Federal Election Polls

[CITIZEN_2015]

After finding out Trudeau hired a non-registered oil industry lobbyist/employee as his national campaign co-chair, and bearing in mind the sponsorship scandal, why are you in such a frenzy to see Liberals attain a majority - and unfettered access to the treasury?

A Liberal minority with NDP principled oversight is the obvious answer to all anti-Harper voters.

For this to happen the Liberal surge must be further blunted.

No I actually prefer a strong Liberal minority (like 140 seats) as per my post just above yours.

If you encourage what you said (Liberal surge must be further blunted) then it may backfire on you as many may think same and suddenly either not vote or vote for other party and this may elect another conservative nightmare. Do you want to risk this?. I prefer a majority Liberal government (though not my best preference) than another nightmare of another conservative government I will NOT risk it. I will not change my vote.

Edited October 16, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[eyeball]

ABC in any case, but anything but a Liberal majority too if possible.

I don't think the evolution of strategic voting has left voters with enough capacity to fine tune their efforts to the degree needed to achieve such a specific target yet. Maybe in future elections.

Edited October 16, 2015 by eyeball

[SpankyMcFarland]

The Fords are a big gamble. I can't see how that helps the vote outside the GTA at all, esp. on the female side. It's a

defensive move that looks like damage-limitation in that particular part of the country.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Liberals leading 6% in spite of viscous attacks and campaign of character assassination by the desperate conservative party.

They were hardly viscous because they did not stick. I should not talk about typos.

[ReeferMadness]

The Fords are a big gamble. I can't see how that helps the vote outside the GTA at all, esp. on the female side. It's a

defensive move that looks like damage-limitation in that particular part of the country.

I laugh when Conservative supporters get excited about Trudeau being seen with Chretien and then we see Harper with the Ford brothers.

too funny.

[CITIZEN_2015]

They were hardly viscous because they did not stick. I should not talk about typos.

Lol when you post at 6:00 am or so in the morning half sleep this is as good as it gets!!!.

[ReeferMadness]

No I actually prefer a strong Liberal minority (like 140 seats) as per my post just above yours.

If you encourage what you said (Liberal surge must be further blunted) then it may backfire on you as many may think same and suddenly either not vote or vote for other party and this may elect another conservative nightmare. Do you want to risk this?. I prefer a majority Liberal government (though not my best preference) than another nightmare of another conservative government I will NOT risk it. I will not change my vote.

I agree with this. Even a Conservative minority could turn into a nightmare. Remember what happened in 2008.

[Vancouver King]

ABC in any case, but anything but a Liberal majority too if possible.

I don't think the evolution of strategic voting has left voters with enough capacity to fine tune their efforts to the degree needed to achieve such a specific target yet. Maybe in future elections.

It's too early in a too late campaign to expect anything of consequence - other than blunting surging Liberal support by 1-2%. Call it a no-majority insurance policy.

[CITIZEN_2015]

NDP leader is now trying to capitalize on Dan Gagnier event which btw CTV commentator said no rules or laws broken. Mulcair is just another ambitious opportunist selfish politician and if a conservative government is elected again because of his selfish actions I will never forgive him or his party. Never.

Edited October 16, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

It's too early in a too late campaign to expect anything of consequence - other than blunting surging Liberal support by 1-2%. Call it a no-majority insurance policy.

I fear that this recent Gagnier thing may work real bad for Liberals especially with Mulcair now asking election Canada to investigate it (He know damn well that no laws were broken but he selfishly trying to capitalize on this non-issue). He puts doubts in voters mind and though he may get a few percents out of it but will NEVER get enough to be able to form a government and he may help to elect another conservative government. It would be real sad. I will never forgive him for that.

Edited October 16, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[ToadBrother]

NDP leader is now trying to capitalize on Dan Gagnier event which btw CTV commentator said no rules or laws broken. Mulcair is just another ambitious opportunist selfish politician and if a conservative government is elected again because of his selfish actions I will never forgive him or his party. Never.

Here's a tip: they're all ambitious opportunists.

Never worship a politician or a political party. They are a necessary evil, but not one that we should turn into messiahs.

[Vancouver King]

I fear that this recent Gagnier thing may work real bad for Liberals especially with Mulcair now asking election Canada to investigate it (He know damn well that no laws were broken but he selfishly trying to capitalize on this non-issue). He puts doubts in voters mind and though he may get a few percent out of it he may help to elect another conservative government. It would be real sad.

Don't lose any sleep over Harper winning a plurality - he has his campaign-long 30-31% core and no one else. You can take that one to the bank.

