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.