Federal political polling - started Saturday, March 26, 2011

124 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lens Solution

Unionist wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

Lens Solution wrote:

Chantal Hebert, John Ivison and others have reported that the NDP and the Bloc both want to defeat Martin Cauchon and Justin Trudeau so that neither one emerges as Liberal leader.  Apparently the BQ is helping the NDP in Outremont, and the NDP is helping the Bloc in Papineau.

Seems to me that Bloc and NDP voters in those ridings would figure this out without any instructions from any hierarchy.

Quite right, Wilf - speaking for yours truly, anyway, who has voted both Bloc (Amir Khadir and later, to my shame and regret, Jacques Léonard) and NDP (Tom Mulcair) - we will do our best to keep Cauchon out. That may be a challenge. But "strategic" voting of this kind is pretty endemic in Québec.

Unionist, aren't you voting BQ in this election as a protest againt Mulcair's comments about Libby Davies last year?

As for Cauchon, as an LGBT person I have some respect for him as the Justice Minister who spoke out in favour of gay marriage, so to me he's better than your average Liberal.  Having him elected wouldn't be the worst thing.  It's the anti-gay ones we most need to keep out.

Stockholm

 

NorthReport wrote:

Harris Decima - March 28, 2011

Ontario

Party / 08 GE / Mar 23 / Mar 28 / Change /

Cons / 39% / 38% / 38% / Down 1%

Libs  / 34% / 37% / 37% / Up 3%

NDP / 18% / 15% / 20% / Up 2%

Correction, the latest HD poll has Liberal support in Ontario at 32% NOT 37%

Centrist

New Abacus poll:

Con - 36% (-2%)

Lib - 27% (+2%)

NDP -  20% (+2%)

BQ - 9% (-2%)

Grn - 8% (+2%)

http://abacusdata.ca/2011/03/28/2502/

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Ok, so here is a question that really doesn't fit this thread, but for the sake of asking, could Justing Trudeau become "Pierre Trudeau" No. 2?

I was inclined to dismiss this possibility; am I missing something?

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Lens Solution

From Abacus:

“Ontario remains an important battleground, and the federalist vote in Quebec is still fragmented.”

In Ontario, the Conservatives and Liberals are statistically tied.  The Conservatives have the support of 39% of decided Ontario voters while the Liberals have 34% of the vote preference.  The NDP trails both with 18%.

Ken Burch

acramer wrote:

Ok, so here is a question that really doesn't fit this thread, but for the sake of asking, could Justing Trudeau become "Pierre Trudeau" No. 2?

I was inclined to dismiss this possibility; am I missing something?

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Justin's ten years too young and he still has hair.

Unionist

Lens Solution wrote:

Unionist, aren't you voting BQ in this election as a protest againt Mulcair's comments about Libby Davies last year?

No - I'm not going to do anything to help the Liberals win. And given the stand of the NDP on Libya, and Israel for that matter (they're still participating in the filthy CPCCA for example) - and Layton's "apology" to the Israeli ambassador for Libby Davies - I've decided that on that front, Mulcair is hard to distinguish from the rest. That's why I said I'll hold my nose. I knew Mulcair was a Zionist in 2007 and 2008. I'm voting "strategically" - again.

Quote:
As for Cauchon, as an LGBT person I have some respect for him as the Justice Minister who spoke out in favour of gay marriage, so to me he's better than your average Liberal.  Having him elected wouldn't be the worst thing.  It's the anti-gay ones we most need to keep out.

Cauchon is one of the best of a bad lot. That's why he poses a real challenge here. I just can't do anything that will be interpreted as a reward by that scumbag Ignatieff. I don't pretend to have a consistent perfect approach. I don't like any of these parties. But when the compromises and concessions are all weighed in the balance, I will vote, again, for Mulcair.

Unless he says or does something to piss me off agan... Are you listening, Tom? Tongue out

ETA: Full disclosure - I contributed money to the Bloc this year, again. My fellow workers/union members know what I'm doing. They tolerate it. Some of them even profess to understand. Not sure I do.

Hope that answers your question, Lens!

Doug

acramer wrote:

Ok, so here is a question that really doesn't fit this thread, but for the sake of asking, could Justing Trudeau become "Pierre Trudeau" No. 2?

I was inclined to dismiss this possibility; am I missing something?

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

 

Some people in the Liberal Party and maybe even Justin himself think so. I'm not so sure myself - mostly because I don't think Canadians want a second Pierre Trudeau.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@Doug and @Ken Burch:

Thanks for the reply. You know there is this big myth about Truedau. People forget that he killed the Carter Commission, only imposed wage controls, and didn't refrain from attacking unions and groups such as womens groups. He also didn't blink an eye when it came to unnecessarily raising interest rates to fight inflation. We are still paying for that decision; it is a key contributor to the current accumulated deficit we have.

