2019 Polls

481 posts / 0 new
Last post
bekayne
2019 Polls
bekayne

New Nanos

Lib  37.6% / Con  36.6% / NDP 12.8%

And some interesting leadership numbers

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYTJhNmM3ZWQtYjc5Mi00NTRmLTgyZWItO...

JeffWells

Iceberg dead ahead, NDP. Sinking, no doubt you'll blame the masses in steerage who had bad feelings about your hard starboard turn.

josh

NDP are now closer to the Greens than they are to 20%. 

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP has reason to be concerned. This is a point that no leader has come back from.

To describe this place you have to consider a couple things about the historic lows that happened previously:

The first under seven percent was the 1993 result and the leader did not get a second kick at the can. The second was Alexa, she did get a second chance after only getting 11% but this was a gain of 4 points from the previous election. The third was Alexa again declining back to 8.5% (still better than her predecessor) but she did not get another try. For the last 15 years the party was doing better, Mulcair led the party to a decline that was still much higher than this and did not get a second try.

This certainly is a bad polling result to have less than a year to an election.

With the distribution of support it would likely bring the NDP to the lowest number of seats ever. Possibly a wipeout.

With the Greens at 8% there would be speculation as to whether the party would ever rise again. This would not be unfair. Should E May retire and that party move to a sustainability party -- more left social sustainability as well as environmental, the NDP would have no reason to exist.

The good news would come from an effective merger with the Green party. If that is the place environmentalists and those left of the Liberals end up, it would be in a better position to make a difference. The NDP once could have been that party, and perhaps it may get a shot in the future, but the Greens could easily end up getting their chance.

This may be a lot worse for the party than it is for the principles and ideas within the party that many here care about.

I apologize to the loyalists here -- my loyalty is more to the ideas and principles than it is to any stucture or party. I want an electoral representation of better ideas than what we get from the capitalist parties. I have chosen the NDP as the best chance of that so far but if it does not earn that, then it is fair to look for other vehicles. I am sure I am not the only one thinking this and that is why Singh and the NDP are in this much trouble.

JKR

Nanos: January 25, 2019:

Liberals: 37.6%

Conservatives: 36.6%

NDP: 12.8%

Greens: 8.1%

BQ: 3.0%

People's: 1.2%

 

bekayne

JKR wrote:

People's: 1.2%

In 1993, The National Party got 1.4%, but that was without a leader in Parliament and not being part of the debates.

JeffWells

I suppose I'm optimistic, because I believe there is a huge potential constituency on the left which is going woefully, even historically, underserved by Canadian politics. But IMO one of three things need to happen: the NDP bottoms out and reconstitutes itself according to its first principles; May is replaced and the Green Party seizes the vacuum on the left; something entirely new arises.

All I know is there is a tremendous vacuum, and something will move to fill it after the election.

Sean in Ottawa

JeffWells wrote:

I suppose I'm optimistic, because I believe there is a huge potential constituency on the left which is going woefully, even historically, underserved by Canadian politics. But IMO one of three things need to happen: the NDP bottoms out and reconstitutes itself according to its first principles; May is replaced and the Green Party seizes the vacuum on the left; something entirely new arises.

All I know is there is a tremendous vacuum, and something will move to fill it after the election.

This is how I feel. Wherever the left goes will become what that NDP is or could be with or without the name. Better to have it gone than perform badly becuase the appearance of the there being no void slows the process of filling it.

As it is either the NDP or the Greens provide a potential vehicle but a new one can be created.

As I have said here before, I would love to see something based on the premiss of social and environmental sustainability. I feel the NDP was supposed to be about social sustainability and the Greens about environmental sustainability. Put both concepts together and you have a really important political idea.

I would even like a name: the Sustainability Party.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

As I have said here before, I would love to see something based on the premiss of social and environmental sustainability. I feel the NDP was supposed to be about social sustainability and the Greens about environmental sustainability. Put both concepts together and you have a really important political idea.

I would even like a name: the Sustainability Party.

Yes to the first, and no to that particular name change. 

A couple of my biggest priorities: 

1. Oppose the Conservatives at all costs. There's nothing good going to ever come out of the Con agenda that we can support. If they sount like they have a good idea, they're lying.

