10.03.2015 11:20 AM

KCCCC Day 62: about that debate, and rabbit tracks

 

  • Based on the number of comments, and based on the amount of coverage, I don’t think a lot of people paid attention to that final debate last night.  My hunch? Joe and Jane Frontporch are sick of this election.  They want it to be over.  They started paying attention after Labour Day, and now they think they’ve seen more than enough to make a decision.  And what have they decided? See below, following my roundup of some of your (very few) comments on Face à face.
  • Nicole: At a debate where four men and no woman spent a lot of time talking about how a woman should dress, reminding the public of [Trudeau’s] clear support of a woman’s right to control her body will attract votes, especially from women. That is, in addition to those who would already support him because he has nice hair.
  • Dean: Mulcair’s “all the leaders are against women wearing the niqab” did it for me. i’m done with the ndp forever. i was frustrated at trudeau for suggesting it was only immigrated women who wore the niqab, but mulcair’s complete disrespect and inability to see it as a choice did me in…maybe i am unique in that i have female friends who took to the niqab later in life and are very vocal about how much of a choice it was…but – giving him the benefit of the doubt that he does not truly believe what he says, i’ve conlcluded mulcair will say anything to win.
  • Vancouverois:  I somehow blanked out the most annoying moment of all — when Mulcair had the gall to talk about how you shouldn’t target a particular group, when as a Quebec Liberal he’s spent HIS ENTIRE POLITICAL CAREER helping the slow separatists (oh, sorry: Quebec nationalists) target the anglophone community of Quebec. The hypocrisy of it left me speechless with rage.
  • Luke: I can’t have been bothered to watch this. From the Com’s synopsis, sounds to me like Harper must be a happy man. Trudeau and Mulcair pounding on the stupid niqab debate allows to Conservatives to continue to frame the debate around a topic they judge to be to their benefit. NDP and Liberals need to stop letter the Conservatives set the agenda and do so themselves. If they keep letting this happen, Harper wins. Again. Goddamnit.
  • Fan590: JT continues to steam roll Harper and Mulcair.  He’s ready for the job.
  • Al in Cranbrook: Why is it so hard for moderators to simply ask a question without editorializing? And why is it that just about every segment ends with Harper being cut off before he can answer some outlandish accusation? Really getting tired of this crap.
  • Mike: My ears are starting to hurt from all the dog whistling going on.
  • And…that’s about it.  Lots of comments under that open thread, but not many comments on the actual debate.  But you want my take? I put it on Twitter, and I agree with Luke, above.  I even wrote a book about the subject: conservatives are way better at emotion-laden “values” stuff than progressives.  We progressives get tongue-tied when the subject-matter is values.  That is fatal, because political decision-making is governed by emotion, not intellect – the gut, not the head.  Despite having a smaller vote base – in Canada, in Europe – conservatives keep winning because they always steer the debate to emotional stuff, not pointy-headed intellectual stuff.  Emotion > Intellect.
  • The result? Check out Ekos this morning. I personally trust Frank Graves more than Nanos or many of the others.  Frank is no CPC shill – he is a progressive in his heart; he isn’t out to do the CPC any favours, believe me.  And, thusly, look what he has come up with, here and below. Key takeaways:
  • The Conservatives have been in the Number One spot for 15 consecutive days.
  • The Conservatives lead in every part of the country, save Quebec and the Atlantic.  And they are surprisingly strong in Quebec.
  • The Conservatives are now in the same range that they were at this point in 2011.  And we all know how all that turned out.
  • This slide tells the story.  Read it and weep, progressive friends.  Harper’s guys are smart. They threw out some values bait – niqab, barbaric practices, stripping citizenship – and progressives fell for it, hook line and sinker.  Like the great Romeo LeBlanc once memorably said to me: When hunting bear, don’t get distracted by rabbit tracks.
  • Progressives got distracted by rabbit tracks. Again.

20151002_slide05

112 Comments

  1. A. Voter says:

    For Atlantic Canadians, voting strategically may mean voting Conservative thinking it will guarantee a cabinet minister for their riding.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      Why? So they can have an automaton who’ll vote for policies that don’t benefit the Atlantic anyway?

      • Maps Onburt says:

        You mean like the $20M Lobster Export subsidies they announced? The Liberals just promised steal $2B from the EI fund and to drop the amount of weeks someone down there needs to work to collect EI. They like their Atlantic Canadian’s dependent on them.

  2. Lyndon Dunkley says:

    The media is trying to silence the Niqab debate because they (and a significant portion of the silent majority) realize it is really a proxy debate on what level of accommodation Canadians are prepared to make with Islam.

    In Ontario, the largest group opposed to the new sex-ed curriculum appears to be Muslims – are we prepared to accommodate their choice to remove their children from the school system and start their own schools?

    In Germany, the call to eliminate Oktoberfest celebrations has begun as they are viewed to be offensive to Muslims with the excessive drinking and marginally exposed women – would we be prepared to heed a similar call regarding the Stampede or other Canadian festivals which involve similar activities? I have seen a number of female Blue Jay fans in tiny Blue Jay t-shirts – would we be accepting of a demand for them to show more modesty to accommodate the pious demands of religious minority?

    As the percentage of Muslims grow in a various Canadian communities, are we going to be willing to forcibly close bars and pubs to accommodate Islamic wishes? Are non-Muslim Canadian women going to be willing to be forced to wear, at a minimum, a Hijab to enter these communities on Canadian soil?

