05.02.2011 06:50 AM

KCCCC E-Day: What a voter thinks

  • What do voters think? I think polls and focus groups are interesting, but I generally prefer my political gut over my political head.  I regard my six-pack-like gut on days like today, and say: “What are voters thinking, gut?”
  • My gut grumbled. “They’re pretty busy, so they don’t have much time to think about politics as much as idiots like you do,” said my gut.  “So their analysis tends to be pretty to-the-point.  Here’s what a lot of them think.”
  • Number one: “They’re pissed off there was another election.  It made them grumpy,” said gut.  “They’re taking it out on two guys, mostly, which is Iggy and Steve.  Some of them think Iggy was taking a risk to push for an election, too, when he’d been behind the Cons for a couple years.”
  • Number two:“They like Jack, but they don’t like the other two so much,” my gut remarked.  “They saw Iggy and Steve as similar: kind of aloof and stand-offish, and more right wing than them. Steve and Iggy saw it as a zero-sum game, whatever that is.  They tried to shake loose votes from each other. But those votes that shook loose, alright, and they bounced right over to Jack.  People like Jack.”
  • Number three:“The country is still pretty progressive,” gut observed.  “Sixty-five per cent of them hate, er, Steve’s guts, too.  Iggy should have been more progressive, they felt. So they went to the only guy they thought was more progressive, which was Jack.”
  • Number four: “Attack ads work,” said gut.  “But they work best in a two-way race.  In a three-way race, they don’t work so well, do they?”
  • Number five: “Folks are in a firing mood,” concluded my gut. “Today, they want to fire a few politicians.  Tonight, they’re going to get their wish.”


  1. Cath says:

    Yes. Agree with your points today and can add that folks who I’ve spoken to and interacted with over the course of this election never EVER seemed to get beyond “Number One”, being not just pissed, but almost personally insulted by this election interrupting their lives. I can tell you that living in a small town climbing out of an economic slump it’s the no.1 grumble.

    I believe you were correct in suggesting in one of your columns where you cautioned that those who were seen as causing the election would pay….and they have. EXCEPT that Jack Layton could have remedied that too – no? Was it not he and his party that put the nails in this election coffin? Yet, few remember that now, having been swallowed up in the Tsunamic proportions of the Orange Crush.

    Something else I’ve been considering is that in Quebec it’s almost as if the NDP have just been noticed and are a type of novelty there. Whereas in other parts of the country, in particular Ontario we’ve seen what damage the NDP did under Bob Rae and I’m pretty sure that many will never give the NDP the nod – not yet at least. It will definitely give the provincial NDP momentum if their federal cousins do well. Not so much for the conservatives or liberals.

    Will we be able to tune in to see you running commentary on the election Warren? Maybe on SunTV?

    • JStanton says:

      … revisionist history, delusion and nonsense.

      Of course everyone is complaining about this election – Mr. Harper’s groupies because they feel threatened, and Mr. Harper’s detractors because he has acted so inappropriately, causing the need for the government to be stripped from him.

      Yes, he and he alone is the cause of this election.

      As for the supposed mal-administration of government during the Rae years, you are ignoring the salient points; that previous governments had so mismanaged the economy that there was no surplus resources or capabilities to handle the externally imposed recession, and that the unions sabotaged him for failing to advance their interests over those of other Ontarians.

      Certainly the Ontario NDP were green going into government, but they were far more qualified, talented and skillful than Mr. Harper and his light-weights, and, as a result, coped far better.

      Considering the damage done by Mr. Harper and his drones, Mr. Rae’s government was masterfull.


  2. “Folks are in a firing mood,” concluded my gut. “Today, they want to fire a few politicians. Tonight, they’re going to get their wish.”

    And tomorrow morning they will wake up and say “They @#$% WON?”

  3. Harith says:

    Looking forward to changes in Ottawa. See you on the other side!

  4. Pedro says:

    One last prediction…
    Pundits from all our media outlets commenting on how the record number of advance voters impacted the 2011 election result.
    Until now, not a peep.

