Actual poll thread Sept 15 2010

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
edmundoconnor

Caissa wrote:

Almost time for Justin Trudeau...

And if he doesn't work, Rae's got his leadership team on standby …

edmundoconnor

Stockholm wrote:

When Queen Mary "Bloody Mary" was on the throne, the British lost Calais to the French and that was their last possession in France.

To be historically accurate, it was the English who lost Calais, not the British, as such a nation had yet to exist. But the rest of your point is fair enough.

Sean in Ottawa

Maysie wrote:

nicky, disagree with Debater all you like, but you can't ask accusatory questions about Debater's real life. 

Not to minimize moderation-- but how can we be sure that what is here is not real and what is elsewhere unreal...

Or even that our real lives aren't when we are dreaming and our waking lives false.

Man I need some caffeine, or something.

Anyway it is my birthday and I am ancient (although that did not happen all of a sudden) and pondering existential questions.

Uncle John

I think Gerard is going to go for another shot at the leadership if the Liberals don't beat the Conservatives in the next election. If Gerard runs, I bet Justin Trudeau would back him.

NorthReport

Bonne fete Sean - I hope you are having a good one on your special day. Smile 

Debater

nicky wrote:

Debater, it is getting harder to credit you with any objectivity whatsoever. It is a little boring (not to say predictable) to read about you dancing over what you yearn to be the grave on the NDP.

In order to be an effective troll I would advise you to be less obvious.

In another post recently you boasted about being a "lawyer". Yet your user profile says you are an "office administrator". Which is it? Are you being as disingenuous about your occupation as you are about your political neutrality?

I wasn't dancing on the NDP's grave.  All I said was that they have been hurt in support over the past few weeks and that discussions would be more productive if some NDP supporters would acknowledge it and be objective about it.  I am not predicting the NDP's demise - that would be silly and inaccurate.

I am a lawyer, but I don't work at a law firm anymore since I dislike traditional legal practice.  I am currently putting my skills to use in a different capacity, but one that uses my legal background.

Btw, I don't think I "boasted" about being a lawyer.  I stated that I was a lawyer in the context of explaining what my interests and areas of knowledge were.  I wanted Sean to know I am not a statistician or mathematician and don't feel qualified to have intricate discussions about the methodology of polling.

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Except in Quebec where the polls all have the NDP soaring to 18% - BAAAAD news for Liberal hopes in Outremont - cue the exploding heads in the Liberal blogosphere.

Actually, it isn't "all the polls", Stockholm.  Please be accurate.  It is just CROP.  The other polls have the NDP down in Quebec.

I agree with you though that the Liberal numbers are pretty poor though.

nicky

It's not just Crop but Leger that has the NDP at 17% in Quebec. I think also one of the Reid polls had them at about that level with the other much lower.

This being said, recent polls have been very contradictory. National polls have given the NDP everything from 12 to 18%. Its vote in Quebec from 18 to 9. Manitoba/ Saskatchewan 31 to 9. The Atlantic 12 to 25. Ontario 13 to 18. BC 22 to 35.

The Conservatives in Quebec have posted 11 to 23%, all in the same time frame. I could go on with similar examples.

Either there is extreme volatility in the electorate right now or some polls are just completely wrong. What gives?

On another note, does anyone have  regional breakdown for the Crop poll?

KenS

Its SO unlikely that there is actual volatility among the voters.

Sean in Ottawa

There is no reason for volatility right now. The trends are cumulative, messages are the same and few people ready to move who have not already.

The polls I think have become less and less accurate and more creative trying to explain why they point their different ways.

They do huge polls a the end of elections that become more accurate and use BS to pretend every other difference is explainable by something other than a lack of accuracy and sample sizes that are less and less statistically relevant (as the voters become more diverse, you would need to increase sample size but they don't because of money then they make one compromise after another to save money).

ottawaobserver

They no longer seem to provide the detailed tables for the CROP polls through the Cyberpresse website, Nicky, and CROP itself did not have that kind of data on its website last time I looked.

Debater, I thought we agreed that we would credit the large Quebec samples of CROP and Leger a lot more than the national samples of other polling firms.  I'm starting to put less stock in the regional sub-samples of Angus Reid, however, because they show such wild swings.  Their national figures may be roughly accurate, but we can't draw too much from regional numbers that swing so wildly and continuously from one survey to the next.