    A number of Canadians know these decisions are coming. Just because they don’t discuss them publicly out of old-fashioned Canadian politeness or for fear of being branded racist, xenophobic, bigoted etc, doesn’t mean they don’t realize the Niqab/citizenship debate is just the tip of the iceberg.

    • Matt says:

      Uh, Ontario already has Islamic schools.

      Matter of fact they, at least in Toronto/GTA, routinely place very, very high in the school rankings every year.

      • Lyndon Dunkley says:

        When Christian parents exclude their children from basic sex-ed, we call them backwards and ignorant. Some go as far as to call it child abuse. When Muslim parents do it, we accommodate and don’t question.

        As to the superior performance of Islamic schools, I was unable to find any evidence of that from a quick search (and I didn’t even bother with the Fraser Institute’s report as I am sure it was biased.)

        Is there a report that shows performance on Canadian history? Understanding of human rights? Athletics? Are there some great new insights coming from these schools on The Handmaid’s Tale?

      • dean sherratt says:

        The 2007 provincial election put an end to religious schools (save the Catholics) ever being drawn into the public system when McGuinty lambasted Tory for wanting to do so. So Muslim schools are set up and indeed in Ottawa, it is the best in the city based on various scoring mechanisms. It follows the curriculum but is not supported financially.

        Now I think that the majority of those opposed to the sex ed curriculum are South Asian families in and around Toronto…not the easily caricatured fundamentalist Christians. This is sometimes awkward as these same voters, for example, in Don Valley West, delivered the seats federally and provincially to the Liberals by lop-sided support.

        It is interesting to see the divergence between Nanos and Ekos (which is now doing dailies btw to the end of the campaign). Nanos is Liberal right now because of two very heavy days of polling. Today’s showed the Conservatives and Liberals rising (0.5 versus 0.7% respectively) and by tomorrow the first really Liberal polling day gets dropped…That may determine if Nanos just came off of two randomly Liberal samples or has caught a trend. I do find the Nanos figures for BC and Ontario surprising simply because there is not much that I can see on the campaign to act as a catalyst. But both agree on one thing…the NDP have dropped down to the mid-20s.

    • Jon says:

      Egads. Lynton Crosby would be proud.

      The school funding question was answered pretty emphatically by the Tory/PC implosion in 2007.

      The Oktoberfest thing is a hoax – http://m.snopes.com/ban-oktoberfest-petition/

      Forcibly closing bars? Sigh.

      This is some lazy fear-mongering.

      • JamesG says:

        It’s not fear mongering. Germany is having some real issues integrating Muslims into their Western culture and the blow back has begun. Guess which country Germans are now looking to for a workable immigration model – you guessed it, CANADA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjSYdVVsqpM

      • Lyndon Dunkley says:

        I was not aware of the update on the Oktoberfest story – appreciated.

        My comments were not an attempt to fear monger. When I saw the surprising ~80% support of Harper’s position on the Niqab issue, I have been trying to better to understand where that support comes from. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that support comes from a growing concern among western democracies about the meaning of a growing Islamic presence within their borders.

        No one more than me hopes it doesn’t mean a thing.

        • cynical says:

          Growing concern maybe, but that does not have to translate into fear. We >might< be faced with a problem. The thing to do is to look for a solution, not turn it into a campaign issue.

          For all the problems this country has (and, thankfully, we have far fewer problems than many countries) the Niquab issue is as close to irrelevant noise as I can imagine.

          Wanna ban the Niquab? Great, vote CPC and line up to see a lot of other stuff get worse. The track record is there, and I can't understand why the NDP and Liberals are not bearing down on it.

          Loved Nenshi on TV last night, BTW. Nenshi for PM!

          • Matt says:

            Yeah, uh, the Libs both federally and provincially have a much longer track record of banning things.

            And the CPC aren’t proposing to ban the niqab. They want it removed for two minutes while the woman recites the citizenship oath.

    • Wayne says:

      You are 100 percent correct. The niqab really is just a proxy for the larger accommodation issue.

      • Jason Smith says:

        What accomodation issues? Canadian muslims aren’t looking to harm you or your family, despite what Jason Kenney tells you. There’s about a million Muslims in Canada, and just a handful who wear niqab. Muslims have not asked for accomodation in this election in any way that would have an impact on any of our lives. Let’s call a spade a spade. It’s bigotry.

    • doconnor says:

      You seem to confusing two different things. Allowing people to express thier own religon by wearing the Niqab or start thier own religous schools which is happening in Canada and forcing others to conform to thier religion by banning Oktoberfest or requiring women to dress modestly which isn’t happening in Canada or Germany.

    • tom paine says:

      someone famously said about the new york yankees. it’s not the uniform it’s the stripes. with the niqab it’s fear of the beard that stands behind it.

  3. Joe says:

    In discussions with progressives on various social media I have come to the conclusion that the question asked of Harper all those years ago applies now to the froth at the mouth progressive (Do you love Canada) except I would re-phrase it and ask “Why do you HATE Canada so much? In any discussion I’ve had within 5 minutes the progressive is telling me how much he/she HATES this or that. I’ve almost reached the conclusion that those froth at the mouth progressives would feel right at home in the KKK.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      Yes, yes progressives would feel right at home in the KKK. Now excuse me while I go marry a carrot.

      (Apologies to Lisa Simpson for stealing that one).

