Polling thread, the non-election edition

138 posts / 0 new
Last post
no1important

So does Iggy still want an election?

That is dire news for the Libs if these numbers in Ontario and Toronto stay the same or similar come next election.

Looks like Harper will win a minority for sure if not a small majority.

But the liberals have had 2 'duds' for leaders in a row (arguably the last 3) and the fact the country seems to be moving to the right, things are looking good for Harper and the conservatives. The Liberal Party is their own worse enemy.

Plus the people want stability and I believe are tired of minorities and even though many may not like Harper, more dislike Iggy and do not trust him and view him as an opportunist. That is what I get talking to people.

The Libs need a new leader as Iggy is clearly un electable and each new poll seems to bear that out, but I think he will pull a Carole James and stay on even though there is no hope of him winning but for personnel ambitions. I find Iggy and the libs to 'all over the place'.

The Liberal party is in chaos, they have no direction and their policies seem to change to whatever the 'flavour of the day' is.

The once mighty big Red machine is now rusting away in the junk yard..

Depending if Harper wins a majority or minority I say the libs are 4-8 years minimum away for becoming government and I will predict the next Liberal PM will have a last name that begins with T....

I will say it again. Iggy SCREWED UP huge by not getting rid of Stevie and the gang last winter when he had the chance, he decided instead of working together with other parties, he wanted to wait so only him and the libs could have all the power and it backfired and Harper is back stronger and more popular.

He showed the Lib entitlement factor that only they should govern and not work with others. So how is that working out Iggy??? Selfishness and entitlement has always been part of the Liberal party but now it has backfired.

Stockholm

I agree 100%, Iggy had his chance to be PM last January and he blew it. It may turn out that that was his one and only chance.

Buddy Kat

There sure is a strange silence on the forum over the latest EKOS poll that shows the

nDP 13.8%

Greens 10.2%

helter skelter she's coming in fast.....3.6% differance oh oh!

 

Enabling harpers conservatives not one but two times now is costing the nDP. Now the center oriented lib/con is probably thinking ..look the conservative policy's are so good ..even the nDP support them , which is now sending the conservatives even closer to majority territory ..hovering at 37&

If you check out the poll ..I find the age and education sections enlightning.

 

http://www.ekos.com/media/default.asp

 

Sean in Ottawa

There is another explanation here-- given the poll's data.

Assume for a moment the right wing vote has nowhere to go-- they would select quickly as Cons.

On the other hand people who see themselves as progressive may be shopping between the NDP, Greens and Liberals. (This is not to say these parties are all progressive but this is their constituency- in the Liberals case I could talk about false advertising but that is another matter).

This would mean that if you have a significant undecided they are likely not going to break evenly for all parties. Possibly there is a methodological error in the poll apportioning the undecided according to the proportions of the decided. If you assume that the undecided were deciding between opposition parties you might find the numbers quite different.

Debater

Buddy Kat wrote:

There sure is a strange silence on the forum over the latest EKOS poll that shows the

nDP 13.8%

Greens 10.2%

helter skelter she's coming in fast.....3.6% differance oh oh!

 

Enabling harpers conservatives not one but two times now is costing the nDP. Now the center oriented lib/con is probably thinking ..look the conservative policy's are so good ..even the nDP support them , which is now sending the conservatives even closer to majority territory ..hovering at 37&

If you check out the poll ..I find the age and education sections enlightning.

 

http://www.ekos.com/media/default.asp

 

No kidding.  Whenever there are low NDP numbers they are ignored here.  But whenever there are low numbers for the Liberals they are taken to mean that the Liberal Party will be reduced to 0 seats in the next election.

remind remind's picture

Aside from the hyperbole, it is interesting debator, that you are equating the NDP as equals to the Liberals on the political scale.

As you well know, not one person has stated that the Liberals will be reduced to 0 seats.

