Friday, October 02, 2009

Poll Soup Update

There are four new polls out this week, showing a surprising amount of consistency between them - so it's probably worth updating the rolling average:


Angus Reid (September 29-30, n = 1000 online)
CPC 37%
Lib 27%
NDP 17%
BQ 11%
Green 6%


Ekos (September 23-29, n = 3216 auto dialed)

CPC 36.0%
Lib 29.7%
NDP 13.9%
BQ 9.8%
Green 10.5%


Ipsos Reid (September 22-24, n = 1001 phone)

CPC 37%
Lib 30%
NDP 14%
BQ 9%
Green 9%


Leger (September 22-25, n = 3602 phone)

CPC 36%
Lib 30%
NDP 17%
BQ 8%
Green 8%


OVERALL (change since early September in brackets)

CPC 36.5% (+1.8%)
Lib 29.2% (-2.2%)
NDP 15.5% (nc)
BQ 9.5% (-0.2%)
Green 8.4% (+0.3%)


Even though the overall vote numbers represent an increase in Liberal support from the last election, this has prompted a new round of majority speculation. Andrew Coyne rightly points out that the Tories are positioned for gains in Ontario - something that could propel them to their elusive majority.

But I don't think they're there yet.

Coyne references the 4-poll average Tory lead of 42% to 33% in Ontario. A quick seat projection has the Tories grabbing an extra 5 seats with that spread...and maybe another 4 or 5 if things break really nicely for them. Nice, but not enough.

Now, if you just use Angus' 14-point Ontario gap, the Tories hit 64 seats, a 13 seat gain. That's only a majority if they hold their seats elsewhere...definitely not a sure thing in Quebec. To get into the magical 70 seat range needed for the majority, they'd need the NDP vote to collapse in Northern Ontario too. Because so long as the NDP wins 15 seats across the province, there are enough Liberal safe seats in Toronto to prevent the Tories from running up the score too much.

This is all fun speculation and who knows - maybe in 5 months we'll be speculation about the road to a Liberal majority. The somewhat obvious messages from all this are that Ontario is important, the road to a majority is a long one, and the Liberals aren't in great shape in Ontario these days. And yes, I'm aware that most of those observations fall under the category of "painfully obvious".


ALSO...

There's a new Harris Decima out today that shows Canadians would rather not have an election until 2013. This begs an interesting question - what percentage of Canadians would rather hold off until 2015? Or 2020? Hell, how many would say "screw it, let's forget this unpleasant election business altogether"?

The poll also finds support for Jack Layton's position on supporting the government until EI legislation passes. Which makes a certain amount of sense. Even though he'll get pilloried for what's an obviously hypocritical stand by the media, bloggers, and anyone who follows politics closely, Jack's message doesn't sound all that unreasonable to a general public fed up with the brinkmanship and squabbling in Ottawa.

Labels:

36 Comments:

  • These numbers speak volumes about the misguided Liberal strategy and the lack of any real policy proposals. When you look at it, the CPC record for the last 2-3 months has been dreadful, so either the Canadian people are really stupid, or the Liberals are doing something wrong, or some combination of both.

    By Anonymous Luke, at 12:17 AM  

  • It only makes sense.

    Since us Liberals have so cleverly made the Canadian public aware of the advantages of having a Conservative MP!

    Those people in ridings that have Conservative MPs have even more reason to vote Conservative, and those people in ridings that have Liberal MPs have even more reason to vote Conservative.

    By Blogger MississaugaPeter, at 2:25 AM  

  • I really don't understand these numbers. Of all the people I know, none support the Cons--even former PC supporters.

    And I've spoken now with two NDP'ers who both stated that when they did phone polls, both favored the Cons in the hopes that the higher Con numbers would scare the Libs off an election. In a couple of those polls, where the Dippers dipped, the Cons ascended.

    Voters seem to be suffering from battered spouse syndrome, wherein Harper has treated us like crap for years and we're trying to appease him in hopes that he won't beat us anymore. Sad.

    Until Iggy gets out of the woods and starts hammering Harper with some hard adverts, we won't see our numbers rise.

    And lastly, until the media stops kissing Harper's ass and starts reporting in an unbiased manner, we won't go anywhere.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 9:36 AM  

  • In Canada, 2 in 5 voters supported the Conservatives.

    Assuming you know more than 2-3 people, the only way nobody you know supports the "Cons" (very clever!) is if you go out of your way to surround yourself only with like-minded people.

    And if you surround yourself only with like-minded people, it would be very easy to think:
    - Higher Conservative polling is actually NDP voters being tricky
    - Harper treats us "like crap" compared to what we're used to from federal government
    - The media is actually pro-Harper (it was hard not to giggle when I wrote this).

