Stockwell Day Gaining On Chretien's Liberals
Iconoclast
party of Stockwell Day at 26%. Although this looks
weak beside the Chretien Liberals 45%, it must still
be worrisome for the Liberals, in that the election has
not yet been called. The CA seems to have the momentum.
Only ten points 42% to 32% separate Chretien and Day as Canadians
choice for best leader. With Chretien's much wider exposure as PM,
the campaign not yet underway and before any national televised debates,
this is a very slim and precarious lead for Chretien.
Furthermore, Canadians have seen big early leads melt away in past
campaigns e.g. John Turner's big lead in 1983-84, that
of Kim Campbell just weeks before her debacle in 1993,
in Ontario with David Peterson's Liberals in 1989 and Liberal head
Lyn McLeod's big lead over Mike Harris right up until
the election of 1995.
I have noticed another development that Chretien must find
disturbing. It is that the Canadian Alliance is receiving
much greater funding from the business community than
its predecessor, the Reform party under Preston Manning ever did.
The Alliance party has already been blitzing the media with
advertising before the campaign is officially underway.
In watching a ML baseball playoff game the other night
over Canadian Cable TV, I saw at least four Alliance Party
commercials during a period of about 2 hours.
The Chretien Liberals must be asking where the CA is getting
all this money as such advertising is expensive.
And why wouldn't the corporate world support the Alliance
with the Liberal government's being anti-free market, anti-business
and corrupt as well?
Another problem for the Liberals could be a massive defection
of the Canadian Jewish electorate after the anti-Israeli, pro
Palestinian position of the socialist Chretien government.
So, although the Chretien Liberals appear right now to have a
comfortable lead, they must be hearing footsteps.
Robert James
"Iconoclast" <"iconoclast"@ home.com> wrote in message
news:ze%F5.4751$N%1.22...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> The latest COMPAS poll shows the Canadian Alliance
> party of Stockwell Day at 26%.
Most other polls show the CRAP steady at about 19%.
> Although this looks
> weak beside the Chretien Liberals 45%
Those same polls suggest this is closer to 50% (and 61% in Ontario).
> , it must still
> be worrisome for the Liberals, in that the election has
> not yet been called. The CA seems to have the momentum.
Both parties have been experiencing increases in their polled support. While
the Liberal increases have not been as dramatic as have those for the CRAP,
that is not surprising, considering how low the latter's numbers were (and
are) - any change would seem dramatic in that case.
>
> Only ten points 42% to 32% separate Chretien and Day as Canadians
> choice for best leader. With Chretien's much wider exposure as PM,
> the campaign not yet underway and before any national televised debates,
> this is a very slim and precarious lead for Chretien.
In the 1970s, Canadians consitantly said (in polls) that they would prefer
to have Ed Broadbent as PM than Pierre Trudeau - don't seem to recall Eddie
moving into 24 Sussex, however.
>
>
> Furthermore, Canadians have seen big early leads melt away in past
> campaigns e.g. John Turner's big lead in 1983-84, that
> of Kim Campbell just weeks before her debacle in 1993,
> in Ontario with David Peterson's Liberals in 1989 and Liberal head
> Lyn McLeod's big lead over Mike Harris right up until
> the election of 1995.
The extremely narrow regional concentration of CRAP support renders
comparison to those other examples meaningless. If the CRAP had a power base
(or even a toehold) East of the Lake of the Woods, perhaps the situation
would be different.
>
> I have noticed another development that Chretien must find
> disturbing. It is that the Canadian Alliance is receiving
> much greater funding from the business community than
> its predecessor, the Reform party under Preston Manning ever did.
Perhaps that is because the business community realizes what the rest of the
CRAP's supporters do not - that under Blocwell Day, the CRAP (and the
government of Canada) is for sale to the highest bidder.
>
> And why wouldn't the corporate world support the Alliance
> with the Liberal government's being anti-free market, anti-business
> and corrupt as well?
>
Perhaps a better question would be "why would a party that bills itself as
the voice of the every day man, the common working stiff, concentrate its
fundraising efforts on the business elites? What will be the Quid Pro Quo?"
> Another problem for the Liberals could be a massive defection
> of the Canadian Jewish electorate after the anti-Israeli, pro
> Palestinian position of the socialist Chretien government.
It is always a mistake to assume that voters identified by any tag (ethnic,
gender, age, economic status) can be expected to vote as a homogenous group.