Debater

ottawaobserver wrote:

Debater, I thought we agreed that we would credit the large Quebec samples of CROP and Leger a lot more than the national samples of other polling firms.  I'm starting to put less stock in the regional sub-samples of Angus Reid, however, because they show such wild swings.  Their national figures may be roughly accurate, but we can't draw too much from regional numbers that swing so wildly and continuously from one survey to the next.

Large Quebec samples can be important, but if they are at odds with all the national polls, questions should be asked.  All the other national polls have the NDP much lower, and have the Liberals above the Cons.  CROP is the only one I've seen with the NDP so high and with the Cons tied with the Libs.

But let's assume this CROP poll is accurate.  The most important number hasn't been talked about yet.  The BQ is at only 32% according to CROP!  That is pretty much the lowest they have ever been and would be a big drop in support from the 38% they got in 2008.  How come this hasn't been commented upon yet?  If the BQ were to fall that far, it could have major implications.

I realize people here zero in on the NDP numbers, but don't they have to be looked at in relation to the BQ and other parties?  If the BQ were to fall that far, it would probably benefit the Liberals and the Conservatives.  What would happen to the seat count in Quebec?

BQ-Liberal races that the Liberals almost won in 2008 would probably go to the Liberals, even if the Liberal vote remained stagnant from last time.  What would happen in Ahuntsic, Jeanne-Le Ber, Brome-Missiquoi and other ridings if the BQ vote fell through the floor?

It would also probably mean that all the Conservative seats would be safe, as well as there being the opportunity for the Cons to pick up new seats from the BQ.

Therefore, in my opinion, the most important question to be asked when looking at this CROP poll is:  what would be the effect of the BQ falling to just 32% in Quebec?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Of course, as polling day approached, a lot of potential Liberal gains in QC would vanish, as progressive voters who have voted BQ since 1993 remember that the last Liberal government had Thatcherite/Reaganite economic policies and that the few non-Tory pieces of legislation that government approved were trivial and, with the sole exception of ssm(passed ONLY with BQ and NDP support)irrevelant to almost everyone's lives.

 

 

Stockholm

Debater wrote:

Large Quebec samples can be important, but if they are at odds with all the national polls, questions should be asked.  All the other national polls have the NDP much lower, and have the Liberals above the Cons.  CROP is the only one I've seen with the NDP so high and with the Cons tied with the Libs.

But let's assume this CROP poll is accurate.  The most important number hasn't been talked about yet.  The BQ is at only 32% according to CROP!  That is pretty much the lowest they have ever been and would be a big drop in support from the 38% they got in 2008.  How come this hasn't been commented upon yet?  If the BQ were to fall that far, it could have major implications.

I agree that questions should be asked. maybe the question ought to be "why are the tiny Quebec sub-samples in national polls so out of line with the larger polls done by Quebec based pollsters?"

CROP is not "the only poll with the NDP so high". Leger last week had the NDP at 17% and so did the ARG's Quebec sub-sample.

This is not "the lowest the BQ has ever been". You may recall that through 2007 and early 2008 the BQ was consistently stuck in the low 30s and often tied with the Tories in Quebec - they got a "lease on life" after harper blew it in the '08 campaign - but we have seen BQ support take a dive before.

thorin_bane

Why not ask why charest isn't impacting the libs at the federal level? OR do we not want to go there debater? BTW you never responded to my post, as a liberal shit disturber I expected nothing less. Always the slide to the side and move on to something less uncomfortable. Do go on pontificating the demise of all things non Lib while stating you are not a Liberal. No need more mods to admonish me. If you can prove he isn't a lib pretending then show me i am wrong...all posts point to Lib.

Debater:

"I realize people here zero in on the NDP numbers, but don't they have to be looked at in relation to the BQ and other parties?  If the BQ were to fall that far, it would probably benefit the Liberals and the Conservatives.  What would happen to the seat count in Quebec?"

 

OOOh looky he used the word conservative next to liberal, must not be liberal I guess. Perhaps the drop in the BQ vote has shifted to the NDP and 4 way splits will still help the BQ to retain the seats. Just won't have the same % of voters. In fact I can see them picking up liberal seats as lib voters decide to start supporting the NDP and thus splitting the safer seats in montreal. There is a nice BQ analysis for you Libater.