The above leaves open the possible options for a non-Tory gov't alternative including the recent possibility of surging Liberal support ending with a Liberal majority. Such an outcome is not in the public interest. The Gagnier resignation makes it clear the 'pigs at the trough' gang would have unfettered access to the treasury in a majority situation. Doesn't it make sense for another ABC party to have bill by bill oversight to keep Trudeau's excesses to a minimum? It is the only outcome that is truly in the public interest.

After all, isn't the public interest what it's all about?

[Evening Star]

NDP leader is now trying to capitalize on Dan Gagnier event which btw CTV commentator said no rules or laws broken. Mulcair is just another ambitious opportunist selfish politician and if a conservative government is elected again because of his selfish actions I will never forgive him or his party. Never.

Justin Trudeau himself has said that Gagnier's letter was inappropriate and Gagnier has resigned. Why would he do this if he had done nothing wrong? Mulcair and the NDP don't owe anything to the Liberal Party, other than a fair competition. (And I don't see him doing anything dishonest here.) If the Conservatives are re-elected and you want to blame someone, I think it would be much more fair to blame the people who vote Conservative instead of the leader of another opposition party. Mulcair isn't making anyone vote Conservative.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Don't lose any sleep over Harper winning a plurality - he has his campaign-long 30-31% core and no one else. You can take that one to the bank.

After all, isn't the public interest what it's all about?

On first part I see a dark scenario and that is Liberals down by just 2% over this over capitalization by Mulcair to say 34% and conservatives always underestimated by poll get equal 34% (which is very possible as last time most polls underestimated conservative vote by 3 to 4%) and then since conservative vote is more efficient then God forbid we may see a conservative government. It is a very possible scenario but I do hope I am very wrong about this.

Yes public interest is what we want and that would be best serve with a minority Liberal government prop up by the NDP. If in 2 years Trudeau proves that he is worth it then we may decide to put him in majority then and only then but he has to pass this test. What I fear as I said is a dreadful scenario described above.

Edited October 16, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[ToadBrother]

On first part I see a dark scenario and that is Liberals down by just 2% over this over capitalization by Mulcair to say 34% and conservatives always underestimated by poll get equal 34% (which is very possible as last time most polls underestimated conservative vote by 3 to 4%) and then since conservative poll is more efficient then God forbid we may see a conservative government. It is a very possible scenario but I do hope I am very wrong about this.

Yes public interest is what we want and that would be best serve with a minority Liberal government prop up by the NDP. If in 2 years Trudeau proves that he is worth it then we may decide to put him in majority then and only then but he has to pass this test. What I fear as I said is a dreadful scenario described above.

If the Tories manage a thin plurality, they'll fall at the Throne Speech. The opposition will declare they're willing to work together to form a new government, and the Governor General will give them their chance.

The writing has been on the wall since the first day of the campaign. Anything but a large minority ends in Tory defeat; either on election night, or when Parliament returns.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Justin Trudeau himself has said that Gagnier's letter was inappropriate and Gagnier has resigned. Why would he do this if he had done nothing wrong? Mulcair and the NDP don't owe anything to the Liberal Party, other than a fair competition. (And I don't see him doing anything dishonest here.) If the Conservatives are re-elected and you want to blame someone, I think it would be much more fair to blame the people who vote Conservative instead of the leader of another opposition party. Mulcair isn't making anyone vote Conservative.

He wanted to do his best to end it early otherwise it was clear and he did say that no laws were broken and all commentators I have heard also said no laws or even rules were broken. He knows that Harper and Mulcair would take advantage of this and try to attack Trudeau and Liberals and capitalize as much as they possibly can. We witnessed how conservatives or their supporters viciously attacked Trudeau with lies (like he has secretly become a muslim and has ties with ISIS!!!!!). So now they were given a possible case to attack him real bad.

They may even claim liberals acted illegally and accuse Trudeau of knowing about it. It is cheap talk and never be proven (or by the time it is proven false it is past election time) We all know these are lies but they may succeed to put doubt in small number of people's mind. All is needed is a couple of percent changing their votes away from liberals. Mulcair knows well by taking away votes from Liberals he may elect another conservative government with Harper on top and he himself can never get enough to form a government but he tries hard to do just that..

Edited October 16, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[ToadBrother]

He wanted to do his best to end it early otherwise it was clear and he did say that no laws were broken and all commentators I have heard also said no laws or even rules were broken. He know that Harper and Mulcair would take advantage of this and try to attack Trudeau and Liberals and capitalize as much as they possibly can. We witness how conservatives or their supporters or his supporters viciously attacked Trudea with lies (like he has secretly become a muslim and has ties with ISIS!!!!!). So now they were given a possible case to attac him real bad. Mulcair knows well by taking away votes from Liberals he may elect another conservative government with Harper on top and he himself can never get enough to form a government but he tries hard to do just that.

