Elections Rumour

[Ricki Bobbi]

I am not dismissing Afghanistan as an issue. But your contention that Canadians are withholding majority support *primarily* because of Aghanistan is unfounded. I just don't think it would be THE deciding factor for as many voters as you appear to think and haven't seen any support otherwise.

If you look at that link to all the post-election polls I posted a while back only 2 of the 20 plus polls put Harper at over 40%. Those were too early in the mandate for Harper to have asked Canadians to go back to the voting booth again. So he hasn't been at a majority level of support really at any time, before or after the extension of the mission in Afghanistan.

l think if Harper can use the fall to make progress on patient wait times, the fiscal imbalance and the environment he will be well positioned to win a majority. Even if things in Afghanistan are rougly the same as they are now. *If* they take a big turn for the worse than things would change.

You keep thinking this is about Liberals re-taking the election or anti-war or anti-Harper.

You keep dismissing Afghanistan as an issue. Polls all summer have indicated that Canadians are withholding majority support primarily because of the war.

[jdobbin]

l think if Harper can use the fall to make progress on patient wait times, the fiscal imbalance and the environment he will be well positioned to win a majority. Even if things in Afghanistan are rougly the same as they are now. *If* they take a big turn for the worse than things would change.

Things could ease in Afghanistan to be sure. I wouldn't want to fight an election with things so uncertain there.

We'll have to disagree about the impact on the conflict. If Harper can shape the message maybe that will change but we are seeing what happens when the message isn't believed by looking south. In 10 weeks, the mid-term elections occur in the States. The economy is not bad in the States, jobs are up. There a few clouds here and there and yet Republican candidates are fighting for their lives, about to risk losing possibly the House and the Senate in a stroke.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Looking south shows the simplicity of your argument. Let's look in detail. Iraq is a lot bigger issue than Afghanistan. Tougher to defend the reasons for being there and U.S. casualties are much, much higher than are Canadian casualties in Afghanistan. I am one of those people who favour involvement in Afghanistan and oppose it in Iraq. There were much different rationale used in entering both those conflicts.

*If* things fall well for the Democrats they will take back the House. Although there is a good piece in this week's Time magazine how the DCCC may not have enough cash to win the electoral battle. It would take an almost perfect set of circumstances for them to win the Senate. The U.S. economy isn't as strong as Canada's, and there is a lot of resentment over Katrina. Don't put too much into anti-war sentiment alone affecting elections.

Things could ease in Afghanistan to be sure. I wouldn't want to fight an election with things so uncertain there.

We'll have to disagree about the impact on the conflict. If Harper can shape the message maybe that will change but we are seeing what happens when the message isn't believed by looking south. In 10 weeks, the mid-term elections occur in the States. The economy is not bad in the States, jobs are up. There a few clouds here and there and yet Republican candidates are fighting for their lives, about to risk losing possibly the House and the Senate in a stroke.

[jdobbin]

Looking south shows the simplicity of your argument. Let's look in detail. Iraq is a lot bigger issue than Afghanistan. Tougher to defend the reasons for being there and U.S. casualties are much, much higher than are Canadian casualties in Afghanistan. I am one of those people who favour involvement in Afghanistan and oppose it in Iraq. There were much different rationale used in entering both those conflicts.

*If* things fall well for the Democrats they will take back the House. Although there is a good piece in this week's Time magazine how the DCCC may not have enough cash to win the electoral battle. It would take an almost perfect set of circumstances for them to win the Senate. The U.S. economy isn't as strong as Canada's, and there is a lot of resentment over Katrina. Don't put too much into anti-war sentiment alone affecting elections.

It isn't a simplistic argument. It's a straight forward one. Foreign policy is having an affect this election in the U.S.

I don't know that Katrina has been cited as a reason why Montana's and Pennsylvania's Senate races are this tight. If you can show me that evidence from somewhere, I'd be interested to see. It has affected the President's popularity. Why would it affect some Senator in Montana?

And show me where the U.S. economy has done worse than Canada's. Stats on that?

Two independent political analysts this week have said that Republicans will outspend the Democrats in this mid-term. At the same time, these analysts have said that they still expect Republicans could lose the House, possibly the Senate. I don't know that you can really blame Katrina for a loss of a Calafornia Congressman. Something bigger is usually happening.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Your point was that Foreign Policy could cost the Republicans the Senate. Unfortunately, it won't.

