Harper government near 'tipping point'?

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
jdman jdman's picture

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Hey JDman are you here to debate or just taunt people?

didn't take long for me to figure out this person is not real.

simmer down nancy,

Just cause i dont have the same thinking as you does not make my point of view wrong.

Unionist

Would it be possible not to let a troll derail a thread quite so easily? Either call him rude names or ignore him. Just don't take it seriously. Please.

 

jdman jdman's picture

Unionist wrote:
Would it be possible not to let a troll derail a thread quite so easily? Either call him rude names or ignore him. Just don't take it seriously. Please.

 

Right.... I am a troll because i didnt drink the "orange crush" Kool-aid? Mmkk...

So let me get this strait, if i do not jerk off Tommy Mulcair, i am a troll.....

If i dont bash the cons, i am a troll.....

If i dont piss and moan about military purchases, i ama troll....

If i dont agree with you....I am a troll....

 

Am i missing anything?

Fidel

Yes I think we were trying to make him feel like an adult worthwhile talking to. Obviously he's having none of it.

quizzical

jdman wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Hey JDman are you here to debate or just taunt people?

didn't take long for me to figure out this person is not real.

simmer down nancy,

Just cause i dont have the same thinking as you does not make my point of view wrong.

yeah it does cause your thinking as stated in this thread is not based on any facts at all.

jdman jdman's picture

Fidel wrote:

Yes I think we were trying to make him feel like an adult worthwhile talking to. Obviously he's having none of it.

Yes, you are right, calling me a troll is very adult like of you, sorry.

Hoodeet

Petulant.  Troll is too sophisticated a term, imo.

 

 

 

Winston

NorthReport wrote:

How long were the NDP at 40% in the polls in the 80s?

Never.

We led in the mid-30s for a short while in 1987, but that was about it.

Our peak in support was early in 1991, before the lustre had come off Bob Rae and Audrey McLaughlin.  One poll showed us at 41%, but by the end of the year, that was ancient history.

socialdemocrati...

Probably best to ignore him. If he thinks the Conservatives are managing the economy properly, it's obvious he lives in a parallel universe anyway. Record deficits, persistent unemployment, and rising inequality.

(Yeah, I'm still here. Lurking.)

jdman jdman's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Probably best to ignore him. If he thinks the Conservatives are managing the economy properly, it's obvious he lives in a parallel universe anyway. Record deficits, persistent unemployment, and rising inequality.

(Yeah, I'm still here. Lurking.)

 

what part of the majority of Canadians voted for a strong, stable government dont you get? We, the people of Canada voted for the CPC, fact. So dont be all pissy with me, because you lost the election.

So...lurk away.

 

Ippurigakko

jdman, nope, CPC isnt majority, only 39%, it is not enough strong. And 60% don't vote Harper AT ALL!

 

Tommy_Paine

Issues of corruption are funny.  I wouldn't use the idea of "tipping point" as much as it comes to "the straw that breaks the camel's back".  Timing has everything to do with it, too, as does hubris.

 As the article above points out, there are lots of straws on the camel right now.  And not all of them are dead issues either-- they can still add wieght. 

As for Hubris, I think the Conservatives are victims of believing their own P.R.  Their majority, in terms of raw numbers is pretty thin, yet Harper is spending political capital as if he had a lot of it to spend.  The numbers indicate that he should be governing almost as if he had a minority again.  He really doesn't have room to piss too many people off, yet blindly on they go.

The event that really shatters things won't be a big one, it could be very small.  But if any of it hits and sticks on Harper himself, then it's game over at that point. 

jdman jdman's picture

Ippurigakko wrote:
jdman, nope, CPC isnt majority, only 39%, it is not enough strong. And 60% don't vote Harper AT ALL!

 

Ok i will slow down so you can understand me....

39% won the election with a majority.

Mulcair got 25% of the 50% of eligible NDP voters to vote for him.After what the 3rd or 4th vote? Are you saying he is illegitimate as well?

didnt think so.