If that were the case, then the NDP, which has enjoyed the support of unions
supporting the vast majority of Canadian workers for decades now, would have
formed the last few governments.
>
> So, although the Chretien Liberals appear right now to have a
> comfortable lead, they must be hearing footsteps.
Somehow, I don't think they are losing that much sleep. I don't mean to say
they can afford to ignore the CRAP entirely (after all, the opinions of 19%
of the voting public deserve to be considered), but they must be aware that
Blocwell Day has a better chance of becoming pregnant than becoming Prime
Minister.
Carter Lee
> In the 1970s, Canadians consitantly said (in polls) that they would prefer
> to have Ed Broadbent as PM than Pierre Trudeau - don't seem to recall Eddie
> moving into 24 Sussex, however.
Bad analogy Robert. You re talking about only one candidate (albeit the
leader of the party) who was not wanted as PM by the majority of
Canadians polled. If you were to run that poll only in his own riding
the result would obviously have been different.
This thread is dealing with the popularity, or lack of it, of political
parties, not politicians.
> > Furthermore, Canadians have seen big early leads melt away in past
> > campaigns e.g. John Turner's big lead in 1983-84, that
> > of Kim Campbell just weeks before her debacle in 1993,
> > in Ontario with David Peterson's Liberals in 1989 and Liberal head
> > Lyn McLeod's big lead over Mike Harris right up until
> > the election of 1995.
>
> The extremely narrow regional concentration of CRAP support renders
> comparison to those other examples meaningless. If the CRAP had a power base
> (or even a toehold) East of the Lake of the Woods, perhaps the situation
> would be different.
"When" the CA gets a toehold in the east, which is what they are trying
to do, the situation "will" be different.
>
> >
> > I have noticed another development that Chretien must find
> > disturbing. It is that the Canadian Alliance is receiving
> > much greater funding from the business community than
> > its predecessor, the Reform party under Preston Manning ever did.
>
> Perhaps that is because the business community realizes what the rest of the
> CRAP's supporters do not - that under Blocwell Day, the CRAP (and the
> government of Canada) is for sale to the highest bidder.
That would be a good reason if it were true.
>
> >
> > And why wouldn't the corporate world support the Alliance
> > with the Liberal government's being anti-free market, anti-business
> > and corrupt as well?
> >
> Perhaps a better question would be "why would a party that bills itself as
> the voice of the every day man, the common working stiff, concentrate its
> fundraising efforts on the business elites? What will be the Quid Pro Quo?"
Who else has the funds, the common working stiffs?
>
> > Another problem for the Liberals could be a massive defection
> > of the Canadian Jewish electorate after the anti-Israeli, pro
> > Palestinian position of the socialist Chretien government.
>
> It is always a mistake to assume that voters identified by any tag (ethnic,
> gender, age, economic status) can be expected to vote as a homogenous group.
> If that were the case, then the NDP, which has enjoyed the support of unions
> supporting the vast majority of Canadian workers for decades now, would have
> formed the last few governments.
It is an assumption that the NDP enjoys the support of all unions or
that unions represent the "vast majority" of Canadian workers. If that
assumption were true you may be right (shudder).
>
> >
> > So, although the Chretien Liberals appear right now to have a
> > comfortable lead, they must be hearing footsteps.
>
> Somehow, I don't think they are losing that much sleep.
The same as they didn't lose much sleep over the Quebec referendum?
I don't mean to say
> they can afford to ignore the CRAP entirely (after all, the opinions of 19%
> of the voting public deserve to be considered), but they must be aware that
> Blocwell Day has a better chance of becoming pregnant than becoming Prime
> Minister.
How about his chances of being the leader of the opposition under a
Liberal minority government? How binding would that make the cheese?
Carter
M.I. Wakefield
There is a huge difference between approving of a party leader and intention
to vote for that party. For example, an Ipsos Reid poll gives Alexa
McDonough a 71% approval rating in Atlantic Canada ... "Pretty impressive"
you think ... except that only 11% of the decided voters in Atlantic Canada
intend to vote NDP ( http://www.ekos.com/press/12oct2000/12oct2000.pdf ).
They may approve of Alexa, but she's heading for an electoral wipe-out.
As for the Alliance, their best performance after Alberta is in BC, where
they only trail the Liberals by 15% ... if that doesn't turn around soon
Stockwell Day will be moving out of Stornoway, but into a rented home
somewhere in Ottawa, not 24 Sussex Drive.
