Canadian Political Polls

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, Joe Lunchbox exists, however, he's only about 30% of the electorate....

But just above you stated that "Joe Lunchbox is nothing tangible". Have you changed your position...again?

[nicky10013]

But just above you stated that "Joe Lunchbox is nothing tangible". Have you changed your position...again?

Claiming that Joe Lunchbox will come up with all these reasons not to vote liberal is a pile of shit which is what I was referring to. The blue-collar vote does exist. It's uneducated and votes Conservative.

[punked]

Claiming that Joe Lunchbox will come up with all these reasons not to vote liberal is a pile of shit which is what I was referring to. The blue-collar vote does exist. It's uneducated and votes Conservative.

Just because someone doesn't have a University degree does not make them uneducated and Liberals should be very careful in referring to that subset of the population that way. It plays right into the Cons hands.

[Molly]

Just because someone doesn't have a University degree does not make them uneducated ....

Um...

Maybe you should explain to us what 'uneducated' does actually mean.

[bloodyminded]

I'm with punked.

Working-class people are not naturally inclined towards conservatism.

The NDP still gets a decent share of working class support, contrary to the scornful "elites" opinion on them bandied about. (As if the NDP are more "elitist" than the Liberals and Conservatives! I mean, just think about that for a second!)

Having spent the majority of my life in a working class environment, I can tell you for certain that these peoiple are no more inclined towards conservatism than they are liberalism. In fact, it's university-educated people (and I'm one of them, by the way) who are most hostile to certain truisms about the violent behaviour of Canadian militarism abroad, for just one example; working-class folk take it for granted that the government of Canada--both major parties--are liars, are deceptive, and that everything from the Cold War to the War on Terror to international trade policies are steeped profoundly in deception, and are usually meant to funnel wealth and privelege upwards to the higher, minority echelons of society. (That's not THE purpose of all the policies...but it is always A purpose.

University educated people are far more likely to say "it's not that simple"--when they are the ones babbling patriotic nonsense about spreading democracy, peacekeeping, "Responsibility to Protect," and other self-serving myths. They have the simpleton's view, not the other way 'round.

I'm generalizing, of course...but only as per the tenor of this discussion, which has set apart the two camps. I've known working-class conservatives who think Canada is an experiment in international nobility and that all Muslims are terrorists, and that homosexuality is so rotten that it's "common sense" to think so.

But lots aren't like this. Their numbers are huge.

[wyly]

Just because someone doesn't have a University degree does not make them uneducated and Liberals should be very careful in referring to that subset of the population that way. It plays right into the Cons hands.

you mean like the conservatives inferring intellectuals like Ignatieff and Quebec cultural industry are elitists?...seems to me the conservatives are already playing it up for the uneducated sector of the population... Edited September 5, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Um...

Maybe you should explain to us what 'uneducated' does actually mean.

education means more then reading, ritin' and rithmetic...conservative supporters tend to be nationalistic kneejerk reactionaries who tend not to do a lot of deep thinking...those who are not are financial conservatives...

[Jack Weber]

Claiming that Joe Lunchbox will come up with all these reasons not to vote liberal is a pile of shit which is what I was referring to. The blue-collar vote does exist. It's uneducated and votes Conservative.

I'm blue collar...Perhaps I'm the one you're talking about???

I can't imagine a scenario that would have me vote for the free marketeers who would cut my throat...

Of course,I can't imagine a scenario where I would vote for the pinheaded arrogant Left either...

I did'nt realize I was uneducated or unintelligent...Thanks for setting me straight!!!

Edited September 5, 2010 by Jack Weber

[nicky10013]

I'm blue collar...Perhaps I'm the one you're talking about???

I can't imagine a scenario that would have me vote for the free marketeers who would cut my throat...

Of course,I can't imagine a scenario where I would vote for the pinheaded arrogant Left either...

I did'nt realize I was uneducated or unintelligent...Thanks for setting me straight!!!

Trends are trends. There will always be examples to break that trend. I was speaking in terms of statistics and didn't mean for people to take that so seriously.

[Molly]

Trends are trends. There will always be examples to break that trend. I was speaking in terms of statistics and didn't mean for people to take that so seriously.

LOL If you were a politician, you would just have rendered yourself unelectable! People do take things seriously, and will insist that black is white as well. I've no great desire to offend anyone, and I figure that almost any sentence that has the word 'elites' in it is hogwash, but facts are facts.

In this country, at this time, to have no post-secondary certification is to be absolutely minimally educated- aka 'uneducated'. It is the meaning of the word, not pholosophical conjecture. Likewise, poll after poll after poll has established that voting CPC and spending years in school are inversely linked, so that's pretty firmly established, too.

The way it was said was snotty, but the factual basis of it is not really up for debate.

