it was a leading question on the tpp. nobody opposes increasing trade.
that 18% green-leaning ndp vote is really on the brink of splitting, and may be an underestimate. a large amount of that is very fragile at this point. mulcair has already made a series of choices meant to position himself dead centre, and the online reaction to a lot of it has been pretty dramatic. he has those voters on his side, at most, until he passes legislation they don't like - and he *will* pass legislation they don't like. they may hold their noses and vote for him, to get rid of harper and then start criticizing him five minutes later. that might be what i end up doing. if he doesn't slow that centrist cave down a tad, he might manage to scare them off before the election.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/14/the-ekos-poll-ndp-liberals-still-struggling-to-break-free-of-deadlock/
Spencer
Ekos for the past 2 months seems to consistently low ball Liberal support by around 2 or 3 points and high ball Green support compared to most other polling firms.
deathtokoalas
this swing in the green vote is real. the ndp has been disappointing to left-leaning voters as of late.
Spencer
I wouldn't be that surprised if the Greens picked up a point or two by the end of the campaign, but I still think Ekos is high balling them when every other polling firm has them at about half of what Ekos does.
deathtokoalas
this poll put the ndp-green swing at almost 20% of the ndp vote. that's closer to 5-6%. i think it's a given that mulcair can kiss that goodbye if he starts backing pipelines and signing free trade agreements, as he's signaled he will. but, holding them up to the election is a question of how loud the centrist rhetoric is, and how intent those voters are to ignore it to push a change in government. they have little choice but to conclude he at least couldn't be worse than harper. but, protest voters vote with their hearts. he could very well scare off enough of his base to drop him to second or third, in his rush to the middle.
Friday, August 14, 2015
wow. if you're a poll geek, you should check out that mainstreet pdf file. i wish more firms did this kind of polling on undecideds. it really clarifies where people are actually at. for example, quantifying that only 6% of undecideds in ontario are leaning conservative [even keeping in mind that 50% refused to answer], while 18% surveyed are undecided, is very clarifying.
and that poll gives the liberals some hope in quebec, too. hrmmn.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polltracker-aug14-1.3190102
i've been ignoring the senate scandal fiasco as a sideshow, even a show-trial for harper to use to push his senate agenda through. i couldn't see it having much of an effect on the critical swing on the left. and conservative voters are so rigid, they'd follow their leader into a fire, or drink the kool-aid, or whatever analogy you want....
....but, that swing on the left is shutting down and stabilizing....
a lot of people attributed the 2006 loss to the sponsorship scandal, and it perhaps had some effect in shoring up that roughly 5-8% "pc swing" that was floating around after joe clark endorsed the liberals in 2004. but it was really the nature of the swing, being right-leaning. and, i think there's an argument that the ruling on gay marriage was as or more important. i think it's effect was really overblown. harper really didn't walk out of it with a higher vote total than the conservatives & reform got together through the 90s - which is what you'd expect under *ambient* conditions.
so, if the analogy is to hold, i'd argue it should actually have a minimal effect, rather than a dramatic one.
but, what the duffy thing can hurt is the red tory part of his base. that 5-8% bump that joe clark gave the liberals (and went back in '06) has been gone in most polling for months, leaving him with numbers that are not far off of what reform got in the 90s. it consequently may be a factor in moderate conservatives swinging to the liberals.
and, the truth is there's a lot of stuff like this that could even eat into the libertarian side of the reform base. something like c-51, or the attempt to make boycotting israel a hate crime, could rub civil libertarians badly. conservatives in canada have generally leaned strongly towards protections for civil rights as a balance in being "tough on crime". he's not really balancing this in ways that most conservatives *i* know would approve of.
the narrative up to now has been those attack ads. there's really no evidence they've had any effect at all. in the end, actions speak louder than words.
the flip side of this is that if you look at the liberal numbers of 28% and realize that 6-8% of this is coming from traditional conservative voters, and then you compare the remaining 20% to the 37-40% they were getting in the 90s, you quickly see just how badly the ndp have eaten into the liberal support. that's a 15% swing from the liberals to the ndp. and it might be there for a generation or more.
and that poll gives the liberals some hope in quebec, too. hrmmn.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polltracker-aug14-1.3190102
i've been ignoring the senate scandal fiasco as a sideshow, even a show-trial for harper to use to push his senate agenda through. i couldn't see it having much of an effect on the critical swing on the left. and conservative voters are so rigid, they'd follow their leader into a fire, or drink the kool-aid, or whatever analogy you want....