2. Learn to be more inclusive of new ideas.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

As I have said here before, I would love to see something based on the premiss of social and environmental sustainability. I feel the NDP was supposed to be about social sustainability and the Greens about environmental sustainability. Put both concepts together and you have a really important political idea.

I would even like a name: the Sustainability Party.

Yes to the first, and no to that particular name change. 

A couple of my biggest priorities: 

1. Oppose the Conservatives at all costs. There's nothing good going to ever come out of the Con agenda that we can support. If they sount like they have a good idea, they're lying.

2. Learn to be more inclusive of new ideas.

I do not know if you are a Liberal but truly spoken like a Liberal.

One of the tactical mistakes from the last election is Mulcair did exactly that. He fought the Conservatives while getting reamed by the Liberals.

We should fight right wing opinions and shell games and political opponents: this includes if they are being advocated by the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Greens or within the NDP.

Mulcair blew the last election arguably becuase he did not call out Trudeau on his bullshit regarding the middle class. Mulcair could have introduced some reality to the conversation by speaking about what the median income Canadains earn is and how the Liberal Middle class tax cut soared well above that. Instead he campaigned agaisnt the losing party and did not see that he was losing to the Liberals.

It is not the NDP's role to clear the road for the Liberals it is their role to challenge anyone between them and government. Otherwise, they should not run. People in 2015 were not hoodwinked by the Conservatives -- a third wanted those policies. It was the Liberals who most misrepresented their program. It was unconsionable that Mulcair did not challenge that. In the next election it may again be the Liberals who try misrepresentation. In that eleciton the Conservatives will not be certain to be on the defensive like they were in 2015. In the upcoming election the NDP will have to fight on two fronts at least both Liberals and Conservatives -- in a battle for survival.

Pardon me for suggesting that anyone who thinks the NDP should concentrate on only one of them is probably an advocate for the other.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

As I have said here before, I would love to see something based on the premiss of social and environmental sustainability. I feel the NDP was supposed to be about social sustainability and the Greens about environmental sustainability. Put both concepts together and you have a really important political idea.

I would even like a name: the Sustainability Party.

Yes to the first, and no to that particular name change. 

A couple of my biggest priorities: 

1. Oppose the Conservatives at all costs. There's nothing good going to ever come out of the Con agenda that we can support. If they sount like they have a good idea, they're lying.

2. Learn to be more inclusive of new ideas.

I do not know if you are a Liberal but truly spoken like a Liberal.

One of the tactical mistakes from the last election is Mulcair did exactly that. He fought the Conservatives while getting reamed by the Liberals.

We should fight right wing opinions and shell games and political opponents: this includes if they are being advocated by the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Greens or within the NDP.

Mulcair blew the last election arguably becuase he did not call out Trudeau on his bullshit regarding the middle class. Mulcair could have introduced some reality to the conversation by speaking about what the median income Canadains earn is and how the Liberal Middle class tax cut soared well above that. Instead he campaigned agaisnt the losing party and did not see that he was losing to the Liberals.

It is not the NDP's role to clear the road for the Liberals it is their role to challenge anyone between them and government. Otherwise, they should not run. People in 2015 were not hoodwinked by the Conservatives -- a third wanted those policies. It was the Liberals who most misrepresented their program. It was unconsionable that Mulcair did not challenge that. In the next election it may again be the Liberals who try misrepresentation. In that eleciton the Conservatives will not be certain to be on the defensive like they were in 2015. In the upcoming election the NDP will have to fight on two fronts at least both Liberals and Conservatives -- in a battle for survival.

Pardon me for suggesting that anyone who thinks the NDP should concentrate on only one of them is probably an advocate for the other.

I'm fully aware of your position but it's a catch-22 that we can't avoid. The biggest danger to Canada is allowing the Conseravtives to get back in power. 