The Democrats need to hold all of their seats and pick up six Republican seats. They would have to win all the toss ups according to the latest Cook Political Report.

Is Katrina the *only* reason Democrats are stronger? No. Is Iraq? No.

About the economy. These links show how Canada's payroll growth is outpacing the U.S.'s . 3.8% to 0.2% which means that much more money in the hands of Canadian consumers. With things basically staying the same in the U.S. people lose confidence and don' tspend as much. Any other information you want?

It isn't a simplistic argument. It's a straight forward one. Foreign policy is having an affect this election in the U.S.

I don't know that Katrina has been cited as a reason why Montana's and Pennsylvania's Senate races are this tight. If you can show me that evidence from somewhere, I'd be interested to see. It has affected the President's popularity. Why would it affect some Senator in Montana?

And show me where the U.S. economy has done worse than Canada's. Stats on that?

Two independent political analysts this week have said that Republicans will outspend the Democrats in this mid-term. At the same time, these analysts have said that they still expect Republicans could lose the House, possibly the Senate. I don't know that you can really blame Katrina for a loss of a Calafornia Congressman. Something bigger is usually happening.

[jdobbin]

Your point was that Foreign Policy could cost the Republicans the Senate. Unfortunately, it won't.

The Democrats need to hold all of their seats and pick up six Republican seats. They would have to win all the toss ups according to the latest Cook Political Report.

Is Katrina the *only* reason Democrats are stronger? No. Is Iraq? No.

About the economy. These links show how Canada's payroll growth is outpacing the U.S.'s . 3.8% to 0.2% which means that much more money in the hands of Canadian consumers. With things basically staying the same in the U.S. people lose confidence and don' tspend as much. Any other information you want?

I said the Senate would be the tough one. But that report you quoted is two weeks out of date. There were new reports just before the weekend. I believe the links are already on the board.

There are several factors such as employment, GDP, etc. The U.S. is not in recession now. It is showing signs of slowing. Most of the analysts are not saying the economy is a huge factor in the election so far. You have evidence to suggest it is?

At any rate, we'll know in 10 weeks. Who knows, they might find Osama bin Laden and Republicans could sweep the entire Congress. Could happen. But at the moment, the prospects are that at least one branch of the government is going to fall to the Democrats.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Why would I got to the effort to supply evidence when you won't? You wanted proof the Canadian economy was stronger than the American, you got it.

There are no other comparable sources to the Cook Political Report from a truly non-partisan source. I have done the research. You have supplied, ZERO evidence, and are just pulling things out of thin air. Go ahead, find one report that is even similar in providing an analysis of every Senate race.

Say what you want. But I have backed up my assertions. All you have done is brushed them off without supported then asked me for more support of your changing ground. Easy to debate with somebody like you. No evidence, always changing the subject when proven wrong and you won't take the time to dig up the support.

FYI - The Congress, i.e. House of Representatives and the Senate, is considered the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. If you want to post accurately you should learn what you are talking about.

I said the Senate would be the tough one. But that report you quoted is two weeks out of date. There were new reports just before the weekend. I believe the links are already on the board.

There are several factors such as employment, GDP, etc. The U.S. is not in recession now. It is showing signs of slowing. Most of the analysts are not saying the economy is a huge factor in the election so far. You have evidence to suggest it is?

At any rate, we'll know in 10 weeks. Who knows, they might find Osama bin Laden and Republicans could sweep the entire Congress. Could happen. But at the moment, the prospects are that at least one branch of the government is going to fall to the Democrats.

[jdobbin]

Why would I got to the effort to supply evidence when you won't? You wanted proof the Canadian economy was stronger than the American, you got it.

There are no other comparable sources to the Cook Political Report from a truly non-partisan source. I have done the research. You have supplied, ZERO evidence, and are just pulling things out of thin air. Go ahead, find one report that is even similar in providing an analysis of every Senate race.

Say what you want. But I have backed up my assertions. All you have done is brushed them off without supported then asked me for more support of your changing ground. Easy to debate with somebody like you. No evidence, always changing the subject when proven wrong and you won't take the time to dig up the support.

