Press Gallery Grumbling Again

[BubberMiley]

But you gotta feel for the national media. When they heard four Canadians were killed in Afghanistan they were probalby high-fiving each other, jumping up and down in glee that they'd get another few days to glory in the trajedy of their deaths.

These are the same people who generally sneer at soldiers as disgusting, politically incorrect, uneducated thugs the rest of the time.

And you are projecting and inventing reactions from your opponents so that you can use the soldiers' deaths for partisan advantage.

[betsy]

Update:

Decima research placed the Tories close to majority at 41%!! And if I'm not mistaken, that doesn't include Quebec.

MDuffy said it lightly, but looked like he couldn't believe it. "Is Harper getting to the people over the heads of the press? How dare he."

The journalist answered: "Yes, he's talking to the people over the press....and he's getting stronger. Especially in Quebec."

So now they've got really something to grumble about.

[BubberMiley]

But polls don't make a majority. You need to have another election before that will happen. Just ask the Liberals how polls can change during an actual campaign.

[shoop]

Hmmm, the CPC would be more than happy to head into an election with 40% approval rating.

The day before, and the day the Liberals were defeated four National opinion polls showed the Liberals hovering between 31% and 36% support nationally ... with most of the polls skewing towards the higher end of that range.

After an *atrocious* campaign the Liberals still received just over 30% of the vote. Not that much of a change at all. The CPC will run the next campaign with a solid, experienced team and a leader who has proven himself to be very Prime Ministerial and not as *scary* *scary* *scary* as everyone said he would

If you can see the CPC consistently registering at 40% in the polls anytime after Kennedy wins the Liberal leadership you will see them engineer a defeat in the housed.

But polls don't make a majority. You need to have another election before that will happen. Just ask the Liberals how polls can change during an actual campaign.

[geoffrey]

Shoop,

40% approval isn't very high and I even want the CPC to win a majority personally. Hopefully Harper's 'hidden agenda' is real, thats what I voted for. Tax cuts, private medicine and a real military power.

Approval isn't voting intentions. Most solid governments are in the 70% range. The CPC has a long way to go before they are in majority numbers there.

This stuff isn't flying well with Canadians. Personally, I think they are the right choices, not having the media zooming in on coffins to make interesting intro's to the evening news sounds like a choice that is respectable. The flag shouldn't be lowered, soliders fight to keep it raised over Canada. But that doesn't mean the average Canadian shmuck agrees with us. Remember shoop, most people live in that T.O. - Montreal area, an area that is rather ignorant to anything outside their pseudosocialist realm of existance.

They love to see coffins on TV, it gives them political satisfaction that their side is winning. Anything to make Harper look like Bush.

So I'm rather disheartend. We won't win without Toronto/Montreal. So whats the point?

That's even if Harper can keep the West on his side. Personally, I've been not so happy with the lack of respect Alberta has got from his government either. There needs to be alot of making up from the 'screw the west, we'll take the rest' Liberals, and I'm not seeing it. It seems like same old, same old, feed Quebec and you'll have Ottawa.

Doesn't fly with me. I'd vote Reform if they came back. Not because I'm a populist reformer, but Alberta isn't getting anything out of the deal this time.

When a government acts to improve my life, they will get my vote. If a 1% GST cut is all I'm getting, they've got a long way to go. Not that I would vote for the LPC or NDP. But the CPC government surely hasn't earned my vote... and I'm a member of the party.

I like Harper's decisions on this matter, but it isn't enough to win anyone's vote. Keep your hopes up Shoop, maybe you'll get your majority. But not with poll numbers like that.

[betsy]

But polls don't make a majority. You need to have another election before that will happen. Just ask the Liberals how polls can change during an actual campaign.

But that means Harper's policy are being met with approval!

So all this Liberal and NDP crap insisting that "he won not because of his campaign policies....he only got a third of the vote...etc." seem to be proving them wrong. Worse, the polls are showing that people either approve or agree with Harper's decisions and moves so far (especially his head-butting with the media).

[BubberMiley]

But polls don't make a majority. You need to have another election before that will happen. Just ask the Liberals how polls can change during an actual campaign.

But that means Harper's policy are being met with approval!

So all this Liberal and NDP crap insisting that "he won not because of his campaign policies....he only got a third of the vote...etc." seem to be proving them wrong. Worse, the polls are showing that people either approve or agree with Harper's decisions and moves so far (especially his head-butting with the media).