How we go about doing that without splitting the left down the middle is the difficult question. Encouragement could perhaps be on the horizon in the US right now as the people begin to accept what they view as socialism in Bernie or Orasio-Cortez and a few others. It's never been anywhere near as acceptable in that country and the effect is sure to carry over the border to Canada. Both our Liberals and the NDP will need to  race to claim those people. The bright light on the horizon would be something similar to the destruction of the Cons in the same way they were destroyed in 93.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

How we go about doing that without splitting the left down the middle is the difficult question.

Thank you for clarifying that you are a Liberal giving advice to the NDP that is in the interest of the Liberal party.

No NDP supporter would make this conclusion. Those who think there is a left that includes the Liberals are either Liberals or Conservatives accusing the Liberals of being left.

One of the most right wing governments in Canadian history was in 1993. Real NDP supporters tend to view this as a function of the NDP losing party status and influence as a threat to the Liberals. They consider the greatest threat of a right wing government comes from a Liberal party faced with a right wing party with no fear from the left. NDP supporters consider the loss of party status for the NDP to be the greatest threat.

Those who think the NDP are too far to the right are no longer NDP supporters and may vote for smaller parties or not vote.

Those who think that losing party status is worth it if you elect Liberals instead of Conservatives are called Liberals.

Let me remind you that your so-called catch-22 situation was a product of Trudeau's broken promise on electoral reform.

***

The NDP's number one priority now, if you are a supporter, is survival. Those who say otherwise are bullshitting if they pretend to be NDP.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Those who think that losing party status is worth it if you elect Liberals instead of Conservatives are called Liberals.

I didn't say it was, I said that the number 1 priority was to stop the Conservatives. That calls for grabbing the the Cons that desert the sinking ship and do it without splitting the left vote. This is pretty basic logic Sean.

 

Quote:
The NDP's number one priority now, if you are a supporter, is survival. Those who say otherwise are bullshitting if they pretend to be NDP.

Yeah o.k. But talking the way Kropotkin talks, for one example, is not representative of anything close to survival. And he, and some others of the old guard don't want to talk about socially responsible capitalism because they call it an 'oxymoron'.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Tell me Monto the fake NDP'er. What have you done on the by-election in Nanaimo and why are you  on this board harassing left wing posters instead of working on E-day. Elections 101 is get out the vote and you are here being an self appointed voice of the left on E-day. LMAO

Sean in Ottawa

Yes - good point. Most of us are too far away to help but he says he is voting today so lives in the riding.

But also provincial and federal is not the same. Even a federal Liberal might vote NDP provincially given the provincial Liberals appear closer to federal Conservatives so often.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Those who think that losing party status is worth it if you elect Liberals instead of Conservatives are called Liberals.

I didn't say it was, I said that the number 1 priority was to stop the Conservatives. That calls for grabbing the the Cons that desert the sinking ship and do it without splitting the left vote. This is pretty basic logic Sean.

 

Quote:
The NDP's number one priority now, if you are a supporter, is survival. Those who say otherwise are bullshitting if they pretend to be NDP.

Yeah o.k. But talking the way Kropotkin talks, for one example, is not representative of anything close to survival. And he, and some others of the old guard don't want to talk about socially responsible capitalism because they call it an 'oxymoron'.

Capitalism as an objective is not socially responsible. Among NDP supporters the only question is how much you might choose to restrain it. Socially responsible capitalism to me sounds like a Liberal concept. an NDP supporter might argue about how far to socialism we could go and still get elected and whether or not that is a reasonable consideration. We don't tend to extoll any specific kind of capitalism. You might want to get out and meet some NDP supporters sometime.

Aristotleded24

montgomery wrote:
The biggest danger to Canada is allowing the Conseravtives to get back in power.

Why? Are you worried that Andrew Scheer is going to sign onto the TPP, allow a trade agreement that thows dairy farmers under the bus, wastes tax dollars on a pipeline to the coast whose economic viability is questionable and facing stiff opposition along its route, and throw Canada Post workers under the bus in a bitter labour dispute? Justin Trudeau has already done that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JeffWells wrote:

I suppose I'm optimistic, because I believe there is a huge potential constituency on the left which is going woefully, even historically, underserved by Canadian politics. But IMO one of three things need to happen: the NDP bottoms out and reconstitutes itself according to its first principles; May is replaced and the Green Party seizes the vacuum on the left; something entirely new arises.