Iconoclast
Robert James wrote:
>
> "Iconoclast" <"iconoclast"@ home.com> wrote in message
> news:ze%F5.4751$N%1.22...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > The latest COMPAS poll shows the Canadian Alliance
> > party of Stockwell Day at 26%.
>
> Most other polls show the CRAP steady at about 19%.
>
> > Although this looks
> > weak beside the Chretien Liberals 45%
>
> Those same polls suggest this is closer to 50% (and 61% in Ontario).
>
But knowledgeable political analysts say that Liberal support in
Ontario
is very soft. Many Ontario working families feel they are on a
treadmill. They
work harder and harder only to have the federal government tax them
punitively to
buy votes in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
Also there are the steeply rising prices in gasoline, home heating oil
and natural gas
with these commodities made more expensive by federal Liberal taxes.
The falling Canadian dollar is
like another tax especially on imports. Further, there appears to be a
economic slowdown in the offing.
Personal debt is sky-high with increased interest rates on the way.
Chretien sees these
coming problems and that is why he is rushing into this unneeded
election.
> > , it must still
> > be worrisome for the Liberals, in that the election has
> > not yet been called. The CA seems to have the momentum.
>
>
> >
> > Only ten points 42% to 32% separate Chretien and Day as Canadians
> > choice for best leader. With Chretien's much wider exposure as PM,
> > the campaign not yet underway and before any national televised debates,
> > this is a very slim and precarious lead for Chretien.
Keep in mind also that Day has charisma, which will win him votes from
women.
>
> In the 1970s, Canadians consistantly said (in polls) that they would prefer
> to have Ed Broadbent as PM than Pierre Trudeau - don't seem to recall Eddie
> moving into 24 Sussex, however.
But Broadbent never became leader of the Official Opposition like
Stockwell Day
has. However, don't forget that in holding the balance of power in
Trudeau's
minority government, Broadbent was pretty well calling the shots on
policy, e.g.
the creation of PetroCan as Canada's "window on the oil industry".
Trudeau also had his solid Quebec block of electoral support. Without
that he
would have been defeated in 1972 and decisively in 1979.
>
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, Canadians have seen big early leads melt away in past
> > campaigns e.g. John Turner's big lead in 1983-84, that
> > of Kim Campbell just weeks before her debacle in 1993,
> > in Ontario with David Peterson's Liberals in 1989 and Liberal head
> > Lyn McLeod's big lead over Mike Harris right up until
> > the election of 1995.
>
> The extremely narrow regional concentration (snip)
The CA is already the official opposition and Western Canada is
more than just a region. It is one third of the nation.
> > I have noticed another development that Chretien must find
> > disturbing. It is that the Canadian Alliance is receiving
> > much greater funding from the business community than
> > its predecessor, the Reform party under Preston Manning ever did.
>
> Perhaps that is because the business community realizes (snip)
> that the Liberals are anti-business, anti-free enterprise and are
supporters of Palestinian terrorism.
> >
> > And why wouldn't the corporate world support the Alliance
> > with the Liberal government's being anti-free market, anti-business
> > and corrupt as well?
> >
> Perhaps a better question would be "why would a party that bills itself as
> the voice of the every day man, the common working stiff, concentrate its
> fundraising efforts on the business elites? What will be the Quid Pro Quo?"
The Liberals already practise state capitalism rewarding certain
corrupt business cronies
particularly in Quebec with subsidies and corporate welfare.
>
> > Another problem for the Liberals could be a massive defection
> > of the Canadian Jewish electorate after the anti-Israeli, pro
> > Palestinian position of the socialist Chretien government.
>
> It is always a mistake to assume that voters identified by any tag (ethnic,
> gender, age, economic status) can be expected to vote as a homogenous group.
The 92% of the media in the U.S admitted to being Democrat. In past
elections
the Demagogues have taken 90% or more of the Black vote.
> Don't be so naive.
The Liberals have always benefited from homogeneous block votes,
particularly from the French in Quebec and the underclasses in other
areas.
But I don't see many Jewish voters supporting them now after the
Liberals'
backing of anti-Israeli Palestinian terrorists.
> >
> > So, although the Chretien Liberals appear right now to have a
> > comfortable lead, they must be hearing footsteps.
>
> Somehow, I don't think they are losing that much sleep.
Then why has Chretien bribed, the old socialist rat packer Brian Tobin,
to quit
as Newfie premier to come back to Ottawa? This looks almost like panic
on the Crouton's part.
