• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Next Conservative Leader

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meanwhile, while Kellie Leitch tries her best to rob the spotlight, my hope is that Maxime actually continues to have the most support...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-leadership-donors-1.3876575
Maxime Bernier's donor base is bigger and broader than Kellie Leitch's
Quebec MP's distribution of donors gives him edge over Conservative leadership rivals

The most recent set of fundraising data for the Conservative leadership race put Kellie Leitch narrowly ahead of Maxime Bernier in total dollars raised. But an analysis of where these contributions came from suggests Bernier has a bigger and broader base of national support within the party — and that puts him in a much better position to win than Leitch.

Between April 1 and Sept. 30, the latest data available from Elections Canada, Leitch raised $450,421.56, a little more than Bernier's $427,508.72. Ontario MP Michael Chong raised $208,913.72, while Alberta MP Deepak Obhrai raised $1,100.

The other 10 contestants either launched their campaigns after Sept. 30 or had no contributions to report prior to that date.

Taking into account individuals who made multiple contributions and counting them only once, Bernier raised his money from 1,788 individual contributors, compared to 1,049 for Leitch, 370 for Chong and two for Obhrai. In other words, Bernier received money from 56 per cent of all donors to the race in this period, compared to 33 per cent for Leitch and 11.5 per cent for Chong.

Broad base for Bernier

But over and above Bernier's advantage in the number of donors, he has a superior regional distribution of that support than does either Leitch or Chong.

And that's a decisive factor in the Conservative leadership race.

​The rules of the Conservative voting system award equal weight to all 338 of Canada's ridings, meaning a riding in Quebec with 100 members is worth as much as a riding in Alberta with 1,000 members. This makes support in every part of the country essential for any leadership hopeful.

According to a CBC analysis of the postal codes of each individual donor, Bernier's support in the second and third quarters of 2016 was broad, with 38 per cent of his donors coming from Ontario, 21 per cent from Alberta, 16 per cent from B.C. and 15 per cent from Quebec.

Leitch, the Ontario candidate?

The data shows Leitch's donor base was largely limited to Ontario — and only a few parts of Ontario at that.

Fully two-thirds of Leitch's donors call Ontario home. In fact, a quarter of them came from central Ontario, where the MP's seat is located. Another 20 per cent of her donor base was in Toronto. In terms of dollars raised, three-quarters came from Ontario, and three-fifths from central Ontario and Toronto alone.

Another 13 per cent of her donors were in Alberta and 10 per cent in B.C. Just two per cent of Leitch's donors were in Quebec, which will be worth 23 per cent of all points awarded in the party's voting system.

Chong received the bulk of his donations from Ontario. Just over four-fifths of his donors were Ontarians, and 87 per cent of dollars raised came from Chong's home province.

Like Leitch, just two per cent of his donors were Quebecers.

Bernier beats Leitch, Chong in most regions

While Bernier's donor base was broader than that of Leitch or Chong, it was also bigger in almost every region of the country.

Bernier received donations from 59 per cent of donors in Atlantic Canada, beating out Leitch's 35 per cent and Chong's six per cent.

In Quebec, Bernier dominated with a 90 per cent share of donors. Leitch, with seven per cent, lagged well behind. Bernier had 95 per cent of donors in eastern Quebec, 93 per cent in western and northern Quebec, and 83 per cent in and around Montreal. That was the strongest region in the province for Leitch and Chong, who claimed nine and eight per cent of donors there, respectively.

Leitch narrowly beat out Bernier in Ontario, with 42 per cent of contributors to his 40 per cent. Chong was in third there, with 18 per cent.

Bernier performed better than Leitch in eastern and northern Ontario, where he had 64 per cent of donors, but trailed in the rest of the province. Toronto was Leitch's strongest region, with 47 per cent of donors to 33 per cent for Bernier and 20 per cent for Chong.

Bernier, the contestant some labelled the "Quebec candidate," also took the greatest share of donations in Western Canada. He got the nod from 65 per cent of donors in the Prairies and 71 per cent of donors in Alberta, including 74 per cent in Calgary. And in B.C., Bernier had the support of 68 per cent of donors, compared to 24 per cent for Leitch.

Impact of Bernier's better distribution

These regional leads have a big impact. Bernier's national edge over Leitch in share of donors — 23 points — increases to 33 points when weighted by province to take into account the party's leadership voting rules.

