Liberal Leadership 2009

[Argus]

Gerard Kennedy is looking to join in.

That would probably help Ignatieff. Kennedy will draw a lot of lefty votes from Rae. No one likely to vote for Kennedy would support Ignatieff anyway.

[M.Dancer]

That would probably help Ignatieff. Kennedy will draw a lot of lefty votes from Rae. No one likely to vote for Kennedy would support Ignatieff anyway.

And then he'll cross the convention floor....

[jdobbin]

That would probably help Ignatieff. Kennedy will draw a lot of lefty votes from Rae. No one likely to vote for Kennedy would support Ignatieff anyway.

Kennedy has just announced that he is not running.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081112/...dership_kennedy

Count Gerard Kennedy out.

The Toronto MP and former Ontario cabinet minister has decided he will not take a second shot at the federal Liberal leadership.

Kennedy, like Hall, still has the outstanding debt and I think he knows that this is going to be a battle between Ignatieff and Rae.

[jdobbin]

David McGuinty has also said he won't be running.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/po....html?id=953394

Toronto MP Gerard Kennedy, the kingmaker in 2006, and Ottawa MP David McGuinty, brother of the Ontario premier, announced Wednesday they will not throw their hats in the ring but will focus on Parliament instead. Montreal MP Denis Coderre bowed out, too, citing costs and a sentiment that it may be time the Liberals had a leader from outside Quebec.

The leadership will be far more focused with fewer contenders.

[August1991]

The leadership will be far more focused with fewer contenders.

Maybe, but it could be far more ugly.

I haven't read through this entire thread (I flipped through the most recent pages).

It appears now that it will be Rae vs. Ignatieff (vs. Leblanc). IOW, Leblanc is angling, Liberal-style, for influence. IOW, this is the Liberal Party as usual - they want a winner and I suspect that they'll pick Ignatieff.

What will a Rae vs. Ignatieff fight to the finish look like? Two boomers arguing about who is still "with-it". Ugh. OTOH, both Rae and Ignatieff have the ego to change possibly the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party should have changed under Dion but he lacked the ego to do it. IMV, it is sad that Dion never got the chance to make Canada.

----

I'd say that Ignatieff has an excellent chance of leading the Liberals. And given Harper's thorough bungling of the Quebec dossier in the few weeks of the past federal election, I'd say Ignatielff has a good chance of leading a Liberal majority government in 2009 or 2010. (In French, Ignatieff reminds me of Victor Goldbloom. A perfect foreign federalist.)

If Ignatieff is chosen (and I think he will be), expect a federal election shortly after his selection.

If Ignatieff doesn't bring the Liberals to power, then they'll need serious corrective surgery.

[cybercoma]

Ignatieff is officially in. It looks like it will be Rae v Ignatieff. With the country leaning right at the moment, Ignatieff may be the wisest choice to draw the middle-right voters over to the Liberals. We'll see what happens at the convention though.

[OddSox]

Are they planning on spending as much as they did the last time around?

According to http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/fin...ary_report.aspx the candidates for the last Liberal Leadership campaign spent over $12 million, with contributions of less than $6 million (probably out of date). I suspect these donations probably take away from the amounts that would normally be donated to the Liberal Party's 'war chest' - $12 million would mean a big difference in an election.

Summary of Total Expenses by Contestant:

• Bennett, Carolyn: $254,863.57
  
• Bevilacqua, Maurizio: $700,775.79
  
• Brison, Scott: $593,637.24
  
• Dion, Stephane: $1,882,367.92
  
• Dryden, Ken: $650,266.46
  
• Findlay, Martha Hall: $422,958.08
  
• Fry, Hedy: $194,779.05
  
• Ignatieff, Michael: $2,316,027.85
  
• Kennedy, Gerard: $1,425,086.09
  
• Rae, Robert Keith: $2,989,822.42
  
• Volpe, Joseph: $768,110.13
  

TOTAL: $12,198,694.60

What do they spend all their money on anyway? I mean; you go to the convention, make a few speeches and everybody votes. Should it not be that simple?

[blueblood]

Maybe, but it could be far more ugly.

I haven't read through this entire thread (I flipped through the most recent pages).

It appears now that it will be Rae vs. Ignatieff (vs. Leblanc). IOW, Leblanc is angling, Liberal-style, for influence. IOW, this is the Liberal Party as usual - they want a winner and I suspect that they'll pick Ignatieff.

