New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[GGG]

I want to vote for the Chretien/Martin liberals, Romanow's NDP, and Klein's conservatives.

I want guys who will balance budgets buy cutting waste, eliminating programs not accomplishing their goals, and raising taxes to support neccessary programs. And never speak of ideology or social issues.

The closest this election comes is Trudeau. Harper is out because of his attack on science, and his wasteful spending (tax cuts and a lack of taxation is wasteful spending). His foreign policy is terrible. Mulclair is just a quebec mouthpiece who sold Jacks strong voice for cities down the river in exchange for trying to form government.

I think Trudeau has a chance to be great and hope he gets a majority. Give him 4 years of government to undue the damage of Harpers last term and give the conservatives 4 years to boot Harper out and build around a new leader. If Trudeau is successful we keep him if not the new conservative option is better than Harper.

The worst outcome is for Harper to win and stay on. He needs to go so we can have the conservative party be one that isn't solely focused on maintaining power.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by nik-

Like he's trying a little too hard to please everyone and doesn't really have a clear policy map.

That's all North American politics is these days anyway. Actual policy doesn't matter.

Just make empty promises to win votes, it doesn't matter how impossible or inconsistent they are. Please everyone just enough.

Then, once you are elected you can do whatever the #### you actually wanted to anyway and no one can do anything about it for roughly 4 years.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Polling aggregator and analysis site ThreeHundredEight called the recent Quebec election almost perfectly.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/search/label/Quebec

Polling Prediction - Election Result
Liberals: 40.1% - 41.5%
PQ: 26.9% - 25.4%
CAQ: 24.4% - 23.1%
Quebec Solidaire: 7.9% - 7.6%

Yes. But I'd suggest the results were a tiny bit different than polls suggested, even a few weeks out.
No?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes. But I'd suggest the results were a tiny bit different than polls suggested, even a few weeks out.
No?

So?
Then one of their superstar candidates started discussing a referendum and separation.

There is no way an early poll can account for that, or candidates offering racist views (WR in Alberta) or a leader announcing he is going to cut 100K jobs (PC in Ontario). Polls may be valid when they were taken but then something happens.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes. But I'd suggest the results were a tiny bit different than polls suggested, even a few weeks out.
No?

Nope. See the poll MarchHare provides is the final, pre-election poll. In BC the final pre-election poll had NDP at 45% and Liberals at 37% (Liberals won the election). In Alberta the final batch of polls had the Wildrose ahead of the PCs around 40% to 32% (the PCs won). So those polls were outliers because they weren't even close to the actual result. In Quebec it was dead on.

[Enoch Root]

My concern with Trudeau is that we really have no idea what we might be getting. He has no track record to assess, no background where we can actually see his actions as opposed to sound bites.

My impression of him is that he will be like his father - far too left-leaning.

For those that laud the Chretien/Martin liberals, they did what smart governments do, they campaigned from the left and governed from the right. Fiscally, it was like having a good conservative government in power.

The same can not be said about the Trudeau years. He was a socialist who pretended to be a liberal in order to get into power. His left wing fiscal policy was devastating to this country, and it was his mess that the Chretien liberals get so much credit for cleaning up.

The conservatives have not been great, but anyone that thinks a Trudeau-led liberal government would be anything like the Chretien/Martin era is going to be bitterly disappointed, IMO.

I don't see Mulcair gaining any traction at all - he was simply in the right place at the right time to take advantage of some momentum and sympathy created by and for Layton. But now, with a bit of time having passed, he will have to carry the load himself and I don't think he has it in him to make much progress.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

My concern with Trudeau is that we really have no idea what we might be getting. He has no track record to assess, no background where we can actually see his actions as opposed to sound bites.

My impression of him is that he will be like his father - far too left-leaning.

For those that laud the Cretien/Martin liberals, they did what smart governments do, they campaigned from the left and governed from the right. Fiscally, it was like having a good conservative government in power.

The same can not be said about the Trudeau years. He was a socialist who pretended to be a liberal in order to get into power. His left wing fiscal policy was devastating to this country, and it was his mess that the Cretien liberals get so much credit for cleaning up.

