04.04.2011 06:48 AM

KCCCC Day 10: when the lousier campaign is still ahead


  • And so begins Week Two, sort of: Right about now, 600,000 or so Canadians, from coast to coast, are receiving copies of the Metro free paper give-away, wrapped in a pithy and sunny description of the Liberal platform.  In Halifax, Dartmouth ferry commuters are being handed the paper by Michael Ignatieff – elsewhere, members of his caucus.  It’s a brilliant tactic by my pal Bob Richardson.  And I write about that, and other stuff, in tomorrow’s Sun.
  • Poll palaver: Here’s the latest: “The Conservatives have opened up a 14-point lead over the Liberals, according to a Nanos daily tracking poll, and start the second full week of the election campaign sitting firmly above the 40-per-cent mark – the kind of support that typically leads to a majority government.” That’s Ipsos-sized, but here’s the point I always make about these horseracey polls during campaigns: the job of a campaign isn’t to analyze polls, or even read them; the role of a campaign is to change the polls. The Reformatories, IMHO, are running a complacent, arrogant campaign, one that doesn’t build support; the Liberals are running an edgy campaign that seeks to attract attention and expand their base.  Am I right?  Am I wrong?
  • Lobby this: Registered lobbyists – you know, dastardly people like the Salvation Army, United Church and a plethora of environmentalists and farmers – are being told they aren’t allowed to work on this, or any, election campaign.  My expert analysis: that’s STUPID. I spoke to this Hill Times reporter, and told her that it is absurd that folks who lobby are being denied democratic participation. What do you think?
  • The Conservatives seem to think their own rules are stupid, too:  Check this out – my friend Ken Boessenkool is in the Con war room, anyway – see here. Ken’s played a key war room role in every Harper campaign, and would be influential were he in the war room or not.  It’s a dumb Harper-era rule, and one that will only trip up Harperites.  Joe and Jane Frontporch don’t give a crap about insider stuff like this.
  • Rumour du jour: I’m hearing Iggy is in a good mood, assisted in that regard by his spouse.  Harper, meanwhile, is apparently quite unhappy about his campaign team so far (and he should be) and is dropping the F-bomb far and wide.  Who’s got dish?
  • Harper’s a chicken, part ad infinitum: Rick Mercer, he of Doris Day fame, isn’t letting it go. Neither should the Liberals.  Repeat over and over: “I’m not afraid to debate Stephen Harper about [FILL IN BLANK].  He’s afraid, however.  He challenged me to a one-on-one debate, I immediately said yes, and then he chickened out.” Everywhere Iggy goes, everytime he gets asked about something, say that.  And travel with an empty chair with Harper’s name on it.  It’s a useful visual reminder, too.
  • Best war room so far? The Libs, led by my former colleagues Kevin Bosch, Ben Parsons, Brian Clow and others.  These guys are very dedicated, and lethal in the extreme.  As I pointed out in this morning’s Hill Times, they’ve stomped all over the Tory message machine, just about every day. That’s how a war room wins.
  • Where’s that bus? By the time you read this, Tony Philips is somewhere under that big Reformatory bus, the one used to flatten countless Conservative political staffers.  Unbeknownst to many, Philips is from Belleville, and was a LIBERAL who worked on the 2004 candidates’ campaign, and was even on the executive there.  He was one of those super-ambitious Young Liberals who wanted to make a name for himself. ( I guess he now has.) He became a Conservative in 2007-2008 after he moved to Ottawa, and had been unsuccessful getting a job in a Liberal office.
  • Pic of the day: From the weekend.  Kennedy analyzes it, here.  Caption contest!

“Listen, you little delinquent, do you want a friggin’ doughnut or not?  I don’t have time to stand here for this facile agitprop bullshit all day.”

93 Comments

  1. Paul R Martin says:

    I realize that political junkies are having a great time; however, I suspect that most voters are fed up with the constant campaigning and this time out want a majority government. I have no idea if the Nanos poll is correct; however if it is the Quebec numbers are quite interesting. Is the BQ mailing it in and are the Conservatives going to make gains in Quebec?

    • I’m fed up with being lied to.

