CP Federal Election Poll #2

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Liberals in a huge lead on a calgary hockey website is quite unreal.

I think the question to ask is how many votes are coming from outside of Calgary.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think the question to ask is how many votes are coming from outside of Calgary.

Those damn pinko interlopers.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Those damn pinko interlopers.

Hi there!

[rubecube]

Currently waiting in line at UVic for advanced polling. Apparently the line has been steady all day. Hopefully this isn't an aberration and the youths are getting out across the country.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Currently waiting in line at UVic for advanced polling. Apparently the line has been steady all day. Hopefully this isn't an aberration and the youths are getting out across the country.

Mine isn't until Friday at Northridge Elementary.

[Manhattanboy]

CPC all the way. Two principal reasons: Best able to manage the economy; foreign policy (particularly Middle East issues).

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

CPC all the way. Two principal reasons: Best able to manage the economy; foreign policy (particularly Middle East issues).

This one always strikes me as funny. How can someone say they are the "best" at managing the economy when we haven't had another party run this country in almost 10 years? So much has changed.

[The Yen Man]

I'm still probably going to vote Conservative, but I'm ok if the Liberals won. As long as it's not NDP, I'm ok with Cons or Libs.

[Dion]

Reluctantly i'm going to vote Conservative.

I can't vote for a leader who didn't want to show up and explain his fully costed economic platform. It doesn't get any better when he tells Steve Murphy that the media could sit there with a calculator and figure out the cost of his economic platform. It seems to me he can't answer questions that are not in his talking points.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Dion

It seems to me he can't answer questions that are not in his talking points.

Based on what?

As I asked in the other thread, and didn't get a response too, in every debate or moment where he would be off script he has done well. He has either been anointed the "winner" or been described as having a great showing in every debate so far. He talks policy. He knows his numbers and won't talk about them if he's unsure and he has a grasp of every major portfolio that the federal government has its hands on.

So, in your opinion, what gives you this idea that he has to stick with talking points to convey a message?

[Drak]

Trudeau not being able to answer questions unless they are based on his talking points appears to be a conservative talking point.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Based on what?

As I asked in the other thread, and didn't get a response too, in every debate or moment where he would be off script he has done well. He has either been anointed the "winner" or been described as having a great showing in every debate so far. He talks policy. He knows his numbers and won't talk about them if he's unsure and he has a grasp of every major portfolio that the federal government has its hands on.

So, in your opinion, what gives you this idea that he has to stick with talking points to convey a message?

In person interviews on national media political programs. Dodging questions that are asked of him when it came to the cost of his economic platform.

If he doesn't know his numbers then maybe he should if he wants to be taken serious by the voters. It doesn't look good when someone like Ralph Goodale has to explain his parties platform numbers. Trudeau is running for Prime Minister and not Goodale.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This one always strikes me as funny. How can someone say they are the "best" at managing the economy when we haven't had another party run this country in almost 10 years? So much has changed.

To clarify, I certainly prefer the CPC economic policies over the Liberals (deficits, tax hikes). At least what I understand to be JT's economic platform.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Dion

In person interviews on national media political programs. Dodging questions that are asked of him when it came to the cost of his economic platform.

How is "We will be coming out with a fully costed platform" in the next few days dodging the question? He didn't have the numbers totaled off hand and didn't want to give an inaccurate answer on it. The interviewer kept pushing the same question despite no answer coming.

Originally Posted by Dion

If he doesn't know his numbers then maybe he should if he wants to be taken serious by the voters.

So you would rather an inaccurate tabulation done off hand on a talk show before the fully costed platform is completed? And if he's wrong you crucify him for that. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't for you. I'd say erring on the side of caution is prudent, not clueless.

Originally Posted by Dion

It doesn't look good when someone like Ralph Goodale has to explain his parties platform numbers. Trudeau is running for Prime Minister and not Goodale.

Why does this not look good? Do you not like the idea of a PM having a solid group of advisers in and out of caucus? But on top of that you say he's clueless and not prepared, so he shows you that he has someone prepared and ready to advise and help him on an area he is perhaps weak (I don't think he is, but...) and that is a further sign that he is clueless? That doesn't add up. That sounds like someone who is addressing a weakness through party strength.

Whether you like it or not, I think it is a good plan to show that the Liberals are a party, not just a leader, and that goes in step with their plans to loosen some control from the PMO.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

How is "We will be coming out with a fully costed platform" in the next few days dodging the question? He didn't have the numbers totaled off hand and didn't want to give an inaccurate answer on it. The interviewer kept pushing the same question despite no answer coming.