 

 

 

 

Debater

I was making an extreme exaggeration to make a point - a frequent technique that is used in discussion as I'm sure you are aware.  Many people here have predicted that the Liberals will end up with fewer seats than the NDP, and that is equally as unrealistic.

And there was no equating of the NDP with the Liberals on the political scale.

remind remind's picture

Sure there was, as you made a direct compare of treatment vs mistreatment in order to attempt to make a point. :D

 

NorthReport

With Ignatieff in freefall that Conservative majority is looking closer and closer to reality with each new poll result now.

ARS 

C - 37%

 

L - 29%

 

N - 16%

 

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/701421

KenS

I guess a little antidote to your inflated rhetoric neads to sprinkled occassionaly.

And by the way, you newver did answer questions about what drives you to constantly hype a Conservative majority. Normally I would phrase that 'the possibility of a Conservative majority'. But in your case, your very occassional caveat that it is a possibility is just a pro forma statement that belies the obvious narrative of 'its coming, its coming.'

At any rate, the polling numbers show that the Conservatives have some momentum, which if they could maintain it when there is a campaign, could lead to a majority.

In other words, nothing has changed. They always could get into a position to drive for a majority. And the little bit of momentum they have all the parties have had blips of over the last 2 years, which have each time evaporated into the now long running stalemate.

NorthReport

The CEO Poll: Harper vs. Ignatieff

 

Most CEOs want a majority in their next Parliament.

 

Compas Inc. put that question to CEOs and business leaders in a recent poll. Respondents had a strong preference (nearly 90%) for a majority government. Said one: "A five-party system belongs in Italy, not Canada."

Asked to choose between majority and minority/coalition governments led by Harper or Ignatieff, 69% of those polled thought a Harper majority would foster the best conditions for economic growth. Results were similar when participants were asked about specific elements of economic policy such as inflation. As for the factors influencing the current government's policies, panelists believed the views of the opposition were more important than international forums such as the G7 and G20.

Comments from participants hardly offered a ringing endorsement for the federal Conservative party, however. "Unfortunately, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have skill, intelligence and vision to lead Canada past this economic slowdown," opined one respondent. (Former prime minister Jean Chrétien, a Liberal, received praise for "single-minded" control of public spending while in office.) And some clearly lamented the prospects for a return to the polls. "We need another election now like we need another hole in our head," one respondent quipped.

 

 

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/ceo-poll/article.jsp?content=20091012_10014_10014

 

NorthReport

 

Federal Tories pull away in new poll

ARS

Party / Sep 2 / Sep 26 / Change

Cons / 33% / 37% / Up 4%

Libs / 32% / 29% / Down 3%

ottawaobserver

Margin of Error 3.1%

KenS

That question for NR again:

KenS wrote:
And by the way, you never did answer questions about what drives you to constantly hype a Conservative majority. Normally I would phrase that 'the possibility of a Conservative majority'. But in your case, your very occassional caveat that it is a possibility is just a pro forma statement that belies the obvious narrative of 'its coming, its coming.'

So is it that you want to raise the alarm, so that people will 'do something about it' ?

Or is it, as appears to be the cae from the juxtaposition you often put things in, that you want to remind [beat us all over the head] that this is proof of how incompetent the Liberals are?

Or... [in your own words]...

Sean in Ottawa

Perhaps the reason both the NDP and the Liberals are facing lower polling numbers is that there is a MSM push now for a majority to restore stability. So the idea is we give a majority to Harper for the purpose of restoring stability when he was the one who refused to work with anyone creating the instability. It is amazing what you can get away with.

Unfortunately I thik there are enough politically unsophisticated people for this to work-- I think that eventually Harper will get a majority. he combination of a fawning press not worth shit when it comes to either investigative reporting or honesty and a Liberal party headed by someone that sounds like the teacher you least liked in highschool combined with one looks like someone you would never let alone with your kids. Apart from the horrible lack of focus and right wing rhetoric--

For people who go on looks Ignatieff looks creepy. For those listening to what he says, that impression is confirmed. Layton can't beat Harper-- that;s a fact -- the party will do well to hang on to current seats the way nthis is going and that is in the face of what could be a Liberal collapse. Ignatieff may be 3 points above Dion but once poeple see more of him he may drop further as he has in his first round of ads.