What will a Rae vs. Ignatieff fight to the finish look like? Two boomers arguing about who is still "with-it". Ugh. OTOH, both Rae and Ignatieff have the ego to change possibly the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party should have changed under Dion but he lacked the ego to do it. IMV, it is sad that Dion never got the chance to make Canada.

----

I'd say that Ignatieff has an excellent chance of leading the Liberals. And given Harper's thorough bungling of the Quebec dossier in the few weeks of the past federal election, I'd say Ignatielff has a good chance of leading a Liberal majority government in 2009 or 2010. (In French, Ignatieff reminds me of Victor Goldbloom. A perfect foreign federalist.)

If Ignatieff is chosen (and I think he will be), expect a federal election shortly after his selection.

If Ignatieff doesn't bring the Liberals to power, then they'll need serious corrective surgery.

That depends on how the tories handle the current economic situation.

As for Quebec, Charest royally screwed the tories. Quebecers don't like fiscal conservatism, thems the breaks. There won't be majority govt's for some time.

[capricorn]

What will a Rae vs. Ignatieff fight to the finish look like? Two boomers arguing about who is still "with-it". Ugh.

IMO the fact that they were both "losers" at the 2004 leadership convention kinda takes the shine off this contest. One of the losers will win.

If Ignatieff is chosen (and I think he will be), expect a federal election shortly after his selection.

If Ignatieff doesn't bring the Liberals to power, then they'll need serious corrective surgery.

There may not be enough left of the Liberal body after another election defeat to warrant corrective surgery.

[jdobbin]

IMO the fact that they were both "losers" at the 2004 leadership convention kinda takes the shine off this contest. One of the losers will win.

Think it was Chretien as a loser who later won majorities.

There may not be enough left of the Liberal body after another election defeat to warrant corrective surgery.

Unless Harper has the election in the next months, it seems he is planning on giving them the opportunity to rebuild.

[capricorn]

Think it was Chretien as a loser who later won majorities.

What can I say? Some losers are better than others. Let's see if one of these losers can pull off a Chretien. Mind you, whoever wins the leadership be it Ignatieff or Rae, will not be facing a fractured and decimated opponent as Chretien did.

Unless Harper has the election in the next months, it seems he is planning on giving them the opportunity to rebuild.

Harper will give the Liberals plenty of rope in the next Parliament.

[Smallc]

What can I say? Some losers are better than others. Let's see if one of these losers can pull off a Chretien. Mind you, whoever wins the leadership be it Ignatieff or Rae, will not be facing a fractured and decimated opponent as Chretien did.

Harper will give the Liberals plenty of rope in the next Parliament.

Yes, now the Conservatives face fractured opponents. They still can't seem to win a majority though.

[jdobbin]

Maybe, but it could be far more ugly.

Does it matter? Was the last few PC and Alliance leadership convention tea and crumpets?

I haven't read through this entire thread (I flipped through the most recent pages).

It appears now that it will be Rae vs. Ignatieff (vs. Leblanc). IOW, Leblanc is angling, Liberal-style, for influence.

Or the default candidate for "anything but" campaigns.

IOW, this is the Liberal Party as usual - they want a winner and I suspect that they'll pick Ignatieff.

I suspect you're right.

What will a Rae vs. Ignatieff fight to the finish look like? Two boomers arguing about who is still "with-it". Ugh. OTOH, both Rae and Ignatieff have the ego to change possibly the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party should have changed under Dion but he lacked the ego to do it. IMV, it is sad that Dion never got the chance to make Canada.

Dion was never going to overcome how people felt about him in Quebec. And if one thing has been made clear is that if you are not fluent beyond belief in both languages, you will not be elected.

I'd say that Ignatieff has an excellent chance of leading the Liberals. And given Harper's thorough bungling of the Quebec dossier in the few weeks of the past federal election, I'd say Ignatielff has a good chance of leading a Liberal majority government in 2009 or 2010. (In French, Ignatieff reminds me of Victor Goldbloom. A perfect foreign federalist.)

If Ignatieff is chosen (and I think he will be), expect a federal election shortly after his selection.

If Ignatieff doesn't bring the Liberals to power, then they'll need serious corrective surgery.

Of course all this depend on Harper not calling an election before the leader is decided.