      Stephen Harper, Election 08 – I will not entertain deficit financing of government operations
      Truth: Harper and Flaherty were already plunging Canada deeper into debt at historic rates even as he called the election.
      Assessment: Harper and Flaherty flat out lied, and not about whether the word “not” was scribbled on a document after the fact but lied about one of their major and primary responsibilities.

      They lied to us all then; they’ll do it again.

      I also don’t appreciate being lied to about simpler subjects, as if myself and other Canadians were children. Case in point:

      Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Grumpy Laurie Hawn, and a host of others, 2011: F-35 aircraft will cost $75 million each, not the 100 million plus those coalition bastards claim.
      Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada: No, they will cost more than 100 million… close to $130 million each in fact.
      Laurie Hawn and his bosses: No, they won’t.
      Government Accounting Office (U.S.A.) Yes, they will.
      Laurie Hawn and his bosses: No, they won’t, we know better than the U.S. government who are intimately involved with every last dollar spent on the program unlike tiny little Canada to the north.
      U.S. Vice Admiral actually in charge of the program? The F-35A will cost upwards of 120 million perhaps as much as 135 million each.
      Harper government: no, they won’t. Na na nah na! (plug ears) We aren’t listening to you! (farting noises)

      Yup, that’s a government and party that has a clear handle on facts, truth, and numbers. For sure they should be given a majority!

      Not.

  2. Marc L says:

    I may be wrong (of course) but I don’t think the Liberal platform (at least they have one now!) is going to resonate with voters the way they think it will. To me, it’s back to the old tax-and-spend-tax-and-spend Liberal philosophy from the pre-Chrétien era. Massive, grandiose spending plans with corporate tax hikes (which are tax hikes on you and me — corporations just pass them on) to help pay for them. And, for all the criticism about the size of Canada`s deficit, they don`t say how they will eliminate it. It may just sound all too familiar to many voters out there.

  3. john says:

    I don’t get. If the west is driving the numbers up, how can this lead to a majority? You can’t get anymore seats in Alberta when you have them all. Also, this is based on a very small sampling. Some of the margins of error are 10pts, which would make this look differently. Can 42% of us really like Harper? i don’t get it.

    • Leo Fleming says:

      It’s not about like. The guy who sits next to me at work thinks Harper is a far right-wing control freak who will implement his hidden agenda once he gets a majority. But at the same time, he also likes the fact that he has a job, the economy is doing a lot better than other western countries, and Harper (even if you don’t like him) at least is competent. As the CEO of the country, he has a pretty good grasp on what’s he doing. So this guy is going to vote for him.

  4. Dr.J says:

    Weird thing, that you call the CPC running an arrogant campaign, is that all you got? boring, yes, arrogant, I do not agree…from what I see Iggy is acting like an ass with this “The PM is chicken to debate me” crap, even with his Liberal buddies Rick Mercer and Don Newman offering “their services” to moderate, that I admit is a great comedy bit. Now, the Liberal platform launch yesterday,”WOW, Iggy’s little wish list is going to cost me alot of money”, where is the cash? I know the corporate tax hike “may” take care of this spending even though doing that action will cost jobs (according to Liberal MP John McCallium). Oh well, this is the “Liberal game changer” time to sink or swim…..

  5. thor says:

    About that Liberal platform: oops!

    Just lost me and I was warming to the Ig. The bribing me with my own tax money is getting old. Coyne’s analysis is bang on.

    This week is iggy defending his platform and responding to the funny coincidence of chaneling PET. He even threw in an oil sands item for good measure.

    Criminy. Still voting rhinoceros.

    • nic coivert says:

      You think the liberals are bribing you with your own money so you’ll vote for the CONS? That makes no sense at all. Out and out bribery is the game plan for the Cons. Like Margaret Thatcher, Stephen Harper doesn’t believe in society, he believes that people only act out of pure self interest, hence his blatant bribery scheme. Ignatieff on the hand is planning to invest in society. The choice is simple, do you want a nation builder, or a nation wrecker. Harper is masterful at the later and lost when it comes to the former.

