CP Federal Election Poll #3

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

So it looks like many people have flocked to the Liberals since the last poll a couple of weeks ago. It does spark my curiosity as to why so many people have done this. Because he delivers nice speeches? Because of strategic voting against Harper? Sigh, this is why democracy is flawed.

Because his values seem to match my own?
Because his speeches inspire me more than the Prime Minister's this time around?
Because I agree with a lot of the policies?

I think the Prime Minister has done a pretty good job over the past 10 years but I think the ideas are getting stale. And even though I agree with a lot of what the CPC has accomplished, the direction the ultra-partisans are taking the party (of which I am a member) is angering me.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Because his values seem to match my own?
Because his speeches inspire me more than the Prime Minister's this time around?
Because I agree with a lot of the policies?

I think the Prime Minister has done a pretty good job over the past 10 years but I think the ideas are getting stale. And even though I agree with a lot of what the CPC has accomplished, the direction the ultra-partisans are taking the party (of which I am a member) is angering me.

I could not agree more with your second paragraph, though I held my nose and voted for them because I liked the candidate in my riding a lot of more than the Liberal or NDP candidate. I also have accepted the Conservatives will likely lose. I think Harper running was a huge mistake and likely will cost them the election. The one thing I like more about American politics is the limit one person can rule for. I wish Canada had something like that. Although I voted CPC, Harper does need to go.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I could not agree more with your second paragraph, though I held my nose and voted for them because I liked the candidate in my riding a lot of more than the Liberal or NDP candidate. I also have accepted the Conservatives will likely lose. I think Harper running was a huge mistake and likely will cost them the election. The one thing I like more about American politics is the limit one person can rule for. I wish Canada had something like that. Although I voted CPC, Harper does need to go.

I don't know much about the Conservatives but as an outsider looking in, Harper has been holding that party together by keeping the wingnuts in line. Now with his power, Harper's real agenda started to come out and it isn't in line with what Canada wants. Once Harper is gone I could see the CPC unravelling.

[Ducay]

I think the best case for any party is a minority government. Compromise and moderation of ideas is always a good thing. I just hope the parties don't get petty and defeat the governing party "just because". The system exists for minority governments to rule for a reason, and they can work really well if you don't make it into a partisan showdown all the time (see: USA)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I think the best case for any party is a minority government. Compromise and moderation of ideas is always a good thing. I just hope the parties don't get petty and defeat the governing party "just because". The system exists for minority governments to rule for a reason, and they can work really well if you don't make it into a partisan showdown all the time (see: USA)

Its unlikely though because you will have leadership races in probably 2/3 major parties. That means at least a year or two before those parties are really wanting to go back and face voters. Combine that with the fact that if any party wanted to go back for a quick turnaround and have an election this spring they would likely get hammered by voters for not even making an attempt to get along and get to work.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its unlikely though because you will have leadership races in probably 2/3 major parties. That means at least a year or two before those parties are really wanting to go back and face voters. Combine that with the fact that if any party wanted to go back for a quick turnaround and have an election this spring they would likely get hammered by voters for not even making an attempt to get along and get to work.

It depends on how fundamentally tied to something the ruling party in a minority is. If its something that the other two parties have campaigned against, then they can't support it without pushing for major change or compromise.

For example if the Libs win and run their deficit spending agenda as part of the budget, I can't see it getting through a second budget let alone the first budget unless the Libs make major changes to the promises that they made on the campaign trail.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Drak

That ship has sunk.

The NDP sunk themselves. There were obviously a decent amount of people willing to support their ideas, but the way they were looking to implement them just made no sense. The LPC support shows that people are willing to take on some debt for some priority restructuring, but for some reason the NDP wouldn't go that route (or say they wouldn't) which is completely ludicrous.

They didn't need to say they were going to balance the budget, everyone assumed that having them would mean more debt before the election even started and plenty seemed ready to support it. But when you make the promises they did there are only a few options: A) They are straight up lying about their budget mandate to try and pull debt-averse people from the LPC, only to inevitably go down that road; B) They legitimately think they can make good on the social policies while maintaining a balanced budget, which is just not feasible right away.

With policies like they were looking to implement, you have to hope (or even better, actually calculate some projections) that things like high corporate tax, higher tax on the wealthy, MJ legalization (which they were initially against and now likely only for to try again to pull some support from the LPC), etc.. will EVENTUALLY pay down the debt you take on initially. No way that happens in year one unless you either break your social promises or break your fiscal promises.