....but, that swing on the left is shutting down and stabilizing....
a lot of people attributed the 2006 loss to the sponsorship scandal, and it perhaps had some effect in shoring up that roughly 5-8% "pc swing" that was floating around after joe clark endorsed the liberals in 2004. but it was really the nature of the swing, being right-leaning. and, i think there's an argument that the ruling on gay marriage was as or more important. i think it's effect was really overblown. harper really didn't walk out of it with a higher vote total than the conservatives & reform got together through the 90s - which is what you'd expect under *ambient* conditions.
so, if the analogy is to hold, i'd argue it should actually have a minimal effect, rather than a dramatic one.
but, what the duffy thing can hurt is the red tory part of his base. that 5-8% bump that joe clark gave the liberals (and went back in '06) has been gone in most polling for months, leaving him with numbers that are not far off of what reform got in the 90s. it consequently may be a factor in moderate conservatives swinging to the liberals.
and, the truth is there's a lot of stuff like this that could even eat into the libertarian side of the reform base. something like c-51, or the attempt to make boycotting israel a hate crime, could rub civil libertarians badly. conservatives in canada have generally leaned strongly towards protections for civil rights as a balance in being "tough on crime". he's not really balancing this in ways that most conservatives *i* know would approve of.
the narrative up to now has been those attack ads. there's really no evidence they've had any effect at all. in the end, actions speak louder than words.
the flip side of this is that if you look at the liberal numbers of 28% and realize that 6-8% of this is coming from traditional conservative voters, and then you compare the remaining 20% to the 37-40% they were getting in the 90s, you quickly see just how badly the ndp have eaten into the liberal support. that's a 15% swing from the liberals to the ndp. and it might be there for a generation or more.
at
13:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it won't hurt jobs, and it will help people in the long run. further, it's nice to see some policy based on behavioural economics. one hopes that homo economicus is on the path to extinction; it seems, it couldn't compete.
but, let's not be naive. sure: this might help people in the long run, so long as it remains viable relative to the inflate and burst cycle. but, the real winners are investors. that's a lot of other people's money to gamble.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ontario-retirement-pension-plan-who-loses-who-wins-1.3189773
Angry Earl
actually the investor's (banks, mutual fund companies, etc) would benefit most from the private investment (e.g. RRSPs, TFSAs) rather than a government pension plan because they make money off the fees, but the investment costs with large pension plans (e.g. CPP, Ontario Teachers, OMERS) are trivial in a percentage cost and the investment returns have greatly exceeded the private sector over many years. If I could have CPP or OMERS invest my money for me, I would be glad to turn over my portfolio.
Jessica Murray
that may be technically true, but we're talking about creating funds by taxing people that otherwise wouldn't create rrsps - *because* they wouldn't otherwise create rrsps.
it's going to end up in the hands of investors, who are going to gamble it on the stock market and do all other kinds of shady things with it. in the end, they get the largest profit, not the pensioners.
state propaganda speaks of things like "educating people about how to save and invest". it's misunderstanding that it's not an issue of education (although it may be broadly lacking) so much as it's an issue of priority. personally? i have no plans to make it to 65. i'd rather spend the money on beer and popcorn. i can't argue i'd invest it better, i'd argue i don't care about investing it. but, then what happens when i make it to 79, after planning my whole life to live to 59? "oops. forgot to save. too busy having fun.". well, that's what a government *does*...
if there are windfalls, the government could very well raid it; i don't see a big problem with that, so long as nobody gets a letter in the mail telling them there's no money left. conversely, if there are shortfalls, the state will make up the difference through other means.
instead of handing off the money to investors, they could pocket it. but, they won't, because they don't want to. and, they don't have the initial stock market capital that you can get by pooling money together, either - which is very useful if you're going in.
but, let's not be naive. sure: this might help people in the long run, so long as it remains viable relative to the inflate and burst cycle. but, the real winners are investors. that's a lot of other people's money to gamble.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ontario-retirement-pension-plan-who-loses-who-wins-1.3189773
Angry Earl
actually the investor's (banks, mutual fund companies, etc) would benefit most from the private investment (e.g. RRSPs, TFSAs) rather than a government pension plan because they make money off the fees, but the investment costs with large pension plans (e.g. CPP, Ontario Teachers, OMERS) are trivial in a percentage cost and the investment returns have greatly exceeded the private sector over many years. If I could have CPP or OMERS invest my money for me, I would be glad to turn over my portfolio.
