Bryan

I volunteer with one of those women, my MP. She is highly respected in the community. This "afraid of women in power" schtick is a desperate move by someone who is trying to play the victim card rather than look in the mirror and see why people don't like you personally.

He's increased their seat count in every single election. How many other leaders of any party has ever done that? Again, this is wishfull thinking on the part of the left. No one in the CPC membership has any thoughts of replacing Harper. Also, be careful what you wish for. The next CPC leader will be considerably more right wing than Harper.

Ipsos Reid's polling has a track record of UNDER reporting Conservative support compared to election day too though. To be fair, every pollster does, but I-R was 4% lower than what CPC actually got in 2008. They're not the only ones reporting that CPC support is over 40%, but they are the first ones showing NDP support being above the Liberals nationally. They're also confirming the Quebec tend showing the NDP surging there. http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10675 Quebec N - 28% B - 27% C - 24% L - 20%

I sort of was feeling sorry for her until the end of the article when she comes up with this doozy: All right Ruby, yes, it's because you're a woman, OK. Explain all the female MPs from other parties then?

That's wishful thinking among the left. There's certainly no push that way among Conservatives.

The opposition were the ones who refused to work with the elected government, and who wouldn't show a shred of civility. Bunch of shrieking monkeys.

MacDonald has not been any kind of friend of Harper.

Provincial NDP in Manitoba most definitely believes in lower corporate taxes too.

That is official: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/elections-federales/201104/20/01-4391998-le-npd-prend-la-tete-au-quebec.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B4_en-manchette_2503_section_POS1

No he didn't.

Government ends up with a lot more revenue, making paying down the deficit easier and faster, making further tax cuts possible, even making further programs possible. High energy prices are good for Canadians as a whole.

Ignatieff has "dropped the ball" a lot worse many times over in this campaign, the difference is he's already pretty much at the Liberal's basement for support (and far lower than what Stanfield ended up with in 1974), so all it's done is reinforced the position he already has in the polls. Stanfield only finished two seats behind Trudeau in 1972, but finished 46 seats back in 1974 after he "dropped the ball". The funny part is, Stanfield actually increased his percentage of the vote slightly despite losing so many seats.

On The Agenda the other night, they had a panel discussion with former politicians and they were accounting for what the different levels of "lies" politicians tell are. There are things that they truly mean at the time, but circumstances changed forcing change in position. Income trusts was an example of this. There are things they probably shouldn't have promised, because they didn't realize at the time how difficult it would be. Most failed promises fall here. Then there are outright lies. Promises where the intention all along was to do the opposite. These are far less common, but when they do happen, they're usually big, like Trudeau and wage/price controls. The episode is archived here: http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=109136&ts=2011-04-08%2020:00:00.0

Don martin is not a Conservative of any kind. He has always had a hate on for the CPC and Harper in particular.

Agreed. There has to be SOME kind of second chamber, no matter how much one disagrees about how it is formed or how it could be reformed. The method I'd prefer (although this likely would require some constitutional confetti) is to make it like jury duty, where random people from all walks of life are essentially "drafted" into the senate to be that true 'man/woman of the people' making that sober second thought. There are all kinds of problems (legal and logistical) with this, I concede, but at least it takes away partisanship for the most part.

I do have a guess WRT the signs' effectiveness. I think they are specifically for people who don't follow politics at all, but do understand the basic concept that they should "exercise their right". Not knowing who to vote for though, they vote how they think most of their neighbors are voting. Just a theory.

Not the right location, but it would be serving the same purpose: attempting to rig the election in favour of one particular voting block. You would not do it for exactly the same reason.

Things I've noticed in Winnipeg: 1) A candidate recycling old signs. I honestly didn't know what to make of this. Is the message that candidate is environmentally friendly, or that their campaign doesn't have as much support as they used to have to afford new signs? The thing that makes them stand out is that these signs are not even federal election signs. They are from when this candidate uses to run in the provincial elections. So the colours and the party logo are different, and they even have the name of the provincial riding on them (which is different from the federal one. 2) A stretch where every single house on a busy multi-lane street has signs for a particular candidate That in itself would not be that strange. You just think that candidate must have very strong support. ...Until you notice the hand-made signs taped over a lot of these signs saying; "this sign placed without permission". Again, what to make of that? Why would a candidate place signs without asking first, and even more curious, why wouldn't the home owner who didn't want the sign just take it down? 3) Destroyed signs I've seen a lot of this, against all parties. I wonder if this is not a partisan sabotage thing at all, but rather a bunch of bored kids being presented with easy vandalism targets? 4) Homes with huge signs for more than one party A lot of these too. Again, what does this mean? Are these just nice people who say yes to anyone who asks? Or are they having some really spirited dinner conversation in that household?

Also note that Pogge admits that his list is not researched or even fact checked, it's just "off the top of his head" (his words).

GST was the only available tax reduction possible on people whose incomes are so low that they don't pay much (if any) income tax. The idea is lower taxes for everyone. What would have to change to make Harper not be in favour of lower taxes though? He'd have to see that it wasn't working the way he intended. So far, it has worked. Employment is up, GDP is up, foreign investment is up, government revenues are up, and the deficit is going down. The real sticking point so far is the high dollar. Bad for a lot of business, but good for most consumers.

The very need for a special ballot is something I don't understand. You can vote any time you want by just showing up to an Elections Canada office with ID. Why not just send the students there? There's an office ten minutes away from U of Guelph.

U of Guelph basically got off with a warning.

Keep digging that hypocritical hole. Seems like all you've got is strawman attacks. You fit right in with the Liberals on that front.

You were obviously looking in the mirror when you typed that.

Notice they only do that in ridings they know for a fact that the LPC can't win. They aren't campaigning FOR the NDP to win in those cases, they are simply promoting the CPC loss. It's still the same purpose. The promoting a CPC to NDP shift is still specifically for the purpose having the Liberals win.