I don't mean to say
> they can afford to ignore the CRAP entirely (after all, the opinions of 19%
> of the voting public deserve to be considered), but they must be aware that
> Blocwell Day has a better chance of becoming pregnant than becoming Prime
> Minister.
It is unlikely that Stockwell Day's CA will win the coming election;
however,
there is a distinct possibility that the Cretin's "Illiberals" will be
reduced
to a minority. And that blow would be the preliminary to an eventual
knockout punch
to Chretien's corrupt and incompetent bunch, next to Turdeau's
government, the worst
in Canadian history.
Steve Marskell
"M.I. Wakefield" wrote:
> Stockwell Day will be moving out of Stornoway, but into a rented home
> somewhere in Ottawa, not 24 Sussex Drive.
Yes, enjoy those digs while you can Stockie, not yours for much longer!
(Back to the BQ?)
Fudge
P.M. There is a prominent Canadian media manipulator that wants to purchase
a chain of newspapers. If this purchase is allowed in any form, it will make
any competition law and the "Competition Bureau" , our legal system and
parliament itself a complete farce. Just suppose this media manipulator went
to the leading parties with a proposition. Words like "Let me buy the papers
and I will make you P.M." Watch carefully friends!
Farmer John
Shangri-La Toy Clincher
was heard to emote:
> Keep in mind also that Day has charisma, which will win him votes from
> women.
Do you really think women vote image more than policy?
Craig, just wondering
Steve
> > I have noticed another development that Chretien must find
> > disturbing. It is that the Canadian Alliance is receiving
> > much greater funding from the business community than
> > its predecessor, the Reform party under Preston Manning ever did.
>
> Perhaps that is because the business community realizes what the rest of the
> CRAP's supporters do not - that under Blocwell Day, the CRAP (and the
> government of Canada) is for sale to the highest bidder.
>
And you are saying that the Liberals are not?? Fuck you.
> > And why wouldn't the corporate world support the Alliance
> > with the Liberal government's being anti-free market, anti-business
> > and corrupt as well?
> >
> Perhaps a better question would be "why would a party that bills itself as
> the voice of the every day man, the common working stiff, concentrate its
> fundraising efforts on the business elites? What will be the Quid Pro Quo?"
>
> > Another problem for the Liberals could be a massive defection
> > of the Canadian Jewish electorate after the anti-Israeli, pro
> > Palestinian position of the socialist Chretien government.
>
> It is always a mistake to assume that voters identified by any tag (ethnic,
> gender, age, economic status) can be expected to vote as a homogenous group.
> If that were the case, then the NDP, which has enjoyed the support of unions
> supporting the vast majority of Canadian workers for decades now, would have
> formed the last few governments.
>
> >
> > So, although the Chretien Liberals appear right now to have a
> > comfortable lead, they must be hearing footsteps.
>
> Somehow, I don't think they are losing that much sleep. I don't mean to say
> they can afford to ignore the CRAP entirely (after all, the opinions of 19%
> of the voting public deserve to be considered), but they must be aware that
> Blocwell Day has a better chance of becoming pregnant than becoming Prime
> Minister.
I think you'll be surprised.
Robert James
"Carter Lee" <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39E9B8CB...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Robert James wrote:
>
> > In the 1970s, Canadians constantly said (in polls) that they would
prefer
> > to have Ed Broadbent as PM than Pierre Trudeau - don't seem to recall
Eddie
> > moving into 24 Sussex, however.
>
> leader of the party) who was not wanted as PM by the majority of
> Canadians polled. If you were to run that poll only in his own riding
> the result would obviously have been different.
>
> This thread is dealing with the popularity, or lack of it, of political
> parties, not politicians.
>
ten points 42% to 32% separate Chretien and Day as Canadians choice for best
made of Ed Broadbent. The point I was trying to make was that, when it comes
down to it, we don't vote for a PM, we vote for an MP, so the fact that a
large number of Canadians might like the idea of Stockwell Day as a leader
does not necessarily mean they will like it enough to vote for the CA
candidate in their riding, anymore than a general liking of Ed Broadbent
translated into massive support for the NDP. Just look at the numbers - 32%
like Day as a leader, but only 19% like his party. That sort of makes the
scenario Iconoclast was presenting something of a non-starter, don't you
think?
