As the second-wave of commentary washes in, the debate seems to be revolving around whether the byelection is a big deal, no-big deal, or a split-the-difference deal. Regardless of how we categorize it, today's power deal eclipses the byelection anyways.
I think that we can all agree that this one will indeed be a very Big Deal. The question is whether it's a bad deal or a good deal. I leave it to the experts to parse the economics but, as for the politics, it's strangely good news for Danny Williams in the short-term. Williams' efforts to stoke the fires of nationalist rage seem (at least so far) to be less effective than past angry-dad moments, but today's Globe story shows that at least one national newspaper still thinks it's all about him. The impact of this unfolding story will be felt in different ways -- from interprovincial relations to internal Tory politics -- but one thing is for certain: Williams now has an excellent excuse (to be charitable, let's even call it a reason) for the lack of progress on the Lower Churchill.
I would never pretend to know enough about the intricacies of such mega-projects to make an economic prediction, but I know a thing or two about politics. And if the Lower Churchill is now a dead deal (to be charitable, let's call it on life-support), then all political bets are off. As I said earlier, I think Williams plans to stay on until a deal is signed on Churchill Falls, but if that's no longer possible, then he may take a walk in the snow earlier than the pundits have predicted. (Keep in mind that Trudeau's resignation took Ottawa completely by surprise). I have no reason to doubt Williams when he says that being Premier is an awfully tough racket, and it certainly does not look like he's enjoying it at all these days. And I seriously doubt whether the Tory caucus is a happy-happy, joy-joy sort of group this Fall, given the anger issues we've witnessed.
With the prospect of two more byelections, a House that will have to be opened sometime, and an Opposition that has sniffed a wee bit of blood, the political calculus has evolved. It may be a subtle change, but subtle changes often lead to important consequences. There seems to be a popular assumption -- a wrong assumption -- that for NL to be witnessing a big deal, it must look, smell, and quack like a BIG DEAL. But politics is never so simple and rarely so obvious.
Let's connect the dots between Tuesday's byeelection (little) deal and today's power (big) deal. On the one hand, you have a Tory leader who threw everything and the kitchen sink into a byelection and lost, thereby making the stakes far higher than they normally would have been. On the other hand, you have a Premier who threw everything and the kitchen sink into a hydroelectric megaproject that looks increasingly like it will never happen. Throw in a steady ministerial attrition rate, a skin that's famously thin, and the usual assortment of crises in the fishery, health care, and forestry. Add the smaller brush-fires, such as the unresolved problems with MUN and the NLMA. Factor in the legacy of ABC and the still-dismal relationship with Ottawa. Calculate how many oil deals are left to be made. Toss in the province's public spending and demographics. Consider that the Liberals will be a more difficult opponent in the next provincial election.
If you take a hard look at the actual political landscape rather than the polls, it does not look pretty for the Tories. When I argued that we've entered Late Williamsism, I was careful to say, quite emphatically, that this does not mean that the end of Tory rule was in sight. But just because a party remains in power does not mean that its rule remains the same. Williams may have many more days ahead of him as Premier, but his best ones are behind him. He may be able to pull a rabbit out of the hydro hat, but taking on Hydro-Quebec is nothing like brow-beating Paul Martin.
In the end, we need to make a distinction between what's possible and what's probable. It's possible that Williams will sign the mother of all deals, but it's probable that he won't. That probability matters more, in the end, than a dozen brace of CRA polls.
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Lessons Learned
Nottawa and Geoff Meeker have the best analysis thus far, but this CBC story is also inadvertently revealing, because it demonstrates four lessons:
1) Call it what you will -- personality cult, Late Williamsism, the Williams brand, Dannystan, whatever -- but the mainstream media are deeply complicit in its production and perpetuation. The symbiotic relationship between Williams and the media is so deep that I doubt whether the media even questions whether it is appropriate to have a post-mortem story on the byelection dominated (in title, photo, and sound bites -- the trinity of journalism) by The Premier.