If the Tories were to win a narrow minority, it could actually be to the NDP's benefit. They would presumably have more seats, so that's always a good thing for a party. Beyond that, they would have a significantly stronger hand in any negotiations with the Liberals to bring down the Tory minority. If the Liberals win an outright plurality on their own, the NDP would have significantly less influence over that minority government. It's likely too broke to meaningfully threaten an election. However, if the Tories fall, the Liberals will need to demonstrate to the Governor General that they can form a stable government, and that will mean having to have the NDP on board.

[PIK]

So really a harper majority is the safest way to go. We know what we get, tax breaks. The others, we have no clue, especially the liberals who wont say.

[PIK]

Could mulcair turn on the liberals and keep harper minority going ,if harper throws some crumbs at him?

[Spiderfish]

...

Edited October 16, 2015 by Spiderfish

[ToadBrother]

Could mulcair turn on the liberals and keep harper minority going ,if harper throws some crumbs at him?

No, I don't think Mulcair would support Harper. I have this theory that if the Tories got rid of Harper before the Throne Speech, and then threw crumbs at the NDP, it might be able to get into a bidding war with the Liberals. But Harper has become toxic now, and no one can afford to support a government lead by him.

[ReeferMadness]

If the Tories were to win a narrow minority, it could actually be to the NDP's benefit. They would presumably have more seats, so that's always a good thing for a party. Beyond that, they would have a significantly stronger hand in any negotiations with the Liberals to bring down the Tory minority. If the Liberals win an outright plurality on their own, the NDP would have significantly less influence over that minority government. It's likely too broke to meaningfully threaten an election. However, if the Tories fall, the Liberals will need to demonstrate to the Governor General that they can form a stable government, and that will mean having to have the NDP on board.

That's a dangerous (and demonstrably untrue) line of thinking. Harper has shown that he will play the game to keep power to the bitter end. Do you really not remember what happened in 2008?

The "don't worry be happy" assumption that Harper is just going to waltz into a throne speech, be defeated and the GG is going to call on the Liberals and NDP to form a new government is an unnecessary (and dangerous) risk.

[blueblood]

That's a dangerous (and demonstrably untrue) line of thinking. Harper has shown that he will play the game to keep power to the bitter end. Do you really not remember what happened in 2008?

The "don't worry be happy" assumption that Harper is just going to waltz into a throne speech, be defeated and the GG is going to call on the Liberals and NDP to form a new government is an unnecessary (and dangerous) risk.

You are thinking harper has more power than he actually has. If caucus says hes done, harper has no choice but to throw in the towel or completely lose the confidence of mps.

Ask chretien about that one

[CITIZEN_2015]

That's a dangerous (and demonstrably untrue) line of thinking. Harper has shown that he will play the game to keep power to the bitter end. Do you really not remember what happened in 2008?

The "don't worry be happy" assumption that Harper is just going to waltz into a throne speech, be defeated and the GG is going to call on the Liberals and NDP to form a new government is an unnecessary (and dangerous) risk.

Yes I agree and that is exactly what worries me that potential liberal voters get overconfident or turned off by this Mulair-Harper made Gagnier affair (NO laws were broken) and change their votes or vote NDP and then a minority conservative elected and Harper manipulates and stay in power for year or years to come. there is NO GUARANTEE that a minority conservative (especially over 130 seats with 34% of votes) can be defeated right away at Throne speech. Very dangerous and risky to take this (or liberal victory) as granted at this stage.

[ToadBrother]

That's a dangerous (and demonstrably untrue) line of thinking. Harper has shown that he will play the game to keep power to the bitter end. Do you really not remember what happened in 2008?

The "don't worry be happy" assumption that Harper is just going to waltz into a throne speech, be defeated and the GG is going to call on the Liberals and NDP to form a new government is an unnecessary (and dangerous) risk.

I didn't say it was a probable outcome, I'm saying it's a possible outcome. And quite frankly, no matter what happens, if the Tories end up with a small plurality at around 120-130 seats, that means the Tories have shed massive amounts of support. That means Harper is done no matter what.

I think there are pretty clear signs now that whatever spell Harper had cast on the Tories has faded away. Other than perhaps a very small group of hardcore supporters, I think you'll find most Tories, too late of course, have come to the realization that he is a liability, and his political capital within the party itself has eroded. If he tries to cling to power after some narrow statistical win, he'll be shoved out, and there will be no tears in caucus or in the party itself.

I'm really partaking in a bit of a thought experiment; revolving around the Gagnier revelations costing the Liberals enough support to see the NDP recover and split the vote. The only firm base I have for my little thought experiment is that the NDP have made it clear they won't support a Harper government. I think a Tory government under some other leader, even an interim leader, might change the calculus a little bit, and if the Tories thought that there was even a small chance of hanging on to power by getting rid of Harper, I think they'd do it.