normanchateau

CPC, Liberals and NDP all claim to be tough on one aspect of crime or another. But only CPC has a leader who's a social conservative. Given that the Liberals are stuck with the most ineffective leader in generations, that Harper ranks high on leadership, that the Green Shift has not been embraced by most Canadians, that Canada has one of the strongest economies in the world and best banking system in the world, you'd think that CPC would today win a majority. But I suspect CPC'll do no better than in 2006. Why? Canada will not hand over a majority to a social conservative even if that social conservative claims to no longer be a social conservative. I'd be happy to see a financial conservative as Prime Minister. CPC will need to find a leader who's a financial conservative, not a social conservative. Harper's increase in spending on the CBC as well as his overall increase in Arts spending in the past two years are not what one expects of a financial conservative. His trivial cuts to Arts spending in Quebec, his trivial cuts to programs which he opposes ideologically and his censorship-like Bill C-10 (withdrawn too late last week) are what one expects of a social conservative. The Bloq's rise in Quebec is due to Duceppe reminding Quebecers that Harper is a social conservative. In the next election, Dion's replacement as party leader will do the same in the rest of Canada.

False. Now how about answering my question?

Yup, those Americans sure have a history of loving blacks. Poor Sarah Palin and McCain. If only they were running against a white man or woman they'd win.

Harper's omnibus crime legislation, currently stalled in the Justice Committee, imposes mandatory six month sentences for selling one marijuana plant. True or false?

Are you saying that having socially conservative views does not make you a social conservative? Which example that I listed is not consistent with social conservatism? Wanting to give criminal records to teenagers for simple possession of a gram of marijuana? Voting against making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals? Would Harper have to become an ayatollah-like Muslim fundamentalist to fit your definition of social conservative? How about Sarah Palin who shares Harper's values? Is she a social conservative? Face it. Harper is a social conservative who will never win a majority. Most Canadians, especially Quebecois, have no use for social conservatives. Harper governs because four parties split the nonconservative vote. In a two way race, social conservative Harper would be toast. Harper won't win a seat in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver in part because he's a social conservative. Mulroney was able to win in those cities because he was a social moderate. Too bad for CPC that Harper supporters can't see that Harper is a social conservative.

To counter continuing NDP criticism of the Liberals propping up Harper, to recapture NDP voters and because Dion has nothing to lose. There will be a lot of Liberal in-fighting but I'm sure the race has begun and whoever replaces Dion could only be a more effective campaigner than Dion.

It assumes no change in NB and PEI, CPC losing South Shore to the NDP , and losing Avalon and St. John's South to the Liberals and St. John's east to the NDP.

I think Dion will be less rather than more likely to prop up the Conservatives this time.

Atlantic Canada prediction: Liberal 22 CPC 4 NDP 5 Ind 1

Fortunately Harper will never win a majority so this social conservative will eventually be thrown out by his own party.

Yes, that must be why Americans are abandoning Obama and Biden, and rushing to deposit their votes with Sarah Palin and McCain.

If I provided you with examples, you would no doubt claim that this is not evidence of social conservatism. But here are some examples: As leader of the Opposition, Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. Harper has no problem with hate crime legislation per se. For example, he favours hate crime legislation when the criterion is religion, race or ethnicity. But he opposes it when the criterion is sexual orientation. C-250 passed anyway because a majority of MPs, including some in Harper's own party, voted for C-250. Harper opposes abortion, embryonic stem cell research and same sex marriage. Although he claims that he won't introduce legislation to overturn these, his positions are nonetheless those of a social conservative. When Harper campaigned in the 2006 election, he promised not to reintroduce the marijuana decriminalization legislation introduced by the Liberals before they were voted out of office. The NDP and BQ also support decriminalization of possession of tiny quantities of marijuana. The Greens support outright legalization. A majority of Canadians favour decriminalization. Harper favours criminal sentences for teenagers in possession of even a few grams of marijuana. Harper's position is anti-libertarian and socially conservative. Government intrusion for possession of a few grams of marijuana is evidence of social conservatism. Harper's omnibus crime bill has a mandatory six month jail sentence for one marijuana plant, i.e., judges will not have discretion in sentences in such cases. How about Bill C-10 where Harper's government decided not to fund art that they considered "offensive"? Sure, they withdrew C-10 a few days ago but only because Harper was desperate to portray himself as not being a social conservative. Of course those Canadians who are even more socially conservative than Harper would not view him as a social conservative. I'm sure there are dozens of rural rednecks, prairie Neanderthals, mouthbreeders and even a handful of people who can spell who don't view Harper as a social conservative.

