11.12.2014 08:40 AM

Are the federal Libs in trouble?

This notwithstanding, I still don’t think so.

I will, however, be talking about this stuff tonight. Come!

B1h4oDNIgAE2RA9

23 Comments

  1. Kev says:

    Can people please stop treating Nanos’ “Power Index” as a meaningful measure of anything?

    Because, you know, it isn’t.

    • Warren says:

      I don’t even know what it is. Is it a poll? Quant? Qual? A sausage?

      • JH says:

        Funny isn’t it though? Every side of the poitical argument, treats this and other polls as very important indicators, dependant on who the numbers favour today. I bet if WK goes into the archives he will find hallelujahs from all party supporters at one time or another, on every poll done in the past decade.
        I guess as the farmers used to say, ‘it all depends on whose ox is being gored’.

  2. Lance says:

    Hmmm, still can’t be too concerned about polls this far out.

    But –

    Asked a series of independent questions, 52 per cent of Canadians would consider voting Liberal, 41 per cent would consider voting NDP, 41 per cent would consider voting Conservative and 28 percent would consider voting for the Green Party of Canada.

    Take a second and look at that split. No question that will be a big factor.

  3. Joe says:

    I do believe that the Liberals have invested WAY to much in the leader and not enough in the local party. I suspect that this focus will come back to bite them because their leader is extremely weak in every area except media fawning. His idiotic ruminations about giving ‘cold weather advice’ to fleeing Kurds has made him the laughing stock of severely normal Albertans and I see his top down candidate choice is not resonating all that well with Liberal volunteers in Ontario.

    While it can be stated that Harper has overstayed his welcome that does not translate into electoral success for the opposition. As the Wild Rose Party found out here in Alberta, you have to provide a viable alternative. Danielle Smith of the Wild Rose and Justin Trudeau of the Federal Liberals both fit in the same category of pretty face in front of an empty head.

    • Kaspar Juul says:

      Its funny how Joe reminds me of the old James Brown song “Talkin Loud and Sayin Nothing”

    • W the K - No, not Warren says:

      “severely normal Albertans”

      Is that the new amped up phrase for conservatives, replacing the term Regular Canadians?

      • Kaplan says:

        “Severely normal Albertans” was a phrase coined (or at least used) by Ralph Klein in the 1990s, in his fight against recognizing homosexuality in the provincial human rights code. Really, it meant socially conservative Albertans.

        • Kaspar Juul says:

          That’s because there is nothing severely normal about Joe

        • W the K - No, not Warren says:

          Thank you. I guess this easterner was too busy trying not to freeze in the dark to notice.

        • Joe says:

          The phrase has and had nothing to do with homosexual marriage or gay rights, Ralf used it but he didn’t coin it. I can recall using the phrase back in the seventies to describe average Albertans who in the main are go along – get along/don’t force your view – I won’t force mine, nice folks. Most of them don’t express political views and rarely discuss political events UNLESS something has riled them up and they decide a change is in order. It happened with the Famous Five, the beginning of the CCF and much later the Reform Movement that have all reshaped Canadian politics in their own time and all started in Alberta by severely normal Albertans.

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            There you have it folks Professor Joe: 1970s lexicon of Ralph (Ralf) Klein catchphrases, home researcher and possessor of several advanced degrees taught by famous professors from world renowned universities.

            Why we didn’t make Joe Prime Minister for life is beyond me.

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1901&context=greatplainsresearch

            Just one example online but the original source cites Alberta Report. It illustrates a common narrative though:

            1 the phrase was coined in the nineties to create a method of separating the lgbt community from the rest of the community.
            2. It’s widely believed that the phrase was coined by Klein or Steve West.
            3. It was commonly used by the Alberta Report in any piece to whip of anti gay fear.

            Now of course this is just papers, done by people who had to do research and only had to rely on recorded accounts and published articles – they didn’t have Cranbrook Universities anecdotal research lab.

    • Purple Library Guy says:

      “Severely Normal Albertans”? However you define that, it’s not exactly the base Trudeau is counting on. Conservatives can boost their Alberta support to 100%, it won’t get them any more seats.

  4. Davie says:

    The poll that counts is the one I take on myself. 11 times out of 12 I will put a few bucks and a few hours into working for the candidate who seems to me to be the better candidate and is a member of the party that is closest to representing my interests.
    Other polls will not likely affect what I do.
    Voters, the citizenry, would be best served by piles of discussion of problems, issues, possible solutions, and even debate about these. Such would inform and educate us all.
    I am not sure that polls inform us or educate us very well. They might even be a distraction from nuts and bolts issues.

    what do you think? How do poll results inform and educate a citizenry?

  5. David says:

    $150? For $200 do I get to throw a big pie in your face?

  6. Merrill Smith says:

    “Asked a series of independent questions, 52 per cent of Canadians would consider voting Liberal, 41 per cent would consider voting NDP, 41 per cent would consider voting Conservative and 28 percent would consider voting for the Green Party of Canada.”

    In other words, 162 per cent of Canadians would consider voting for one of four parties.

    • Attack! says:

      Hardly. They’re not discrete groups. Rather, of the 100% of respondents, there’d be some that would consider voting for …

      just one (for partisans); or possibly two or even more (for swing voters), which they might still be mulling over even at the voting booth; or maybe even none of the parties…

      and when all the parties all the respondents indicated they’d at least *consider* voting for are tallied up, that’s what the totals were.

Leave a Reply

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


*