All I know is there is a tremendous vacuum, and something will move to fill it after the election.

It's hard to understand why May insists on hanging on to the GPC leadership.  She's had the job for donkey's years, has never won any seat for the party other than her own-and she appears to have made some sort of agreement with the LPC not to try to gain any more in exchange for the LPC giving her a perpetual "leader's courtesy".  She has refused to try to connect with the social movements, even though those are the only area of the progressive sphere of politics that has shown any life or passion since the Nineties.  She did not support the Quebec students.  She's made no effort ever to connect with labour.  She doesn't even seem-correct me if I'm wrong about this-to be interested in the LEAP.  May seems utterly uninterested in expanding the GPC's vote base past the largely imaginary "PC's with recycling baskets" demographic her party has always treasured above all others.

She get's a leader's courtesy as a leader of...what, exactly? 

May can fairly be called the monarch of an imaginary realm.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

May has always liked the idea of a Small Party.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

May has always liked the idea of a Small Party.

The kind where she doesn't even have to put out snacks.

brookmere

Ken Burch wrote:
she appears to have made some sort of agreement with the LPC not to try to gain any more in exchange for the LPC giving her a perpetual "leader's courtesy".

In fact the Liberals have stood aside for May just once, in 2008. Riding was Central Nova and it was won by Conservative Peter MacKay.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The NDP has reason to be concerned. This is a point that no leader has come back from.

To describe this place you have to consider a couple things about the historic lows that happened previously:

The first under seven percent was the 1993 result and the leader did not get a second kick at the can. The second was Alexa, she did get a second chance after only getting 11% but this was a gain of 4 points from the previous election. The third was Alexa again declining back to 8.5% (still better than her predecessor) but she did not get another try. For the last 15 years the party was doing better, Mulcair led the party to a decline that was still much higher than this and did not get a second try.

This certainly is a bad polling result to have less than a year to an election.

With the distribution of support it would likely bring the NDP to the lowest number of seats ever. Possibly a wipeout.

With the Greens at 8% there would be speculation as to whether the party would ever rise again. This would not be unfair. Should E May retire and that party move to a sustainability party -- more left social sustainability as well as environmental, the NDP would have no reason to exist.

The good news would come from an effective merger with the Green party. If that is the place environmentalists and those left of the Liberals end up, it would be in a better position to make a difference. The NDP once could have been that party, and perhaps it may get a shot in the future, but the Greens could easily end up getting their chance.

This may be a lot worse for the party than it is for the principles and ideas within the party that many here care about.

I apologize to the loyalists here -- my loyalty is more to the ideas and principles than it is to any stucture or party. I want an electoral representation of better ideas than what we get from the capitalist parties. I have chosen the NDP as the best chance of that so far but if it does not earn that, then it is fair to look for other vehicles. I am sure I am not the only one thinking this and that is why Singh and the NDP are in this much trouble.

I certainly agree that the federal party is in trouble. Some of the provincial sections, not so much, and there is a great deal of overlap between the federal and provincial sections, so the party as a whole is not in trouble. After the federal NDP gets decimated, here is how the provincial sections will stand. The BC NDP will still be in charge of the government. The Alberta NDP will have the second-best ever election result in its history (unless the seat count falls below 17). The Ontario NDP will still be in charge of the Official Opposition. There is a chance that the Saskatchewan NDP becomes relevant next year. Sure the federal result will be a setback, but I don't think the case for ditching the NDP as a whole will be that simple and straightforward.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The NDP has reason to be concerned. This is a point that no leader has come back from.

To describe this place you have to consider a couple things about the historic lows that happened previously:

The first under seven percent was the 1993 result and the leader did not get a second kick at the can. The second was Alexa, she did get a second chance after only getting 11% but this was a gain of 4 points from the previous election. The third was Alexa again declining back to 8.5% (still better than her predecessor) but she did not get another try. For the last 15 years the party was doing better, Mulcair led the party to a decline that was still much higher than this and did not get a second try.

This certainly is a bad polling result to have less than a year to an election.

With the distribution of support it would likely bring the NDP to the lowest number of seats ever. Possibly a wipeout.

