So, whattaya think?
I'm thinking both the libs and dips see the soon to be defunct pc's as a target rich envoirnment for targetting disgruntled supporters ready to switch to the, "other" left wing parties.
Lot's of subleties; Danielle Smith referred to the other candidates with respectful titles, ratford used the familiar, as did sherman, although sherman was trying hard to portray his party as on par with the pc's. The dipper IMO handled himself very well, but I guess he's had previous debate experience, maybe that's why? Ratford was commonly seen rolling her eyes in a condescending manner, while D. Smith appeared stately, yet approachable.
Being caught in half truths and outright lies didn't seem to phase ratford who switched back and forth between claiming to be the new face of the pcs and claiming the past laurels of the pc party; much like her, "say anything to get elected" platform policy. She also makes no bones about having a huge intrusive government agenda, the un would be proud. Bigger government directly controlling every cent that passes hands, telling us what to do and how to live is the answer to everything, right alison? I'd wager she still thinks iggy lost because we voters were too backwards to realize his superior intellect.
My take: Wildrose for the, "high road" win, the liberals likely picked up a bunch of previous red pc supporters, I suspect the ndp will get some of that support as well.
The pcs? Well, they'd better start polishing up their resumes.