[jdobbin]

What can I say? Some losers are better than others. Let's see if one of these losers can pull off a Chretien. Mind you, whoever wins the leadership be it Ignatieff or Rae, will not be facing a fractured and decimated opponent as Chretien did.

Mulroney was a loser once too.

Harper will give the Liberals plenty of rope in the next Parliament.

So sure of that, are you?

[jdobbin]

Are they planning on spending as much as they did the last time around?

They are not.

It is far too much money given donor limits.

What do they spend all their money on anyway? I mean; you go to the convention, make a few speeches and everybody votes. Should it not be that simple?

There is always money to be spent. Phone banks, winning delegates at the constituency level, around the country debates and so on.

Many Liberals raised a lot of money. Rae and Ignateiff raised a lot and paid it off. The problem is that convention fees, leaders raising money and election campaigns can put donors over the limits. Harper found that out himself when his party tried to say that conventions didn't count as a political donation.

[August1991]

That depends on how the tories handle the current economic situation.

As for Quebec, Charest royally screwed the tories. Quebecers don't like fiscal conservatism, thems the breaks. There won't be majority govt's for some time.

I disagree, and I disagree.

Charest didn't screw the Tories. Harper did that to himself in Quebec.

A majority federal government is perfectly feasible. Quebecers are "desperately" looking for an alternative to Duceppe and the Bloc. Harper had that chance but he blew it. I don't think Ignatieff will make the same mistakes.

Blueblood, for awhile I thought as you that Canada was destined to have unstable minority governments like Italy in the post war: the Bloc was like the Italian Communist Party. Nobody can include them but they're so large that they make a majority impossible. Well, Harper's incompetence gave the Bloc a reprieve in the past federal election.

IMO the fact that they were both "losers" at the 2004 leadership convention kinda takes the shine off this contest. One of the losers will win.

That's an American view of this.

The next federal election will play out in Quebec and suburban Ontario. Harper will have a very tough (impossible) time against Ignatieff in both places.

I also think that Canadians of all stripes are suspicious of foreigners/interlopers. By losing and staying, Ignatieff (and Rae for that matter) have shown that they're "serious". (And let me add that while I think Ignatieff will win, Rae has a chance.)

Think it was Chretien as a loser who later won majorities.

Good point, as well as your comment about Mulroney's first loss. Leonard Cohen called it: Beautiful Losers.

Nevertheless, they all live in the shadow of Trudeau who arrived on the scene and won a majority. (Too many forget that Trudeau never won back-to-back majorities and he even lost.)

Dion was never going to overcome how people felt about him in Quebec. And if one thing has been made clear is that if you are not fluent beyond belief in both languages, you will not be elected.

Dion's problem was not his poor English. And it wasn't how French Quebecers perceived him. His problem wasn't even the fact that his mother was French.

IMV, Dion is proof that politics is not really about "issues". Politics is about how issues are portrayed. For electoral success, a politician must portray issues well. (For governing success, a politician must pick one or two basic themes and ignore everything else.)

Edited November 15, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Good point, as well as your comment about Mulroney's first loss. Leonard Cohen called it: Beautiful Losers.

Nevertheless, they all live in the shadow of Trudeau who arrived on the scene and won a majority. (Too many forget that Trudeau never won back-to-back majorities and he even lost.)

Everyone lives in the shadow of Trudeau. That affects every party.

Having said that, the Liberals have had rough patches before and after Trudeau. Pearson was defeated twice and lost a lot of the Liberal base in Quebec.

Pearson's big achievement as leader of the Liberals after that defeat was to set up a Liberal thinkers conference two years later. A revitalized Liberal party brought in new people and brought the Conservatives to a minority in 1962. One year later, it was a minority Liberal government under Pearson and it was the Tories who were in trouble.

Still, Pearson was never able to get a majority.

Dion's problem was not his poor English. And it wasn't how French Quebecers perceived him. His problem wasn't even the fact that his mother was French.

IMV, Dion is proof that politics is not really about "issues". Politics is about how issues are portrayed. For electoral success, a politician must portray issues well. (For governing success, a politician must pick one or two basic themes and ignore everything else.)

It was the Clarity Act that hung around Dion's neck like an anchor.

His language skills hurt him in parts of the country who tuned him out because he could not "portray" his issue well to most people.

