) if nothing has moved in the polls, Trudeau will pull the pin on the new Liberal Party Doomsday Policy. It will be BIG. It will be VISIONARY. It will either make or break the the election and, with it, the Liberal Party. Because 3rd place is bankruptcy and the irrelevance.

    Will it be a free Post Secondary? Pharmacare? Or the Mother-of All Promises: a National Minimum Living Wage?

    If it’s a logjam, the most desperate reaches for the stick of dynamite and prays for the best.

    • Vancouverois says:

      …because desperately introducing a dramatic and wide-ranging new policy at the last minute is going to convince everyone that he knows what he’s doing?

    • Jack D says:

      But…why would he need to “pull the pin” when by all accounts, he’s not in third place?

      I think that’s a fair bit of conjecture, really. Neither Trudeau, Harper or Mulcair know where they will stand on even October 1st so I’m sure they all have some sort of plan in case their respective parties slip in the polls. Last I heard, a GST reduction was an idea that was floated around in the Conservative caucus as a last-ditch effort. So I think its safe to say that anything can happen between now and October 19. But as far the most desperate is concerned I think they’re all pretty desperate, bud.

      • Vancouverois says:

        Panic, because he doesn’t have a clear lead?

        Besides, he may be roughly even with the other two in terms of popular vote, but his share may be notably less efficient. Under the FPTP system, he can still end up with far fewer seats than the other two main parties even if he manages to match them vote for vote.

        And finally, as we’ve seen, JT does seem to have a penchant for ill-advised dramatic gestures.

        • Jack D says:

          Well, despite your prophetic gesturing, neither of us know what’s to come in the future. So making an assumption that Mr.Trudeau will panic; I see very little reason for him to do so.

          Heres the thing, when you speak of Trudeau’s inclination towards making ill-advised decisions, I fail to see how that would answer as to why he’s tied nationally with both the other party leaders in preference polls. Given that Mulcair and Harper are such seasoned politicians who seldom act un-statesmen like, they currently find themselves tied with “the kid”. From where I see it, Justin has shown up to both debates thus far with his pants on (much to the chagrin of Teneyke I suppose) and has managed to hold his own. So, its possible that much of the negative prognostics surrounding Trudeau have no basis to lend it legitimacy.

          • Vancouverois says:

            ? I’m not the one predicting that Trudeau will make a last-minute dramatic pronouncement. But since you asked, I’m just explaining what his thinking might be if he does.

  12. Lou says:

    Two cents worth. I agree that the Conservatives will probably win (most seats) this election. Few reasons. The more that the NDP and the Liberals try to paint Harper as some kind of monster will eventually tire with voters. We’ve been fed the “secret agenda” now for 10 years. The result. Don’t see it. The Conservatives have members that both support and oppose the big social issues of the day, while the NDP and the crown prince have already stated that you are not welcome if you oppose their “views”. So at the end of the day, which party is actually the umbrella party?
    I personally like Mr. Mulcair. I think he is a decent man who has the interests of Canada at heart and he also realizes that this is the best chance the NDP will ever have to form government. Unfortunately for him, he cant escape the hard left faction of his party. The “Lean manifesto” is about as foolish and brain dead document that I have ever seen. Add that Rachel Notley in a round about way supported Hillary Clinton’s dismissal of Keystone, and you have to wonder what lurks behind the centrist announcements from Mr. Mulcair. I live in BC, and when Adrian Dix decided to throw a whole lot of good paying union jobs down the toilet to satisfy eco-hippies, he went from 20 points up to losing badly.
    As for Trudeau, everytime I see a picture or watch an interview, he comes off as arrogant, preachy, and totally dismissive of any views that oppose his. In the real world, we call people like that assholes. OK, we get it, your rich. Don’t need the tax breaks. Then you want to give CBC 150 million while taking money away from taxpayers. For bill-C51, but not really. Rip Harpers deficits and then promise more of your own.
    The average working joe has a very keen shit detector. There is no question which party is tossing the most shit at the wall trying to see what will stick. The question is always “are you better off”. I imagine that a whole lot of people will look at whats going on around the world, hold their nose, and check Conservative despite what Pam Anderson wants.

    P.S. no offence to Ms. Anderson, but do you really want say, “hell ya, I agree with her.”

    • Jack D says:

      Odd, every time I hear or see Thomas Mulcair speak I feel as if a gypsy is attempting to sell me snake-oil from behind a plastered on smile.

      To each their own, I suppose.

      I just find it extremely difficult to place faith in a man that is offering a plan for change that is predicated on handing him the keys to the PMO so that he can deliver those promises upon re-election after 4 years.

      You speak of shit detecting? Well my radar was having a f*cking seizure when Mulcair laid out his plan for the Senate. What’s the term for promising something that is impossible, when the constitution is telling you its impossible without the support of the very people that are outright telling you its impossible?

      It might be delusional bullshit.

      But you know, politicians with 35 years of experience and a history of promiscuity with every political party are usually decent men.

