The Newest Polling Thread

ottawaobserver wrote:

One point I might ask Sean about, is whether there are other Liberal seats vulnerable to the Conservatives in Ontario, or NDP ones for that matter?  I was thinking in the Mississauga-Brampton area for example as between the Libs and Conservatives, or some of the blue collar areas between them and the NDP.

Yes and no. No if you consider wider margins to be insurmountable- those more than a couple points each way-- just depends on if Con support drops drastically or not.

Fact is, Ontario is hurting and Con policies are to blame- you bet a change could happen and it could be sudden-- add to that the fact that Ignatief appeals to conservatives almost as much as Harper and the movement could be great.

If BC also makes that shift then you could see a massive national shift.

Yes,  there are more seats when you consider that Ontario has a large nmber of not particularly loyal voters. There is a mushy middle between the Liberals and Cons that could go eitherway with some pushing. I think this mushy middle may even be the majority in some ridings so a large Con majority today could be vulnerable. The list I advances were all close ridings where a 5% switch would do it - in many cases it really was only a 0.5% switch as many ridings are only 1% apart which would be erased by half that number switching directly. A ten point switch -- which could happen in Ontario-- although it has not yet-- would be a move of dozens of seats. I didn't start such a list.

I personally think Ignatief is not likeable but I didn't think Harper was either. Even if people do not like him if they think they will do better under Ignatief- Harper is history. So far there are some things about Ignatief that are weak spots but nothing hitting the most basic ballot question- would I be better off? If Harper loses that question he is out- and it won't matter if people think they are exchanging one cold fish for another.

And back to the NDP for a moment on this- the NDP positions always are the most likeable and in fact very popular. the problem is they do not pass the "will I be better off" test.

This is why the Conservatives and Liberals always roll out the "NDP is not responsible" card-- to tell voters- they may like the NDP's idealism or ideas but can't afford them-- "you will not be better off"

So apply that personal greed question to the general voting public and then you can see what may or may not happen in the next election. This explains why we would elect a competent asshole and not a slightly bumbling nice guy who has our interests at heart even.

Even a chunk of NDP support comes from lower income people who believe they will be better off-- only a small minority will vote for a party on principle because it is the right thing to do. Win the self interest argument and everything else is irrelevant. This is the formula for the NDP to win support and it is also how Harper can lose -- or might win.

An NDP ad could have a bunch of ordinary Canadians saying I will vote NDP because I'll be better off-- because the NDP will do xxx-- appeal to greed-- it works. The idealists already are voting for us and there are not enough to win elections with. Now we can appeal to a different group of people's self interest so I am not suggesting a change in policy or principles- just a different way of putting them out there. Some specific policies would have to be considered of course- to directly address ordinary working Canadian's concerns.

Well, you've given me a lot to chew on (both of you actually).  Thanks for taking the time.

Its not quite true to say that Harper will set the date of the next election. More than anything else, the Liberals want to be in POWER. While its true that they don't sunstantively disagree with much of what Harper is doing, that doesn't change the fact they want to be in power and be able to offer high fallutin jobs to their friends and meet foreign dignitaries and cut ribbons and make more money etc... There will be an opposition day in late September and if the Liberals feel that Fall '09 is a good time for an election, then that is when we will have one - whether Harper likes it or not. The Liberals may or may not decide to pull the plug, but they could. The Liberals probably have no where to go but up in the next election if only because unlike Dion, Ignatieff can actually string a coherent sentence together.

North Report, The arrogance of your statement somehow seems to miss you.

How can you know except through this arrogance that you are not underestimating Ignatief?

I think Harper with his election gamble last year gave up much of the control over the election agenda. Don't underestimate the Liberal war room either-- they took a vacation the last two elections but they are back now-- and there are some evil geniuses in there.

I totally agree with you that Ignatief could be more dangerous than Harper as PM and I said so in another thread.I am not convinced Canadians will find out how bad he is untill a while after he is elected.

Before you say I am underestimating conside this-- I am allowing for both possibilities either Harper or Ignatief winning-- I am also concerned about either for different reasons. You are only open to one possibility- a Con victory. I think you are the only one underestimating anyone.

