The poll that get's the last say is Leger Marketing August 31st. The Poll shows a new development that seems to be supported by past polls. That the CAQ will have more votes then the Liberals, and the PQ will win a government. But votes don't translate into seats, and in fact I think Won't win more seats or votes come election night
While I say Francois Legault still won't win his party has shown that it can in fact hold it's 28%. Leger Marketing shows that CAQ support is even among older voters and middle age voters who tend to be more reliable , while it's support is low among young voters who tend to be less reliable. While the Liberals support is only high among voters older then 65 and below or average on all other age groups especially youth. The PQ on the other hand have gain some support among some middle age voters, but still is weak among retired or soon to retire voters. This tells us that the Liberals and the CAQ have some gains they can make on election day if there is low youth turnout.
Still 28% of voters can change their minds. This is bad news for the CAQ because among it's voters 37% said they could change their minds, while only 27% Liberal and a low 15% PQ. This plays to the advantage of the PLQ, because there lost votes didn't go to the PQ it went to the CAQ and on election day the most likely transfer of votes will be between CAQ voters to PLQ. But the PQ can also make gains as 34% of Quebec Solidaire voters and Option National two other separatist parties also could change there minds.
Pauline Marois has been leading in the polls since the beginning with the exception of that one fringe poll showing Charest would win. Now 53% of Quebec thinks she will form the next government. But 76% think that it will be a minority, but if the polls are right it's not out of the question that the PQ will get a majority. 308.com actually has Marois in Majority territory, but a very small one.
I will post my complete projection at 1pm. In case any new poll comes out.
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." A Liberal-supporting, environmentalist blog. We blog according to our opinions, not those of the party or government. Free speech must win and that's why we have this blog. The views of two Montrealers and a Libertarian.
Monday, September 03, 2012
Last Second Projection!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
When Is A Religious Symbol Not Religious?
I have been going over the arguments I have presented why it is hypocritical for the PQ to want to eliminate religious symbols in public areas, but yet still keep the crucifix. But after much deep consideration I have come to the conclusion that I am wrong.
Because fundamentally is the crucifix itself being in the national assembly a religious statement, and can symbols that can be characterized as religious be able to get government funds? For example if the crucifix is broken and needs repair should taxpayers pay for it?
In this situation I find myself agreeing with the PQ and complacently disagreeing with my former post. That the crucifix does have historical reasons to be in the national assembly. It is a historical artifact, and like many historical artifacts in the world they do have religious meaning. For example in Mount Royal there is a big cross and many historical places that we preserve can be characterized as religious.
That doesn't mean simply because we invest in repairing or preserving these symbols that we are therefor endorsing a religion or another but rather that we are preserving it's historical meaning. For example the UN does spend money on preserving many very historical sites which can in some cases be a religious site, It doesn't mean that we endorse the religion the symbol may represent to some people but rather the protection of an old historical site.
On the question of whether people should be able to wear religious symbols in public I do still disagree with them, because I believe we should live in a very tolerant society that allows people in most cases (with very few exception) the ability to wear whatever we want as long as it is decent of course. Which means Hijabs, Kipahs, Kirpans etc... should be allowed to be worn by anyone anywhere in public.
In conclusion the crucifix should be allowed to stay in the national assembly, because it is historical.
Because fundamentally is the crucifix itself being in the national assembly a religious statement, and can symbols that can be characterized as religious be able to get government funds? For example if the crucifix is broken and needs repair should taxpayers pay for it?
In this situation I find myself agreeing with the PQ and complacently disagreeing with my former post. That the crucifix does have historical reasons to be in the national assembly. It is a historical artifact, and like many historical artifacts in the world they do have religious meaning. For example in Mount Royal there is a big cross and many historical places that we preserve can be characterized as religious.
That doesn't mean simply because we invest in repairing or preserving these symbols that we are therefor endorsing a religion or another but rather that we are preserving it's historical meaning. For example the UN does spend money on preserving many very historical sites which can in some cases be a religious site, It doesn't mean that we endorse the religion the symbol may represent to some people but rather the protection of an old historical site.
On the question of whether people should be able to wear religious symbols in public I do still disagree with them, because I believe we should live in a very tolerant society that allows people in most cases (with very few exception) the ability to wear whatever we want as long as it is decent of course. Which means Hijabs, Kipahs, Kirpans etc... should be allowed to be worn by anyone anywhere in public.
In conclusion the crucifix should be allowed to stay in the national assembly, because it is historical.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Premier Legault? Not Happening !!!!!!!!!
With current polls putting Francois Legault a close third to the other two major political parties many are wondering whether Francois Leagualt will be able to make it all the way and win government in this election. There are many reasons to suspect that the CAQ will make major gains in this election and that they will no doubt out do the ADQ, but when it comes to the question of whether they can achieve a government, but I think they won't.
First it's very easy to look at the polls and say that the surge in CAQ support may give Legault the support he needs to form a government. A poll done on August 16th have the CAQ at 27%, QLP at 28% and the PQ at 33%. This poll suggest that the CAQ can make this a three way race, but if we look deaper into the numbers you will know why the CAQ won't end up victories September 4th.
In the Leger Marketing poll they asked people who said they would vote one way if their choice was final or if they could change there minds on election day. The PQ and the PLQ both scored high among there supporters. With 71% of PQ supporters and 64% of PLQ supporters saying that there choice was final. The CAQ on the other hand has half it's supporters saying they could change their minds on election day. This shows that the CAQ support is weak and that his party's support is the most liquid of the three major parties. Meaning he has most to lose and the least to gain as Quebec Liberal supporter and PQ supporters seem to have more then CAQ supporters made up their minds.
