===
Issues Pages:
Regions:
Undecided Vote Takes 2nd Place In Preferred Prime Minister Poll
Tue, 2016-01-05 19:44
#1
Undecided Vote Takes 2nd Place In Preferred Prime Minister Poll
Tue, 2016-01-05 19:45
#2
From Nanos Research
(The only polling firm to accurately predict the election results says Nick Nanos)
Justin Trudeau 52.6%
Undecided 17.7%
Rona Ambrose 12.1%
Tom Mulcair 11.6%
Elizabeth May 4.8 %
Tue, 2016-01-05 21:22
#3
Another day, another thread of Liberal partisan drivel thinly disgiused. This one is even worse than the one about the Liberal operative resigning from his job.
Tue, 2016-01-05 23:43
#4
Yeah, it's not like there's anything else about the Liberal government to make a thread about. Everything is just perfect so far.
Wed, 2016-01-06 02:56
#5
10 years of complaining about Harper did nothing and another 10 years of complaining about Trudeau will likely accomplish even less.
I heard that 85% of Canadians are against the Saudi arms deal and I think about the same were against C 51. C 51 had no impact on the election as far as I can tell and the Saudi arms deal won't impact the election in 2019.
I think it would be more productive to study voters.
Wed, 2016-01-06 05:21
#6
You're right Pondering. Liberal cynicism and abandonment of principles are tolerated not only by yourself but by the electorate in general. Therefore we should just give up and appoint Justin king.
Wed, 2016-01-06 05:34
#7
I heard that 85% of Canadians are against the Saudi arms deal and I think about the same were against C 51. C 51 had no impact on the election as far as I can tell and the Saudi arms deal won't impact the election in 2019.
So you agree that elections and the Liberal party in general have nothing to do with democracy? The overwhelming majority of opinion can lean this way or that on different subjects and issues, and it all mattes not one iota?
Wed, 2016-01-06 15:24
#8
I heard that 85% of Canadians are against the Saudi arms deal and I think about the same were against C 51. C 51 had no impact on the election as far as I can tell and the Saudi arms deal won't impact the election in 2019.So you agree that elections and the Liberal party in general have nothing to do with democracy? The overwhelming majority of opinion can lean this way or that on different subjects and issues, and it all mattes not one iota?
I think around 85% of Canadians wanted women to be barred from wearing a niqab in the citizenship ceremony. There is more to democracy than rule by majority.
The majority can still enforce its will but only on an issue that many people feel strongly enough about to vote differently on or to demonstrate in high thousands or hundreds of thousands over.
Throughout Harper's reign he often had 50%+ approval ratings in terms of the direction of the country and I think also in leadership. Pre-Harper I never would have believed that Canadians would be passive in the face of everything he has done. These are important factors to consider if the goal is to motivate the general public to revolt. Revolts seem to only occur under very bad conditions even though revolt is so much easier to accomplish in a wealthy democratic country once the will exists.
The only way serious change will happen concerning climate change and income inequality is if people are willing to revolt which can be accomplished peacefully in a country as democratic and wealthy as Canada is.
The challenge to those who want radical change, even within the framework of capitalism, is to convince a portion of the general public to action and another larger cohort of support.
Occupy Canada, the Quebec student protests and the environmental movement are all proof of concept in the sense that people can be roused to a cause.
People drive major change through their demands. All the political parties are forced to respond through public pressure.
In my opinion right now people vote based primarily on the leader for a team to run the country much as one runs a business. From that standpoint Trudeau is an excellent leader. He is not only meeting expectations he is exceeding them. People shy away from parties they percieve as ideological because it is perceived as the antithesis of logic based decision making. One of Syriza's key strengths is that it refused to identify as being on the left in order to draw from the entire electorate.
We entered the "between elections" time right around Christmas. Most people have already tuned out of politics. They don't expect to agree with the government's every decision. As long as Trudeau does a reasonably adequate job as PM he will win again in 2019.
Even if the NDP had won I am certain people here would be deeply disappointed once the euphoria wore off. Isn't this great would turn into well they aren't any worse than the Liberals.
Wed, 2016-01-06 17:42
#9
I think around 85% of Canadians wanted women to be barred from wearing a niqab in the citizenship ceremony. There is more to democracy than rule by majority.
Individual rights where religious practices are concerned have long been decided. It's on the shelf so to speak. What is in contention when we're talking about democracy is the ability of the public to influence economic and social policy, and the country's international relations.
Pre-Harper I never would have believed that Canadians would be passive in the face of everything he has done. These are important factors to consider if the goal is to motivate the general public to revolt.
It's a major gripe for sure.
Revolts seem to only occur under very bad conditions even though revolt is so much easier to accomplish in a wealthy democratic country once the will exists.