Consider this-- the Liberals dropped during the Con ad campaign against Dion. The Liberals dropped slightly again in the Con ads against Ignatieff. But boy did they drop when the Liberals launched their own ineffective ad campaign together with wanting to push an election without any agenda as to how they would govern differently.

The political opposition to Harper as a group are poor failed miserable weaK excuses. The least they could do is not force an election Harper will win. And maybe Layton should just come out and say that for the time being the NDP has been unsuccessful in convincing Canadians to support the NDP and the other opposition parties are all failing miserably and therefore there is no point in an election nobody other than Harper can win. At least people will recognize the honesty rather than trying to come up with some other garbage to justify not voting down a hateful, horrible, nasty and thoroughly out of touch and incompetent government by a small minded party that is making Canada look like the worst stereotype of a small-town backwater community run by a pack of bigotted ignorant jerks. Or am I being too partisan here?

And no, even if the NDP managed to get to 20% in the polls with the Liberlas at 24% -- this would still not ustify an election that would leave Harper in power. The truth is this is a democracy (to a point) and we need to put forward proposals and convince the public that they are worth while before we can do election after election. Listen to what the people are saying: they don't like Harper-- not the bulk of them but if the opposition does not recognize that it does not have the support to govern then it better not destabalize the system by having another useless election otherwise the people will elect a majority Con government. If you don't want a majority Con government then you better let this parliament run its course--  or at least till people are prepared to throw the bums in power out.

The opposition has two funtions-- one is to propose an alternative and the other to vote to bring down a government to install it. It is collectively doing fine on the second but has little clue that it has to get broad support for the first before doing so.

If the NDP was smart it would start an extended campaign on the first with a real admission that the second cannot be done without the first. The NDP will have to take some lumps on crapping about a weak Liberal party unwilling to force a vote it would lose-- frankly the NDP should just come out and say "we were wrong on that" and move on to try to create broad support for an alternative.

Stockholm

I'm not sure what NorthReport's point is in posting the news about the CEO poll. I mean its not exactly surprising that the vast majority of corporate CEOs would like there to be a Conservative majority government. They always have and they always will want that. This is about as news worthy as a poll of union leaders and anti-poverty activists that shows that LO AND BEHOLD almost all of them are OPPOSED to a Tory majority government.

Tell me something i don't already know.

Stockholm

Incidentally, here are the full results from Angus Reid

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2009.09.26_fedpolE...

I tend to only pay attention to the regional numbers from Quebec and Ontario since everywhere else the sample size is way too small. But this further confirms that the Liberals have plunged in Ontario where the Tofries now lead by 14 points and in Quebec, the Liberals are almost back to where they were in 2008 (I wonder if all the saturation publicity about the Outremont shenanigans reminded Quebecers of why they hate the Libs).

Anyways, these polls are telling me that the NDP did the country a great service by saving the Liberals from immolating themselves in an election and possibly giving us a Tory majority.

Incidentally, the Ignatieff leadership numbers in this poll are ABYSMAL. The danger now is that the Tories will really try to provoke the opposition to defeat them and force an election. It will be interesting to see how the three opposition parties respond to that.

Debater

KenS wrote:

That question for NR again:

KenS wrote:
And by the way, you never did answer questions about what drives you to constantly hype a Conservative majority. Normally I would phrase that 'the possibility of a Conservative majority'. But in your case, your very occassional caveat that it is a possibility is just a pro forma statement that belies the obvious narrative of 'its coming, its coming.'

So is it that you want to raise the alarm, so that people will 'do something about it' ?

Or is it, as appears to be the cae from the juxtaposition you often put things in, that you want to remind [beat us all over the head] that this is proof of how incompetent the Liberals are?