With the Greens at 8% there would be speculation as to whether the party would ever rise again. This would not be unfair. Should E May retire and that party move to a sustainability party -- more left social sustainability as well as environmental, the NDP would have no reason to exist.

The good news would come from an effective merger with the Green party. If that is the place environmentalists and those left of the Liberals end up, it would be in a better position to make a difference. The NDP once could have been that party, and perhaps it may get a shot in the future, but the Greens could easily end up getting their chance.

This may be a lot worse for the party than it is for the principles and ideas within the party that many here care about.

I apologize to the loyalists here -- my loyalty is more to the ideas and principles than it is to any stucture or party. I want an electoral representation of better ideas than what we get from the capitalist parties. I have chosen the NDP as the best chance of that so far but if it does not earn that, then it is fair to look for other vehicles. I am sure I am not the only one thinking this and that is why Singh and the NDP are in this much trouble.

I certainly agree that the federal party is in trouble. Some of the provincial sections, not so much, and there is a great deal of overlap between the federal and provincial sections, so the party as a whole is not in trouble. After the federal NDP gets decimated, here is how the provincial sections will stand. The BC NDP will still be in charge of the government. The Alberta NDP will have the second-best ever election result in its history (unless the seat count falls below 17). The Ontario NDP will still be in charge of the Official Opposition. There is a chance that the Saskatchewan NDP becomes relevant next year. Sure the federal result will be a setback, but I don't think the case for ditching the NDP as a whole will be that simple and straightforward.

You make strong points. I am not sure of the results we will see over time. I think the point I wanted to make is that a large number of NDP supporters care about the principles and policies more than the structure. When the party is the only choice then it can hold it all together. If other options are there, people may feel differently.

As far as I can tell the valuable part is the ideas, principles and people. If the ideas and principles are better represented elsewhere and the people move there then what is left is a name and not, perhaps the best name anyway. I think the party should not take its members for granted or its position as the only option becuase both can change quickly. I do nto think that the provincial and federal parties depend on each other.

Yes, the NDP has been down before and it was in an existential moment. It is there again now. The party has to make sure that it does not get to this often as any one of these times may not end with survival. The good news for the people is that there is a component of society who want these ideas to be represented and I am confident they will be, even if the party as it is currently structured changes.

I feel the NDP is more disconnected than it needs to be given the possibilities in communication technology allows. This disconnection is between itself and members and itself and potential supporters.

I don't pretend to have all the answers but I certainly feel they are worth looking for.

Debater

January 31, 2019

Mainstreet Research

Trudeau Liberals Hold a Narrow Lead Over Scheer Conservatives

37% - LIBERAL

35% - CONSERVATIVE

12% - NDP

7% - GREEN

4% - PEOPLE'S PARTY

https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/trudeau-liberals-hold-a-narrow-lead-over-scheer-conservatives/

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

brookmere wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
she appears to have made some sort of agreement with the LPC not to try to gain any more in exchange for the LPC giving her a perpetual "leader's courtesy".

In fact the Liberals have stood aside for May just once, in 2008. Riding was Central Nova and it was won by Conservative Peter MacKay.

Running only a nominal campaign in her riding is effectivel the same thing.

NorthReport

For all we know the Singh-led NDP could be doing quite well federally.

All indications are that in Burnaby South Singh is winning handily.

Provincial NDP victory in Nanaimo is a defeat for pollsters

 

On January 28, as the voters in British Columbia’s provincial riding of Nanaimo prepared to vote in a crucial byelection, Mainstreet Research came out with a poll showing the B.C. Liberal candidate ahead by 13 points.

If the byelection had turned out that way, the combined forces of the NDP and the Greens would have lost their one-seat majority.

But that is not what happened. On January 30, the NDP candidate, former federal MP Sheila Malcolmson, won by nearly 10 points. The Mainstreet poll from two days before the vote was wrong. In fact, it was 23 percentage points off the mark.

The B.C. NDP minority government is safe, for now at least. As long as Premier John Horgan can keep the support of the Green Party, and his own caucus, he can stave off a new election.

