Liberals catch up to Harper in the polls.

[InstantDeath]

Originally Posted by starseed

You are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of the CPC doesd not hold the same convictions as the majority of the GOP. Harper himself wanted Canada to be more right wing than the USA, and wanted us to eliminate socialized medicine. He has muzzled his caucas since day one, so you only rarely see them make the same dumb comments as their counterparts in the US. (I am not saying only conservatives make dumb comments)

The only reason the CPC does not have the same policies as the GOP, is that their support would go down, and the rest of the country would not tolerate them as the leaders. The merger with the PC party was just a take over, they said that they would only focus on certain non-socially conservative priorities, but Joe Clark knew what that really meant.

Watch 'Jesus Camp'. Then you will see who the GOP is really speaking for (sadly). I hope you dont have these ass wads in Canada.

[starseed]

My MP, before this new guy, could have starred in that film, and put the main woman to shame. There are many others who could as well. Gallant compared beheadings of Americans in Iraq to abortion. Jason Kenney took part in some embarassingly stupid antics in his quest to prevent me from having the right to marry the man I love, should I choose to.

[InstantDeath]

Originally Posted by starseed

My MP, before this new guy, could have starred in that film, and put the main woman to shame. There are many others who could as well. Gallant compared beheadings of Americans in Iraq to abortion. Jason Kenney took part in some embarassingly stupid antics in his quest to prevent me from having the right to marry the man I love, should I choose to.

Damn. I was hoping those levels of idiocy were reserved for arch conservatives in our country.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by InstantDeath

Watch 'Jesus Camp'. Then you will see who the GOP is really speaking for (sadly). I hope you dont have these ass wads in Canada.

We don't, and we never will. They might be there, but they'll never really have an influence on Canadian politics. The other parties won't let it happen. That is one way I am thankful we have a parlimentary system.

[Pastiche]

If you read the book Fire and Ice Michael Adams talks about social differences between Canadians and Americans through detailed longitudinal polling on social perspectives.

Basically the most conservative regions of Canada (Alberta) are more liberal than the most liberal regions of the U.S. (New England).

[octothorp]

A few points, from closer analysis:

BC: huge drop-off for the Conservatives here from their 44% last election, down to 31% now. Most of that is being siphoned off by the Greens (up from 9% to 18%), but the Liberals are also up a few ticks (19% to 23%), which are the first signs of life for the Liberals in a long time in BC. The Green numbers can't be taken too seriously as third-party support always drops when the chips are down, but still, it means that Conservative support is a lot softer.
In Alberta, Conservatives are down from 65% to 51%, which still isn't grounds to panic. More surprising is that the Liberals have gained support from 12% to 18%. I'd guess this is as good as Alberta has polled for the Liberals in a long, long time.
Hard to judge the Sask/Manitoba numbers, since they're lumped together by Ekos. However, the provinces combined had a 51%-17% lead for the Tories in the last election, and that's shrunk to 41%-27%. NDP are also dropping here.
In Ontario is where the numbers start to get bad. Last election, the Tories won the province 39% to 34%. That's flipped to a 38% to 31% lead for the Grits. That alone could be a huge swing in seats, but the breakdown between GTA and the rest of the province would tell how badly it affects Conservative support.
Liberals hold steady in Quebec while the Tories drop a few points and the Bloc rise. Also, Green makes big gains here, which distort the numbers from likely election results.
Atlantic Canada is hard to read again, since the numbers for all the provinces are grouped together. The overall numbers are actually up for the Conservatives from the last election though, 29% to 33% in the region. Liberals drop off slightly.

Overall, it's an absolutely awful poll for the Conservatives, no way to sugar-coat it. The only bright side is that a lot of the votes that they lost to the Greens (in Quebec and BC in particular) would likely come back in an actual election. But the breadth of the increase in Liberal support is a more worrying sign.

Now, the Liberals have just gotten a huge boost simply by doing nothing. But they can't continue to do nothing all the way to an election: the question is whether Ignatieff will be able to so much as open his mouth without losing all of that gained support. It remains to be seen...

edit: Angus Reid also had a poll out today, though it has a much smaller sample size. Numbers are a bit different but the trends are the same. Basically, its numbers are better for the Tories than the Ekos numbers in western Canada (though still bad), while being much worse for the Tories in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

[InstantDeath]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

If you read the book Fire and Ice Michael Adams talks about social differences between Canadians and Americans through detailed longitudinal polling on social perspectives.

