The sample size here is over 3,000 yielding some very juicy regional/provincial breaks.

These numbers don't totally shock me since Dion has had a few bad weeks and the CPC has been more on track.

My observations are as follows:

The Conservatives still have a lot of wasted votes in Alberta and rural Man/Sask (Ralph Goodale and the Liberal and NDP seats in Winnipeg are probably unloseable for the incumbents).

The Conservatives could gain a seat or two in Atlantic, but nothing major. At 23% the 3 NDP seats there are rock-solid.

The Conservatives are still stalled in Quebec - though that could change if Charest wins and if the BQ starts to seriously fade in the aftermath. The Dion honeymoon is over.

The Conservatives could win back some suburban Vancouver seats from the Libs and a couple of seats they narrowly lost to the NDP last time in BC. If nothing changes between now and the next election, BC would be one place where the NDP would be at risk of losing some (ie: 3 or 4) seats - but that is a big "if".

Ontario would be a real wild card. The NDP is down 2% from the election, but the Liberals are down 8% and the none of the NDP-held seats in Ontario are vulnerable to a Conservative surge. But if the popular vote in Ontario actually went 42% to 32% for the Tories, they could gain 20 seats from the Liberals and the NDP could gain a couple of narrowly lost seats from last time - esp. in the north.

At 8% nationally (probably still an overestimate) and no area of strength, the chances of the so-called Green Party winning any seats is about 1 in a million.

quote:

---

the Kennedy/Dion coalition was just too much to defeat but still Rae and Ignatieff could have united somehow to stop a Dion victory.

---

Theoretically they could have, but there is the small detail that Rae and Ignatieff fought a vicious campaign against each other and hate each others guts - so that was never going to happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Most Canadians haven't been exposed to his incomprehensible English yet...

---

The Quebec election will play a big part in the next Federal campaign, I agree.

Harper is deceptive, there will be a suprise in the upcoming budget, he always has one.

quote:

---

I disagree, having interviewed him numerous times. His accent is a little stilted, but he makes himself easily understood.

---

I have heard that he isn't so bad in one on one settings but in the House and speaking in front of a crowd he is not clear and not at all charismatic.

[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The 80-odd percent of Canadians who only pay attention to politics for about 5 minutes a week, probably find Harper a lot LESS scary now then they did a year ago.

---

quote:

---

the NDP has yet to surpass twenty percent under Layton.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

That's why its of the utmost importance that you stop making it appear that the NDP is filled with arrogant elitist egg-heads who think Canadians are stupid.

---

But what if Elizabeth May is Right Cueball?? =8)

On page 3 of the pdf to which Stockholm links, the breakdown in the chart gives the NDP 15% in total support, while the text on page 2 puts the NDP at 14%.

ex:
Con 40.1
Lib 26.1
NDP 14.49
BlQ 10.1
GRN 8.1
OTH 1.11

In this example you should round down the NDP in the chart and footnote it with an explanation that the totals wouldn't add up to 100 because of rounding. Maybe the Chart Guy rounded the NDP up so he wouldn't need the footnote. The Copy Guy properly rounded down.

This is a slightly facetious theory. But I live in a slightly facetious world.

The PDF gives a contact email. Ask him.

Contact: Ed Morawski, President and COO,
[email protected]

You never know.

edited: what would be even cooler (although this may not elicit a response either, but much more worth it) is to ask him for the raw vote counts for the tables listed in the PDF. You might still not get a response but maybe he'll mistake you for a student and give you something. That something may let you tablulate the exact percentages yourself and you'll gett to see whether any other party was bumped up or down.

[ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]

quote:

---

Of course if there started to be a consensus in the polls showing something like this, mark my words, the Liberals, NDP and esp, the BQ will contort themselves like acrobats to find a way NOT to bring down the government and Harper's window of opportunity could pass. By Fall or by Spring 2008 events could intervene that start to send Toryt support tumbling.