    I have no problem with the way you've chosen to live. But your assertions can only be shared by those who similarly surround themselves only with the same perspective, and therefore probably aren't terribly useful to the vast majority of Canadians who actually do have an appropriate proportion of Conservatives among the list of people they know.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 11:54 AM  

  • Sounds like the supporters of the Liebral Party of Toronto are in serious denial.Canadians are not stupid but that is not what Iffy and the L.P.o.T think and Canadians know it.Your party is hung up on an old fashioned political model with yesterdays men behind the scene.Iffy and Boob (Death) Rae are'nt the answer.Worn out lefties that still think immigrant manipultion (Dhalla) and divide and conquer still work.This is the end of a corrupt old party.Iffy gone by Christmas and who's going to lead? By the why the authoritarian crap does'nt work either.We are not children of the left that follow with blind allegiance to a nonleader.Also when is this big worldly brain of Iffy's going to kick in? We're still waiting or is it so specialized all he can do is screw up without a textbook in front of him?Bye Bye Iffy enjoy the good ole U.S of A. as you are not wanted here by a vast majority of real,full time,hard working, tax paying, nation building Canadians.

    By Anonymous Chuck, at 11:57 AM  

  • 'Harper has treated us like crap for years and we're trying to appease him in hopes that he won't beat us anymore. Sad.'

    Oh Paul, that is sad, so sad.
    Maybe Canadians will give PMSH a majority to stop the beatings, eh.

    Libs have to come out of the Enchanted Forest and get a grip on reality.
    Did Liberals produce 3 dud leaders in a row?
    Are Canadians really really stupid?

    By Blogger wilson, at 12:03 PM  

  • Blogger nbpolitico figured out the Conservatives were 4374 votes in 12ridings away from winning a majority last election.
    I think these poll numbers show the majority is possible. Pick up five in Ontario, Bill Casey's seat in Nova Scotia, take back a couple in Newfoundland where voters know they may get a cabinet minister, some other close seats in BC.

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 12:27 PM  

  • The Libs are certainly on the right track. If you can maintain support among people that Paul Raposo knows, you'll sweep the nation.

    By Anonymous Peter Jay, at 2:05 PM  

  • Wilson - are Canadians that stupid? You betcha there. You believe everything Harper tells you and troll like he wants you to and use PM talking points as instructed - now who's stupid?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:21 PM  

  • "I really don't understand these numbers. Of all the people I know, none support the Cons--even former PC supporters."

    Very good points, Mr. Vollman, though I guess I am a bit more charitable.

    I also know very few conservatives (or Republicans). Facebook has this thing that takes statistics of your friends. It classifies them as Democrats or Republicans according to some unknown formula. Mine were 96% Democrat (a number have also taken the political compass - all are on the socially liberal half, and most are in the fiscally left wing half).

    How is this possible? First I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Paul is young, possibly starting grad school, lives in Newfoundland, Toronto or Montreal, is an atheist/agnostic, and has lots of female friends. It also just might be possible that you met a lot of them at Young Liberal events.

    Of course I'm going to suggest another story. When people know that somebody is a really really partisan member of one political party, they may downplay their own support for the CPC. "Yeah, I'm a former PC party member - but Harper is just so right wing..."

    I mean if many of your friends were, say, atheist, well-educated female, and young Montrealers (lucky you), they would probably expect to be jumped on for not taking the party line. I have certainly had to do it to some degree myself. If I ever mention my conservative leanings, I am quick to add that I am pro-choice and think gay weddings are awesome. I think the increasing popularity of the libertarian label on college campuses may be a way for people to identify as conservative without being demonized by their peers.

    That is why it is a very bad idea to make inferences from people you know. Not only are they far from a representative sample, but they are also likely to present only their more acceptable side to you.

    By Blogger hosertohoosier, at 4:33 PM  

  • Ah, the elusive Paul Raposo's circle of friends demographic. If only the Conservatives could crack it, political domination would be theirs.

    By Blogger McLea, at 4:57 PM  

  • In Canada, 2 in 5 voters supported the Conservatives.

    And one of those two voters live in Alberta, Robert.

    Assuming you know more than 2-3 people,

    Oh! At least 5-7 people, Robert.

    the only way nobody you know supports the "Cons" (very clever!)

    Thank you. It was either that, or Servatives, which sounds silly.

    is if you go out of your way to surround yourself only with like-minded people.

    Admittedly, i don't spend much time hanging around Timmies--or Starbucks for that mater. However, I feel that I have a diverse group of friends. Even, as i mentioned, supporters of the PC party.