  5. nastyboy says:

    I expect much Liberal wailing and teeth gnashing.

  6. Jane says:

    I think your gut is right on Warren. I am the political junkie in the family, my busy husband is not. He is my election bellwhether and you have described him to a T.

  7. Paul R Martin says:

    After receiving a recorded message from Bill Davis yesterday, I am all fired up and eager to vote. Unfortunately I voted on Good Friday and would get into trouble if I voted again. Most of the publicity about the NDP rise in the polls came after 2 million committed voters went to the advanced polls. I doubt that NDP support in the advance poll was as high as their current support in the recent polls.

  8. nastyboy says:

    Looks like the LPC leaked the Layton massage parlour story in 2008. B-b-b-b-but I thought only the Cons would ever stoop that low!?!?!?!?!


    • fritz says:

      Not necessarily so NB. This spin is being put out by a few Tory supporters like Kay. It might have been a Liberal hack but it also could have been a CPC hack. The Tories are just spinning it to take the heat off them.

      • Namesake says:

        well, nasty’s most likely right that the LPC DID try to shop the story in early ’08; there’s no reason to think Kay is lying about that.

        The issue now is whether it or indeed any of the parties did so AGAIN this time.

        And in this other new post, I argue that there’s no compelling reason to think that: that a more likely reason is that Sun Media themselves remembered that they had this in their ‘Do not open until Christmas’ pile.


  9. Supernaut says:

    Awesome analysis, Warren! Three, four, and five stand out to reflect what I’m seeing and hearing in my little circle.

    Going out on a something of a limb here. I suspect that the news out of Pakistan is going to help the NDP more than anyone else. “Uh – WHAT?” you might reasonably reply.

    People are creatures of myth, of magical thinking. Canadians will see the death of OBL (rightly or wrongly) on election day as highly symbolic, and as a chance to turn the page on the last 10 years and embrace the opportunity for a better, more optimistic world. They’ll want to feel they are participating in this historic moment, and that will translate into making their mark for optimistic change. This will be especially true of demographics such as women and young voters.

    On a related note, I think pollsters and politicos need to pay more attention to the psychological typologies of voters, AND how they measure them. The dominant paradigm of deriving psychological indicators from SES-based variables misses a lot, and is weirdly Marxist, what with everything boiling down to a person’s relationship to the means of production. Anyway, too much coffee! Have a great E-Day, Warren and everyone!

    • Namesake says:

      I thought so, too, Supe, when I went to bed last night:

      a year or so late, but: out with the hate and fear decade; in with the hope and care decade.

      • Supernaut says:

        In with hope and care, out with hate and fear. Man, I sure could get behind that. Catchy as hell, too!

        • Namesake says:

          ‘Catchy as hell’…

          well it is now… that you’ve skilfully edited it, by rearranging and trimming half the words off it to give it more punch.

          Well, maybe we could trademark it together, then, as coming from:

          Supernam – the Man from Krypnot

  10. Swervin' Merv says:

    One key conclusion from this historical moment must be that attack ads can help a third party–if that party and leader are credibly different from the two main combatants.

  11. Cath says:

    check out the Google logo this morning folks.

    • Namesake says:

      cute, but too bad Google didn’t, you know, Google what polling booths look like in Canada:

      that graphic looks like the changing rooms in an old thrift store.

      we (used to) run an open government here! no curtains! (not even cloth ones).

    • CQ says:

      Google US (com) and G-China also feature today’s voting logo. None of the other national pages, after a quick surfing, offered anything other than the standard Google lettering; Australia, Brazil, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, or United Kingdom. It took some doing for me to get to the U.S. page, BTW. Usually I get transferred direct to the .ca verison page.

  12. gretschfan says:

    Voters out there sense that this business of having four leftist parties just has to stop, and the NDP is being picked as the least unpalatable of the four, primarily on the likeability of their leader.

    If the Dippers win the number of seats that some are hoping for and the back of the BQ is broken, a unite-the-left movement has to happen right away before Harper finds a wedge issue. Am I optimistic? Not really.

