New Poll: Conservatives on cusp of majority

[ernie]

The poll is here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...lDecision2006/

Of note....

- poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday with a larger number of Quebecers in order to get a handle on the situation

- Debates failed to change anyones minds (bad news for martin). Harper the winner with 35 %, 14 % say martin won, 8 % Layton.

- attack ads have failed to bite into the Tory lead though support has leveled off a bit (though I think anyone who thought it would continue to grow in leaps in bounds would have been on crack).

- support in Quebec for Tories has stabilized at 23 % (48 % Bloc, 18 % Liberals, 8 % NDP).

- Rise in Quebec Tory support most likely to defeat Bloc MPs than liberals

- Montreal: Liberals had 44% of vote last time out they are down to 24 %. Bloc has moved up to 48% and Tories trail at 16 %. Looks like the Liberals are going to lose seats to the Bloc and Bloc lose seats to the Conservatives.

-nationally liberals dropped one point to 27 %, tories remain at 39 %, NDP remain at 16 %, Bloc unchanged at 12 %, green up one point to 5%

-40% of liberals say Harper will be prime minister

- 56 % have favourable impression of Harper (63 % in Quebec. Martin impression has dropped to 38 % (23 % in Quebec)

- Tories have lead in Ontario at 39 %, 35 % Liberals, 19 % NDP, 7% Green.

- projected seat breakdown: 152 Tories (57 in Ontario, 8 Quebec...I think columns don't line up right in the online version), 74 Liberals (39 ontario, 7 Quebec), 60 Bloc, 21 NDP, 1 Indpendent

- as it stands Harper is making the inroads in ontario and Quebec that he needs to.

- in other news....Harper and Ricky from trailer park boys are distant cousins. They share a great-great-great-great-grandfather

[Bertuzzied]

Thats like saying the 'S' Word in hockey.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Thats like saying the 'S' Word in hockey.

I have to agree. I think a large part of the recent surge in support for the Conservatives is because Canadians have had enough of the Liberals and think they need some time in the penalty box (aka the opposition), but they're not comfortable the thought of a Conservative majority. If it looks like the CPC could form a majority, I think many swing voters in Ontario and Atlantic Canada and federalist voters in Quebec will return to the Liberal fold on election day, just like the last election.

[Bertuzzied]

I still can't forsee Canada voting in a Reform party prime minister. The Conservatives should have had a cake walk in this election if Harper wasn't in charge.

The Flames better lock in their US$ futures. If Harper wins it's going to be ugly.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I have to agree. I think a large part of the recent surge in support for the Conservatives is because Canadians have had enough of the Liberals and think they need some time in the penalty box (aka the opposition), but they're not comfortable the thought of a Conservative majority. If it looks like the CPC could form a majority, I think many swing voters in Ontario and Atlantic Canada and federalist voters in Quebec will return to the Liberal fold on election day, just like the last election.

[Resolute 14]

I still have no idea why Harper as Prime Minister is any worse than Martin or Chretien were.

Oh yeah... hidden agenda. Forgot about that.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I have to agree. I think a large part of the recent surge in support for the Conservatives is because Canadians have had enough of the Liberals and think they need some time in the penalty box (aka the opposition), but they're not comfortable the thought of a Conservative majority. If it looks like the CPC could form a majority, I think many swing voters in Ontario and Atlantic Canada and federalist voters in Quebec will return to the Liberal fold on election day, just like the last election.

There's a major difference this time round though and that is that over half of the people polled have a favourable impression of Harper...56 % (only 38% for martin). That was certainly not the case last time around and it means that not only Conservative voters are warming up to him and like how he has handled himself. As well this poll was conducted after people knew the Tories had surged ahead and yet they haven't dropped. It makes it less likely that the last minute fear campaign will work this time. Also keep in mind that the last election had been called solely to catch the Tories off guard and they didn't have the time to craft the party policy/platform at a convention. This time they have. With a platform fully out there and the party policies fully out there it weakens the "hidden agenda" strategy.

As well many of the seats in Ontario and the Maritimes were close contests. It wouldn't take much of a swing in popular vote in those ridings to have avery different outcome. There is little doubt that in pretty much every riding in canada the liberal support has dropped while conservative and/or NDP fortunes have improved.