Winston

Winston wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

How long were the NDP at 40% in the polls in the 80s?

Never.

We led in the mid-30s for a short while in 1987, but that was about it.

Our peak in support was early in 1991, before the lustre had come off Bob Rae and Audrey McLaughlin.  One poll showed us at 41%, but by the end of the year, that was ancient history.

I wanted to add that I think the current circumstances are markedly different than those of the late 80s/early 90s.  Those peaks in support (in 1987 and 1991, respectively) tended to be rapidly fluctuating. were very short-lived, and fell back as quickly as they grew.

As was menitoned earlier, we led the polls for a time in 1987, leading Broadbent to foolishly predict that the Liberals were going to die, leaving a 2-party NDP/Tory political marketplace in Canada (it looks like he may have been right, but his prediction was about 25 years too soon!).  In the lead-up to the 1988 election, we were polling slightly ahead of the Liberals at 27%, winning 20% on election day.

By contrast, in today's climate, the NDP has been able to maintain support at about a 27-28% floor for nearly a year, despite the death of Jack and a neverending leadership race that did not interest the public.  The polling numbers for the NDP have been pretty much static since May 2011, staying within a rather tight 28-32 band.  Unlike as was the case in 1987, it appears that the current NDP support levels have some staying power.  We may well now be in a political climate where our vote FLOOR is in the high-20s. Some pollsters (EKOS, for example) have recently put our vote CEILING in the 50s.

What is different this time?  Frankly, it's Québec.  Our ability to actually win seats there last election made us, at last, a truly national party.  With the Liberals having negligible support outside the West Island and the Tories hated in Québec, the argument could actually be made that the NDP is the only party left that truly qualifies as pan-federal.  

The second thing that is different this time, however I believe it to be of much lower importance, is that the Liberals are truly behind us now.  While the Broadbent spikes showed the POTENTIAL of us surpassing the Liberals, today it is a REALITY.  Is this new reality set in stone?  No, clearly it is possible for the third-place party to vault past the second (we did it after all), but as Broadbent's chimeric experience shows, this is a lot more difficult to accomplish than merely having a couple of favourable poll results between elections.

At this point, win or lose in 2015, I believe the NDP's continued strong presence is secure.  The only thing that might put this into jeopardy would be if we were unable to secure the Québec gains, a possibility which is appearing less and less likely.

The more dangerous (and, unfortunately, more likely) threat to the NDP's support would be a continued Tory presence at the Federal level, coupled with a Péquiste government in Québec.  I think we in English Canada need to wake up to the fact that the best "winning conditions" for Québec's secession are a continued Harper government.  I am beginning to wonder if this is not, in fact, Harper's endgame: an indepedent Québec and a separate western WASPland, rich in oil, that Christian Conservatives can govern in perpetuity.

Unionist

jdman wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Would it be possible not to let a troll derail a thread quite so easily? Either call him rude names or ignore him. Just don't take it seriously. Please.

 

Right.... I am a troll because i didnt drink the "orange crush" Kool-aid? Mmkk...

So let me get this strait, if i do not jerk off Tommy Mulcair, i am a troll.....

If i dont bash the cons, i am a troll.....

If i dont piss and moan about military purchases, i ama troll....

If i dont agree with you....I am a troll....

 

Am i missing anything?

Just one thing. Human companionship. But that's ok. Everyone in Harper's cabinet has the same problem.

Unionist

Winston wrote:
I am beginning to wonder if this is not, in fact, Harper's endgame: an indepedent Québec and a separate western WASPland, rich in oil, that Christian Conservatives can govern in perpetuity.

It's a scenario which, for selfish reasons, sounds good to me. If it's good for Albertans too, maybe it's the way to go.

 

jdman jdman's picture

Just one thing. Human companionship. But that's ok. Everyone in Harper's cabinet has the same problem.

 

Not sure i am following you, i have 4 kids, and a wife, so i have more than enough companionship...