But while Leitch trailed in total donors, she raised more money than Bernier. She raised 41 per cent of all money donated to leadership contestants, compared to 39 per cent for Bernier and 19 per cent for Chong. But if these dollars are weighted by province, Bernier's share increases to 52 per cent, compared to 34 per cent for Leitch and just 14 per cent for Chong.

If donors and dollars are reflective of a contestant's support, those are big numbers for Bernier.

Still, we won't know how Bernier's support base compares to the entire field of contestants until after the next quarter's financial reports are published early next year.

But after the first six months of the race, the MP from Beauce has positioned himself as a serious contender from coast to coast.

So...

90% of all Quebec donors, 71% of all the donors from Alberta, 68% of all the donors from BC, 82% of donors in the North, 65% of donors in the prairies, and 59% of donors in Atlantic Canada donated to Maxime. In Ontario, the home province for Kellie Leitch and Michael Chong, 40% of donors gave to Maxime.
 
milnews.ca said:
"Wogs start at Calais" is such a harsh phrase, right?  >:D

We do try to adjust with the times.  [:D
 
Really?  Oh, my ...
Reality TV star and businessman Kevin O’Leary landed in hot water Saturday over remarks he made about warriors and peacekeepers on an Ottawa radio show.

In a Friday segment on Ottawa radio station CFRA about Canadian options for helping Syria, O’Leary stressed that Canada is known for its peacekeeping.

“Canadians are known as peacekeepers above all – there’s nothing proud about being a warrior,” he told the show. “War is a desperate outcome as a human being. Peacekeeping is extremely noble.”

He suggested once Syria has stabilized, Canada should send peacekeepers.

“I think it’s going to be sometime in the next six months, we should offer our services as Canadian peacekeepers,” he said ...
A bit more ...
Conservative leadership hopeful and veteran Erin O’Toole has condemned comments made by “reality TV star and American resident” Kevin O’Leary about Canada’s military, calling them “disturbing” and insulting to all Canadian veterans.

Speaking during an interview on CFRA on Friday, O’Leary, a potential Conservative leadership candidate, said “there’s nothing proud about being a warrior.”

Canada should deploy peacekeepers to Syria within the next six months O’Leary said. And in the future, Canada’s military should only deploy peacekeepers, he said.

“Canadians are known as peacekeepers above all and not warriors. There’s nothing proud about being a warrior, war is a desperate outcome for a human being, peacekeeping is extremely noble.”

Those comments riled O’Toole, who said they were disrespectful to veterans.

“I am proud of all of those that risked and gave their lives for our rights and freedoms,” O’Toole said in a statement.

“I am proud to have served in the Canadian Armed Forces myself, and I am proud to live in a country with a strong record of military success against foes who wished to harm us.”

O’Toole said he finds O’Leary’s comments “disturbing” as a veteran, and “concerning” as a Conservative ...
 
milnews.ca said:
O’Toole said he finds O’Leary’s comments “disturbing” as a veteran, and “concerning” as a Conservative ...
....and  delusional, if he actually believes Syria will be stable any time within the next six months.  :stars:
 
I'm pretty sure that the next Canadian Conservative Leader will be Trump:

Conrad Black: Donald Trump understands America in ways smug Canadians can’t

A pandemic of denial over the incoming president of the United States grips his Democratic opponents, and, like most American fads and traits, is as strong in Canada as anywhere. It is now five weeks since the election, and we have watched an unprecedentedly asinine sequence of delusional activities to cushion the conventional wisdom from the impact of the result. There was the recount, where the Green candidate, who garnered one per cent of the vote in the presidential election, rounded up over five million dollars from the Democrats to challenge the returns, where in Wisconsin approximately one vote was reduced from Trump’s margin of victory for every million dollars squandered in the recount. Even Jeb Bush, who spent over $200 million to garner seven per cent of the vote in Florida, where he had been a popular and  successful governor, achieved more with his backers’ money (while Donald Trump paid for his own nomination campaign and made almost as much from the sale of trinkets and t-shirts and silly hats to pay for his big sweep).
There were, we were darkly assured, going to be deep fissures and mortal wounds in the Republican Party. Party chairman Reince Priebus, at daggers’ drawn with the candidate, we were assured, will be his chief of staff. The previous presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, an irreconcilable opponent, recanted everything during his lengthy but unsuccessful audition for secretary of state. The president-elect named the wife of the Senate majority Leader, Mr. McConnell of Kentucky, who nine months ago had written Congressional colleagues that they would “drop (Trump) like a hot rock,” to his cabinet, to administer the renovation of decayed American infrastructure. Speaker Paul Ryan, who had scampered into the tall grass like a garter snake when the 11-year old Billy Bush tape was thrown into the hopper by the Clinton campaign, is beavering away with the Trump entourage to design and strategize the cyclonic legislative program that Trump has promised.
As there had never been any possible argument for the re-election of the Obama-Clinton Democrats, unlike the Eisenhower-Nixon Republicans in 1960, the Kennedy-Johnson Democrats in 1968, the Nixon-Ford Republicans in 1976, and the Clinton-Gore Democrats in 2000, all of whom lost their bid for a third term by a hair’s breadth (and it will never be known who really won the 1960 and 2000 elections), the entire Clinton campaign was a stentorian smear job on Trump, as, pre-eminently, a racist and a sexist. This has evaporated with his selection of high office-holders and his own general conduct. The whole Clinton campaign, in a phrase of Thornton Wilder, was “written on running water, written on air,” and it is a mnemonic and disagreeable feat to remember any of it.
Contrary to the wails of apprehension from the universal alarmist consensus, the transition process has been handled very smoothly and has produced widely admired candidates to fill the great offices of the United States government. The utter chaos that was predicted and expected to produce Don “Only in America” King as secretary of state and a particularly submissive and bosomy Miss Universe as White House chief of staff, has in fact put forward a universally respected four-star combat Marine general for the Pentagon, the first general to lead the Defense Department since the chairman of the Combined Allied Military Chiefs of World War II and author of the Marshall Plan, George C. Marshall, an uplifting precedent. Health-care reform, meaning without monopolistic insurance fiefdoms in each state, skyrocketing premiums, and seeking universal coverage with assured retention of existing doctor relationships, will be in the hands of the Congress’s principal authority in the field (Tom Price). Education will be in the hands of Betsy DeVos, a champion of chartered schools, who will lead the final charge against the Luddite, know-nothing corruption of the teachers’ unions, who have destroyed the state education systems and to whom the Democratic Party is tied hand-and-foot. The Labor secretary (Andy Puzder), is perfectly qualified to complete the liberation of the American working class from the despotism of organized labour, now reduced to less than seven per cent of the work force. And the designated head of the Environmental Protection Agency (Scott Pruitt), will fight pollution and support conservation tooth and nail, but will not imagine that a possible one centigrade degree rise in the world’s temperature in 80 years for unknown reasons justifies fuelling automobiles with pablum, making every roof a crystal palace of solar panels, foresting windmills in every under-built area, except where it might discommode the scenic panorama of the altruistic rich such as the detritus of the Kennedys at Cape Cod.
There are the usual fussings about confirmation processes — it is all atonal whistling past the graveyard which is about to receive for interment the much discussed legacy of the Obushtons — Obamas, Bushes, Clintons. Donald Trump is right to call his narrow and numerically minority victory a “landslide.” He ran against all the Republicans and all the Democrats, the hackneyed Bush-McCain-Romney also-rans, the Cruz loopy-right, the Clinton-Obama incumbency, and the Sanders left, almost all the Washington media and almost all the polls, and the entire pay-to-play casino of lobbyists in the great Washington sleaze factory. He stormed Babylon and put them all to fire and sword. There were stylistic lapses in the campaign to be sure, but they were almost all designed to pull out the Archie Bunker votes and win Trump the Republican nomination with the votes of millions of people who had not been in the habit of voting. Since the nomination, there were relatively few gaucheries, and since the election almost none.
Taxes, spending, education, environment, campaign finance reform, health care, trade, and immigration are all about to receive as swingeing a stroke as Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the economy in 1933, and Trump has the mandate and the congressional majorities to do it. And the Democrats are still grumbling about Russian influence in the election and the electoral college system, mindless of their fate as Trump drives a mighty bulldozer toward them at 60 miles per hour. And in Canada, in the same spirit as the CBC radio panel that two weeks ago felt Canada was necessary to advise him that not all of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims were at war with America, this week we had Lawrence Martin advise Brian Mulroney to “rein in” Trump, “protectionist, jingoistic, boorish, heapingly erratic” as he is. There is no dispute about Brian Mulroney’s diplomatic skills in dealing with the American presidents he’s known, and other world leaders, but he performed those feats as prime minister of a country that pulled its weight in the Western Alliance and contributed importantly to the satisfactory end of the Cold War.
Donald Trump does not need to be reined in. He has calculated every step of his campaign from the ridiculed dark horse of 18 months ago to the man who will be sworn as General George Washington’s 43rd direct successor in five weeks. To the extent any of Martin’s adjectives are applicable, it is just because Trump’s evaluation of tactical requirements makes them so. But Lawrence Martin actually warned the readers of The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that Michael Moore, the helter-skelter far left film-maker, torqued up by “Trumpian xenophobi(a),” had sounded the alarm that Trump has loaded his cabinet with “corporate-military statism … a fascist brew.” (Martin said pretty much the same thing about Ronald Reagan when he was Washington correspondent for the Globe 36 years ago.)
What mad national egotism, propelled by “arm-flapping moralism” (in the words of half-Canadian U.S. secretary of State Dean Acheson 60 years ago) propels Lawrence Martin to imagine that Canada has any standing to do anything but answer the phone if the White House calls. The Harper government, as it talked tough, allowed our armed forces to wither almost to the proportions of Slovenia or Costa Rica. Fortunately, Trump is not at all xenophobic, fascistic, racist or sexist. He is also not an advocate of “corporate-military-statism” any more than Harry Truman sought a government of haberdashers or Jimmy Carter one of peanut farmers. Trump saw that the U.S. system had become an anthill of corruption and hypocrisy and called it that. He promised to drain the swamp, and will do it; it will be a changed America in six months, and doubtless Lawrence Martin will ascribe it to Donald and Melania listening to the CBC each night in the White House. In this analysis, it is not the president-elect who has been sleepwalking through Fantasyland; he saw the American crisis plainly and launched one of history’s great democratic political movements to deal with it. The pure snowmen of the North plod cheerily on in Santa Lawrence Martin’s workshop, like happy elves incanting “High ho, high ho, there’s nothing about the U.S. we don’t know.” But there is.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-donald-trump-understands-america-in-ways-smug-canadians-cant
 