  13. Dave Roberts says:

    Warren, if the Liberal party did not exist at all would you vote NDP or Conservative?

  14. Big Old Goofy Man says:

    WTF was Trudeau jr. doing calling folks on a Sunday asking them to vote Liberal.

  15. W.B. says:

    I guess Rick Mercer had a big crowd in London Sunday rallying the youth vote. Is this going to be significant?
    He apparently was asking the crowd how many had land line phones and how many relied solely on cell phones, which in his audience was 99.9%. He is saying the polls are not getting a reading on this group which is going to turn out in greater numbers this time.
    It was back in 1936 that the early pollsters predicted FDR would lose. In the middle of the depression many Roosevelt voters didn’t own phones.
    I can’t believe our modern sophisticated pollsters could make such a mistake, but the results could be skewed to some extent by this, NO?

    • nastyboy says:

      I’ll believe it when I see it. Only 38% of the under 25 crowd voted last time. And these vote mobs are just kids who are already engaged politically.

    • Mike Berthold says:

      Send Paul Wells this message just to see his head explode.

      It’s a weird urban legend type rumour that cell phones aren’t called by pollsters. They have been for a long time now.

      • nastyboy says:

        I got called by a pollster on the weekend on my cell. I lied.

      • kyliep says:

        both nanos and ekos call cells, apparently, so this line seems to be wishful thinking (the youth are not showing up in the polls but will come out and surprisingly put the ndp/liberals over the top). don’t think it’s going to happen. if anything, we may be surprised at how well the conservatives do. though most polls have them at 37%, they can win a majority with that and may easily do so with closer to 40%. hoping i’m wrong. 🙂

      • W.B. says:

        I don’t want to defend Mercer, but I guess he is saying that if he has been successful and a whole new group who are exclusively on cells are voting, are they getting proper representation in the polls? You are saying yes, so I’ll certainly accept that. Sorry about Paul W though.

      • Namesake says:

        by Ekos, yes, but by who else? Prove it.

        E.g., it’s sometimes asserted that Nanos does, but

        1) Nanos’ methodology section doesn’t mention either “cell” or “mobile” phones; it just says: “A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly…”; and,

        2) when asked about this in a Q&A at G&M a week or two ago,


        Nik Nanos himself said only,

        “Here is a great link on the subject of youth and polling and cells – we follow this technical approach. If you are a propeller head – you’ll love this as a first dip into the topic: http://bit.ly/cellsample

        and in that article,* it explains why pollsters DON’T call phones in the USA (‘cuz they’re not allowed to, for one), and how they try to correct for that, in their weightings.

        * http://www.pollster.com/blogs/cell_phones_and_political_surv.php?nr=1

        • Namesake says:

          …and when I say “calls cell phones,” I mean, do they do so deliberately, by explicitly incorporating a goodly portion of them into the sampling frame (by calling the known cell phone # exchanges) — not by inadvertently reaching some who were allowed to retain their landline number when they switched over.

          Cuz there are at least reasons many pollsters may have chosen NOT to do so:

          (1) it pisses people off, and costs both of them money AND the harms the company’s rep. and people’s willingness to cooperate in the future, if the call is during the day and people’s cell phone plan charges them for call received during the day (so chances are, they’ll angrily hang up, if they answer)

          (2) it increases the production costs, since most cell phone no’s are unlisted, so if they’re just randomly generating and calling any old number, they’ll get lots of ‘not in service’s, which eats up labour costs (or even if it’s robo-dialed, there’s some cost to that for them); compared to if they start with the phone co’s database of actually assigned and not explicitly fax no’s.

          ‘Course, the way around (1) is to just do the polls during the evening, as Nanos does in their nightly tracking polls. But that adds a whole different problem from the random sampling point of view: it restricts the population to those who ARE available to take calls during the evening, which excludes people who work, sleep, or are otherwise engaged and/or unwilling or unable to take calls during the evening. (So, mostly just a lot of old folks at home, kicking back, watching TV.)

  16. Bill M. says:

    Just cast my vote for my man Marc Garneau who will be re-elected!