    • Pat Heron says:

      As someone who is not in line for any of the programs in the Liberal Family Pack, I would still rather have my tax dollars going to child and elder care than to building jails — full stop. Was at the Liberal policy release town hall yesterday and it was fun — serious, of course, but fun. Ignatieff was comfortable and likeable. And he continues to be admirable given that he has shown tremendous grace under the barrage of crap thrown at him by the Cons since his return to Canada. Thanks for reminding me to go to the Liberal Party site to give them some dollars right now!
      Does the Rhinoceros Party still exit? If so, Thor, do vote for them; it’s better than voting for the Cons.

    • Thor says:

      As I was saying:

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/layton-promises-to-double-public-pension-payouts/article1969630/

      Now we’re into a poker game. Ignatieff raised and now Jack raised.

      Warren, you’ll have to go see my movie a bunch of times so I can afford to pay for the tax increases. Ugh.

      • The Doctor says:

        I forget which pundit pointed this out this morning, but it was similar to your comment: if the “optic” becomes Jack and Iggy each trying to “out compassion” one another by proposing new programs, that might not be such a great thing for Team Liberal. Harper gets to differentiate himself from the LPC and the NDP etc.

    • Cameron Prymak says:

      Why throw away your vote?

  6. Lance says:

    In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois remain ahead at 34. 6 per cent. But the Conservatives appear to be solidly in second, with 25.1 per cent. The Liberals trail in third with 17.7 per cent, and the NDP with 16.9 per cent. The margin of error for that sample is 6.6 per cent.

    Wow! I never thought I’d see the day where the NDP was less than 1% behind the Liberal party in Quebec. Maybe Jean Lapierre was right; the Liberals could very well be finding that their vote is collapasing in Quebec.

    That makes perfect sense. Perhaps voters in Quebec see the coming Tory majority and would rather be at the government table rather than foraging off of Bloc scraps. Pretty shrewd thos Quebec voters.

  7. Dan F says:

    Nanos (formerly known as SES Research) in their poll released on December 23, 2005 (E-30): “Liberals Ahead By Ten Points”
    Paul Martin: 39%
    Stephen Harper: 29%

    How did that one turn out?

    Source:
    http://www.sesresearch.com/election/SES%20CPAC%20December%2022%202005E.pdf

    See also the very interesting chart from that campaign here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006

    My take: over the xmas/new years holidays in 05/06 folks gathered with family and friends, and talked politics. People you know, 1-on-1, will make a bigger impact on the polls than any amount of glitzy advertising.

    This year, families will gather for Easter and Passover on the heels of yet another Conservative scandal, vicious attack ads, and a PM who chickened out of a debate with his rival. Lets see what happens…

    • Dr.J says:

      Take off the red glasses dude…let me guess the PM also hates babies and wipes his butt with the flag? Face it so far the public are not warming up to Iggy, it should be easy according to you because the PM and his party are just so evil

    • Mark McLaughlin says:

      I’d agree with your analysis of the Christmas impact during the 06 election, but it’s a bit of a stretch to think a long weekend gorging on mini eggs is going to do anything similar this time around.

      Passover is only celebrated by those of the Jewish faith and Harper has been courting that small population for years now. They are probably more concerned with the plight of Israel and Harper’s stand on the middle east than some Liberal policy to replace some tuition tax credits with $1000 a year.

      I don’t ever remember getting together with family for Easter. We ran around cin our pajamas ollecting hidden chocolate and pretended to remember it had something to do with a resurrection.

      Keep hoping.

      With the Liberal platform out already you better hope you have something else to sustain you for another 4 weeks. Start working on that debate knockout punch.

  8. James Bow says:

    Good point about how the pols should approach the polls. There’s still thirty days left in this election, and that’s plenty of time to change the game, or lose it. The way I see the polls, the Liberals have started to gain support, while the Conservatives remain at roughly where they were when this campaign started (or, edging up slightly). As you say, Warren, the Liberals have run an energetic campaign — possibly the best one since 2000 (though, that’s sort of damning with faint praise, isn’t it?), while Harper looks tired.

    It might be frustrating for Liberals to see the Conservatives still well ahead in week two, but that’s no reason to panic. This is what the campaign is for, and there’s a lot of time left. The Liberals have started to move forward, so they need to keep on doing what they’re doing, while keeping an eye out to be ready to respond should Harper wake up. But I wonder if these polls aren’t actually bad for the Conservatives. As they do mask the Liberal rise, might they be cause for complacency?