>
> > > Furthermore, Canadians have seen big early leads melt away in past
> > > campaigns e.g. John Turner's big lead in 1983-84, that
> > > of Kim Campbell just weeks before her debacle in 1993,
> > > in Ontario with David Peterson's Liberals in 1989 and Liberal head
> > > Lyn McLeod's big lead over Mike Harris right up until
> > > the election of 1995.
> >
> > The extremely narrow regional concentration of CRAP support renders
> > comparison to those other examples meaningless. If the CRAP had a power
base
> > (or even a toehold) East of the Lake of the Woods, perhaps the situation
> > would be different.
>
> "When" the CA gets a toehold in the east, which is what they are trying
> to do, the situation "will" be different.
It might be, but I would remind you of what happened when the Progressive
Party and the Conservative Party merged - the Progressives got their
foothold, but it did not translate into electoral support until they
moderated their pro-western attitude enough to gain the support of the wider
voting populace - which the CA has yet to do.
> > > And why wouldn't the corporate world support the Alliance
> > > with the Liberal government's being anti-free market, anti-business
> > > and corrupt as well?
> > >
> > Perhaps a better question would be "why would a party that bills itself
as
> > the voice of the every day man, the common working stiff, concentrate
its
> > fundraising efforts on the business elites? What will be the Quid Pro
Quo?"
>
> Who else has the funds, the common working stiffs?
If a party has as much support as the CA claims to have, then why wouldn't
the common working stiffs be able to support it in large measure? But that
is beside the issue. My point here was that nobody gets something for
nothing, especially not when they are contributing millions to a political
campaign. Now, if the business community is giving great wads of cash to the
CA (or any other party, for that matter) what do they expect in return?
Business is not an altruistic venture - there must be a return on
investment, and that is just what a political contributing is, an
investment. So the spectre of a largely Eastern corporate elite funding a
largely Western populist movement, naturally begs the question - whose
buying whom? If the main contributors to the party begin to lobby for policy
changes that would benefit them, possibly to the detriment of the grassroots
of the party, who wins? The common guy, or the one who's paying the bills?
By the way, this is not a complaint the CA party alone faces - it is a
serious threat to ALL Canadian political parties and to the political
process itself.
Also, it should be noted that many of the same corporations donating money
to the CA are also donating to the Liberals and/or the PCs. Now, maybe they
are just hedging their bets by doing so, but then again maybe it is the CA
donation that is the hedge. In any even, it would be wrong to equate
short-term financial support with long-term political support.
> >
> > > Another problem for the Liberals could be a massive defection
> > > of the Canadian Jewish electorate after the anti-Israeli, pro
> > > Palestinian position of the socialist Chretien government.
> >
> > It is always a mistake to assume that voters identified by any tag
(ethnic,
> > gender, age, economic status) can be expected to vote as a homogenous
group.
> > If that were the case, then the NDP, which has enjoyed the support of
unions
> > supporting the vast majority of Canadian workers for decades now, would
have
> > formed the last few governments.
>
> It is an assumption that the NDP enjoys the support of all unions or
> that unions represent the "vast majority" of Canadian workers. If that
> assumption were true you may be right (shudder).
> >
Actually, Carter, you are making my point for me. The NDP did NOT enjoy the
support of the vast majority of Canadian workers, just the support of those
who represented them. Nonetheless, at every election, the unions would
prattle on about "delivering the working class vote" to the NDP and, every
election, they would fail to do so. It is dangerous to assume people will
vote as a bloc based on some supposed common characteristic, be it labourers
voting for the NDP or Jewish people voting against the liberals. The
decision-making process is much more complex than that.
> > >
> > > So, although the Chretien Liberals appear right now to have a
> > > comfortable lead, they must be hearing footsteps.
> >
> > Somehow, I don't think they are losing that much sleep.
>
> The same as they didn't lose much sleep over the Quebec referendum?
The two are hardly comparable.
>
>> I don't mean to say
> > they can afford to ignore the CRAP entirely (after all, the opinions of
19%
> > of the voting public deserve to be considered), but they must be aware
that
> > Blocwell Day has a better chance of becoming pregnant than becoming
Prime
> > Minister.
>
> How about his chances of being the leader of the opposition under a
> Liberal minority government? How binding would that make the cheese?
Ask Robert Stanfield how much being his Leader of the Opposition during the
Trudeau minority helped his party.