Maritimers have a history of voting both Tory and liberal and some NDP mixed in...simply convincing the public that they are center right and that harper isn't scary may be all that is necessary. Thus far they have certainly done that. And don't forget about martin trying to backpeddle out of the offshore revenues, a promise he made simply because when the Tories made that promise, the liberal support fell in the region last election. The attempted back peddle has not been forgotten.

I should have linked this article as well:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...alDecision2006

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I for one wouldn't be shocked by a slim Conservative majority. As much as Harper is a bit of a strange duck, he's clearly not insane or incompetent or totally lacking in charisma, like many of Conservative/Reform's prior leaders. I'm a lifelong Liberal--but one of the things I like about Canada's electoral culture is that if you screw up, the electorate doesn't just lie down and take it. I think it'll be good for the Liberals to get a taste of opposition for a while, and maybe overhaul their leadership some in the interim.

I've been living in the US for a while--and one of the maddening things here is that people in certain regions ALWAYS vote for certain parties. Elected officials are really not held accountable here at all. At least in Canada, voters are willing to say "enough is enough."

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I for one wouldn't be shocked by a slim Conservative majority. As much as Harper is a bit of a strange duck, he's clearly not insane or incompetent or totally lacking in charisma, like many of Conservative/Reform's prior leaders. I'm a lifelong Liberal--but one of the things I like about Canada's electoral culture is that if you screw up, the electorate doesn't just lie down and take it. I think it'll be good for the Liberals to get a taste of opposition for a while, and maybe overhaul their leadership some in the interim.

I've been living in the US for a while--and one of the maddening things here is that people in certain regions ALWAYS vote for certain parties. Elected officials are really not held accountable here at all. At least in Canada, voters are willing to say "enough is enough."

I think that is just the same for Canada. People in certain regions will always vote for the same party - and that's true for the most part. It takes ridiculously shocking political errors for one party to be defeated in their traditional areas.

Frustration with Mulroney and Campbell's NAFTA, GST, Meech Lake, Charlottetown, deficit, etc. destroyed the Conservative Party down to 2 seats.

It's taken 13 years and two parties merging along with billions of wasted dollars and scandal after corruption scandal to even cause the public support of the Liberals to waver even slightly to rebuild the Conservative party as the "other" option.

[disco_inferno]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

I still have no idea why Harper as Prime Minister is any worse than Martin or Chretien were.

Oh yeah... hidden agenda. Forgot about that.

Maybe this time the hidden agenda won't go to rich Quebecious who own golf courses though. Or maybe, our PM who used to be the minister of finance will know what happens to all the money??But really, they are all crooks, and none of the leaders really know alot of anything, but I really can't stand the Liberals, or the NDP. One's the "vote for me if you have money and live in Ontario and Quebec" and the other is "Vote for me if your old".

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by disco_inferno

One's the "vote for me if you have money and live in Ontario and Quebec" and the other is "Vote for me if your old".

Curious, what's the quote for the CPC? "vote for me if you hate Ontario or Quebec"?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I think that is just the same for Canada. People in certain regions will always vote for the same party - and that's true for the most part. It takes ridiculously shocking political errors for one party to be defeated in their traditional areas.

You make a good point--and maybe the difference is that the system isn't designed to keep the same people in power no matter what. In the US, congressional districts are drawn up by the Congress, without oversight by any other body unless there's a legal challenge. As a result, you have bizarre, gerrymandered districts that basically preserve the same congress over and over again.

I realize that it's the same to some extent in Canada--but I would say that liberal support has eroded considerably, not just a little bit--and this liberal government isn't half as corrupt, power-hungry, secretive and dishonest as Bush's administration here--and he won re-election pretty easily, given what a terrible president he is. Not to mention the fact that of the over 300 congressional seats, something like 20 are considered "in play" with the rest automatically sending in their representative for life. There is NO political accountability in the US--and what little there is in Canada is preferable to me.

I mean--imagine if the Liberals had lied to us and distorted intelligence in order to get us into a costly foreign war.... what would the political repercussions be? I'm guessing they'd be pretty dire. For the Republicans, the political consequences have been non-existent.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

and this liberal government isn't half as corrupt, power-hungry, secretive and dishonest as Bush's administration here--

I'll take that bet. You may dislike Bush's reign but please keep the Michael Moore BS to yourself.