It kills me that people gave him so many passes on fiscal issues. And, last but not least, the War Measures Act. This probably isn't the place to bring this up, but I personally don't think he was justified in doing that. Of course I was 10 at the time, but having the benefit of experience and education, I am absolutely convinced there was no reason for its imposition.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Ken Burch

I'm with you on the War Measures Act.  You don't use a couple of kidnappings as a pretext to harass the entire Canadian Left.  From what I've read about the October Crisis, anybody who'd ever attended an NDP nomination meeting was treated as a suspected terrorist.  If Trudeau hadn't been prime minister, HE would probably have been detained under his own measures given his past associations.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I know. That is so ironic. I read about his involvement in the Abestos strike. I never understood how he and Mark Lalonde ended up in the Liberal party. I know there is politicial expediency, but frankly, I just don't get it.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Off topic, but it was the War Measures Act that turned me against Trudeau. At the time I had just graduated from law school, and was articling at a law firm in Toronto. I was shocked by the transparent falsehood of Trudeau's claims that this was necessary. I was well aware of the extensive powers of arrest that all police officers have under the criminal code, and could see no justification for this extra step. It was already possible to arrest anyone against whom the flimsiest of evidence existed. The WMA simply allowed the arrest of persons against whom there was no evidence whatsoever. I believed then, and still believe now that this was a cynical ploy by P.E.T. to get anglophone votes. Disgusting then, and still disgusting now.

Ken Burch

I've heard he thought it would help him in Alberta.  Why he thought ANYTHING would help him in Alberta is a bonafide mystery.   The truly sick part of it is, if he'd called a snap election right after that, Trudeau's government would have been returned with a sharply increased majority and the NDP(the only party in the Commons to oppose the invocation of the WMA) might have lost enough seats to be deprived of official party status.

NorthReport

It was Bourassa's fault for the WMA. He lost control of the situation, Trudeau obviously was advised by security forces to act so he did. I know there was that famous "just watch me"  scene with the reporter, but I don't think he was very happy about it.

NorthReport
NorthReport
racial_realist

Ken Burch wrote:

acramer wrote:

Ok, so here is a question that really doesn't fit this thread, but for the sake of asking, could Justing Trudeau become "Pierre Trudeau" No. 2?

I was inclined to dismiss this possibility; am I missing something?

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Justin's ten years too young and he still has hair.

 

Not to mention he has the IQ of a houseplant (no offence to any houseplants intended).

Sean in Ottawa

Hi Racial Realist-- Welcome to Babble.

In looking at your handle I wonder what it means-- can you explain? A bit provocative?

Since race is a social construct with no scientific basis I find it an interesting question what you want us to take out of that.

Given the possible interpretations your handle could offer and the type of place this is, I am hoping you won't mind explaining what that is all about before we get to know you more.

I hope that you mean to say that you are realistic about the pile of bull constructed around race, the pervasive existence of racism in our society and the real cost that has on our humanity and our society. But I'm hoping to hear all that from you.

Again welcome, I remain hopeful about what you mean even as I ask.

Thanks

Lens Solution

Unionist wrote:

Lens Solution wrote:

Unionist, aren't you voting BQ in this election as a protest againt Mulcair's comments about Libby Davies last year?

No - I'm not going to do anything to help the Liberals win. And given the stand of the NDP on Libya, and Israel for that matter (they're still participating in the filthy CPCCA for example) - and Layton's "apology" to the Israeli ambassador for Libby Davies - I've decided that on that front, Mulcair is hard to distinguish from the rest. That's why I said I'll hold my nose. I knew Mulcair was a Zionist in 2007 and 2008. I'm voting "strategically" - again.

Quote:
As for Cauchon, as an LGBT person I have some respect for him as the Justice Minister who spoke out in favour of gay marriage, so to me he's better than your average Liberal.  Having him elected wouldn't be the worst thing.  It's the anti-gay ones we most need to keep out.

Cauchon is one of the best of a bad lot. That's why he poses a real challenge here. I just can't do anything that will be interpreted as a reward by that scumbag Ignatieff. I don't pretend to have a consistent perfect approach. I don't like any of these parties. But when the compromises and concessions are all weighed in the balance, I will vote, again, for Mulcair.

Unless he says or does something to piss me off agan... Are you listening, Tom? Tongue out

ETA: Full disclosure - I contributed money to the Bloc this year, again. My fellow workers/union members know what I'm doing. They tolerate it. Some of them even profess to understand. Not sure I do.

Hope that answers your question, Lens!