[Wild Bill]

In this country, at this time, to have no post-secondary certification is to be absolutely minimally educated- aka 'uneducated'. It is the meaning of the word, not pholosophical conjecture. Likewise, poll after poll after poll has established that voting CPC and spending years in school are inversely linked, so that's pretty firmly established, too.

The way it was said was snotty, but the factual basis of it is not really up for debate.

You know, this idea that more education leads to a liberal or leftist political persuasion is a relatively new thing, Molly. I can't help but wonder what has changed!

People in previous generations were often very well educated but did not show this leaning. Conservative intellectuals were as common as liberals. The only thing I can think of is that there must be something different going on in how young folks are educated.

Young folks are traditionally very easy to "brainwash". The young brain tends to be incredibly efficient at absorbing data, whether by reading or the spoken word, as from a teacher. However, it takes more years for that brain to evolve critical and skeptical skills. In other words, what goes into the brain of a young person tends to be accepted as gospel. Political philosophy is accepted as if it was a fact like the capital of a province or the binomial theorem. It is only later in life that an individual might question what he has been taught. Moreover, every parent knows that it can be almost impossible to CHANGE the adolescent mind once a "fact" has been accepted into it! Get YOUR ideas into it and the odds are that nothing will ever dislodge them!

Politicians and religious leaders have always known this, of course. Not meaning to invoke Godwin's Law, but the Hitler Youth is a prime example. I forget offhand which religious leader once said "Give me a child until he is 7 years old and he is mine forever!" By this he meant that if he could have a free rein with a child's education with religious instruction at an early age that child will likely believe what he has been taught for the rest of his life. Hence "catholic guilt".

When you think a bit more about it, isn't the idea that more educated people are liberals rather arrogant? Consider that the only reasons given to support that argument tend to be ad hominem. First off, formal education is taken as a synonym for intelligence, which is a fallacy in itself. There are always intelligent people that are highly self-educated, often having rather little formal schooling. I've known older people with only a Grade 8 formal education who could tie many of the posters on MLW into debating knots with the depth of their knowledge and experience. My own Italian immigrant father-in-law had only a Grade 6 formal education but in many arguments you took him on at your peril!

I was going to introduce a small sidebar here about how many folks assume that people without post-secondary schooling don't buy and read books to continue their education on their own when the thought struck me, I know very few younger folks today that read ANY books not required for school! Once they get their degree you see only a pitiful library in their homes, mostly of old school textbooks they never sold to a frosh student after they no longer needed them!

Then there is almost always some reference to conservative thinkers as some kind of lowbrow, "Joe Lunchbucket", bible thumping type. It is a tactic similar to using the word "progressive", to describe leftist thought. It's then obvious that non-leftist thought must be NON-progressive!

Shades of George Orwell! Control the language and the brain will lack the very terms to think heretical thoughts against the State.

Doubleplusungood!

It's a very universal notion today with a great deal of power and influence. To me however, to expound such a premise shows an appalling lack of character and frankly, an aspect of social engineering that is rather frightening...

Edited September 6, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Molly]

You know, this idea that more education leads to a liberal or leftist political persuasion is a relatively new thing, Molly. I can't help but wonder what has changed!

People in previous generations were often very well educated but did not show this leaning. Conservative intellectuals were as common as liberals.

I don't believe this. Within my lifetime, it is certainly completely false.

Has it ever been true?

[eyeball]

Young folks are traditionally very easy to "brainwash". The young brain tends to be incredibly efficient at absorbing data, whether by reading or the spoken word, as from a teacher. However, it takes more years for that brain to evolve critical and skeptical skills. In other words, what goes into the brain of a young person tends to be accepted as gospel. Political philosophy is accepted as if it was a fact like the capital of a province or the binomial theorem. It is only later in life that an individual might question what he has been taught. Moreover, every parent knows that it can be almost impossible to CHANGE the adolescent mind once a "fact" has been accepted into it! Get YOUR ideas into it and the odds are that nothing will ever dislodge them!

The Conservative Party of Canada has the youngest caucus in Canadian history.

Source

[capricorn]

The Conservative Party of Canada has the youngest caucus in Canadian history.

My 80 year old aunt has recruited new players for her bridge club to replace two departing players. The new players are both 65 years old. They are the youngest players in the 10 year history of my aunt's bridge club.

[eyeball]

My 80 year old aunt has recruited new players for her bridge club to replace two departing players. The new players are both 65 years old. They are the youngest players in the 10 year history of my aunt's bridge club.

I volunteered for a Conservative's election campaign when I was 14 or 15, a buddy's father. They'd let us have a beer now and then after a hard days delivering pamphlets or gophering at campaign headquarters. My first impression of both politicians and Conservatives was pretty positive. I also recall wheeling around town knocking over the opposition's signs in my buddy's car. It was good times.

