Trudeau in trouble, trailing NPD in Papineau according to CROP, Quebec's gold pollster - Sep 17

287 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

DaveW wrote:

So, without getting into all the charges and counter-charges over polling numbers, which by definition cannot be resolved until Oct. 19th:

1. in 2011 there was a three-way race in Papineau

2. one of those 3 parties has collapsed

3. its votes (10,000+) will  go somewhere.

Do the math: are ex-Bloc voters more likely to vote Justin, to abstain, to go elsewhere, or ....

to vote for the anti-Harper centre-left NDP led by soft nationalist Mulcair, who are currently sitting on a massive lead across Quebec and Montreal?

I know what I conclude about that.

This Huff piece covered most of the angles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/20/papineau-trudeau_n_8167140.html

I'm largely on the same page.

I know I'm repeating myself, but...

[url=Donate">https://secure.ndp.ca/riding13/index.php?riding=24055&language=e][=... to Anne's campaign![/color][/url]

Just do it!!!

trotwood73

The campaign in Papineau (and in Québec in general) has gotten very ugly in the past week over the niqab issue:

(Image source: Twitter)

lagatta

I am just so furious. Anne's BA is in Sociology and Feminist Studies.

Here is a story about Anne standing for election with two teenage daughters:

http://magazinemuses.com/2015/09/02/anne-lagace-dowson-pour-ses-filles/

Hardly a woman who favours female submission!

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta wrote:

I am just so furious. Anne's BA is in Sociology and Feminist Studies.

Here is a story about Anne standing for election with two teenage daughters:

http://magazinemuses.com/2015/09/02/anne-lagace-dowson-pour-ses-filles/

Hardly a woman who favours female submission!

Dowson is exactly the type of person we want more of in the House -- just look at the things she has said over the years

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Do something real.

Donate to Anne's campaign!

[url=https://secure.ndp.ca/riding13/index.php?riding=24055&language=e]JUST DO IT![/url]

Get rid of that Justin Trudeau joker once and for all!

Thank you.

 

Done.  Twenty-five bucks.

Thank you, mark_alfred.

I think the time for talk is over. Please send tax-deductible contributions to Anne's campaign. What a cost-effective way to make history! Show Trudeau the door. He has nothing to offer Papineau, or Canada for that matter.

Just DO IT!!

 

Northern PoV

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what insight this parable displays that is not present in the actual events. Please enlighten me.

Sorry it did not meet your literary standards.  It was an atempt to point out the infantile level of debate and attitude going on here on this thread with many folks aiming at the wrong target.  Harper is the enemy and this kind of partisanship among the opposition is enabling Harper's return to power.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Harper is the enemy and this kind of partisanship among the opposition is enabling Harper's return to power.

I'm unclear why the NDP or Libs have to publically proclaim their interest in collaboration prior to the election.

If Harper wins a majority then none of it would matter.  And if he doesn't, then is there some reason why the NDP and the Libs (and heck, even maybe the Greens) can't mend fences after the fact?  This recurring trope that the NDP and the Libs have to hug it out four weeks prior to the election or else STEPHEN HARPER WINS isn't really making much sense to me.

quizzical

making the differences in our political preferences for this election sound like the war between the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland is seriously silly!!!!

and just doing it to try and silence NDP supporters is even sillier.

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Harper is the enemy and this kind of partisanship among the opposition is enabling Harper's return to power.

I'm unclear why the NDP or Libs have to publically proclaim their interest in collaboration prior to the election.

If Harper wins a majority then none of it would matter.  And if he doesn't, then is there some reason why the NDP and the Libs (and heck, even maybe the Greens) can't mend fences after the fact?  This recurring trope that the NDP and the Libs have to hug it out four weeks prior to the election or else STEPHEN HARPER WINS isn't really making much sense to me.

Maybe if Justin Trudeau simply stopped saying "I will never ally with the anti-Christ Tom Mulcair!!", that would be good enough. Michael Ignatieff ruled out coalitions, both by his actions in 2008, and by his words in 2011, and he was justly flushed down the toilet, from which may he never emerge. Justin will suffer the same fate. He doesn't need to say, "I love you!". All he has to say is that destroying Harper is a greater aim than his own pathetic little Liberal ambitions. That will be good enough, don't you think?