FYI - The Congress, i.e. House of Representatives and the Senate, is considered the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. If you want to post accurately you should learn what you are talking about.

For Pete's sake. One part of the bicameral legislative branch then. I have said repeatedly that the Senate is a tough nut to crack.

And if you are a master of research on independent political analysis, you'd know about Stuart Rothenberg.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....-politicsNews-2

I am waiting for Cook's and Rothenberg's reports that come in a week. Both men have said that things are changing so fast that they've described it as being a "wave."

Cook was just on NBC Nightly News a few minutes ago now. He has said that 70 per cent of the issues facing

Representatives are linked it Iraq. Since his last report at the beginning of August, the races that have gone to the "up for grabs" column have doubled.

As far as U.S. having a strong economy, by GDP here is the growth: Canada: 3.2 GDP, U.S. 3.5 GDP.

By most standards, that means stronger U.S. growth or do you disagree?

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story...AY-COL/GIStory/

So I have backed up my assertions on the economy. I never made a claim on the U.S. Senate other than to say that the analysts have said things are in flux but that Democrats are expected to make gains in a few states, possibly more if a wave is happening. That is in this link you are looking at now.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You do know that Rothenberg actually used to write for the Cook report, don't you?

Interesting your source had to be on TV with no way to support what you *heard*.

Four posts ago you said "And show me where the U.S. economy has done worse than Canada's. Stats on that?" Now that I showed an example with a stronger Canadian economic indicator you narrow the ground to GDP growth. Hmmm, very interesting.

Would adding a link on the downturn in housing starts in the U.S. added to the information on slower salary growth top your marginally higher projected growth in GDP?

And if you are a master of research on independent political analysis, you'd know about Stuart Rothenberg.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....-politicsNews-2

I am waiting for Cook's and Rothenberg's reports that come in a week. Both men have said that things are changing so fast that they've described it as being a "wave."

Cook was just on NBC Nightly News a few minutes ago now. He has said that 70 per cent of the issues facing

Representatives are linked it Iraq. Since his last report at the beginning of August, the races that have gone to the "up for grabs" column have doubled.

As far as U.S. having a strong economy, by GDP here is the growth: Canada: 3.2 GDP, U.S. 3.5 GDP.

By most standards, that means stronger U.S. growth or do you disagree?

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story...AY-COL/GIStory/

So I have backed up my assertions on the economy. I never made a claim on the U.S. Senate other than to say that the analysts have said things are in flux but that Democrats are expected to make gains in a few states, possibly more if a wave is happening. That is in this link you are looking at now.

[jdobbin]

You do know that Rothenberg actually used to write for the Cook report, don't you?

Interesting your source had to be on TV with no way to support what you *heard*.

Four posts ago you said "And show me where the U.S. economy has done worse than Canada's. Stats on that?" Now that I showed an example with a stronger Canadian economic indicator you narrow the ground to GDP growth. Hmmm, very interesting.

Would adding a link on the downturn in housing starts in the U.S. added to the information on slower salary growth top your marginally higher projected growth in GDP?

NBC Nightly News is on video stream. You can watch it yourself. Throw it back in my face.

And Rothenburg doesn't work for Cook anymore. What's your point?

I said there were several economic indicators. Labour market, stock market, bond market are all indicators. You gave me one that was higher as if this was enough to show Canada has done better. I showed you GDP which is a major indicator. There are are a whole list of OECD indicators out there. What do they say about Canada versus the United States?

Your real estate news isn't compared to Canadian figures at all. How is someone to compare that to anything?

The only reason that the economy is being talked about there is because you said it was a one of the major factors of U.S. dissatisfaction with the Republicans. Show me some evidence of that. Back it up.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Yet again changing the goal lines. Very interesting. When I posted that you asked for evidence of a downturn in the U.S. economy. I provided it and now you want comparative figures for Canada

You may have the ability to do so, but your obtuseness in replying to my evidence make me feel you are just playing with me .... or really don't get it. Not really fun to play that game anymore. See you after the next election. Hopefully your anger recedes. Have fun raging against the machine.

Your real estate news isn't compared to Canadian figures at all. How is someone to compare that to anything?