Jessica Murray
that may be technically true, but we're talking about creating funds by taxing people that otherwise wouldn't create rrsps - *because* they wouldn't otherwise create rrsps.
it's going to end up in the hands of investors, who are going to gamble it on the stock market and do all other kinds of shady things with it. in the end, they get the largest profit, not the pensioners.
state propaganda speaks of things like "educating people about how to save and invest". it's misunderstanding that it's not an issue of education (although it may be broadly lacking) so much as it's an issue of priority. personally? i have no plans to make it to 65. i'd rather spend the money on beer and popcorn. i can't argue i'd invest it better, i'd argue i don't care about investing it. but, then what happens when i make it to 79, after planning my whole life to live to 59? "oops. forgot to save. too busy having fun.". well, that's what a government *does*...
if there are windfalls, the government could very well raid it; i don't see a big problem with that, so long as nobody gets a letter in the mail telling them there's no money left. conversely, if there are shortfalls, the state will make up the difference through other means.
instead of handing off the money to investors, they could pocket it. but, they won't, because they don't want to. and, they don't have the initial stock market capital that you can get by pooling money together, either - which is very useful if you're going in.
at
12:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i've been saying for years that the liberals need to beat the ndp, not the conservatives, and they're fighting battle after battle on the wrong side of the spectrum. call it a self-fulfilling prophecy if you wish, but the pendulum has now swung: i would expect the liberals to grow primarily at the expense of the conservatives at this point, while the ndp grows at the expense of the liberals, and the greens grow at the expense of the ndp. running an unpopular government at the far end of the spectrum means the conservatives don't grow, they shrink...
as the liberals slowly take over the right, and cement themselves as a moderate conservative party, the conservatives will fade back into the socred legacy they came from. harper wanted this to be his party, and his government. harper party. harper government. and, that's likely what he'll get. the conservative party is done when he is.
you'll inevitably see some crossings and realignments, with traditional conservative party support slowly moving into the liberal camp - and bringing it a lot of money. which is probably what they've been angling for the whole time. all the votes are on the left, but all the money is on the right.
so, i'm going to stop saying this. they set their own course, and the support on the ground has caught up to the rhetoric and policies: they exist on the right, and are in competition for conservative voters.
this election? not likely to work out well. next election? the existential struggle swings right.
if you set out to destroy the liberal party of canada, you'd better be willing to accept the consequences of failing at it.
the liberals may come out of this firmly on the right of the spectrum, but it's the tories that have days that are numbered.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polltracker-aug14-1.3190102
SOB_Van_Owen
Traditionally, Conservatives campaign from the right but govern from the left and Liberals campaign from the left but govern from the right. It is all in an effort to control the middle.
This is different though. Trudeau is trying to outflank Tom, not Harper. The only thing I wonder is if he will let Harper sit as a minority PM for three years like his spineless predecessors did.
Jessica Murray
well, i think the conservatives are doing a pretty good job of campaigning on the right...
i don't think you can underestimate how badly this government has tarnished the "conservative" brand. they're in a distant third with voters under 55. distant. like, 20%. as their base dies, the party dies. within a few years, they're unlikely to be competitive.
that 30% conservative number has been a rock bottom since wwII. it's been unheard of to see the conservatives consistently polling in the 20s. but, it's masking the liberals' swing to the right, and the voters they've lost permanently to the ndp.
i mean, imagine trudeau's father campaigning on balanced budgets. it's rather comical.
the regional breakdowns make the three-way race somewhat of an illusion. the liberals don't have a regional base. even if the liberals can get up to 30-32% support, that likely just means they come in second place almost everywhere they lose. they will likely not be a significant force in the next parliament. with a few bad gaffes, they could even lose party status - even with 20-25% of the popular vote, if a lot of it is in alberta and quebec, where they can't win.