2) As is so often the case, we're witnessing the alteration between the War-Danny and Zen-Danny. Whereas War-Danny was out in full force right up to voting day, today Zen-Danny is again at peace with the piece. It is, of course, no surprise that he is saying that this is no surprise; it's perhaps even no surprise that he's saying that this is a good thing, because it is (so the CBC tells us) a useful lesson...
3) ...But it's still a surprise to read Williams saying this: "It's a good check for a party that's been in government now for six years, that [is] showing popularity all through, and [has] the support of the people of the province." It's hard to follow the logic here (perhaps because there is so little of it to be found), but Williams seems to be saying that the defeat was good because the government is so popular. Wow! We knew that popularity could be used to explain just about everything in NL, but who knew that it could also explain an electoral defeat? Thus when the Tories win, it's because they are popular, and when they lose, it's because they are popular!
4) While no one seems to be paying much attention to Yvonne Jones, she made one of the most relevant comments I've seen today. According to CBC, Liberal Leader Yvonne Jones said people should see the result as a comment on the management style of Williams. "People want a voice, and there isn't a voice inside the Williams government," she said. "Most of the backbenchers are silent. Many of the cabinet ministers are allowing critical cuts to happen in their districts without ever speaking out against it." My hypothesis is that the question of democratic governance was far more important than the pundits and politicos realized. There is a persistent misconception in Town that style and substance can somehow be separated, that political rhetoric and economic reality are discrete phenomena that bear little relation to each other. Thus commentators overlook Williams' violent rhetoric because of the price of oil. Thus it is acceptable for the Premier to say that someone should be shot because he is spending lots of public money and is polling high. Thus the temptation is to accept the Faustian bargain of the endless war against the endless enemies of the people because it's a small price to pay for have-status and, as Professor Marland put it so superlatively, Williams is incredibly, phenomenally popular. I think that the byelection shows that the bargain may not be as good as it seemed.
1) Call it what you will -- personality cult, Late Williamsism, the Williams brand, Dannystan, whatever -- but the mainstream media are deeply complicit in its production and perpetuation. The symbiotic relationship between Williams and the media is so deep that I doubt whether the media even questions whether it is appropriate to have a post-mortem story on the byelection dominated (in title, photo, and sound bites -- the trinity of journalism) by The Premier.
2) As is so often the case, we're witnessing the alteration between the War-Danny and Zen-Danny. Whereas War-Danny was out in full force right up to voting day, today Zen-Danny is again at peace with the piece. It is, of course, no surprise that he is saying that this is no surprise; it's perhaps even no surprise that he's saying that this is a good thing, because it is (so the CBC tells us) a useful lesson...
3) ...But it's still a surprise to read Williams saying this: "It's a good check for a party that's been in government now for six years, that [is] showing popularity all through, and [has] the support of the people of the province." It's hard to follow the logic here (perhaps because there is so little of it to be found), but Williams seems to be saying that the defeat was good because the government is so popular. Wow! We knew that popularity could be used to explain just about everything in NL, but who knew that it could also explain an electoral defeat? Thus when the Tories win, it's because they are popular, and when they lose, it's because they are popular!
4) While no one seems to be paying much attention to Yvonne Jones, she made one of the most relevant comments I've seen today. According to CBC, Liberal Leader Yvonne Jones said people should see the result as a comment on the management style of Williams. "People want a voice, and there isn't a voice inside the Williams government," she said. "Most of the backbenchers are silent. Many of the cabinet ministers are allowing critical cuts to happen in their districts without ever speaking out against it." My hypothesis is that the question of democratic governance was far more important than the pundits and politicos realized. There is a persistent misconception in Town that style and substance can somehow be separated, that political rhetoric and economic reality are discrete phenomena that bear little relation to each other. Thus commentators overlook Williams' violent rhetoric because of the price of oil. Thus it is acceptable for the Premier to say that someone should be shot because he is spending lots of public money and is polling high. Thus the temptation is to accept the Faustian bargain of the endless war against the endless enemies of the people because it's a small price to pay for have-status and, as Professor Marland put it so superlatively, Williams is incredibly, phenomenally popular. I think that the byelection shows that the bargain may not be as good as it seemed.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Politics of Popularity
It's another sign of the times that the Opposition feels that its most effective tool (perhaps its only effective tool) against the Williams regime is poll numbers. In the current political culture, any form of low polling is seen as kryptonite.