The Nanaimo result is important because it maintains a certain measure of stability in B.C. politics, at a time when the province has many challenges, not the least of which is to forge a healthier and more respectful relationship with its First Nations.

But the byelection result, so at variance with the most recent poll, is also important for another reason. It should give those of us who play at political punditry pause.

We tend to treat public opinion polling data as solid fact, based on what appears to be a scientific methodology. In reality, polls give us, at best, an incomplete and hazy view of the state of public opinion.

And so, when they depict the challenges facing the political players and the choices facing the electorate, it is dangerous and unfair for journalists and analysts to give excessive weight to polling data.

Do polls accurately tell the current federal political story?

Currently, the pundits’ consensus on the federal political state of affairs is very much poll-driven.

Most recent polls show the Trudeau Liberals neck-and-neck with Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives. Pundits attribute this result to the prime minister’s missteps, such as his ill-fated trip to India, and to public resistance to the Liberal government’s modest carbon tax.

Polls also show the Greens to be on the ascent, somewhat, vis-à-vis their result in the last federal election, which does not quite square with the view that there is widespread backlash against measures to deal with climate change.

As for the New Democrats, most polls have them well below their 2015 election score of just below 20 per cent. Some polls have them in the low teens.

Those numbers have led to the consensus view among professional observers that NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is not catching on with the electorate, does not connect with voters and, overall, is dragging down his party.

There may be some truth to that view. The polls might, in fact, be capturing part of the real picture -- but, at best, it is almost only a small part. Not only are polls merely snapshots in time, they are limited in their view and scope. They can never accurately and fully reflect the complex and multi-layered texture of public opinion.

To know what is going on in the public mind, we who work in what is becoming an endangered profession -- journalism -- must talk to and pay attention to real live members of the public, not just pollsters. And we should pay heed to the issues real people care about, and not focus exclusively on the horse-race numbers, the matter of who’s up, who’s down, who’s ahead and who’s a behind.

The Nanaimo byelection was not an opinion poll. It entailed actual voters making a real choice.

The poll-defying result is a bucket of cold water over the heads of the too-often smug and over-confident pollster community, and it should be a warning to those who base their political analyses to too great a degree on poll numbers.

Headlines after the Mainstreet poll came out two days before the actual vote focused on the fragility of the NDP’s hold on power.

The morning after the byelection, the story, and the conversation around it, had completely changed. The headline in the Vancouver Sun, to cite just one example, read: “NDP tightens grip on power with byelection win."

There are federal byelections coming at the end of February and they, too, just might change the conversation – in this case about the state of play on the federal political stage.

Photo: Sheila Malcolmson/Facebook

Karl Nerenberg has been a journalist and filmmaker for more than 25 years. He is rabble's politics reporter.

Help make rabble sustainable. Please consider supporting our work with a monthly donation. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

http://rabble.ca/news/2019/01/provincial-ndp-victory-nanaimo-defeat-poll...

bekayne

"Pollster", not "pollsters".

brookmere

Ken Burch wrote:
Running only a nominal campaign in her riding is effectivel the same thing.

I think the NDP ran pretty nominal campaigns against Stephen Harper, or May herself for that matter. No party pours resources into ridings it has little hope of winning.

Debater

I find it odd that people are *still* discussing the Central Nova campaign of Elizabeth May a decade later.

R.E.Wood

Quebec poll has NDP at 8. That is wipe-out territory.

LPC 39, CPC 21, Bloc 21, NDP 8, People’s (Bernier) 6, Green 5

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/news-source/le-journal-de-montreal/

josh

Looks like NDP is losing voters to the Bloc.

bekayne

R.E.Wood wrote:

Quebec poll has NDP at 8. That is wipe-out territory.

LPC 39, CPC 21, Bloc 21, NDP 8, People’s (Bernier) 6, Green 5

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/news-source/le-journal-de-montreal/

Brosseau would probably survive in a Roch La Salle type situation. That's it.

Debater

Alexandre Boulerice is personally popular in Rosemont-La Petite Patrie -- I think he may be re-elected.