    Neil Drabkin………………..SEE YA!

  17. nic coivert says:

    First off, Warren, I’d like to thank you for running this blog with the best comments section anywhere. I’ve learned a tonne and its been fun. And, like most of Canada, I’m hoping Harper doesn’t get his majority, especially with less of the popular vote. Its a crap shoot at this point, but this very well could be the end of the Harper era, good for Canadians if it is. And it could be the beginning of a Conservative hegemony like this country has never seen before, I paraphrase Lawrence Martin there. Twelve hours from now we should have a pretty good idea what happened today, or, remembering Florida, we may not. What sort of shenanigans will the Conservatives pull to eek out a victory?

    • Pedro says:

      I can’t believe the progressives are so lacking in self-esteem that some are up in arms about a Conservative “hegemony” while WK correctly points out that 65% of Canadians lean left of Harper (I won’t use the word “hate”). C’mon, quich’yer cryin’ in yer beers and get to work. Conservatives have been at it for a few years and the hard work has caught them some breaks. And I tend to think a Harper hegemony is good for Canadians. Same country and we disagree – imagine that. But we keep at this politics thing because we are able and altogether we make Canada great! The younger generation has all the up to date information at their fingertips but no real knowledge of history. I’ll repeat myself – there is a long game here. Someone needs to point it out to progressives. WK seems to be afraid of re-building since it gonna cost too much. Never heard of a Liberal afraid of what it will cost. Yeah, and the spectre of Florida is upon us. Sheesh!

      • JStanton says:

        …where have you been Pedro? It’s not a “Conservative hegemony” per se, it’s a “Harperite hegemony” that is the fear and danger.
        There is a flaw in the Canadian constitutional system, in that it proffers great powers to the leader of government, beyond what constitutional checks and balances can help manage, because it pre-supposes “goodwill” on the part of that leader.

        In Mr. Harper’s case, there is no goodwill towards Canada and Canadians, so he is able to undermine the constitution without fear of legal breach. Mr. Harper’s objective is to destroy the Canada we know and love, that is the fruit of the ideals first proposed during the European enlightenment, and replace it with a figment of his own imagination. He intends to do this against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians, and by duping most of the rest.

        With Mr. Mulroney’s Conservatives, despite the large number of liars and crooks who were successfully prosecuted, one always had the sense that their Canada was ours as well. With Mr. Harper, we know instinctively that if we aren’t one of his, and if he retains any degree of power over the State apparatus, we had better beware.


        • Pedro says:

          And I imagine you pre-suppose ill will upon everyone who disagrees with you and “goodwill” upon everyone but Harper?
          Your ability to discern internal motivations of persons far removed from you is breathtaking.
          The point of the post was to get to work convincing others, not wringing your head in dismay.
          Just take the time to think that others cherish their own beliefs as much you do yours.
          Good luck to ya on the “progressive” side if this is what you work with.

          • JStanton says:

            … i don’t need to “discern internal motivations”, I just need to observe Mr. Harper’s behaviour, and apply reason. It’s not just me. The leading social, political and economic thinkers in Canada concure on this.


        • Jason Hickman says:

          With Mr. Mulroney’s Conservatives, despite the large number of liars and crooks who were successfully prosecuted, one always had the sense that their Canada was ours as well.

          I remember well that Mulroney was *not* seen in such a positive light during the period after the ’88 election (and especially after the introduction of the GST and the collapse of Meech Lake) up to when he resigned. In fact, criticism of him was just as vociferous as the criticism of Harper. Almost from the time he took office – and *especially* after the introduction of the FTA before the ’88 election – he was frequently described as an American-in-wolf’s-clothing, or words to that effect, who had “sold out” Canada. Of course, much of that criticism came from the LPC of the day (anyone else remember the Rat Pack?), back when they thought the FTA would be the end of Canada.

          I’m not saying that criticism of Mulroney was justified (nor, for that matter, am I saying that criticism of Chretien, Martin, et al was any less aggressive). I’m just saying that it was there, and in VERY strong language, and the notion that “one always had the sense that [the Mulroney PC’s] Canada was ours as well” wasn’t the message delivered by his opponents, and others, at the time.