This past week we witnessed a political scientist trotting out the tautology that Williams faces no threat because he is popular, and he is popular because he faces no threat. In other words, Williams is popular because he is powerful and powerful because he is popular. As I've before, it's funny 'cause it's true. It is therefore unsurprising that when the Liberals finally manage to get some positive media coverage, they place all their political eggs in the popularity basket. To invoke a different metaphor, polls have become the water in which our political fish swim.
Of course, there are numerous problems with this culture of poll et impera. There are not only the issues of poll goosing and media manipulation, but also the question of popularity versus actual support. Williams' popularity may be a mile wide, but how deep is it outside the Tubble, i.e., the Townie Bubble? (And, to take the Teletubbies analogy a bit further, both rely on an inane optimism replete with creepy sun-king).
I'm sure that the Tories' internal polling shows that their support is alarmingly shallow in some areas off the Avalon, and I suspect that they are worried about the byelection. The problem for Williams is not only that he must win but that he must win big-time. For Williams, mere victory is never enough; it must be über-victory, a crushing demonstration of total supremacy.
Even a relatively close victory could deflate the popularity bubble, if only a bit, and Williams knows that his power rests on the image of pop-omnipotence. He must be seen as not just popular, but heroically popular. Thus it was important for Dunn to insist that Williams occupies a popularity summit unknown to mere mortal premiers like Clyde Wells.
Sustaining this popularity feedback-loop requires as much time and energy as actual governing, which is why we've seen such an explosion of PR advisers, media handlers, communication hacks, and call-in teletubbies. And whatever you want to say about the Williams government, it has been remarkably candid about its belief that it can govern by polling fiat.
For Williams, the beauty of popularity politics is that it's self-reinforcing. People tell pollsters that they support Williams in part (perhaps in large part, in some areas outside the Tubble) because there is no viable alternative. So he is popular because the Liberals are not. And vice versa. Getting out of this Teletubbie loop is easier said than done, but trotting out poll numbers won't do the trick. As they demonstrated during the showdown with the nurses' union, the Williams government knows when to make a tactical retreat, which has just been announced. Jerome Kennedy has become for the Tories what Roger Grimes was for the Liberals, and he will do what needs to be done (Kennedy better watch out that he might get what he wishes for). And to take the analogy further, we should point out that it took a party civil war and a bitter leadership convention before the Liberals began their final decline -- and even then Grimes had two years in power.
In a post on Nottawa, I speculated about who, if anyone, would play the role of Leo Barry in the Williams regime. I was referring to the question of whether anyone would dare cross the floor. Because the way things are going, it will take a floor-crossing or two before things begin to change. While we have entered the period of Late Williamsism, we need to keep in mind that this period could last as long as the Liberals remain in disarray. As I said before, in NL governing parties tend to rot from within before they fall, but they still have to be pushed.
This past week we witnessed a political scientist trotting out the tautology that Williams faces no threat because he is popular, and he is popular because he faces no threat. In other words, Williams is popular because he is powerful and powerful because he is popular. As I've before, it's funny 'cause it's true. It is therefore unsurprising that when the Liberals finally manage to get some positive media coverage, they place all their political eggs in the popularity basket. To invoke a different metaphor, polls have become the water in which our political fish swim.
Of course, there are numerous problems with this culture of poll et impera. There are not only the issues of poll goosing and media manipulation, but also the question of popularity versus actual support. Williams' popularity may be a mile wide, but how deep is it outside the Tubble, i.e., the Townie Bubble? (And, to take the Teletubbies analogy a bit further, both rely on an inane optimism replete with creepy sun-king).
I'm sure that the Tories' internal polling shows that their support is alarmingly shallow in some areas off the Avalon, and I suspect that they are worried about the byelection. The problem for Williams is not only that he must win but that he must win big-time. For Williams, mere victory is never enough; it must be über-victory, a crushing demonstration of total supremacy.