So you would rather an inaccurate tabulation done off hand on a talk show before the fully costed platform is completed? And if he's wrong you crucify him for that. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't for you. I'd say erring on the side of caution is prudent, not clueless.

"If you want to calculate our totals you can go on our website and tabulate them. I'm more focused on talking what we will do for Canadians."

Why does this not look good? Do you not like the idea of a PM having a solid group of advisers in and out of caucus? But on top of that you say he's clueless and not prepared, so he shows you that he has someone prepared and ready to advise and help him on an area he is perhaps weak (I don't think he is, but...) and that is a further sign that he is clueless? That doesn't add up. That sounds like someone who is addressing a weakness through party strength.

Whether you like it or not, I think it is a good plan to show that the Liberals are a party, not just a leader, and that goes in step with their plans to loosen some control from the PMO.

The person you have running for the PM of this country should be there for one of your biggest policy announcements of the election. Have him prepped to talk about the numbers you are presenting. The optics of Trudeau not being there looks bad.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Dion

"If you want to calculate our totals you can go on our website and tabulate them. I'm more focused on talking what we will do for Canadians."

Yeah, after the interviewer keeps asking the question. He just said "We will release the total plan in a few days."

Originally Posted by Dion

The person you have running for the PM of this country should be there for one of your biggest policy announcements of the election. Have him prepped to talk about the numbers you are presenting. The optics of Trudeau not being there looks bad.

I don't get that, and I suppose that's where this argument ends. You think it matters. I think what was done was acceptable and I don't see either of us articulating this in a way that changes either mind.

With that all said, I don't think that makes him clueless. I suspect even without being there he was prepped with the numbers for the campaign speeches and stops that he was doing while on the trail when the announcement happened.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Yeah, after the interviewer keeps asking the question. He just said "We will release the total plan in a few days."

He was asking for the numbers of his spending promises so far. I don't think it was an unfair question.

"What's the dollar value of all your new spending promises?" Murphy asked.

The Liberal leader said they were about two-thirds of the way through to the commitment to a $10-billion deficit in year one, two, and "less in year three."

"So, how much new spending have you announced thus far?"

"A fair bit. We have a full costing coming out. No, we're the first party that put out a fully costed framework that said three years of deficits, plus a balanced budget," he said.

Murphy was unsatisfied with the answer.

"You either know and won't say, or you don't know," the journalist said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09...n_8172960.html

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Dion

He was asking for the numbers of his spending promises so far. I don't think it was an unfair question.

It isn't. It's a fair question and I never said the interviewer was out of line, and I get that the way I am talking about it sounds like I feel that the question was out of line but I don't. That's a pretty standard question in this situation. I think he could have let the question go after Trudeau was dismissive but I can understand why he was trying to get an answer.

But from Trudeau's stand point, he knows a total is coming so why in god's name does he risk a #### up here only to contradict himself in five days. Instead, he suggests that he isn't totally sure at this point, but the full total is coming and that they are within their proposed budget. And truthfully, I think his careful disposition in interviews like this is why he's managed to make up so much ground for his party and the "leader of choice" polls. It's shrewd politics in my mind.

[MarchHare]

I really don't see the issue with Trudeau's answer. At that point in the campaign, the Liberals had not yet released their full platform (they just did so earlier today). He almost surely knew the grand total as outlined in the final document, but for the purpose of the campaign, they were staging their announcements over several weeks so they'd have something new and fresh to reveal every few days, just like every party does. Why is it a big deal if he didn't know the exact running tally of his announcements at that given point in time? All that matters is the final number as detailed in the platform document.

I absolutely loathe Harper, but if he (or Mulcair) had done the exact same thing during this campaign, I wouldn't fault him for it in the least. This is just as much of a non-issue as the recent niqab nonsense.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It isn't. It's a fair question and I never said the interviewer was out of line, and I get that the way I am talking about it sounds like I feel that the question was out of line but I don't. That's a pretty standard question in this situation. I think he could have let the question go after Trudeau was dismissive but I can understand why he was trying to get an answer.

But from Trudeau's stand point, he knows a total is coming so why in god's name does he risk a #### up here only to contradict himself in five days. Instead, he suggests that he isn't totally sure at this point, but the full total is coming and that they are within their proposed budget. And truthfully, I think his careful disposition in interviews like this is why he's managed to make up so much ground for his party and the "leader of choice" polls. It's shrewd politics in my mind.

It came across to me that Trudeau didn't see the numbers thing as being all that important in the interview. It's not a contradiction to say what the cost of your spending promises were at that time. It could be there were more questions to be asked based on his numbers and how it might impact the pocketbooks of Canadians.