    And if you surround yourself only with like-minded people, it would be very easy to think:

    Really? So why do Cons have so much trouble thinking when surrounded by their yes men?

    - Higher Conservative polling is actually NDP voters being tricky

    As I wrote, two Dippers stated that they gave pro-Con answers in their phone polls.

    - Harper treats us "like crap" compared to what we're used to from federal government

    Respect? Dignity? Accountability?

    - The media is actually pro-Harper (it was hard not to giggle when I wrote this).

    Was it hard not to twist your curly mustache too?

    I have no problem with the way you've chosen to live.

    As if.

    But your assertions can only be shared by those who similarly surround themselves only with the same perspective,

    I appreciate that you rarely travel outside of your basement, Robert, but for those of us who actually venture outside when it's daylight, we do tend to run into people with different ideas.

    and therefore probably aren't terribly useful to the vast majority of Canadians who actually do have an appropriate proportion of Conservatives among the list of people they know.

    And how many liberals can you count as friends, Robert?

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 5:43 PM  

  • Sounds like the supporters of the Liebral Party of Toronto are in serious denial.

    If Robert was impressed with my calling the CPC the Cons, then he'll love your "Lieberal" nic-name. What? No comment from Robbie? odd that.

    Canadians are not stupid

    So why do the Cons continually treat us as such?

    but that is not what Iffy and the L.P.o.T think and Canadians know it.

    What do we think, then?

    Your party is hung up on an old fashioned political model with yesterdays men behind the scene.

    So, trashing your opponents education, work experience, world travel and circle of friends is the new style of politicking?

    Iffy and Boob (Death) Rae

    Are ya gettin' this, Rob?

    are'nt the answer.

    Depends on the question.

    Worn out lefties that still think immigrant manipultion (Dhalla)

    Did Jason Kenny get your memo yet?

    and divide and conquer still work.

    Alberta firewall anyone?

    This is the end of a corrupt old party.

    Thirty-four million dollars promoting the Con party style corruption?

    Iffy gone by Christmas and who's going to lead?

    I dunno Virgina, who?

    By the why the authoritarian crap does'nt work either.

    Huh?

    We are not children of the left that follow with blind allegiance to a nonleader.

    Just right-wingers who follow an empty suit.

    Also when is this big worldly brain of Iffy's going to kick in?

    When harper says something worth acknowledging.

    We're still waiting or is it so specialized all he can do is screw up without a textbook in front of him?

    To paraphrase Chris Rock, books are like kryptonite to right-wingers.

    Bye Bye Iffy enjoy the good ole U.S of A.

    Your America bashing is quite telling, especially now that a Dem is in power in the white House.

    as you are not wanted here by a vast majority of real,

    You mean Native Canadians?

    full time,

    Like Pamela Wallin?

    hard working,

    Like Dean Del Musto?

    tax paying,

    Like me?

    nation building

    The Chinese railroad builders?

    Canadians.

    Oh! You mean like the 70% of voters who didn't vote for harper.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 6:06 PM  

  • Maybe Canadians will give PMSH a majority to stop the beatings, eh.

    He's had three chances already. if he teats us like this with a minority, just imagine how he'll treat us with a majority.

    Libs have to come out of the Enchanted Forest and get a grip on reality.

    We need to get a grip on Harper's throat and give him the thrashing his daddy should have given him.

    Did Liberals produce 3 dud leaders in a row?

    Nope. And neither did they produce a three time minority leader either.

    Are Canadians really really stupid?

    Nope. That's why we've never given harper a majority.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 6:11 PM  

  • If you can maintain support among people that Paul Raposo knows, you'll sweep the nation.

    And if Harper can figure out a way to make one Alberta vote count as three, he'll get his coveted majority and actually get to keep his job.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 6:13 PM  

  • First I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Paul is young,

    No.

    possibly starting grad school,

    No.

    lives in Newfoundland, Toronto or Montreal,

    No.

    is an atheist/agnostic,

    No.

    and has lots of female friends.

    How many are "lots" and why would this be a bad thing?

    It also just might be possible that you met a lot of them at Young Liberal events.

    Never been to a YL event. You're batting 190.

    When people know that somebody is a really really partisan member of one political party, they may downplay their own support for the CPC. "Yeah, I'm a former PC party member - but Harper is just so right wing..."

    I've never seen evidence of that. In fact, quite the opposite--partisans are quite vocal in their partisanship.

    I mean if many of your friends were, say, atheist, well-educated female, and young Montrealers (lucky you), they would probably expect to be jumped on for not taking the party line.