Or... [in your own words]...

I don't think NR intends to answer the question.  I tried getting NR to answer the same question earlier in the month after reading about 100 threads here predicting a Conservative majority, but the response is always silence.

Sure the Conservatives have some decent numbers right now - but they've had those sort of numbers on and off since the 2004 election and they've always fallen short.

no1important

So it seems all the polling is similar with Harper up around 7 points.  I wonder if it is backlash for Iggy threatening to bring the government down?

This is the first time in my lifetime I really seen the Liberal party on their knees. Sure they lost big to Mulroney but they still had their donations and seemed organized with no infighting unlike now where donations are down, although have started to come up and apparently the Martin/Chretien camps are stil at 'war' and they seem so disorganized...

if the economy starts to improve and people get back to work, Harper will win easily and Harper has 143 so that is what 12 from a Majority and even if losesall in Quebec he can still make up those lost seats from Ontario (as Harper is on the up there and in Toronto of all places) and pick up a few in BC, he could easily get a 160 seats for a small majority next time.

no1important

Quote:
Perhaps the reason both the NDP and the Liberals are facing lower polling numbers is that there is a MSM push now for a majority to restore stability. So the idea is we give a majority to Harper for the purpose of restoring stability when he was the one who refused to work with anyone creating the instability. It is amazing what you can get away with.

 

Yup. Most media is pro conservative in this country.  I see it here to in BC when it comes to Campbell and Global is the worst offender.

 

The media does influence people. It happens here all the time with their pro Campbell speak on Global and CTV as well. Saw it in Venezuela when the two day coup happened (Watch the documentry 'This revolution will not be televised' to see how manipulative the media can be), you see it in the US with the likes of fox news and the right wing radio hosts.

The mainstream media  in Canada is not honest for the most part and they have their agendas and do not be fooled into believing otherwise. I cannot even stand watching main stream news or reading the newspapers which almost all the big media and papers here are owned by Canwest and even big radio (CKNW to be exact), although not owned by Canwest is very pro right wing. BC is very inindated with pro right wing conservative media and what is so sad is so many believe their spin and twist on things.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

The only way to counteract a MSM push for a majority is for the opposition parties to give us specific policy differences-- reasons to vote for them.

Ignatieff, I think is incapable. Can the NDP? Stop the self-rightious crap and get down to detail.

Sarann

Can someone tell me really, seriously what the effects of countless young people with cell phones and no land lines would have on the polling stats.  Isn't it risky to ignore them.

Sean in Ottawa

Depends on if they will show up and vote.

Stockholm

That's not much of an issue. Angus Reid surveys are done online in the first place and the other companies now call cell numbers as well as land lines

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

"And maybe Layton should just come out and say that for the time being the NDP has been unsuccessful in convincing Canadians to support the NDP and the other opposition parties are all failing miserably and therefore there is no point in an election nobody other than Harper can win. "

I am happy with the idea that Jack and the team thought about the likely results of an election and came to the same conclusion as NR.

 

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Incidentally, here are the full results from Angus Reid

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2009.09.26_fedpolE...

I tend to only pay attention to the regional numbers from Quebec and Ontario since everywhere else the sample size is way too small. But this further confirms that the Liberals have plunged in Ontario where the Tofries now lead by 14 points and in Quebec, the Liberals are almost back to where they were in 2008 (I wonder if all the saturation publicity about the Outremont shenanigans reminded Quebecers of why they hate the Libs).

Anyways, these polls are telling me that the NDP did the country a great service by saving the Liberals from immolating themselves in an election and possibly giving us a Tory majority.

Incidentally, the Ignatieff leadership numbers in this poll are ABYSMAL. The danger now is that the Tories will really try to provoke the opposition to defeat them and force an election. It will be interesting to see how the three opposition parties respond to that.

In order to get a more accurate picture of the numbers in Quebec, we need to see polls from Quebec pollsters such as CROP and Leger.  However, if Ignatieff is indeed losing ground in Quebec then he will be in big trouble because that was the main advantage he had over Harper during the past year.