    • Danny says:

      I agree with this. I think the angry, mouth frothing left has driven a lot of Conservatives underground. I wrote a piece on this after the last British election, link below.
      Readers Digest version, moderate Conservatives keep their mouths shut, don’t engage in debates, and then quietly put an X beside the status quo on election day.

      http://blog.aldham.net/wordpress/shy-conservatives-or-the-right-being-driven-underground/

      • DougM says:

        There’s truth in that. A lot of comment sections on news sites have become nothing but an echo chamber for an exclusive political view. If there can’t be discussion (as opposed to vitriol) I don’t bother commenting anymore. CBC’s news website is that way now.

  4. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Mulcair is now going all out apocalyptic over the TPP, forget that he hasn’t got a clue in hell about one single word of it. Not that he’s fear mongering, mind you, as we’re assured repeatedly that’s not the “progressive” way. (…roll eyes)

    Not surprising, the NDP have never met a trade pact they didn’t oppose from the get-go.

    Question occurs to me: Was Mulcair ever really a Liberal?

    • Wayne says:

      Actually Al, I don’t ever think he ever was a dipper. Regardless, I think we can both agree he is an opportunist. 😉

  5. Matt says:

    Graves is also a Liberal Party of Canada donor – $1200 to the Libs in June of 2015, and, like all other pollsters routinely underestimated support fot Harper’s Conservatives.

  6. Albert says:

    Oh, excuse me Mr. Kinsella for thinking that “Progressives” lose on values because their values are along the lines of: we’re better people than you and we’ll shove it down your throat if you don’t agree with us.

    • MedEditor says:

      I really have trouble with this suggestion that progressives “shove their values down the throats” of others. If you mean social policy such as equal marriage and teaching respect for sexual differences in school (just a couple of recent examples), I can’t see how either policy affects anyone who wants to quietly live their lives in a heterosexual marriage or even who wants to look down on other than majority sexuality (provided their feelings don’t cause them to impinge on the rights of the minority).

      On the other hand, the radical right wingers want to, or have, LEGISLATED their choices for the rest of us (want to outlaw all abortion; have instituted mandatory minimum sentences and fines, preventing any sort of fit-to-the-crime proportionate sentencing; created two-tiered citizenship — among other things).

      My position is that no country “has values.” Good government should allow all citizens to live *their own values* — at least to the extent that those individuals do not unfairly impinge on others trying to live *their* values. And crime — which is basically any taking advantage of others to forward your own ends at their expense — is always crime and should be proportionately punished.

      FWIW.

      • Joe says:

        Nicely express ‘progressive’ values that I’m sure you believe we all should accept as self evident truth. Sorry old sod but it sounds like you are trying to suck and blow at the same time.

  7. Vancouverois says:

    Hooray! I am flattered to be quoted.

    I was hoping you’d comment on my point about Duceppe’s final speech, though.

    What do you think about his argument that the Bloc Quebecois can have leverage in a minority government? Is it a signficant one? Will it resonate with Quebeckers?

    If the Bloc starts to rise, will the Conservatives be able to use it to resurrect the coalition-of-socialists-and-separatists line they used in 2011?

    • Jack D says:

      The Bloc doesn’t need to rise. There already exists a coalition of socialists and separatists; formerly known as the NDP caucus.

      • Vancouverois says:

        Well, yes; but the whole reason why the separatists joined the NDP so eagerly was to use it as a Trojan horse, the way they did the Progressive Conservatives under Mulroney. When they’re openly separatist in their own party, that changes the dynamic.

        Not realizing the extent of separatist infiltration of the NDP, Canadian voters might accept an NDP-Liberal coalition — formal, or otherwise. But if the Bloc holds the whip hand, as they did in 2008, will Canada stand for it? It seems to me that any situation where the Bloc’s support is required for a Liberal-NDP coalition to maintain power is poison to both parties’ electoral chances in the next election.

  8. DougM says:

    The “left” (I use quotes because everything is perspective in politics) will never unite. Either the Liberals or the NDP need to be decimated for there to be a strong progressive vote again.

  9. Alex says:

    I agree with your analysis. The only thing that I would add, however, is that the Tories last minute bump to a majority in 2011 was due in large part to the NDP surge under Layton. A lot of Red Tories and Blue Liberals voted Conservative to stop the Dippers. Now we have an opposite situation, in which NDP voters are ditching team orange. My hunch — and this is only a hunch — is that the Liberals will do surprisingly well in Ontario, as they will gain voters who are soft Tories, John Manley Liberals and many progressives.

    While I am voting Dipper (I live in Paul Dewar’s riding) I would happily vote Liberal in every other riding in the National Capital Region. Here in Ottawa, the Tories could be completely shut out, except for Pierre Poilievre’s seat. The Harperites may also get shut out in Toronto proper (though you would know better than me), and lose ground in the 905 region. While I believe the Cons will make gains in Quebec — I can see them getting a seat count in the low teens there — I can also see them lose a lot of seats in Ontario, as the Wynne coalition shoves the NDP aside.

    • Jack D says:

      I’ve met Paul Dewar, he’s a great guy. Very compassionate and understanding politician who’s capable of having an intelligent discussion without bludgeoning it with hyper-partisanship. He’s a credit to Parliament and probably one of the few individuals of the NDP caucus I hold genuine respect for.

  10. cantuc says:

    Apart from the niqab , there’s also the NDP and Liberal stance , or lack of , on ISIS , terrorism , the economy , law and order . I might have missed something , but during the campaign I’ve only ever heard the Conservatives reply to questions on the niqab , that the media can’t seem to let go of because they still seem to think this is a gotcha and will end up hurting Harper .