According to WB's synopsis I should now be a hard core Conservative but I guess I must be the exception to the rule. My old buddy is also the farthest thing from a conservative. Go figure.

Edited September 6, 2010 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

I don't believe this. Within my lifetime, it is certainly completely false.

Has it ever been true?

Edmund Burke? Disraeli? William F Buckley? A google will give you quite a list but you have to specify 'classical conservatives'. Today, popular usage has Americanized the term conservative and it means something very different. You'll get Sarah Palin, hardly an intellectual! There will also be confusion with religious groups. Some of this re-definition is journalistic confusion. Some of it is a deliberate propaganda technique, in order to make conservatism appear less of an intellectual philosophy and more of a "hick" lifestyle.

Actually, true intellectualism seems on the decline with both Liberals AND Conservatives! Too much ad hominem name calling and not as much logic and reason.

But the reasons for that would be another thread entirely!

[Pliny]

Claiming that Joe Lunchbox will come up with all these reasons not to vote liberal is a pile of shit which is what I was referring to. The blue-collar vote does exist. It's uneducated and votes Conservative.

The uneducated blue collar vote goes to the NDP or government promises to the working man. It is only those with fears of insecurity that see government as benign and benevolent. The "elitists" like to position themselves as their benign and benevolent representatives.

If it is just a matter of education then our public benign and benevolent education should have resolved that issue by now.

I don't think nicky (I forget his identity number) sees anything new in our politics today. The Liberals and the lying Conservatives are our only choice.

Harper dropped the "progressive" from the party name for a reason. Politically correct left wing progressive liberalism is not popular and is seen by most as the elitist arrogant movement it is.

The shame of it all is that a lot of Liberals are now so intolerant of differing views and opinions that it will take them awhile to be able to see that there can be more than one valid opinion and facts are sometimes just "assumed" to be correct and may have their basis in false premises. "Anecdotal" is definitely not equivalent to fact and may not be enough to base action on but it is not, as Wild Bill says, the equivalent of "imaginary".

[msdogfood]

The uneducated blue collar vote goes to the NDP or government promises to the working man. It is only those with fears of insecurity that see government as benign and benevolent. The "elitists" like to position themselves as their benign and benevolent representatives.

If it is just a matter of education then our public benign and benevolent education should have resolved that issue by now.

I don't think nicky (I forget his identity number) sees anything new in our politics today. The Liberals and the lying Conservatives are our only choice.

Harper dropped the "progressive" from the party name for a reason. Politically correct left wing progressive liberalism is not popular and is seen by most as the elitist arrogant movement it is.

The shame of it all is that a lot of Liberals are now so intolerant of differing views and opinions that it will take them awhile to be able to see that there can be more than one valid opinion and facts are sometimes just "assumed" to be correct and may have their basis in false premises. "Anecdotal" is definitely not equivalent to fact and may not be enough to base action on but it is not, as Wild Bill says, the equivalent of "imaginary".

If this is true "left wing progressive liberalism is not popular and is seen by most as the elitist arrogant movement it"

Than why are the CPC numbers as Bad as the Liberals??

[Wild Bill]

If this is true "left wing progressive liberalism is not popular and is seen by most as the elitist arrogant movement it"

Than why are the CPC numbers as Bad as the Liberals??

Their numbers are as bad because both parties have problems with the public perception of their leadership!

The average voter doesn't base his vote on the basis of a political philosophical analysis of party platforms. It's a little bit of the party planks and a LOT of personal estimation of the character and ability of a party leader and his team!

Harper always polls much higher numbers on his competency but low on personal attractiveness. Ignatieff doesn't seem to have a negative personal image but not much of a positive one either. Neither leader has fostered much of an image for his team.

As I posted elsewhere and earlier - they're boring! Why SHOULD either party be enjoying high numbers in the polls?

Right now people aren't impressed with either choice, so support is lukewarm. When the writ is dropped, they will have to make a decision but it won't be an inspired one. It will be more along the lines of "I have to vote for one of these nimrods so I guess I'll go with THIS one!".

I'm betting Harper will get more of a bounce at that time than Ignatieff. As I said, neither leader is charismatic or inspiring. So people will likely go for competent, which means Harper. They will be as thrilled about voting for him as they would be about choosing an accountant to do their taxes but for lack of any other reason they will choose him!

I'm already prepared to sleep through this next election. Unless something exciting comes out of left field it's gonna be a snorer!

[Pliny]

If this is true "left wing progressive liberalism is not popular and is seen by most as the elitist arrogant movement it"

Than why are the CPC numbers as Bad as the Liberals??

What numbers would you be talking about there, Ms. dogfood?