For the Liberal party, Dion's biggest flaw was not to revitalize the organization, the policy platform or the finances.

[bluegreen]

I disagree, and I disagree.

Charest didn't screw the Tories. Harper did that to himself in Quebec.

A majority federal government is perfectly feasible. Quebecers are "desperately" looking for an alternative to Duceppe and the Bloc. Harper had that chance but he blew it. I don't think Ignatieff will make the same mistakes.

Blueblood, for awhile I thought as you that Canada was destined to have unstable minority governments like Italy in the post war: the Bloc was like the Italian Communist Party. Nobody can include them but they're so large that they make a majority impossible. Well, Harper's incompetence gave the Bloc a reprieve in the past federal election.

That's an American view of this.

The next federal election will play out in Quebec and suburban Ontario. Harper will have a very tough (impossible) time against Ignatieff in both places.

I also think that Canadians of all stripes are suspicious of foreigners/interlopers. By losing and staying, Ignatieff (and Rae for that matter) have shown that they're "serious". (And let me add that while I think Ignatieff will win, Rae has a chance.)

Good point, as well as your comment about Mulroney's first loss. Leonard Cohen called it: Beautiful Losers.

Nevertheless, they all live in the shadow of Trudeau who arrived on the scene and won a majority. (Too many forget that Trudeau never won back-to-back majorities and he even lost.)

Dion's problem was not his poor English. And it wasn't how French Quebecers perceived him. His problem wasn't even the fact that his mother was French.

IMV, Dion is proof that politics is not really about "issues". Politics is about how issues are portrayed. For electoral success, a politician must portray issues well. (For governing success, a politician must pick one or two basic themes and ignore everything else.)

All very well said.

I disagree that Chretien was a loser though. He was the most succesful, and machiavellian Canadian politician for half a century. It was beautiful to watch him co-opt so many promising politicians from the other side(s), like Kim Campbell to lala land, and Charest right off the Federal scene. Stephen Lewis to a cushy posting, plus a number of others. Harper took a leaf from his book when he duped Manley, the biggest single threat to the CPC, into immolating himself.

Iggy is almost as dangerous to the CPC as Manley, and he will probably be the next leader. I find it interesting that you consider Rae to be a contender, because, despite being an Ontarian myself, and having an almost visceral anti Rae reaction, I was really impressed by Rae the intelligent attack dog in the last election. I would pay good money to see him skewer Harper in a televised election debate. He is as brilliantly sarcastic as Trudeau in his prime. Not enough to beat Iggy though, because they will both have to mute their true 'charms' and it will boil down to the better machine.

Looking to the 2010 election, Ignatieff will win former PC's back from the CPC, and it will only take 2% of the CPC support to tip the balance, due to how small the Reform base is. Quebec loves a winner, and that will give the Lib's a dozen extra seats in la Belle Province. No-one will add up to a majority though for the forseeable future, but I would lay even money that Ignatief will have a strong minority in 2 more years. Parliament will have to adapt to this fundametal shift to minority, and/or coalition governments.

[capricorn]

The more I see Ignatieff and Rae in action in this contest, the more I like Dominic Leblanc. There is a leader's candidate forum scheduled for this afternoon (Nov. 16). Warren Kinsella hints that the three aspirants originally agreed that the media would be kept out.

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?en...ry081116-084732

Apparently, Rae has had a change of heart and wants the media present.

The Liberals are holding a leadership candidates' forum with Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff and Dominic Leblanc in Toronto on Sunday afternoon. But Rae says he won't participate unless the Ignatieff campaign withdraws its objection to opening the debate to the media, and its suggestion the debate be cancelled if a closed encounter could not be agreed upon.

According to the Rae campaign, the party has indicated it is prepared to open the debate to media if all campaigns agree.

It says in a release the Leblanc campaign agreed but the Ignatieff campaign, as of 8:00 p.m. Saturday, refused to open the session to media.

"It sends an awful signal to have a debate that is closed to the media, closed to Canadians," Rae said in the release, adding the Conservatives have made closed, no-media sessions a hallmark of their conventions under Stephen Harper.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/...7426386-cp.html

The blogosphere has picked up on this comparison of Ignatieff to Harper and the Conservatives, i.e. secrecy and media blackout.