          • nic coivert says:

            Harper’s record is the proof of his intentions. Quite simply he doesn’t believe in any such thing as a social contract.

  18. TofKW says:

    Great, so Canadians want to replace a right-wing populist political hack, with a left-wing populist political hack?

    Meanwhile RIP Progressive Conservative party of Canada, maybe soon joined by the Liberal Party of Canada, along with any semblance of rational, good governance in this country.

    Hope Canada enjoys it’s slide into the polarized politics of the United States.

    • I think our voting patterns reflect our geographic differences – we are a very divided country and it shows up in how we vote. I agree, though – we are going to become much more polarized because of these differences. Something will eventually have to give….

      • Supernaut says:

        A lot of people are feeling like you are, Sean. For what it’s worth, I think Canadians are less polarized than they appear. Our first-past-the-post system exacerbates polarization and magnifies regional differences. FPTP is a fundamentally unrepresentative historical anachronism, and has to go.

    • nastyboy says:

      Canadians are already regionalized and petty. We couldn’t be more polarized.

  19. bell says:

    This is going to be all about GOTV. At this point my take is the NDP base and CPC base will be out in full force today and many liberals will once again stay home. For the NDP base it is the opportunity to significantly increase their seat count. For the CPC base its the closest they have come to a majority since forming.

    With regards to Osama’s death, again it will appeal to each base. NDP base will see it as another reason why transformational change can happen. The Con base will only be reminded of the dangerous and complicated world out there and why a strong stable majority is needed and why Jack needs to be as far aways as possible from 24 Sussex.

    My prediction on popular vote is:

    Cons – 39%
    NDP – 29%
    Liberal – 22%
    Bloq – 5%
    Others – 5%

    I have no clue how this would translate into seats.

    • kyliep says:

      if that holds true, expect a conservative majority. Osama story not a vote-changer, merely confirmation of one’s position on afghanistan (correct to be there vs. okay now we can leave).

  20. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Enjoyed your election commentaries, opposing POVs aside.

    Couple observations: Nanos final day poll of 800 detected CPC starting to pull away from pack, 38.7%. Harris Decima final poll has CPC over 40% in every region save Quebec. Last 24 hours always includes considerable sober second thought amongst a great many. Some of that NDP fluff is going to fall away, and a somewhat motivated “stop Jack” vote from the center – center/right is going to close the deal for Harper.

    Harper majority after all.
    NDP Official Op
    Real bad day for Liberals…possibly absolutely crushing.
    Not as bad a day for Bloc as seemed it would be…but still a tough hit on separatists.
    Toss up between Libs and Bloc for third place overall.

    • The Doctor says:

      I agree with you on one point — people continually overlook the extent to which that large NDP number in Quebec is affecting and inflating their national number.

  21. que sera sera says:

    1. I’m not pissed off there was an election. I welcomed it as long overdue. If we had it earlier Harper would not have had two years free ride of attack ads against Ignatieff. I am happy responsible MP’s took this lying contemptuous government down on a non-confidence motion for their shameless treatment of democracy & Parliament. What opportunistic goons wait until they can “guarantee” an election result before disciplining the degenerants? Doing so just makes you “complicit” and leaves you in the unenviable position of defending your votes supporting degenerants on ongoing outrages that some citizens don’t forget.

    2. Those of us who have got to know Iggy, like him. Get over the fact that there is not a single Liberal bullet who can reclaim Liberal glory. It is going to be a tough slog. And Iggy already has two years under his belt, ran a great campaign, and has a lot of Canadians already working for him & supporting him & the Liberals. That after two years & 6000 personal attack ads. One hell of a handicap that he has carried cheerfully & without complaining & with a gravitas & sense of humour that serves us well.

    3. The Liberal party should not be right of center. Regardless of how ridiculous the extremist shifts are.

    4. Personal attack ads are disgusting. Those employing them deserve the blowback. Very telling that the pseudo-Republican party run by displaced Republicans “overlooked” the fact that Canada is not a 2-party “state”.