 

Sean in Ottawa

We all get that they are different parties. One I have voted for all my adult life and the other I would never vote for.

This does not mean that they cannot be mature enough to admit agreement on some things when it is painfully obvious that the difference is being contrived.

On some issue there are not three options there is yes or no. When you have three parties and two options you will have any tow parties close to agreement every time. They may be a different combination of parties but all the same. More complicated issues will create more than two options but for many things there will be agreement.

To be so petty, so immature to pretend a significant disagreement when there is little room for one is irritating.

Whether or not you need an expensive warplane like this does not allow many options other than yes or no.  don't see either the Liberals or the NDP really saying if you fix the process we are going to end up potentially back with this choice. So -- the difference is all rhetoric.

This crap sure does not help the voting rate now does it?

terrytowel

Stockholm wrote:

This I gotta see. Margaret Trudeau pounding the pavement in Villeray and Park Extension...reminding all those trendies of the good old days of the "Maggie and Pierre show". Honestly I can't think of anything more likely to drive DOWN support for Justin Trudeau than having Margaret Trudeau campaign for him in Papineau 

Well she is hitting the streets today for Marc Garneau (she is the one with the hat) in the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Westmount

 

Pondering

lol, well I don't think he is in danger of losing his seat so I guess she's sweetly harmless.

Northern PoV

Pondering wrote:

lol, well I don't think he is in danger of losing his seat so I guess she's sweetly harmless.

Of course you are referring to Marc but this thread (started in the days of yore) titled with an absurd premise based an a soon discredited poll... just part of the attack strategy that failed and now has backfired. 

Don't believe the polls.  Harper and his election-cheating, voter-suppressing engine is in high gear.

Vote ABC. (I already did.)

 

 

pookie

Northern PoV wrote:

Pondering wrote:

lol, well I don't think he is in danger of losing his seat so I guess she's sweetly harmless.

Of course you are referring to Marc but this thread (started in the days of yore) titled with an absurd premise based an a soon discredited poll... just part of the attack strategy that failed and now has backfired. 

Don't believe the polls.  Harper and his election-cheating, voter-suppressing engine is in high gear.

Vote ABC. (I already did.)

 

 

Ain't that the truth.

Debater

Northern PoV wrote:

Pondering wrote:

lol, well I don't think he is in danger of losing his seat so I guess she's sweetly harmless.

Of course you are referring to Marc but this thread (started in the days of yore) titled with an absurd premise based an a soon discredited poll... just part of the attack strategy that failed and now has backfired. 

Don't believe the polls.  Harper and his election-cheating, voter-suppressing engine is in high gear.

Vote ABC. (I already did.)

1.  Yes, I agree with you that the Papineau stunt that the NDP pulled was a sign that their campaign was going off the rails.  The NDP operatives didn't seem to realize how bad & unprincipled it made the NDP look for Le Devoir to catch them removing 3 pages from the polling document.

2. And Double Yes.  Never, ever underestimate Harper.  That man is a cockroach and will do everything in his power to steal this election through his "Fair" Elections Act.  People should never assume he is going to lose.  I've seen Liberals & NDPers make this mistake too many times.

pookie

I don't think there's been an actual poll reference on this thread since page 1 or something.

308.com has Papineau as 85% leaning red with JT at 48%.

Debater

I believe 308.com has Papineau as 95% chance of a Liberal win, and about 50% of the vote.

Too Close To Call has Papineau as 100% chance of a Liberal win, with about 46% of the vote.

Northern PoV

OK ... I could not resist reviving this thread to post this headline.

Karmic schadenfreude anyone?

"Duceppe and Mulcair in tight races to win their seats"

Cody87

Northern PoV wrote:

OK ... I could not resist reviving this thread to post this headline.

Karmic schadenfreude anyone?