But 40% approval is pathetic in a honeymoon period when people are sick of elections and just want the government to govern. These numbers are not an indication of mass approval--more like mass distrust. Even George W. Bush was cracking 60% after the most divisive election in history and before 9/11.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

[geoffrey]

But polls don't make a majority. You need to have another election before that will happen. Just ask the Liberals how polls can change during an actual campaign.

But that means Harper's policy are being met with approval!

So all this Liberal and NDP crap insisting that "he won not because of his campaign policies....he only got a third of the vote...etc." seem to be proving them wrong. Worse, the polls are showing that people either approve or agree with Harper's decisions and moves so far (especially his head-butting with the media).

But 40% approval is pathetic in a honeymoon period when people are sick of elections and just want the government to govern. These numbers are not an indication of mass approval--more like mass distrust. Even George W. Bush was cracking 60% after the most divisive election in history and before 9/11.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

It's a little different in Canada though BM, where 40% popular support is a majority. The approval rating is split more ways.

[shoop]

You are totally correct. 40% approval rating isn't very high. The 41% figure from the OP was voting intention.

Here is a link. Conservatives grow more popular.

And a snippet from the story.

The Conservatives stood at 41 per cent — one point above the mark that is traditionally considered the dividing line that separates majorities from minorities.

The Liberals held 26 per cent and the NDP, despite its continued efforts to chip away at Liberal support, remained a distant third at 19 per cent.

Decima's chief pollster says the Conservatives have been steadily gaining ground since the election. They won a minority government with 36 per cent of the popular vote on Jan. 23.

Shoop,

40% approval isn't very high and I even want the CPC to win a majority personally. Hopefully Harper's 'hidden agenda' is real, thats what I voted for. Tax cuts, private medicine and a real military power.

[BubberMiley]

It's a little different in Canada though BM, where 40% popular support is a majority. The approval rating is split more ways.

You're confusing approval ratings with voting intentions (and based on Snoop's post, perhaps I am too). There's only one PM to approve or disapprove of. Obviously a lot of people who voted for Gore were willing to grant Bush some good will and give him a chance to govern. Even I am happy to grant Harper that and wouldn't say I particularly disapprove of his performance so far (other than not letting his MPs speak).

[shoop]

As I just said. The CPC has a 40% vote intention at the moment.

So your 60% of Canadians "don't trust him enough for that" is pretty unfounded.

You're confusing approval ratings with election results. There's only one PM to approve or disapprove of. Obviously a lot of people who voted for Gore were willing to grant Bush some good will and give him a chance to govern. Even I am happy to grant Harper that and wouldn't say I particularly disapprove of his performance so far (other than not letting his MPs speak). It seems nearly 60% of Canadians don't trust him enough for that though.

[Black Dog]

But that means Harper's policy are being met with approval!

So all this Liberal and NDP crap insisting that "he won not because of his campaign policies....he only got a third of the vote...etc." seem to be proving them wrong. Worse, the polls are showing that people either approve or agree with Harper's decisions and moves so far (especially his head-butting with the media).

Forty-one per cent isn't that big an increase from 36 per cent (especially when you consider the large margin of error in this poll: +/- three per cent). Factor in election fatigue and the fact taht CPC squeaked in due mainlyto Liberal corruption and campaign incompetence, there's not much to suggest the CPC rae on any firmer ground with the electorate now than they were on January 24.

[shoop]

Clearly the five point rise in support for the Government is due to something.

You say election fatigue. Others would say people are slowly waking up to what a lie *scary* *scary* *scary* was and are happy they have a non-dithering Prime Minister.

Regardless of the reason the PM is up five points from when he won the election.

A 41% level of support would translate into a majority.

Forty-one per cent isn't that big an increase from 36 per cent (especially when you consider the large margin of error in this poll: +/- three per cent). Factor in election fatigue and the fact taht CPC squeaked in due mainlyto Liberal corruption and campaign incompetence, there's not much to suggest the CPC rae on any firmer ground with the electorate now than they were on January 24.

[Hicksey]

I attribute that 5 points to the incumbent advantage.

As to whether that translates into a majority I don't know. I would lean toward no if I had to give an answer today. Support for what a party is doing now does not necessarily translate into votes. If Harper was running about 45% or more I'd feel more comfortable with your assessment.

Clearly the five point rise in support for the Government is due to something.

You say election fatigue. Others would say people are slowly waking up to what a lie *scary* *scary* *scary* was and are happy they have a non-dithering Prime Minister.

Regardless of the reason the PM is up five points from when he won the election.