Basically the most conservative regions of Canada (Alberta) are more liberal than the most liberal regions of the U.S. (New England).

Not sure I could buy all that. Seems pretty unlikely considering the spectrum of political views in America - there are a lot of true 'bleeding hearts' (hippies) here. They are just overshadowed, outnumbered, and out-voted by the neocons.

Interesting though, definitely. Ill have to check the book out.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Now, the Liberals have just gotten a huge boost simply by doing nothing. But they can't continue to do nothing all the way to an election

Weeeell..... let's not forget that this is basically what Harper did!

In all seriousness, you are right. The Liberals are still in the corner after their last stint in office. They need to step forward and take advantage of this by reconnecting with voters in a positive way. This means new policy ideas, a new vision for dealing with ongoing economic uncertainty, and new communication strategies (i.e.--ads, but not attack ads) whereby they can position themselves as a reasonable alternative in several different regions. They need to crush Ontario, gain in the Maritimes, hold their ground in Quebec and gain in B.C.

The problem is that Ignatieff has had a little bit of difficulty connecting with voters in any region. I don't think he's a terrible leader (I think that's just a comforting bedtime story that Tories are telling themselves right now)--but let's face it, he hasn't been all that great either.

Either way, we live in interesting times.

[Devils'Advocate]

Is it "Canadians don't want another election" or is it "We people that voted for Harper last time don't want another election"? Would these "Canadians don't want another election" people in this thread be trotting out the same line should the Liberals win a minority in the next election?

Ignatieff needs to go on the attack here. His speaking engagements have all been to places where he's preaching to the already converted. He should be going to the media and making hay of this blunder. It's like getting a nice meaty fastball over the heart of the plate and striking out anyway.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Weeeell..... let's not forget that this is basically what Harper did!

In all seriousness, you are right. The Liberals are still in the corner after their last stint in office. They need to step forward and take advantage of this by reconnecting with voters in a positive way. This means new policy ideas, a new vision for dealing with ongoing economic uncertainty, and new communication strategies (i.e.--ads, but not attack ads) whereby they can position themselves as a reasonable alternative in several different regions. They need to crush Ontario, gain in the Maritimes, hold their ground in Quebec and gain in B.C.

The problem is that Ignatieff has had a little bit of difficulty connecting with voters in any region. I don't think he's a terrible leader (I think that's just a comforting bedtime story that Tories are telling themselves right now)--but let's face it, he hasn't been all that great either.

Either way, we live in interesting times.

Agreed; and they've basically been given all the momentum, and a month-long recess here to come up with a platform. If they fritter away the time and come back from the prorogue with nothing to show for it, except for the same criticisms about Harper's political maneuvering, then it's time for a leadership change.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by InstantDeath

Not sure I could buy all that. Seems pretty unlikely considering the spectrum of political views in America - there are a lot of true 'bleeding hearts' (hippies) here. They are just overshadowed, outnumbered, and out-voted by the neocons.

Interesting though, definitely. Ill have to check the book out.

I feel semi-qualified to comment on this, having lived in the U.S. for 10 years.

The thing that is different is the political conversation more generally. People who are Republicans tend only to be friends with Republicans--and likewise for Democrats. There's a huge amount of tribalism when it comes to politics in the U.S., which means that both sides are constantly demonizing each other and refusing to listen.

There's a little of that in Canada--but an interesting test is this: ask a Canadian (small "l") liberal this question. "Can you understand how someone could be conservative?" My feeling is that you'll generally get a pretty thoughtful answer that tries to understand how different values lead to different political preferences. The same question in the U.S. is sometimes met with something that amounts to "because they're evil."

I'm generalizing a bit--but my point is that overall, it's not that we don't have liberals and conservatives here, or even that their opinions aren't that strong. It's just that there's a little more willingness to listen to each other here, and less tendency to assume that your side has a monopoly on truth. Not that such an attitude is unheard of--far from it. I just think it's less prevalent on both sides.