Corrupt, power(at all cost)-hungry, secretive, and dishonest are the 4 commandments of the Liberal party of Canada.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You make a good point--and maybe the difference is that the system isn't designed to keep the same people in power no matter what. In the US, congressional districts are drawn up by the Congress, without oversight by any other body unless there's a legal challenge. As a result, you have bizarre, gerrymandered districts that basically preserve the same congress over and over again.

I realize that it's the same to some extent in Canada--but I would say that liberal support has eroded considerably, not just a little bit--and this liberal government isn't half as corrupt, power-hungry, secretive and dishonest as Bush's administration here--and he won re-election pretty easily, given what a terrible president he is. Not to mention the fact that of the over 300 congressional seats, something like 20 are considered "in play" with the rest automatically sending in their representative for life. There is NO political accountability in the US--and what little there is in Canada is preferable to me.

I mean--imagine if the Liberals had lied to us and distorted intelligence in order to get us into a costly foreign war.... what would the political repercussions be? I'm guessing they'd be pretty dire. For the Republicans, the political consequences have been non-existent.

Interesting, but because of the congress and the senate and how active the American media is, the is far far more accountibility and oversight in the U.S. political system then the Canadian political system.

There's also a huge difference between the intelligence errors and manipulation scandal in the U.S. and the adscam corruption laden Liberal party in Canada.

[MarchHare]

There's also a huge difference between the intelligence errors and manipulation scandal in the U.S. and the adscam corruption laden Liberal party in Canada.

Indeed. One cost the taxpayers a few million, and the other cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions and over 2000 military lives.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Indeed. One cost the taxpayers a few million, and the other cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions and over 2000 military lives.

Now THAT is a Liberal spin if I have ever heard one.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Indeed. One cost the taxpayers a few million, and the other cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions and over 2000 military lives.

So when the right wing power base in the states drops the ball and is called into question it's Michael Moore BS or spin. But when the same things happen for the Liberals, i.e. charges are levelled and people held accountable it's corruption? oooook
Only differnce I see is that with the republicans in the states nothing changes, here there are judgements and people are sentenced and or expelled.
Edit: adding to March's points not challenging them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There's also a huge difference between the intelligence errors and manipulation scandal in the U.S. and the adscam corruption laden Liberal party in Canada.

Good lord. You aren't trying to tell us that these two scams are comparable, are you?

It's like comparing the King-Byng Affair to the Viet Nam war.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Now THAT is a Liberal spin if I have ever heard one.

Please tell me how exactly it was spin. The sponsorship program was a bloated mess, no doubt, but its total budget was about $355 million over a ten-year period. You can argue that 100% of that was a waste of taxpayers money, but the amount that was actually criminally defrauded is a small fraction of that figure. Go look up the numbers yourself.

Trying to paint the cost of Adscam as worse than the cost of the Iraq war is Conserverative spin at its highest. The two -- while both bad for taxpayers -- are absolutely beyond comparison. The manipulation of intelligence in order to garner support for the invasion of Iraq is several orders of magnitude worse than Adscam.

[Lurch]

Interesting, but because of the congress and the senate and how active the American media is, the is far far more accountibility and oversight in the U.S. political system then the Canadian political system.

There's also a huge difference between the intelligence errors and manipulation scandal in the U.S. and the adscam corruption laden Liberal party in Canada.

We'll see just how much accountability there is in the US this year with the Abramhoff scandal, DeLay, et al amongst the Republicans. These scandals are basicaly identical to the AdScam, except it's a right wing scandal.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Lurch

We'll see just how much accountability there is in the US this year with the Abramhoff scandal, DeLay, et al amongst the Republicans. These scandals are basicaly identical to the AdScam, except it's a right wing scandal.

It's time for the Senate and House to go Democrat.

As has been noted before, virtually all second term Presidencies and most multi-term elected Canadian governments for the last thirty or forty years have descended into scandal and/or corruption in their latter years . . . . . and no one should wonder why people have a low opinion of politicians as a result.

Cowperson