The great thing about minority governments is that they have to compromise
more than they normally would, so their legislative agenda is usually more
pleasing to the electorate. The problem with minority governments (from an
opposition standpoint) is that the governing party tends to claim the credit
for the good things that get enacted, whereas it can easily blame Opposition
intransigence for any inability to enact other popular programmes.
Moreover, if the Opposition party calls for a confidence vote, it can easily
be blamed for upsetting a good thing - and be punished for it at the ballot
box. I'm not saying that will happen, but it has before, and could well
again.
>
> Carter
Robert James
"Carter Lee" <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39E9B8CB...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Robert James wrote:
>
prefer
> > to have Ed Broadbent as PM than Pierre Trudeau - don't seem to recall
Eddie
> > moving into 24 Sussex, however.
>
> leader of the party) who was not wanted as PM by the majority of
> Canadians polled. If you were to run that poll only in his own riding
> the result would obviously have been different.
>
> This thread is dealing with the popularity, or lack of it, of political
> parties, not politicians.
>
ten points 42% to 32% separate Chretien and Day as Canadians choice for best
made of Ed Broadbent. The point I was trying to make was that, when it comes
down to it, we don't vote for a PM, we vote for an MP, so the fact that a
large number of Canadians might like the idea of Stockwell Day as a leader
does not necessarily mean they will like it enough to vote for the CA
candidate in their riding, anymore than a general liking of Ed Broadbent
translated into massive support for the NDP. Just look at the numbers - 32%
like Day as a leader, but only 19% like his party. That sort of makes the
scenario Iconoclast was presenting something of a non-starter, don't you
think?
>
> > > Furthermore, Canadians have seen big early leads melt away in past
> > > campaigns e.g. John Turner's big lead in 1983-84, that
> > > of Kim Campbell just weeks before her debacle in 1993,
> > > in Ontario with David Peterson's Liberals in 1989 and Liberal head
> > > Lyn McLeod's big lead over Mike Harris right up until
> > > the election of 1995.
> >
> > The extremely narrow regional concentration of CRAP support renders
> > comparison to those other examples meaningless. If the CRAP had a power
base
> > (or even a toehold) East of the Lake of the Woods, perhaps the situation
> > would be different.
>
> "When" the CA gets a toehold in the east, which is what they are trying
> to do, the situation "will" be different.
It might be, but I would remind you of what happened when the Progressive
Party and the Conservative Party merged - the Progressives got their
foothold, but it did not translate into electoral support until they
moderated their pro-western attitude enough to gain the support of the wider
voting populace - which the CA has yet to do.
> > > And why wouldn't the corporate world support the Alliance
> > > with the Liberal government's being anti-free market, anti-business
> > > and corrupt as well?
> > >
> > Perhaps a better question would be "why would a party that bills itself
as
> > the voice of the every day man, the common working stiff, concentrate
its
> > fundraising efforts on the business elites? What will be the Quid Pro
Quo?"
>
> Who else has the funds, the common working stiffs?
If a party has as much support as the CA claims to have, then why wouldn't
the common working stiffs be able to support it in large measure? But that
is beside the issue. My point here was that nobody gets something for
nothing, especially not when they are contributing millions to a political
campaign. Now, if the business community is giving great wads of cash to the
CA (or any other party, for that matter) what do they expect in return?
Business is not an altruistic venture - there must be a return on
investment, and that is just what a political contributing is, an
investment. So the spectre of a largely Eastern corporate elite funding a
largely Western populist movement, naturally begs the question - whose
buying whom? If the main contributors to the party begin to lobby for policy
changes that would benefit them, possibly to the detriment of the grassroots
of the party, who wins? The common guy, or the one who's paying the bills?
By the way, this is not a complaint the CA party alone faces - it is a
serious threat to ALL Canadian political parties and to the political
process itself.
Also, it should be noted that many of the same corporations donating money
to the CA are also donating to the Liberals and/or the PCs. Now, maybe they
are just hedging their bets by doing so, but then again maybe it is the CA
donation that is the hedge. In any even, it would be wrong to equate
short-term financial support with long-term political support.
> >
> > > Another problem for the Liberals could be a massive defection
> > > of the Canadian Jewish electorate after the anti-Israeli, pro
> > > Palestinian position of the socialist Chretien government.
> >
> > It is always a mistake to assume that voters identified by any tag
(ethnic,
> > gender, age, economic status) can be expected to vote as a homogenous
group.
> > If that were the case, then the NDP, which has enjoyed the support of
unions
> > supporting the vast majority of Canadian workers for decades now, would
have
> > formed the last few governments.