Also when asked who in the people's opinion will form the next government the CAQ placed third with 15%, behind the PLQ and PQ with 26% and 37% respectfully. Which shows that a large number of CAQ supporters don't see the CAQ getting elected which means that the party itself isn't sure it will win even though their polling like they could.
Even with all this the CAQ have a lot going for them when asked who can bring better access to health care, who can stop corruption and who can balance the budget Francois Legault wins beating the other leaders by a large margin. But when it comes to election night the CAQ won't reach where they are in the polls as there voters are less sure about the party. When it comes to election night CAQ voters will be more likely to stay at home or change there minds and vote for someone else then PQ or PLQ voters.
See The Poll Here
First it's very easy to look at the polls and say that the surge in CAQ support may give Legault the support he needs to form a government. A poll done on August 16th have the CAQ at 27%, QLP at 28% and the PQ at 33%. This poll suggest that the CAQ can make this a three way race, but if we look deaper into the numbers you will know why the CAQ won't end up victories September 4th.
In the Leger Marketing poll they asked people who said they would vote one way if their choice was final or if they could change there minds on election day. The PQ and the PLQ both scored high among there supporters. With 71% of PQ supporters and 64% of PLQ supporters saying that there choice was final. The CAQ on the other hand has half it's supporters saying they could change their minds on election day. This shows that the CAQ support is weak and that his party's support is the most liquid of the three major parties. Meaning he has most to lose and the least to gain as Quebec Liberal supporter and PQ supporters seem to have more then CAQ supporters made up their minds.
Also when asked who in the people's opinion will form the next government the CAQ placed third with 15%, behind the PLQ and PQ with 26% and 37% respectfully. Which shows that a large number of CAQ supporters don't see the CAQ getting elected which means that the party itself isn't sure it will win even though their polling like they could.
Even with all this the CAQ have a lot going for them when asked who can bring better access to health care, who can stop corruption and who can balance the budget Francois Legault wins beating the other leaders by a large margin. But when it comes to election night the CAQ won't reach where they are in the polls as there voters are less sure about the party. When it comes to election night CAQ voters will be more likely to stay at home or change there minds and vote for someone else then PQ or PLQ voters.
See The Poll Here
Monday, August 13, 2012
Charest Will Win
I'm calling it right now. A Liberal minority government. Polls show that the PQ is leading right now with the support of those alienated by Charest's stance on education and their view of him being corrupt. But, I think that when time comes to vote, a significant portion of the PQ support will simply go with what they know best: the Liberals. They will reason that the tuition increases were not all that bad and that Charest didn't do all too bad on corruption. Besides, the PQ wants a referendum and when time comes to actually take action and vote, they will not support the PQ.
And what about the CAQ? Why won't Quebecers vote for Francois Legault's party? Because, so far the party has not proven to be a serious choice. They seem like disorganised buffoons. Charest is just feeding off this. And so, Charest will win the same way Harper did: by making sure that only the Liberals seem in control of the situation while the other parties blow themselves up.
And what about the CAQ? Why won't Quebecers vote for Francois Legault's party? Because, so far the party has not proven to be a serious choice. They seem like disorganised buffoons. Charest is just feeding off this. And so, Charest will win the same way Harper did: by making sure that only the Liberals seem in control of the situation while the other parties blow themselves up.
Charest had a field day with this, saying: “If I understand it correctly, François Legault will run the Twitter account and organize cocktail fundraisers, while Jacques Duchesneau will run the rest of the government.” Marois also pounced, accusing the CAQ of “improvisation” and calling them “amateurish.” In other words, not ready to govern.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
PQ Proposes New Language Law!
The PQ leader Pauline Marois is proposing new language laws and a her version of secularism. Both of which will make Quebec much worse off. The new Language laws or as Marois would like to put it "a new Bill 101" would harm the most vulnerable people in Quebec society. These People are the anglophone population.
New laws like instituting bill 101 in small business that used to be exempts of such laws would make it harder for the anglophone population to get a job or even keep there job. Now business with as few as 11 people would have to comply to bill 101.
But not all the new language laws will harm the anglophone population. Other rules the PQ are proposing like barring most francophone and anglophones from attending English CEGEP's. Will make it difficult for many to become bilingual. And statistically bilingual Quebecers make more money then there uni-lingual francophone counterparts. This isn't just an issue that will effect anglophones, because trying to reduce the Quebec's populations English language skills will harm the Quebec as a whole.
Yet Marois tries to defend her language laws by using the same old fear tactics that the french language will die if we don't.
Read More Here
New laws like instituting bill 101 in small business that used to be exempts of such laws would make it harder for the anglophone population to get a job or even keep there job. Now business with as few as 11 people would have to comply to bill 101.
But not all the new language laws will harm the anglophone population. Other rules the PQ are proposing like barring most francophone and anglophones from attending English CEGEP's. Will make it difficult for many to become bilingual. And statistically bilingual Quebecers make more money then there uni-lingual francophone counterparts. This isn't just an issue that will effect anglophones, because trying to reduce the Quebec's populations English language skills will harm the Quebec as a whole.
Yet Marois tries to defend her language laws by using the same old fear tactics that the french language will die if we don't.
"Our identity is so important. We are French people in North America. We are a small minority. If we don't wage this battle, we could lose this identity."
'If we don't wage this battle, we could lose [our] identity,'
"We have abandoned the defence of our language," she told reporters, saying the use of the French language is on the decline, particularly in Montreal.
Read More Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)