"Duceppe and Mulcair in tight races to win their seats"

You forgot the link

http://montrealgazette.com/news/national/duceppe-and-mulcair-in-tight-ra...

Edit: on another board yesterday I predicted Mulcair has about 60% chance to win his seat. I do expect the Gagnier scandal to move votes, so I'd give him 75% now.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Sounds like Mulcair is in for a tough time because he didn't get out the pitchfork and torches over the niqab, and Duceppe is back in the game because he did.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Sounds like Mulcair is in for a tough time because he didn't get out the pitchfork and torches over the niqab, and Duceppe is back in the game because he did.

If that is so it is because the NDP didn't give people something important enough to vote for therefore didn't earn their loyalty. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

You mean they never mentioned anything more important than the niqab, or if they did, how did the niqab become more important?

bekayne

Cody87 wrote:

Northern PoV wrote:

OK ... I could not resist reviving this thread to post this headline.

Karmic schadenfreude anyone?

"Duceppe and Mulcair in tight races to win their seats"

You forgot the link

http://montrealgazette.com/news/national/duceppe-and-mulcair-in-tight-ra...

Edit: on another board yesterday I predicted Mulcair has about 60% chance to win his seat. I do expect the Gagnier scandal to move votes, so I'd give him 75% now.

That story is based on projections, not polls. Do they have editors at the Gazette?

gadar

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Sounds like Mulcair is in for a tough time because he didn't get out the pitchfork and torches over the niqab, and Duceppe is back in the game because he did.

If that is so it is because the NDP didn't give people something important enough to vote for therefore didn't earn their loyalty. 

Standing up for civil liberties is not important enough?

Sean in Ottawa

The niqab is an emotional issue apparently.

It certainly is not a rational one.

Many Canadians have poor instioncts it seems when it comes to human rights -- and that is worrisome.

gadar

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The niqab is an emotional issue apparently.

It certainly is not a rational one.

Many Canadians have poor instioncts it seems when it comes to human rights -- and that is worrisome.

Majority canadians have never had any regard for minority rights, its just an illusion. Especially when it comes to visible minorities. I have always believed that contempt for PET that we see in the Con Canada is not for his policies like NEP but it is because of the Charter.

Sean in Ottawa

gadar wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The niqab is an emotional issue apparently.

It certainly is not a rational one.

Many Canadians have poor instioncts it seems when it comes to human rights -- and that is worrisome.

Majority canadians have never had any regard for minority rights, its just an illusion. Especially when it comes to visible minorities. I have always believed that contempt for PET that we see in the Con Canada is not for his policies like NEP but it is because of the Charter.

I think you are making unsupportable generalizations.

There is a lot of support for minority rights among many Canadians and for the Charter as well.

I assume when you say majority you mean white people?

All majority Canadians may have privilege -- all live in a society that disadvantages minorities. But this does not mean that all of these people don't have regard for minority rights. they may misunderstand their privilege but I do not think that there is no desire to see minority rights protected.

I think your description may apply to a quarter to a third of Canadians (still a huge number) but this is not all majority Canadians.

Northern PoV

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 Duceppe is back in the game because he did.

actually Duceppe is in far more trouble - I doubt Mulcair will lose his seat (if he does its a Trudeau majority-i.e. not likely)

gadar

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

gadar wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The niqab is an emotional issue apparently.

It certainly is not a rational one.

Many Canadians have poor instioncts it seems when it comes to human rights -- and that is worrisome.

Majority canadians have never had any regard for minority rights, its just an illusion. Especially when it comes to visible minorities. I have always believed that contempt for PET that we see in the Con Canada is not for his policies like NEP but it is because of the Charter.

I think you are making unsupportable generalizations.

There is a lot of support for minority rights among many Canadians and for the Charter as well.

I assume when you say majority you mean white people?

All majority Canadians may have privilege -- all live in a society that disadvantages minorities. But this does not mean that all of these people don't have regard for minority rights. they may misunderstand their privilege but I do not think that there is no desire to see minority rights protected.

I think your description may apply to a quarter to a third of Canadians (still a huge number) but this is not all majority Canadians.

