Canadian Political Polls

[jdobbin]

That poll was conducted before the IR one you know that right? The IR was over August 18-20 this one was the 13-20. So unless we see the tracking number it stands that either could be an out lier

It also polled 2000 people, 1000 more than Ipsos. But of course, this poll has to wrong and the other poll correct.

[waldo]

That poll was conducted before the IR one you know that right? The IR was over August 18-20 this one was the 13-20. So unless we see the tracking number it stands that either could be an out lier

huh!

The survey of just over 2,000 respondents was conducted Aug. 13-23 and is considered accurate to within 2.2 percentage points 19 times in 20

Edited August 24, 2009 by waldo

[punked]

huh!

[The survey of just over 2,000 respondents was conducted Aug. 13-23 and is considered accurate to within 2.2 percentage points 19 times in 20]

That is the point this poll was conducted the majority over the time before a momentum shift if there was one. I would like see the tracking from 18th onward. Should be interesting.

[punked]

It also polled 2000 people, 1000 more than Ipsos. But of course, this poll has to wrong and the other poll correct.

Not true but if they asked 1500 on the 13th and 100 people from 16th onward we would get a much different result than a poll conducted over the course of 2 days. I would like to see the internals. I tired to look at the internals of the IR poll but I couldn't.

[waldo]

That is the point this poll was conducted the majority over the time before a momentum shift if there was one. I would like see the tracking from 18th onward. Should be interesting.

LOL!

That's one mighty momentum shift in a span of... days!!! Please - what was just so newsworthy and topical to have caused such a powerful Conservative surge? Uhhh... other than the noted Canwest/IR Conservative bias, that is.

[punked]

LOL!

That's one mighty momentum shift in a span of... days!!! Please - what was just so newsworthy and topical to have caused such a powerful Conservative surge? Uhhh... other than the noted Canwest/IR Conservative bias, that is.

That was the whole point and why the IR poll was big, there was a momentum shift which is why I would like to see the daily tracking. Although this could be great news for the Liberals and rally their support to an election.

[waldo]

That was the whole point and why the IR poll was big, there was a momentum shift which is why I would like to see the daily tracking. Although this could be great news for the Liberals and rally their support to an election.

this latest Canadian Press/Harris Decima poll, as a single poll, should have as much weight as any other single poll... as in, not much. However, given this poll actually continues the preceding months tracking, it should have a modicum of increased significance.

it certainly is telling that some, particularly floundering malcontent dippers, would seek solace in "momentum shifts" associated to a single poll... itself an anomaly from anything of recent recall...

[punked]

this latest Canadian Press/Harris Decima poll, as a single poll, should have as much weight as any other single poll... as in, not much. However, given this poll actually continues the preceding months tracking, it should have a modicum of increased significance.

it certainly is telling that some, particularly floundering malcontent dippers, would seek solace in "momentum shifts" associated to a single poll... itself an anomaly from anything of recent recall...

I would like to see the internal tracking to know if it like the other polls or if we are seeing Harpers numbers go up after being in the media for the past week, and Ignatieff no where to be seen. I don't see why this is the wrong to say if it does show a Conservative shift up from the 19th onward we maybe seeing a trend. If we don't see that we can assume the IR poll is an outlier and we have a fall election. I don't see why this is wrong.

[Keepitsimple]

Any quote you have shown me always says he doesn't support torture. All you do is lie and spin.

I wouldn't call it lying but I would call it spinning......I agree that Mr. Ignatieff has not supported torture. I think that people have taken advantage of his sincere wishes to discuss openly and rationally, exactly how torture should be defined - what's allowed, and what's not allowed - premised on the fact that "we are dealing with really bad people". It's an important discussion.

Coercive Interrogations

A third lesser evil centers on interrogation tactics. Should we torture people to

obtain information that might prevent another attack and save innocent lives? This, in

essence, is the classic dilemma of the “ticking bomb.” If you knew that someone had

planted a bomb that could kill everyone in your office building, place of worship, or

dormitory, and if you knew the doors were locked and there were just 30 minutes to

detonation, how hard should you “lean on” a suspect in order to save innocent lives?

In today’s climate, the ticking bomb scenario is a reality. The state of Israel, for

example, lives constantly with this scenario, and it has sought to resolve the issue as a

democracy. The Israeli Supreme Court has banned—even under terrorist attack—any use

of coercive interrogation that crosses the line into torture. The Israeli judges concede that

while physical duress against suspects in extreme situations can sometimes elicit useful

information, it does not negate the official, absolute ban against physical torture in Israeli

interrogation rooms. However, to balance this moral stance against torture with national

security concerns, Israeli law also permits this ban to be tempered in courts by “good

faith” mitigating circumstances. Thus, any agents of the state who claim to have used

physical means conscientiously in order to save lives can enter that into evidence to

mitigate penalty.

