"You'd probably give him a solid B or B plus."
He finished fourth in last year's race.
We are entering a new era of identity politics -- the increasingly common practice of political campaigns throwing actual policy to the wind and instead playing directly to our emotions -- this method is defined by selfies, sunny-ways, hope and change, fear and division and class anger turned into blind rage.
Regrets, he has a few.
The mistake during last year's election campaign though, which everyone now recognizes, was to focus our message on identity issues like this one and the misguided barbaric practices snitch line proposal, instead of running on our excellent economic record. Yes, Canadians care about shared values and about these issues. But I would argue that they care a lot more about issues that impact their standard of living and quality of life. They care about whether our economy is strong enough to provide job opportunities. They care about having to pay twice as much as Americans for basic food like milk, eggs, butter and chicken.
White boys rapping, Ready for Raitt, barbaric cultural practices and two Libertarians. All this and more as the Conservative
"Our new prime minister is 43 years old, sparkling with promise and passion. I know that all Canadians wish him well."
Peter Goldring allegedly bugged campaign computers in 2011 to hack into someone's private accounts.
The concept of strategic voting is widely used by political parties and the media since the beginning of the campaign. It is assumed that it is a widespread behaviour because Canada has a "winner-takes-all" electoral system. There are two very simple conditions for a vote to be qualified as strategic: first, a voter must not vote for her preferred party, and second, behave this way in order to block a worse option. As we shall see, this straightforward definition has enormous consequences when it comes to quantifying strategic voting.