What is interesting though about the Quebec numbers in this poll is that the other parties are fairly low as well - the BQ is only at 35% and the NDP is at 12%.  That's why I wonder about its accuracy - how can all the parties be low?

Stockholm

If you compare those numbers to the last election, it suggests that Conservative and NDP support are almost exactly where they were on election night, Liberals are up three points and the BQ is down three points.

Lord Palmerston

 

NorthReport wrote:
Compas Inc. put that question to CEOs and business leaders in a recent poll. Respondents had a strong preference (nearly 90%) for a majority government. Said one: "A five-party system belongs in Italy, not Canada."

This isn't surprising.  If you look at poll-by-poll results for the MMP referendum in Ontario, there was very little support for electoral reform in the super-wealthy polls.  Obviously "Tory vs. Liberal" is good enough for them - and the NDP, Greens, etc. are a nuisance.

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

If you compare those numbers to the last election, it suggests that Conservative and NDP support are almost exactly where they were on election night, Liberals are up three points and the BQ is down three points.

True - that's what I was saying above.  That poll doesn't show much movement in Quebec at all except for a small Liberal increase and a bit of a BQ decrease.  Not a lot to get excited about at this point.  I'm waiting until we see some Quebec specific pollsters weigh in.

 

NorthReport

Yup, let's try and focus on Quebec for the Liberals while Ignatieff is going down the toilet in Ontario and elsewhere.

janfromthebruce

More bad news for the libs and relatively good news for Layton and the NDP -

Fed election blues

Ignatieff not catching on with Canadians (check out their leadership numbers)

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has so far failed to convince Canadians he's ready to lead the country, and if an election was held today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would likely lead the Tories to another minority government.

An exclusive Leger Marketing poll for Sun Media reveals 36% of Canadians would vote for the Conservatives, down almost two percentage points from the last election. Only 30% would vote for the Liberals, but that represents a gain of 4% since the Liberals won 26% of the popular vote in the last election. The NDP is at 17% support, down 1% [within margin of error].

On the question of leadership:

When asked which leader would make the best prime minister, 32% said Harper, 21% said Ignatieff and 18% said the NDP's Jack Layton.

On the question of trust:

Ignatieff fared even worse when respondents were asked about trust. He places third in every region of the country, with only 14% 29% who trust Harper and 17% who trust Layton. of Canadians saying they trust him, compared to

Would you prefer a change of government?

Yes 42%

No 46%

I think the more folks are asked if they want an election which is what this question is really asking - the more folks will be less disgruntled if it happens - it's like softening up the public.

Anyway, I would like to see he exact poll to know the margin of error.

 

NorthReport

._.

Debater

janfromthebruce wrote:

More bad news for the libs and relatively good news for Layton and the NDP -

Fed election blues

Ignatieff not catching on with Canadians (check out their leadership numbers)

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has so far failed to convince Canadians he's ready to lead the country, and if an election was held today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would likely lead the Tories to another minority government.

An exclusive Leger Marketing poll for Sun Media reveals 36% of Canadians would vote for the Conservatives, down almost two percentage points from the last election. Only 30% would vote for the Liberals, but that represents a gain of 4% since the Liberals won 26% of the popular vote in the last election. The NDP is at 17% support, down 1% [within margin of error]

But it's party support which is most important, and the Liberals are up since the last election and the Conservatives down.  That's what effects the seat count.  So while it's not great news for Ignatieff's leadership, it's not so bad for the Liberal party.

remind remind's picture

Ya right, lol, Ignatieff is disliked already take that into an election campaign, and we have a Dion situation.

Stockholm

If the Leger poll were correct, the Liberals would gain very little ground in an election. Almost all of their gains are in Quebec, where they would only pick up about 6 seats unless they gain a lot more ground. As long as the Liberals remain in the low 30s in Quebec, they will gain nothing there.

