The media, including the state-owned CBC, of all people, won’t show you all these latest scientific polling numbers concerning what they really should care about: the opinion of Canadians or the “pulse” of the nation.  Why?  Because they choose not to.  Why?  Because it doesn’t advance their progressive, anti-conservative agenda.  That’s my opinion, which the media also never asks for.  Why?  Possibly because I’m too wordy?  Yeah possibly.  And because I know big words, which doesn’t fit within the template — the bigoted stereotype they’ve worked so hard to create — of the “dumb-ass” conservative, possibly a tea party “extremist”, and self-evidently an “idiot” who always, it seems, yearn for “the dark ages,” not that these liberals even know when they were.  This is the image that they have ever so delightfully attempted to paint for us all in their drive to report news and educate us.  (I also always say no when asked.) 

According to the latest Nanos Tracking Poll, the Conservatives and specifically Prime Minister Harper remain far and away the favorite choice among Canadians.   That’s the headline.  You won’t see it anywhere. 

This oft-repeated result (and this always-avoided headline) despite the horribly biased, anti-conservative media and academia hammering away at anything conservative, all day long, every day. 

Moreover, at some point, after the scientific experiment repeats itself over and over multiple times, as it has in fact in this case, you have to draw some solid conclusions about the way things are — about life — in this country.  “The facts of life are conservative,” to quote one Conservative elder. 

Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,017 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between November 1st and November 5th, 2010. A survey of 1,017 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. For 822 committed voters, it is accurate to within 3.4 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Margins may be larger for smaller samples.

The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between October 1st and October 6th, 2010.

National Committed Voters Only (n=822)
Conservative 37.1% (+0.5)
Liberal 31.6% (-0.8)
NDP 15.4% (-0.9)
BQ 10.8% (+1.0)
Green 5.2% (+0.3)

Note: Undecided 19.2% (+2.1) of total voters surveyed

Leadership Index Questions: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the federal Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:

The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between August 28th and September 3rd, 2010.

National (n=1,017)

The most trustworthy leader
Stephen Harper: 24.3% (-1.2)
Jack Layton: 16.9% (+0.4)
Michael Ignatieff: 14.3% (+4.0)
Elizabeth May: 6.6% (-1.2)
Gilles Duceppe: 9.7% (-0.3)
None of them/Undecided: 28.1% (-1.8)

The most competent leader
Stephen Harper: 32.7% (+2.4)
Jack Layton: 13.8% (+1.5)
Michael Ignatieff: 14.7% (+0.1)
Elizabeth May: 3.5% (-0.2)
Gilles Duceppe: 8.3% (-0.4)
None of them/Undecided: 27.1% (-3.4)

The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
Stephen Harper: 27.9% (+0.4)
Jack Layton: 15.4% (+0.3)
Michael Ignatieff: 16.1% (+2.0)
Elizabeth May: 4.7% (-1.4)
Gilles Duceppe: 7.3% (+2.1)
None of them/Undecided: 28.5% (-3.7)

Leadership Index Score
Stephen Harper: 84.9 (+1.6)
Jack Layton: 46.1 (+2.2)
Michael Ignatieff: 45.1 (+6.1)
Elizabeth May: 14.8 (-2.8)
Gilles Duceppe: 25.3 (+1.4)

Best PM Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate]
Stephen Harper: 28.4% (-2.3)
Michael Ignatieff: 15.5% (-0.3)
Jack Layton: 16.4% (-0.3)
Gilles Duceppe: 8.8% (+1.4)
Elizabeth May: 6.1% (0.0)
None of them: 11.2% (+2.5)
Unsure: 13.7% (-0.9)

And yet nearly every time the progressives Michael Ignatieff and his political sister Jack Layton speak, they make out like they have the pulse of Canadians firmly in hand.  Nearly every time they speak they include the phrase “in the interests of Canadians” and advert their illusions that the Conservatives and Stephen Harper in particular (or to use Ignatieff’s irreverent parlance, “that guy”, or sometimes “this guy”) doesn’t speak “in the interests of Canadians”; but that their ideas and “principles” (du jour) are right on the mark.

Is this a mental illness?  A failure to grasp reality?  A lie of sorts?

And of course you have to ask members of the media what in the world the reporters, anchors, and columnists are thinking, when quite clearly, the preponderance or at least the plurality of Canadians are not on board with their liberal-left, anti-conservative spin on all issues — their overt bias parlayed through that scowl on their face when a conservative speaks, or that subtle roll of the eye, or that slight sneer on their face as they begrudgingly allow a conservative to complete a sentence, or that glib written line in which they reflexively dismiss the words or ideas of what some of them go ahead and call a “tea bagger.”  It is what I suppose they call their exquisite nuance (hi state-owned CBC opinion writer Neil Macdonald!) which is actually a more blatant form of the anti-conservative pathology.  Despite the repeated evidence, they still seem to treat conservatives —and the more conservative the more this attitude prevails — like a pariah.  The exact opposite is the scientific fact.  They are the outcast.  Liberals, New Democrats — they are the outcasts. 

And yet they get away with it.

It certainly makes me wonder why so many Canadians, who feel like they’re conservatives, seem to cower whenever they have the chance to speak out or push back in conservative tones.  Liberals (all progressives, including the socialists of Layton’s you’ve got to be kidding party) always speak as though everybody in the room agrees with them.  Well they don’t.  And don’t worry — though it seems true, I won’t say “the science is settled” on this one.

 

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)