Ricki Bobbi

Power to you for actually coming out with a contention. I guess I disagree with the electoral math needed to win a majority. The Conservatives only need to pick up 30 seats for a majority nationally. I believe another 5 to 7 in the maritimes is possible. 3 to 5 in Quebec. 13 to 17 in Ontario. One each in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and between 4 and 6 in BC. Take the halfway point on each of those predictions and you have a majority. Take the upper end and you have a stronger majority than Chretien won in 1997. *If* you absolutely believe the Conservatives can only win a majority with big gains in Quebec, then you are fair in assuming they can't win a majority. I just don't think the big gains in Quebec are necessary.

Who *expected* the Conservatives to be in a better position then they are now? I never said anything about a Liberal-supporting media. wtf is up with that? Your are correct that Harper has spent more time on foreign policy than planned during the election. If you look historically parties that elect a new leader traditionally gain support during the leadership campaign, followed by a little more of that trend in the honeymoon period then support falls off as the new leader shows his or her warts. So why isn't the Liberal party getting a boost for this campaign and why do you expect things to suddenly turn in their favour when Iggy takes the helm? I think static polls is better for the Conservatives than the Liberals.

In your selective editing of my quote you *accidentally* cut off the next part where I said I wan't sure if it was enough for a majority and said for that reason I believed there wouldn't be an election in 2006. To *repeat* the question you have ignored three times. Why do you think the Conservatives should be gaining support during the middle of the Liberal leadership race given all the free media the Liberals (mainly Ignatieff) are getting? Possible there but enough for a majority?

Name *two* trades a retard could actually do. I thought intellectually gifted meant the ability to go to university? Or is it the ability to mae money with your intelligence? Are the two the same thing? Guess I'm not *intellectually gifted* enough to follow your line of reasoning....

Afghanistan will be an issue in the next election because it comes up in polls about Afghanistan? You already admitted it isn't coming up in general voter intention polls. And the poll I showed you was just the beginning of the spring. The one earlier in this thread shows how much support has slipped since then. Yes, and I will repeat it. Conventional political wisdom holds that a party will gain popular support during a leadership campaign because of the extra media coverage they get. This means that the Liberals should be gaining support at the expense of the other national parties. Yet have argued repeatedly that it is a bad sign for the Conservatives that they are only *maintaining* their level of support since the election during the Liberal leadership race. What have you seen, or what makes you have this opinion?This thread was about about rumours that an election was a possibility soon. It really doesn't seem likely. Show me where the gains will be. Can't win any more seats in Alberta. From earlier in the thread. Answered all your questions. Good luck supporting the Liberals. Only five or six more years in opposition, unelss MacKay can pull of a win after Harper retires.

The Tories won't run on Afghanistan. They will run on their record as a government, propose policies and explain how they will govern with a majority. The Liberals can *attack* *attack* *attack* all they want this time. *Scary* *scary* *scary* didn't work in January and *Afghanistan* *Afghanistan* *Afghanistan* won't work next spring. Great poll. 57% of the respondents in Canada support the issue. That doesn't leave enough opposition to make a viable issue in the election. One party representing the view of a majority of Canadians with four others fighting over a minority of the voters? Seems good for the Conservatives. Yet again, show the polls for Quebec. The Conservatives only got 25% of the vote in La Belle Provence. There would have to be at least 70% opposition to the mission for the issue to cap Conservative growth in Quebec. It's much more than just how Ignatieff voted. It's the statments, and writing, he has done on the issue. He has been one of the strongest supporters of the mission in the Liberal caucus. If he backtracks ... ditherer. If he stays the course ... no issue for the CPC. (The Greens and NDP would take far more votes from the Liberals than the Conservatives on this issue.) Win-win for the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not want an election here this fall. But convince yourself about the *hankering* for a fall election. Parties are naturally expected to *gain* support during a leadership campaign because they get so much more media coverage. Why do you think other parties should gain support while the Liberals are getting tons of free media over their leadership race? Doesn't really matter. You keep avoiding the question because you can't come up with an answer. Don't worry. A Conservative majority truly will be a good thing for Canada, and it is a lot easier to rage against the machine than to support your party while in power.

Wow that's some elitist, ivory tower crap. You do realize that someone with an IQ of 50 does qualify as mildly retarded. Here's a link. I'm guessing you consider yourself *intellectually-gifted* because you do, or have, attended university.

That is *exactly* what the CBC apologized for. Why are people defending the CBCs actions when they have admitted they were in error and apologized for them?