  11. Doug says:

    Insanity/liberal/NDP politicking: doing the same election over and over again and expecting different results.

  12. Jon says:

    I don’t know if it’s wishful thinking, or astute appraisal, but the one dynamic left to play out from the issues on the table at this time is a big move of dippers into the Trudeau camp. It’ll be significant and sustained.

    Trudeau has convinced most people that would consider him that he’s ready, and the platform has convinced most progressives that he’s offering something not half bad. Add these things to the visceral anti-Harper sentiment at the door, and I see a big NDP slide as the major narrative of the next week.

    • Lance says:

      “……….is a big move of dippers into the Trudeau camp. It’ll be significant and sustained.”

      Which hurts Harper, how? The shift isn’t so big that it still essentially trades one progressive vote from one party to another and continues to perpetuate the anti-Conservative vote split with the additional help of the BQ in Quebec, which benefits Harper and has given Harper more room in Quebec. And don’t forget those new ridings and the way some ridings are organized which will come into play. How will they go?

      As for the “visceral anti-Harper sentiment”, that has ALWAYS been the case, even with Harper winning election after election. The Conservatives know that they will NEVER vote for Harper, so that won’t be a factor whatsoever.

    • Kelly says:

      I agree. Conservatives seem to think they are winning with 33% of the vote and the contention that the cons were at the same place in the polls at the same time in the last election doesn’t mean anything. All the other variables are different which means that mathematically the cons are LESS likely to end up in the same place as last time, statistically speaking. 33% is a small percentage of the country. The only reason it means anything is because of our electoral system. The country isn’t conservative. There is no silent majority of conservatives. The conservatives have provoked violent attacks in the streets. Women, in particular are disgusted by it. A senior cabinet minister directed an ethnic slur at the most popular mayor in Canada and is now back pedaling like a backwards cycler in the tour de France. NDP voters are far more likely to vote Liberal to stop the cons than the other way around. Trudeau is believable when he sells progressive policies, Mulcair isn’t believable selling right wing policies. In fact he’s not even believable selling progressive policies anymore.

      • Derek Pearce says:

        This is a good summation. I think the NDP vote will (unfortunately for them) drastically shrink to the benefit of the Liberals because are just so so very sick of Harper and want him gone. (I had to resist the urge to the thing where you put a period after each of the last three words of a sentence). Anyhow, it’ll either be a Lib minority or a Con minority, in which case Harper is toast.

        • Vancouverois says:

          A Conservative minority does NOT automatically mean that Harper is gone; not as party leader, and not necessarily as PM.

    • Jack D says:

      “Its quiet, almost too quiet”.

      If the NDP’s ship is sinking then the “change” vote will undoubtedly move towards the Liberals. If anti-Harper voters don’t think Mulcair is getting it done then I suspect exactly what you’ve suggested, the collapse of the NDP.

      Which leads me to believe, the Conservatives a preparing an all out air-war on Trudeau heading into the last week of the campaign. I mean just a plethora of attack ads questioning everything from Trudeau’s hair to questioning his masculinity. The Conservatives have to be careful though, this could end up having the reverse effect like the last time they went totally negative on Trudeau. The only thing the Conservatives could do is hammer the “just not ready” line again, but Trudeau seems to be rendering that impotent.

      All in all, we’ll finally start seeing this race shape up to be a 2-way battle.

      • Vancouverois says:

        I don’t know about that. All the Conservatives and NDP have to do to chip away at Trudeau’s credibility is to release sound clips of some of the stupider things he’s said in the past. There are plenty of them — Quebeckers are better than other Canadians; I admire China’s basic dictatorship; helping everybody equally isn’t what’s fair; the budget will balance itself; and the most recent “Liberals believe that convicted terorrists should keep their Canadian citizenship”. I don’t think Trudeau’s opponents have really used those quotes to their full effect yet. We’ll see how many of them resurface over the next two weeks.

      • Matt says:

        Ah, yes the pollsters “time for change” vote.

        Pollsters said 74% of Ontarians wanted “change” from the Wynne government in 2014. Wynne was returned to power with a majority.

        • ottlib says:

          Which was why I was surprised that she won as well. Then again she was blessed with Mr. Hudak who pulled – well – a Hudak with his promise to layoff 100,000 government employees.

          Can you honestly say that either one of the Conservatives’ opponents have done the same thing during this election? (Note there is still time)

    • Vancouverois says:

      A slide of NDP votes to the Liberals may well be the main story next week. Unfortuantely for Trudeau, that still leaves a full week for the NDP (and Conservatives) to stymie it by reminding the public of Trudeau’s many unfortunate past gaffes, as well as any new ones they’ve been keeping under wraps for just such an eventuality.

      • Jack D says:

        That’s not exactly a guaranteed success, though.

        The big story of #elxn42 has been the tenacity of Justin Trudeau. He’s had plenty of gaffes and verbal stumbles to hurt him but its been months and months of the Conservatives bombarding the airwaves with these “gaffes”. The issue is, Trudeau and the Liberals have been seeing their numbers steadily rise since the start of the campaign.

        While I do agree with you, the attacks are definitely going to ramp up, I question the efficacy of a much sharper tone of negativity in these attacks. We could end up seeing another 1993 Tory attack ads situation unfold if the Harper Conservatives take it too far. Attack ads will have some effect in that it’ll mostly solidify the anti-Trudeau support Harper already has. But if the polling numbers are to be believed, the large majority of NDP support would swing on a dime to Liberals if it meant keep Harper out of office. Since the NDP is drowning in irrelevancy at the moment, attacks focused on Trudeau will likely establish Liberals the evidential opponent of the Conservatives.