West Coast Lefty

Debater wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

More bad news for the libs and relatively good news for Layton and the NDP -

Fed election blues

Ignatieff not catching on with Canadians (check out their leadership numbers)

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has so far failed to convince Canadians he's ready to lead the country, and if an election was held today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would likely lead the Tories to another minority government.

An exclusive Leger Marketing poll for Sun Media reveals 36% of Canadians would vote for the Conservatives, down almost two percentage points from the last election. Only 30% would vote for the Liberals, but that represents a gain of 4% since the Liberals won 26% of the popular vote in the last election. The NDP is at 17% support, down 1% [within margin of error]

But it's party support which is most important, and the Liberals are up since the last election and the Conservatives down.  That's what effects the seat count.  So while it's not great news for Ignatieff's leadership, it's not so bad for the Liberal party.

The 2 are very much connected, debater.  The Leger voter intention numbers nationally are virtually identical to the 2006 election results.  The "down" result for the Cons is within the margin of error to the 2008 election result, and doesn't factor in the higher turnout and voter intensity among Conservative  voters. 

Leadership numbers tend to be a leading indicator - they start to move a few months before the voting intentions reflect the shift in public option as voters have residual loyalty to their preferred party "brand/"  The fact that Harper is ahead of Iggy on almost everything including the enviroment (!), the economy, Best PM, etc, is very bad news as the Libs don't have a winning wedge issue to fight the election on.

Speaking of polls, J-D Bellevance of La Presse was on Power Play this PM saying they will have a poll this week showing more bad news for Ignatieff and the Libs in Quebec.  Something to look forward to...

janfromthebruce

Stockholm wrote:

If the Leger poll were correct, the Liberals would gain very little ground in an election. Almost all of their gains are in Quebec, where they would only pick up about 6 seats unless they gain a lot more ground. As long as the Liberals remain in the low 30s in Quebec, they will gain nothing there.

And with blowing up in Quebec today and saying things are being run from TO central, the ground under the libs in Quebec would be shaking to say the least. All those potential lib candidates the lib leader in charge of Que. just recruited decided - nay - it would be a disaster.

Stockholm

I heard that too. The Liberals should be on their hands and knees thanking the NDP for saving them from lining up to drink grape kool-aid if their non-confidence motion actually passed!

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

Oh look, a nine point spread between the NDP and Greens. I'm sure that our good Buddy will explain to us why this means that the NDP should be worried.

janfromthebruce

maybe Harper will do it for them - vote in support of their confidence motion - just to put the libs out of their misery.

Bookish Agrarian

Hey no fair- that's my secret conspiracy theory plot- that a number of Conservatives will suddenly be out putting shovels in the ground, or have the flu, or be busy with some sort of constituency work or whatever.

janfromthebruce

Don't step on my turf of fantasy - not enough cons "don't show up" when the bell rings - the lights dim as Harper can be heard laughing all the way to the GG with "poison pill" in hand - I'll get you my little pretty

bekayne

janfromthebruce wrote:

Don't step on my turf of fantasy - not enough cons "don't show up" when the bell rings - the lights dim as Harper can be heard laughing all the way to the GG with "poison pill" in hand - I'll get you my little pretty

"We need an election because we no longer have confidence in ourselves"

Stockholm

Don't laugh, in Germany in 1983 Helmut Kohl wanted an early election, but in Germany its unconstitutional for the Chancellor to simply call one, he has to lose a confidence vote and its a complex process. Kohl had to move a confidence motion, have all his members abstain and then be defeated by the opposition. He got the election and won, but the German constitutional court later ruled that this was not legal.

Bookish Agrarian

I'm certainly not joking.

My pet theory of the past week is that the Liberals will be hoisted on their own petard by the Conservatives conveintly being ill or whatever.  It would be win, win, win for the Conservative from their viewpoint - Iggy would get blamed for the election (the subtly will be lost on most people), they have their shot at a majority due to the Liberal lacklustre messaging lately and they would catch a Liberal party (and Bloc and NDP) off guard and for the Liberals at a time when they are facing a house divided or at least pissed off at each other.