but, the moment the conservatives lose power, they lose the only argument they have. and, once harper steps down, you'll see the conservatives "release their delegates", if you will. that base of long time moderate conservatives does not like him any more than the rest of the country does, but they're sticking with him because they're conservatives and they like stability. the moment they're no longer in power, and they have a new leader, all bets on numbers higher than than the ~10% the socreds consistently got up to 1980 are off.
as the liberals slowly take over the right, and cement themselves as a moderate conservative party, the conservatives will fade back into the socred legacy they came from. harper wanted this to be his party, and his government. harper party. harper government. and, that's likely what he'll get. the conservative party is done when he is.
you'll inevitably see some crossings and realignments, with traditional conservative party support slowly moving into the liberal camp - and bringing it a lot of money. which is probably what they've been angling for the whole time. all the votes are on the left, but all the money is on the right.
so, i'm going to stop saying this. they set their own course, and the support on the ground has caught up to the rhetoric and policies: they exist on the right, and are in competition for conservative voters.
this election? not likely to work out well. next election? the existential struggle swings right.
if you set out to destroy the liberal party of canada, you'd better be willing to accept the consequences of failing at it.
the liberals may come out of this firmly on the right of the spectrum, but it's the tories that have days that are numbered.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polltracker-aug14-1.3190102
SOB_Van_Owen
Traditionally, Conservatives campaign from the right but govern from the left and Liberals campaign from the left but govern from the right. It is all in an effort to control the middle.
This is different though. Trudeau is trying to outflank Tom, not Harper. The only thing I wonder is if he will let Harper sit as a minority PM for three years like his spineless predecessors did.
Jessica Murray
well, i think the conservatives are doing a pretty good job of campaigning on the right...
i don't think you can underestimate how badly this government has tarnished the "conservative" brand. they're in a distant third with voters under 55. distant. like, 20%. as their base dies, the party dies. within a few years, they're unlikely to be competitive.
that 30% conservative number has been a rock bottom since wwII. it's been unheard of to see the conservatives consistently polling in the 20s. but, it's masking the liberals' swing to the right, and the voters they've lost permanently to the ndp.
i mean, imagine trudeau's father campaigning on balanced budgets. it's rather comical.
the regional breakdowns make the three-way race somewhat of an illusion. the liberals don't have a regional base. even if the liberals can get up to 30-32% support, that likely just means they come in second place almost everywhere they lose. they will likely not be a significant force in the next parliament. with a few bad gaffes, they could even lose party status - even with 20-25% of the popular vote, if a lot of it is in alberta and quebec, where they can't win.
but, the moment the conservatives lose power, they lose the only argument they have. and, once harper steps down, you'll see the conservatives "release their delegates", if you will. that base of long time moderate conservatives does not like him any more than the rest of the country does, but they're sticking with him because they're conservatives and they like stability. the moment they're no longer in power, and they have a new leader, all bets on numbers higher than than the ~10% the socreds consistently got up to 1980 are off.
at
11:28
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
inflation of any sort always increases prices. deflation of any sort never decreases prices. so, you're half right. it's not a nefarious plan by the nwo or the rastafarians or something. but it's a fundamental fact of capitalism: prices never come down.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-storage-tanks-filled-to-levels-not-seen-in-80-years-1.3190001
www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-storage-tanks-filled-to-levels-not-seen-in-80-years-1.3190001
at
10:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm just legitimately curious: do you have any comments regarding this idea of making boycotting israel a hate crime?
that sounds like it might be a little contentious on your side of the spectrum.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGy6uV7yqGWDeUWTZzT3ZEg
i mean, it's kind of not respecting market theory.
and then there's the hate crime minefield.
fwiw, i'm not a supporter of bds as a tactic. i agree with chomsky's criticisms. but, i'm still curious.
that sounds like it might be a little contentious on your side of the spectrum.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGy6uV7yqGWDeUWTZzT3ZEg
i mean, it's kind of not respecting market theory.
and then there's the hate crime minefield.
fwiw, i'm not a supporter of bds as a tactic. i agree with chomsky's criticisms. but, i'm still curious.
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)