Bryan

He did everything I was voting for. Almost everything he did differently I either hoped he would change his mind on anyway, or didn't care about it either way. Even now, on some of the issues that left leaning people are warning might not happen if Harper wins, I'm still having that "I hope you're right" feeling, and it only makes me want to vote for him more.

Are Nanos sample sizes always that small? They may have a good track record, but I still wouldn't put any stock in a survey that small.

I think so. I'll be shocked if May wins even her own seat, nevermind enough to be of any help to Dion. The most likely scenario if Green support holds, is them taking just enough votes away from the Liberals for them to end up losing even in ridings that should be totally safe. In other words, a Green surge is a CPC win. Besides, May will probably say something insane during the debate anyway and kill off any momentum she may have had.

It think it's much higher than that.

Fiscal management is one of the few places where I definitely do fundamentally disagree with the CPC. If there was one thing I wanted to remain from the Reform platform it was their insistence on fiscal restraint. That having been said, we do still need to parse our economy in the context of the American one. For over two years, while the US economy was in the toilet and only getting worse, ours was white hot. We lost 30-35% of our advantage thanks to the crashing US dollar, and yet our situation was practically a polar opposite to theirs. Throughout all of that, they (the CPC) still managed to run a surplus, reduce taxes, and reduce the national debt. Considering how much of our economy is intrinsically tied to theirs, especially with regards to exports, this is nothing short of remarkable. It's only just in recent months that we are starting to see things slowing down. And what is slowing down? Primarily manufacturing that's either American owned and/or making product to export back to the US market. I've seen several economists on CTV and CBC recently saying that outside of the manufactured-for-the-Americans-exports, our economy is actually still doing very well by most other metrics. As much as I wretch at the spending, I have to at least admit the possibility that just maybe they DID know what they were doing. I might not like it, but it really worked well anyway. Even so, I still want to see someone from the Alberta school in as finance minister for the next session. (edited to clarify that one of my "theys" referred to the CPC, not the US.)

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...17-c321c4ff75a8 Hopefully now that we have scandals on both sides, the media will just stick to the actual campaign, and give the distractions a rest. (I wish)

You should be their new campaign manager!!

I don't see how you could "on purpose", you either vote for a given party or you don't, then wait for the numbers. Some people would have to intentionally vote for the party they didn't want, then hope not everyone else did too!?! If you COULD vote for a minority somehow, that would certainly be my choice this time.

That's not a total collapse, that's just a loss. You're still in a better position than every other political entity in the country other than the Conservatives. If 42 seats makes the Liberals non-viable, what does that make the NDP and the Greens? I don't think it'll be anywhere near as severe a swing as you fear. I'm sure they'll increase their seat count, but even getting to 155 for the CPC seems like wishful thinking to me. I'm not even sure I want them to get that many.

I wonder if those who are complaining about this election call would have supported the other side of the equation with regards to fixed elections: Should the opposition not be able to bring down a minority gov't either?

I only know what he told me. Supposedly happened in Colorado.

Dobbin, You keep forecasting "collapse" for the Liberals. You still think they'll be in opposition though, right? You aren't actually thinking Layton will surpass Dion in the seat counts?

That might actually be true.

Director of a women's empowerment organization, convicted of uttering threats... This sounds like it might be a domestic abuse issue rather her being a criminal offense as we might typically think. Records don't always mean what they appear to say. I know a guy who is on a sexual offender registry. His crime? Peeing on the side of a building while drunk when he was 19.

How long do you want this debate to be? Nobody will be able to get their point across any better than they would with regular press coverage anyway. I guess every independent is a party of one too, so they should each be there too. Even better, stop giving anyone federal money unless they get official party status.

That was a mistake. Too many people at the podium, the debate was a mess. Even four is pushing it. Why not? Trudeau refused to debate anyone in three different elections. If your support is already that strong, why would you give your competition a venue to attack you?

Not at all. I'm not saying that it never happened, I'm just saying it's not there in the official party platform book. I'll ask my local candidate about it this week. Regardless, they didn't win in 2004 did they? Canadians rejected those policies, so they made new ones. I'm sure there are plenty of things that are different from the 2004 and 2006 manuals. That's what you do if the public rejects your policies, you adopt new ones. That's not even close to being a broken promise.

No they won't. Not until they have TWELVE elected MPs and get official party status will they have a valid argument.

At one point, the Post definitely was pro-conservative. Not any more, they've been decidedly Liberal for the last couple years. Maybe they just support who ever is the opposition?

I can't account for what a left wing paper claims he promised. I have the actual physical platform book, and it's not there. This is the first time I've ever heard of it. I also have the Liberal red books. Want to compare unfullfilled promises?

And yet, after 7 elections, have yet to elect a SINGLE member. That is the very definition of fringe.

I have the 2004 platform book in front of me right now. I don't see any mention of any position or intention with regards to gas taxes.

The last thing we need is every fringe party involved. If the Green are allowed, then so should the Christian Heritage Party. Remember what a joke the 1993 debate was? Too many people!!! Hopefully, at the very least, we will end up with an actual codified list of rules for participation. I'd like to see it be official party status (12 seats), PLUS a minimum number of candidates running in a minimum number of provinces. No sure what those candidate numbers would be, but it should at least be mathematically possible for you to form the government. If it's not possible, then you are not running for PM, and you don't belong.

I'm torn. On one hand, I think the US restriction on natural born citizens is too harsh. I see no rational reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger for instance should not be able to run for president. On the other, we have to be sure that our leaders will not betray our interests in favor of what their previous country might want. An American born PM is a serious risk, no matter how you slice it. No one os going to make any accusations to this effect to Elizabeth May, but if Harper was the one who was in of similar heritage, he'd be crucified for it.

It's neither. They just don't want to waste their time letting every little fringe party in. Serious contenders only. If the greens get in, the Christian Heritage Party will want in too, etc.