i mean, i can tell you that it was predictable that secular leftists - the core of the ndp's base since layton tried to push the religious elements out of the party - would have a hard time voting for a sikh fundamentalist. that's clearly a non-starter for their own voters, and for much of the swing on the left.

but, maybe, the idea of conservatives voting for him is a little easier to get your head around - if they're otherwise exceedingly low information, and don't particularly care about actual policy (which is a lot of conservatives, isn't it?).

and, if you want to reduce it to the religious symbols law, that makes sense, too. the only place in canada that strenuously opposes the bill is alberta - the most conservative province, by a large margin. that's the argument i've been making the whole time: this debate should be between conservatives that support tradition and religious identity, and liberals trying to get rid of it.

as mentioned: i do think there's a bradley effect, here.

but, have we finally figured out how to cut into this unmoveable conservative base?

the liberals are supposed to do better than this