Perhaps in his next career, Harper could sell used cars and SUVs.

Prediction for 2008 election: CPC 125 Liberal 94 NDP 36 BQ 51 Green 0 Other 2 The Liberals and NDP won't form a coalition even though they will be able to outvote the Conservatives. At the dissolution of Parliament last month, the party standings were: CPC 127 Liberal 96 NDP 30 BQ 48 Green 1 Other 3 Vacant 3 As I type this, the Dow Jones is up more than 900 points. Unfortunately for Harper, any financial turnaround at this stage is too late to change tomorrow's results significantly. The election will have cost Canada more than a third of a billion dollars and Harper will have contemptuously defied his own fixed-date election legislation. For a leader who prides himself on not taking risks, Harper took a huge gamble.

Which 2006 numbers? Seats or popular votes? I expect Harper will pick up a few seats tomorrow but will not increase his share of the popular vote. The pickup for Harper will be entirely due to shifts within the non-rightwing parties. CPC needs to dump Harper if they hope for a majority. Mulroney won two consecutive majorities by capturing centrist voters. Harper showed in 2004, 2006 and 2008 that he cannot capture the centre. I agree that Dion will not run as LPC leader in another election. But I don't hear CPC supporters acknowledging that Harper needs the boot if a CPC majority is to materialize.

I doubt that this "non-story" will go away. Cadman is projected to win this seat for CPC tomorrow. Harper will not be able to muzzle Cadman indefinitely and eventually the media will once again ask her about her public statement in which she maintained that Chuck Cadman told her about the Conservative bribe. Was Dona Cadman lying when she made this statements? And whether she was lying or not, why would Harper want Dona Cadman as a CPC MP? Art Hangar's Justice Committee failed to pass Harper's omnibus crime bill because the Committee wanted to investigate Harper's alleged involvement in the Cadman affair and Hanger shut down the meetings each time the Cadman affair was mentioned. Assuming Harper is reelected, the Justice Committee will remain paralyzed thanks to Conservative attempts to delay and obstruct the truth from coming out. Until a decision is made as to whether Harper should face criminal charges for acknowledging that he was aware of Conservative bribes, this issue is not going away. Harper supporters may view this as a "non-story" but the media, opposition and eventually the Canadian public will care if charges are laid. The fact that the critical part of the tape was not altered means Harper supporters will need to fabricate another rationale for why Harper's potential criminal behaviour should not be investigated.

And the Bloq will never let Quebecers forget that Harper wanted Canada to invade Iraq and went on US television to tell Americans that he stood with George Bush on this issue. Given the antipathy of francophone Quebecers to Dion's strong federalism and Harper's social conservatism, both leaders will ultimately need to be replaced if either the Conservatives or Liberals hope ever to win a majority. Canada can anticipate perpetual minorities as long as Harper and Dion continue as party leaders.

Perhaps it was viewed as scandalous because Harper had previously claimed that senators should be elected. Or perhaps it was viewed as scandalous because Fortier is Harper's close personal friend and former campaign manager. Perhaps it was viewed as scandalous because Harper campaigned for the 2006 election on a platform of accountability. Tomorrow Quebecers will hold Harper accountable as they deliver their verdict on Harper Cabinet Ministers Fortier and Blackburn. I wonder if Harper supporters will view it as a good thing if Harper once again appoints the unelected Fortier to Cabinet. My guess is that they won't object as any bending over to Quebec is viewed as the price which must be paid in yet another attempt to win a majority.