        Only a few weeks left in the campaign, a lot less time to recover from strategy missteps for all parties I would say.

        • Vancouverois says:

          The negative ads won’t come only from the Conservatives, don’t forget. The NDP has already launched some of its own. After all, they’re the ones with the most to gain if Liberal numbers go down.

        • Nicole says:

          I think there has been a saturation point regarding the attack ads against Trudeau. People have been seeing these ads for months and have either bought them whole heartedly because they never really liked Trudeau in the first place, or else they find the ads silly and ignore them. Since Trudeau has not been a total emabarassment during the debates, new ads won’t change anything. He is going for the progressive voters who might vote NDP and they are fine with not discriminating against Canadians who have dual citizenship or letting women decide themselves what they can wear.
          The barbaric cultural practices hotline is also going to be a rallying point for progressives and even centrists who find this a step too far. Kellie Leitch herself looked disgusted in making the announcement, so you can bet there are plenty of Blue liberals who might be disturbed by this as well.
          This is something that will be discussed during thanksgiving… And it is unlikely to turn out well. What is a barbaric practice? That word was certainly applied to Irish Canadians in the past regarding Catholicism and could easily be used against anyone who is not WASP. What about same sex couples? What about the practice of circumcision? This is a dangerous precedent to set simply to pander to the bigots in the base.

  13. Brent Crofts says:

    So the Conservatives have started pulling away (assuming Mr. Graves et al. are accurate and Mr. Nanos is not) and will probably commence their all-out air attack at some point next week, all the while the two realistic progressive options (with apologies to supporters of the Bloc and Green Party) are going after each other hard. It looks pretty promising for Mr. Harper right now, but this election has been such a roller coaster that who knows what the final couple of weeks will bring. I’m not ready to rule out Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Mulcair quite yet. Hold on to your hats.

  14. St Gregory says:

    The real question is what kind of government añd what kind of leader do Canadians want in this time of global and economic uncertainty? And, then there is the matter of NATO and the possibility of Chinese and Russian engagement against ISIS in Syria escalating beyond Syrian borders, setting in motion events for another Middle East war. Mr Harper is the best positioned, and, more importantly, the best financed candidate going down the homestretch.

  15. Jack D says:

    Ouch. Look at those numbers for the NDP in Alberta (where they currently hold a provincial majority government), Manitoba (where they currently hold a majority provincial government) and Ontario (where this election will arguably won/lost).

    No matter how you spin it, the NDP is trending downwards across Canada with Quebec being the most accelerated decline. They may end up salvaging their Quebec seats but I can’t see how they could make their case elsewhere in the country at this last in the game.

    Other observation: niqab issue is working for the Conservatives very well, **for now**.

    We still have about 2 weeks left in the campaign, this topic cannot sustain itself for that long without the Conservatives dumping oil into that fire and risking the whole thing to blow-up in their faces. Which is exactly what I’m expecting to happen. Lynton Crosby is a clown imported from a political market very different from Canada. The anti-Mulsim sentiments in Canada undeniably exist but not to the degree the Conservatives are betting on. If Conservatives expect identity politics to be the ballot box questions then he should probably ask Pauline Marois how thats worked out for her.

  16. Corey says:

    I don’t agree with your conclusion Warren. One of the key things we’re learning from several recent polls is that a majority of Canadians want Harper gone. They will vote whichever way they have to in order to achieve that. Whichever opposition party (Lib/NDP) is ahead of the other near the end of this campaign will win this election. It’s wrong to assume that this election is following a similar pattern to 2011, or to any recent election for that matter. The underlying thought for many voters is that Harper must go, and they are considering their options for who to replace him with. That’s why the NDP/Liberals are going at each other so hard. They know what the dynamic is here and they each have to kill the other to become the obvious alternative to Harper. All indications are, with 2 weeks to go of course (so this could change), that Trudeau is winning that argument with Mulcair. Odds are we’re headed for a Liberal minority on Oct 19.

  17. doconnor says:

    After you embrace rationality, its really head to go back to being emotionally driven.

  18. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Interesting website…

    http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact-airstrikes.page

    For those whom might think Canadian CF-18s aren’t making a difference, I suspect ISIS fighters on the ground might have a different opinion.

    For my money, they can keep on bombing the murdering butchers all the way to hell, and then some.

    • Don Wilson says:

      Al, this link takes us to a Canadian Forces web site. The Canadian Forces are employees of the Government of Canada. Of course the CF web site says the bombing is effective. Robert Macnamara and all the USAF high command said the bombing of North Vietnam was helping to win that war. We know how that one turned out. It’s called strategic self-interest. According to the Pentagon, the bombing of ISIS by American forces is having little effect on ISIS. But if it makes you feel better about the True North Strong and Free to believe that our 30-year old jet fighters are making a difference, who am I to throw cold water on your pride party?

      • Maps Onburt says:

        You really shouldn’t comment on something you obviously know nothing about.

        First off, the damage assessments are not and have never been political. You bring great disrespect on those actually in combat to say so.

