10.16.2015 03:11 PM

Here’s an exhaustive list of every voter who ever gave a shit about a newspaper endorsement 

.

48 Comments

  1. Don says:

    Yup. I think you got all.

  2. EB says:

    RE: Globe and Mail

    I really want to see that ballot that shows (Conservative – Not Harper) as the party reference. Or, is it a ballot that self-destructs after 90 days if Harper hasn’t left?

    This has to be the strangest endorsement ever. It is the Harper Party. It is the Harper Government. How the hell do they even separate these factoids to come up with an endorsement?

    Ludicrous…

  3. Matt says:

    Absolutely.

    But you gotta admit the Globe and Mail’s endorsement is a little bizarre. Endorse the CPC but not Harper. Like really, you can’t be a little pregnant.

    Maybe it’s just for “click bait”

    • W the K - No, not Warren says:

      A “little”? I thought that was the most bizarre endorsement, non-endorsement, an-endorsement-but-not-necessarily-an-endorsement-omigosh-ghaaaah until this appeared:

      http://torontoist.com/2015/10/a-history-of-newspaper-endorsements/#more-362972

      We have short memories. The Globe has done this before!

      Anyways, in this case it’s gotta be HDS!

      • Matt says:

        “You can’t be a little pregnant” is and old saying. You either are or you aren’t.

        So either the Globe endorses the Conservatives with Harper or it doesn’t. Can’t be one or the other.

        • Matt says:

          Should read can’t be both

        • W the K - No, not Warren says:

          The writing is terrible, like some Kafkaesque corporate directive where endorsing ambivalence is perfectly acceptable. But, apparently, they’ve done this before. I don’t remember the 2000 endorsement where “The Globe and Mail backed the Liberals as long as the party dumped Jean Chrétien in favour of Paul Martin ASAP.” Maybe our host does.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      Ditchburn referred to something like the endorsement last night.

      She was surprised by the number of people she encountered in Ontario outside Toronto who said they were voting Conservative but did not like Harper.

      • Doug says:

        My Dad is one of those people, he voted for the CPC in 2004 and 2006 to remove the stench surrounding the Martin government but he didn’t show up at the polls in 2008 or 2011 as he doesn’t particularly like Harper(though not an HDS sufferer by any stretch). That being said as soon as the Liberal party selected Justin Trudeau as it’s leader he was determined to vote against him “because his father was an asshole and he’s just like him without the intelligence”.

  4. Alan says:

    Your list is too long. There shouldn’t be a period.

  5. Justin Trudeau says:

    We certainly notice the positive coverage Canadian media seems to provide for us.

    • KBab says:

      That MSM Liberal bias at work again I guess.

      But what a back handed endorsement, sheesh.

      Harper would be better off without it, just like Canada without him.

  6. Kevin T. says:

    Damn, and here I’ve maxed out my 10 articles for this month. Was almost considering trying out their subscription, but their mindboggling stupidity convinced me to not with that paper my money.

    • Luke says:

      Well if you don’t want to shell out, just delete cookies or whatever from theglobeandmail.com and you’re good to go. But then you might want to actually read that nonsensical pseudo-endorsement of the version of the CPC not led by Harper that doesn’t exist…

    • Eddie says:

      Turn off cookies and you can read more than 10 articles…

  7. doconnor says:

    The newspaper owners seem to care who their newspapers endorse, otherwise they wouldn’t bother to impose their views.

  8. Kelly says:

    More and,more people are turning to sites like this for political news.

    As well as like tho one… http://www.buzzfeed.com/emmaloop/the-governments-contracted-shredder-company-was-at-the-prime

    Shredders at the PMO all day. The cons must have some fresh internal polling,that doesn’t look,good. LOL.

    • Matt says:

      Sorry to burst your bubble:

      UPDATE
      Privy Council Office, the non-partisan branch of the government that provides support to the PMO, claims it was responsible for the trucks. Its offices are mostly in the building behind Langevin Block.
      “Movement of materiel in and out of the Langevin and Blackburn buildings is part of routine traffic in government buildings,” spokesperson Raymond Rivet wrote in an email. “This activity by PCO has nothing to do with the upcoming election.”

    • Student501 says:

      It was for the PCO, not the PMO and that’s a normal occurence.

      The same goes for Finance on 60 Queen. Whenever I go to Ottawa’s downtown core, I often see a few of these specialized trucks wandering around especially around the less paranoid embassies.

      However, an industrial shredder truck at Chris Alexander’s constituency office way out in Ajax….that’s definitely interesting.

      http://twitter.com/Urban_Su/status/652748998567047168/photo/1

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/emmaloop/the-governments-contracted-shredder-company-was-at-the-prime#.tqBg8zO1qE

      • Matt says:

        Interesting??

        There is a picture of a Shreddit truck in the parking lot near Alexander’s office, and you, based on nothing but that picture taken from a distance away and you can’t even tell if the truck is parked or simply driving past, jump to the conclusion it’s there for Alexander’s office?

        His Office is not a stand alone building, it’s in a commercial plaza with several other businesses which the person who took the pic was caferul not to show.

        If you had done even a bit of research you’d have seen one of those other businesses is a DOCTORS OFFICE, which may have some stuff that requires shredding.