Sean in Ottawa

Did Debater say he was not a Liberal-- if so, I missed that.

Interesting question-- maybe Charest is affecting the federal Liberal vote in Quebec. Maybe it is just that otherwise all the other parties are down so the Liberal pissed off vote has no where to go because they are pissed at everyone else.

 

thorin_bane

Yes he has stated in MANY threads is is not a liberal. He insists on it. That is why its dishonest debating him. He says IIRC he is a former NDPer as well. A swing voter if you will. I find that statement highly suspect. He may have in the past but he is clearly a liberla now.

KenS

Even someone who is less than transparent about his preferences deserves to be debated on the merits of his arguments themselves.

And they have enough holes in their own right, without dismissal on the grounds of less than full acknowledgement of bias.

Debater

I have said in the past that I have been a member of both the Liberals and the NDP and that I have supported both.  I even explained my whole voting history in a post here last year where I explained how I have gone back and forth.

But why does my voting history matter so much anyway?  Debate the issues and the arguments rather than someone's voting history.  And what's wrong with supporting the Liberals at times when it is the right thing to do?  I was hoping to meet more Liberal-NDP voters here, but it seems on this board that showing any support for the Liberals is viewed as evil.  

If some posters here have such a hatred of the Liberals that they can't see any of the good things the party has accomplished and why some like myself have supported it at certain times (like during the Trudeau years when it was the most progressive Federal government this country has ever had) then that's too bad.  It doesn't bode well for future co-operation between the Liberals and the NDP when the parties will need those of us who like things about both parties.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Your own political preferences and history matter because your posts here MAKE them matter.  You always sound like you're still campaigning for the Liberals and that you think it would be a good thing for progressive voters to swing to the Liberals FROM the NDP, the Greens or the BQ, even such a swing led to the election of the most right-wing Liberal government since Mackenzie King when Chretien got in in 1993.

And I don't think people here are saying that Liberals never did ANYTHING  good in the past.

Most folks here would argue that they were good under Trudeau, and surprisingly good under Pearson.

Where people here differ from your perspective, I suspect, is that no one else on this board, and probably no left-of-centre person anywhere in North America, things that any Liberal government will be anything remotely like those of Pearson and Trudeau. 

There's a recognition on the part of other posters that, when you commit to fiscal conservativism(as the Liberals now have on a permanent basis)that you really can't be non-conservative on anything else.  There simply can't be progressive change WITHOUT increased federal and provincial expenditure to make it happen.

The Liberal commitment to Bay Street appeasing economic and budget policies means no future Liberal government will be even a millimetre to the left of Chretien and Martin.

Even Lil' Justin, should he someday get the leadership and a parliamentary majority, will just be a Martinite in cooler clothes.

And, in the short run, It goes without saying that an Ignatieff government couldn't be progressive...especially if it won a majority.  No one could be as antileft as Iggy's been in opposition and then turn progressive AFTER gaining power.

Finally, when if really came down to it, why would ANY BQ voters ever switch to voting Liberal?  You seem to see that as a natural swing, but it involves such a massive  level of political mind-splitting as to be impossible. 

A significant wing of the BQ supports social justice.  The Liberal Party no longer cares about the poor.

A significant wing of the BQ supportgs workers' rights.  The Liberals never really have(Even Trudeau lost any interest in working-class people after the Asbestosville strike ended).

A significant wing of the BQ backs strong environmental laws.  The Liberals aren't  green on anything and never will be.

And the other large faction of BQ voters that doesn't support any of the above would  never vote Liberal because that wing would never  be able to get its head around voting for a party that backs the federalist status quo on the Constitution.  It's possible they'd vote Tory, or get behind a revival of a Creditiste-type party if one ever emerged, but they'd never back the party Trudeau and Chretien once led, or the one Iggy leads now.

I don't think anybody here has a personal dislike of you, Debater; it's mainly mystification that you STILL think there could be ANY left-of-centre case for  voting for the Liberals.  Why DO you still think they could be worth voting for, when their days as a party of progressive change are long past?

 

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

I do believe there is reason to resent the Liberals but that is not the issue here.

