Unless there is some crazy disa
Canada really needs to copy elements of Singapores public housing model. It gets people into apartments they own and allows the next gen a way into high priced real estate. https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/homepage
Polling has changed….
- Thread starter Jenesis
- Start date
Canada really needs to copy elements of Singapores public housing model. It gets people into apartments they own and allows the next gen a way into high priced real estate. https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/homepage
Has there ever been a ridiing where the PPC had any impact?
Honest question, I can't remember once seeing a CPC loss blamed on PPC vote split.
EDIT:: Did some digging and it looks like there have been a handful in both of the last two election where the PPC was a credible reason for a CPC loss.
Last edited:
That still doesn't make them Ottawa's fault.Are tent cities only endemic to Ontario? Of course they aren't. They are part of a much broader problem.
The Surging Rise of Tent Cities in Canada - Cause and Effect
Welcome to the growing phenomenon sweeping our great white north: tent cities in Canada. Explore the reasons homelessness is growing together.runfromcanada.com
A feature of this election is the near annihilation of 3rd parties. The NDP will be all but destroyed and the PPC is polling at about 2%. As the PPC is strongest in ridings where - I suspect - the vote is strongly right wing anyway, those are ridings the CPC should win easily.
Kirk, EVERY polling firm has them at 190.
Tell me what you are relying upon in your confident prediction?
Last edited:
That's why I thought they probably haven't been much of a factor in the past, since they will show up in highly right-wing ridings anyway.
But it seems there have been a handful in 2019 and 2021 where they had more than the margin of victory. (Of course, you can't assume 1:1 those votes would go to CPC if PPC wasn't there, so it isn't definitive.)
My assumption is that they voted PPC as a protest vote because they figured the CPC wasn't racist enough. So they may not have voted at all.
The PPC voters are a mix of different ideologies and beliefs from everything I've seen studying them.
Lots tied into protest votes. General "anti-establishment" vibes. (That's why you see people saying they are voting PPC and their second choice is Green.)
Doesn't surprise me.
Angry people with blue collar jobs and high school diplomas who think the major parties have betrayed Canada and things were "better in the old days!"
You're living under a massive rock if you truly believe this. The CPC is getting destroyed. That's a win for Canada. Maybe this will be a wake-up call for the party to stop acting like Americans and start acting like Canadians.
You bring up "plurality" all of a sudden when in your very original post where does that terminology exist? This was what I originally responded to in the first place:
But when the existing polls have the majority of Canadians supporting Mark Carney and The Liberals, then "plurality" does not have any beef in that argument.
That is why I stated that if the Conservatives do not win this election, it won't be "most people", but just those who support Pee Pee.
By the way though the Conservatives won the popular votes in the last couple of elections, they did not get more than 50% of the votes. So that plurality synonym does not bear any substance!!
The reason was because the member I was responding to said the Conservatives could get win the most votes (plurality). I was merely reiterating that winning the most votes would still be a loss without gaining the cabinet. Right? No one really views the party with the most votes as a winner unless of course they win an out right majority in Parliament or can form a workable coalition.
No offense, but I seem to be someone you feel compelled to challenge. My original post that you seemed to determine to challenge doesn't mean what ever you have projected. That's why I said go back to the original posts and work forward.
This might all seem didactic. I am making a point about being argumentative with someone for the sake of arguing with them.
This was a response below to Kirk who thinks the Conservatives could win the most votes. Again, that was his statement. I have not made any predictions about this election.
You seem to be holding on to a different argument in your head. Additionally, you need to allow members to clarify their positions if there is some ambiguity in a statement.
Once again it you are now changing the tune. This is not about just your opinion, but you were referring to "MOST PEOPLE", and that was why I injected my two cents in the mix.
But now you will keep going round and round in a tangent!!
However, let us scrutinize where you responded to one of my posts in this thread:
So oracle, it was a good thing that he backtracked and resigned. The policies were also backtracked, so thanks for the advice...............!!
Now I was bringing up one of Oracle's quotes regarding "Backtracking" and yet you interjected without reading the link that I posted in the first place.
What did the colour of the "jersey" have to do with with my Post?
You can always cite my posts in context rather than alluding to some theme that you think is apparent. The phrase "most people" doesn't change the meaning of the overall statement. It seems like a small thing to lock into and hold on to after I clarified my post's meaning.
This was a different conversation in this thread. I hope you are not trying to settle some score.Now I was bringing up one of Oracle's quotes regarding "Backtracking" and yet you interjected without reading the link that I posted in the first place.
What did the colour of the "jersey" have to do with with my Post?
Last edited:
I think a few progressive members unintentionally linked a likely Liberal victory to Trump's actions. mandrill picked up on this early in the thread and backed off of it. He smartly began focusing criticism on Poilievre and his inadequacies. Valcazar the political science guy (who I don't think can vote in Canada) was asking about this perceived anti-Trump vote.
I like to be optimistic. I think Carney will lead very much differently than Trudeau as long as the Liberal MPs follow him. Carney's too smart and I have a hunch he is a pragmatist when the rubber hits the road. That could be why he is casting a wide net even though objectively the last ten years of Liberal governance haven't been great for Canada.
Last edited:
Well, if you checked his voting record you might have a better idea.