We have to create our own sunny ways I'm afraid. On that note, we've seen thousands upon thousands of revolts, from the level of individuals on the job, to the scattered throwing of projectiles and fuel bombs that goes on somewhere every day in response to matters of governance and economics, to pretty near entire population centers turned out in the streets, in places like Greece, Spain, and Iceland. There's just a lack of synchronicity.
The only way serious change will happen concerning climate change and income inequality is if people are willing to revolt which can be accomplished peacefully in a country as democratic and wealthy as Canada is.
PLeeeezze.
People drive major change through their demands. All the political parties are forced to respond through public pressure.
Depends on what the stakes are. Localized civil disruptions can be placated by lessening or cancelling this or that measure. In other contexts where broader fundamentals of the market are in play, such as at the G20, Quebec, and Ottawa protests, events have since shown that in response to the outcry over the world's economic and environmental direction, there has been a considerable worsening across the board from what was being complained about in those situations. Usually the parties certainly will respond with bargaining as the least dramatic means of resolving localized outbursts, particularly if it means returning local commerce back to normal. They don't want things getting too ugly if it doesn't have to.
Even if the NDP had won I am certain people here would be deeply disappointed once the euphoria wore off....well they aren't any worse than the Liberals.
I believe a case could be made either way.
Wed, 2016-01-06 18:11
#10
jjuares & mark alfred, if you don't like the topics that Terry Towel posts, then don't respond to them.
What's the point of complaining about the topics he posts? Terry Towel is a curious fellow and likes to post about different subjects that interest him.
Presumably the purpose of this thread was to show that at the moment Justin Trudeau has very high approval ratings and that none of the other leaders are presently registering with the public.
Nothing complicated.
Wed, 2016-01-06 18:28
#11
jjuares & mark alfred, if you don't like the topics that Terry Towel posts, then don't respond to them.
What's the point of complaining about the topics he posts? Terry Towel is a curious fellow and likes to post about different subjects that interest him.
Presumably the purpose of this thread was to show that at the moment Justin Trudeau has very high approval ratings and that none of the other leaders are presently registering with the public.
Nothing complicated.
You can presume whatever you want about the purpose of this thread. But here's a little newsflash for you. I get to do the same.
Wed, 2016-01-06 20:05
#12
swallow
Personally, I am really feeling the Undecidedmania. Not that a poll mpre than 3.5 years before the next election with one (maybe 2) interim leaders matters for more than the enertainment value. But thanks for the entertainment, Terry!
Wed, 2016-01-06 21:02
#13
Perhaps the immediate appointment of REB to NDP leader could turn some of those "who the hell cares right now"s into NDP support.
Thu, 2016-01-07 04:33
#14
LOL Magoo
The only way serious change will happen concerning climate change and income inequality is if people are willing to revolt which can be accomplished peacefully in a country as democratic and wealthy as Canada is.PLeeeezze.
People drive major change through their demands. All the political parties are forced to respond through public pressure.Depends on what the stakes are. Localized civil disruptions can be placated by lessening or cancelling this or that measure. In other contexts where broader fundamentals of the market are in play, such as at the G20, Quebec, and Ottawa protests, events have since shown that in response to the outcry over the world's economic and environmental direction, there has been a considerable worsening across the board from what was being complained about in those situations. Usually the parties certainly will respond with bargaining as the least dramatic means of resolving localized outbursts, particularly if it means returning local commerce back to normal. They don't want things getting too ugly if it doesn't have to.
It does depend on the stakes and the stakes are very high. Income inequality impoverishes the country and climate change has huge economic costs.
I'm not saying it is easy to motivate people to revolt under democracy. I'm not sure if it has ever happened before.
There is no need to lower our standard of living. In fact it could rise. Pollution carries heavy health risks. The future is available now. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/driverless-cars-stratford-1.3390279
The problem is that people have to put separate their individual causes and focus on the 99%.
Right now it is the uber-rich, the super-rich, the wealthy, and the "middle class" who share interests against the poor and needy. At least that is what the right wing think tanks have convinced everyone of.
I think the reality is the uber-rich, and the super rich who share interests contrary to the merely wealthy, the middle-class and the poor. In other words the 99%.
Looking at these numbers tells me the public is not on board with the politics of babble. Uniting them under one banner won't work if it is an exercise in getting all the movements to support one another because most of the 99% isn't unanimous on all progressive issues.
What's needed is causes everyone can unite behind despite having different opinions on a host of issues. Ironically these two issues, climate change and income inequality, are the most harmful to everyone who is underpriveleged in one way or another anyway. They just don't have to be sold that way because the benefits apply to the entire 99%. Appealing to self-interest is more powerful than appealing to altruism. Sometimes altruism is all you can appeal to but if self-interest is an option it should be used.
I honestly believe that a green economy is within reach in a very short period of time. We may have to make different lifestyle choices but I believe our quality of life will improve not deteriorate and we won't have to give up our smart phones or overthrow capitalism to move forward.