I do agree that your voting history did not count. I was merely challenging the statement that you had claimed not to be a Liberal simply because I had not seen that and rather had thought I heard you say fairly recently that you were a Liberal supporter.

I think there are a lot of issues in terms of the two parties working together-- in part the fact that they are both fighting for survival over the same voters is one. They are both trying to distinguish themselves form each other is another. As well there are historical problems like the Liberals backing out of the coalition which many cannot fogive them for. Finally there is the inability (at least in a long time) for the Liberals to stand up consistently for anything even remotely progressive.

All that said-- this has nothing to do with how you are treated and I try as much as possible to interact honestly even if not with agreement and that is why at times I find myself in agreement with you, or objecting to soemthing said against you and at other times I am debating you. This does not mean I am right but it does mean that I am arguing when I think I am right not based on a pre-programmed perspective.

Anyway I do think that it would help to show some perspective that is not always optimistically pro-Liberal. People here are likely getting annoyed at the wasteful pro-Liberal positions that don't even look like anyone can hold them without rose-coloured glasses-- these are no better than some of the pro-NDP positions that similarly make no sense. It is all fine to disagree about where we should go bu some attempt to look at the facts as they are now with at least an open mind is helpful. Now the funny thing is from my perspective some of the poeple who give you the hardest time on this are people guilty of the same thing with the NDP.

People in the end make their reputation and being more reasonable, balanced and open minded, i hope will attract those who are making up their minds which is who you want to reach even if it pisses off those who were sold years ago.

thorin_bane

Thank you sean and ken. My problem is we have enough infighting and backbiting of the NDP from NDPers We don't need someone claiming to be "just a progressive" and who almost insticitvely suggests to rally around the Libs and poo poos the NDP in most cases.

 

I would like to think rabble as a clearing house of ideas and honest debate, but if people are viewing debater as "just a progressive" it changes how one will view his posts. I have also found reasons to agree on certain ideas, but that is more of a coincidence than much else. As most know I don't like when NorthReport goes on a tear about how crappy the libs are doing, I don't like the libs but I am more interested in seeing both them and us up and the cons down...we won't ever get an election otherwise. So debater doing the same thing but from a liberal POV is more annoying as unlike NR he won't even admit his partisan nature.

Most of your posts are talking point straight from the libs and only on occasion do you stray from that. Usually on something that isnt boilerplate for the liberal party.

Some people come here to look for ideas or what the NDP/Green(Not so much these days)  have to offer, or at least to see what their supporters think. I have improved my views over the years to being a lot more progressive from these forums. I don't want to waste time even trying to get the libs elected as they have had plenty of opportunities to be progressive and they fail.

They do like to constantly bring up falsehoods like NDP brought down martin, and how great martin was for budgets, while failing to mention downloading, slashing budgets, tax cuts for the wealthy(his friends) and stealing from the EI fund to name a few of the "progressive" things the liberals have done. The best parts of pearson and trudeau are the NDP policies they implemented.

But it is that memory that propels the liberal brand instead of the recent facts. Either get progressive or get out of the way. Iggy has shown time and again not to want to co operate, has right wing ideas, supports the cons on the important issues, and when he can sends diggs at the NDP usually false ones.

SO forgive me if my dislike of liberals and how they misrepresent themselves(as some of their supporters do) when we have the worst government in the country's history to take down and they are taking shots at the NDP. There are legitimate reasons to get mad at the NDP. The issues the libs bring up to harangue the NDP on usually aren't the right ones.

KenS

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

 

Concern among Canadians over Stephen Harper's decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census isn't going away. In fact it is seeping into Tory ranks, according to a new poll.

The Angus Reid on-line survey also shows 53 per cent of Canadians believe the long-form census provides important information and should remain mandatory. This number has barely budged since the story broke in the summer; in July and August, 58 per cent of Canadians supported keeping the long-form census.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harpers-base-isnt-as-energized-on-census-poll-finds/article1745307/

JKR

Maybe this long-form census situation merits bringing down the government? Crippling the governments ability to obtain accurate information is very serious. And it says volumes about the Harper government.