    What evidence are you basing this on? It can't be your knowledge on me, since you don't know me, nor my friends. If you're basing this on your own experience, then how absurd is it that you would believe that would translate over to me and my experiences?

    I have certainly had to do it to some degree myself.

    Ah. So that makes it a universal truth?

    If I ever mention my conservative leanings, I am quick to add that I am pro-choice and think gay weddings are awesome.

    Why? Do you actually support "gay weddings"? Do you actually believe that women should govern their own bodies? Or are you just using these as a blanket progressive stance in hopes that you will--what?--fit in with your group? It's very easy to "support" certain ideals, it's another to fight for them on behalf of those who's group you are not a member of.

    I think the increasing popularity of the libertarian label on college campuses may be a way for people to identify as conservative without being demonized by their peers.

    So which is it--libertarian, or conservative? Those are two different political frames. Unless you're inferring that libertarian re really closet conservatives hiding behind a label to appear with it.

    That is why it is a very bad idea to make inferences from people you know.

    Oh! Such as telling readers of this blog:

    "I have certainly had to do it to some degree myself."

    I mean, you wouldn't want to compare the reactions of your friends to my post above. That would be a bad idea.

    Not only are they far from a representative sample, but they are also likely to present only their more acceptable side to you.

    Just because you're a closet conservative, doesn't mean that people living in the real world are also. We grown ups have a tendency to speak the truth when discussing certain aspects of what we believe.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 6:32 PM  

  • Ah, the elusive Paul Raposo's circle of friends demographic.

    Not so elusive--we're 70% of the country. We're everywhere. They must be able to see us from their Ivory Tower. Maybe if they got off their high horse.

    If only the Conservatives could crack it, political domination would be theirs.

    Yeah, I know right! I think the best way to do this would be to stop acting like douchebags. But then they would lose the all important d-bag vote. What a conundrum.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 6:38 PM  

  • I have no doubt that Mr. Raposo feels superior to us "ordinary" Canadians. His grasp on facts, though, leaves something to be desired.

    Let's look at the distribution of the Conservative vote in the last election: we were presented with the suggestion that half the Conservative vote came from Alberta.

    The fact is that 822,000 voters cast ballots for Conservative candidates in Alberta, of about 5.2 Million such ballots nationally. (See Table 8)

    There were nearly 785,000 such ballots in Quebec - only about 37,000 fewer than in Alberta. Maybe Mr. Raposo thinks that Canada only consists of Quebec and Alberta, in which case it would be true that half the Conservative vote came from Alberta, the other half coming from Quebec.

    More than 2 Million Ontario voters marked their ballot for a Conservative candidate.

    For the number of voters casting ballots for the Conservatives in other provinces, please refer to the numbers from Elections Canada.

    By Blogger paul.obeda@, at 6:50 PM  

  • I have no doubt that Mr. Raposo feels superior to us "ordinary" Canadians.

    And what are you basing that belief on? Where in any of my comments did I state that I consider myself superior?

    His grasp on facts, though, leaves something to be desired.

    And here we will see a Con present what he feels are "facts".

    Let's look at the distribution of the Conservative vote in the last election:

    Oh let's do!

    we were presented with the suggestion that half the Conservative vote came from Alberta.

    Ok sunshine, I'll stop you right there. Robert is posting from Calgary--Alberta. Hence the Alberta comment in my reply to him.

    I appreciate that Cons don't understand satire, sarcasm, nor nuance. But I actually thought CG's blog attacked a brighter type of reader than say, Kathy Shaidle's blog; readers that might "get it". I guess I was wrong.

    Maybe Mr. Raposo thinks that Canada only consists of Quebec and Alberta,

    No, but the way the CPC pandered to those provinces in the last election, I guess Harper does.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 7:01 PM  

  • I received the call on the EKOS one. It consistently listed the Liberals last when asked to pick a party--I think the order was CPC, Bloq, NDP, Green, Grits. I wonder how that kind of thing would skew the results?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:20 PM  

  • Anonymous 7:20 p.m. - please stop deluding yourself trying to explain all these bad poll results for the Libs. Instead, focus on what the Libs can do to change things so that they can turn things around.

    Tired

    By Anonymous Tired, at 7:54 PM  

  • Paul,

    For one thing, I was defending you from the criticism that to not know any Conservatives you must surround yourself with like-minded individuals. I also suggested some plausible other reasons that you might not know Conservatives. That all of them are untrue is very surprising.

    "I've never seen evidence of that. In fact, quite the opposite--partisans are quite vocal in their partisanship."