The only reason that the economy is being talked about there is because you said it was a one of the major factors of U.S. dissatisfaction with the Republicans. Show me some evidence of that. Back it up.

[jdobbin]

Yet again changing the goal lines. Very interesting. When I posted that you asked for evidence of a downturn in the U.S. economy. I provided it and now you want comparative figures for Canada

You may have the ability to do so, but your obtuseness in replying to my evidence make me feel you are just playing with me .... or really don't get it. Not really fun to play that game anymore. See you after the next election. Hopefully your anger recedes. Have fun raging against the machine.

No, you said Canada had out performed the United States. Interesting. You keep avoiding the question. Has Canada out performed the U.S. this year? One figure shows me one area of the economy but you keep saying it is the only important number there is. I showed you GDP and you say that I have narrowed the area to look in. I ask you to show any and all figures that you can find to indicate that Canada has outdone the U.S.

I've never seen anything to indicate it nor would I have argued it.

[jdobbin]

This is the first poll just released that indicates the economy is starting to be an issue in this election.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/04/pol...tion/index.html

Numbers that used to be in the majority saying the economy was good have dropped into minority status.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You are just playing with me. I mentioned two areas. You wanted comparative Canadian figures but couldn't look them up yourself.

Then in your next post you point a link to an article supporting my contention all along. Have fun choosing another target to play with...

No, you said Canada had out performed the United States. Interesting. You keep avoiding the question. Has Canada out performed the U.S. this year? One figure shows me one area of the economy but you keep saying it is the only important number there is. I showed you GDP and you say that I have narrowed the area to look in. I ask you to show any and all figures that you can find to indicate that Canada has outdone the U.S.

I've never seen anything to indicate it nor would I have argued it.

[jdobbin]

You are just playing with me. I mentioned two areas. You wanted comparative Canadian figures but couldn't look them up yourself.

Then in your next post you point a link to an article supporting my contention all along. Have fun choosing another target to play with...

It is a poll that was released just 30 minutes ago. And the economy doesn't rate that much higher than Iraq. Statistically, they are even. The Cook interview on NBC News tonight said his tracking had Congressional battles at 70% for Iraq as an issue. I don't know his methodolgy though.

And I am not playing with you. You made the claim. Canada is doing better than the U.S. How can you say that with one figure? And the housing figure couldn't back up your claim because it doesn't compare to Canada.

Why do I have to look for figures to back your claim that Canada was doing better than the U.S.? Do you really think one figure does that? The OECD uses a range of indicators. I showed you GDP. That wasn't enough to convince you that the U.S. has been doing better?

Throw it back in my face if you believe what you say. Show me that Canada is doing better. Show me that Iraq is not having a major impact in the mid-terms to the extent that it could change the balance in the House?

[Ricki Bobbi]

You said that Iraq was *the* biggest reason why the Republicans were going to lose the House AND Senate.

Already proved they won't win the Senate.

Already provided evidence how the Canadian economy is stronger than the American. In response to your overstatement of the importance of foreign policy in U.S elections. See post #67.

As for a comparative figure about the housing starts, here is a Canadian link for comparison. U.S. starts have already turned down. Canada may turn down in 2007. Hmmm, more proof that the Canadian economy is stronger than the American.

But I will take your ignoring the issues that you have admitted error on these issues:

- The Liberals won't win the next election.

- The Republicans, unfortunately, won't lose the Senate.

- The Canadian economy is stronger than the American.

- The last six U.S. elections weren't dominated by foreign policy

- The legislative branch of the U.S. government is the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Throw it back in my face if you believe what you say. Show me that Canada is doing better. Show me that Iraq is not having a major impact in the mid-terms to the extent that it could change the balance in the House?

[jdobbin]

You said that Iraq was *the* biggest reason why the Republicans were going to lose the House AND Senate.

Already proved they won't win the Senate.

Already provided evidence how the Canadian economy is stronger than the American. In response to your overstatement of the importance of foreign policy in U.S elections. See post #67.

As for a comparative figure about the housing starts, here is a Canadian link for comparison. U.S. starts have already turned down. Canada may turn down in 2007. Hmmm, more proof that the Canadian economy is stronger than the American.

But I will take your ignoring the issues that you have admitted error on these issues:

- The Liberals won't win the next election.