Journeyman said:
....and  delusional, if he actually believes Syria will be stable any time within the next six months.  :stars:

That was more like what I was thinking...unless of course the Donald and the shirtless Chevalier come to an agreement and divvy up SYR?
 
Or worse, if he believes peacekeepers can be imposed against the wishes of the combatants, and their presence will cause both sides to lay down their arms.  :facepalm:
 
Foreign countries divvying up the area is how this whole mess started almost a hundred years ago now. I very much doubt that  foreign countries re-divvying it up now will help.

As for delusions, there are two more in Mr. O'Leary's speech that shows he is ignorant of Canada's position and actions in the world: (1) Other nations do not look upon Canada as a peacekeeping nation, at least not our allies and our enemies (and we have a few); and, (2) Canada deploying only peacekeepers in the future would be against our international obligations to many allies.

I was going to add that he also doesn't seem to understand that the past successes of our soldiers in peacekeeping has always been linked to the fact that our soldiers were a highly trained and effective fighting military force, but that is something that everyone in Canada outside DND seems to be ignorant of any way.
 
Old Sweat said:
Or worse, if he believes peacekeepers can be imposed against the wishes of the combatants, and their presence will cause both sides to lay down their arms.  :facepalm:

Indeed, OS...because that's worked "well" in places like Croatia (Medak and Zadar), South Lebanon (PB Khiam), Rwanda and Somalia.

It briefs well in PowerPoint, though...
 
O'Leary's best contribution to the Conservative Party leadership race would be to bring as much attention to it as he can. His best contribution to the Canadian political scene in general would be to continue using his spotlight to shine light on government policies destroying business opportunities and wasteful government spending.

If he enters the race, he'll do more harm than good.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Foreign countries divvying up the area is how this whole mess started almost a hundred years a few millenia ago now. I very much doubt that  foreign countries re-divvying it up now will help.

...

FTFY  :subbies:
 
Chris Pook said:
FTFY  :subbies:


I think OGBD was referring specifically to Messer Sykes and Picot and their little effort. Actually, after the Romans, except for a very salutary visit by Genghis Khan's fellows about 1,000 years ago and the rather stumbling crusaders a few hundred years later, there wasn't much outside interference ... it was, mostly, one more or less local caliph after another, most inept and corrupt.
 