To me, it screams "We just want power, regardless of what we have to say", almost an antithesis of the CPC. Same tactics, different messages. Ignoring math vs ignoring science. If the NDP really wanted the ability to direct some change, they would have stayed true to their ideologies and aligned themselves closer with the LPC to look at taking down the CPC. Because NONE of what they want to do will go through with a CPC-lead government, but they and the LPC share a lot of similar ideas.

As someone who was ready to vote NDP, the way they've gone about this has been terrible. I'm glad the LPC has taken a reasonable and honest approach to the budget issue.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Because it doesn't fit his viewpoint ergo everyone else must be wrong

Oh ok, so you're going to basically accuse me of saying something that I never actually said nor insinuated, and then a bunch of people thumb up your post. Nice going guys...

IMO democracy is flawed because people people tend to vote against someone they hate rather than for someone they truly support. This results in an endless spiral of choosing the lesser of two evils. Just look at US politics. No parties outside the main two ever stand a fighting chance, and it's largely because most people simply vote against the party they hate the most. Adding to the problem is that parties outside of the main two simply don't have the resources to promote themselves get known by the electorate.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Oh ok, so you're going to basically accuse me of saying something that I never actually said nor insinuated, and then a bunch of people thumb up your post. Nice going guys...

IMO democracy is flawed because people people tend to vote against someone they hate rather than for someone they truly support. This results in an endless spiral of choosing the lesser of two evils. Just look at US politics. No parties outside the main two ever stand a fighting chance, and it's largely because most people simply vote against the party they hate the most. Adding to the problem is that parties outside of the main two simply don't have the resources to promote themselves get known by the electorate.

Well you seemed to presume the only reason some would vote LPC is because they are blinded by the flow of Trudeau's locks, or that they don't like LPC, just hate CPC. These are the case for some, I'm sure. Some people may actually like the LPC's policies, crazy I know. Some people may have been on the fence but have been pulled to the LPC due to the CPC's transgressions, yeah, that's OK too.

So yea, when you frame it like that, it looks like you're justifying the change in government only based on people hate for CPCs vs the other parties having policies people actually agree with, which is not true, and frankly insulting to those voting anyone other than CPC.

Not to mention, if you are truly disgusted by the way someone behaves to the point that you find it prudent to remove them without being in love with the other parties, they have obviously still looked each option and decided that "anyone but CPC" was their best choice. It doesn't make it wrong or against democracy. That's exactly what democracy gives us the freedom to do, choose what we want (or don't want).

If you have a problem with the way each party is being run, you;re welcome to try and change things yourself. Democracy!

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Well you seemed to presume the only reason some would vote LPC is because they are blinded by the flow of Trudeau's locks, or that they don't like LPC, just hate CPC. These are the case for some, I'm sure. Some people may actually like the LPC's policies, crazy I know. Some people may have been on the fence but have been pulled to the LPC due to the CPC's transgressions, yeah, that's OK too.

So yea, when you frame it like that, it looks like you're justifying the change in government only based on people hate for CPCs vs the other parties having policies people actually agree with, which is not true, and frankly insulting to those voting anyone other than CPC.

Not to mention, if you are truly disgusted by the way someone behaves to the point that you find it prudent to remove them without being in love with the other parties, they have obviously still looked each option and decided that "anyone but CPC" was their best choice. It doesn't make it wrong or against democracy. That's exactly what democracy gives us the freedom to do, choose what we want (or don't want).

If you have a problem with the way each party is being run, you;re welcome to try and change things yourself. Democracy!

You make a number of good points. However, I'm mostly trying to draw attention to the fact that many people do in fact abandon voting for the party that most closely matches their stances on issues in favor of a "lesser of evils" choice that is more likely to defeat the "worse of evils" choice. This in turn leads to an undermining of the purported function of representative democracy, which is supposed to be that representatives in office are a true & accurate representation of the wishes of the populace.

This has a damaging effect on parties that are smaller and not well known, who may actually be better than any of the well-known choices, but can't win because the populace hasn't heard of them and/or don't know much about them.