Also, can't you see the contradiciton- that Ignatief will vote for Harper until he is ready and thinks he can win and he does not mind the agenda that much anyway and your statement that Harper is controlling the agenda. Ignatief is controlling this agenda- he is not in a rush- has no moral imperative to throw out Harper only a desire for power when it looks possible. He will wait and pull the plug when it is good for him- when Harper wears some problem- the economy, a scandal- whatever. The real story here is that Harper gambled on a majority because without one he has lost control of the agenda. The idea that the BQ would support Harper out of self interest is crap- they hate him. The NDP is the same-- when the Liberals want to bring down Harper they will have no trouble getting the whole opposition on board. I agree this may be a while yet but when it happens it will be to Ignatief's advantage. On top of that Canadians don't want an election-- so we wait. Ignatief's support for Harper only looks like Dion's. Before the 2008 gamble Harper had the control and Dion only pretended he did. Now it is the reverse and the dynamics are all changed.

Still, I do not underestimate Harper-- or even the amount he can spend in an election. But Ignatief is working on the money issue and you should not underestimate him either. These are two very dangerous men.

I disagree Stock. We have gone through this all before, following the last election. Same scenario, different faces. The chances of the Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals all agreeing to pull the plug at the same time, which is what would be required, is slim to say the least. This would no longer be a coalition, there would be massive election expenses. I think people may be forgetting about that.

Ken, I think you are missing the degree to which the BQ detest Harper. Harper is in trouble in Quebec because his attack on the arts was offensive. If you understand Quebec society well, you will see the degree that that arts community is invested in the nationalist aspirations of the province and visa versa. The BQ may see their self interest in supporting Harper but don't count on them going through with it. These are idealists in many cases, support for Harper would be seen as a sellout and they would lose all credibility- in fact at this point it could split the party. The BQ also have 9 lives-- they always come back from the brink and are never afraid of an election-- history has proven them right. The would rather gamble on an election down in the polls than a delayed election where they sold out their cause to support Harper for a little time. And they might be right-- they have deep goodwill among supporters--everytime people start to drift away, when it counts the party finds a reason for them to come back. There is no reason other than an English Canadian fantasy to consider them out of the running in any election. And when they are set to fall-- likely they won't be able to predict it because of all the times they were counted out and delivered anyway. No, if Harper is counting on the BQ they will be delighted to dissapoint him and gun for his remaining 9 seats in the province.

I find myself agreeing with Stockholm-- time to buy the devil some skates

Stockholm wrote:

I'm not sure that the BQ are in any mood to be bought of by Harper. Anyways, if Haroer was so smart, he wouldn't have done something as utterly IDIOTIC as the November economic statement. I think Harper's strategic smarts are vastly over-rated. In every election he has fallen short of expectations and he has committed several major miscalculations and gaffes. It will happen again.

Yea, Harper's real dumb all right. The Cons descredited Dion and the Cons only got 143 seats. That was terrible strategy, wasn't it, oops, except for everyone else. Being blinded by dislike for the Cons does not do much towards defeating them.  It's time to be effective like the "Republicans for Ignatieff" website. 

Absolutely David. This is a huge asset and we are seeing the impact on the polls in Atlantic Canada already.

And Fuck You North Report-- you are being intellectually dishonest to suggest that because we disagree on something else I would necessarily disagree with what David Young just said.

We are arguing about a completely different topic that you think that it is absolutely certain Harper is going to win the next election and that I am somehow underestimating him to think that there is even a remote possibility that he might lose. I am not exaggerating-- I have not said I thin Harper will definitely lose-- I am just arguing that it *could* happen.

Frankly trying to get out of what I said something to contradict what the poster had said is nothing more than trolling-- baiting-- its shit and is not allowed here. I am at least arguing with what you are saying -- you are ignoring the substance of what I am saying and making up positions I don't hold. Again, Fuck you.

Stockholm wrote:

if Harper was so smart, he wouldn't have done something as utterly IDIOTIC as the November economic statement. I think Harper's strategic smarts are vastly over-rated. In every election he has fallen short of expectations and he has committed several major miscalculations and gaffes. It will happen again.

Having strategic smarts doesn't stop you from making serious mistakes. While the November statement was incredibly dumb, that can be overstated in terms of the big picture. Harper has staid on top by constantly pressuring the Liberals and keeping multiple options open. Given all that, some kind of overeach was inevitable. It happened to come in the form of the November statement. 

I would say that being the circling cougar has worked for Harper. It certainly doesn't make him invincible- or even close. But its too easy to understate how well it has worked overall... even taking account of the serious mistakes.

"In every election he has fallen short of expectations" ??? Whose expectations? The 'expectation' that they get a majority?