Oops I meant "majority of the canadians". Sorry for the confusion. Didnt mean that all white people dont support minority rights. And i can speak from experience that a lot of visible minorities are apathetic when it comes to protecting human rights. Different groups only care when it hits closer to home. Whats even worse is that there are people who complain when their rights are under threat but actively campaign agaianst another groups rights. It is the most infuriating thing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

gadar wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Sounds like Mulcair is in for a tough time because he didn't get out the pitchfork and torches over the niqab, and Duceppe is back in the game because he did.

If that is so it is because the NDP didn't give people something important enough to vote for therefore didn't earn their loyalty. 

Standing up for civil liberties is not important enough?

No. And besides, everyone knows ONLY the Liberals support minoroity rights and have championed them; ask a Liberal, they'll tell you so!

gadar

Arthur Cramer wrote:

No. And besides, everyone knows ONLY the Liberals support minoroity rights and have championed them; ask a Liberal, they'll tell you so!

Seriously man. I can understand that you are angry, but this? I didnt deserve the snark.

Cody87

gadar wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Sounds like Mulcair is in for a tough time because he didn't get out the pitchfork and torches over the niqab, and Duceppe is back in the game because he did.

If that is so it is because the NDP didn't give people something important enough to vote for therefore didn't earn their loyalty. 

Standing up for civil liberties is not important enough?

I believe what Pondering means to say is that the NDP hasn't given people something important enough to vote for that the Liberals aren't also giving.

I know, I know, the Liberals voted for C51 with amendments, where the NDP voted against, so the NDP is better on this issue. I get it. Trudeau has come out forcefully against every other attack on our civil liberties both before and after C51 (Charter of Quebec values, Niqab, stripping citizenship, etc). Not to mention Trudeau's obvious pride in the Charter. The NDP isn't the only party willing to stand up for civil liberties.

Ciabatta2

Cody87 wrote:

I know, I know, the Liberals voted for C51 with amendments, where the NDP voted against, so the NDP is better on this issue. I get it. Trudeau has come out forcefully against every other attack on our civil liberties both before and after C51 (Charter of Quebec values, Niqab, stripping citizenship, etc). Not to mention Trudeau's obvious pride in the Charter. The NDP isn't the only party willing to stand up for civil liberties.

Except that, currently, it is the only party.  The Liberals, when it counted, backed the erosion of civil liberties. In the house.  In legislation.  Harper's legislation.  (Plus, the Liberal policies re: online rights and digital media are pretty slim too.)  There is no shame in voting Liberal and no shame in not having C51 be an individual policy priority (c51 aint big for me, personally) but there is some in contorting the facts the support one's political preference.  Try to be more honest with yourself next time, or if you can't maybe don't wade in.

nicky

As for the Liberals' supposed liberal human rights record: Justin gets a lot of credit for proposing the legalization of marijuana. But is is overlooked that he voted for virtually all the Conservative Tough on Crime agenda, including draconian minimum sentences. These included a minimum six month jail term for growing more than five marijuana plants.

Needless to say the NDP voted agianst this nonsense.

Jacob Two-Two

I find it hilarious that when ever it gets shoved in a Liberal supporter's face that the party has been the enemy of freedom on all fronts, they always respond with "but Justin said..."

Yes, he said. Saying is nothing. Doing is everything. Liberals always talk in progressive language but they walk with a conservative gait.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Try to be more honest with yourself next time, or if you can't maybe don't wade in.

If Liberal supporters were capable of being honest with themselves, they wouldn't be Liberal supporters.

Sean in Ottawa

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I find it hilarious that when ever it gets shoved in a Liberal supporter's face that the party has been the enemy of freedom on all fronts, they always respond with "but Justin said..."

Yes, he said. Saying is nothing. Doing is everything. Liberals always talk in progressive language but they walk with a conservative gait.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Try to be more honest with yourself next time, or if you can't maybe don't wade in.

If Liberal supporters were capable of being honest with themselves, they wouldn't be Liberal supporters.

I hear that is the first step to recovery

Pages