Many may vote for Trudeau based on the fact that they legitimately like what he and other Liberal candidates have had to say during the campaign, but never forget that there is a huge difference between politicians saying what they will do when they get into office and actually doing those things when they get into office.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Lol @ ndp

Wait until they have been in power in Alberta for 24 months. Everyone will want them gone. In Manitoba, the Federal NDP is polling at 2%, due to the unpopular NDP Government.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You make a number of good points. However, I'm mostly trying to draw attention to the fact that many people do in fact abandon voting for the party that most closely matches their stances on issues in favor of a "lesser of evils" choice that is more likely to defeat the "worse of evils" choice. This in turn leads to an undermining of the purported function of representative democracy, which is supposed to be that representatives in office are a true & accurate representation of the wishes of the populace.

This has a damaging effect on parties that are smaller and not well known, who may actually be better than any of the well-known choices, but can't win because the populace hasn't heard of them and/or don't know much about them.

Many may vote for Trudeau based on the fact that they legitimately like what he and other Liberal candidates have had to say during the campaign, but never forget that there is a huge difference between politicians saying what they will do when they get into office and actually doing those things when they get into office.

I don't disagree with the majority of this.

But your last sentence is hilarious considering the original comment you made that set this off. If you think that, you must assume that all politicians are lying about their campaign policies and, ironically, THAT is when democracy fails. You can't just assign that assumption to the party most closely opposing your party without applying it to everyone. If you go in with the assumption that their not going to do what they say then there's no point to any of this. You have to assume they will at least try to do what they say to the best of their ability, otherwise you might as well abstain. Or start your own party that will some how make good on every single promise they make.

Seriously, has that ever happened once? There's an opposition for a reason.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't disagree with the majority of this.

But your last sentence is hilarious considering the original comment you made that set this off. If you think that, you must assume that all politicians are lying about their campaign policies and, ironically, THAT is when democracy fails. You can't just assign that assumption to the party most closely opposing your party without applying it to everyone. If you go in with the assumption that their not going to do what they say then there's no point to any of this. You have to assume they will at least try to do what they say to the best of their ability, otherwise you might as well abstain. Or start your own party that will some how make good on every single promise they make.

Seriously, has that ever happened once? There's an opposition for a reason.

I think the difference is that both the Liberal party and Conservative party have a well-documented history of corruption while in power, whereas the other parties haven't been in power yet. IMO the others deserve a shot to show that they can govern in an ethical manner (or at least deserve a fighting chance of winning an election, from a campaign funding standpoint).

[GirlySports]

NDP might have deserved to be in power this time around.

Until they, the official opposition, decided to balance the goverments budget.

[MarchHare]

Does anyone recall if we ran a poll similar to this in the 2011 election? I'm very curious to see how the results compare.

[Matata]

Green, the only important thing in this election to me is a cleanout of the conservative party, since the liberals look like a shoe in, I'll be voting green because I like their party and want to help them grow.

[FLAMESRULE]

I still am having trouble believing this poll. CalPuck demographic is likely heavily weighted to male, middle class, western Canadian/Albertans with a large number of people tied to oil and gas. Yet it is nearly 60% Liberal. I'm guessing the demographic is likely fairly young, say 20-40yo.

[rubecube]

Some good stuff from Nanos here:

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library...0TrackingE.pdf

Hope all is well. To follow are the results of the last round of tracking that we have conducted
on behalf of CTV News and The Globe and Mail. Some key observations from a research
standpoint on this election.
1. This was an election about change – The level of totally undecided opinion in the Nanos
tracking was lower than usual throughout the campaign, but the proportion of Liberal-NDP
switchers was exceptionally high. This suggests that many Canadians had decided they were
not voting for the Conservatives but were open to voting for either the Liberals or the NDP.

6. Conservative ad campaign a bust – The longer campaign allowed Trudeau’s daily
performance to invalidate the Conservative attack ads. Also of note, the research suggested
that the Conservatives were strong on fiscal issues, such as controlling government spending
but not on their plan for the economy. The Liberals significantly improved on this measure
throughout the campaign. One Conservative ad campaign pillar (“He’s just not ready”) was
invalidated, while the other pillar (economic security) did not resonate.
7. Tom Mulcair and the New Democrats – Beneath the numbers for top ballot and preferred
Prime Minister, the research suggests that Tom Mulcair’s personal brand remains strong
(qualities of a good political leader question) and the proportion of Canadians that would
consider voting NDP is still significant. The NDP in this election was squeezed in a change
movement manifested through the Liberals and Justin Trudeau.