The conservatives have not been great, but anyone that thinks a Trudeau-led liberal government would be anything like the Cretien/Martin era is going to be bitterly disappointed, IMO.

I don't see Mulcair gaining any traction at all - he was simply in the right place at the right time to take advantage of some momentum and sympathy created by and for Layton. But now, with a bit of time having passed, he will have to carry the load himself and I don't think he has it in him to make much progress.

I don't know. Justin Trudeau, whenever I hear him speak or read his speeches, strikes me very much in the mold of post-partisan pragmatist, not an ideologue. The only position that irks me of his, is the rather un-nuanced take on Northern Gateway.

You're right on Mulcair.

[Bunk]

I think self-described "fiscal conservatives" of the past 30 yrs can best be summed up by the idiom "penny wise, pound foolish".

No party or ideology has a monopoly on actual sound fiscal management, but history tells us that "liberals" are usually better at it, while "conservatives" are better at claiming they are better at it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

My concern with Trudeau is that we really have no idea what we might be getting. He has no track record to assess, no background where we can actually see his actions as opposed to sound bites.

My impression of him is that he will be like his father - far too left-leaning.

For those that laud the Cretien/Martin liberals, they did what smart governments do, they campaigned from the left and governed from the right. Fiscally, it was like having a good conservative government in power.

The same can not be said about the Trudeau years. He was a socialist who pretended to be a liberal in order to get into power. His left wing fiscal policy was devastating to this country, and it was his mess that the Cretien liberals get so much credit for cleaning up.

The conservatives have not been great, but anyone that thinks a Trudeau-led liberal government would be anything like the Cretien/Martin era is going to be bitterly disappointed, IMO.

I don't see Mulcair gaining any traction at all - he was simply in the right place at the right time to take advantage of some momentum and sympathy created by and for Layton. But now, with a bit of time having passed, he will have to carry the load himself and I don't think he has it in him to make much progress.

I think there is a big difference between the two that would mitigate this.

Trudeau the Elder had power.

Trudeau the Younger has only his name.

The question is less what Justin's views are, and more about what his handler's views are. I'm no Liberal supporter (duh), but I really don't see Justin as a threat to return his party to his fathers socialist-leaning, autocratic ways

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think there is a big difference between the two that would mitigate this.

Trudeau the Elder had power.

Trudeau the Younger has only his name.

The question is less what Justin's views are, and more about what his handler's views are. I'm no Liberal supporter (duh), but I really don't see Justin as a threat to return his party to his fathers socialist-leaning, autocratic ways

We shall see.

While I agree that what is say is currently the case, if he can lead the liberals back to power, his own influence on the party will grow substantially.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think self-described "fiscal conservatives" of the past 30 yrs can best be summed up by the idiom "penny wise, pound foolish".

No party or ideology has a monopoly on actual sound fiscal management, but history tells us that "liberals" are usually better at it, while "conservatives" are better at claiming they are better at it.

Care to back up that statement a bit?

I find "liberals" are most likely to misrepresent "fiscal conservatism" as having a balanced budget when true "fiscal conservatism" includes the reduction of government spending, lowering of taxation and avoidance of deficit spending.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think self-described "fiscal conservatives" of the past 30 yrs can best be summed up by the idiom "penny wise, pound foolish".

No party or ideology has a monopoly on actual sound fiscal management, but history tells us that "liberals" are usually better at it, while "conservatives" are better at claiming they are better at it.

The only real modern example of this is the Chretien/Martin Liberals, the Trudeau government was the exact opposite of fiscally responsible. Mulroney could have done MUCH better but at least he put us back on track to a viable economic strategy, by the time he left they were running an operational surplus, the high interest rates on the debt were still killing us. When Chretien was voted in he pretty much broke all his promises to kill the GST and Free Trade and gutted transfers to the provinces to get the books back in the black. I always find it amazing that people who consider themselves to be "progressive" idolize Chretien when he governed fiscally from what would be considered today the far right. He slashed funding to social programs, including health care, that crippled the provinces. I actually liked their fiscal policies for the most part, a lot of them were left over from Mulroney. It was their contempt for the West, the blatant corruption, the abuse of power and their theft of tax dollars that I didn't like.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

My biggest problem with Trudeau is that he was dubbed the heir apparent to the Liberal party before he even entered politics. I know that isn't even his doing, but it has left me jaded.