Days after being elected in 2006, Harper appointed his close personal friend and former campaign manager Michael Fortier to the Senate then promptly made Fortier an unelected cabinet Minister. "Harper — who campaigned on a promise of an elected senate — said Fortier would be appointed to the senate for the duration of the current minority government on the condition that he runs for office in the next federal election. Harper called Mr. Fortier's move to the Senate as “a temporary appointment” that doesn't interfere with the Tories' plans for an elected senate." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...cialNewTory2006 Harper kept his promise and Fortier has indeed quit the Senate to run for a seat in Quebec. However, it now looks like Fortier stands no chance of winning that seat. "However, at a news conference earlier Friday, Harper had refused to rule out a replay of his Fortier nomination. On his first day in office, Feb. 6, 2006, Harper named the Montreal businessman to the Senate and immediately made him public works minister. Recent polls suggest that Tory hopes of big gains in the province are being wiped away, and that Harper may even wind up with fewer members elected from Quebec this time around. He was asked twice at the news conference Friday whether he would rule out installing yet another unelected senator in his cabinet. Harper twice declined to do so." “I’m not going to start announcing who I’m appointing to cabinet in the middle of an election campaign,” he said. http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/canadavotes/news...10/7045601.html I guess when Harper announced that Fortier's appointment to the Senate was temporary, he meant that it was temporary until the next time he appointed him to Senate once again. Mere days after becoming Prime Minister in 2006, Harper sleazily appointed Fortier. Will Harper begin his second term by once again sleazily appointing the unelected Fortier to cabinet? Will anyone be surprised if he does or are Harper supporters resigned to a sleazy replay of 2006?

If I'm not mistaken, Ekos had a much smaller sample size in 2006. In 2008, there sample size is huge. Here are some Ekos numbers from January, 2006 which were surprisingly close: http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/5Jan2006PR.pdf

Ekos, which has by far the largest sample size, shows the following trend in Conservative voting intentions. October 9 36% October 8 35% October 7 34% October 6 33% Ekos seat projections released October 10th are: CPC 152 Liberal 60 NDP 39 BQ 57 http://www.ekoselection.com/index.php/2008...ctober-10-2008/ Ekos concludes: "We have not taken into account the fact that the Conservatives are stronger among demographic groups that have a higher propensity to vote, that their voters are more likely to say that they are “absolutely certain” to vote and that this is an important election. In sum, we think if anything this projection may somewhat understate Conservative strength." Given that the above projections underestimate Conservative's propensity to vote, a Conservative majority and a BQ official opposition are a distinct possibility next week.

The Ekos poll the day before that had CPC at 34% and the day before that at 33%. In other words, Ekos has CPC trending up. If this trend continues at this rate for another five days, it suggests a possible Harper majority. Why should we trust the Ekos numbers more than Nanos or Harris/Decima? Ekos has a far, far larger sample size than either of the other two polls. A few days ago I anticipated a reduced Harper minority government but a majority remains a distinct possibility.

Those citations are pouring in aren't they?

I was certainly wrong as well. In the early stages of the campaign, the momentum was clearly in favour of Harper as the Conservatives hit 40% while the Liberals concurrently appeared to be in free fall. There was every reason to assume that the trend would continue given Dion's English skills and Harper's incumbency advantage. The economy is certainly a major factor in the current CPC decline but I think other factors are playing a significant role. For example, the opposition parties have only recently reminded Canadians that Harper wanted not only to go to war over Iraq but actually went on US television in 2003, a very unCanadian and unpatriotic action, to inform Americans that the Canadian government should have joined Bush in invading Iraq. Dion's focus on the economy has helped Dion but I think he should have pointed out Harper's similarities to Bush long ago. Duceppe has no problem successfully employing this strategy but Dion is far too much of a gentleman in failing to remind Canadians that Harper is a right wing, out-of-control spending, social conservative. There is still a chance that Harper can turn things around if he comes up with an economic plan but he runs the risk of being accused of panicking given his response to Dion in the debates. My prediction now is a reduced Harper minority. He'll pick up some seats but will lose more. In my own riding of Vancouver Quadra, there is still a chance that Harper could take the riding. In the 2008 Quadra byelection, the CPC candidate lost by only 151 votes. Today my neighbourhood has about four times as many Conservative as Liberal signs so this could become a Liberal loss.

I just looked at the Nanos numbers as well and am startled that the gap has narrowed to 3 points. The Liberals now lead the Conservatives 40% to 31% in Ontario. The Bloc as at an astounding 46% in Quebec. http://www.nanosresearch.com/election/CPAC...ber-7-2008E.pdf Harper's reluctance to acknowledge today's economic realities along with the French language debate was the worst thing that could have happened to Harper. While the English language debate, which most Canadians missed, had little impact, the French debate saved Canada from a right wing majority government.