No they can't win an election.
Granted, this turd column was penned in a rag, wherein the only way somebody stumbles upon this enlightened opinion, is if they can't find the baseball box scores, revealing cleavage, or part of puppy training. Real journalistic want aside, it just amazes me that people can be so dismissive, so absolute, when any objective measure clearly says, YES, the Liberals can win an election. We can all debate the odds, but only a fierce partisan would offer such unequivocal rejection.
The last detailed analysis of the current polling, which doesn't input the most recent results, a further narrowing, further Tory erosion shows a nail biter, by any measure:
National (9 Apr - 1 May, +/- 1.2%)
Conservative — 34.5% (120)
Liberal — 31.1% (115)
NDP — 15.7% (26)
Green — 9.1% (0)
Bloc — 8.5% (45)
Other — 1.0% (2)
Projected seat totals in brackets
Again, we can debate the conclusions, but nobody can dispute the fact that nobody has anything in the "bag", if an election were held now. The above is another empirical measure, something I put more stock in than the musings of some crank.
But, but, Dion is weak, Harper towers above him, this will be the difference. Crystal balls aside, it is just astounding to me, that Dion is already defeated, by a man who can't beat "none of the above" when people are asked who would make the best PM. Are we talking about Ronald Reagan here, or Stephen Harper, because it is really DELUSIONAL to look at this man, his inability to connect, his inability to make any inroads, his "spinning his wheels" routine, and conclude he is unbeatable. Dion's problems aside, Harper is hardly a dynasty, hardly a figure which strikes fear in Liberals everywhere. In many respects, relative to past leaders and their appeal, the guy is a political gift.
But, but, the Liberals are broke, the Conservatives will destroy them in an election campaign. Hello in there, hello. The Liberals will spend the MAXIMUM in a campaign, this has been articulated time after time. Yes, there are problems with fundraising, but you don't extrapolate that to a completely unfounded argument for the election, it will be a level playing field. I suppose you could make the argument about organization, fundraising is a reflection of motivated party workers, volunteers, and on that score, I would give the Conservatives the advantage (outside of Quebec, where evidence of the Con machine is still sketchy at best). An edge, but nothing that rises to any absolute conclusions.
But, but, the "war room", the slick campaign, the master strategists, they will wipe the floor with the hapless Liberals. Just what exactly are you on, are you so arrogant and guilty of tunnel vision, that you forget who your opponents are? The Liberal Party of Canada, bereft of experienced and seasoned strategists, intellectually deficient, unable to run a campaign, a house full of novices with no clue about Canadian elections. Let's keep it real please. I would also add on that score, the "legend" of the great Conservative campaign of 2006, was primarily a case of right place at the right time, just stay out of the way, and sail the wind of change. Seems to me a real juggernaut would have won a convincing majority, under similar circumstance, rather than needing a convenient RCMP probe to instantly give 10 points in the polls. What I'm saying, both sides have their strategists, both sides have able men, who can run a campaign, to discount the Liberals on this score is simply nonsensical.
Would the Conservatives have the advantage if an election were held? You could offer a timid yes, all things considered. Does that translate to certain victory? Absolutely not, and for anyone to suggest it in those terms, is more an indication of their own DELUSIONAL bias, than any fair read of the terrain. Yes, the Liberals can win, and I say that with a critical eye.
Another one for the bird cage Michael.
11 comments:
It's rather ironic isn't it that the most accurate pollster out there (Nanos) is being used by the Sun for polling - thats about the best decision they've made.
Fortunately for the rest of us, Harris is speaking to a "Fox News" type crowd that already thinks the Liberals are evil and the Cons about to set up New Jerusalem, if they just weren't hindered by the judiciary, the public service, and those nasty Liberal-biased Election Canada officials. I wouldn't get too worked up about what he or anyone else in that rag has to say - save for Greg Weston, who shows glimpses of being a realistic conservative opinion person, and perhaps.. hmm.. is Eric Margolis still there at the Sun? I'd put him in that category too to an extent if he is.
Just remember: a slew of the great unwashed read the Sun on a daily basis. It might be a rag, but a lot of people buy it every day.
I may be mistaken - but isn't Michael Harris (what's with his hair) an admitted NDP supporter?
Five things that do not show up in any election forecast & are impossible to measure:
1. The brown envelopes that will show up from bureaucrats who have been treated like dirt for 2+ years
2. The attitude of the press who, for similar reasons will not let the Fat Guy in the Plastic Bubble campaign work
3. The circus of protesters in Polar bear suits following Steve & his Ditto Heads around
4. A weak if not non existent secondary tour
5. Dion is not Paul Martin
I would argue as well the press (with some exceptions) will pretty much leave Dion alone, & focus on tougher coverage of the Fat-man.
Does this mean Dion wins? Nope, but it will help - lots. Add a Muldoon here & an In-&-Out there Steve & his Ditto Heads have a real mountain to climb.
"speaks to a Fox News crowd"..??
Which is what??...50% of the population?? And whats needed for a majority??...40%? Scoff all you want but with the exception of the TorStar media outlets are scratching their heads over Mr Dion and his carbon tax. Dont blame Michael Harris. And yes, Eric Margolis is still at the sun, Sheila Copps still writes as well, as well as their weekly "pro and con" page where two guest columnists with opposing views duke it out over the issues of the day. Yep...what a rag!! billg
"...a slew of the great unwashed read the Sun on a daily basis."
My husband being one; many of my colleagues are included as well.
None of them vote for Harper.
I think we put too much weight on columnists' opinions. People are more likely to be swayed by their own "take" on the facts, and not the opinion of another person.
My only reason for citing this column, it is actually representative of some of the online opinion we hear. The "bring it on" posters, who live in some delusional Con world, where Harper is a magician, roaring the polls, so outmatching the opposition. It's all laughable.
"It might be a rag, but a lot of people buy it every day."
Grumpy,
Having seen the morale of people working at the Sun on King Street in Toronto, the opposite is different. Quebecor is in financial trouble, circulation is down, staff cuts are prevalent, and canoe.ca is in danger of being a dot.com bust. People are reading the Sun, but it is the copy that is left lying in some diner or truck stop somewhere in Canada.
Scott, Margolis still writes for the Sun on Sundays. About the only writer I pay attention to in that rag which is newsworthy.
Nat. Newswatch definitely skews to the right in choosing & placing content.
We could use a Canadian version of the Huffinton Post.
if you aren't willing to open your mind to new ideas, why bother even reading anything? might as well be in an echo chamber.
"if you aren't willing to open your mind to new ideas, why bother even reading anything?"
If anyone considers that tripe "opening my mind", well... Besides, when you read stuff like this, it's obvious who's mind is made up, insert thesis here.
np
I've actually emailed them on that score, and they vehemently deny any bias.
Post a Comment