That's the main issue. I simply can't buy into voting for a guy that did not get his leadership on merit. Sure he's the GQ face of the Liberal party but who really is Justin Trudeau? Honestly if he was born of Joe Blow does anyone believe he would be a politician anywhere let alone the leader of this country? Even the staunchest liberal supporter has to realize he's not where he's at because he's a great politician.

He's put his foot in his mouth so many times I feel that he's more the bumbling George W. Bush than George H. W. Bush who himself was only an average president at best. I simply don't know who exactly I would be voting for if I was to vote Liberal. Who's really pulling the strings behind the puppet?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I always find it amazing that people who consider themselves to be "progressive" idolize Chretien when he governed fiscally from what would be considered today the far right.

Please remove your head from the Sun News Media echo chamber and read what "progressive" means.

Hint: It has very little to do with fiscal policy, and has no inherent conflict with slashing budgets or decommissioning programs.

Also, assuming that everyones politics fall along a linear political spectrum "HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT FAR RIGHT FISCAL MEASURES BUT STILL LIKE THE LIBERALSS???" is pretty stupid.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The only real modern example of this is the Chretien/Martin Liberals, the Trudeau government was the exact opposite of fiscally responsible. Mulroney could have done MUCH better but at least he put us back on track to a viable economic strategy, by the time he left they were running an operational surplus, the high interest rates on the debt were still killing us. When Chretien was voted in he pretty much broke all his promises to kill the GST and Free Trade and gutted transfers to the provinces to get the books back in the black. I always find it amazing that people who consider themselves to be "progressive" idolize Chretien when he governed fiscally from what would be considered today the far right. He slashed funding to social programs, including health care, that crippled the provinces. I actually liked their fiscal policies for the most part, a lot of them were left over from Mulroney. It was their contempt for the West, the blatant corruption, the abuse of power and their theft of tax dollars that I didn't like.

For Chretien, keeping the GST and maintaining free trade, although broken election promises, were the right decisions financially for Canada. Harper on the other hand, cutting GST, while keeping an election promise, was really stupid, and kept us in deficit far longer than we needed to be out of the recession and did little if nothing to help the economy recover.

You can also look to the US for evidence - exhibit A Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush.

[nik-]

Tax reductions should never be on consumption taxes first in my opinion.

[afc wimbledon]

I could see an NDP liberal merger coming out of a strong liberal showing, if it appears obvious the NDP have had their day in the sun and will inexorably slip back into third they may have the good sense to use there strong currant position to create an equal partnership.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Please remove your head from the Sun News Media echo chamber and read what "progressive" means.

Hint: It has very little to do with fiscal policy, and has no inherent conflict with slashing budgets or decommissioning programs.

Also, assuming that everyones politics fall along a linear political spectrum "HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT FAR RIGHT FISCAL MEASURES BUT STILL LIKE THE LIBERALSS???" is pretty stupid.

Yes.

Chretien cut well over 20,000 from the federal bureaucracy. While seemingly quite harsh, it was what was probably needed at the time in an overly bloated federal government, which delivers few actual front line services compared to provincial or municipal governments.

In his first few years, during the same era, Bill Clinton as President had cut well over 100,000 federal positions in order to reduce the massive deficit.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Please remove your head from the Sun News Media echo chamber and read what "progressive" means.

Please shove your condescending attitude where it doesn't shine, not everyone to the right of your opinion is a Sun News subscriber.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Please shove your condescending attitude where it doesn't shine, not everyone to the right of your opinion is a Sun News subscriber.

It's hilarious that you keep framing everything on a linear spectrum.

Also, the Sun is one of a small handful of places (besides out-to-lunch Facebook groups) where I've seen the word "progressive" spat out like a four-letter word.