But obviously many of the other NDP MP's in Quebec are vulnerable.  When Mulcair said several NDP MP's told him they are not planning to run again this year, maybe that includes a couple of Quebec MP's?

Debater

R.E.Wood wrote:

Quebec poll has NDP at 8. That is wipe-out territory.

LPC 39, CPC 21, Bloc 21, NDP 8, People’s (Bernier) 6, Green 5

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/news-source/le-journal-de-montreal/

Leger now has the 55-page report up:

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Politique-QC-publication-le-2-f%C3%A9vrier-2019.pdf

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP is in trouble. It should embrace the fact that it has little to lose and stop playing imaginary safe when it is anything but.

Truly, instead of denial, it would be better to make changes needed.

The election is still a few months away, although it seems we are in election mode now. There is time for changes to make a difference.

A communications strategy that has good policy at the heart of it is more important than an endless leadership process.

Debater

NANOS - Feb 5, 2019

38% LIB

36% CON

13% NDP

8% GRN

3% BQ

2% PPC

http://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-01-Political-Package-Slides.pdf

montgomery

Debater wrote:

NANOS - Feb 5, 2019

38% LIB

36% CON

13% NDP

8% GRN

3% BQ

2% PPC

http://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-01-Political-Package-Slides.pdf

The Liberals have stolen the Left! It would be well worth closely examining the reason why they got away with it.

In the US, personal appearance is likely the most important consideration for a politician to be successful. That is, inasmuch as a politician with a dowdy appearance is at a huge disadvantage. It's likely the reason why Hillary was likely the only candidate on the planet that could be beaten by Trump.

The reason I make that point is not to be sexist or chauvinistic on Hillary, but to point out that it's going to take one hell of a alternative candidate to draw the ladies away from Justin Trudeau. It just needed to be said, and I'm not the first to say it, albeit the first to say it said it more poetically.

josh

The Liberals haven’t stolen the left.  The NDP is not offering a left alternative to steal.

montgomery

josh wrote:

The Liberals haven’t stolen the left.  The NDP is not offering a left alternative to steal.

I can have it either way josh. And thank you for your informed comments on this board, as well as your choice to take the high road. I may not get another opportunity to say how much I've appreciated it! 

I've about had it with the 4 or so belligerent assholes who think they own the only opinions that matter on this board.

R.E.Wood

montgomery wrote:

In the US, personal appearance is likely the most important consideration for a politician to be successful. That is, inasmuch as a politician with a dowdy appearance is at a huge disadvantage. It's likely the reason why Hillary was likely the only candidate on the planet that could be beaten by Trump.

The reason I make that point is not to be sexist or chauvinistic on Hillary, but to point out that it's going to take one hell of a alternative candidate to draw the ladies away from Justin Trudeau. It just needed to be said, and I'm not the first to say it, albeit the first to say it said it more poetically.

OMG.

What would you say about Audrey McLaughin, or Alexa McDonough, or Niki Ashton, or Peggy Nash... or any other principled, intelligent, strong woman who fights for what they believe, in an effort to make their country a better place, despite the asshole judgements from men who try to weaken and diminish them by attacking their looks, rather than their politics?

R.E.Wood

montgomery wrote:

I've about had it with the 4 or so belligerent assholes who think they own the only opinions that matter on this board.

Did you hear the one about the Pot and the Kettle?

swallow swallow's picture

“The ladies” don’t vote for Trudeau because he’s good-looking. Come on. What a ridiculous and dismissive thing to say about women. Wasn’t this place founded as a pro-feminist online space?

Aristotleded24

R.E.Wood wrote:
What would you say about Audrey McLaughin, or Alexa McDonough, or Niki Ashton, or Peggy Nash... or any other principled, intelligent, strong woman who fights for what they believe, in an effort to make their country a better place, despite the asshole judgements from men who try to weaken and diminish them by attacking their looks, rather than their politics?

Right now, I would take Audrey McLaughlin over what is going on now.

montgomery

R.E.Wood wrote:

montgomery wrote:

In the US, personal appearance is likely the most important consideration for a politician to be successful. That is, inasmuch as a politician with a dowdy appearance is at a huge disadvantage. It's likely the reason why Hillary was likely the only candidate on the planet that could be beaten by Trump.