Even a relatively close victory could deflate the popularity bubble, if only a bit, and Williams knows that his power rests on the image of pop-omnipotence. He must be seen as not just popular, but heroically popular. Thus it was important for Dunn to insist that Williams occupies a popularity summit unknown to mere mortal premiers like Clyde Wells.
Sustaining this popularity feedback-loop requires as much time and energy as actual governing, which is why we've seen such an explosion of PR advisers, media handlers, communication hacks, and call-in teletubbies. And whatever you want to say about the Williams government, it has been remarkably candid about its belief that it can govern by polling fiat.
For Williams, the beauty of popularity politics is that it's self-reinforcing. People tell pollsters that they support Williams in part (perhaps in large part, in some areas outside the Tubble) because there is no viable alternative. So he is popular because the Liberals are not. And vice versa. Getting out of this Teletubbie loop is easier said than done, but trotting out poll numbers won't do the trick. As they demonstrated during the showdown with the nurses' union, the Williams government knows when to make a tactical retreat, which has just been announced. Jerome Kennedy has become for the Tories what Roger Grimes was for the Liberals, and he will do what needs to be done (Kennedy better watch out that he might get what he wishes for). And to take the analogy further, we should point out that it took a party civil war and a bitter leadership convention before the Liberals began their final decline -- and even then Grimes had two years in power.
In a post on Nottawa, I speculated about who, if anyone, would play the role of Leo Barry in the Williams regime. I was referring to the question of whether anyone would dare cross the floor. Because the way things are going, it will take a floor-crossing or two before things begin to change. While we have entered the period of Late Williamsism, we need to keep in mind that this period could last as long as the Liberals remain in disarray. As I said before, in NL governing parties tend to rot from within before they fall, but they still have to be pushed.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Kidding
Kidding, nothing more than kidding,
Backtracking furiously, still trying to pin the feds,
Special sessions and recrimination,
Normal day in this angry nation
Kidding, wo-o-o-o, kidding,
Wo-o-o-o, kid you again, like the good old days
Kidding, nothing more than kidding,
Kidding now the polling is done
Kidding about burying hatchets
Pretending there's no political racket
Kidding, wo-o-o-o, kidding,
Wo-o-o-o, kidding
Wo-o-o-o, fool me once, shame on you,
Fool me twice...you can't get fooled again....
(Cue music, repeat & fade)
You may not laugh at the joke as reported in the Telegram, which reads like a piece from Angy Dad; but I'm sure the assembled audience laughed as heartily as they did at his health crack.
Backtracking furiously, still trying to pin the feds,
Special sessions and recrimination,
Normal day in this angry nation
Kidding, wo-o-o-o, kidding,
Wo-o-o-o, kid you again, like the good old days
Kidding, nothing more than kidding,
Kidding now the polling is done
Kidding about burying hatchets
Pretending there's no political racket
Kidding, wo-o-o-o, kidding,
Wo-o-o-o, kidding
Wo-o-o-o, fool me once, shame on you,
Fool me twice...you can't get fooled again....
(Cue music, repeat & fade)
You may not laugh at the joke as reported in the Telegram, which reads like a piece from Angy Dad; but I'm sure the assembled audience laughed as heartily as they did at his health crack.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
To everything there is a season
A time for every purpose under the sun;
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to weed;
a time to call and a time to poll.
You could feel it in the air last week. The garbage gulls feasted on the curb offerings heated by the happy sun. The potholes breathed a sigh of relief as the last studded snowtire was finally put away for the year. And the dandelion began its annual takeover of lawns. As St. John's witnessed the ritual start of the seasonal struggle between homeowner and dandelion, everyone knew who was going to win. Yet habit and custom pushed voters outside, where they could be seen throughout the East End, on bended knee, fixated on the yellow apparition.
