You either ignored or glossed over that the sample was of self-identified Republicans rather than registered Republicans. Large swaths of right-leaning voters no longer want to identify themselves as Republicans, even if they still register and vote that way. This phenomenon is much more likely to exist where 1) The typical Republican doesn't hold such extreme views, and 2) Where they are not in such a small minority. In other words, outside the South.
So, it's perfectly normal for the South to be overrepresented in this sample compared to national registration averages. Whether this accurately reflects the 2010 breakdown of voters remains to be seen and will be brought up in the likely voter model debates. But do you think Research 2000 intentionally overcalled Southerners in order to make their results more sensational?
This is not the first time I've read a front pager here trashing a dKos/R2000 poll for specious reasons. Jerome called R2000 a bad name (Zogby) for oversampling Hispanics by a point or two in 2008. Geez, maybe the blog that spawned dKos is getting a little jealous of its offspring's success.
labelling the YES side as haters is fair or constructive. I don't understand their zeal in taking away other people's rights either, but maybe it's a question of misinformed people afraid for their way of life who see things evolving too fast.
The LDS church and cynical Republican operatives, on the other hand, deserve to rot in hell.
was after the last Blackwell-Strickland debate, showing a clip of Blackwell saying "my opponent stood down for american families and stood up for the North American Man-Boy Love Association!" or something.
How many points down in the fourth quarter do you have to be before you throw the hail-NAMBLA?
ad hominem fallacy, look up false dichotomy. I've seldom seen a post so littered with them.
Allcapping "government does not produce wealth" doesn't make it any harder to refute. Government built highways, making for a far more efficient food distribution network. Government mandated rural electrification. Governmental organizations set up the water projects that made the southwest inhabitable. Government pays for the national defense and law enforcement that prevents roving gangs from stealing all your stuff and killing you. Government provided the funding for epidemic preparadness and in many cases the research into vaccines and cures themselves. Government legislates and enforces copyright laws that permit authors and software companies to reap the rewards of their intellectual property. Government provides the educational subsidies that allows car companies to hire skilled workers that don't need pictograms to understand their jobs.
That's not "producing wealth"? The efficiencies and protections provided by public institutions aren't worth anything? Name me any billionaire and it will be trivially easy to show how government contributed significantly to his/her accumulation of wealth.
As for the rich refusing to work because the government might take 39% of their excess earnings instead of 33%, how should I put this... Are you fucking kidding? Let me put it this way: before Kennedy, the top rate was 91%. Did rich people refuse to work back in the fifties? There can even be an opposite effect of higher taxation rates: imagine you need to pull in 40,000$ net to live comfortably. If the tax rate is 33%, you need to go out and earn 60,000$. If it's 50%, you need to make 80,000$. You have an incentive to work more, not less.
As for the "move between the classes" meme, you're wrong. Higher taxes on the rich mean more services for the lower classes, giving them more resources to climb their way up. The rich have to be slightly less ostentatious about their wealth in order to ensure their kids will be set for life? Oh, the horror.
would be far from certain. The GG has the perogative to ask the leadership of any party to form a government without calling an election. Not sure what the apparently spineless Jean would do in that case. She either gets accused of "enabling a coup" against the party with the most seats (and thus endangering her continued tenure as GG should the Cons win), or she annoys Canadians with another election.
Iggy is being very farsighted by trying to maximize political timing and rebuilding finances. He's giving Harper back the initiative, who can now provoke the next election at the time of his choosing (most likely when fortuitous events favor the Conservatives).
I'm reminded of my favorite DE-motivational poster slogan when I think about this mess:
"Leaders are like eagles. We don't have either of them here."
Forcing major concessions on the budget was a good thing, no doubt. But the whole purpose of the coalition in the first place was ousting Harper as PM because he had lost the confidence of Parliament. Now, he and his cabal of nasty dishonest partisans can go un suppressing intelligence reports, stacking ministries with lazy and incompetent cronies and babbling about the virtues of tax cuts.
I believe everyone has been overemphasizing the concept of stability for its own sake, most notably the risk- (and duty-) averse governor general. Harper should not have been rewarded for his politically-motivated "prorogue" play.
A Liberal-led coalition focusing exclusively on economic issues would have done Canada more good than this extended cat-and-mouse play with the minority Conservatives. I'd rather Ignatieff have to negociate with Duceppe and Layton in good faith than be forced into repeated showdowns with Harper.
through the GG, has the authority to dissolve Parliament. Other than tradition, the main reason she doesn't is that the GG is toast if the same party gets returned to office.
In the brillant British miniseries "to play the King", the King gets dragged into publicly opposing the lovable but evil scheming Prime Minister. The Government is reelected and the King is forced to abdicate.
Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
The ironically named Clarity Act specified that a "clear" majority and a "clear" referendum question, without defining either term.
Separatism is on the decline because of demographics. Francophones used to be shut out of economic opportunity before the nationalizations of the 60s and language laws of the 70s. Those who remember actually being oppressed (as opposed to imagining Ottawa being tyrannical through equalization payments) are aging and dying off. Also, Canada's economy has been doing rather well since the last referendum in 1995.
The most hardline separatists are afraid of the economic consequences of an independent Quebec (there were Yes on Sovereignty sings with the Canadian loonie on it, a rather confusing ad). The tortured referendum questions are many a result of Quebec wanting all of the benefits of independance but none of the risks.