    5. Totally agree!

  22. Canadian Kate says:

    Warren, I live in a completely different environment than you (rural edge of a city) and my gut tells me it will be a Con majority (probably 155 or 156, but a majority.) Too many residents of BC and Ontario remember what happened when the Dippers got power in a major economy. In Quebec when people actually look at the candidates on the ballot, many will check the name of a candidate who actually showed their face in the campaign. Combined with the vote split on the left, I see Atlantic Liberal seats changing to NDP, only a few seats Quebec seats changing from Bloc or Liberal to NDP, Ontario shifting to the Cons (out of fear of an NDP government), the Prairies holding and BC being the big question mark but I suspect it will carry the Cons to their majority (again out of fear of an NDP government.)

    I agree, inside a city one can feel the NDP surge (I was at our city centre yesterday and felt it) but once you leave the downtown core, the cons seem to have the support of the people.

    • Bill M. says:

      Kate, I’m no dipper but how do you know how many candidates showed their face in a campaign in Quebec?

      And what of incumbent MP’s who wouldn’t show up to candidate debates, what will become of them?

    • Ted H says:

      “Dippers and a major economy”? Haven’t you seen the article that circulated the internet last week? In the 50 years that there have been NDP Provincial governments, the “Dippers” have the best record of balancing the budget among the three parties. Liberals have the worst record for simply balancing the books but the Conservatives have the record for running the highest deficits. Gee, that sounds familiar.

      • Canadian Kate says:

        Ted H, you must have a family doctor. That budget balancing trick by Bob Rae still sticks in my craw.

      • The Doctor says:

        Those of us who live in BC, quite frankly, couldn’t give a rat’s a$$ about whether NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba were/are fiscally responsible. Good for them. But out here, the NDP were an absolute, unmitigated disaster the last time we let those clowns run the store. And it’s not just fiscal issues — they were complete stooges to organized labour — in Glenn Clark’s famous words, “shovelling money off the back of a truck” to their union buddies. Fast ferries. Incredible budget overruns because of “fair share BC”, which was a euphemism for Glenn Clark greasing his union buddies.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        I live in BC, and was witness to the trashing of our economy by the NDP. By the time they finally got the boot, BC was, for the first time since the ’50s, experiencing negative immigration from the rest of Canada; more people leaving than arriving. Taxes were through the roof, unemployment numbers off the deep end, and we had become yet another of Canada’s “have not” provinces, receiving welf…oops…I mean, equalization from Alberta and Ontario. The small “c” BC Liberals and Campbell turned that around, and most people in this province look back at the ’90s as the dark years.

        The only reason the NDP survived in government here as long as they did was divisions among the center/right.

        God forbid these half-baked socialist clowns ever, ever get their mitts on the levers of power in Ottawa!

      • Jason Hickman says:

        Ted, anyone who thinks that the national NDP shared/shares the same sort of prudent (relatively-speaking) values of the NDP in MB or SK should take a look at how well Lorne Nystrom did when he ran for leader. In fairness, he “won” the 1-member, 1-vote part of the race, but ended up coming in 3rd/last once he got to the convention, which was dominated by the Party establishment.

        • Jason Hickman says:

          (I’m referring above to the ’95 NDP leadership race; he did even worse, in terms of % of the vote, in ’03, when Jack won on the 1st ballot.)

  23. MattMcD says:

    The attack ads made the Liberals look like they were spinning the tires without going anywhere. Especially the last minute ones attacking the NDP since they realized that they were losing ground faster on the left than on the right and didn’t seem to have anything to counter that.

    Besides, Jack is a heck of a guy and I tell you he’d be more fun to go to a massage parlour with than any of the other two guys…

    • Cath says:

      we also keep forgetting that Ignatieff shot himself in the foot several times – no help from anyone at all….not even Donolo. Note to SunTV – PLEASE don’t hire Donolo if he’s looking for work after this election.

