CANADIEN

Looking at their numbers, they still do not make sense. The Conservatives at 46%?!!? As for the usual lowest showing of left-wing voters on election days... I do not think it will happen to as large as extent as usual today. There is a big difference this time, namely, the NDP is clearly in Official Opposition territory, a motivation to actually go and vote that was not there last time.

del

I believe the Conservatives will be short of a minority, with the NDP anywhere from the mid-60's to the low 90's (will depend on their results in Quebec), the Liberals in the 40`s to low 50's, and the Bloc anywhere from the 10`s to upper 30's (depending on the concentration of the NDP vote in Quebec). Based on this, I see two scenarios, both of which involve the departure within one to two years of Harper (if he cannot get a majority this time, he will never will), Ignatieff (obvious) and Duceppe (obvious). 1 - The Conservatives offer a throne speech and a budget with just enough to get them the support of either the Bloc or the Liberals. They go at it that way over the next two thre years, but a bit less of a confrontational attitude towards the 3rd and 4th party, while the Liberals lick their wounds and prepare for the future (the Bloc is basically gone). 2 - The Conservatives present the same budget they presented in March, and a Throne Speech that makes it clear that they are in more of a mood to work with the opposition than before. Within four months, there's a non-confidence vote, the NDP forms government, with support (but no participation) from the Liberals. Some of the measures in the NDP program will get through, but some will not see the light of day. This will last for as long as the Bloc doesn't cause the defeat of the Government, but this may take time if the party is in turmoil (which it will be). Similarly, if Harper goes, the Conservatives may not want to cause an election until they have a new leader.

When you spend more one planes that what they should cost, that's reckless and that's unnecessary. When you build more prisons than what is needed, that's reckless. The level of spending for the G20 was unecessary (remember th fake lake?). Interesting that you mention the stimulus spending. The opposition parties basically had to force Flaherty's hand on this. The issue is not how much you pend, or invest, but how wisely. Properly targetted stimulus spending was exactly that, a stimulus. Spending more on airplanes than hat they should actually cost is a waste.As for the fear of the big bag NDP. This is not the 1990's, and this is not the same NDP. For one, the NDP fiscal program includes cuts to taxes for small businesses, including cuts linked to job creation. That's something that the Ontario NDP in the 1990's never thought about. Interesting that you do give any credit to Flaherty. Good, he deserves none. And neither is the Conservatives`. What we get with them is a continuation of the same lack of control over spending and the debunked belief that ctax cuts after tax cuts to big foreign-controlled corporation will cause them to re-invest all of it here.

They will not get that much more seats outside Quebec than what they had last time. The Conservatives still are not getting a majority. The number of seats they will get in Ontario is unlikely to offset their losses in BC and Quebec AND give them the extra seats they need for that.

Most of the opposition to the war is in Quebec. The voters there are unlikely to turn away from the NDP to... the anti-war Bloc?

Those who know of both men's stand on the war will not associate this news with Layton.

I think most people realize that the NDP are not winning the election.

It's not about fencesitting. It's about being, as YOU said serious. "What would you bet if you were forced to?"

12 hours before the polls open? Unlikely to make a big difference.

Seriously, I wouldn't waste my time on that kind of bet.

I stand corrected as to what article you saw..and which one I saw. With my apologies. That being said, the article you saw was posted yesterday night. The article I saw, from the same journalist, was posted tonight, 24 hours later. And I quote: Sounds to me like the journalist found facts that were different from what she had originally written. link

Actually, I don't. Why would I believe something that stupid? But feel free to believe that it will drop of the radar and be relagated to the National Inquirer if only Obama shuts up. I don't.

In the Toronto Sun story YOU posted.

Nope. He didn't.

Whoever's position it was, I still find the whole issue to be a riot.

The oppositions parties will not touch it with a ten foot pole unless there's a smoking gun.

Found and read before you psted the link. Soo, it was so well known as a bawdy house that it closed 3 years after the raid. But my favorite part is about how suspicious that, 15 years later, some people involved are no longer there. Guess only people involved with bawdy houses ever move.

Feel free to tell us.

As opposed to... a dictatorship. And what do you say about people who wants a disctorship, which would intrude into people's life?

Nope. A non-event was treated 15 years ago as a non-event. And Canadians got it. If you have facts that contradict it, show them.

Settling down? Me? I am having far too much fun right now.

I agree. But innuendos and assumptions are not evidence. That's what I have seen so far.

We'll have to disagree on that.The fact his publicly held religious beliefs were indluence his political beliefs was clear, to five two examples, in his supoort for the teaching of creationism alongside real science, and in his opposition to same-sex marriage. No doubt about it. If it was important to him to make his beliefs known, good. Religious beliefs are not something to hide like a dirty secret, unless one chooses to consider them his/her a private matter.