Could the United States copy Israeli policy? Should it? This is not an abstract,

hypothetical matter. At the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, the Baghdad Airport, and

other places where the United States has sent terrorist suspects for interrogation (like

Morocco, possibly Jordan), torture is occurring. At these locales, the U.S. government

and its agents are either torturing detainees or asking other people to torture them. How

does the American Republic feel about this practice? My personal view is that a liberal

democracy—especially one created out of the eighteenth century Enlightenment—must

adhere to an anti-torture doctrine. Put simply, torture is anathema to a society built on

freedom. Once you start down that path, a free society loses everything. Nevertheless, we

are still dealing with extremely bad people—really nasty people who have no qualms at

all about dying in order to kill us. This situation begs the question: what forms of

interrogation short of torture are permissible in a free society? Because this issue directly

challenges fundamental democratic values, sorting it out is too important to leave to U.S.

Special Forces or the CIA. Instead, we need a serious democratic debate before we adopt

this practice, followed by presidential and congressional regulation of its implementation.

There are, I believe, some forms of permissible duress that involve sleep

deprivation, disinformation, or disorientation (for example, keeping suspects in hoods);

clearly, there also are forms of impermissible duress including deprivation of necessary

food, water, or medicines. It is worth noting that absent any serious democratic debate,

today, U.S. interrogation tactics already include denying wounded suspects medicines in

order to get them to talk—a tactic that strikes me as torture. To safeguard our own

democratic society, we need to find the line between coercive interrogation that stops

short of torture, and once we find that line, we then need to hold it. If we fail, we surely

will lose our identity as a rights-respecting people.

A further compelling argument closes the introduction to Lesser Evils:

One of terrorism’s strategic goals is to persuade us that the strengths of our

society—its freedom, openness, ethical restraints, and concern about due process—are in

fact its fatal weakness. Consequently, one of the key moral battles of will in this war is to

continue believing that our society’s strengths are indeed strengths. The striking paradox

of the War on Terror is that even terrorists have human rights (because they are human

beings), and we have to discharge moral duties to people who recognize no moral duties

to us whatsoever. If we fa il to hold onto non-reciprocated moral obligations, we will

cease to be who we think we are. This is a critical challenge. Terrorists want to provoke

us; they want us to strip off what they believe is simply a “mask” of law, of order, of

decency, so that we prove the “justice” of their cause by revealing the black heart of

coercion inside ourselves. In this contest our job must be to demonstrate to our

adversaries (and the world) that our principles and values are not a mask. They are simply

who we are. The rule of law, the love of freedom, and the respect for human rights are

absolutely definitional to who our adversaries are up against. If we remain true to our

core values, we will win the war, even if we must prosecute it via “lesser evils.”

Link: http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/653...atieffPaper.pdf

[madmax]

So I assume you did not support the blockade and no fly zone?

It is me who gets to scrutinize the leader. You can continue to defend Ignatieffs poor choices.

[madmax]

uhhh, sorry floundering malcontent dippers and overly zealous Cons - one should really separate the Canwest/Ipsos crap from that of legitimate polling companies.[/url]

I can understand why the over zealous CPC might jump over that last poll and get rooted back to earth, but the poll you cite not only shows a statistical tie between the CPC and LPC but also 2% higher for the malcontent dippers.

[madmax]

I wouldn't call it lying but I would call it spinning......I agree that Mr. Ignatieff has not supported torture. I think that people have taken advantage of his sincere wishes to discuss openly and rationally, exactly how torture should be defined - what's allowed, and what's not allowed - premised on the fact that "we are dealing with really bad people". It's an important discussion.

A further compelling argument closes the introduction to Lesser Evils:

Link: http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/653...atieffPaper.pdf

Really bad people torture. George Bush also said he didn't support torture. But Bush and Ignatief share a position on torture. Torture is defined.

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

[jdobbin]

It is me who gets to scrutinize the leader. You can continue to defend Ignatieffs poor choices.

I don't think I ever defended his view of support for the war in Iraq. It was a major impediment to his leadership of the Liberals. Had he not done a mea culpa on that, he would never been accepted.

Now, you are free to say he was wrong but there were many people saying the war should happen or that we should support the U.S. and be there. Harper is one such person.

In any event, I get to scrutinize who I please and I scrutinize you. You are against naked aggression against Iraq. Is that all aggression? Did you support what many on the left wanted which was to end the interdiction, embargo and blockade? Or did you support it as a "lesser evil"?

Edited August 24, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Which is what police do now. It is why some on the far left don't believe in interrogation. Are you against police interrogation?