    If you know no Tories, how can you infer that partisans are usually very vocal. Incidentally I wasn't just talking about partisans, I was talking about ordinary people that might support the Tories.

    "So which is it--libertarian, or conservative? Those are two different political frames. Unless you're inferring that libertarian re really closet conservatives hiding behind a label to appear with it."

    Yes, they are different. Some people are genuine libertarians. Moreover, at least in the US, libertarians are sometimes interchangeable with the far right. Consider Ron Paul - though a libertarian he is anti-abortion, and anti-immigration. Bob Barr (the 2008 nominee) led the charge on Clinton's impeachment as a congressman. There is a mushy line between libertarianism and conservatism where people can reside without being openly conservative.

    "Just because you're a closet conservative, doesn't mean that people living in the real world are also. We grown ups have a tendency to speak the truth when discussing certain aspects of what we believe."

    Except that since you know no conservatives, nobody has ever thought to mention their beliefs to you?

    At any rate, there are a lot of situations where speaking about one's political beliefs openly are likely to be damaging to one's career prospects (and I have found such situations to be more, not less, present as I get older). Labels - because they are not very specific - will often get you in trouble (consequentialist libertarian is probably the most accurate description of my beliefs).

    By Blogger hosertohoosier, at 11:10 AM  

  • Wow, I really woke up the sleeping beast!

    I love how, when people are challenged, they assume the person challenging them has opposing political beliefs. :)

    See, Paul was confronted with two possibilities:
    1. What he said was debatable, thus could be reasonably questioned by someone of any political stripe, including his own.
    2. What he said was perfectly accurate, therefore could only be challenged by a bitter partisan of an opposing political stripe.

    It's really no surprise which one he had to choose.

    Paul: If you've followed this blog, you'd know that I don't question Liberals any more than I question Conservatives. I question partisans. The exact political stripe doesn't matter.

    Now Paul, there are three possibilities to explain why you don't know any conservatives:
    1. You avoid them, and surround yourself only with the like-minded.
    2. You do know conservatives, but they avoid admitting that to you.
    3. There are no conservatives where you live.

    HoserToHoosier gave Paul a great way to explain his unusual situation without being a bitter partisan, but instead he treated it like it was almost an insult to suggest that he was a normal, even-minded person finding himself in a pro-Liberal environment.

    So fine, Paul. You're a partisan. We get it. You win.
    - Anyone who opposes you is a Conservative.
    - Anyone who admit to being Conservative is either lying, has never left their basement, or lives in Alberta.
    - The Liberals didn't lie to us, didn't treat us like we were stupid, but instead with respect, dignity and accountability (hard not to giggle)
    - The media is pro-Harper.

    And if you'd like to paraphrase Chris Rock, anyone who finds themselves supporting one party over another 100% of the time is not thinking for themselves.

    If no one you know supports party X, and you never support any of party X's policies, and yet 2 in 5 voters support party X, then either:
    1. You are not using objective reason to form political opinions, or
    2. You live in a country with an unusually high proportion of very extreme, radical thought.

    I wonder which one Paul will go for ...

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 12:36 PM  

  • I was defending you from the criticism that to not know any Conservatives you must surround yourself with like-minded individuals.

    I suppose that's one way of looking at your comment--a defense. I'll thank you anyways.

    I also suggested some plausible other reasons that you might not know Conservatives.

    Plausible? Based on what? Your own experiences; something you've read somewhere? I gave no indication of who my group of friends is made up of. You made an assumption based on one comment.

    That all of them are untrue is very surprising.

    Why? Did you really, honestly believe after reading my one comment that I was all those things you assumed I was?

    If you know no Tories, how can you infer that partisans are usually very vocal.

    Uh...Please read this again:

    Of all the people I know, none support the Cons--even former PC supporters.

    Where did I write that I don't know any Tories?

    Incidentally I wasn't just talking about partisans, I was talking about ordinary people that might support the Tories.

    Oh my. Can't any person who only supports one party be a partisan? What exactly is an "ordinary" person?

    Some people are genuine libertarians.

    With a bias either left, or right. Bill Maher is a liberal leaning libertarian, while PJ Roarke is a conservative leaning libertarian. Really, they can be labeled as liberal and conservative based on their views. That they choose to call themselves libertarian is merely semantics.

    Except that since you know no conservatives, nobody has ever thought to mention their beliefs to you?

    Again, where did I write that I don't know any conservatives. that's line of thought that you've brought up based on no evidence from me.

    At any rate, there are a lot of situations where speaking about one's political beliefs openly are likely to be damaging to one's career prospects (and I have found such situations to be more, not less, present as I get older).