Maybe it is a bit too cute by half, but I expect it has been kicked around the Conservative war room more that a few times over the last couple of days.

Chester Drawers

The poison pill will be the voter subsidy.  I believe a motion from the Cons is coming on that as a money confidence bill.  The $1.95 per vote which the Libs, Dippers and Bloc cannot afford to lose, will have to vote against it.  An election over a $1.95 luxury for the parties when many have been bitten by the recesion will not be seen well by the public.  Either way the Cons win, get the other parties to vote in favor of losing the subsidy or force the election and not be seen as causing it.  This has been in the works since the 2008 convention in Winnipeg.

Stockholm

I'd be very surprised if the Tories tried that. When Harper withdrew that measure in December in order to save his skin, he explicitly said that it was off the table and that it would not be reintroduced but that it would be part of the Tory platform in the next election. So, he would be blatantly lying if he did that. Also, it would lead to endless replays of how he miscalculated a year ago with that and almost lost power.The last thing Harper needs are endless replays of his biggest political miscalculation ever.

It would be totally obvious that they were purposely trying to trigger an election. I also wonder how they would justify calling that a confidence measure after stating on numerous occasions that they wanted to avoid an election at all cost.

At the very most, I MIGHT see them including that in the federal budget in the Spring since they will probably be voted down on that anyways

janfromthebruce

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I'm certainly not joking.

My pet theory of the past week is that the Liberals will be hoisted on their own petard by the Conservatives conveintly being ill or whatever.  It would be win, win, win for the Conservative from their viewpoint - Iggy would get blamed for the election (the subtly will be lost on most people), they have their shot at a majority due to the Liberal lacklustre messaging lately and they would catch a Liberal party (and Bloc and NDP) off guard and for the Liberals at a time when they are facing a house divided or at least pissed off at each other.

Maybe it is a bit too cute by half, but I expect it has been kicked around the Conservative war room more that a few times over the last couple of days.

Me thinks so too!

Debater

West Coast Lefty wrote:

Debater wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

More bad news for the libs and relatively good news for Layton and the NDP -

Fed election blues

Ignatieff not catching on with Canadians (check out their leadership numbers)

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has so far failed to convince Canadians he's ready to lead the country, and if an election was held today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would likely lead the Tories to another minority government.

An exclusive Leger Marketing poll for Sun Media reveals 36% of Canadians would vote for the Conservatives, down almost two percentage points from the last election. Only 30% would vote for the Liberals, but that represents a gain of 4% since the Liberals won 26% of the popular vote in the last election. The NDP is at 17% support, down 1% [within margin of error]

But it's party support which is most important, and the Liberals are up since the last election and the Conservatives down.  That's what effects the seat count.  So while it's not great news for Ignatieff's leadership, it's not so bad for the Liberal party.

The 2 are very much connected, debater.  The Leger voter intention numbers nationally are virtually identical to the 2006 election results.  The "down" result for the Cons is within the margin of error to the 2008 election result, and doesn't factor in the higher turnout and voter intensity among Conservative  voters. 

Leadership numbers tend to be a leading indicator - they start to move a few months before the voting intentions reflect the shift in public option as voters have residual loyalty to their preferred party "brand/"  The fact that Harper is ahead of Iggy on almost everything including the enviroment (!), the economy, Best PM, etc, is very bad news as the Libs don't have a winning wedge issue to fight the election on.

Speaking of polls, J-D Bellevance of La Presse was on Power Play this PM saying they will have a poll this week showing more bad news for Ignatieff and the Libs in Quebec.  Something to look forward to...

Ignatieff's numbers are not good - I agree.  He needs to be much more competitive on the leadership index with Harper.  The big difference from the last election though is that Ignatieff is ahead of Layton, whereas Dion was usually not.

remind remind's picture

Pages