The Conservatives assault on the census is based on their ideology that personal freedom trumps all else. (Big corporations and the very rich love the idea of personal freedom trumping all other considerations such as social responsibility.) An election on this issue would highlight how the government allows its ideology to blind them from common sense.  This blindness translates into every issue this government deals with. An election based on this issue would paint the government in a bad light concerning many other issues like the economy, health care, foreign policy, etc....

This reminds me of this situation this week in Tennessee where a fire department allowed a house to burn down because the owner failed to pay an annual $75 fire protection fee. This is a great example of how right wing ideology blinded a community to common sense. Two dogs and a cat died in this fire. What's chilling is that people could have died too!

Firefighters Watch As Home Burns: Gene Cranick's House Destroyed In Tennessee Over $75 Fee (VIDEO)

Why Firemen Let That House Burn Down

Glenn Beck Mocks Fire Victims, Reaches New Depths of Awfulness

 

thorin_bane

I am surprised at how low that number is. I would consider it a travesty being under 80% didn't think it should be re-instated. Of course the globe doesn't give much context in how the question was asked and if the included people anware of the issue. So of those that had an opinion what was the yeas vs nays?

I don't believe the census is dead(though it now will forever be a wedge issue for the right when it never was one before-the true reason for doing this)they should just move the census a few months. While this may skew the reults a bit it will hardly be as damaging as "the survey"

This also goes back to the tories setting everyone to hate everything government. We will need generations to fix the damage harper has inflicted on this country.

NO PM in my lifetime has been even remotely as divisive or as destructive as the harper regime. The cons can bitch about PET but he didn't make us look like bafoons abroad or destroy canada from within. 4 years of minority extreme government(with help from Iggy and the libs) and we have whiped out 150 years of poor to decent governance. Harris and Mulroney combined with their 18 years of majority destruction having nothing on Harpo-I don't recognize my country anymore.

Debater

Ken Burch wrote:

Your own political preferences and history matter because your posts here MAKE them matter.  You always sound like you're still campaigning for the Liberals and that you think it would be a good thing for progressive voters to swing to the Liberals FROM the NDP, the Greens or the BQ, even such a swing led to the election of the most right-wing Liberal government since Mackenzie King when Chretien got in in 1993.

And I don't think people here are saying that Liberals never did ANYTHING  good in the past.

Most folks here would argue that they were good under Trudeau, and surprisingly good under Pearson.

Where people here differ from your perspective, I suspect, is that no one else on this board, and probably no left-of-centre person anywhere in North America, things that any Liberal government will be anything remotely like those of Pearson and Trudeau. 

There's a recognition on the part of other posters that, when you commit to fiscal conservativism(as the Liberals now have on a permanent basis)that you really can't be non-conservative on anything else.  There simply can't be progressive change WITHOUT increased federal and provincial expenditure to make it happen.

The Liberal commitment to Bay Street appeasing economic and budget policies means no future Liberal government will be even a millimetre to the left of Chretien and Martin.

Even Lil' Justin, should he someday get the leadership and a parliamentary majority, will just be a Martinite in cooler clothes.

And, in the short run, It goes without saying that an Ignatieff government couldn't be progressive...especially if it won a majority.  No one could be as antileft as Iggy's been in opposition and then turn progressive AFTER gaining power.

Finally, when if really came down to it, why would ANY BQ voters ever switch to voting Liberal?  You seem to see that as a natural swing, but it involves such a massive  level of political mind-splitting as to be impossible. 

A significant wing of the BQ supports social justice.  The Liberal Party no longer cares about the poor.

A significant wing of the BQ supportgs workers' rights.  The Liberals never really have(Even Trudeau lost any interest in working-class people after the Asbestosville strike ended).

A significant wing of the BQ backs strong environmental laws.  The Liberals aren't  green on anything and never will be.

And the other large faction of BQ voters that doesn't support any of the above would  never vote Liberal because that wing would never  be able to get its head around voting for a party that backs the federalist status quo on the Constitution.  It's possible they'd vote Tory, or get behind a revival of a Creditiste-type party if one ever emerged, but they'd never back the party Trudeau and Chretien once led, or the one Iggy leads now.

I don't think anybody here has a personal dislike of you, Debater; it's mainly mystification that you STILL think there could be ANY left-of-centre case for  voting for the Liberals.  Why DO you still think they could be worth voting for, when their days as a party of progressive change are long past?