    • DaveInMapleRidge says:

      Too funny …

  24. Bill M. says:

    Number one: “They’re pissed off there was another election. It made them grumpy,” said gut. “They’re taking it out on two guys, mostly, which is Iggy and Steve. Some of them think Iggy was taking a risk to push for an election, too, when he’d been behind the Cons for a couple years.”


    I wonder how many “pissed off” people see people around the world who risk their life to get the chance to vote.

    I also wonder how many of these “pissed off” people read any of the party platforms.

    Your government is what you make of it.

    When you run into your frustrations with whatever level of government and say to yourself “Why doesn’t somebody do something about this?”….you have that chance.

    Or you can do the easy thing and keep bitching Canada. And get nothing done.

    • fritz says:

      I don’t by the people are all “pissed off” because we are having an election spin either. The Tories and their supporters were “pissed off” because they just wanted to continue ruling. But even they weren’t to upset because they thought they were going to get their majority; which they aren’t.
      Most people don’t care one way or the other.

  25. Mike London says:

    The results tonight are going to be far more dramatic than we think. That’s my gut feeling, it’s going to be big.

  26. Canadian Kate says:

    I don’t know how many but it has been a well-played story around here. In the ridings closest to me, the Dippers are poised to gain seats from the Bloc and Liberals because they ran good candidates. But in the rural areas of Quebec, I suspect there are a number of candidates like the Dipper from Berthier—Maskinongé.

    In my Con-safe riding, the Dippers had the weakest of the sacrificial candidates. Last time the Libs had that honour. Green has run quality candidates for the past 3 elections. I hope both the Lib and Green candidates run in the future, both were quite impressive.

    As for incumbant MPs not showing up at debates…. better to be quiet and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt! Those candidates are known quantities and will be re-elected, or not, based on their service in the past. Which is exactly how our system is supposed to work.

  27. Marco A says:

    I think we should not get angry about so many elections.

    I was just able to vote for the first time ever in the USA, last year and imagine my surprise when I had to goto the ballot box 4 times in a six month period. There was primary for Special Election of US Rep. house seat, then the Special Election itself in May, then there was the primaries for the mid-terms and governership and then there was the actual mid-term election itself in November.

    I actually liked going to the ballot box so many times; especially, in the primaries. I felt like that my vote counted. Cannot wait for 2012’s election season!!

    • Namesake says:

      Thanks for that. I think Cat’s oft-stated aversion to elections is like her namesake’s aversion to another life-sustaining element of open, flourishing democracies: water.

  28. Dave Wells says:

    I’ve enjoyed your site immensely over the past 30 days. Thanks for the effort you put in.

  29. Based on my moniker, I voted for my local Nude Emocratic Party candidate. She’s depressed that we have had Harper as PM for about five years.

  30. fritz says:

    Is that what passes for humor on the right? All that’s missing is Rich Little doing an impression of Mulroney. 😉

  31. Craig Chamberlain says:

    WK — I know this is not the broader public’s “official speak” when it comes to this and other elections — that nobody wanted it, etc., etc. but I honestly haven’t heard that from anyone. What I am hearing is, and this seems to be from more than my immediate circle, is disbelief that anyone is actually influenced by those Con attack ads. If I was Conservative, I still would have to shake my head at them.

  32. Craig Chamberlain says:



  33. Michael S says:

    I now believe that we should have an election every two years, majority or no. Four years is too long, and a win merely confirms a mandate.

    • The Doctor says:

      Jesus, you’re not serious, are you? They have 2-year election cycles in the US, and it’s a disaster. They’re in perpetual campaign mode down there.

      • fritz says:

        Not so much perpetual campaign mode as perpetual fund raising mode. We should be thankful much of our campaign is funded by the taxpayer.

  34. Ted Betts says:

    Sounds to me like the Liberal Party needs to make sure your gut needs to be in Ottawa.

    You should run for office someday!

  35. Iris Mclean says:

    This is beyond belief. I hope, and trust, that the bastards behind this scam will be tracked down and prosecuted.

  36. Namesake says:

    So, the polls are closed, in some areas;

    is it too soon to start carving my Jack O’Layton pumpkins?

Leave a Reply

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