For those of you who missed the news because you were out in the yard, here are the highlights:
1) DW made a heroic phone call.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/20/williams-nurses-520.html
2) In the midst of a global recession, the capital bubble is unperturbed.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36293
3) Bob Simmonds is optimistic.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36262
4) The House of Assembly passed a motion calling for the federal government to do something it is already doing.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36268
5) The federal and provincial governments have partnered.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36313
Quite a week. Whether it was the power of polls, or something in the water, the nurses' strike was averted and I, for one, was happy to be proved wrong. Now I'm going outside to pull up some more dandelions. I know that they will return as soon as I pull them up, but I just can't help myself.
Judging from the news, things look good in Sunny Patch: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-biology.html
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to weed;
a time to call and a time to poll.
You could feel it in the air last week. The garbage gulls feasted on the curb offerings heated by the happy sun. The potholes breathed a sigh of relief as the last studded snowtire was finally put away for the year. And the dandelion began its annual takeover of lawns. As St. John's witnessed the ritual start of the seasonal struggle between homeowner and dandelion, everyone knew who was going to win. Yet habit and custom pushed voters outside, where they could be seen throughout the East End, on bended knee, fixated on the yellow apparition.
For those of you who missed the news because you were out in the yard, here are the highlights:
1) DW made a heroic phone call.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/20/williams-nurses-520.html
2) In the midst of a global recession, the capital bubble is unperturbed.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36293
3) Bob Simmonds is optimistic.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36262
4) The House of Assembly passed a motion calling for the federal government to do something it is already doing.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36268
5) The federal and provincial governments have partnered.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36313
Quite a week. Whether it was the power of polls, or something in the water, the nurses' strike was averted and I, for one, was happy to be proved wrong. Now I'm going outside to pull up some more dandelions. I know that they will return as soon as I pull them up, but I just can't help myself.
Judging from the news, things look good in Sunny Patch: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-biology.html
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The French Connection
It turns out that an international leader is emulating DW. But it's not Obama, despite what the Globe reported last year.
It turns out that DW's doppelgänger is Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also relentlessly bold, aggressively optimistic, and incredibly ambitious: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090406.wcosarko07/BNStory/specialComment/home
The problem is that Sarkozy hasn't listened hard enough to DW. According to David Rieff, after less than three years in power, "Many in Mr. Sarkozy's governing Union for a Popular Movement have become increasingly public in expressing their unhappiness. In effect, rather than according serious room for decision-making to Prime Minister François Fillon or his cabinet, Mr. Sarkozy has arrogated almost every lever of power to himself and advisers."
For a cabinet revolt to happen in NL, there would have to be an actual cabinet, rather than the current simulacrum.
That's not all. Rieff continues, "But Mr. Sarkozy has not governed effectively, as polling and his party's disenchantment make abundantly clear. His manic character - initiative spilling into initiative, each being the transformative solution to the problem at hand, and all opposition denounced as lies or cowardice - has worn thin."
Sure sounds like DW: manic character, manic initiatives, manic insults. Denounce anyone who disagrees with you. But Sarkozy did not have DW's secret weapon: CRAPolls.
Insulated by CRAPolls, a simulation cabinet, and deep coatings of Teflon, DW will surely outlast the President of France.
In the last paragraph of his essay, Rieff compares Obama and Sarkozy: "At a recent press conference, U.S. President Barack Obama said he was loath to comment immediately on matters of great public importance before being certain he knew the subject in question. Many French wish such self-discipline could rub off on Mr. Sarkozy. Given his temperament, however, that hardly seems likely. As a result, an administration in which many had placed high hopes is lapsing into demagoguery and ineffectiveness."
Message to Nicolas -- Don't worry, just contact these guys and soon you'll be soaring high above the maddening crowd: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Locations/default.aspx
It turns out that DW's doppelgänger is Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also relentlessly bold, aggressively optimistic, and incredibly ambitious: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090406.wcosarko07/BNStory/specialComment/home
The problem is that Sarkozy hasn't listened hard enough to DW. According to David Rieff, after less than three years in power, "Many in Mr. Sarkozy's governing Union for a Popular Movement have become increasingly public in expressing their unhappiness. In effect, rather than according serious room for decision-making to Prime Minister François Fillon or his cabinet, Mr. Sarkozy has arrogated almost every lever of power to himself and advisers."