I've already said in the past that I don't think Ignatieff is as progressive as he should be and that the current Liberal party is too far to the right.  But it is much more preferable than the Harper government, and that is why I am considering supporting the Liberals in the next election.  It's not ideal, but it's the best way to get rid of Harper.  The NDP isn't able to do it.  And according to recent polls, there are NDP voters considering supporting the Liberals to get rid of Harper.

Not sure why you are speaking for so many BQ voters - quite a few of them moved to Chretien over the years (that's why Chretien beat Duceppe in the popular vote in 2000).  They left when the sponsorship scandal happened, but some of them will come back if the Liberals chose a more progressive leader down the road like Cauchon or LeBlanc when Iggy is gone.

And as for Justin Trudeau, I don't know whether he'll ever become leader, but you certainly can't know all his political beliefs in advance or what he would be like.  I've actually met Justin several times and he is much more progressive than your average politician in this country.

Sean in Ottawa

Please Debator-- I am intrigued by your assertion that polls are saying the NDP support is switching to the Liberals to defeat Harper. I am very interested in the motivation of voters and where they are coming from. Can you show me one poll that asks the motivation of people switching? Or for that matter one poll that even asks if people are switching at all? All I can find are pollsters who ask one random group what they think one month and a second random group the next and then guess at what that ***might*** mean (always under the unsupported assumption that they got it right both times). The polls I see don't ask why people vote a certain way, if they have changed their minds or if the second random group wouldn't have given the exact same answer a month ago except they were not the ones asked.

Really, if you have any evidence --at all-- proving that these swings in party fortunes are real changes from one month to another and not just changes due to different people being asked, I am sure I am not the only person who would like to see it.

While you are at it please also explain why pollsters increase their sample size massively and use rolling polls to provide their last minute guesses before an election but don't between elections? We know those large sample polls and rolling polls are much, much more expensive. We know the pollsters want to get it right with the last poll they do. So why would they spend so much more then if the polls we have now with much smaller sample on individual days can get it right?

Now then while you are there, please explain why the pollsters even when they go to extraordinary lengths still get it wrong-- do you really believe that much in extraordinary last minute shifts? Is it not possible that they are just chronically wrong but way to profitable to admit that? Can you not consider that perhaps we have a divided society with very little shift going on and a whole industry trying to justify itself and the results it produces?

The pollsters claim plus or minus 3 19 times out of 20 or whatever it is. Do you have any evidence to support those claims?

Let us consider for a moment Occams razor (the simplest explanation is the most likely). When you have two reports that disagree at least one or both of them is wrong.

The pollsters can't go there because there is too much money at stake so they invent other explanations and the industry is partly based on asking questions and partly based on inventing explanations for what they said to explain apparent inconsistency.

ottawaobserver

Debater wrote:

I've already said in the past that I don't think Ignatieff is as progressive as he should be and that the current Liberal party is too far to the right.  But it is much more preferable than the Harper government, and that is why I am considering supporting the Liberals in the next election.  It's not ideal, but it's the best way to get rid of Harper.  The NDP isn't able to do it.  And according to recent polls, there are NDP voters considering supporting the Liberals to get rid of Harper.

Debater, not one person here is fooled by this sudden realization of yours that you actually might consider possibly supporting the Liberals next time.  Wow, what a shocker.

NorthReport

Debater exemplifies the right wing quite well. You throw enogh mud against the wall, and at least some of it will stick. That was Mulroney's motto, and it is Debater's as well. He rarely posts with any substance or facts to back up his comments. But look for more and more of the LPC Reps like Debater etc. to hit the floor running here at Rabble with their Ignatieff lLberals talking points.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I don't think Debater works for the Liberals-- I think he is just a supporter thinking he is helping.

He isn't helping and this is a hobby not a profession.

 

gadar

NorthReport wrote:

Debater exemplifies the right wing quite well. You throw enogh mud against the wall, and at least some of it will stick. That was Mulroney's motto, and it is Debater's as well. He rarely posts with any substance or facts to back up his comments. But look for more and more of the LPC Reps like Debater etc. to hit the floor running here at Rabble with their Ignatieff lLberals talking points.