The reason I make that point is not to be sexist or chauvinistic on Hillary, but to point out that it's going to take one hell of a alternative candidate to draw the ladies away from Justin Trudeau. It just needed to be said, and I'm not the first to say it, albeit the first to say it, said it more poetically.

OMG.

What would you say about Audrey McLaughin, or Alexa McDonough, or Niki Ashton, or Peggy Nash... or any other principled, intelligent, strong woman who fights for what they believe, in an effort to make their country a better place, despite the asshole judgements from men who try to weaken and diminish them by attacking their looks, rather than their politics?

All great leaders in their time and I'll second Aristot's motion that Audrey would be a breathe of fresh air right now.

You're trying to play the sexist card again because you can probably turn it into a motherhood issue, and nobody challenges motherhood. 

The idea behind my remarks weren't sexist though, it was directed at Hillary but it could be directed at any  politician that doesn't afford eye appeal to the people in that country, male or female.

And in Canada, the parallel i drew was with Justin Trudeau and how he captured the hearts of women voters who are drawn to good looks over brains. Are you suggesting that wasn't a big part of Justin's winning strategy and appeal? Several of the others have suggested the same thing already, and they likely weren't talking about Justin's sex appeal to LGBTQ's. Ya think?

I little conspicuous that you would try the sexism card so quickly isn't it, uhhhh Wood? Got a bit of that in your own closet Wood? 

 

josh
pietro_bcc

I know no one wants to say it out loud, but Quebec just voted for a party that believes that someone like Jagmeet Singh should be barred from being a police officer, judge or teacher. Given that they think Singh shouldn't be allowed to be a police officer, judge or teacher, do you really believe that these people would be okay with him being a prime minister?

Now I don't believe that the NDP should dump Singh on this basis because Quebec is wrong, but that's the reality.

Debater

josh wrote:

More on the NDP’s Quebec polling woes.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ndp-quebec-polls-1.5006617

According to Grenier's polling model, Alexandre Boulerice is the only Quebec MP who may hang on:

Regardless of how its support is distributed, the NDP would struggle to hold any seat in the province if its support dips into single digits. The CBC Poll Tracker currently projects the party is favoured to win no seats in Quebec and is in contention in only one: Alexandre Boulerice's riding of Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie on the island of Montreal.

bekayne

Debater wrote:

josh wrote:

More on the NDP’s Quebec polling woes.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ndp-quebec-polls-1.5006617

According to Grenier's polling model, Alexandre Boulerice is the only Quebec MP who may hang on:

Regardless of how its support is distributed, the NDP would struggle to hold any seat in the province if its support dips into single digits. The CBC Poll Tracker currently projects the party is favoured to win no seats in Quebec and is in contention in only one: Alexandre Boulerice's riding of Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie on the island of Montreal.

Brosseau could win in spite of the party.

R.E.Wood

montgomery wrote:

You're trying to play the sexist card again because you can probably turn it into a motherhood issue, and nobody challenges motherhood. 

The idea behind my remarks weren't sexist though, it was directed at Hillary but it could be directed at any  politician that doesn't afford eye appeal to the people in that country, male or female.

And in Canada, the parallel i drew was with Justin Trudeau and how he captured the hearts of women voters who are drawn to good looks over brains. Are you suggesting that wasn't a big part of Justin's winning strategy and appeal? Several of the others have suggested the same thing already, and they likely weren't talking about Justin's sex appeal to LGBTQ's. Ya think?

I little conspicuous that you would try the sexism card so quickly isn't it, uhhhh Wood? Got a bit of that in your own closet Wood? 

What a bunch of drivel. You're nothing more than a troll getting his jollies.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Through the lean years Svend Robinson won in spite of the party . He and Libby helped make the brand that Jack turned into seats in Quebec by attracting candidates who seemed to be from the left. Then the centrists in the party squandered it all by reaching for the brass ring with a liberal left campaign under a bland and uninspiring leader.

The party will get wiped out except where the MP's have local on the ground campaigns that are not dependent at all on the central message or campaign. That was Svend's methodology for electoral success.

Pages