    Please provide examples.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 1:04 PM  

  • I love how, when people are challenged, they assume the person challenging them has opposing political beliefs. :)

    Yes, because nothing you've written on your blogs would give any indication of your party allegiance.

    See, Paul was confronted with two possibilities:

    Neither of which is likely outside of your mind, Robert.

    1. What he said was debatable, thus could be reasonably questioned by someone of any political stripe, including his own.

    If what I wrote was debatable, then what I wrote should have been debated. but rather, you came up with this little chestnut:

    Assuming you know more than 2-3 people, the only way nobody you know supports the "Cons" (very clever!) is if you go out of your way to surround yourself only with like-minded people.

    I'm certain you thought you were being clever with that comment, but all it did was show me how exactly you wanted this to proceed. I merely returned in kind, Robert.

    2. What he said was perfectly accurate, therefore could only be challenged by a bitter partisan of an opposing political stripe.

    Your words, Robert.

    It's really no surprise which one he had to choose.

    I have no problem with the way you've chosen to live. But your assertions can only be shared by those who similarly surround themselves only with the same perspective, and therefore probably aren't terribly useful to the vast majority of Canadians who actually do have an appropriate proportion of Conservatives among the list of people they know.

    You based your entire reply on your assumptions, tired clich├ęs and ridiculous analysis based on nothing more that the fact that you got your back up over something I wrote--something that was shared with me by two people.

    You didn't ask me to elaborate, or ask about the people I spoke with. You immediately launched into a personal attack that is characteristic of the CPC.

    If you've followed this blog, you'd know that I don't question Liberals any more than I question Conservatives.

    Was it hard not to giggle when you wrote that, Robert?

    I have read this blog. And yours as well.

    I question partisans. The exact political stripe doesn't matter.

    So why are you upset that I question you, Robert? I appreciate that you're not used to being questioned, just making up the questions yourself. I'm sorry that you spent the evening un-knotting your shorts. But with the--shall we say tone--of your reply, I decided to reply with at the same level.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 1:46 PM  

  • Con't

    Now Paul, there are three possibilities to explain why you don't know any conservatives:

    You do realize that people who enumerate every idea, or thought in a debate can be quite tiring, don't you?

    1. You avoid them, and surround yourself only with the like-minded.

    Again, Robert,:

    Of all the people I know, none support the Cons--even former PC supporters.

    Now, unless you're claiming that former PC'ers--people who were with the party before Harper was born, are not real CPC'ers, I don't really understand your inability to understand that comment.

    2. You do know conservatives, but they avoid admitting that to you.

    I must ask--what have i written would cause you to write such an asinine thing?

    I appreciate that you've formulated in your mind what each type of personality each person of each party has. It's evident in your many blog postings exactly what you think each person thinks.

    Judging by the fact that you number each idea and thought you've written in reply to me, it's apparent that you need to compartmentalize individuals to make it easier for you to understand us.

    Rather than categorizing people, why don't you take them at face value and get to know them individually, rather than making broad, sweeping generalizations about us? I know that takes more work and doesn't make you feel nearly as clever as you think you are, but in the end you won't look so foolish.

    3. There are no conservatives where you live.

    That's right! We sacrificed them to our pagan god.

    HoserToHoosier gave Paul a great way to explain his unusual situation without being a bitter partisan,

    Actually, what as presented was a further example of making assumptions based on nothing more than generalizations. Asking questions does not make one look foolish, Robert.

    but instead he treated it like it was almost an insult to suggest that he was a normal, even-minded person finding himself in a pro-Liberal environment.

    I treated it like the pap that it was. No offense to HoserToHoosier, but it was a ridiculous, over reaching comment. it went from being a discussion, to an indictment.

    So fine, Paul. You're a partisan. We get it. You win.

    Based on what? My defense of myself, or your imagined ideas of what each voter is?

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 1:48 PM  

  • Con't

    And again with the bullet points.

    - Anyone who opposes you is a Conservative.

    Anyone whose writings are pointedly conservative, perhaps.

    - Anyone who admit to being Conservative is either lying, has never left their basement, or lives in Alberta.

    Where did I write that anyone who admits to being a conservative is lying? Fact of the matter is, both you and HoserToHoosier are trying desperately to appear non-Conservative.

    - The Liberals didn't lie to us, didn't treat us like we were stupid, but instead with respect, dignity and accountability (hard not to giggle)

    Funny that you won't accept that from the Liberal party, but seem to expect it from the CPC.

    And if you want a real giggle:

    Liebral Party of Toronto
    Iffy and the L.P.o.T
    Iffy and Boob (Death) Rae


    Pretty good huh! What? Nothing? Really?

