America Moves a Few Inches to the Left

For the most part the U.S political climate has remained the same. The White House resident is still a democrat, the senate is still controlled by democrats and the House is controlled by Republicans. But I think in all it is a win for left wing of the country, and shows to some extent the fact that America has at least in my mind moved little bit more towards the left of the political spectrum.

In the Presidential election Obama didn't win popular vote wise as much as he did in 2008. This of course doesn't prove that America has moved to the right, because we have to look at previous elections and look for a trend. The trend I see is that many former swing states  have started to lean towards the democrats, and many former Republican states have started to become the new swing states.

Michigan and Pennsylvania have been called swing states for quite some time, but they haven't voted for a republican since 1988! The state of New Mexico was also called a swing state and even voted for Bush in 2004, but the Hispanic vote which is growing in New Mexico, and is increasingly voted Democrat ensured Obama would win New Mexico by a 10% margin (which rivals other more staunchly democratic states like Washington). The state of Virginia which before 2008 has voted Republican since 1964 has became increasingly a democratic state. The state of North Carolina before 2008 has voted Republican since 1976. In 2004 Bush won the state by more than 12%, and now Romney only wins by a mere 3%.

As it can be seen a Democrat candidate has an easier way to 270 electoral votes versus any generic Republican candidate, because many states have become increasingly democratic due the increasing minority demographics in the U.S which currently vote staunchly democrat and the Youth vote increasing involvement.

For example in the year 2000 Only 15% of voters were of the age 18-29 and by a margin of 13% they voted for Gore. In 2008 18% of voters were 18-29 and Obama carried it by more then 34%. In 2012 the portion increased again and is now 19% and they still vote by an overwhelming margin of 23% for the democrats.

As for minorities in 2000 80% of voters were white, in 2008 only 74% were white and in 2012 only 72% are white. The Republican party is only winning this demographic, and have improved there numbers among whites since 2000. Bush in 2000 got 54% of the white vote Romney got 59%. The Reason this landslide majority among white's doesn't easily propel someone to the presidency is because of the minority vote, which feel they are being pushed away by the Republicans.

Among African Americans the percentage has remained relatively constant with around 90% something of all African Americans voting Democratic, but the reason this is dangerous is because the African American voting population is increasing. From 9%-13% (between 2000 and 2012)

Among Hispanics there is a different story. They have also increased there share of the voting population from 7% -10% (between 200 and 2012), but they have also increasingly started to move towards the blue candidate. In 2004 44% of Hispanics voted for Bush, In 2008 only 32% and in 2012 27%. The same is true for the Asian population as well.

It can be seen that demographics of America's voting population has made dramatic changes to some states voting habits as the Republican party is increasingly becoming a party made up of primarily white people and seems to be pushing away the other minorities. If any Republican wishes to get elected president continually pushing away minorities and not reaching out will cause the demise of the Republican party. 

Last Second Projection!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.