    • Vancouverois says:

      I do not like Mulcair. I think he’s completely lacking in principles: a two-faced politician who will say anything at all in order to win. And worst of all, he’s doing it by deliberately pandering to the separatist movement in Quebec. He is very deliberately undermining Canada in order to get separatist votes.

      That alone makes him unfit to be Prime Minister.

      • Marc says:

        I don’t understand how any *objective* analysis has Mulcair tagged as two-faced but not Trudeau or Harper. All three have flipped, flopped, mished and mashed, zigged and zagged as they have seen fit to win votes – against their parties, against their past statements, etc. They’re all multi-faced.

        • Vancouverois says:

          Indeed, and they should all be held accountable for it. But Mulcair has been especially shameless.

          And the fact that he is openly and deliberately pandering to the ethnic nationalist Quebec separatist movement is simply beyond the pale. That is something that can never be excused.

      • Jack D says:

        Absolutely, I agree.

        Look, lets be fair; all parties position themselves strategically to appease the voter base they expect will support them. Its a process of parties listening and reflecting what their bases want of them, which is a good part of our democracy (in most cases).

        But what Mulcair is doing is deception to an epic degree. He is lying to voters in Quebec with his subtext laden speeches to his pro-separatist crowds while then going next door into Ontario and unreservedly rejecting the very things he’s hinting at with his Quebecois base. It’s duplicitous to Canadians because he’s selling himself as two different personalities across Canada. Thomas Mulcair in Montreal and Tommy Mulcair in Regina.

        I think he fails to see the consequences of pandering to separatists while simultaneously presenting himself as Captain Canada. It shows voters that while might very much be a federalist, he’s prepared to make deep concessions to Quebecois by opening up the constitution while trying to fiddle with the Senate. Its a recipe for complete chaos and he’s pitching it to Canadians as innocuous. I find that deceitful.

        • Vancouverois says:

          He’s looking more and more like Mulroney. May God forbid that this country ever go down that road again.

          • Scotian says:

            This is one time where I can agree with every word you said! I watched with horror in 1984 when Mulroney sucked up to the Quebecois nationalists and brought them in to run for him in Quebec, and I predicted then it would end badly (and I would call the creation of the BQ and the impact it had on our federal politics until the past four years I would suggest fits that description) for the country. Watching Layton play the same card in the last election was bad enough, watching how Mulcair panders in French while claiming to be something else in English is one of the biggest strikes against the man I have, regardless of any of my other issues with either him or the NDP more broadly. Even if I were inclined to support the NDP and Mulcair for all other reasons this would be a deal breaker for me because of what happened in the Mulroney years when this was done.

            I hear Dippers say whenever I raise this question “But Separatism is a dead/spent force now! It’s a good thing to being them back into the federalist fold.” I heard the same in 1984, when the great separatist beast had supposedly been slain by the 1980 Referendum, when the PQ leader Rene Levesque who led that fight and the PC through the 1970s heyday was musing openly how maybe Canadian federalism wasn’t so bad. Yet it was because Mulroney needed to placate the nationalists to hold them in his caucus and his majority that we got Meech et al, and the BQ and a near win in 1995 (granted Chretien nearly sleeping through the entire referendum didn’t help, but the vast majority of the conditions that created the 1995 referendum momentum was from the Mulroney years). So it is hardly an irrational concern to worry that this can happen again with the NDP playing the Mulroney game for power and government with similar bad results to follow.

            That is why I find this a deal breaker in its own right, and it is one of those things I would find reprehensible from any party leader nationally, I did in 1984 and I did in 2011 and I do to this day. Mulcair is playing a very dangerous game with this, and this nation got badly burned the first time it was played, we DO NOT need a repeat of this, not, not at all!!!

  13. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Good article in the FP, by John Manley…

    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/strategies-to-ensure-canadas-success

    The kind of talk that, all things considered, might make Blue Grits pine for the good ol’ days.

    …if you get my drift.

  14. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Just listening to Julian, Remple and Bryson on the Keystone thing.

    Julian: Climate change,blah, blah, climate change, yada yada, climate change, climate change, and climate change.

    Bryson: We have to convince them (them being Obama) that we’re serious about climate change, such as putting a price on carbon. Which is fabulously rich (meaning idiotic beyond words to describe) because, if a US president, or a candidate for the office thereof, told Americans he/she was implementing a carbon tax, or anything remotely resembling one, on so much a BIC lighter, his/her political future thereafter would be so screwed, he/she couldn’t get elected dog catcher in Jerkwater, Any State, USA.

    Remple: Most of the time she just stared at the camera, her eyes glazing over as she listened to the clown on either side of her babble utterly hysterical nonsense. She did point out, however, all the times the NDP have crapped all over Canada’s energy sector, including marching down to Washington to have big dump (my words, not hers) on it there, too.

    • Matt says:

      Doesn’t matter who the PM wa/is.

      Obama was never going to approve it. He owes to mant environmentalist for his election/re-election.

      Hillary’s flip-flopped on Keystone now because she needs the support and donations of those same people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*