And that's a good thing. In the end, democracy only thrives if it's based on the exchange and discussion of good ideas. Canada isn't perfect--but we do have a slightly healthier political conversation than our neighbours to the south do sometimes. And that's not about people not being "extremists" so much as it's about people cultivating a willingness to be reasonable about politics.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by starseed

You are fooling yourself if you think that the majority of the CPC doesd not hold the same convictions as the majority of the GOP. Harper himself wanted Canada to be more right wing than the USA, and wanted us to eliminate socialized medicine. He has muzzled his caucas since day one, so you only rarely see them make the same dumb comments as their counterparts in the US. (I am not saying only conservatives make dumb comments)

The only reason the CPC does not have the same policies as the GOP, is that their support would go down, and the rest of the country would not tolerate them as the leaders. The merger with the PC party was just a take over, they said that they would only focus on certain non-socially conservative priorities, but Joe Clark knew what that really meant.

Oh my god!! You actually believe this don't you?

I know a lot of us get carried away when we criticize political parties (particularly when they are parties that they don't support and they tend to "exagerate" their faults in order to make a point or to paint "their party" in a better light).... but deep down I'm sure most of us realize that our political parties are mostly centrist.

You however, paint the Conservative Party of Canada as the Canadian reincarnation of US bible belt politics. All I can say is wow. Somebody from the CPC sure must have pissed in your cereal, in order to give you such a slanted and extremely biased opinion of them.

I think you're wrong.... and I would suggest that most CalPuck members would probably disagree with your predjudiced view.

Edit: After reading some of your previous posts, I now know where you are coming from. You feel that the CPC is anti-gay (ie. Jason Kenedy coming out against gay marriage and other stuff you feel that the CPC does to discriminate against you), thus the Conservative Party of Canada is your enemy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Is it "Canadians don't want another election" or is it "We people that voted for Harper last time don't want another election"? Would these "Canadians don't want another election" people in this thread be trotting out the same line should the Liberals win a minority in the next election?

Hard to say, but for what it's worth: Last summer I didn't want another election. I also (for the first time) didn't vote Liberal in the last one.

This summer I'm open to the idea. And I'll probably vote Liberal again.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Hard to say, but for what it's worth: Last summer I didn't want another election. I also (for the first time) didn't vote Liberal in the last one.

This summer I'm open to the idea. And I'll probably vote Liberal again.

I didn't want one last year either. This year I would be open to one, if someone brought out some good/new ideas. I have yet to hear any.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

I didn't want one last year either. This year I would be open to one, if someone brought out some good/new ideas. I have yet to hear any.

I have heard some, believe it or not. Straight from the horse's mouth, actually. Ignatieff is really a very impressive guy--he just somehow fails to connect with people on a personal level.

Mind you, compared to the charisma vacuum that is Stephen Harper, Ignatieff is practically the homecoming queen.

EDIT: I'll edit to add this. If you haven't heard "new ideas" as part of our political conversation, you're not working hard enough. I happen to like Ignatieff's ideas (though not his "style" particularly) but Harper has plenty of "new ideas" too, as does Layton. There is a difference between party A and party B, and in the end it's up to voters to educate themselves. It's a classically cynical ploy to say "politicians are all about getting elected"--and it's true, that is their agenda. But politics is not a very rewarding business, and there's really only one reason people get involved in it in the first place: the belief that their ideas are better than the next guy's.

I don't mean to jump on you, particularly--but the post above kind of sounds a little like that species of laziness where you're waiting for someone to come into your living room and give you a personalized powerpoint presentation before you'll get engaged. And sorry--that's just not how it works. In the end, you have two choices. The first is to rely on the media for your vision of what the parties stand for and who their leaders are. Then, you can either vote or not vote depending on that second- and thirdhand version of our political choices. Or you can inform yourself, and choose the party that most closely stands for something that you stand for yourself.

There are two aspects to democracy: the freedom to choose your government and the responsibility to engage in a high-minded and serious way with our political culture. Some people like to adopt a cynical pose--and pretend it doesn't matter, that there's no difference anyway and they're all corrupt, etc. But that's a cop-out. Democracy is sometimes ugly, sometimes boring and sometimes too much work. But you have to put that work in--no-one's going to do it for you. If you choose not to exercise that choice and get involved, it just grants more power and influence to those that do.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I have heard some, believe it or not. Straight from the horse's mouth, actually. Ignatieff is really a very impressive guy--he just somehow fails to connect with people on a personal level.

Mind you, compared to the charisma vacuum that is Stephen Harper, Ignatieff is practically the homecoming queen.

I don't really buy that, and its why I probably wouldn't switch votes.

For a well travelled Harvard intellect, he hasn't shown that he's got any concept when it comes to strategy, he's continually missed the mark, he hasn't come up with anything anywhere close to resonating platform wise or even in his debates in the house. He comes across as out of touch, he hasn't established control over his party.