        Secondly, the air campaign in Vietnam was very successful WHEN the politicians got out of the way. The problem with McNamara and Lyndon Johnson was that they PERSONALLY approved and ordered pretty much every air strike mission and imposed rules of engagement that restricted the aircrews from actually damaging anything that would have actually hurt the North Vietnamese (such as taking out ships in Hanoi harbour that were supplying weapons, taking out damns that would flood large areas of the North, taking out bridges that would stop the flow of weapons south along the Hanoi Trail, etc. Their operation Rolling Thunder was a failure because of poor targeting. Dropping bombs into the jungles didn’t do much to slow things down and just let the “suspected truck parks” become flax traps to take out American aircrew. Nixon on the other hand, took off the gloves twice before getting embroiled into Watergate. His bombing campaigns were called Operation Linebacker I and Operation Linebacker II. Both times they brought the NV to their knees very quickly (within 3 months each time) and back to the bargaining table in Paris – the second time allowed them to be able to withdraw from the war (on promise that they would go back in if NV threatened SV but due to Watergate and the peace movement that never happened and we never dropped another bomb).

        Thirdly, with respect to ISIS, they were on the move and in danger of taking over the oil fields to the south and completely anhilating the Kurds to the North. They don’t go out in broad daylight or make the same kinds of advances they were doing before now. The front lines have retreated and their advances have been halted – which was the purpose for the attacks in the first place. Pulling the fighters out would just let ISIS continue their wanton destruction and genocide. Is that REALLY what you want?

        Aircraft can’t hold territory… but they can deny an enemy any ability to advance. We don’t want to put the boots on the ground to take the territory but we can stop ISIS from expanding its reach. That’s why we and 60 other nations are there and supporting this.

  19. Hawaii Five Oh says:

    progressives run Baltimore, Chicago , Ferguson Mo.

  20. BlueGritr says:

    Everyone seems to have underestimated Justin. His campaign is getting stronger, especially in Ontario. And, as we all know, whoever wins Ontario, wins the country.

    • fan590 says:

      Those on the ground can see what’s happening in 416/905. People are seeing Libs as the true alternative.

      This is even leading some Right Wingers to try to give the Dippers ‘advice’ on social media: To dump an anti-JT ad buy of $9,000,000 in the Toronto/GTA area.

      Hopefully the NDP brain trust won’t fall for it. Will they?

      • Maps Onburt says:

        So they should just step aside and let Justin become opposition leader and fade into oblivion? Their pool of potential supporters is about 3-4% in the Conservative Party… as long as Trudeau is ahead, attacking Harper just puts more votes into Trudeau’s pockets. Their pool of potential voters is probably somewhere between 15-20% in the Liberal party… There are 5 potential votes in the Liberal party for every one in the Conservatives. They’d have to be terminally stupid NOT to go after Trudeau (but given how poorly they have run the ground game on this campaign, it wouldn’t surprise me).

      • Matt says:

        One pollster, ONE has the Liberals leading Ontario.

        And he reaches that by asking a mere 100 people a night in Ontario.

        • Scott says:

          Let’s just ignore that he is pet he most reliable pollster.

          • Scott says:

            He is the most reliable pollster.

          • Ray says:

            Of COURSE Nanos is right, Scott…after all, it’s JT we’re talking about here. He could run over an old lady & you’d ultimately find a way to compliment him on his roadmanship.

        • ottlib says:

          Yes there are definitely limitations to the Nanos methodology which is why no one should get overly excited by what his polls are showing. However, his methodology is valid so dismissing the estimates from the poll is wrong.

          Nanos could be detecting the beginning of a shift towards the Liberals, as he was the first to detect the Orange Wave in 2011, or he could be detecting nothing. We need more data to conclude one way or the other.

  21. Luke says:

    I guess my garbled, autocorrected mess was understandable after all!

  22. Jon Evan says:

    Who are these “progressives”? Can you define that? Am I not “progressive” because I can’t stand JT or TM?
    The parties are all over the political spectrum depending what the issue is. Because SH won’t do anything about abortion or gay marriage as the right desire, does that make him “progressive”? Help me out.

  23. Danny says:

    A bit unrelated, but watching the TV ads lately I noticesd something missing: The Elections Canada ads to register and get out the vote.
    This was always a plus for the left, as the ads were targetted to young people who generally vote Liberal, Green or NDP. It was basically a government sponsored Get Out The Vote effort for the Left. How much of an impact did it have in the past? Enough that the Liberals did it, and enough that the Conservatives thought it in their interests to kill it.
    Will it affect the vote on October 19th? Thoughts?

    • Matt says:

      The Conservatives havn’t killed it. I’ve seen Elections Canada ads at least 4 times today.

      “Election day is October 19th. By now you should have received your voter card with the following information……………… If not go to elections.ca or call 1 800 whatever to ensure you are registered to vote ect.

    • Pat says:

      Getting out the vote should not be at taxpayer’s expense for a variety of reasons. Let’s leave this to the parties.

  24. Jim Curran says:

    Dude. that a really dated graph you got there. 23rd to the 29th. That’s like a year ago.

  25. MF says:

    As much as I’d love for the lead for the Conservatives in that Ekos poll to be real, Nanos has a pretty good track record. A few points though:
    – Polls always significantly overstate Green support. Ekos has them at 7.6 – I doubt that they have that much support. In 2011 most of the election day polls had them above 6%. They got 3.9%.
    – In almost every election, the average poll has the Conservatives 3% lower than they really are. So I wouldn’t be surprised if a 32% average in the polls equated to ~35% real support.
    – The recent swings are really seen in Quebec. The NDP will loose a lot of a marginal seats if this trend keeps up. When people talk about the Orange Crush from 2011, they’re overlooking the fact that the NDP only gained 8 seats outside of Quebec. Their seat count is a house of cards that can come tumbling down. It’s tricky to figure out where those seats are going to go though. At current poll numbers, the Conservative will pick up 5 in Quebec, the Liberals will pick up 5, and the BQ will pick up a few. That knocks the NDP down to 90, with possible losses in Ontario too.