  9. Brent Sienna says:

    Photo Caption – “Buy 1 Timbit now and I’ll give you the remaining 9 of your order in 2015”

  10. Alberta Liberal says:

    I’ve got some questions for you Warren, if you have the time maybe you can use your infinite wisdom to provide me with some answers

    1. If Harpercrite doesn’t get a majority again, will there be a push by the ReCONs to replace him with someone else? And we all know Steve won’t go quietly Haha
    2. Why are the Libs so screwed in Quebec, is it STILL the Sponsorship Scandal or something else?
    3. How many seats do the Libs need to get in order for Iggy to keep his job?
    4. Why does that spineless Jean Charest call himself a Liberal if he and his cronies are helping the ReCONs? I like calling him something else but I can’t mention that here

    • Michael S says:

      The answer to 2 is partially 4. If it was a PQ gov’t being all goofy you’d see Liberals surging federally.

  11. Grace says:

    And one other thing, because it really ticks me off… in 1993 I voted for the liberals based on the national day care promise – I was poor and had three little children. Now they’re grown and I managed on my own anyway. I am not in the mood to want my tax money to go to the next new promise of a national daycare since I did it on my own. The liberals had my vote, were in power many years and never did a damn thing they promised to help my family. Why would I believe them now and why do they just recycle the same old stuff?

    • Cat says:

      Thanks for posting a really great photo of Harper. Saw the whole clip yesterday. It works…..for Harper.

    • nic coivert says:

      Ignatieff has already talked to the provinces about this, they’re ready to go. Ken Dryden did a hell of a lot of work on the file too, and Dryden is beyond reproach.

      Your children could have children, don’t you want them to have it better than you did? Or would you rather have that money spent on F-35’s?

      As to the F-35, all other major buyers of this temperamental & experimental high tech war machine have cancelled there order. This of course is what keeps driving up the cost. It is not a good investment, it is very far from a good investment.

  12. jenjen says:

    Look more closely at the Nanos poll – the regional numbers. The Liberals are making gains in Ontario, the key battleground – gains that are outside the margin of error. The Tories made huge gains in British Columbia and modest ones in Quebec.

    So the results are not conclusive yet.

  13. Dave M says:

    So far this campaign the Liberals have jumped up in the daily tracking polls and built momentum whenever they’ve announced policy, and drifted downwards on the days that they haven’t. Now that they’ve announced their platform and don’t have any more major policies to announce, I predict a jump tomorrow, and then slow decline for the rest of the campaign as the Conservatives attack their platform without releasing one of their own.

    Then there’ll be the debates which pundits will declare Iggy “won” (because he will out-debate Harper), but it’ll remain to be seen whether that moves the polls or whether Canadians have tuned out and don’t care anymore.

  14. Intrep says:

    “….The Reformatories, IMHO, are running a complacent, arrogant campaign, one that doesn’t build support;…”

    I would have to say, based on the polls, that you are wrong. The CPC campaign does seem to be building support.

  15. Annie says:

    I read that Harper is really working towards the Liberals to stay home, with all his negative American ads.
    The Libs will have to try hard to get them out to vote

  16. DougCS says:

    Photo capiton: Sorry son, we’re proroguing this location – the opposition asked for nutritional information.

  17. wannabeapiper says:

    Caption: ” Son I don’t give a damn what your cup says, there is only one car to win, and it’s mine. Now step aside…next order please…”

  18. MontrealElite says:

    Kid “I want a double double”

    Steve-O “Listen kid, I make the rules!”

  19. Michael S says:

    Wait a minute:

    “In Ontario, the Conservatives lead with 43.0 per cent, over the Liberals with 37.5 per cent.”

    That’s a statistical tie given the regional margin of error. What’s more important is the movement of the numbers. Warren’s right. The Liberals are changing the polls in Ontario. The important question is the rate of change. A short campaign may not work in the Liberal’s favor.

    So the CPC are leading massively in Alberta where they’ve already won. Big whoop. The tale of the tape is the 905 belt, and if they’re statistically tied in Ontario, they’re not going to gain seats, they’re going to lose seats, as the Dion effect of the last election wears off.