A 41% level of support would translate into a majority.

Forty-one per cent isn't that big an increase from 36 per cent (especially when you consider the large margin of error in this poll: +/- three per cent). Factor in election fatigue and the fact taht CPC squeaked in due mainlyto Liberal corruption and campaign incompetence, there's not much to suggest the CPC rae on any firmer ground with the electorate now than they were on January 24.

[shoop]

I guess, but the Liberals have the *advantage* of a leadership race going on, which should cancel out the incumbent advantage.

41% would be a comfortable majority.

Remember Chretien got a four seat majority with 38.5% of the vote in 1997.

I attribute that 5 points to the incumbent advantage.

As to whether that translates into a majority I don't know. I would lean toward no if I had to give an answer today. Support for what a party is doing now does not necessarily translate into votes. If Harper was running about 45% or more I'd feel more comfortable with your assessment.

[betsy]

Update:

Mike Duffy himself stated a "veiled threat" on Harper yesterday. Believe it or not, he's really fuming over the banning of the Press Gallery from some parts of the Hill. I think he's taking it personally. He mentioned something about ..."..after 27 years of doing it..." (was he referring to himself?)

He and Jane Taber and the guy from Globe and Mail were talking about Harper's attitude. MDuffy mentioned about this "arrogance"...and that if Harper keeps pushing at the media, "we'll push back."

Jane Taber was surprisingly tamed as MDuffy obviously tried to stir up emotions in the hopes of eliciting echoing sentiments from both journalists.

Although both agreed about the "attitude"....both also grudgingly stated that the attitude seems to be aworking well with the public.

The Globe and Mail guy stated finally, "It's obviously working. He is soaring."

[Leafless]

betsy

You wrote- Although both agreed about the "attitude"...both also grudgingly stated that the attitude seems to be working well with the public."

Journalists sometimes who act emulating PM's or try to manipulate policies and decissions works against government and must be controlled to a ressonable extent.

[Hicksey]

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think that 41% includes the incumbent advantage, and I agree with a previous poster in that in this country -- largely liberal -- approval does not translate to voter intentions. I place Harper at best 38% support as far as voter intent is concerned.

I guess, but the Liberals have the *advantage* of a leadership race going on, which should cancel out the incumbent advantage.

41% would be a comfortable majority.

Remember Chretien got a four seat majority with 38.5% of the vote in 1997.

I attribute that 5 points to the incumbent advantage.

As to whether that translates into a majority I don't know. I would lean toward no if I had to give an answer today. Support for what a party is doing now does not necessarily translate into votes. If Harper was running about 45% or more I'd feel more comfortable with your assessment.

[Argus]

Update:

Mike Duffy himself stated a "veiled threat" on Harper yesterday. Believe it or not, he's really fuming over the banning of the Press Gallery from some parts of the Hill. I think he's taking it personally. He mentioned something about ..."..after 27 years of doing it..." (was he referring to himself?)

He and Jane Taber and the guy from Globe and Mail were talking about Harper's attitude. MDuffy mentioned about this "arrogance"...and that if Harper keeps pushing at the media, "we'll push back."

Jane Taber was surprisingly tamed as MDuffy obviously tried to stir up emotions in the hopes of eliciting echoing sentiments from both journalists.

Although both agreed about the "attitude"....both also grudgingly stated that the attitude seems to be aworking well with the public.

The Globe and Mail guy stated finally, "It's obviously working. He is soaring."

The public has little sympathy for the whining of the national media. They're about the only people in Canada who are distrusted as much as the politicians. Most people know they're dishonest and have agendas, and most people think they're spoiled, over-paid and lazy. What does Duffy think they can do, make up nasty stories about the Tories? They've been doing that for years anyway.

[hemi_6pac]

Update:

Mike Duffy himself stated a "veiled threat" on Harper yesterday. Believe it or not, he's really fuming over the banning of the Press Gallery from some parts of the Hill. I think he's taking it personally. He mentioned something about ..."..after 27 years of doing it..." (was he referring to himself?)

He and Jane Taber and the guy from Globe and Mail were talking about Harper's attitude. MDuffy mentioned about this "arrogance"...and that if Harper keeps pushing at the media, "we'll push back."

Jane Taber was surprisingly tamed as MDuffy obviously tried to stir up emotions in the hopes of eliciting echoing sentiments from both journalists.

Although both agreed about the "attitude"....both also grudgingly stated that the attitude seems to be aworking well with the public.