He hasn't really done much to seperate himself from Stephane Dion except that his production values are a bit better.

I'm honestly not even sure that he could handle Harper in a debate style setting because he hasn't shown anything yet. I'm not sure that he could handle Harper in terms of election strategy and thats saying a lot.

The problem with Canadian politics is we don't have leaders, we have fricken beaurocrats, they don't inspire, they don't seperate from the pack, the election is almost like the futurama episode when the two presidential candidates were quotes for each other.

I've seen nothing that would make me want to change my vote.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I have heard some, believe it or not. Straight from the horse's mouth, actually. Ignatieff is really a very impressive guy--he just somehow fails to connect with people on a personal level.

Mind you, compared to the charisma vacuum that is Stephen Harper, Ignatieff is practically the homecoming queen.

I've never been impressed with either Harper or Ignatieff...I think my mind tunes them out when they start speaking. Can we replace both of them, then have an election?

[WesternCanadaKing]

Saw Ignatieff speak today at the University and I came out pretty impressed. He doesn't beat around the bush and is very clear on where he stands. He wasn't dishing out cliches or insulting our intelligence with stump speeches. He seems much more forward thinking than the conservatives and his ideas on Canada's place in an increasingly global world make me think he has the right ideas moving forward. Harper seems more interested in keeping power.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

Saw Ignatieff speak today at the University and I came out pretty impressed. He doesn't beat around the bush and is very clear on where he stands. He wasn't dishing out cliches or insulting our intelligence with stump speeches. He seems much more forward thinking than the conservatives and his ideas on Canada's place in an increasingly global world make me think he has the right ideas moving forward. Harper seems more interested in keeping power.

I think he's an impressive man as well. I won't vote for him. Never voted Liberal; never will. But I think he is an intelligent man with good ideas. I just think he's not talking to the right people. Stump speeches on a tour of universities isn't going to cut it. Regular Joes are not hearing him.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

For a well travelled Harvard intellect, he hasn't shown that he's got any concept when it comes to strategy, he's continually missed the mark, he hasn't come up with anything anywhere close to resonating platform wise or even in his debates in the house. He comes across as out of touch, he hasn't established control over his party.

There are two separate issues here: substance and style. You claim that his substance doesn't inspire you, and that's possible. Without being more specific, it's hard to address that. I happen to disagree with you--I think Ignatieff is a pragmatic type with some good ideas, and I think Harper is a guy who has governed in a way different than what he promised, and has shown an intractability that is unproductive in the current climate. For that reason, I think a change is in order: given that minorities are likely, we need someone who's a centrist and a pragmatist, and willing to reach across the aisle and work with his opposition. Harper has so far proven unwilling to do that, and he's had plenty of chances.

But style-wise, there's not much to separate Harper from Ignatieff--neither is particularly good. The first is sort of like a chartered accountant. Good with numbers, but uncomfortable with people. The second is more like a professor: likes big ideas, but gets impatient when he has to explain his thinking to people outside his particular professional field. Charisma-wise, it's no contest, but Ignatieff has to be careful of the "Al Gore" syndrome where people think he's too smart for his own good.

He hasn't really done much to seperate himself from Stephane Dion except that his production values are a bit better.

That has to be a joke. My aunt Tillie's prize hog would be a better leader than Stephane Dion. Ignatieff has at least stopped the bleeding. If Dion were still leader, the Liberals would be in Kim Campbell territory by now.

I'm honestly not even sure that he could handle Harper in a debate style setting because he hasn't shown anything yet. I'm not sure that he could handle Harper in terms of election strategy and thats saying a lot.

Harper's a canny politician, but you're kidding yourself if you think Ignatieff will have trouble with him in a debate. It doesn't matter anyway; debates actually don't make a lick of difference in the real world. They just give the media something to talk about.

The problem with Canadian politics is we don't have leaders, we have fricken beaurocrats, they don't inspire, they don't seperate from the pack, the election is almost like the futurama episode when the two presidential candidates were quotes for each other.

I actually like Canadian politics. I think we have good discussions that don't get sidetracked by demagoguery as often as they do down south. I don't want to be inspired; I want to trust that my leaders will govern in a way that is responsible and measured, and that they will endeavor to make good decisions. Harper has shown a distinct tendency toward bullheadedness--which is not an appealing trait for me, particularly in someone with such a tiny mandate from the people.