  20. MontrealElite says:

    MI looked happier last week on the trail. Last couple times he’s been more fire brimstoney…I think he should adopt the smile more theme while getting his point across…we already have Harpo (The Incredible Sulk).

    MI’s team should bring an extra podium around wherever they are and say it’s for Harper if he chooses to show up and debate.

    Warren, is the debate going to be pivotal and what can the LPC do to craft a moment?

  21. Reid says:

    the role of a campaign is to change the polls.

    The Lib campaign is moving the polls. Just in the wrong direction. In the first few days, when the Libs announced a couple of “social spending” policies, the Libs picked up Dipper support and the Conservatives held steady. Towards the end of the week, with Redbook Redux © it became clear the Libs were tacking hard-a-port (to the left for you land lubbers). This has caused the Blue Libs, who are uncomfortable with the bazillion dollar lefty promises in Redbook Redux ©, to start moving towards the Tories. As we now see, Dipper support holding, CPC rising, and Libs diving.

    • Namesake says:

      Nonsense. What you’re seeing in the dailies is a function of the twin volatility of the 20% of undecided voters most pollsters are seeing, and the 43% of soft support that Leger has just reported seeing even among the ‘decided’ voters through the course of the campaign so far:

      “Is your choice final, or is it still possible that you may change your vote?

      Total (n=3,549, online panel poll b/w March 30 and April 2, 2011)

      Question –Is your choice final, or is it still possible that you may change your vote?

      I may still change my vote
      43% Total / 33% PC / 43% LPC / 53% NDP / 34% BQ / 72% GR

      http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/POL/11441ENG.pdf

      • The Doctor says:

        I saw Nanos on CTV this morning, and he was actually arguing that that “2015” thing by Harper is good for the CPC, despite the fact that lots of pundits (and especially Harper’s opponents) saw that as dumb. Nanos’ argument was that it helps Harper appear fiscally responsible, which appeals to the kinds of voters the CPC wants to attract.

      • Cameron Prymak says:

        Spin and out of touch with Canadian’s needs Gord. Who the hell waits for 4 years on anything? What an empty, vaccuous promise.

        Personally I think SH is worried that LPC moved left and tried to put a brave face on it by saying LPC has adopted NDP platform.

  22. Martin says:

    What the Libs need to do is something for families with stay-at-home parents. Sure, promise money for daycare…but do not ignore those looking after their own kids. You may scoff but this is really important especially outside of metro areas. Heck, even Sweden is doing something in this regard.

    Forget income splitting and daycare money. Best approach would be to help all families by increasing the deduction for each child. Guarrantee that this would attract alot of support.

    Attended the “Tower of Power” here last week. A funkin’ good time.

  23. Mike says:

    Hey Warren, what do you think about this idea: Ignatieff should set the time and place for the debate. Start organizing everything, don’t wait for Harper to answer. Then on the trail he can say “I hope the Prime Minister will join me to debate the issues.” Then either Harper is forced to show, and Igantieff gets his chance, or he doesn’t, in which case you’ve got Ignatieff beside an empty podium for the cameras, and that’s your headline for the next week.

  24. Lipman says:

    For the caption contest:

    Kid: “How long have you been working here”
    Harper: “Well, I’m starting May 3rd but just in for some early training. Double double right?”

    Lipman

  25. Stuart says:

    Around point 5, I have to agree…

    As much as it’s fun to mock, I actually prefer Harper’s 2015 promises. Seeing the large price tags associated with the family pack makes me uncomfortable. If there’s money to be saved in evaluating the F35 thing then shouldn’t we be using those funds to eliminate the deficit earlier than planned? I’m looking at the austerity measures over in Europe and I just can’t help thinking that now is the time to hold the line on spending and be frugal (unlike what the Conservatives have been doing). I know that makes it hard to have election promises, but maybe it would work for this one?

    I’m also unsure on the corporate tax rollback… If it’s such a no-brainer way to increase revenues then why were we cutting them in the first place? Why did Chrétien start the trend? Why in the last election did Dion still support them? It has to be more complicated of an issue than it’s being put across.