The Globe and Mail guy stated finally, "It's obviously working. He is soaring."

The public has little sympathy for the whining of the national media. They're about the only people in Canada who are distrusted as much as the politicians. Most people know they're dishonest and have agendas, and most people think they're spoiled, over-paid and lazy. What does Duffy think they can do, make up nasty stories about the Tories? They've been doing that for years anyway.

[shoop]

They had a very good panel on Question Period about this issue today.

Scott Reid was on and the harshest thing he could say was that the Conservative's will *need* the media onside when times get tough. Hmmm Scott, didn't help your boss too much did it?

Harper was compared to Trudeau in his handling of the media. That seems like a pretty good thing for Harper. Trudeau pretty much always had a testy relationship with the media. He won three majorities, a minority and lost one election. Does that mean Harper is in line to win three majorities? Only time will tell.

The public has little sympathy for the whining of the national media. They're about the only people in Canada who are distrusted as much as the politicians. Most people know they're dishonest and have agendas, and most people think they're spoiled, over-paid and lazy. What does Duffy think they can do, make up nasty stories about the Tories? They've been doing that for years anyway.

[geoffrey]

They had a very good panel on Question Period about this issue today.

Scott Reid was on and the harshest thing he could say was that the Conservative's will *need* the media onside when times get tough. Hmmm Scott, didn't help your boss too much did it?

Harper was compared to Trudeau in his handling of the media. That seems like a pretty good thing for Harper. Trudeau pretty much always had a testy relationship with the media. He won three majorities, a minority and lost one election. Does that mean Harper is in line to win three majorities? Only time will tell.

The public has little sympathy for the whining of the national media. They're about the only people in Canada who are distrusted as much as the politicians. Most people know they're dishonest and have agendas, and most people think they're spoiled, over-paid and lazy. What does Duffy think they can do, make up nasty stories about the Tories? They've been doing that for years anyway.

However much I dislike what Trudeau did to Canada, I will cede that he was the most intelligent PM in recent times, before Harper.

People with intelligence generally have a disrespect for mainstream media. It's hard to respect people that think they know more than you, when really they are merely generalists that took a course or two in English. The goal of the media in this country is to talk down to people of Canada, and force them into their viewpoints on issues. I love when journalists try to tell me what is best for the economy or in business (Business & econ major here, yeehaw), I imagine others feel the same when journalists speak about things related to their professions or their knowledge. It's all from their opinionated viewpoints, yet presented as factual evidence. I get nothing but a massive feeling of arrogance from the media, especially CBC types, and its not something I tolerate paying to hear/see/read.

There is no critical reporting of facts anymore, I wouldn't deal with the media if I were a politican. I wouldn't deal with the media ever actually.

[betsy]

They had a very good panel on Question Period about this issue today.

Scott Reid was on and the harshest thing he could say was that the Conservative's will *need* the media onside when times get tough. Hmmm Scott, didn't help your boss too much did it?

Harper was compared to Trudeau in his handling of the media. That seems like a pretty good thing for Harper. Trudeau pretty much always had a testy relationship with the media. He won three majorities, a minority and lost one election. Does that mean Harper is in line to win three majorities? Only time will tell.

The public has little sympathy for the whining of the national media. They're about the only people in Canada who are distrusted as much as the politicians. Most people know they're dishonest and have agendas, and most people think they're spoiled, over-paid and lazy. What does Duffy think they can do, make up nasty stories about the Tories? They've been doing that for years anyway.

However much I dislike what Trudeau did to Canada, I will cede that he was the most intelligent PM in recent times, before Harper.

People with intelligence generally have a disrespect for mainstream media. It's hard to respect people that think they know more than you, when really they are merely generalists that took a course or two in English. The goal of the media in this country is to talk down to people of Canada, and force them into their viewpoints on issues. I love when journalists try to tell me what is best for the economy or in business (Business & econ major here, yeehaw), I imagine others feel the same when journalists speak about things related to their professions or their knowledge. It's all from their opinionated viewpoints, yet presented as factual evidence. I get nothing but a massive feeling of arrogance from the media, especially CBC types, and its not something I tolerate paying to hear/see/read.

There is no critical reporting of facts anymore, I wouldn't deal with the media if I were a politican. I wouldn't deal with the media ever actually.

They've lost credibility. I feel automatically skeptical about what they say....just like listening to a salesman.

This opinionated arrogance is rampant among "highprofile" or "star" journalists...that's why it's a good move on Harper's part to go over their heads and instead, talk to the "small guys."