>
> It is an assumption that the NDP enjoys the support of all unions or
> that unions represent the "vast majority" of Canadian workers. If that
> assumption were true you may be right (shudder).
> >
Actually, Carter, you are making my point for me. The NDP did NOT enjoy the
support of the vast majority of Canadian workers, just the support of those
who represented them. Nonetheless, at every election, the unions would
prattle on about "delivering the working class vote" to the NDP and, every
election, they would fail to do so. It is dangerous to assume people will
vote as a bloc based on some supposed common characteristic, be it labourers
voting for the NDP or Jewish people voting against the liberals. The
decision-making process is much more complex than that.
> > >
> > > So, although the Chretien Liberals appear right now to have a
> > > comfortable lead, they must be hearing footsteps.
> >
> > Somehow, I don't think they are losing that much sleep.
>
> The same as they didn't lose much sleep over the Quebec referendum?
The two are hardly comparable.
>
>> I don't mean to say
> > they can afford to ignore the CRAP entirely (after all, the opinions of
19%
> > of the voting public deserve to be considered), but they must be aware
that
> > Blocwell Day has a better chance of becoming pregnant than becoming
Prime
> > Minister.
>
Steve Marskell
Shangri-La Toy Clincher wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 14:55:00 GMT, Iconoclast <icono...@sympatico.ca>
> was heard to emote:
>
> > Keep in mind also that Day has charisma, which will win him votes from
> > women.
>
> Do you really think women vote image more than policy?
>
> Craig, just wondering
In a Harris Ontario.......its the women that vote against him!
Hmmmmmm........Don't Day gets much female support in Ontario.
Rowdy
what area? Polls can be manipulated by the pollsters. Or does that sound too
far fetched for you? When reviewing polls, we must consider the sources, the
ideals of the pollsters, the area of that poll, and the people being polled.
And where are the unbiased polls that would reflect the reality. Shredded. I
have never been approached to participate in a poll, as with everyone I
know. So why should we even consider trusting a poll? They can influence the
undecided and produce the desired outcome. R
"Robert James" <rwj...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:8sb11r$deo$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca...
>
> "Iconoclast" <"iconoclast"@ home.com> wrote in message
> news:ze%F5.4751$N%1.22...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > The latest COMPAS poll shows the Canadian Alliance
> > party of Stockwell Day at 26%.
>
> Most other polls show the CRAP steady at about 19%.
>
> > Although this looks
> > weak beside the Chretien Liberals 45%
>
> Those same polls suggest this is closer to 50% (and 61% in Ontario).
>
> > , it must still
> > be worrisome for the Liberals, in that the election has
> > not yet been called. The CA seems to have the momentum.
>
> Both parties have been experiencing increases in their polled support.
While
> the Liberal increases have not been as dramatic as have those for the
Alliance,
> that is not surprising, considering how low the latter's numbers were (and
> are) - any change would seem dramatic in that case.
>
> >
> > Only ten points 42% to 32% separate Chretien and Day as Canadians
> > choice for best leader. With Chretien's much wider exposure as PM,
> > the campaign not yet underway and before any national televised debates,
> > this is a very slim and precarious lead for Chretien.
>
> In the 1970s, Canadians consitantly said (in polls) that they would prefer
> to have Ed Broadbent as PM than Pierre Trudeau - don't seem to recall
Eddie
> moving into 24 Sussex, however.
>
> > Furthermore, Canadians have seen big early leads melt away in past
> > campaigns e.g. John Turner's big lead in 1983-84, that
> > of Kim Campbell just weeks before her debacle in 1993,
> > in Ontario with David Peterson's Liberals in 1989 and Liberal head
> > Lyn McLeod's big lead over Mike Harris right up until
> > the election of 1995.
>
> The extremely narrow regional concentration of Alliance support renders
> comparison to those other examples meaningless. If the Alliance had a
power base
> (or even a toehold) East of the Lake of the Woods, perhaps the situation
> would be different.
>
>
> >
> > I have noticed another development that Chretien must find
> > disturbing. It is that the Canadian Alliance is receiving
> > much greater funding from the business community than
> > its predecessor, the Reform party under Preston Manning ever did.