The numbers that count are the ones at the ballot box.

Just as a comment, it is not popular among special interest groups, who tend to be very vocal, to downsize government in any respect. Note the very vocal issues of the gun control registry and the cancellation of the long form census. Special interests wish to keep them alive. I think Harper believes they are somewhat unnecessary federal government intrusions.

The uproar over these two issues, especially the long form census, tells us how important big government is to some people and to what lengths they will go to maintain it. It is so odd that there is such opposition to the abandonment of the long form census. There was nothing but complaints about it when there was no concern of losing it - with the threat of it's loss...all of a sudden it's Armageddon.

[Molly]

.... What is this 'special interest groups' stuff actually supposed to mean? People use the words, but seem to intend them to mean 'everyone who disagrees with me on any subject'. How else should we define the term?

Perhaps the 'special interest groups' are actually the ones who want to end the long-gun registry and the long-form census.

That would teach us that special interest groups are devoted to ideology instead of information, and tells us how frightened some people are of informed, pragmatic governance.

[Wild Bill]

.... What is this 'special interest groups' stuff actually supposed to mean? People use the words, but seem to intend them to mean 'everyone who disagrees with me on any subject'. How else should we define the term?

Perhaps the 'special interest groups' are actually the ones who want to end the long-gun registry and the long-form census.

That would teach us that special interest groups are devoted to ideology instead of information, and tells us how frightened some people are of informed, pragmatic governance.

Ever watch Coronation Street, Molly? The British soap opera? They used to have a character years ago named Percy Sugden. Percy was a "lollypop man", that is he was a school crossing guard with a big red "lollypop style" stop sign. He was also the one who stuck his nose into everyone else's business in the neighbourhood, convinced he and he alone knew "the way things OUGHT to be!". He would continually be writing Letters to the Editor and driving the local ward councilors crazy with nitpicking complaints.

Percy-type people really only care about being recognized. They like to think of themselves as influential and become furious if ignored. They like to tout themselves as champions for all but somehow it always seems to be about them and their needs. Percy would write a letter if he thought his own pension was in danger but would not likely get excited about someone else having the same problem. He would more likely tend to think that person actually had done something wrong and didn't deserve his pension, unlike Percy, of course!

Percy-types also lOVE laws! Also rules, guidelines, bylaws and anything else they can use to tell their neighbour what to do. If they belong to an organization, they will be the ones insisting on a procedure for everything, until things become so rule-bound you can't get anything done!

So we can define special interest groups as people like Percy. They only really care about what specifically affects themselves but they also want to be the ones to tell everyone else what to do! They tend to be anal-retentive and often exhibit Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. They rarely have any sense of perspective about their goals, being unable to see if sometimes giving them what they want will cause problems in other areas for other people.

Gee, I guess it might appear as if I don't approve of them!

[ToadBrother]

The NDP have large voter concentration. The greens have no concentration at all.

If that flipping moron they have as a leader had run, say, in the Sunshine Coast out here on the Wet Coast, they might have stood a chance of at least getting one Green in Parliament. But utter idiot that May is, she decided to run in one of the Conservative's most popular (at least with his constituents) minister's ridings. Why they didn't throw her out the minute she did that is beyond me, but on top of everything else, the Green's seem hopelessly naive.

[dre]

The uneducated blue collar vote goes to the NDP or government promises to the working man. It is only those with fears of insecurity that see government as benign and benevolent. The "elitists" like to position themselves as their benign and benevolent representatives.

If it is just a matter of education then our public benign and benevolent education should have resolved that issue by now.

I don't think nicky (I forget his identity number) sees anything new in our politics today. The Liberals and the lying Conservatives are our only choice.

Harper dropped the "progressive" from the party name for a reason. Politically correct left wing progressive liberalism is not popular and is seen by most as the elitist arrogant movement it is.

The shame of it all is that a lot of Liberals are now so intolerant of differing views and opinions that it will take them awhile to be able to see that there can be more than one valid opinion and facts are sometimes just "assumed" to be correct and may have their basis in false premises. "Anecdotal" is definitely not equivalent to fact and may not be enough to base action on but it is not, as Wild Bill says, the equivalent of "imaginary".

The uneducated blue collar vote goes to the NDP or government promises to the working man.

Conservatives get a whole pile of that vote and draw a huge part of their base from rural voters who are often under-educated, by making their OWN promises to the working man (tax cuts and deregulation will create more jobs is a common one).

[Alta4ever]

Conservatives get a whole pile of that vote and draw a huge part of their base from rural voters who are often under-educated, by making their OWN promises to the working man (tax cuts and deregulation will create more jobs is a common one).

What would you consider under educated? High School diploma only? High School drop out? College Degree, community college? OR does educated mean University doctorate in philosophy?