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't call it lying but I would call it spinning......I agree that Mr. Ignatieff has not supported torture. I think that people have taken advantage of his sincere wishes to discuss openly and rationally, exactly how torture should be defined - what's allowed, and what's not allowed - premised on the fact that "we are dealing with really bad people". It's an important discussion.

I find that this idea that Ignatieff supports terrorism ridiculous.

What I'd like to hear is Harper and Layton explain exactly what they believe torture is. It should make for an interesting debate.

[Keepitsimple]

I find that this idea that Ignatieff supports terrorism ridiculous.

What I'd like to hear is Harper and Layton explain exactly what they believe torture is. It should make for an interesting debate.

As much as I've defended Mr. Ignatieff as an author in my previous post, he has withdrawn his sincerity and is now toeing the line to be politically correct....and he has to - because the Left leaning hordes of hand-wringers will not allow any form of mental of physical coersion - period......until someone close to them is threatened of course. Ignatieff and Harper are in the same boat - it's a topic that is taboo in political circles. Layton just spews out that we should follow the UN.

[Visionseeker]

This minority Conservative government may be holding onto power because of the shortcomings of the new Liberal leader. Or a lack of publicly enunciated policy. Who knows. But perhaps their survival can be attributed to the fact they are just delivering what Canadians want. Perhaps Conservatism as we knew it is dead in this country and the Conservative Party is adapting to a new reality. I think that's what the opposition need to fear the most.

How one defines conservatism today is admittedly difficult to do with any degree of confidence. I would suggest that this is born from the loss of Communism as its traditional counterweight. This is not to say that only conservatives stood in opposition to "the red menace", but rather that much of its brand benefitted from a supposed dichotomy.

The Conservative Party has been adapting to new realities, but such adaptations have been limited to what is needed to survive - not thrive. Conservatism is dying a slow death in this country and, for that matter, this continent because it has invited itself to be taken hostage by religious interests who insist on imposing a model of social conformism that is 50 years out of step with the times. Hardly a formula that can win young converts.

Conservatives find themselves on the trailing end of the progressing spectrum of societal values. This, more than anything else, marks the party as antiquated.

[Visionseeker]

I've said it before.....the longer the Conservatives govern, the more comfortable Canadians become. For years, Chretien and Martin demonized Conservatives as ultra right wing zeolots who would wreck the country....and a lot of people bought into it. People are not really buying that crap any more and as each month and year passes, the Conservatives continue to show that they are a capable centrist government - and getting better. The stars are aligning - the economy's recovering, the Olympics are around the corner. By the time the government's full term is up, Canadians will view the Conservatives as that comfortable rocking chair.....and maybe even a majority. They will NOT be calling a snap election unless the Liberals are dumb enough to force one. As someone else said - the Conservatives can effectively govern with their strong minority and strong support in the polls. I guess we'll see in September/October.

Question: How does one define "wrecking the country"?

Answer: Record unemployment and massive deficits.

The Conservatives have played the centrist governance game haphazardly and under duress. Canadians are not comforted by such amateurism.

[Visionseeker]

Is this Ipsos-Reid poll a rogue or has there been a shift?

August, see Harris-Decima. I say rogue (Because noting Ipsos' Darrell Bricker's ties to the Conservative clan and CanWest's desperate need for a bailout would be to suggest a more sinister motive).

[Visionseeker]

Whoa, dobbin, I thought that Mr. Ignotieff was to be the answer to your liberal prayers. What happened?

I remember people here saying that once Ignotieff got in the Liberal Leadership he would cruise to an easy victory and maybe majority...what happened?

You finally realizing that Toronto doesn't run the country anymore and never will the rest of us be held hostage by the will of Toronto?

Is it just me, or do others have a hard time taking anyone who calls him/herself Mr.Canada seriously? I mean, who voted him the title?

[punked]

And it said he doesn't support torture which I showed you.

Here is some more of Iggy talking about how much he loves torture.

Edited August 25, 2009 by punked

[punked]

As for those who are banging the drum of how great the HD poll is, some of these numbers make no sense at all. It has the green party ahead of the Liberals in BC the green are pulling 24% in BC in this poll. It also has the Liberals pulling 30% in MB/SK something we have not seen any poll this summer. The Liberals are lucky to get over 18% in those provinces.

Maybe the poll is right but the Regional break down of this poll looks as Shaky as the IR poll.

http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/p...ses/082409E.pdf

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Funny how two polls could be so far apart. The difference of a single week does little to account for the discrepancy.

[jdobbin]

The rules in the forum are you don't just post a link with no response.

[punked]

Funny how two polls could be so far apart. The difference of a single week does little to account for the discrepancy.

One polling company IR is most favourable to the Cons the other HD is most favourable to the Liberals. I would like to see a Nanos poll for the week personally.