Thanks for the information and your answers.

janfromthebruce

Excuse me Lens but Munclair is our number 2 person basically in our party so I personally I don't know what you are smoking but you in some way suggest unionist vote for the bloc and suggest that the lib would be ok. I guess you are just trying to help the NDP out right?

 

So let me be blunt, with the libs in single digits in Quebec, Cauchon is going down and that's good. It was arrogant of him to think (and by extension the libs) to think that he could win against a 2x encumbant who is well known and respected. And lead by a leader who in the crop poll think that would make the best prime minister. Furthermore, for a person who seems so gush darn politically naive, which I don't believe for 1 sec, I actually am becoming quite tired of your liberal cheerleading.

 

Lens Solution wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

Lens Solution wrote:

Chantal Hebert, John Ivison and others have reported that the NDP and the Bloc both want to defeat Martin Cauchon and Justin Trudeau so that neither one emerges as Liberal leader.  Apparently the BQ is helping the NDP in Outremont, and the NDP is helping the Bloc in Papineau.

Seems to me that Bloc and NDP voters in those ridings would figure this out without any instructions from any hierarchy.

Quite right, Wilf - speaking for yours truly, anyway, who has voted both Bloc (Amir Khadir and later, to my shame and regret, Jacques Léonard) and NDP (Tom Mulcair) - we will do our best to keep Cauchon out. That may be a challenge. But "strategic" voting of this kind is pretty endemic in Québec.

Unionist, aren't you voting BQ in this election as a protest againt Mulcair's comments about Libby Davies last year?

As for Cauchon, as an LGBT person I have some respect for him as the Justice Minister who spoke out in favour of gay marriage, so to me he's better than your average Liberal.  Having him elected wouldn't be the worst thing.  It's the anti-gay ones we most need to keep out.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

janfromthebruce

Excuse me Lens but Munclair is our number 2 person basically in our party so I personally I don't know what you are smoking but you in some way suggest unionist vote for the bloc and suggest that the lib would be ok. I guess you are just trying to help the NDP out right?

So let me be blunt, with the libs in single digits in Quebec, Cauchon is going down and that's good. It was arrogant of him to think (and by extension the libs) to think that he could win against a 2x encumbant who is well known and respected. And lead by a leader who in the crop poll think that would make the best prime minister. Furthermore, for a person who seems so gush darn politically naive, which I don't believe for 1 sec, I actually am becoming quite tired of your liberal cheerleading.

Lens Solution wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

Lens Solution wrote:

Chantal Hebert, John Ivison and others have reported that the NDP and the Bloc both want to defeat Martin Cauchon and Justin Trudeau so that neither one emerges as Liberal leader.  Apparently the BQ is helping the NDP in Outremont, and the NDP is helping the Bloc in Papineau.

Seems to me that Bloc and NDP voters in those ridings would figure this out without any instructions from any hierarchy.

Quite right, Wilf - speaking for yours truly, anyway, who has voted both Bloc (Amir Khadir and later, to my shame and regret, Jacques Léonard) and NDP (Tom Mulcair) - we will do our best to keep Cauchon out. That may be a challenge. But "strategic" voting of this kind is pretty endemic in Québec.

Unionist, aren't you voting BQ in this election as a protest againt Mulcair's comments about Libby Davies last year?

As for Cauchon, as an LGBT person I have some respect for him as the Justice Minister who spoke out in favour of gay marriage, so to me he's better than your average Liberal.  Having him elected wouldn't be the worst thing.  It's the anti-gay ones we most need to keep out.


______________________________________________________________________________________

Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Lens Solution

janfromthebruce wrote:

Excuse me Lens but Munclair is our number 2 person basically in our party so I personally I don't know what you are smoking but you in some way suggest unionist vote for the bloc and suggest that the lib would be ok. I guess you are just trying to help the NDP out right?

 

So let me be blunt, with the libs in single digits in Quebec, Cauchon is going down and that's good. It was arrogant of him to think (and by extension the libs) to think that he could win against a 2x encumbant who is well known and respected. And lead by a leader who in the crop poll think that would make the best prime minister. Furthermore, for a person who seems so gush darn politically naive, which I don't believe for 1 sec, I actually am becoming quite tired of your liberal cheerleading.

I wasn't doing any cheerleading.  I was saying that as an LGBT person there are a small group of progressive Liberals that I admire from back in 2003-2005 who helped promote and pass the gay marriage bill, and I remember Cauchon as one of those.  And since Unionist had said in the past that he was voting BQ instead of for Mulcair, I was interested to know whether he was still doing that, and he clarified that he is voting for Mulcair.

MegB

Continued here.

Pages

Topic locked