---

I can't see that the opposition parties will have to contort themselves.

Given that there is a stronger and stronger consensus that there is no grounds for an election, it will be difficult for the government to engineer their own defeat. In the present conditions they cannot be straining to do that.

And arring a truly miraculous recovery of the PQ, the Bloc won't even require a payoff or excuse to support the Budget and stave off an election. [The coming surrender made easier for them since the Budget will be full of goodies for Quebec.]

I think Harper and Company are intent on rolling out a continuous command-the-ground performance. When you are on a roll, governing as if there is an election is a good way of keeping the opposition in its place.

The coming Budget isn't going to be a make or break affair [a la Paul Martin: throw everything remotely possible in there].

There will only be income splitting for couples AND another point off the GST if that leaves room for another major tax cut to be announced at the next point an election becomes a possibility- Fall or Budget 2008.

By the way- here's an idea that surprised me, but I am inclined to accept.

The thought is that the Liberal planners have already conceded the next election to Harper. Partly because Canadian voters generally do not vote against governments that have only had one term [and there is no indication that the Harper government will be one of those different cases].

So the thought is that the Liberals are putting their prime energy into positioning viz the NDP, not in relation to the Tories.

The goal being to hammer the NDP bad enough in the coming election so that they don't have them for competition in the following election. [Layton gone, NDP off balance, etc.]

Then the Liberals would be free to not only govern from the right, but also to fight an election from the right.... Harper being a more serious foe making it more difficult for them what worked for them in the past or recycling election platforms of left-leaning promises they 'hadn't got around to yet'.

I am personally disinclined to attribute these kind of motives to any party. But I had been mystified by the positioning the Liberals have been taking- it seemed incredibly inept.

quote:

---

When Dion first one, i dubbed him a "Liberal Robert Stanfield" and people ridiculed me for it. Now they admit i was right.

---

You're a regular Kreskin. And without even an election by which to make that judgment.

What this, and the Decima poll, tell me is that Harper's effort to "presidentialize" the election by "demonizing" Dion is bearing fruit. Helped along by the frontrunning media (a redundancy if there ever was one) perpetuating the story line and spin. However, there similar results a couple of weeks before the last election, and the Cons ended up with only 125 seats. And SES, which has the best track record by far, hasn't weighed in yet.

Dion confirmed yesterday that the Liberals are looking at bringing in carbon taxes.

This is absolutely insane if you are focused on beating Harper.

Insane because it is unecessary.

The first step is to bring in hard caps on GHG emissions. Carbon taxes are a tool for making that possible- but also a position with big immediate political costs.

So if you don't want to be drawn into battles you can't win you keep the focus on regulations.

So this would be a suicidal position if you are focused on competing with Harper. [And doubly crazy since up till now the Liberals refused to talk about concrete regulatory action, wanting to stick with the essentially symbolic posturing of 'affirming Kyoto'. Apparently, having themselves disposed of that club over Harper with the Rodriguez Bill, they've decided to skip right over the regulatory issues and jump to the really explosive issue of carbon taxes.]

quote:

---

What this, and the Decima poll, tell me is that Harper's effort to "presidentialize" the election by "demonizing" Dion is bearing fruit.

---

Well yes, but you have to ask about Dion's role in all this.

Its Harper that gets demonized. The attacks on Dion is that he is a weak leader. [Using the word 'demonizing' isn't just a gratuitous- it actually throws off understanding what is happening.]

And you can't chalk so much of it up to media.

It's almost like Dion is a willing accomplice. I know that isn't literally true.

It's not just prtrayal- he doesn't seem to really care. He comes across as cavalier.

And with the Liberals as a whole: it all seems to be positioning. Whether its the government or the NDP, they don't ever seem to be taking anyone on.

quote:

---

The Cons in majority territory. Holy cow!

---

I suggest you take a powder on this.