    There’s that old saying that if it seems too good to be true… And finding all of this money for increased spending without having any negative impact seems too good to be true.

    • Mandos says:

      Laffer curve == something for nothing. It’s basically a hybrid of a perpetual motion machine and sports commentary.

      • Cameron Prymak says:

        Conservatives have not managed anything prudently – they swung from recession denial into 56B deficit. Spare us the spin that they’re in control of the country’s finances – that’s why we’re going to the polls.

      • Mandos says:

        Cameron: Yep. Notice he simply thinks we are far down the Laffer curve/self-justifying Maguffin; it is merely a feeling, there is not a smidgen to imply the backing of any evidence other than the permanent Reformatory conviction that taxes are too high. There is no point at which we will not be “very far down the curve”, just like NEXT year will be the year that [insert team] will win the Stanley Cup. Why, he even has a heck of a lot of nets…

  26. wilson says:

    The policy dump on sunday was to hide the Liberal Cap and Tax,
    G&M did the math,
    it’s a redistribution of $30 Billion PER YEAR by 2020.

    PER YEAR, $30B out of industry, redistributed where and to what?
    Ignatieff doesn’t say.

    Liberals’ significant climate plan cloaked in silence
    ANDREW LEACH
    Globe and Mail Blog
    ‘..The Liberal Party’s key climate change policy announcement, and by far the most important environmental position taken thus far in the campaign, was buried on page 46 of its policy platform.

    You are forgiven if you missed it since Michael Ignatieff did not mention it once. In fact, when asked a direct question on the Liberal Party’s policies on climate change, he listed removal of oil sands tax credits and a re-vamped green tax credit program.

    ”..If this were the case, the annual auction of permits could be worth about $30-billion dollars ($75/ton times about 400 million tons of industrial permits) by 2020…’

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/liberals-significant-climate-plan-cloaked-in-silence/article1968885/

    • Namesake says:

      Well, his “could be,” based on his worst case scenarios, “could be” a wee bit of scare-mongering on his part, couldn’t it, since his job, like Bruce Carson’s, is to defend the Alberta oil industry’s profits.

      And what, pray-tell, does the CPC intend to do to honour its international commitments to cutting GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020?

      Because it’s own advisory panel recommends a number of things which also has associated costs (for some) and benefits (for others):
      “1. Contingent Carbon Pricing – to establish a price collar that limits the Canadian carbon price to no more than $30.00/tonne CO2e higher than the price in the U.S.;

      2. A National Cap-and-Trade System – with auctioning of permits and revenue recycling to cap emissions and address regional and sectoral concerns.

      3. Limited International Permits and Domestic Offsets – to keep domestic carbon prices lower for Canadian firms;

      4. Technology Fund – to stimulate investment in needed emission reductions technologies.

      http://www.climateprosperity.ca/eng/studies/canada-us/report/canada-us-report-eng.php

      And although they’ve been stalling, they also claimed to want to harmonize with whatever the US ends up doing and do an entire a North American cap-and-trade system AND MORE.

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article966329.ece

      http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/canadian-government-to-drop-intensity-targets-follow-us-lead/

  27. Alberta Liberal says:

    That’s right, Bravo Iggy, put a tax on the Oilsands, like what’s Alberta going to do, NOT vote for any Liberals?
    Wonder how Alberta could be running a deficit when Oil was $120 a barrel? The sheer stupidity of Conservative gov’ts led by Ralph Klein and Ed Stelmach! And just like the Federal CONs, they only know how to run deficits, shocking!

  28. James says:

    Wow, the Liberal “Family Pack” (what is this, KFC??) Red Book is just a warmed over version of the 1993 Chretien Red Book. The more things change, the more they stay the same…

    • Namesake says:

      Say, James, aren’t you the same guy who kept insisting that the leaders debates don’t matter because people’s vote intentions “stay the same,” too, in this thread the other day, and complained about my citing 1997 data to prove otherwise?

      http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/03/stephen-harper-chicken/#comment-31982

      ‘Cuz as I note above, there’s some brand new data — released just yesterday — showing that 43% of the 3,500 Cndn voters surveyed just a few days ago indicate they might CHANGE their intention, yet, by the time this campaign ends: including 33% of those currently — provisionally — inclined to the CPC.

      http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/POL/11441ENG.pdf

      • James says:

        Namesake, you and Libs are trying to find anything to boost your hopes; I guess you really don’t like Nanos one bit. Again, delusional.

