Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


What the actual definition of a voter “split” is

Dear Globe and Mail Headline writers:

I’d say the latest Harris-Decima poll is a very good example of a voter split:

Nationally, over the last two weeks, the Conservatives and Liberals are in a dead heat. The Conservatives stand at 32%, to 30% for the Liberals, 14% for the NDP, 10% for the BQ and 10% for the Greens.

On the other hand, seeing another poll that shows 50% blame Harper’s Conservative government’s international policies for the loss of the UN Security Council vote, while 31% blamed Ignatieff’s comments, and trying to claim THAT division is a split, makes me think either there was an attempt here at trying to find a grabbing headlie.. er headline.. or just plain bias.

The Canadian Press and Harris-Decima doesn’t get off the hook entirely here either. The reporter Mike Blanchfield and Decima’s pollster didn’t help matters in the reporting by somehow suggesting that Ignatieff was a “close 2nd” in blame being assigned. As I first thought and others have stated, 31% is the basic baseline support for the Conservatives in this country… in fact, its LOWER then the current H-D poll. Yet, that’s getting called a “split”? Get real.

I challenge the Globe/Harris-Decima/CP to call a 50-31 poll result “a close 2nd” or a “split” if they ever get a poll now or in a federal election where the 2nd place political party trails by that margin to the front-running party. That will never happen of course, and it shouldn’t have been said or suggested with this poll.


13 comments to What the actual definition of a voter “split” is

  • kwittet

    Bravo, Canada
    A U.N. snub is a badge of honor.
    OCTOBER 20, 2010 – Wall Street Journal

    Life must be very good in Canada, or at least dull, judging by the domestic reaction to its failed bid last week for a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council. Listen to the yowls in the papers north of the border: “A nation reeling,” “humiliating defeat,” “a rebuke from the global community,” “tarnishes our reputation,” “a slap in the face.”

    We say: Way to go. Canada seems to have annoyed a sufficient number of Third World dictators and liberally pious Westerners to come up short in a secret General Assembly ballot. The sins committed by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government include staunch support for Israel, skepticism about cap-and-trade global warming schemes, and long-standing commitment to the Afghan war. Americans would be so lucky to get a leader as steadfast on those issues as the Canadian Prime Minister.

    The United Arab Emirates took credit for putting together a group of anti-Canadian Arab and Islamic states to stop the bid for the two-year rotating chair. The UAE also has a beef with Ottawa over landing rights for Emirates Airlines going into Canada.

    The U.S. role here is also embarrassing—to the U.S. Richard Grenell, a former senior official at the U.S. Mission to the U.N., reported last week that America’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, refused to campaign on Canada’s behalf. Mr. Harper’s politics are not hers, and Liberal opposition leader and Obama political soulmate, Michael Ignatieff, declared last month that Canada under Mr. Harper didn’t deserve to get one of the 10 temporary seats.

    The farcical nature of all this was made clear when the Canadians lost to Portugal, which—with all due respect to the memory of Vasco da Gama—is no global titan. This small and economically hobbled Iberian country will now hold one of two temporary spots reserved for Western bloc states. Germany was assured the other.

    Canada, on the other hand, is a serious country. Under Mr. Harper’s leadership, Canada has avoided the worst of the global recession and emerged with a vibrant banking system and strong currency (now trading near parity to the U.S. dollar). The courage of its soldiers in Afghanistan, and in other missions, is testament to a nation that honors its commitments. Canadians should wear the U.N. snub as a badge of honor.


    • Redrum

      @kwittet, quit it, kwittet. It’s copyright infringement to cut & paste a whole article like that. And as other commenters have pointed out, the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox, and it publishes a PMO talking point editorial which was probably sent it to nearly as-is. That shows… what? That right-wing media outlets think alike & engage in ‘Sour Grapes’ with the best of them. Shock & aw, shucks.

      • kwittet

        Redum..I dont see Scott complaining..and I think as long as I include the source its fine. I could be wrong too. All that is is just an opinion but I know you libs dont like any other opinions if it cant be washed down with that awefull red coolade you drink. Yes I am a conservative but I can also admitt when I think Harpo is doing a lousy job. The question is can you admitt it when he has done something right?

        • Jon Pertwee

          @kwittet, “All that is is just an opinion but I know you libs dont like any other opinions if it cant be washed down with that awefull red coolade you drink. ”

          Well Kwittet, how do you expect to receive an answer from someone non-conservative that you will take at face value? I believe the above quote shows that a) you are just as full of bias as everyone else and b) you are equally as incapable of viewing something objectively. Seriously, just because you can admit when Harper is doing a lousy job doesn’t necessarily mean that you could admit when another party is doing something well. That is the real discussion point. Not whether we can agree with you but whether you can view other’s viewpoints objectively. So far you are looking about as muddy as any other partisan.

          Sorry, kwittet I couldnt think of a quick insult so I thought I would just present a point. 🙂 No hard feelings though 😉

        • Redrum

          @kwittet, Whether or not Scott complains or is aware of it, it IS copyright infringement to repost a whole article, esp. an editorial (as opposed to a wholly factual one), even with attribution.

