Tories keep massive lead

[madmax]

I find those who suspect the polls are most often the same types of people who have no idea how these things work. The polling companies wouldn't be in business long if they published bad information.

But they do, and we have seen some whoppers of poor polling information. However, one of them, and never the same one, gets it very close on EDay. Garbage in Garbage out.

[Shakeyhands]

CLANG!!!

Do you suppose polling companies work pro bono?

You could if you want have your own poll comissioned...it would cost you....and you would have no control of the results...only the questions.

Having control of the questions is all you need to get the results you want.

[M.Dancer]

Having control of the questions is all you need to get the results you want.

Indeed...That's why I always read the question before the answer......then I look at the "don't know" column.

Never the less, the questions don't invalidate the poll, or the argument.

[ToadBrother]

I find those who suspect the polls are most often the same types of people who have no idea how these things work. The polling companies wouldn't be in business long if they published bad information.

I don't think anyone can argue with the poll. The problem is that we haven't seen enough of them to say whether this is simply a bump for the Tories, or whether the Liberals and NDP have so thoroughly screwed themselves with their coalition that we're looking at the Tories trending in majority territory. We won't know that answer until the New Year.

I'll tell you this, though, it's pretty clear that whatever Harper may be thinking, his caucus has most certainly spoken. Suddenly Flaherty is the paragon of co-operation. I think the Tories know as well as anybody that if this is just a temporary bump, then forcing an election next month could be a disaster.

[capricorn]

The problem is that we haven't seen enough of them to say whether this is simply a bump for the Tories, or whether the Liberals and NDP have so thoroughly screwed themselves with their coalition that we're looking at the Tories trending in majority territory.

I don't think we can look at the picture solely on the basis of public reaction to the coalition. A large chunk of the population has been spooked by the hype surrounding the downturn in the economy. IMO, both the coalition and the ailing economy have an impact on voter sentiment at this time.

I'll tell you this, though, it's pretty clear that whatever Harper may be thinking, his caucus has most certainly spoken. Suddenly Flaherty is the paragon of co-operation. I think the Tories know as well as anybody that if this is just a temporary bump, then forcing an election next month could be a disaster.

I hope you're right. Consider also, the Liberals are sending messages that if the budget is to their liking, an election is not imminent. If the budget is passed, some of this angst about the economy may subside then what will remain is the question of the coalition. The media has reported that Ignatieff is keeping the coalition in his back pocket and would not hesitate to use it to keep Harper in line. Ignatieff said "a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition".

Mr. Ignatieff has been reticent about the coalition drive to defeat Mr. Harper's Tories in a confidence vote. And his words - "a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition" - were repeated over and over by Liberals Tuesday.

"It's a club in the bag," said Liberal whip Rodger Cuzner. "If the Prime Minister hasn't learned from the economic update, you reach for Big Bertha."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostemail

I have a feeling Canadians against the coalition would not warm to the "Big Bertha" strategy. Post budget polls would be more indicative of what the electorate thinks of a Liberal party lead by Ignatieff. Should the polls maintain a strong lead for the Conservatives, IMO the lingering threat of a coalition is the culprit.

[Smallc]

I hope you're right. Consider also, the Liberals are sending messages that if the budget is to their liking, an election is not imminent.

Brison 'confident' government will address Liberal concerns

[capricorn]

Thanks for that link smallc. I hadn't seen that. Hooah, cooperation at last. Wonders never cease in our kooky politics.

[M.Dancer]

My Heart bleeds for the Video Professor...

[Mr.Canada]

Historically speaking, economic hardships favour a conservative government. In any country, they just do. People, ill informed or otherwise look at conservatives as better money managers, it's a stigma. For those that don't agree it's up to the parties to convince voters otherwise.

It's all in the names., Look, conservative. Looking at the word someone would think they're going to restrict certain spending.

Look at Liberal. Someone would think they're going to 'liberally' spread money around. This is how common people think.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[reasonoverpassion]

Historically speaking, economic hardships favour a conservative government. In any country, they just do. People, ill informed or otherwise look at conservatives as better money managers, it's a stigma. For those that don't agree it's up to the parties to convince voters otherwise.

It's all in the names., Look, conservative. Looking at the word someone would think they're going to restrict certain spending.

Look at Liberal. Someone would think they're going to 'liberally' spread money around. This is how common people think.

Just untrue. Typically bad economic time favor left of centre parties. People want the focus on social programs and building of infastructure. Look at Obama. Most people know that sitting on your hands and waiting for the market to correct itself it not an economic strategy.

Liberals have also blown the "we can't manage money" image out of water. It was Martin who balanced the budget after all.