    Source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011

  26. Steve T says:

    All I’ve seen in this election are squandered opportunities by the Libs and NDP to advertise the Conservatives’ mis-steps over the past number of years. This is one of the few advantages that the non-incumbent parties have in an election, and it isn’t being used.

    As has been discussed many times on this forum, the public DOES respond to negative/attack ads, despite consistently saying they don’t like them. Yet very few ads of this type have been run by the Libs or Dippers. Making these points during the debates doesn’t have nearly the resonance of TV ads.

  27. Al in Cranbrook says:

    One notable Nanos result: Preferred Prime Minister

    • 33.2 per cent said they preferred Harper
    • 28.3 per cent preferred Trudeau
    • 23.2 per cent preferred Mulcair

    Somewhat jives with Ekos numbers above for the parties.

  28. Lyndon Dunkley says:

    In all seriousness, in the history of elections anywere, has there ever been a proven, successful, last minute consolidation of second and third place parties, perfectly calculated to provide either party with the win? I remember this dream four years and see it everywhere on this site but has it ever actually been pulled off?

    • doconnor says:

      I believe that happened in the 2013 Iranian presidential election.

      The is no reason to do that until the poll suggest the Conservatives are likely to get a majority.

  29. Scott says:

    Of course everything you have said depends on Graves being correct as opposed to Nanos.

    • Matt says:

      And everythig you say depends on Nanos being correct and EKOS, Angus Reid, Ipsos, Mainstreet, Abacus being wrong.

      The problem with nanos’ 3 day poll is the sample sizes are so small. Look at Ontario. His 3 day sample size is 315 people. That’s just 105 a night.

      It is very easy to hit a pocket of high or low support for any of the parties. He currently has the Libs at 44% in Ontario 10 to 16 points than any other pollster.

      Three nights ago the libs could have been at 36%. two nights ago they could have been at 36%. Last night, by accident or design, he could have hit some pockets of high Liberal support and they could have hit 58%.

      36 + 36 +58 = 130 for a three day average of 43.3%.

      Quebec and BC he’s only asking about 54 people per night.

      It was the same last election until May 1st whe he did a poll of 800 the night before that he came close to what the parties got on May 2nd’s election.

      • Brendan Kane says:

        Ipsos has the Liberals in the lead. Mainstreet hasn’t polled since August 11. You also forgot to mention Innovative and Léger, who are closer to Nanos.

  30. ottlib says:

    The Nanos tracking poll was the first one to detect what would become the Orange Wave in 2011 so I would not dismiss it too quickly. I would also point out that they began detecting it at about this stage of the last election. We still do not have enough data to determine is they are detecting a shift to the Liberals or not at this point. That will take a few more days.

    Yes the Conservatives are masters of emotion politics but unfortunately for them one of those emotions this time around is a very strong desire to turf them out of office. Stephen Harper has very much made the Conservative Party about him and I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people state they just want him gone. (And they say that with a great deal of feeling. Alot of people really do despise him at this point.)

    The Ekos poll has a reference period of September 23 to 29. That means the last day of the polling period was four days ago. At this stage of an election four days is an eternity.

    The values that the Conservatives have been pursuing for the last couple of weeks have limited appeal in this country. They might appeal more widely in the UK and down under but they are not nearly as widespread here. Further Ms. Marois can attest to the limited utility of appealing to these values.

    I suspect the onslaught against Mr. Trudeau will begin presently. It remains to be seen how effective it will be.

    • Matt says:

      Uh, no it wasn’t.

      It was actually a CROP poll done for Quebec and quickly backed up by EKOS.

    • Matt says:

      And Marois built her campaign around getting into a shit slinging contest with Ottawa.

      Harper, and to their credit Mulcair and Trudeau didn’t take the bait.

      Then Marois was screwed.

  31. fan590 says:

    We are coming to the Defining Moment for the future of the NDP.

    It’s clear Trudeau and the Liberals are the only alternative to the current government.

    NDP can choose their path:

    1. Continue the arrogant attitude we’ve seen over the past 6 months and vote for the hopeless fast falling Mulcair and end up being responsible for the current government to continue running things.

    2. Support Trudeau and the Libs and MAKE A CHANGE in government with JT as PM and the NDP with some power, some pull, and a historic opportunity for a united progressive Left.

    So Dippers, look in the mirror and ask yourselves “What do I really stand for?” It’s it selfishness or can you see the bigger picture for a better Canada?

    Your call, Dippers. And whatever you choose won’t be forgotten by a lot of people.

    • Marc says:

      That was my favourite post in this discussion.

      There is something kinda funny about a Liberal poster calling the NDP arrogant, and then proceeding to frame the NDP’s choice as “put the Liberals in power or else.” I mean, I”m not voting NDP, but your post is the examplar of arrogrance.

      Aside for the cuteness of your post, we have to becareful to not over-reach into current levels of Liberal support. To not overread Trudeau’s support as confidence. Canadians are starting to align under the banner of change, but only a portion and only for change. Not necessarily in support of what the “change” ticket is promoting, and the person leading the.

      • fan590 says:

        Politics, like life, is about choices.

        NDP supporters now have a choice: Trudeau or Harper.