Feel free to link to these mythical polls if you want. Strange how the issue isn't effecting the vote intention numbers. Far too early too tell if Afghanistan will be an issue in the next election. Many things could happen in the interim. Afghanistan being an issue in the next election will have a whole lot to do with who wins the Liberal leadership. If Ignatieff wins Afghanistan becomes a winning issue for the Conservatives, so the Liberals won't bring it up. Aghanistan becomes an issue in the next election is the Lbierals wet dream. If that is all you are pinning your hopes on, thanks. Makes the path to a majority that much easier. A three-way fight between the Libs, NDP and Greens over Aghanistan opponents leaves a lot of people with no choice but the Conservatives.

Let's take a look at this assertion. Here is a link with the 12 polls released from the start of June until now (about the middle of the page). 10 of the 12 have Conservative support in the range of 36 to 39%. We got 36.3% of the vote in January. So how exactly are the polls showing how Afghanistan is affecting the way people think about the Conservatives? It appears to me the electorate didn't think the Liberal tax cuts were the better choice in January.

Are there only two left-leaners on this board? Seeing as how I made comments on two posters who were pretty nasty in spouting hatred against Harper. My bad for reading the board for a while before actually start posting. I managed to get a take on two posters who hate our Prime Minister, defame him and repeatedly break the rules of this forum in slagging him off. Yup, it is a conspiracy. Please go ahead and check my IP...

Alberta doesn't have a mandatory opening for another 5 1/2 years so we'll have to wait and see on that. It wasn't an *either or* choice between the Alberta Senators-in-waiting and filling the Quebec seat. If an Alberta seat does open up Harper will definitely appoint an elected senator. Whether or not another election is held on that matter is an interesitng question.

Afghanistan. That's good to hear. Simplistic, arrogant Liberals yet again over-confident with no real clue. Why couldn't the Conservatives win in 2006? One-word answer ... Harper. Why can't we win a majority next election? One-word answer ... Afghanistan. But, it isn't top of mind to most people. For those who will cast their vote on that issue alone, the events in Afghanistan haven't changed their vote intnention. There are a lot of reasons why we will win a majority in the post I made above. Keep up the arrogance though. That's the surest route to a Conservative majority. Natural Governing Party ... BAH!

Nobody ever accused Chretien of dithering. Only Paul Martin was called a ditherer. There is a fine line between the occasional change of policy in reaction to changing circumstances and constantly changing your mind and priorities. Do you see a difference or are you too blinded in your support of the Fliberals?

Here's why it will get better. This reminds me of last summer. Everybody saying how the Conservatives should be doing better while they took the summer to work the grassroots and lay the foundation for the victory last January. Of course the Liberals are going to dominate the headlines, and get the coinciding boost in the polls, due to the leadership race being the only real game in Ottawa at the moment. But you go ahead and convince yourself these polls are bad news for the Conservatives. Wait until the Liberals have a leader to put to the test. Then we'll see how close the Conservatives are to a majority. The only realistic winners are Iggy and Dion. Iggy is a Stockwell Day waiting to happen in terms of media and Dion isn't too well thought of in Quebec and his weak English will hurt in the rest of Canada. Any actual thought behind why you think it won't get better for the Conservatives?

Brilliant!

Why?

I'm not really sure, but I think you are correct.

Than what? High school students?

They are down 2 1/2 points in Quebec since the election. They probably hold 9 of the ten seats they won in Quebec last time at that level of support. (Louis Hebert being the one loss.) The increased support would mean extra seats in Ontario, SK, the Maritimes and BC. Could they cobble together 31 to 35 more seats from those provinces with the extra support. Maybe.... Say what you will but this poll is better for the Conservatives than any other party, except for maybe the Greens.

Hmmm, the Liberals won a majority in 1997 with a little under 38.5% of the vote. This poll puts the Conservatives at 38%. What was your point?

This is *HIGH SCHOOL* age kids we are talking about. Does this mean these kids you know won't go to any public place for fear of someone being there with a seeing eye dog? Consider them if you want but is their potential fear more important than being compassionate to this kid?

Call it what you will. But for other posters such language would be considered breaking the rules and would get the posters warnings and/or bans. Could you tell us why you deserve such special treatment by the moderator?

So this poor kid has muscular dystrophy, needs to use a wheel chair and can't bring his service dog in school. Here's the link. Gotta love the quote from the spokeswoman for Calgary Public Schools. Any high school kid who is afraid of a big freakin' poodle has serious issues and they shouldn't effect this dude in the wheel getting the help he needs.

Blech ... that pretty much sums up the contribution of the last post to the thread. I hope our present day politicians have learned from the failures of Meech Lake and Charlottetown that sweeping changes to the consitution are recipes for disaster. The Elections Act could be changed to allow for Senatorial elections.