Last time around the BQ caved to Harper out of weakness and fear of an election.

Because they do not fear an election now doesn't mean they won't see more advantage in no election and in taking credit for getting some goodies for Quebec... which they get without having to brag about it.

And since the Conservatives are not primary competitors now, they have a lot of common strategic interests, with no blowback to worry about from making a deal with Harper. Thats a powerful salve.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 But if there is another election soon -- and Harper calls it he will be punished like he was not last time.

But he doesn't have to call it. The silver lining of not having Dion to kick around: there are many and various potential posion pills he can insert into any of the many confidence votes the Liberals have conveniently left around as knives anyone can grab ["Oh, you mean those aren't just for us?"]

Any number of those potential poison pills would be legislation or initiatives popular enough [or un-negative enough], but leave the Liberals with the same old bad choice to make.

And while I have agreed that I think it more likely there will be no election till Fall 2010... on the other hand, the longer into the future the next election, the more likely the economy and/or the deficit is going to bite Harper really hard. So at some point he may just decide this stalemate situation is as good as it gets, and he has a better than 50/50 crack of even with dropping some seats beaing able to come out of it still being able to govern indefinitely.

KenS wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 But if there is another election soon -- and Harper calls it he will be punished like he was not last time.

But he doesn't have to call it. The silver lining of not having Dion to kick around: there are many and various potential posion pills he can insert into any of the many confidence votes the Liberals have conveniently left around as knives anyone can grab ["Oh, you mean those aren't just for us?"]

Any number of those potential poison pills would be legislation or initiatives popular enough [or un-negative enough], but leave the Liberals with the same old bad choice to make.

And while I have agreed that I think it more likely there will be no election till Fall 2010... on the other hand, the longer into the future the next election, the more likely the economy and/or the deficit is going to bite Harper really hard. So at some point he may just decide this stalemate situation is as good as it gets, and he has a better than 50/50 crack of even with dropping some seats beaing able to come out of it still being able to govern indefinitely.

Harper is good -- he just isn't that good. He is not invincible. Please don't fall into the hole NR dug for himself. I am not arguing that Harper will lose the election. I am saying he could lose- in response to an assertion that Ignatief cannot win.

I will not even argue at this point which is the most likely-- I think things are too fluid and dangerous for both to call it.

I personally think the NDP and the Liberals together will have more seats than Harper-- this is a switch to either the NDP or Liberals of 15 seats from the Cons. This is not a huge switch-- just 5% of the house. It would not be shocking-- it took an historic low for the Liberals with an inept leader and more than 10 under 3% razor thin victories by the Cons to get to where we are today. It would be some feat for the Cons to hold what they have.

It would take nothing for the Liberal leader to say okay to a deal with the NDP since the BQ won't have the balance of power. The chance of Ignatief coming to power in this way is possible. I went even further to show how the Liberals could even pass the Cons in a straight tally-- to show it is possible-- although I think it unlikely I do not dismiss it.

We have a government that is floating numbers that cannot add up. There will need to be ongoing deficits, cutbacks or tax increases. All these are devastating for the government and wildly unpopular. I hardly in that context can suggest that Harper has a considerable advantage in being able to duplicate an election that he called early because al the stars fell into place. Well they won't line up like that again that easily. Question is how many seats are the Cons going to lose. And in the answer there are several possibilities and not all of them have Harper remaining as PM. I acknowledge again for the reading impaired that some do.

I don't see why the Liberal+NDP couldn't govern as a minority in the same way that the Tories have now governed as a minority for over three years. Its hard to imagine a scenerio where the Tories and BQ combine to force an early election within months of a Liberal/NDP government taking power. There would be nothing in it for the BQ and the Tories will be busy picking a new leader.

KenS wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

There will be an opposition day in late September and if the Liberals feel that Fall '09 is a good time for an election, then that is when we will have one - whether Harper likes it or not.

Except that it isn't going to be hard at all for Harper to cut a deal with the Bloc. The benies for Quebec cas spin them enough away from their own 'in bed with separatists' rhetoric.

If Harper even needs to bother with that. But having that ace in his pocket gives him options even if he never uses it.

It's true that the Liberals can't bring down the government in Fall 09 just because they want to - they can't do it alone and will need the support of the NDP and BQ.  However, I think what Ignatieff is realizing he has to do at some point soon is to vote against Harper because he has taken a lot of heat and criticism lately and I think next time he wants the spotlight to be on the NDP and BQ even if they decide not to vote down Harper.