 

Pot meet kettle

Wilf Day

Of Conservative voters, 47% support the long-gun registry.

Quote:
support for the registry is highest in Quebec (81%), followed by Ontario (66%) British Columbia (61%), Atlantic Canada (59%) and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (57%).

I think Harper's tactics will eventually backfire. He's locking in his support base because, in a recession, governments are often doomed. He needs to hold onto his base until the recession ends, and then try to gain. So far, it's working. But with the census and gun-registry and other such issues, he's painting him and his base into a corner.   

KenS

Viz the registry, it wont matter. Because the Conservatives never planned to keep making the registry a national issue.

Its a wedge to play in specific ridings. Plus some modest amount of 'dog whistle' communications beyond those ridings- outreach that will only be heard by the voters who are receptive to your message.

The census is another story. I keep waiting for them to take steps to get this off the front burner. Apparently they have painted themselves into a corner. An unforced error where now that they have made it an issue, it would cost them too much with the most commited base if they back down. But its a long time until an election, so I wouldnt bet against them successfully get this issue to be mostly forgotten.... as long as they stop bringing in fresh reminders for swing voters doubts about Harper and company.

Every time I hear the words long form census I have that picture in mind of a smug Tony Clement sitting with the raised and spread fingertips of his two hands touching. "Yesssssss... We knowww." he hisses.

NorthReport

gadar that could equally apply to you as well.

I gather you, and a few other,s have been drinking the Liberal Cool-Aid, and thought we were on the cusp of an election, so you decided to share with us your completely unbiased pontifications. Laughing

By all means, please continue to do so, but you might want to do us all one little favour, which Liberals seem to constantly omit in their posts here, and that is to present some facts, any facts, to back up their arguments. I suppose it's just because you don't want to clutter up a good story now, do you!

 

By-the-way, you can go back to sleep if you wish, because the next election won't be until next Spring, which has been forecast here at Babble,for a period of years now. But please carry on.

 

gadar wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Debater exemplifies the right wing quite well. You throw enogh mud against the wall, and at least some of it will stick. That was Mulroney's motto, and it is Debater's as well. He rarely posts with any substance or facts to back up his comments. But look for more and more of the LPC Reps like Debater etc. to hit the floor running here at Rabble with their IgnatieffLberals talking points.

 

Pot meet kettle

ottawaobserver

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.  Let us count our blessings this weekend, and work to help those with fewer blessings than us.

gadar

NorthReport wrote:

gadar that could equally apply to you as well.

I gather you, and a few other,s have been drinking the Liberal Cool-Aid, and thought we were on the cusp of an election, so you decided to share with us your completely unbiased pontifications. Laughing

By all means, please continue to do so, but you might want to do us all one little favour, which Liberals seem to constantly omit in their posts here, and that is to present some facts, any facts, to back up their arguments. I suppose it's just because you don't want to clutter up a good story now, do you!

 

By-the-way, you can go back to sleep if you wish, because the next election won't be until next Spring, which has been forecast here at Babble,for a period of years now. But please carry on.

 

gadar wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Debater exemplifies the right wing quite well. You throw enogh mud against the wall, and at least some of it will stick. That was Mulroney's motto, and it is Debater's as well. He rarely posts with any substance or facts to back up his comments. But look for more and more of the LPC Reps like Debater etc. to hit the floor running here at Rabble with their IgnatieffLberals talking points.

 

Pot meet kettle

So criticising the cons is drinking liberal cool aid by your standards. What arguements are you talking about. I dont need some psychoanalysis report on you to prove that you constantly provide spin alongwith links from mostly canwest rags. And you being the king of spin and spam have the courage to point at others. Was just pointing out the hypocisy. Anybody who doesnt agree with you is not necessarily a liberal. Debater at least had the courage to admit that he might vote liberal while you on the other hand constantly write con talking points while not admitting that you are a con supporter, not that there is anything wrong with it but at least be honest. And when did I say I am not biased, I am as biased as it gets against the Cons and I have mentioned this before. And what facts have you provided in this post that prove that you are not spinning. I have replied to your assertion about my views about political parties in another thread which you probably did not read because you were too busy looking through the canwest websites about how cons are so in tune with the families. And moreover I dont need a certificate from you about my political beliefs. And you dont need mine.