Sounds good now, but we'll have to see ...
Conservative leadership candidate Erin O’Toole announced his veterans policy Tuesday — and among his promises is a pledge to “immediately drop” the legal effort commenced by the Harper government and revived by the Trudeau government to block a class-action lawsuit by veterans seeking a return to lifetime disability pensions.

A former veterans minister in the Stephen Harper government, O’Toole negotiated a ceasefire with veterans suing the then-Conservative government over Ottawa’s decision to replace lifetime pensions with lump-sum payments. That truce expired in May 2016 and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made it clear he would continue the challenge to the lawsuit despite promising to restore lifelong pensions as an option for injured veterans.

The case, known as the Equitas lawsuit, was filed in the B.C. Supreme Court in October 2012 by six veterans who argued modern soldiers were not getting the same level of support as those who fought in past wars ...
 
Even if Erin doesn't win, he's forcing the hand of the other leadership candidates who will have to take a stand on this issue. Good for him for bringing it back out into the open.
 
More from the fight ...
The gloves are finally off in the federal Conservative race, with Lisa Raitt tossing blows Wednesday that she hopes will knock out both Kevin O’Leary and Kellie Leitch.

To Raitt, the blustery hyperbole-addicted O’Leary and the arguably race-baiting Leitch represent the type of politics that are so “irresponsible, divisive and negative” that they do not belong in a leadership campaign.

Raitt has even launched a website, www.StopKevinOLeary.com, to “reach out to Conservatives and Canadians across the country who don’t want either of these candidates in our politics.”

These are head shots and body blows that Raitt is now throwing at O’Leary and Leitch, and finally adding some political drama in a leadership race involving 14 candidates that has yet to rouse much public interest.

It’s a ballsy move on Raitt’s part, but Raitt is a calculating politician, and I say that as someone who worked with her as her senior communications adviser when she was transport minister in the Stephen Harper government.

She’s a tough, born-and-raised Cape Bretoner with CEO credentials who is not afraid to speak her mind.

And she obviously has had enough of both O’Leary and Leitch to the point of calling them out by name and publicly slamming them.

“O’Leary is a TV entertainer with no filter,” Raitt told a morning media briefing here at the national press theatre.

“He is the man who told our soldiers and veterans that there is ‘nothing proud’ about being a warrior. The man who thinks 3.5 billion people in poverty is ‘fantastic news.’

“The man who said if he were prime minister for 15 minutes, he would make unions illegal, his words being that ‘anyone who remains a union member would be thrown in jail.’

“Canadians will not elect someone who says nonsense like this,” Raitt said.

“Meanwhile, Kellie Leitch is embracing the other half of Donald Trump, the half that wins votes by putting our problems on immigrants,” she said.

“Leitch called Trump’s message ‘exciting’ and she wants to bring it to Canada. She wants to test immigrants for her undefined ‘Canadian values.’

“This brand of negative and divisive politics would drive our party right into the ground,” Raitt said.

“Their bluster would allow Justin Trudeau to govern for a generation.

“Instead of talking of broken Liberal promises and foolish Liberal failures, we would be wasting time and energy on baiting and sensational antics by either O’Leary or Leitch.

“And Canadian families,” she said, “would be left without relief. Without relief on their tax bill, on their electricity bill, and without new job opportunities.

“I refuse to let that happen.” ...
 
I don't know who Lisa Raitt is.

Kellie Leitch strikes me as fake and an opportunist. I think her whole "pepper spray for Women" was bullshit and I know of people who approached her in the past to ask about womens self-defense (pre pepper spray story) and Kellie popped smoke.

Erin has went on the record to say he's going to look into revamping our stupid and unfair firearm laws which is pretty cool.

Kevin seems like a reality TV star who has said some massively stupid things. His not warriors comment probably gave Trudeau a boner.


With Rick Hillier and Mike Bobbitt not in the running I'd vote for Erin.
 
What about Ford Nation? #df4pm

"Two brothers - one vision".
 

Attachments

  • rob11.jpg
    rob11.jpg
    243.9 KB · Views: 65
  • doug1.jpg
    doug1.jpg
    33.9 KB · Views: 63
  • dougf.jpg
    dougf.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 55
  • doug111.png
    doug111.png
    390.4 KB · Views: 46
  • iran.jpg
    iran.jpg
    156.8 KB · Views: 57
O'Leary is just hogging attention and I believe will eventually endorse Maxime Bernier. He practically already did.

I'm pretty surprised only one person dropped out at the 50k deadline... with one jumping in last minute I believe its still at 14.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top