        What they decide to do will long be remembered.

        • Vancouverois says:

          So we all get to choose between a red door and a blue door?

          Seems to me that I’ve heard that line of argument before. And it didn’t turn out so well for the red door guy.

  32. Kevin says:

    Interesting commentary, but since this thread started with the niqab question, please let me get back to that.

    Who the fuck cares? I hate seeing someone wearing that thing as much as anyone, but who am I to dictate what someone wears? When I was a kid, my mother, a white, Catholic, seventh-generation Canadian whose ancestors all came from France, wouldn’t go out of the house without her hair covered with a kerchief. And God forbid she should go to church without a hat! Guess what? You find her these days sitting in the gazebo with her neighbours, hair blowing in the wind. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter?

    So everyone getting all twisted around about fashion choices, take a deep breath. It will all work out in the end.

    Vote for change.

    • Steve T says:

      I don’t care what someone wears, either. What I do care about is consistency in a procedure where you must show your face. Sorry, those are the rules, regardless of your religion. I might not want to display my license plate on my car, or carry photo ID with me, or comply with any one of a number of other laws. Tough shit – that’s the law.

      There are plenty of logical reasons why you must display your face when becoming a citizen. This isn’t an undue hardship. Get over it.

  33. Keegan from Saskatoon says:

    My feeling is that the Liberals have played things correctly through the Niqab debate and with their larger approach. The election started with change being the topic and on that the Liberals and NDP are interchangeable. The Liberals economic policy was out early and there is no talk from what i’ve seen over voter uneasiness over it. The Cons need that uneasiness to trump the change vote, but it really doesn’t seem to be there. With the Niqab, the Cons/Bloc put this out as wedge to scare voters to them and they successfully sank the NDP with this. The Liberals, though, seem to have weathered the storm and I don’t see the issue as causing anymore damage to them. The Niqab issue is all about that flashpoint it causes. With two weeks left I just don’t see anything further for the Cons to gain from it. The more time passes and the more they push, the more the firy burn of the issue starts to fade. Both the economy and the Niqab are known quantities now. Unless another flashpoint comes along in the last two weeks, we are back to the change narrative. The Liberals numbers might not be strong now, but I just don’t see anything bringing them down anymore and I still see the overriding change narrative pushing their numbers up as we approach e-day, especially with the NPD faltering. The one plus from the Niqab debate is that, even if voters see Justin on the wrong side of the debate, it has allowed him to show passion and emotion, which I feel he will have gained the respect from a lot of swing voters just from that.

  34. boopsie says:

    Hope everyone noticed Ian Brown’s 4 page spread about Trudeau in Focus section of the G&M today.
    The online comments below the article indicate that the Kid is indeed ready. Change is in the wind.

  35. Jason Smith says:

    If Warren is right, then Canadian politics will never be the same.

    This dog whistle stuff is something we haven’t seen in generations when it comes to our political campaigns in terms of religious division or racial ones actually becoming a thing.

    A recent poll found that 30 percent of Iowans believed Islam should be prohibited.

    Like an actual law against the religion. Haper is playing on similar sentiment among his base.

  36. Karl Littler says:

    I have a lot of regard for Frank as well but he’s not in sync with Abacus, Greg Lyle (IRG), Nanos or Leger and even those old Conservative-boosters at Ipsos, all of whom are a bit more credible than say, Forum. I know that Frank does also have the venerable firm Angus Reid in the same camp but they haven’t polled much in this election and seem to be very “online” these days (and I presume that Angus himself is happily swinging in a hammock somewhere).

    I do think the Conservatives are leading but more like 32%CON/30%LIB/26% NDP. That’s a small Conservative plurality, sure, of the 130/110/95 variety but I wouldn’t be placing any bets that Harper can survive until Christmas on those numbers. Right now, I’d rather be in Justin Trudeau’s position.

  37. Paul Richards says:

    The only pollster I ever pay attention to is Nanos. None of them are perfect, but over the years, he has done a solid job during our elections. This morning he shows the Liberal lead continuing to grow, while the NDP are still slowly heading south. The reviews on Friday’s debate are overwhelmingly favourable towards Trudeau. He is clearly gaining momentum and the right time.

  38. zing says:

    Do you REALLY think that in the Tory campaign centre right now, they are pleased that they are either tied, slightly ahead, or slightly behind the Liberals?? Two weeks to polling day? Of course they’re not. And as others have pointed out, the dynamics of the final two weeks of the campaign will be different from 2011, so pointing to the polls from 2011 as showing roughly equivalent Tory support, is invalid. I won’t repeat what others have said, but one other dynamic that will differ is that Ontario voters will NOT be voting Tory to put an end to elections every 18-24 months, which many did in 2011. Now, voting Tory will simply assure another election in 18 months.

    • Maps Onburt says:

      And voting Liberal or NDP is not???? There is NO scenario that in any poll (even Nanos) that shows the opposition is close to forming a majority and if you think a Liberal/NDP coalition will last for 4 years, I have a some swampland in Florida to sell you.

  39. Scott says:

    Polls taken over 4 or 5 days are unreliable in this fast changing weird election. Graves poll was out of date even before it was released.

  40. terence quinn says:

    EKos AKA Graves is behind the times and dead wrong with his poll numbers. The Leger poll and Nanos both show the NDP imploding in Quebec and they have it more or less correct. Trudeau’s momentum will be picked up boyhood pollsters in the days ahead. He may not achieve a majority but he will win big.

Leave a Reply

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


*