KenS wrote:

And indeed, I'm sure he does want the spotlight to be on the NDP and Bloc the next time the Leader of the Opposition is having problems with his role. That'll be a neat trick to watch.

Well it may just turn out to be as simple as Ignatieff voting against Harper and then it will be up to the NDP and the BQ to decide whether they want to support Harper.

Actually with their track record the Liberals may be supporting Harper's government over 100 times before Harper calls the election. What is it now, 79 times. WTF?

Stockholm wrote:

Gee, if it was that simple, Ignatieff could have announced his intention to vote against the government countless times in the last few months - instead they said nothing and let the BQ and NDP draw lines in the sand and then the Liberals were once again forced to vote their enthusiastic confidence in Harper and everythingt he represents because he was so scared of an election.

Liberals keep trying to claim that the NDP (or the BQ) is bluffing. If they are so sure - why don't they call the bluff for once?

Ignatieff is not the smartest strategist and is only now beginning to learn the ropes.  I also don't think he wanted an election because he wasn't ready for it and most of the country didn't want one.

Must be big Hilltimes article, as debator used the word "desperately" in respect to the Liberals, in another thread. :D

It would be a profound miscalculation if either Ignatief or Harper believe that either the BQ or the NDP is going to vote with the government on any confidence matter, anytime soon.

Both of these parties cannot support the government.

Even the idea that it could be in their interest to do so is out of touch with who these parties are. Neither is expecting to be government after an election (no matter what the NDP says). These parties are responsible to their members who are diametrically opposed to Harper and loathe him. A vote for Harper by either one would create a split in the party that did that. It is easier to fight a difficult campaign than to vote for Harper and probably wiser.

That said-- you should not underestimate either party. It is not impossible for either one to vote against Harper go into a campaign down in the polls and come up with more seats than they had before. And it is certainly possible to convince a large number of their members that they can do just that.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Layton to support Harper. that said, I loudly denounced the NDP's strategy last winter for saying it would automatically vote against the budget as it resulted in the party being irrelevant to the discussion about the budget contents. I suspect the party has learned that lesson. So Layton may well hold the cards tighter. But do not expect to predict based on polls what that party will do.

My personal feeling is that the next campaign will be difficult and risky for the NDP- but even if it started tomorrow I would make no assumptions that the party will lose seats-- that might happen but once the campaign begins things could go the other way as well. The courage to continue to vote in the house on conviction and on what is right would look good on Layton anyway and he knows it so to vote for an obviously risky election may have an upside anyway.

Issue polling is also important, and here's a poll on a big issue - health care:

Most Say Health Care Working, No Appetite for Further Privatization

It all shows that the public is going to be generally receptive to NDP messages on health care.

It's not even the number of times the Liberals have propped up the Cons.  Ignatieff has gained nothing in concessions from Harper and apart from the usual empty melodramatic threats has given him free rein.  We had an opportunity with the last budget and widespread public concern over the environment and economy to set Canada on a progressive new future and the vision the Harper/Ignatieff coalition came up with consisted of massive structural debt and hardwood floor rebates.  Depending on how desperate Harper was, I think either the NDP or Bloc could get away with propping up the Cons once if they managed to get some significant concessions that played to their base.  It seems unlikely Harper is that flexible but I'm not sure if things would be any easier if Iggy was PM and it would provide a contrast to Liberal support for the Conservatives which comes without any strings attached.  I think there is only one party with no options at this point and I almost feel sorry Debater doesn't have anything better to do than schill for them on a predictably unreceptive discussion board.

You are not seriously using 1 poll to state that Iggy is a more credible leader than Layton, are you debator? geez, the Liberals are desperate.

David Young wrote:

The day the NDP votes once for ANYTHING that Stephen Harper is in favour of, you can expect similar results to the 1993 election the next time Canadians vote.

The NDP paid the price for supporting Brian Mulroney's Meech Lake Accord in 1993, and the exact same thing will happen in the next election.

Opposing the Conservatives at ever step is the best way for the NDP to gain future support, IMHO.

I agree with the thrust of this but with an exception-- if Layton can get a substantial change in policy in exchange for a vote then there would be a discussion of wether it was worth it and the possibility of acceptance. The key here is that the Liberals never got anything of substance for their votes. For the NDP- I agree that would be lethal.