Why is Rae making an issue of this? Is it a genuine commitment to transparency and providing a window of the leadership race to the grassroots? Or is this part of an orchestrated attack to discredit his main opponent? My guess is Rae is out to portray Ignatieff as a Conservative in Liberal clothing. I know it's a long shot and I've said Ignatieff will win, but if Rae's strategy works, I hope it's in Leblanc's favor.

Edited November 16, 2008 by capricorn

[jdobbin]

Why is Rae making an issue of this? Is it a genuine commitment to transparency and providing a window of the leadership race to the grassroots? Or is this part of an orchestrated attack to discredit his main opponent? My guess is Rae is out to portray Ignatieff as a Conservative in Liberal clothing. I know it's a long shot and I've said Ignatieff will win, but if Rae's strategy works, I hope it's in Leblanc's favor.

Is this the new strategy? To get Conservatives to say they believe Leblanc is the candidate to be most wary about?

As for this little fracas, the details had been set before Ignatieff had said he was running. I think Rae is just rattling the cage a bit.

The Liberals are in this to win and will choose a candidate capable of doing that.

Edited November 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

I disagree, and I disagree.

Charest didn't screw the Tories. Harper did that to himself in Quebec.

A majority federal government is perfectly feasible. Quebecers are "desperately" looking for an alternative to Duceppe and the Bloc. Harper had that chance but he blew it. I don't think Ignatieff will make the same mistakes.

Blueblood, for awhile I thought as you that Canada was destined to have unstable minority governments like Italy in the post war: the Bloc was like the Italian Communist Party. Nobody can include them but they're so large that they make a majority impossible. Well, Harper's incompetence gave the Bloc a reprieve in the past federal election.

That's an American view of this.

The next federal election will play out in Quebec and suburban Ontario. Harper will have a very tough (impossible) time against Ignatieff in both places.

I also think that Canadians of all stripes are suspicious of foreigners/interlopers. By losing and staying, Ignatieff (and Rae for that matter) have shown that they're "serious". (And let me add that while I think Ignatieff will win, Rae has a chance.)

Good point, as well as your comment about Mulroney's first loss. Leonard Cohen called it: Beautiful Losers.

Nevertheless, they all live in the shadow of Trudeau who arrived on the scene and won a majority. (Too many forget that Trudeau never won back-to-back majorities and he even lost.)

Dion's problem was not his poor English. And it wasn't how French Quebecers perceived him. His problem wasn't even the fact that his mother was French.

IMV, Dion is proof that politics is not really about "issues". Politics is about how issues are portrayed. For electoral success, a politician must portray issues well. (For governing success, a politician must pick one or two basic themes and ignore everything else.)

Harper handed Charest a boat load of money. Did Charest do any campaigning or give advice on Quebec? Charest screwed Harper.

Well Quebecers don't like a fiscal conservative option. Harper threw every bone, and gave conservative policies, Quebecers have shown they don't like fiscal conservatism and justice legislation. Harper has to get elected all over Canada, not just Quebec. If Harper goes to far to Quebec like Mulroney did, we get 1993 all over again. If Quebec's inferiority complex is more important than gov't policy that's their problem, Alberta learned that lesson the hard way.

If Harper either calls a snap election before the libs pick a leader or handles the economic crisis well, I see a tory majority. Harper is also gaining a lot of ground in the rest of Canada. Ignatieff has to fight the bloc, Harper, and a small NDP surge in Quebec. Also for English Canada, Harper is making inroads and gaining ground. If Harper bungles the economic crisis, he is toast, Quebec is a non issue next election.

[Topaz]

The more I see Ignatieff and Rae in action in this contest, the more I like Dominic Leblanc. There is a leader's candidate forum scheduled for this afternoon (Nov. 16). Warren Kinsella hints that the three aspirants originally agreed that the media would be kept out.

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?en...ry081116-084732

Apparently, Rae has had a change of heart and wants the media present.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/...7426386-cp.html

The blogosphere has picked up on this comparison of Ignatieff to Harper and the Conservatives, i.e. secrecy and media blackout.

Why is Rae making an issue of this? Is it a genuine commitment to transparency and providing a window of the leadership race to the grassroots? Or is this part of an orchestrated attack to discredit his main opponent? My guess is Rae is out to portray Ignatieff as a Conservative in Liberal clothing. I know it's a long shot and I've said Ignatieff will win, but if Rae's strategy works, I hope it's in Leblanc's favor.

