shoop

Sorry, didn't want to come across too partisan. You attacked the Conservative Party of Canada somehow stating the pathetic Progressive Canadians was a viable alternative. I always wonder where they get the money for the deposit to run when it is a given they have no shot at winning ... anywhere.

I didn't miss anything. You call Conservatives "neanderthals, sexist and socially backwards" yet try to use Central Ontario/Toronto voters and the media as surrogates for your ignorant comments. Sooooo clever. Uhhhh, the comments of random anonymous posters on a message board really shouldn't excuse whatever makes up your smugness. Yes, neanderthal, sexist and socially backwards are just as offensive as using the term whore. If you can't see why then maybe you are the one missing something. Those terms are tossed around just as flippantly yet nobody stands up to dicks like you when you throw them out there. What I miss is the condescension? There is something the *matter* with me? I *missed* something? I can't get what you are alluding too with the *ph* phat? wtf? *Note to Chimera* the Liberals lost the election, the Canadian public doesn't want them in government anymore. The NDP couldn't get enough people to *lend them their votes* to make them relevant in this parliament. Why avoid the question? When was the last time you actually *beat* somebody? Regardless of your excuse, no judge is going to allow you to *beat* somebody, in your little fantasy tough-guy world because they insulted a female relative of yours.

Wow, who would have thought a Progressive Canadian zealot would have made it to the board? There are currently four PC member's of the Senate, two who were appointed by Paul Martin in March. (Why not take the easiest job for the money in the world to sit under the name of a dead party?) So that means there are *two* senators who were appointed by Mulroney who refuse to sit as members of the Conservative caucus. Quite a movement you have going there...

It is a derogatory term period. Whether it is used against men or women. So tough guy, you threatened to beat up anybody lately? Is that the way the politically correct police would work? Threaten to *beat* those who say something they disagree with then run and hide when actually challenged?

na85, are you defending Chimera's blatant hypocrisy? He believes that Conservative's are *neanderthals* because of sexist comments, but he is going to *beat* anybody that uses a word he doesn't condone? How can you defend him? If he had simply taken offence to the word that would have been fine. But to attack a poster on the moral high ground and resort to such childish and empty threats is simply pathetic. PS Chimera, in case I haven't spelled it out clearly enough to you, shove the hypocrisy. Are you really that tough to fight somebody? When was the last time you were in a fight?

Normie, can't you at least see the difference in the importance of the job? Unelected, powerless senators ... who cares. The Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. is a much more important position. Do you agree with the following? I do and I think all Canadians, without a desire to attack our new Prime Minister at every moment, would as well.

Take a look at his individual seat projections. He did miss 20 or so of his individual seat projections. He couldn't even be arsed to take the time to point out which individual seats he missed. Not too classy.... At leat electionprediction did that. They missed 30 seats individually probably a few more than democratic space missed. At least they had the gumption to point out how many seats they missed very prominently on their Web site.

As in dealing with any bully Chimera, the best way to deal with you is to stand up. Are you really that tough in public as you are when sitting behind your computer screen? Where do you live so one could test how tough you really are?

Didn't he miss 20 or 25 seats?

The centrists are the key. The SSM issue will be a key to seeing how Harper will govern. Fashioning a reasonable compromise is a true test on his ability to govern.

I really hope it doesn't. If it does that wins the Liberals the next election. Not giddy about writing PM Harper, but I am not a schoolgirl either

Agreed, but one has to wonder what Harper does with the social agenda. Gotta face facts and recognize that SSM and abortion are issues that kill the party. Thankfully, he can sell it in caucus that they don't have the numbers to win votes on those issues so there is no reason to bring them up. If either issue goes to a vote in parliament, Harper does not deserve a majority.

I think last night, like Belinda crossing the floor, will be good for the CPC in the long run. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal said we still believe "scary, scary, scary". If can prove that they are a credible mainstream alternative than we can win a majority next time around. We will have the more experienced campaign team, the more experienced leader and the ability to define ourselves by our actions in government. What is everybody so depressed about?

Hey Black Dog, wasn't this an election with a Liberal party that was talking about winning a record majority only 20 months agao? Wasn't conventional wisdom in Ottawa six months ago that Stephen Harper would *never* become Prime Minister? The Liberals got the numbers they did in this election by using scary, scary, scary. It didn't work as well for them this time. But it did get them into triple-digits. Harper has the upper hand in the lead up to the next election. The next election will be about Harper's record as PM. If he runs a solid administration over the next 18-30 months he will win a majority. The closeness of the election may actually be a blessing in disguise for the CPC. It will be an ever-present reminder of the need to be moderate and appeal to centrist Canadians. It will *not* force the Libeals to critically re-examine themselves. That they came so close when they ran such a terrible campaign, with a bad leader against a flawless CPC campaign tells a lot. Same old, same old from the Liberals.

SES probably came the closest in Ontario as well. They called the Liberals at 38% in Ontario and the Liberals came in at 39.9%. They called the CPC at 36% in Ontario and the CPC came in at 36%.

Thanks for that. The divisions in the Liberal party are pretty deep. It will be very interesting to see how their leadership goes. If it ends up being a fight between a Martinite and a Chretienite in the leadership then it is doubtful a new leader will do much. If you end up with two or three candidates respectively splitting the Martin and Chretien supporters than things will be a lot different.

Your point being? They only released the 3-day rollings during the campaign. They readily admitted that their single days had far to great a margin of error...

SES was uncannily close. Off by *exactly* 0.1% for each of the four major parties. Unfreakingbelievable. There methodology seemed a little whacky, but they got it right. Kudos to them.

Good point Stan. There have been an number of issues with SES throughout this campaign. Big Gunner whined about being attacked, but wouldn't define a *narrow minority* government. What did he mean by that? SES is majorly offside from other polls showing a 10-point CPC lead. Not attacking anybody but you have to wonder about somebody posting the most maligned pollster in the campaign under the tittle (not so fast....)

Balanced? Name one commentator or show regularly broadcast that you would consider *right wing*? Hmm from the left? The Hour? George Strombolopolous? Keith Boag - terribly biased to the Liberals. Peter Mansbridge. Terry Milewski. How is this balanced?

Understood. Right now I would say we are looking at 140 to 150 CPC seats. Probly not a *narrow* minority although I am waiting hear that term defined.

IF this is enough to win the CPC 3 to 5 seats in Toronto it could tip the balance to a Majority government. The Sun was surprisingly critical, for the Sun, towards the Tories throughout most of the campaign.

What do you consider to be a *narrow* minority? Where have you said the CPC would win a *narrow* minority? Why would you even post the Ipsos poll? The Ipsos poll points to a CPC majority. Oh yeah, it is yet another poll that calls into question the NDP at 22% nationally?

Enough of the histrionics. Maybe time to learn your facts before posting them on the board.

Hmmm, let's look at the last reported polls for each of three big polling firms. Angus Reid - January 21st NDP = 19% Strategic Counsel - January 20th　NDP = 17% Decima - January 18th NDP = 17% An average of 18% is sure a big difference from having the NDP at 22%. Any particular reason why you chose to report the SES numbers exclusively?