The Consrvatives getting a majority is, and for some time will remain, a possibility. But an unlikley one.

Likely or not: life goes on.

You and a lot of other people seem to rotate your whole world around minute movements of the thermometer that registers how much of a possibility it is.

How likely it is, or how realistic your fears are or are not... write a little note for yourself.

"The Liberal Party itself does not care whether or not Harper gets a majority in the next election."

Certainly, they don't want Harper to get a majority. But it isn't their primary concern.

Not only not their primary concern- not even close.

Their concern is when and how they unseat Harper.

No political gamer/particpants or observers has yet seen any reason to expect that the next govt will be a Harper majority. [Another Harper minority continuing to be by a considerable amount the greatest probability.]

[ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob8305:
Now, can anyone explain to me why the most successful political party in Canadian history would pass up their opportunity to win the next election by electing this man as their leader? I guess a simple answer might simply be that the Kennedy/Dion coalition was just too much to defeat but still Rae and Ignatieff could have united somehow to stop a Dion victory.

---

quote:

---

I have heard that he isn't so bad in one on one settings but in the House and speaking in front of a crowd he is not clear and not at all charismatic.

---

However, history is not the only factor. You also have to be aware of the individual's ability. And so far, we have seen very little ability from Dion. We have seen no fiery speeches, no new poicy.

All he seems interested in doing is criticizing the Conservatives and re-hashing policies that have been circulating for some time based on what the polls are saying.

The problem with the Liberal party is not that they don't have vision. The problem is that their vision starts and stops with them getting power.

BC
CPC: 26
LPC: 4
NDP: 6

AB
CPC: 28

SK/MB
CPC: 27
LPC: 1

ON
CPC: 65
LPC: 29
NDP: 12

PQ
LPC: 16
CPC: 10
BQ: 48
Ind: 1

ATL
CPC: 13
LPC: 16
NDP 3

quote:

---

I think each of those three has a troubling history that the Conservatives could have exposed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

You're a regular Kreskin. And without even an election by which to make that judgment.

What this, and the Decima poll, tell me is that Harper's effort to "presidentialize" the election by "demonizing" Dion is bearing fruit...

---

First of all, the last three elections have featured a considerable amount of negative attacks on the challenger.

Secondly, I would posit that the Liberal bounce in late-campaign the last two elections had a lot to do with familiarity - something that now works against them. Stockholm has a good point, I think, about how the average Canadian probably doesn't think Harper is scary.

SK/MB
CPC: 27
LPC: 1

Huh?

Where have the numbers changed enough to take out the 3 Winnipeg NDP MP's?

And with Blaikie and Martin at least [Judy W-L's riding I have no familiarity with]... that the CPC gains the seats??? coming from 3rd place, even distant third???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob8305:
can anyone explain to me why the most successful political party in Canadian history would pass up their opportunity to win the next election by electing this man as their leader?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Radioactive Westerner:
Few people voted "for" Dion. Most voted "against" Iggy and Rae.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Why would you assume that Ignatieff (whose leadership campaign exploded in a series of embarassing gaffes) or Rae (probably the least popular Ontario Premier in recent memory) would be doing any better?

You think the ads targetting DION hit hard? Think of what the Tories would have done with Rae.

---

The thing with Dion is that, he seems to make a good leader (I think), but a terrible spokesman. That's partly why Iggy gets so much face time in QP.

And not only whether it is an on line poll in the first place.

But if it is, the methodology would be nothing like media on line polls.

It says all times Pacific, but it is Alaska Time they are on.

Has it always been like this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Where did you hear this? If true, it would put the nail in the coffin of my opinion of Angus Reid as a pollster. That's incredibly irresponsible.

---

Well, I heard it at another forum, and then I just found the link at the top of the page to the angus reid documents and found this:

quote:

---

From February 20 to 27, 2007, Angus Reid Strategies conducted an online survey among a
randomly selected, representative sample of 3,189 Canadian decided voters. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

---

Now, what do they mean an on line survey? Do they mean as part of those that they have registered there to do so? Or just the on going and differing online polls they have their on the front page. Because I have been answering polls online there for awhile and linked one to here about Afghanistan.