[punked]

Historically speaking, economic hardships favour a conservative government. In any country, they just do. People, ill informed or otherwise look at conservatives as better money managers, it's a stigma. For those that don't agree it's up to the parties to convince voters otherwise.

It's all in the names., Look, conservative. Looking at the word someone would think they're going to restrict certain spending.

Look at Liberal. Someone would think they're going to 'liberally' spread money around. This is how common people think.

FDR? OBAMA? BOB REA? CHRETIEN? Seriously what history books are you reading?

[Alta4ever]

FDR? OBAMA? BOB REA? CHRETIEN? Seriously what history books are you reading?

you must not be reading any

[punked]

you must not be reading any

Thanks for pointing out that one. You just remember the rise of labour Unions was during the great depression and tell me how hard times favour the right again. You guys got Ronald Reagan, and Thatcher in the 80's I give you that. In fact hard times usually just favour whoever is not in charge.

[Keepitsimple]

Just untrue. Typically bad economic time favor left of centre parties. People want the focus on social programs and building of infastructure. Look at Obama. Most people know that sitting on your hands and waiting for the market to correct itself it not an economic strategy.

Liberals have also blown the "we can't manage money" image out of water. It was Martin who balanced the budget after all.

Like many Canadians, you do not understand American politics. Americans are a Conservative country and both the Democrats and Republicans reflect that. By our standards the Republicans are far right and Obama is center or center right - seemingly on a par with Harper's Conservatives. The US does not have Liberal and certainly not NDP type parties.

[punked]

It is guns or butter and we will pick butter over guns anytime.

[Mr.Canada]

Like many Canadians, you do not understand American politics. Americans are a Conservative country and both the Democrats and Republicans reflect that. By our standards the Republicans are far right and Obama is center or center right - seemingly on a par with Harper's Conservatives. The US does not have Liberal and certainly not NDP type parties.

Precisely. Harper is much closer to the Dems. than he is to the GOP in terms of policy. Many in Canada don't get that.

[Bryan]

Precisely. Harper is much closer to the Dems. than he is to the GOP in terms of policy. Many in Canada don't get that.

Most Democrats would probably consider Harper to be to the left of them.

[punked]

Most Democrats would probably consider Harper to be to the left of them.

If we talk social issues maybe but not on the economic ones. Unions, Free trade, and so on. Blue dogs are the only ones who might be close to Harper.

[reasonoverpassion]

Like many Canadians, you do not understand American politics. Americans are a Conservative country and both the Democrats and Republicans reflect that. By our standards the Republicans are far right and Obama is center or center right - seemingly on a par with Harper's Conservatives. The US does not have Liberal and certainly not NDP type parties.

Well I think I understand more than you might think about US politics. My point is that left leaning parties traditionally do better in bad economic times. The fact the US is more right-wing than Canada doesn't make my point any less valid.

It may be untrue that the US does not have Liberal and NDP parties as a part of political mainstream, but that doesn't mean they dont exist. It might surprise to know that Bernie Sanders, the Junior Senator from Vermont actually describes himself as a "democratic socialist". He sits as an independent and caucuses with the Democrats.

It is not really true to describe the Democratic Party as on par with the Conservatives in Canada. The Democrats are "a big tent" and most of them wouldn't feel comfortable with the kind of neo-con ideas as expressed in the "economic statement" by Harper and Company

[Canadian Blue]

Neo-con?

Sorry you're going to have to define that for me, the terms been used so much that it's now a cliche.

[Smallc]

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests.

Wikipedia

[White Doors]

Wikipedia

hahaha

That is a poor definition if I ever heard one.

If not, Get ready for Neo-Con Obama at the end of January because you can bet he will be looking after America's interests too.

[Wild Bill]

Wikipedia

Yeah, isn't it great to live in a country like Canada that is such a powerful interventionist on the world stage?

Our military must scare the willies out of countries like...Bangladesh!

Even Eritrea has enough military resources to give our lads a good go! We have perhaps the best trained and certainly the bravest but when we keep sending them out with old equipment, the wrong colour of cammo uniforms and supply trucks so old the rusted out tire rims bend and break we severely limit their ability to be 'interventionist'.

[Smallc]

I only provided a definition. Didn't say I agreed with the person who used the word. I happen to like our current interventionist policy.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Smallc

[kimmy]

I only provided a definition. Didn't say I agreed with the person who used the word. I happen to like our current interventionist policy.

I think what Canadian Blue was getting at is that the term "neo-conservative" has been overused to the point that any specific definition it might have had has been lost.

"Neo-con" now means, more or less, "something that left-wing message board users don't like".

-k