I would vote for Rae or LeBlanc but not Iggy. I don't trust Iggy he was for the Iraq war and there just shows his decision making is off! He only came back to Canada to try for the PMO and I believe he would still be living in the US rather in Canada now if he hadn't come to try for the PMO. I don't believe he's is 100% Canadian at heart and would stand up for Canada.

[capricorn]

Is this the new strategy? To get Conservatives to say they believe Leblanc is the candidate to be most wary about?

Have I inadvertently given rise to a conspiracy theory? If so it's a darn good one. Too bad for the Liberals it won't come to pass.

As for this little fracas, the details had been set before Ignatieff had said he was running. I think Rae is just ratting the cage a bit.

Rae denied that he was made aware by the party's executive that the "family gathering", as Ignatieff called it, was to be closed to the media. This little fracas is all over the media. It's bringing Liberal infighting right to the forefront once again and that can't be good. As I recall, this was to be a contest fought with civility.

The Liberals are in this to win and will choose a candidate capable of doing that.

The more one looks at Leblanc's credentials, the more apparent it becomes that Leblanc is head and shoulders above the other two contenders.

"It's not enough to change the head, you have to renew the whole and that's done with a new generation of leadership that springs the party forward," LeBlanc told CTV News in an interview.

At just 40, LeBlanc claims deeper Liberal roots than his two rivals and just as much political experience. He certainly has the pedigree of a Liberal leader.

The New Brunswick MP is the son of former Governor-General Romeo LeBlanc, a friend and fishing partner of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.

LeBlanc has a law degree from Harvard, the same school Obama got his and where rival Ignatieff completed a PhD and later taught.

LeBlanc is also fluently bilingual, and is considered a strong orator in the House of Commons. A MP since 2000, he has been elected four times since narrowly losing in his initial run in 1997.

He says that because of his time in office, he may be young, but he's not green.

"I don't think I'm too young. If I become prime minister in two of three years, I'm roughly the same age as Mr. Harper was," LeBlanc said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

IMO he would have a better chance at drawing disenchanted Liberals back to the party and perhaps succeed in engaging younger voters. As usual, I don't think the Liberals will do what is best for the party but will choose from within the "old boys network". In the end that will be good for the Conservatives. There's already lots of ammunition to use against ex-pat Ignatieff and ex-Premier of Ontario Rae. Oh, and any future leadership debates held with the media present are sure to provide more.

[capricorn]

I would vote for Rae or LeBlanc but not Iggy. I don't trust Iggy he was for the Iraq war and there just shows his decision making is off! He only came back to Canada to try for the PMO and I believe he would still be living in the US rather in Canada now if he hadn't come to try for the PMO. I don't believe he's is 100% Canadian at heart and would stand up for Canada.

A very valid question is whether Canadian voters would warm to a person who has spent so many years outside Canada. I think the fact that he is seen by many as an intellectual, as was Dion, also works against him.

[jdobbin]

Harper handed Charest a boat load of money. Did Charest do any campaigning or give advice on Quebec? Charest screwed Harper.

Probably because Harper screws him by supporting the ADQ.

Well Quebecers don't like a fiscal conservative option. Harper threw every bone, and gave conservative policies, Quebecers have shown they don't like fiscal conservatism and justice legislation. Harper has to get elected all over Canada, not just Quebec. If Harper goes to far to Quebec like Mulroney did, we get 1993 all over again. If Quebec's inferiority complex is more important than gov't policy that's their problem, Alberta learned that lesson the hard way.

Alberta got over voting for the same party over and over again?

If Harper either calls a snap election before the libs pick a leader or handles the economic crisis well, I see a tory majority. Harper is also gaining a lot of ground in the rest of Canada. Ignatieff has to fight the bloc, Harper, and a small NDP surge in Quebec. Also for English Canada, Harper is making inroads and gaining ground. If Harper bungles the economic crisis, he is toast, Quebec is a non issue next election.

Can't win more seats in Alberta except one. Can't win anymore seats in Saskatchewan except one. The seats in Manitoba would be exceptionally hard to take from the NDP and Liberals. I suppose things could collapse even further but what issue would do it? That leaves B.C., Ontario and the Maritimes. You expect major gains there to make up for no gains in Quebec?

You see the Tories handling the economic crisis without a deficit? Any deficit and I'd say that is not good economic handling.