And I am suspecting that this is what it actually was, as they say they weighted the results; "according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada."

Apparently, they did NOT know who was responding, nor the demographic profile of the responder. So, it was not a part of their polling questions and itseems it may not have been from those registered with them granting random polling access either.

It has been my limited experience that you have disclose sex, education etc, to be a part of their system, as I have had to disclose such things to both Ipsos and Angus when I sign up for a year, as willing to be polled randomly. though I have not done so now for a couple of years.

quote:

---

Methodology: Online interviews with 3,189 Canadian adults, conducted from Feb. 20 to Feb. 27, 2007. Margin of error is 1.9 per cent.

---

quote:

---

But if it is, the methodology would be nothing like media on line polls.

IE, same as telephone polls: you have to make sure you actually poll a cross section, rather than polling who responds.

---

Oh, I know it wouldn't be as bad as that, but even discounting the possibility of hacking and meddling, wouldn't any online poll, no matter how well-constructed, automatically de-select everyone who doesn't use the internet? I know we're a very plugged-in nation, but not so plugged-in that we can just toss out everyone who doesn't go online and call a poll representative. Think of all the seniors and poor people this discounts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

And with Blaikie and Martin at least [Judy W-L's riding I have no familiarity with]... that the CPC gains the seats??? coming from 3rd place, even distant third???

---

Obviously a swing model doesn't take into account some factors - for instance if you put Quebec into one of these last election, it had Martin losing in Lasalle-Emard (if you assumed that Conservative gains came largely from the Liberals, you could have the Tories win in some Montreal ridings).

But the questions being asked in this poll are definitely politcal/social choices,

oh wait, I just came across an abortion one and should it be illegal or not and in the same category they are asking about whether governments should address the prosperity gap, and now one about SSM.

Now one about the rich should have better access to health care, national identity cards, one on religion and the part it plays in your life, then one about whether everyone benefits if business makes profits or not.

IMV, they are looking for politcal strategies it appears. Both provincially and federally. And for those interested in abortion and SSM being raised again as a national topic you really might want to respond.

For those interested they are also asking:

Slips in one about flight usage for personal and business, guess that tells them possible income ranges?

Then it asks how intested you are, in both current affairs and politics.

Then one about technology items you own. Followed by how adept with technology you are 5 choice examples.

Then it asks about what you have done for the last 12 moths with 6 choices of things online.

Asks about perscription drugs usage and
goes into a couple of consumer choices

Now it asks gender and all the other demographics too, oops I misclicked that I identify with Asia somehow, oh oh.

Then it asks about your personal interest categories and rates them.

Finally, it asks you your name and email address,
and you can get paid uo to 1500 bucks.

ONT
CPC: 63
LPC: 25
NDP/G: 18

ATL
CPC: 10
LPC: 14
NDP/G: 8

AB
CPC: 28

SKMB
CPC: 25
NDP/G: 3

PQ
CPC: 10
BQ: 48
LPC: 16

BC
NDP/G: 11
LPC: 4
CPC: 21

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
I don't know. Do you really think it's that simple? I doubt many Ontarians are voting Liberal because of that.

---

The fascinating thing about the 2005-6 election is that the Liberals assumed, by default, that they would be that party - and in the end they weren't. They sent Paul Martin out to bluster at Duceppe and talk about saving Canada. You may recall the very staged and pre-meditated attack at the Leader's debate. Or the disastrous challenge to debate Duceppe on "every street corner". When Duceppe accepted the challenge Martin famously declined.