    - The media is pro-Harper.

    Isn't it?

    anyone who finds themselves supporting one party over another 100% of the time is not thinking for themselves.

    Actually, it was originally Ice-T who said that. Chris Rock has acknowledged that.

    If no one you know supports party X, and you never support any of party X's policies, and yet 2 in 5 voters support party X, then either:

    Math and more numbered points. It just keeps getting better.

    1. You are not using objective reason to form political opinions, or

    I wrote something based on something was was said to me by two people I know.

    2. You live in a country with an unusually high proportion of very extreme, radical thought.

    You must decide what side of the road to stand on, Robert. Nothing radical about that.

    I wonder which one Paul will go for ...

    I'm sure you've made an assumption already.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 1:50 PM  

  • I will concede the point that I "compartmentalized" you as a partisan based on your one comment, and sought to disqualify your opinions rather than debate them. Point taken.

    In my defense, when someone has never met a group that constitutes almost 40% of the population, it's hard not to make a generalization and to take them at face value. It'd be like someone not knowing any left-handers, or any blondes, or any francophones, or anyone over 45. Still, I didn't even try, so for that I'm genuinely sorry.

    However, if you actually did read my blog, you know it's comedy, with very few posts about politics (less than 5%). You'll also know that I don't support the Conservative party, and voted for them only once in my life.

    And if you actually did read this blog, then you've already seen me repeatedly ridicule people for saying "Lieberal" in their comments, because it's another way of saying "I'm not capable of objective thought."

    With all that out of the way, I think it's only fair that you finally get a chance to explain your curious comments and yes, I should have asked you in the first place. So here goes.

    How do you explain the fact that in a country with almost 40% support for Conservatives, that you yourself have met none of them?

    On what grounds do you consider the Harper government to treat us worse than previous governments? What has Harper done to us that previous administrations have not, or what has previous administrations done for us that he failed to provide?

    Can you define what type of recent behaviour on the part of the media towards Harper could be considered as kissing ass?

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:37 PM  

  • I will concede the point that I "compartmentalized" you as a partisan based on your one comment, and sought to disqualify your opinions rather than debate them. Point taken.

    Thank you, Robert.

    In my defense, when someone has never met a group that constitutes almost 40% of the population, it's hard not to make a generalization and to take them at face value.

    Again:

    Of all the people I know, none support the Cons--even former PC supporters.

    I never stated that I don't know anyone who makes up 40% of the voting population. I know people who used to support the Cons. Perhaps they will in the future, I've no idea. But for now, they are either holding their vote, or plan to park it elsewhere.

    Still, I didn't even try, so for that I'm genuinely sorry.

    Thank you again, Robert.

    However, if you actually did read my blog...You'll also know that I don't support the Conservative party...

    I will admit that I only skimmed your four blogs, simply because the number of postings would have kept me reading for days. Perhaps I didn't get a clear picture of your political leanings and I did jump to conclusions. Clearly I was mistaken in seeing you as a CPC'er--not that there's anything wrong with that.

    ...then you've already seen me repeatedly ridicule people for saying "Lieberal"...

    I will be honest and say that I haven't seen any posts like that, but you say you have hammered people for that and I will take your word, Robert. I just felt it was an issue of being even handed--I didn't write "Cons" in an effort to name call. I wrote "Cons", "Libs" and even "Dems".

    How do you explain the fact that in a country with almost 40% support for Conservatives, that you yourself have met none of them?

    Please see above. For what ever reason, the people I know no longer support the CPC. Some because of Harper's handling of stimulus spending; others because of his comments about various groups being "fringe" groups; etc. The reasons are legion. I don't know 1000 people. I know many, but not that many. Of the people I know well enough to talk to on a regular basis, they no longer support the CPC.

    I think the problem here is, readers of my comment assumed that by the people I know not supporting the Cons, that meant that they support the Libs. I never wrote that. A co-worker has stated that she will not vote for the CPC again until they remove Harper as leader. She's a hard line PC'er, so maybe she doesn't like how Harper treated Mulroney. I don't know.

    On what grounds do you consider the Harper government to treat us worse than previous governments?

    One important point is what the White House under Bush called "free speech zones". No one is permitted to protest Harper. He will send the RCMP after protesters and have them removed. He has people arrested who dare to confront him and question his actions. No other leader has done that. Trudeau stood in Saskatoon and was pelted with wheat by protesters, but he gave them the opportunity to voice their rage. It shows Harper's arrogance and refusal to confront the people he claims to lead.