- The Republicans, unfortunately, won't lose the Senate.

- The Canadian economy is stronger than the American.

- The last six U.S. elections weren't dominated by foreign policy

- The legislative branch of the U.S. government is the House of Representatives and the Senate.

This is what I said about the Senate.

"these analysts have said that they still expect Republicans could lose the House, possibly the Senate." Stop lying.

And you haven't proved anything on the Senate. Even the analysts don't talk about proof. They talk about probabilities. And since I never said that the Senate was going to change over unless there was wave, I have no idea what you are talking about.

You haven't proved anything on the economy. Why not put that statement out there on the Canada-U.S. forum and get prompty stomped on?

[uOttawaMan]

The biggest rumour is the magic number of how many threads Ricki Bobbi can start 1 vs 1 flame wars in before noone cares to read anymore.

[jdobbin]

The biggest rumour is the magic number of how many threads Ricki Bobbi can start 1 vs 1 flame wars in before noone cares to read anymore.

His pro-Conservative Republicanism is a bit tiring. I'd certainly like to seem him take his comparison of U.S. and Canadian economies to the rest of the board. The fact that I have to defend the United States economy is ironic.

[jbg]

Your point was that Foreign Policy could cost the Republicans the Senate. Unfortunately, it won't.

The Democrats need to hold all of their seats and pick up six Republican seats. They would have to win all the toss ups according to the latest Cook Political Report.

Is Katrina the *only* reason Democrats are stronger? No. Is Iraq? No.

The Democrats' strength, from a stateside view, is more apparent than real. They lack sane leadership, pure and simple. They're basically the NDP by another name. Katrina isn't that much of a help to them, since the Republicans were not about to get the mostly black New Orleans districts any way, and the white districts in that area are not about to go Democratic. I suspect a narrower Republican majority in the House, and definitely a Republican majority in the Senate.

About the economy. These links show how Canada's payroll growth is outpacing the U.S.'s . 3.8% to 0.2% which means that much more money in the hands of Canadian consumers. With things basically staying the same in the U.S. people lose confidence and don' tspend as much. Any other information you want?

Unemployment at 4.7%? Relatively low inflation? Doesn't sound like a bad economy to me.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Ahhh,

There is the classic knee-jerk, unthinking, response from the Canadian left. I favour the Conservatives so I have to be pro-Republican. Isn't it amazing how the left is stuck with that sorry chestnut. I said repeatedly in the thread it was unfortunate that the Republicans will hold the Senate ... but you couldn't actually pay attention to threads.

You asked for proof of the Canadian economy being stronger. I provided two examples. Yet, you only provide one in response. Instead of coming up with a response you misrepresent my views and attack me personally. Nice.

His pro-Conservative Republicanism is a bit tiring. I'd certainly like to seem him take his comparison of U.S. and Canadian economies to the rest of the board. The fact that I have to defend the United States economy is ironic.

Good contribution to the thread UOttawaman!

[jdobbin]

Ahhh,

There is the classic knee-jerk, unthinking, response from the Canadian left. I favour the Conservatives so I have to be pro-Republican. Isn't it amazing how the left is stuck with that sorry chestnut. I said repeatedly in the thread it was unfortunate that the Republicans will hold the Senate ... but you couldn't actually pay attention to threads.

You asked for proof of the Canadian economy being stronger. I provided two examples. Yet, you only provide one in response. Instead of coming up with a response you misrepresent my views and attack me personally. Nice.

You have made personal attacks for some time now.

Why don't you dispute with an American jbg about how the U.S. economy is underperforming compared to Canada.

GDP is one of the *leading* indicators of growth and yet you see seem to think it means that Canada is doing better.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/01/news/econo...ugust/index.htm

Here are several other indicators.

I never claimed the Democrats would take the Senate. I said that it would be a tough nut to crack. We just keep going over the same thing and you keep lying about it.

JBG seems to think that Republicans might win majorities again. I also said that was possible although some of the non-partisan organizations that study these things say that the House is definitely competitive compared to even a month ago.

And I have hardly been drumbeating for the Liberals here. I've said they are a complete mess at this point and not in a position to win. My argument has been from the beginning that the Tories are not in a posiiton to win a majority this fall.