Stephen Harper, of course, benefited from these sad theatrics - particularly when he agreed to have the debate that Martin declined. More generally, his narrative resonated in Quebec: the Liberals wanted separatists to win so they would have a foil instead of a partner. Harper schmoozed Charest and promised him the flexible federalism he wanted. In exchange, Charest began to say nice things about Harper. Then Harper started gaining in Quebec. As news of that gain spread to Ontario his support began to grow there. Obviously there were other factors but the fact that Harper was seen as someone with support "across the country" helped enormously.

In the coming Quebec election the person who would obviously benefit from a Charest win is Harper. It would prove his brand of federalism is working, that the Bloc is in decline, and that the Dion Liberals are irrelevant. The person who would benefit from a Boisclair win is Dion. He could tour English Canada denouncing separatists and promising to save Canada - and do so credibly since he himself is a Quebecker. Chretien and Trudeau played these games with huge success since the rise of the sovereignty movement. It's no coincidence that the only time the Tories were in power federally the PQ was out of power in Quebec.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Apparently, there is a reason for the large sample size, and that is because it "seems" it was a ON LINE poll. I am looking for concrete evidence of this, as if it was, it has about as much credibility as any one that is in a online media source. That is NONE.

---

You should try using all the facts.

This was not an online poll - in the sense of the online polls run by media outlests where an entire3ly self-selecting sample call all their friends, neighbours, copartisans and participants in online communities to go in and 'freep" the result.

It is an online poll in the sense that it contacts respondents online and conducts the interview in a fashion comparable to a poll done by telephone. Without knowing the details of their methodology, they will also do something to account for any variation in demographics - ie, if a particular demographic is over-represented, factoring the results to balance that out.

Like any methodology, it introduces possibilities of bias - for example, poor people are less likely to own a computer. Computer owners might be, on average, more politically literate than non computer owners. Whatever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
It makes no sense to put NDP and GPC numbers together, because the Greens are not a progressive party, and any such merger would kill off NDP support entirely, with probably a new party of the left emerging. I really don't see the Greens and NDP together.

---

Nobody that supports the Green Party, and I mean nobody, considers themselves to be voting for a conservative party, except maybe the old leader of the party. Think about London North Centre - who lost support from a strong Green challenge? The NDP in spades, and - this may seem counter-intuitive, since they didn't seem to lose support - the Liberals. Remember that the Tories were down in the polls when the by-election was held, and the Liberals were up from their 2006 results. Losses to the Green Party, however, bled away some of those gains.

quote:

---

No, I do not agree, you register to become part of their forums, then you go do poll/polls, like the big one that is linked above. You can go back daily and participate in the polls they have at the forum. They can also email you to come participate in a poll.
Easily freepable, just a call to go register and take part again like the one linked above

---

You are DEAD WRONG. On-line polls such as the one by Angus Reid DO NOT conduct a survey based on people who take it upon themselves to register. These polls are NOT "freepable". What they do is they they buy samples of hundreds of thousands of personal e-mail addresses that have been compiled by many, many, many independent sources. They may also ask people who have responded to random telephone surveys over the years if they would be willing to ever do a survey on line and if they say yes, they are asked for their e-mail address.

I'm not saying that an on-line poll is perfect. But neither is a telephone survey since many people only have cell phones and many people never answer the phone unless their call display says it is from someone they know etc... Also, with an on-line survey, you can get about triple the sample size at almost no extra cost and the field period can be more compressed, so that is also a point in its favour.

On-line surveys were used extensively in the last US and UK elections and they tended to yield results that were within a point or two of telephone surveys.

Some have also argued that given that only about 65% of Canadians over the age of 18 vote in federal elections, for the most part the people who are most likely to be excluded from on-line surveys are also the people who are most likely to be non-voters.

quote:

---

for the most part the people who are most likely to be excluded from on-line surveys are also the people who are most likely to be non-voters.

---

That is definitely not true. The rich/poor divide may reflect this (then again, it may not), but the age element is the inverse of what you're claiming.

quote:

---

It has only been explained about 100 times that a random sample poll that randomly contacts people through their e-mail address is no more "freepable" than is a telephone survey.