    What has Harper done to us that previous administrations have not,

    A better question would be, what has he promised and not delivered-- capital gains tax exception; eliminating the GST on gas if it got over 85 cents; the Accountability Act; strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner; he promised to stand up for veterans--and nothing.

    What has he taken away? The Court Challenges Program, and income trusts are two examples.

    Can you define what type of recent behaviour on the part of the media towards Harper could be considered as kissing ass?

    Harper playing a poor piano and singing at an arts gala. While the media reported on this, very few remarked at the fact that just last year he cut 45 million dollars from the arts.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 9:24 AM  

  • I know people that would support the Conservative party no matter what they did. I know people that aren't happy with them, but continue to think of them as the best choice. Both those groups are in the almost 40% that support them. I do find it odd that you don't know anyone in that group, but if you can't explain it, and we get in trouble for trying, then we'll just move on.

    That being said, I have seen dozens of Harper protests. I was just in Ottawa a couple of months ago and saw a Harper protest. To be honest, I haven't seen more protests against any prime minister since Mulroney.

    Plus, I've seen those protests on the news, which doesn't jive with the Harper bias theory. Especially since the arts funding "cut" was all over the news last election, I'd even say it was one of the top five stories, and quite possibly cost him a majority.

    Very few people would dispute the long trail of broken promises Harper has made, but I asked how he treated us worse than previous governments. Does his track record of dishonesty surpass Chretien's?

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 3:30 PM  

  • Does his track record of dishonesty surpass Chretien's?

    Let me answer that question with a question; How are we better off with Harper as PM? You're welcome to deny it, but Canada was better off when Chretien was PM, even during a recession. What has Harper done that has markedly made Canada a better place?

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 10:30 PM  

  • No, PR, Canada was better off when Mulroney was PM.

    No, wait. Canada was better off when Pearson was PM.

    No, I take that back. Canada was better off with Mackenzie-King as PM. Of course, Canada was better off with Macdonald as PM, but his liver isn't doing him much good anymore.

    By Blogger paul.obeda@, at 12:44 AM  

  • paul.obeda@, I appreciate your inability to keep up, however my Chretien reference was in reply to Robert's mention of Chretien. Do try to read all the comments before responding. Since both PM's had to rule during a recession, the comment was apropos.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 9:38 AM  

  • If you had said "Harper is no better than the others. He treats us just as badly as Martin, Chretien, and Mulroney. We're not better off with Harper" then I would have agreed, and we wouldn't have had this discussion.

    I'll admit, so far you've done a good job explaining why Harper's administration is as bad as recent former governments. But you said he was worse. Can you explain how?

    It's not up to me to explain how he's better, because I never said that, and don't believe it to be true (who does?).

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:02 AM  

  • It's not up to me to explain how he's better, because I never said that, and don't believe it to be true (who does?).

    Robert, I never mentioned any other government, or PM. I wrote the following:

    ...wherein Harper has treated us like crap for years...

    He's treated us badly by removing the Court Challenges Program, something that has helped LGBTQ Canadians with court cases. He has de-funded women's programs which benefited the lives of 52% of the population. He has cut funding to the arts, which benefits all Canadians. He has failed when it comes to our environment and that effects the world. So yes, Harper has treated us like crap for years.

    You're the poster who decided to bring Chretien into this, Robert, with this comment:

    Does his track record of dishonesty surpass Chretien's?

    Yet, you ask me to defend a statement I never made. No where in my comments did I compare Harper to any other PM, until you brought one up. I responded to your question. Now you want me to elaborate on a statement which I never made.

    I'm not too very impressed by your disingenuous style of debate. Nor am I interested in running around in circles with you as you demand that I answer statements that I've never made.

    You're trying to move this debate away from Harper and onto the leadership of previous parties in an effort to control the debate, and frankly I won't let you. If you're not interested in keeping the argument going based on statements I've actually written, why should I continue to respond to you, Robert?

    You've stated that you've only supported the Cons in one election--did I immediately demand that you prove that? You've stated that by your writing, I should be able to see you're non partisan. Did I request links to prove that statement? Yet, you want me to substantiate comments that I never made here.

    So in response to the part of your reply that I quoted above, Robert, yes it is your responsibility to prove how Harper is not as bad as Chretien's government, because you are the one who made the analogy.

    And lastly, it's apparent that no reply I make will be good enough for you, Robert. I will continue to give you the courtesy of a reply as long as you post comments, but this has become tedious as I have yet to glean anything exciting or unique from our debate. It's the same old, same old. I figured talking with someone new--yourself--I would gain some new insights, but you've failed me on that front, Robert.

    By Anonymous Paul Raposo, at 11:28 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 3:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home