Please see the original run-down of ridings, which I will use as a master list, here
Kent South - this riding is traditionally Liberal and I preliminarily called it a Tory hold based on the fact that the only declared candidate for the Liberal nomination was former Bouctouche mayor Raymond Duplessis who was running notwithstanding the fact that Bouctouche had been redistributed out of the riding. Today it is announced that the Liberals will be running star candidate Nadine Hébert, a popular Acadienne actress who doubles as the VP of an oil company. All at the age of 27. I am moving this over to too close to call.
Charlotte-Campobello - no change in prediction here yet but the papers today no longer cite the mayor of St. Stephen as a candidate but add 2003 candidate Madeline Drummie to the list of possibilities.
Fundy-River Valley - I did not realize how close the margin was here in 2003. If it was that close with a two-term incumbent then I think it is in the bag for the Liberals as an open seat. Moreover, the Liberals will be running either 2003 candidate Kevin Quinn (who one presumes could at least hold his vote) or popular local figure Jack Keir. I'll call this a Liberal gain but this early on I am not ready to make put any changing-hands seats in the safe column so I will list it as a lean.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Do not forget St. Stephen riding going Liberal. I believe Huntjens running into red when it comes to good faith. He let down his constituents through numerous follies. Remember he announced a detailed program about the old hospital in Saint John only to retrieve and say it was a slip. He must have a tongue the size of a titanic.
anon at 3:06 - I have said that I suspect this riding is leaning Liberal but I want to see who wins the nomination first before actually making a call.
You are right about nomination. However, Huntjens fortunes are down. Although he may get sympathy votes as he suffered some personal tragedy after the last election. Nothing is sure in politics.
One thing I have to give it you. You admit being Grit. For being Grit you are quite impartial. We have our friend, Spinks, claiming to be neutral. If he is neutral then I am monkeys’ uncle.
Sheesh, getting a little personal in here isn't it? I'm starting to feel unwanted. LOL.
Seriously though I don't even know who's running in my riding or what the parties are offering so I don't know. I can say the NDP won't be getting my vote but I think I've been pretty clear on that. I think I'm actually a pretty impartial guy who sees the pluses and minuses on various issues. I don't buy into groupthink which is becoming ever so popular and pigeonhole myself in one category. Sorry, not my cup of tea.
I'll give anon one thing though, nbpolitico is doing a good job. I don't know about impartial but the guy is up front about his leanings and his analysis is based in reality. Obviously his views will please the Liberal crowd. Hmmm. Maybe I should pick a spectrum and stick with it. I get Liberals calling me a Conservative and Conservatives calling me a Liberal. *sigh* There's just no pleasing folks. BTW what's your nephew's name? LOL.
Let's try to go easy on Spinks folks.. I may have to ban anonymous comments if people get to be consistently personal...
nbpolitico, you mean Spinks and I cannot have a little fun. I started liking the guy and love a dig or two once in while. I think Spinks can take it. A little bit ribbing. Sheesh too sensitive around here. Spinks, you just let me know when you think I am disrespectful.
Spinks, I am terribly upset that Conservatives think that you are a Liberal. How dare they? They are dead wrong. If I were you I will say good buy to them forever and join Grits or NDP. It is like a Quebecoi telling an Acadian that he is not French.
Ok if I was Monkey's uncle then it will be Bush. Don't get ages mixed up. It could happen that uncle is younger than the nephew.
By the way nbpolitico are you also PNB or someone totally different.
This is my one and only blogging identity.
There's nothing wrong in moderating the comments. 98% of the comments goes in anyway.....
Charlie, that is messing up the discussion and no one has the same amount of time as you do to moderate.
This is current stuff and going well. I will say keep it up.
Anon, I've also been told in some blogs I love the CBC, just because I only want them to be better not go away completly. As I've always said there's hardliners out ther on both sides of the spectrum. With the exception of very few issues there's always some wiggle room for negotiation in my book.
Your blog nbpolitico so do as you wish. Anon and I go way back and he's really tamed it down quite a bit in recent weeks so don't worry about it.
Well I don't see anything wrong with the occassional good spirited jibe but I wouldn't want the "victim" (no offence Spink) or any third party to be turned away from the blog because of comments.
That said, I enjoy most of the comments and the variety so it is my strong preference to leave posting open to everyone unless things get out of control which, as of now, they are not.
A lot of people seem to think that there is only one or two 'anonymouss'. That's not even close to being true. This is New Brunswick, jsut about NOBODY wants to come out of the closet.
Because somebody 'attacks' somebody is no reason to start moderating since that doesn't deal with the initial problem. Charles blog is quite different, he is 'infamous' enough that his blog was attracting some very nasty comments. This stuff is positively banal in comparison.
There are many who go on about 'anonymous' posting, which is odd, because apart from Charles nobody here has an identity, which says a lot about New Brunswick politics.
PS For identification, I usually have a word or two capped in there somewhere, and I don't often resort to personal attacks, except on what is said (saying 'thats silly' or something like that, although I try to keep that down), and I don't visit Spinks or other 'opinion' blogs.
Actually there might be lots of anons but thus the problem. I've never heard a valid argument for not giving yourself a name and sticking with it. I find it offers consistency, less confusion for readers and accountability but do as you wish folks. Anon is anon for me unles it's obvious. I'm not interested in deciphering little codes when even clicking other and making up a consistent name will suffice. However, do as you will.
In this blog I'm not even addressing "Spinks" so couldn't care less what he reads or does. The simple reality is that a name is irrelevant, its the argument that matters. When "Spinks" and others put their real names down, then perhaps anons will worry about whether their heads can wrap around more than one replier.
Also, we've been through it before, by registering with Google EVERYTHING you write is saved and stored. That doesn't mean much now, but who knows what the future will bring.
Plus, its really not necessary- so there's three, people can pick and choose, or drop the whole issue.
Hmmm, just seems confusing to me. There's mike, jamie and someone else here but that's the most deciphering I can do. I left the Sherlock hat at the office.
Forget google man, click other and make up a name and then nothing is registered. Just stick with it. That way no one will confuse you with another anonymous otherwise your comments may get mixed with someone else.
Post a Comment