For a cabinet revolt to happen in NL, there would have to be an actual cabinet, rather than the current simulacrum.
That's not all. Rieff continues, "But Mr. Sarkozy has not governed effectively, as polling and his party's disenchantment make abundantly clear. His manic character - initiative spilling into initiative, each being the transformative solution to the problem at hand, and all opposition denounced as lies or cowardice - has worn thin."
Sure sounds like DW: manic character, manic initiatives, manic insults. Denounce anyone who disagrees with you. But Sarkozy did not have DW's secret weapon: CRAPolls.
Insulated by CRAPolls, a simulation cabinet, and deep coatings of Teflon, DW will surely outlast the President of France.
In the last paragraph of his essay, Rieff compares Obama and Sarkozy: "At a recent press conference, U.S. President Barack Obama said he was loath to comment immediately on matters of great public importance before being certain he knew the subject in question. Many French wish such self-discipline could rub off on Mr. Sarkozy. Given his temperament, however, that hardly seems likely. As a result, an administration in which many had placed high hopes is lapsing into demagoguery and ineffectiveness."
Message to Nicolas -- Don't worry, just contact these guys and soon you'll be soaring high above the maddening crowd: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Locations/default.aspx
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Popularity versus Support
Why is it that in NL politics, popularity is considered to be the same thing as support?
The officially approved syllogism operates like this: high CRA poll numbers mean high popularity; high popularity means high support; therefore high poll numbers mean high support. The official margin for doubt is lower than CRA's margin of error.
But does this syllogism hold outside Danland? Take Barack Obama. DW likes to compare himself to Obama, and Dangovt's stratospheric poll numbers have been compared to Obama's popularity. This Dannymania prompted stories in both national newspapers: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081209.wwilliams1209/BNStory/politics/home
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/18/dannymania-a-message-of-change-hope-and-loads-of-money.aspx
So is Dannymania just like Obamania? Interestingly, less than 100 days into office, Obama is already facing serious resistance to his policies. You'd think that such a historic presidency would enjoy a prolonged honeymoon, but by March the critics were out in full force. And these critics are not just Limbaugh-listening wingnuts; they span the political spectrum and cross national boundaries. Even before his State of the Union address, papers such as the Guardian were reporting that Obama's personal popularity did not necessarily translate into automatic support for his policies: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/24/obama-poll-honeymoon
What's interesting in the press coverage is that a distinction is being made between popularity for the president and support for his policies. Here is the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right-wing orthodoxy, on international support for Obama's policies: "Despite his immense popularity around the world, Mr. Obama will confront resentment over American-style capitalism and resistance to his economic prescriptions when he lands in London on Tuesday for the Group of 20 summit meeting of industrial and emerging market nations plus the European Union." Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/washington/29global.html
Interesting, isn't it? A clear distinction between popularity and support. No doubt part of the resistance to Obama's policies is due to leftover anger at George Bush, but that doesn't explain the strength and scope of the public criticism. What's happening is that governments and peoples in many countries like Obama but question his policies. They may be fans of Obama; they may be pulling for him; but they are not going to write him a blank political cheque.
Maybe this is another instance of the much-touted Newfoundland exceptionalism. Maybe popularity and support are fused together so tightly in NL politics that they cannot be separated. Maybe Dangovt has a secret teflon coating that makes it immune to critical press coverage, so that nothing ever sticks.
The fact that Obama is facing stronger public criticism less than five months in office than DW is facing after more than five years in power is certainly worth pondering. If nothing else, it's further evidence of the power of Corporate Research Associates Polling.
The officially approved syllogism operates like this: high CRA poll numbers mean high popularity; high popularity means high support; therefore high poll numbers mean high support. The official margin for doubt is lower than CRA's margin of error.
