SpankyMcFarland

The point I am making is that I know of Muslims who would not usually have voted at all who voted this time.So that is a negative for Harper.

The risk there is that you increase the turnout in the third group. I have seen that happen among Muslms this time, people who would not usually vote.

Ten years is long enough for anybody as PM. He should have realized that. Or some brave party member should have told him.

The niqab debate has mobilized some Muslims I know against Harper. He must have looked at the numbers in thecountry and decided they were not worth bothering about.

Actually, I think we got away from the people who were trying to get away from the oppressive traditions - we are the conformists in North America, unlike our rowdier friends to the south. Does peace, order and good government sound like a ringing call to arms?

The FGM link just goes to the website, not to the article. The Ottawa candidate is taking down a vote strategically sign which is funny. On the Saudis, we are all hypocrites. We want their money although we know full well what they are like. Fair journos would point to their own party's failings first in this matter, which not be hard.

The biggest problem is the age of the government. It is really time for change. We'll see if the next crowd can do anything to make Parliament relevant again, if we get a 'next crowd'. They will have their work cut out for them. The temptations are all the other way.

More of them vote, anyway, so I'd say their max vote is lower.

Oh dear, the sin of presumption: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-sin-of-presumption

Harper has not left much space for aspiring leaders in his party. Look at the British Conservatives, lining up to replace Cameron who has only just won his second election.

Could a Nate Silver be anywhere near as accurate in this country? I THINK the Liberals are going to win the popular vote (as in get the biggest percentage) but that is about as far as I am willing to guess.

JT is in Conservative ridings and SJH is too, and he's not talking about 'Justin' any more, which sounds like the party polls are mirroring what we are seeing in the public ones and the nice hair ads did not work.

Harper's confrontational style has affected everything he as done at home and abroad. He seems to be happier with enemies than friends.

The unusual length of the campaign was an abuse of process by the Conservatives, not a trivial matter BTW and one of many problems with our system. Fortunately, it is now biting them in the posterior.

So nearly 10 per cent of voters get two or three seats for their trouble. Does not compute. Much as I dislike the BQ, I think they deserve more than that. And the Greens certainly do.

Yeah, but he's likeable. Harper isn't. That's quite an extraordinary handicap for a politician which he has overcome amazingly well. Until now. Now he's not looking so good. At least you have the insight not to argue about that bizarre rictus Steve puts on to impersonate a friendly person.

Well now, who made this campaign so long?

Canadians like FPTP and don't like coalitions. I'd say if they actually think about such matters more than one moment a year, I'd be generous but that is how it is. And that dictates binary choices - between mediocre and terrible. No nuance is allowed in a Canadian federal election. If you want to get rid of Harper, vote Liberal unless you know a third party has a real chance in your riding.

I am fairly certain Tom Mulcair is not a Muslim. I would also venture to suggest that he's not fond of the niqab or what it represents and he knows full well that his position may cost him the election and his job. He has taken a stand here for pluralism and tolerance, defending a practice that many of us find alien and distasteful. I won't vote for Tom Mulcair but I believe he has stood up for something important and most Canadians, especially in Quebec, have entirely missed the point. We are not one tribe, and we must encourage civic nationalism, not based on ethnic or religious loyalties, if we are to endure as a nation.

These Conservative ads are becoming intolerably frequent. How much of this are we expected to take? I may do violence to my poor TV yet. Harper trying to smile is one of the most pathetic sights in all creation; he has seen other people do it, he KIND of has the mechanics right, but the result is something that looks like it's about to rip your leg off.

Maybe Dmitri's mastery of the dark arts will be revealed after the election. I hope he was worth it because, so far, himself and his lady friend haven't exactly brought a ton of good publicity in their wake.

Let me simplify it for you. Mulcair is dividing the majority vote against Harper.

People are beginning to realize there are only two items on the menu. If you opt for Tom, tasty though he looks, you just get more Steve.

But the Conservatives would have known about that possibility a long time ago?

The Conservatives have several big advantages, turnout wise: 1. Old voters. Nothing else to do. 2. Angry voters. Anger defines the Harper movement. Earl Cowan is the poster boy. This rage gives them the energy required to arise from their La-Z-Boys at all costs. The response to this post will illustrate the characteristic. 3. Committed voters. Jihadis for Harper. Him or nothing. 4. Ashamed voters. Some have awareness that their beliefs are not of the times and cover up their fanatical allegiances when asked by pollsters. That may be worth a few percentage points. If it happened in the UK with somebody as nice as Cameron, Lord knows how big the effect is here.