---

One thing about having a sample size of 3,000 is that it can give you a lot more flexibility in terms of being able to weight the data to reflect the characteristics of the Canadian population.

[ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

How many people just hangup on them or make up some excuse like, gotta walk the dog ?.

---

Next you'll be telling us that those millions of Canadians who decide to wash their hair instead of casting a ballot are really just so satisfied with Canadians politics that they can't be bothered. Go on luv, vote f'me while you're there will ya ?. I don't think so.

I think there are tens and tens of thousands of Canadians who are absolutely disillusioned with our two old line parties in Canada. Ask any poor slob on the street what they think about Canadian politicians. They won't know who Jack is, but just a few of them will tell us our governments are corrupt and on the take.

And if anybody knows anyone still looking for work today, tell them they'd better hustle now because the conservatives won't be looking for favourable opinion polls one they win a phoney majority and put the kibosh to the economy.

[ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Next you'll be telling us that those millions of Canadians who decide to wash their hair instead of casting a ballot are really just so satisfied with Canadians politics that they can't be bothered.

---

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Well actually I think its a mix, some people don't vote because they are content and don't follow politics and don't think it affects them. Some are cynical and think all politicians are the same etc...

Interestingly, by far the highest turn out rates in Canada are consistently in PEI!! A province where 95% of the votes cast are for the virtually identical Liberal and PC parties. There is LESS ideological choice in PEI than anywhere else in Canada and yet the Islanders all troop out to the polls en masse!!

Incidentally, Australia has compulsory voting and 90% turn-out rates and they just keep right on re-electing John Howard and his wretched rightwing government over and over and over and over again!

[ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I'm more or less resigned to the fact that, regardless of whom I vote for, the bastards will get in.

[ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

---

So I'm starting the pool for this one. Dibs on gone with his fifth post.

Losers donate a 5er to rabble.ca

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:Good first post.

So I'm starting the pool for this one. Dibs on gone with his fifth post.

Losers donate a 5er to rabble.ca

Who's in?

---

Na, seems like he is the chicken shit type of posting drive by smears just like his master Harper does in QP.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Na, seems like he is the chicken shit type of posting drive by smears just like his master Harper does in QP.

And they somehow think they are superior and morally wonderful. Ass hats.

---

Really where is the smear?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Okay, that's 5. We can lose him any time now.

---

Do you not tolerate any dissention come on, my best friend is a marxist, we have great conversations.

[ 04 March 2007: Message edited by: AlbertaForever ]

You're not a dissenter. If you were, I'd welcome you, but you're not. You're a guy who flew into a thread and posted

quote:

---

Don't worry about it, it could be worse the liberals or NDP could get in.

---

As a response to

quote:

---

I'm more or less resigned to the fact that, regardless of whom I vote for, the bastards will get in.

---

Totally clueless to the fact that this was responding to the perceptive point that stopping the Conservatives is not truely the main concern of the Liberal party, and hence they're not your allies, to which Boom Boom answered that he realised that the bastards always win no matter who you vote for because they're all bastards. So your little "dig" doesn't even make sense. It was a contextless, uninformed provocative jab designed to irritate. What do they call people who make those again? Oh yeah, troll!

quote:

---

If that is the case then, if anything, this poll showing a 40-26 Conservative lead would be UNDERestimating Conservative support since Tory support tends to be HIGHEST among the elderly and LOWEST among the young!!!

---

That might be the case. I'm not actually disputing the results of the poll, and I'm certainly not accusing them of shilling for the Conservatives. These might be the actual numbers, but their methodology has intentionally reduced the representative nature of the poll. There are large definable demographics that are being de-selected by using this method.

Boobs. Boobies. Ta-tas. Etc...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Being a marxist doesn't mean anything about anybody. Your best friend might also be an idiot, like you seem to be.

