Harper Bombs, Bye, Bye Majority

[ironstone]

Prior to the debate, everyone in the media expected Harper to just hang on to his seats in Quebec. All he can do is to defend his position, explain his platform and emphasize on the economy. All media and political talk panels (including strategists) know that all three will pummel on him, and Harper is Diuceppe's "boogeyman," his main intention is to stop Harper majority.

We'll see how Quebec will vote.

When the time comes,I hope they vote "Oui".

[punked]

The people in BC didn't watch the French debate. The uptrend for the NDP reflects how much better Layton was than Ignatieff in the English debate. Like I said before, this is good news for the conservatives and terrible news for the Liberals. Split the vote and give Harper his majority.

Nope the NDP will end up in the 19% range from strategic voting in the seats they already have, the Liberals will get 27-29% from the seats they already have and we end up the same parliament. Remember the Liberals split the vote both left and right, the Cons can't come up the Center when they are the right wing party BTW.

[punked]

Under 4 million viewed the English debate.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5goBSDPs7DgxEquQYjGNhdCRapqCA?docId=6555763

No stats yet for French debate viewership but the above gives us a clue.

First night of the playoffs though.

[ToadBrother]

Nope the NDP will end up in the 19% range from strategic voting in the seats they already have, the Liberals will get 27-29% from the seats they already have and we end up the same parliament. Remember the Liberals split the vote both left and right, the Cons can't come up the Center when they are the right wing party BTW.

My honest feeling is you're pretty much right. The magic undecided vote fairy won't deliver us anything that it didn't deliver us the last three elections, and we'll end up with a minority government. The only difference this time is there may be more pressure on the Tories to find a more permanent arrangement to keep the hounds at bay. At some point all parties concerned, and Canadians in general, may have to accept the fact that we're in for a string of minority governments, or at most some very small majorities (which are just as risky in their own way for a government).

Edited April 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bob]

Harper can now kiss most of his Quebec seats good-bye. I think Canadians and Quebeckers have now had enough. My hunch is that the Conservatives will continue to fall until election day now. I think Harper may be looking at around 125 seats now, unless it gets worse for him and he sure does not have the momentum.

What are your intentions in differentiating Canadians from Quebecers?

[Harry]

What are your intentions in differentiating Canadians from Quebecers?

Spent much time in Quebec?

While I prefer Quebec remain a part of Canada I have a lot more respect for Duceppe who says he wants Quebec to be a separate nation than for a Canadian prime minister who lies every time he opens his mouth.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Harry

[Bob]

Spent much time in Quebec?

While I prefer Quebec remain a part of Canada I have a lot more respect for Duceppe who says he wants Quebec to be a separate nation than for a Canadian prime minister who lies every time he opens his mouth.

That's fine. It's quite clear what your political disposition is.

[Saipan]

Harper's up

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110414/poll-leadership-harper-110414/20110414?s_name=election2011

[Bob]

Harper's up

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110414/poll-leadership-harper-110414/20110414?s_name=election2011

The Conservative Party is gonna need an ultra-strong candidate (not Harper) to bust through deeply entrenched Canadian partisanship and prejudices. I don't see Harper as the type of leader who is so convincing that he can pull those who may not be partisan, but have strongly held and ill-founded ideological leanings. I know that's not what you mentioned, but I can't see a majority coming around given the sentiment across Canada and Harper.

In a strange way, I think Ignatieff could've been that leader if he wasn't the kinda guy that he is - as ridiculous as that sounds. He's tall, looks good, speaks well, is highly intelligent, and has charisma. The problem is his approach - attack, attack, and attack... and a deeply flawed ideology - internationalist rhetoric, resentment towards Canada when not under Liberal control, cries for spending more to improve solutions, anti-military (wants to freeload on America indefinitely), hostility to America, appeasement of Quebec separatism, etc, etc, etc...

Ignatieff reminds me of Romney, a man who has a lot of the tools required to win, but completely lacking in courage, vision, honesty, and integrity (and perhaps a little on insight/intelligence). Basically, a half-candidate.

I know, I went off on a tangent.... I was just wondering if anyone else sees what I see.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Spent much time in Quebec?

While I prefer Quebec remain a part of Canada I have a lot more respect for Duceppe who says he wants Quebec to be a separate nation than for a Canadian prime minister who lies every time he opens his mouth.

Actually, let's revisit this post of yours. Why are you questioning my familiarity with Quebec? Why don't you get straight to the point? Do you agree that Quebec constitutes a separate nation within Canada? If you do, are there other separate nations in Canada? And if you do think Quebec is a separate nation, do you believe they have a right to independence? Do other nations have the same right to independence within Canada?

Clearly you distinguish between Quebecers and Canadians, and I'd like to know why. Do near 50% votes in the two referendums support your position?

[Harry]

Actually this is probably a good idea.