But does this syllogism hold outside Danland? Take Barack Obama. DW likes to compare himself to Obama, and Dangovt's stratospheric poll numbers have been compared to Obama's popularity. This Dannymania prompted stories in both national newspapers: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081209.wwilliams1209/BNStory/politics/home
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/18/dannymania-a-message-of-change-hope-and-loads-of-money.aspx
So is Dannymania just like Obamania? Interestingly, less than 100 days into office, Obama is already facing serious resistance to his policies. You'd think that such a historic presidency would enjoy a prolonged honeymoon, but by March the critics were out in full force. And these critics are not just Limbaugh-listening wingnuts; they span the political spectrum and cross national boundaries. Even before his State of the Union address, papers such as the Guardian were reporting that Obama's personal popularity did not necessarily translate into automatic support for his policies: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/24/obama-poll-honeymoon
What's interesting in the press coverage is that a distinction is being made between popularity for the president and support for his policies. Here is the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right-wing orthodoxy, on international support for Obama's policies: "Despite his immense popularity around the world, Mr. Obama will confront resentment over American-style capitalism and resistance to his economic prescriptions when he lands in London on Tuesday for the Group of 20 summit meeting of industrial and emerging market nations plus the European Union." Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/washington/29global.html
Interesting, isn't it? A clear distinction between popularity and support. No doubt part of the resistance to Obama's policies is due to leftover anger at George Bush, but that doesn't explain the strength and scope of the public criticism. What's happening is that governments and peoples in many countries like Obama but question his policies. They may be fans of Obama; they may be pulling for him; but they are not going to write him a blank political cheque.
Maybe this is another instance of the much-touted Newfoundland exceptionalism. Maybe popularity and support are fused together so tightly in NL politics that they cannot be separated. Maybe Dangovt has a secret teflon coating that makes it immune to critical press coverage, so that nothing ever sticks.
The fact that Obama is facing stronger public criticism less than five months in office than DW is facing after more than five years in power is certainly worth pondering. If nothing else, it's further evidence of the power of Corporate Research Associates Polling.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Blowing in the Polls
The use of CRA polling to dismiss the need to defend the budget did not go unnoticed by CTV.
Not exactly a bastion of radical journalism, CTV noted: Kennedy dismissed concerns that the Tory government isn't doing enough to diversify the province's economy beyond oil, citing the government's popularity as proof that the public supports its fiscal vision. "With all due respect to our critics, I don't think we have to convince the public that what we're doing is right," he said. Here's the link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090326/nl_budget_090326/20090326/
What's also interesting about CTV's story is that it ends on the issue of unemployment: Unemployment is also expected to rise by one percentage point to 14.2 per cent. By leaving it to the end of the story, CTV gave it heavier emphasis than most other news agencies. In the aftermath of the budget fallout, questions such as unemployment have been largely lost in the public discussion. Ironically, the press coverage has focused less on employment and economic diversification (a word hardly heard these days) than the budget itself.
This is due in no small measure to Dangovt's idées fixe: "have" status and autonomy. The mantra in provincial politics used to be jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Now it's have, shaft, autonomy, destiny. In the midst of all the boldness and brilliance, it's useful to keep in mind the actual rate of unemployment relative to the rest of Canada: http://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/Statistics/Labour/PDF/UnempRate_7608.pdf
If the ABC jihad and the celebration of "have" status did not cure the economy of high unemployment, why are they so uniquely important? What ills did they magically cure?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the polls. The answer is blowing in the polls.
Not exactly a bastion of radical journalism, CTV noted: Kennedy dismissed concerns that the Tory government isn't doing enough to diversify the province's economy beyond oil, citing the government's popularity as proof that the public supports its fiscal vision. "With all due respect to our critics, I don't think we have to convince the public that what we're doing is right," he said. Here's the link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090326/nl_budget_090326/20090326/
What's also interesting about CTV's story is that it ends on the issue of unemployment: Unemployment is also expected to rise by one percentage point to 14.2 per cent. By leaving it to the end of the story, CTV gave it heavier emphasis than most other news agencies. In the aftermath of the budget fallout, questions such as unemployment have been largely lost in the public discussion. Ironically, the press coverage has focused less on employment and economic diversification (a word hardly heard these days) than the budget itself.