        • Namesake says:

          So, in sum, you:

          – discount old peer-reviewed academic evidence on the volatility of undecided & soft vote intentions, as irrelevant, because it was old; and,
          – brand new evidence from a large poll as irrelevant, as well, apparently because it did not come from your favoured pollster (which, um, only uses 1/3rd the sample size in its polls and doesn’t even ask that question); and,
          – you deflect both those substantive issues by characterizing someone who calls you on this as being “delusional.”

          Congratulations; you are a Harper Conservative: Cabinet Minister material, in fact!

          • James says:

            Earth calling Namesake: new poll released today on CTV NewsNet at 7:00 p.m., Conservatives now at 42.3% (thirteen points ahead of Libs); what part of “42.3%” do you not understand??? My four year-old nephew can understand that the Conservatives are clearly ahead.

            If we’re going to talk about the “undecided” vote, then if Toronto’s recent mayoral race is any guide, the majority of them ended up voting for Ford. And it makes sense: they feel “safer” parking their vote with a frontrunner, or, a lot of them simply didn’t want to admit to pollsters they were voting for Ford.

            Let’s face it: the more voters tune into this election, the more they see the sheer lack of necessity for it. The call for a majority is growing stronger by the day.

            If the polls don’t change much for Iggy by week’s end, it really will be an uphill battle for the Libs.

          • Namesake says:

            Sigh. So many confusions & evasions; so little time.

            Yes, I understand that one poll, released this morning, found a 14 (not 13) point lead… and that another one released yesterday (Leger) found an 11 point lead, and a third one, today (H-D), just 7 for the latest week.

            But that’s not at all the point I was making, which was on the fact that there is high degree of volatility, just now, which can make things change on a dime.

            And since you clearly don’t seem to understand what I mean by that, here’s one def. of electoral volatility:

            “The idea that voters have become more willing to switch between parties. This is related to the dealignment thesis that voters are no longer consistent strong party identifiers with correspondingly stable voting behaviour, but free to choose who to vote for depending on the issues of the day.”

            And as I just noted, one reason you may be oblivious to that is that the Nanos polls — the only ones you seem to be aware of, and are overly invested in — does not track that;

            they only ask the following:

            “CTV News/Globe/Nanos Poll Questions

            AM Release – Ballot and Vote Driver
            1. If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences? (committed voters only – first preference)
            2. Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote? [ROTATE]

            PM Release – Top Issue and Leadership Index
            3. What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted]
            As you may know, [ROTATE all five federal leaders with name and party]. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
            4. The most trustworthy
            5. The most competent
            6. Has the best vision for Canada’s future”

            As for your amateur-hour punditry on an alleged frontrunner bandwagon effect based on a single, um, Mayoral election, (Ted and) I already answered that, too:

            http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/03/kcccc-day-6-grits-up-tories-not/#comment-31999

  29. Andrew says:

    Disappointed with parts of the Liberal Plaform (stock option treatment, tanker moratorium on BC Coast). Perhaps the Party knows that many Blue Liberals like myself will never vote for Harper and will just vote for the Party. Let’s not go back to the Trudeau years of deficit spending and interference in the economy. All the CPC has to do is elect a Red Tory as leader and my vote will go that way if the Party turns left, away from everything that Chretien and Martin built up.

  30. Craig Chamberlain says:

    Photo caption: “Would you like to super-size that order with a long gun combo?”

  31. well says:

    List of conservative business parners
    by review board of their directors background you can figure out
    those people really really need tax break for seat and count more money

    by review all gold digger gold ceo in CANADA who have salary above 24 million
    some one must be stand to do labor work for them back to slavery time bring more immigrant here please

    Tim Hortons

    Loblaw
    weston financial

    all bank in Canada ask their ceo high salary

    all communication rich ceo ask Rogers etc

    In conclusion anybody who deal with public and larg number of them
    using entertainment like music or food or cell phone devices or bank are winner of conservative party tax break here

    That is not me!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*