In wake of French debate, Quebec gets a whole lot of face time

The NDP Leader repeated the point he made in the French debate, saying he wants to get Quebec’s approval of the Canadian Constitution. After stressful and unsuccessful attempts in the 1980s and ’90s, many Canadians, including Quebeckers, are not anxious to go there again.

If it flies anywhere, it might be Gatineau, Que., where Mr. Layton began his day. The city sits across the river from Ottawa and is home to many civil servants who voted overwhelmingly against Quebec sovereignty in the 1995 referendum. Gatineau is a riding with a three-way race and may be the NDP’s best hope to adding a Quebec seat.

“It’s abnormal and unacceptable to have a situation in which we find ourselves. The National Assembly did not give its support to the Canadian Constitution,” Mr. Layton said.

Mr. Layton said he recognizes it will take time to establish the right conditions for any new talks.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-wake-of-french-debate-quebec-gets-a-whole-lot-of-face-time/article1986383/

[Bryan]

Harper's up

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110414/poll-leadership-harper-110414/20110414?s_name=election2011

That's huge. Harper's approval rating is now more than double his closest rival. Ignatieff's still third too.

Stephen Harper – 122.8 (27.9)

Jack Layton – 57.3 (0.2)

Michael Ignatieff – 52.7 (3.1)

Gilles Duceppe – 13.8 (-0.6)

Elizabeth May – 4.1 (-2.8)

It's amazing to me how often we hear the media and the left saying that Harper is the problem, yet the public at large says that they like him so much more than his party.

[Bonam]

In a strange way, I think Ignatieff could've been that leader if he wasn't the kinda guy that he is - as ridiculous as that sounds. He's tall, looks good, speaks well, is highly intelligent, and has charisma. The problem is his approach - attack, attack, and attack... and a deeply flawed ideology - internationalist rhetoric, resentment towards Canada when not under Liberal control, cries for spending more to improve solutions, anti-military (wants to freeload on America indefinitely), hostility to America, appeasement of Quebec separatism, etc, etc, etc...

Interestingly, I don't think Ignatieff actually believes in most of the lefty stuff he's been proposing as leader of the Liberals. Based on his speeches and writings while in the US, his personal leanings are probably farther on the right of the spectrum than Harper. He is only advocating what he's advocating to try to carve out some political space for the liberal party, since the conservatives have moved to the center. And you can definitely tell his heart isn't in it at all.

[Harry]

What awaits us tomorrow?

Tories, Grits and Greens on the defensive

http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/Tories+Grits+Greens+defensive/4617091/story.html

[Bryan]

What awaits us tomorrow?

I really wish the media would stop interjecting this trivial "gotcha" stuff against any of the leaders. If a nobody candidate or worker said something, I guess it's interesting for us to discuss here, but does it mean anything about the leaders? I don't think so.

[ToadBrother]

That's huge. Harper's approval rating is now more than double his closest rival. Ignatieff's still third too.

Stephen Harper – 122.8 (27.9)

Jack Layton – 57.3 (0.2)

Michael Ignatieff – 52.7 (3.1)

Gilles Duceppe – 13.8 (-0.6)

Elizabeth May – 4.1 (-2.8)

It's amazing to me how often we hear the media and the left saying that Harper is the problem, yet the public at large says that they like him so much more than his party.

And yet they still seem doomed to a minority government. Leadership ratings are pretty dubious means of measuring general popularity.

[Bob]

Interestingly, I don't think Ignatieff actually believes in most of the lefty stuff he's been proposing as leader of the Liberals. Based on his speeches and writings while in the US, his personal leanings are probably farther on the right of the spectrum than Harper. He is only advocating what he's advocating to try to carve out some political space for the liberal party, since the conservatives have moved to the center. And you can definitely tell his heart isn't in it at all.

I'm not really familiar with his writings prior to his arrival/return to Canada to pursue politics, but assuming you're right, it would certainly explain a lot. He reminds me a lot of Mitt Romney, in that sense - a man who doesn't seem to be himself. It's as if he's acting the way he think his supporters want him to act? It almost makes him a Liberal Party caricature. On the other hand, I often believe that he believes in what he's saying. Either way, I strongly dislike Ignatieff in his current form.

[Harry]

What's the morale of the story here as this is indeed bizarre. Is it don't cross Harper. as right or wrong, he will get you?

Guergis to Hold News Conference

http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=34199

Edited April 15, 2011 by Harry

[bloodyminded]

In a strange way, I think Ignatieff could've been that leader if he wasn't the kinda guy that he is - as ridiculous as that sounds. He's tall, looks good, speaks well, is highly intelligent, and has charisma. The problem is his approach - attack, attack, and attack... and a deeply flawed ideology - internationalist rhetoric, resentment towards Canada when not under Liberal control, cries for spending more to improve solutions, anti-military (wants to freeload on America indefinitely), hostility to America, appeasement of Quebec separatism, etc, etc, etc...