          Just give the link (broken up a bit, so it won’t get sidelined by his spam/to be moderated filter) and an excerpt, if nec.

          But I for one had already read it, since it was on some or all of the news aggregators, & trumpeted in the House of Commons that day.

          But it’s just a bogus Appeal to Authority to think it really shows Harper’s “doing a good job,” for several reasons:
          – it doesn’t matter whether it’s an unsigned WSJ editorial or Monte Solberg’s & Ezra Levant’s two op/eds in the Sun saying __exactly the same thing__: they’re just opinions, and badly founded ones, at that, since:

          – it was, ahem, a secret ballot, so nobody knows WHO did not vote for us, much less WHY (i.e., rather than having anything to do with Israel, as they assume, it could have been for a lot of the harmful things he’s been doing, like opposing or dragging feet on climate control, and supporting the Iraq war, & championing European missile defense, & his anti-abortion maternal health package, & his ham-fisted or AWOL diplomacy efforts, and and and);
          – the various things the Op/Ed gives our country credit for were all in place before Harper took office, and some of them he’s undermined or been opposed to (like strong bank reg’s), and some have happened in SPITE of his poor stewardship.

          BTW, are you secretly a Russian spy or something or did you grow up with such a silver spoon that you never actually had to drink the stuff (or watch TV!) that you don’t know it’s spelled “Kool-Aid”?

        • kwittet

          Jon. Give me an example of something the “other” party has done right? I promise to be objective.

    • Marie

      Kewitte; Under Mr. Harper’s leadership, Canada has avoided the worst of the global recession and emerged with a vibrant banking system and strong currency (now trading near parity to the U.S. dollar)

      Wrong kermit, Under the liberal government with the discontent of Harper government Canada emerged with a banking system thanks to Chretin and Martin. Mr. Harper was a gainst that if you can recall.I know you are Scotts cousin but try and get a few facts straight. Mr.Ignatieff is not Iggy. Please try and show somw respect for him as you do for Harper


      • kwittet

        martie I dont see anything wrong with Iggy. They all have nick names. I call MR Haper Harpo at times. To be honest I dont have a whole lot of respect for any of them. If there was one leader since I became of voting age that overall most Canadians could say that they have done a great job then maybee that person could have at the least have some of my respect. Many times on here I have said we need to purge all of them and start new with fresh faces and new ideas. Lets face it. No one can agree on how the country should be run. Conservatives and Liberals alike have different views and even though over the years the left has drifted towards the center as well as the right the lines are blurred. The reason for this is to try to blurr the lines. Its called trying the sway the center vote that is the true wild card in any election. I dont beieve for a minute that they are in it to try to make things any better. Take away those fat pensions and all the perks and I’ll bet that half of them wouldnt be there. I guess I just try to present another viewpoint. You are right about the banking system. It has been in place for a long time and Harpo has been to a degree the benefactor of this. I think we need a new political system that does NOT see one leader ruling the whole country but a system that can do what is best for the different regions as we truelly are split regionally. You know. Maybee I am not as conservative as I thought but more libetarian.

        • Redrum

          @kwittet, sounds like the same ol’, same ol’ Reform to me. You & Mad Max. But if you believe in small gov’t & trimming the fat etc., why d’ya keep adding extra letters to your words? HST?

        • kwittet

          Actually the extra letter thing is just my my keyboard. Its been acting funny today and I need a can of compressed air to blow it out. Trust me if I was a spy I would have way better things to do than read Scotts blog or reply to you!!!

    • Redrum

      @kwittet, apropos my earlier point that a gung ho op/ed in the Murdoch-owned WSJ these days hardly constitutes evidence of ANYTHING, the blogger ‘saskboy’ provides another timely example:

      one if its articles yesterfay proclaimed, “Capitalism Saved the [Chilean] Miners.” Part of saskboy’s rebuttal:

      “capitalism put the miners in their early grave in the first place… [and] The people of Chile paid for the miners’ extraction, not the mine’s owners who’ve bankrupted the company…. The Internet (a government invention) was responsible for sharing the news of the miners with people who pressured the Chilean government into action…. NASA provided assistance, and gained research knowledge. Countless corporations provided materials and equipment in return for cheap advertising. And the local government coordinated a rescue. Only a wanker would claim that capitalism was the triumphant hero in all of that.”

      http + ://

      http + ://

  • kwittet

    What the poll tells me is that yes Harper has slipped a bit but Iggy has failed also in making up the ground. Another thing it tells me is that acording to this one poll Canadians do not want to give any party a majority. So I think with the regional split we may see minority governemnts for a long time which means a whole lot of wasted taxpayers money with a disfunctional government.

  • Redrum

    Yeah, it’s headlines and the inclusion of ‘push poll’ questions like that which clearly illustrate how absurd it is for the con-bots to portray the Globe and “MSM” in general as being “anti-Harper” or “leftist,” and yet they will persist in doing so.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.