This is due in no small measure to Dangovt's idées fixe: "have" status and autonomy. The mantra in provincial politics used to be jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Now it's have, shaft, autonomy, destiny. In the midst of all the boldness and brilliance, it's useful to keep in mind the actual rate of unemployment relative to the rest of Canada: http://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/Statistics/Labour/PDF/UnempRate_7608.pdf
If the ABC jihad and the celebration of "have" status did not cure the economy of high unemployment, why are they so uniquely important? What ills did they magically cure?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the polls. The answer is blowing in the polls.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
What CRA Buys
Watch and listen carefully to Kennedy's news conference (it's not long):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090326.wvnfldbudget0326/VideoStory/politics/home?pid=RTGAM.20090326.wPOLnewf0326
Did you catch it?
"I don't think we have to convince the public that what we're doing is right."
In between awkward pauses, he then refers to the "still very good figures out there in terms of the way the public looks at what we're doing," i.e., CRA poll numbers.
Somehow, it always comes down to the poll numbers, doesn't it?
Score high in the CRA poll and you no longer even have to convince the public that what you're doing is right. Great deal for Dangovt. I leave it to you to decide what kind of deal it is for democracy in NL.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090326.wvnfldbudget0326/VideoStory/politics/home?pid=RTGAM.20090326.wPOLnewf0326
Did you catch it?
"I don't think we have to convince the public that what we're doing is right."
In between awkward pauses, he then refers to the "still very good figures out there in terms of the way the public looks at what we're doing," i.e., CRA poll numbers.
Somehow, it always comes down to the poll numbers, doesn't it?
Score high in the CRA poll and you no longer even have to convince the public that what you're doing is right. Great deal for Dangovt. I leave it to you to decide what kind of deal it is for democracy in NL.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Polled
VODW reports how NL got polled:
Williams Government Still Riding High
March 11, 2009
The Presidente of Corporate Research Associates says the level of go forward enjoyed by Williams is a very, very determined testament to the leadership of the polls. Don Mills says Danny Williams' personal satisfaction is at levels of over 80 per cent and is the envy of any leader of the free world. Mills says Williams draws support from all polls in the province, regardless of the party voters may think in their worst dreams about ever voting for if they know what's good for them. Dr. Alex Marland of Memorial's Pollyanna Department says the strength in support of Williams also reflects the weakness of the polling, since Williams is still under 100% and so someone must have lied to CRA. Marland says any headway made by the Liberals or the NDP is tempered by this province's history of one party polls.
For the full story, see http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=34772
Technology Update
There are unconfirmed reports that DW plans to use a cutting-edge American technology to build The Dunnel, the underground link between Labrador and Newfoundland, which will rival its Ango-French counterpart.
Here is a news link to a story on this new technology, which will propel DW's stimulus plan far ahead of anything being done in old-economy Canada:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/experts_agree_giant_razor_clawed?utm_source=a-section
Williams Government Still Riding High
March 11, 2009
The Presidente of Corporate Research Associates says the level of go forward enjoyed by Williams is a very, very determined testament to the leadership of the polls. Don Mills says Danny Williams' personal satisfaction is at levels of over 80 per cent and is the envy of any leader of the free world. Mills says Williams draws support from all polls in the province, regardless of the party voters may think in their worst dreams about ever voting for if they know what's good for them. Dr. Alex Marland of Memorial's Pollyanna Department says the strength in support of Williams also reflects the weakness of the polling, since Williams is still under 100% and so someone must have lied to CRA. Marland says any headway made by the Liberals or the NDP is tempered by this province's history of one party polls.
For the full story, see http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=34772
Technology Update
There are unconfirmed reports that DW plans to use a cutting-edge American technology to build The Dunnel, the underground link between Labrador and Newfoundland, which will rival its Ango-French counterpart.
Here is a news link to a story on this new technology, which will propel DW's stimulus plan far ahead of anything being done in old-economy Canada:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/experts_agree_giant_razor_clawed?utm_source=a-section
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