You're not a dissenter. If you were, I'd welcome you, but you're not. You're a guy who flew into a thread and posted

Totally clueless to the fact that this was responding to the perceptive point that stopping the Conservatives is not truely the main concern of the Liberal party, and hence they're not your allies, to which Boom Boom answered that he realised that the bastards always win no matter who you vote for because they're all bastards. So your little "dig" doesn't even make sense. It was a contextless, uninformed provocative jab designed to irritate. What do they call people who make those again? Oh yeah, troll!

If you don't want everyone rooting for you to be tossed, try making a contribution to the discussion, if you do, then that's what you'll get.

---

Boy aren't you the friendly sort.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
You are DEAD WRONG. On-line polls such as the one by Angus Reid DO NOT conduct a survey based on people who take it upon themselves to register. These polls are NOT "freepable". What they do is they they buy samples of hundreds of thousands of personal e-mail addresses that have been compiled by many, many, many independent sources.

---

No, in fact I am not, and no that is not what they do.

If you would've paid attention on the other thread about this, or even have gone to angus reid forums you would have saw, that you register then participate, they can email you and ask you to respond or you can go there everyday and do the polls they have once registered. And yes we did get people registering to answer a very long political poll, so the results coming from it will be skewed.

quote:

---

As for the bit about my friend, its nice to see that anybody who has a differing opinion is an idiot.

---

See what I mean? You were trying to prove how open minded you were by saying you're friends with a marxist. I pointed out that being a marxist doesn't mean you guys don't have a lot in common, and hence, your great conversations might have nothing to do with your alleged open-mindedness. For instance, I hypothesised that he might be an idiot as you seem to be, based on the fact that you couldn't understand the simple comments you chose to reply too in your first post. I wasn't saying that he was an idiot because he was a marxist, or even that he was an idiot at all. I speculated that he might be, since you are. It was actually you I was insulting, not him. Predictably, you didn't understand me.

quote:

---

Your CPC support is showing through again. Ranting that the 40% has to be correct and all.

---

I'm not saying that the 40% "has" to be correct at all. I'm saying maybe its right maybe its wrong - we will never know since Canada had no election in the last week of February of 2007 to prove it one way or another. and if a telephone poll had the CPC at 40% I would also maybe its right or maybe its wrong.

quote:

---

Na, seems like he is the chicken shit type of posting drive by smears just like his master Harper does in QP.

And they somehow think they are superior and morally wonderful. Ass hats.

---

I'm sure Alberta is here to be provocative, but is that prohibited? He/ She is probably a Tory, but if i'm not mistaken the invitation line says "from Harper harpies..." Right? So that's not prohibited, right?

but it's ok to swear and name call pre-emptively, right?

So how long does one have to post here exactly before they can post any kind of slur (I've seen 'Nazi' used like it was nothing) with impunity without worrying about the mods? Is it a tenure thing?

[ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants:
I'm sure Alberta is here to be provocative, but is that prohibited? He/ She is probably a Tory, but if i'm not mistaken the invitation line says "from Harper harpies..." Right? So that's not prohibited, right?

---

Provocative = trolling

Trolling is prohibited

quote:

---

but it's ok to swear and name call pre-emptively, right?

---

Nothing pre-emptive about it.

quote:

---

So how long does one have to post here exactly before they can post any kind of slur (I've seen 'Nazi' used like it was nothing) with impunity without worrying about the mods? Is it a tenure thing?

---

Your example of "nazi" is out of context so who knows what you mean, or what was meant.

But yes, posting history is a factor in the moderators decisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants:
You swore and name called before Alberta did anything of the kind.

---

quote:

---

You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as trolling). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar

---

You too, LTJ and remind. If you're wondering why this thread went to hell, take a look at who started it. Maybe AlbertaForever is a right-wing troll, but he isn't responsible for your response.

[ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

This thread is long enough.

[ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]