>
> Perhaps that is because the business community realizes what the rest of
the
> Alliance's supporters do not - that under Stockwell Day, the Alliance (and
> they can afford to ignore the Alliance entirely (after all, the opinions
of 19%
> of the voting public deserve to be considered), but they must be aware
that
> Stockwell Day has a better chance of becoming pregnant than becoming Prime
> Minister.
>
>
>
Robert James
"Rowdy" <rr...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:iP8H5.26009$24.57...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> Robert; How many polls have you been involved in? What was the topic and
in
> what area?
I have been polled twice on political issues (once in BC and once in
Manitoba), and a number of times on more specific economic issues (in all
four western provinces). Of course, most pollsters will not mention the name
of the organisation on whose behalf they are conducting research, so I have
no idea whether my opinions have been sought by the NDP, the Fraser
Institute, Readers' Digest, or the local Boy Scout group.
> Polls can be manipulated by the pollsters. Or does that sound too
> far fetched for you?
Of course not. In addition, they can be manipulated by the organisation
which commissioned the poll and/or diseminates the results.
> When reviewing polls, we must consider the sources, the
> ideals of the pollsters, the area of that poll, and the people being
polled.
Absolutely correct. That is why properly conducted polls begin with a
comprehensive sample frame (or research population) and use statistically
acceptable rules of randomization in selecting the sampling subsets. The
optimum result is to afford every individual within the research same frame
an equal opportunity of inclusion in the poll.
> And where are the unbiased polls that would reflect the reality. Shredded.
There is no such thing as an unbiased poll, as a total lack of bias would
require the removal of all subjective judgement in the creation of the
instrument (question format, value weighting, etc.) and in the collection
and interpretation of data. We, as human beings, are not capable of
suspending all subjective judgement and polls can never, therefore, be
entirely unbiased.
The best for which we can hope is the presence of a level of intellectual
honesty and ethical behaviour on the part of the pollsters - a
professionally designed and ethically conducted poll will yield a fairly
accurate results that can be extrapolated, with allowances for acceptable
margins of error depending on the size of the samples, to ascertain the
opinions of the larger research population.
> I
> have never been approached to participate in a poll, as with everyone I
> know.
I find that hard to believe. Do you mean to say you and your friends are the
only people in Canada never to have been bothered at mealtime by an endless
string of telephone surveys? These are polls, Rowdy, and they are seeking
your opinion.
At the very least, participating in these surveys can give you a more
concrete appreciation of whewther they are being conducted in an open and
ethical manner. When I find a survey is not being conducted in an ethical
manner, I terminate the call, so that my opinion cannot be misrepresented -
I have noticed, however, that the least ethical of the polls I have been
involved in are obvious market research polls aiming at establishing a
consumer niche for a particular product or range of products.
By the way, if you did in fact question your friends as to whether or not
they had ever been involved in a poll, then congratulations - you have just
participated in a poll! :-)
>So why should we even consider trusting a poll?
Unfortunately, there are more incompetently-designed surveys that
well-designed ones, which is why I do not tend to accept the results of any
one poll as being definitive; rather, I look at the broad range of results
from several different polling organisations and see what, if any, common
trend is being indicated on a given issue. Even at that, however, I am
careful to note that it is just a trend, and does not constitute some sort
of immutable law.
This does not mean that all polls or pollsters are inherently untrustworthy.
As in most businesses, you can generally tell who is doing a good job and
who isn't - those who are faking it might last for a while, but sooner or
later the marketplace will expose them and they will perish. The pollsters
that do the most ethical and accurate polling are the ones who are still in
business and thriving.
>They can influence the
> undecided and produce the desired outcome. R
Why shouldn't a poll influence the undecided, or the decided, for that
matter? It is, after all, a statement of opinion oftten intended to do just
that.
The same can be said for medium of expression (including traditional media
outlets, speeches, newsgroup posts, or friendly debates in the local tavern)
that conveys an opinion, whether overtly or covertly. The ability of a poll
to produce the desired outcome is directly proportional to the willingness
of the individual to be influenced.
In the end, though, it comes down to one's individual preferences. Do we
wish to be led by polls alone, or will we take a more reasoned approach and
realise they are but one tool of many that can help us reach an informed
decision? A healthy skepticism is important when considering any opinion,
not just those presented by polls.
In my response to the original post, I was attempting to show just that,
that all poll results should be taken with a grain of salt and that no one
poll can or should stand on its own and be taken as gospel. In raising the
question of contradictory poll results, it was not my intention to say, in
effect, "my polls are better than your polls" - if I did convey that
message, I apologise.