Ignatieff reminds me of Romney, a man who has a lot of the tools required to win, but completely lacking in courage, vision, honesty, and integrity (and perhaps a little on insight/intelligence). Basically, a half-candidate.

I know, I went off on a tangent.... I was just wondering if anyone else sees what I see.

I don't know overall, but I'd quibble with a couple:

"Anti-military"?

That people might disagree with the Conservatives on this or that military issue (generally spending issues, actually, as the Liberals have been historically as hawkish as have the Conservatives) doesn't mean they're anti-military...nor that the Conservatives fill some eternal default position as "pro"-military, for that matter.

At bottom, I believe this is part of the post-9/11 "support the troops!" political correctness.

And it is political correctness, no doubt.

Heck, how could a man who preached about the beneficence of an American "Empire lite" be considered "anti-military"? You don't have an empire--lite or otherwise--without a strong, even aggressive military policy.

Which leads to my other major quibble: "anti-American." (Another phrase fraught with the spectre of PC-speak, though I suspect that outside of America itself, this bit of political correctness is mostly a failed gambit.) How has Ignatieff evinced anti-Americanism? By glorifying its Empire?

The only anti-Americanism I've heard surrounding this election was those endlessly-played Conservative ads that accused Ignatieff of liking America too much.

[eyeball]

The effect of the French debate was sure noticed in BC, so if it had an inpact there, it has had an inpact across the country.

Layton noted his party is the only one that has been committed since the '90s to giving $2.2 billion to Quebec for its implementation of a harmonized sales tax.

Vancouver Sun

Meanwhile in BC...

"He is specifically here to remind people that the HST would not be a reality without the support of the Stephen Harper Conservatives,"

Nanaimo Daily News

Oh well, in a world where Stephen Harper is on record saying he likes to get high, I suppose anything goes.

Edited April 15, 2011 by eyeball

[Keepitsimple]

Interestingly, I don't think Ignatieff actually believes in most of the lefty stuff he's been proposing as leader of the Liberals. Based on his speeches and writings while in the US, his personal leanings are probably farther on the right of the spectrum than Harper. He is only advocating what he's advocating to try to carve out some political space for the liberal party, since the conservatives have moved to the center. And you can definitely tell his heart isn't in it at all.

You're right....that's always been clear to me. It's not really surprising if one understands US politics - Democrats are more right-wing than anything we've had here in Canada....they really haven't gone for social programs the way that we have. Mr. Ignatieff cut his teeth on American politics so his natural "lens" is through "the American Way". Left to his own devices, he would be too far to the Right for Canada's Conservatives. Is that what Canadians want?

While I'm on my soapbox, here's what really bugs me about accusations of "American style prisons" and Republican-style/Bush-style remarks being thrown at the Conservatives. We are NOT Americans and Canada is NOT the US........and we will never be.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Evening Star]

Clearly you distinguish between Quebecers and Canadians, and I'd like to know why. Do near 50% votes in the two referendums support your position?

The result of the 1980 referendum was closer to 60-40: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum_1980

Edited April 15, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

Interestingly, I don't think Ignatieff actually believes in most of the lefty stuff he's been proposing as leader of the Liberals. Based on his speeches and writings while in the US, his personal leanings are probably farther on the right of the spectrum than Harper.

I dunno, I only recently started reading some of his writing rather than just going by what has been written about it. "The Attack on Human Rights", for example, is highly critical of the US' disregard for international conventions and the UN and also points to the divide between the US and the rest of the developed world on abortion and capital punishment. He also posits the international struggle for human rights in opposition to the interests of global capitalism at times. Not exactly Republican talking points.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Evening Star

[Dave_ON]

The people in BC didn't watch the French debate. The uptrend for the NDP reflects how much better Layton was than Ignatieff in the English debate. Like I said before, this is good news for the conservatives and terrible news for the Liberals. Split the vote and give Harper his majority.

You're seriously dreaming if you think Mr. Harper and the CPC are anywhere near majority territory at this point. The rate at which is Ontario and Quebec support is softening he'll be very lucky to hold onto his current seat count.

[Harry]

Remember when this campaign started and the Harper and Ignatieff spinners were suggesting Layton would not be able to effectively campaign because of his health issues. What happened?

French language debate: Tie goes to Layton

If there was one free radical, it was Jack Layton. Giving his creeping advantage in the polls, Layton’s battle was with Duceppe, from whom the NDP leader would like to take a chunk of the soft nationalist vote. He shut Duceppe’s narrative of an Ottawa-centric NDP government down, he withstood the sticky questions about Bill 101 by reminding Duceppe that language policy is a provincial jurisdiction, and was the only one of the three federalist leaders to have the courage (or folly, depending on who you ask) to say his government would move to have Quebec sign the constitution. His French was about 10 times better than in 2008, and he had the last word. It was a slog, and he didn’t win by much. But he won.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/13/tie-goes-to-layton/