When you wrote that liberals will win less than fifty seats in the next election, I had replied that it will lead to a conservative majority. And you didnt seem to agree with that statement. I am still waiting for your facts that support your theory of liberals not winnning fifty seats and if that happens how it will not lead to a conservative majority.

And you want me to do "all you" a favour. Who are all these people you are writing on behalf of. I am as much a part of babble as you are. If any othe poster had a problem with what i write they will ask me. So give up this schtic of representing others. Speak for yourself.

And you have mentioned that it equally applies to me. Show me a post where I have tried to spin a news item/poll numbers against or for a particular party. Keep throwing mud I am sure some of it will stick.

gadar

There is this story on the front page of CBC which shows Cons in a negative light but the spinners somehow missed it while they were

able to dig up the canwest story about the Cons being friends of the families.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/10/08/parliament-construction-cont...

NorthReport

Good message OO.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.  Let us count our blessings this weekend, and work to help those with fewer blessings than us.

NorthReport

This is indeed shocking! Laughing 

 

What a jokester that Harper is.

 

Liberals bowing to NDP, Bloc

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Harper+Liberals+bowing+Bloc/3647...

NorthReport

We may not know much, but one thing we do know, the Liberal's reign, as Canada's natural governing party, is over.

 

 

Stephen Harper: It's his Canada now

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/books/book-review-harperland-by-lawrence-...

Stockholm

NR you seem positively delighted that Harper is moulding Canada in is image. Maybe you belong in Free Dominion?

NorthReport

Now you are just being absurd.

thorin_bane

I am just waiting for a poll to put in the POLL thread. Not just some link to an article about libs failing. Yeah I dislike the libs but the cons, or rather the harperites have even made pauly pockets look progressive, which says maybe we should deal with this cabal of xenophobic...scratch that everyphobic nutbars who are running and ruinning  the country with only 1 in 5 of registered voters?

JKR

Tories have slight lead over Liberals: poll

Nanos - Oct. 1 - 7

Con: 36.6
Lib: 32.4
NDP: 16.3
BQ: 9.8
Grn: 4.9

 

NorthReport

Slight lead.

A 5% Harper lead over Ignatieff, plus add on the 10% the LPC will lose during the next election campaign, which ends up looking like a staggering 15% spread lead for the Cons over the Libs. But carry on with such silly comments all you want, if for some inexplicable reason that makes you feel good.

Myself I think it is about as disasterous a poll for the LPC as they could possibly have, at this stage of the game, what with the massive federal deficit, and the staggering loss for Canada's reputation at the UN. Maybe Canadians are really believing that Ignatieff was resposible for that international fiasco. 

 

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

Slight lead.

A 5% Harper lead over Ignatieff, plus add on the 10% the LPC will lose during the next election campaign, which ends up looking like a staggering 15% spread lead for the Cons over the Libs.

Should I even bother asking how you can make this contention or what your evidence is to support it?

NorthReport wrote:

Myself I think it is about as disasterous a poll for the LPC as they could possibly have, at this stage of the game, what with the massive federal deficit, and the staggering loss for Canada's reputation at the UN. Maybe Canadians are really believing that Ignatieff was resposible for that international fiasco. 

This poll was completed before the UN vote.  Didn't you read it?

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

But carry on with such silly comments all you want, if for some inexplicable reason that makes you feel good.

I didn't make a comment.

The title of the CTV article was "Tories have slight lead over Liberals: poll."

NR, you're beginning to sound paranoid.

thorin_bane

NR just stop it, give it up NOW. I am getting fed up with the rediculousness of your "prediction" you and debater can go find a damn room and argue with each other till you are both blue in the face.

Do you even read how rediculous your post sounds? Even the NDP this week said that harper shouldn't be blaming Iggy for their failure. So clearly you are showing yourself to be a con in NDP clothing. Or you are just absurd. I don't care if I get a talking to from mods this is plain stupid. Every poll thread gets highjacked by some absurd theory from this character and I am tired of sitting by watching this go on.

NorthReport

TB who appointed you God?

Last I heard, you are a just a poster here like the rest of us. If you don't like what I post, just ignore it, as I do most of the time when you post. Jeesh! Laughing

NorthReport

Pages

Topic locked