        Or maybe the truck was stopped so the guys could grab lunch at the Pita Express or the Taste of T & T.

        Nope HAD to have been there for Alexander’s office.

        Good grief boys. Get a fuckig grip.

        • Matt says:

          Holy crap. Lots of spelling errors that time. Shouldn’t type while watching the Jays game.

        • Student501 says:

          “DOCTORS OFFICE, which may have some stuff that requires shredding.”

          That’s an awfully BIG truck for “some” shredding.

          BTW – We are all free to express our thoughts, including you. But that said, I don’t know you and I don’t care to, so “try” and remain civilized even as “Harperland” is collapsing.

  9. Russ says:

    I think I’ll cancel my subscription to the Globe – but not the Mail, sheesh

  10. Steve T says:

    Come on – the editors of all the newspapers are voters, and they think they have HUGE sway. So, you’ve got a couple dozen across the country.

  11. Scotty says:

    Ouch! Lol!

  12. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Reality is, there are very few whom don’t think that this is Harper’s last election, win, lose or draw. The editorial is somewhat playing to that.

  13. Matt says:

    Latest EKOS

    Libs 34.0 (up 0.5)
    CPC 32.8 (up 0.2)
    NDP 22.7 (down 0.3)

    Ontario
    Libs 41 (down 2)
    CPC 34 (up 1)
    NDP 19 (unchanged)

    BUT……CPC appear to have a slight lead among advanced voters. Couple caveats in the analysis.

    http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/stalemate-continues/

    Oh, and MLB has moved the start time of Mondays Blue Jays game from 8:05pm to 4:05pm.

    Wonder how that will affect turnout, if at all.

  14. Greg B says:

    You could have at least organized it alphabetically for us, Warren!

  15. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Interesting article by Lawrence Solomon…

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2F%2Ffp-comment%2Flawrence-solomon-on-harper-you-be-the-judge

    Wasn’t aware of a lot of that. Probably because I relied too much on our “news” outlets.

  16. Mar says:

    The CBC has the Libs at 35.7. Funny but i feel that CBC has been very blatantly anti-CPC.

    • Matt says:

      It’s not the CBC, its Eric Grenier from threehundredeight.com.

      He takes all the available public polls and mashes them together to get the parties averages.

  17. Tim White says:

    This is nothing new. They used to endorse the Liberals via Paul Martin because Jean Chretien is bad, you know. blah blah blah. I’m doing Bob Dylan and the Clash today.

  18. Ridiculosity says:

    The Globe’s half-assed, half-baked, half-endorsement was the worst waste of trees (and pixels) I have seen in decades.

    Cons, yes. Steve, no?

    That’s like Playboy without the pics. (Another really, really bad idea that’s also destined to fail.)

  19. Use the net says:

    Never understood people who define themselves only as against something. Case in point, the ABC or get rid of Harper vote. Doesn’t it just show that the other options are not worthy if you can’t find something to vote for?

    I believe we have 3 very different, clear visions for Canada’s future. I will vote for the one who I feel presents the best option for the future of our country.

    • The Doctor says:

      You raise an interesting angle there — “anybody but” movements have famously “succeeded” at political conventions, and the results have often been disastrous (e.g., Joe Clark, Stephane Dion). And you’re right that that sort of “anybody but” thought process practically guarantees that a lot of people are not going to look very carefully (or at all) at the policy platform of the party they end up voting FOR. Less of a problem for the reasonably engaged, but I have heard some conversations re: strategic voting from some unsophisticated voters during this campaign that would make Churchill weep (“conservative — so that’s, like, that Harper guy, right? I hear he’s bad.”.

    • doconnor says:

      A lot of ABC people have a perfurred party, but our first past the post system means often that party isn’t likely to win thier riding, so it better to vote for a second choice.

  20. A. Voter says:

    Went to the NOW magazine website today. They are endorsing a lot of Toronto NDP candidates. More influential than the Globe and Mail, surely?

  21. Jack D says:

    Ironically the G&M’s endorsement of Conservatives does more to hurt their chances that it does good –assuming anyone really gives a shit anyway.

    You can’t come out categorically against the man who has been the only leader ever seen by this modern manifestation of Conservatives, who has been PM leading that very party for the past 9 years and decry everything he stands for. Expecting the man to deliver success on election night, then demanding he walk away from what he has achieved based on those values is just absurd.

    I think the editorial board proved its dumbassery unequivocally today with this stunt. It backfired magnificently and more shocking is that they could have possibly expected it to go any other way.

    I’m also really curious to see what shitstorm is in the works for tomorrow’s NatPo endorsement with relation to Andrew Coyne’s apparent opposition. This could be even more controversial than today’s G&M flub.

    That all being said, yes yes –endorsements matter very little these days (i.e. Alberta). But I suspect the NDP isn’t feeling so hot being totally written off as a competitor with no significant newspaper endorsement. You can only be the underdog for so long until you’re finally irrelevant.

  22. mf says:

    Postmedia owners have ordered all its papers to endorse CPC. Andrew Coyne, who apparently does not wish to comply, is being muzzled.

Leave a Reply

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


*