shoop

No party can govern forever. Excessive arrogance is common. Look how arrogant the Liberals were in 1984. The Conservatives in 1993. A loss can cause a realistic examining of why people are in politics and what they hope to achieve. The Martin *brain trust* is so blinded by their ambition that they can't stop and think. Politics can be honourable. MPs should have friends on both sides of the aisle. It is time for the Liberals to sit on the sidelines for a little while. For how long? Who knows. Hopefully a CPC government will remember the people that elected them for a long, long time.

Strange how when she switched it was to stop the bloc. Her antics are sad. Some voters have seen through her. Hopefully enough to boot her out of parliament.

The rational for the bloc breaking even is as follows. The 50% barrier (for bloc/PQ/yes) is a serious one in Quebec. One which they have never broken. The CPC has presented itself as a legitimate alternative to the Liberals for Federalists in Quebec. This would lead to the Liberals holding onto most of their wins in 2004 plus the CPC making small inroads. i.e. no more than five seats in Quebec.

What if this thread wasn't started by a conservative? Shouldn't the thread speak for itself? Hmmm, newbie for somebody who claimed to be 'neutral' when you got here that is a pretty partisan statement. The us vs. them mentality is much more evident in the Martinite clan, which has lead to the internal war in the LPC.

It has been three weeks since any of those predictions have been updated. H & K prediction site is the only prediction site I have found that updates regularly. Their prediction base on *today's* Leger Marketing poll is: CPC 129 LPC 99 BQ 54 NDP 25 Other 1 (Looks like the *other* is Chuck Cadman's seat in Surrey, which clearly won't stay independent.)

That has been the big problem with the Martin *brain trust*. They truly believe they have a divine right to lead this country. Anybody who disagrees with them or gets in their way is a lacking intellectually, a bad person and/or an enemy of Canada. Snapping at the media and making baseless accusations is great Liberal strategy. For the Conservatives.

Do you have a link for that or was it on TV/radio?

All he can do is respond the way he did in the first debate. No reason to bring it up, and the only time to respond directly is if it is a question from the moderator. Don't get sucked in by the other leader's attacks. Supposedly there will be more chance for give and take in this debate.

It is given that the Conservatives are winning the campaign at this point. Give credit to their disciplined, policy-driven campaign. Blame the Liberals unfocused, lackluster effort. Here and now they are winning. So all they have to do is stick to the same playbook while the Liberals have to somehow change the dynamic. Conventional wisdom says the only way for the Martinites to pull this one out of the hat is to play the *scary* *scary* *scary* card ... again. Unfortunately, it won't work this time around. And here is why, in the words of Warren Kinsella. Can anybody come up with a scenario whereby the Liberals try *scary* *scary* *scary*, it doesn't work AND the Liberals still win the election? Anybody? Buehler?

tml12, I disagree with this part of your post. I think that the Liberals have finally come across a united right that isn't shooting itself in the foot at every turn. The Conservative's disciplined and policy driven camgaign has finally allowed the CPC to definte itself, not the Liberals. That is why they are leading this election. That is why Stephen Harper will be living in 24 Sussex Drive and Paul Martin will be resigned to a footnote in Canadian political history. i.e. *second* least successful Liberal leader in the past 100 years. Thank goodness for John Turner.

Childish name-calling is not allowed here Yaro. What makes you think you don't have to follow the rules? Oh I get it, because you are a Liberal. BAH

Ahhh, there is the rub. The Liberals are so desperate to paint Harper as a *bad guy* they have to resort to out and out lying. Harper did shake Duceppe's hand after the debate. The Liberals, when originally trying to make an issue of this, even admitted as much. As their campaign grows more and more desperate the lies become bigger and more bald-faced. Tick tock Mr. Dithers. 18 more days and counting...

Just thinking about 2004. Harper scared enough nervous nellies over to the Libs when he started talking about a majority. Given that anything over five CPC seats in Quebec is really unrealistic, why send people to the Liberals when a majority is almost impossible... I do not see how #4 could come about at this point. If Martin could manage to pull that off he would deserve a majority.

10+ points is far too much. It allows the Liberals to try and use their Harper is Satan strategy. The CPC is still in solid minority government territory, which is good enough for now. Fear mongering won't work against a CPC minority as the public has warmed to that point with Harper. No need to start thinking majority though.

Yeah, well those ads ain't backfiring that is for sure. As of now it looks like they are actually helping. No need to fret though. The Liberals only chance at this point is *Harper is Satan*. But they have been counter-acted with the "They'll go negative" ads. When the CPC wins those ads will likely be seen as the deciding factor. buh bye dithers...

You're smarter than me too. What exactly is an odiot? (Spelling *does* count in a post where you are attacking someone's intelligence.)

While this election is far from in the bag, IMHO the Conservatives issue ads are not going to hurt them. Ads of this nature have been used prominently in the last five elections (going back to 1988). Only once, in 1993, did the ads hurt the party airing them. That was because they attacked Chretien's Bell's Palsy and were horrible. The PCs deserved to be punished for those ads. *If* the ads were going to backfire on them they already would have.

The Liberals *are* running scared. The entire campaign has been based on 2004. Wait for the CPC to screw up while we do nothing. Shakey's gross example proves this is the case. The point to remember is Harper hurt himself when he peaked in 2004 by talking about forming a majority government. You will not hear a peep out of him about that this time around.

Bravo HP. Bravo. It is truly splitting hairs on this one. How would you have liked Harper to phrase his statement at the press conference in a good-spirited Canada loving way?

*IF* you take 14% as the NDP base of support that won't switch things are looking bad for the Liberals. In today's EKOS poll the CPC is up 36-30 with the NDP at 18%. IF that four points all jumps Liberal the CPC will still have a four point lead. And still form government.

Ahhh, the good old hidden agenda nugget. No support for it, just his *core support knows something*. If there really was a hidden agenda why wouldn't Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach have said something when they crossed the floor?

The Liberals would dream of the Conservatives dying on the first non-confidence vote. There will be so many knives out for Martin by that point he won't be able to gather the votes in his caucus to support killing the government that quickly.

Here is a quote from Warren Kinsella's blog. Love him or hate him he makes a good point. Can anyone else explain why things have fallen apart so quickly for the Liberals? Why the Conservatives are actually catching a few breaks from the media this go round? Anybody? Bueller?

That would be right, except the Conservative piece was actually in the National Post. Not a press release per se. Just an opinion piece. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey no need for wild allegations. Not when Martin owns ships (via CSL) that are registered of shore. Was it Liberia? Panama? Bermuda? It all gets me so confused.