At the same time Liberals had 80 seats, as opposed to ALP's 67.

yes I see that now. Point taken.

Also, 1996 was a landslide victory for Liberals, with 94 to 49 seats. However looking at vote %, it was fairly even: 53.63% to 46.37% (with Liberals in front). The point I was making is that the seat system is set up so that Liberals get more seats than what the %vote should represent.

I suppose there are some regions which are hard-core labor, while other seats which tend to swing more. Perhaps the Liberals have fewer seats that totally are blue-ribbon liberal (I really don't know).
Or do you think it is a matter of re-drawing the electoral boundaries?

I think it's because the seats are supposed to be split according to how much population is in them, however the country sections tend to have less for geographical reasons. (The zones would be too big to "properly govern") So essentially, your vote is worth more if you live in a rural area, and rural areas generally support the coalition in one way or another. (One of the parties, not necessarily Liberal)

Of course, there are a few hardcore Labor areas too where the Coalition has basically given up and put dud politicians there who don't even know what their policies are.

"I would much rather rely on Canadian Newspapers then some fucked up site when it comes to looking at the results of a Canadian election."

? I linked you to a Canadian newspaper. The Toronto star has the same report.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/994850--the-ethnic-conservative-myth

Bill Clinton offered leadership in 1997.
Working with a Republican House Clinton was able to cut taxes and cut spending.
WoW!

The bill cut taxes by $85 Billion and cut spending by $300 Billion.

The United States economy didn't fall off a cliff.
Clinton produced a surplus.

The historical record argues that the budget does not require a tax increase.
In fact the historical record shows that spending cuts and tax cuts both can reduce the deficit.
Just look at the bill that Bill Clinton signed on 5-15-97.

Eh....So your argument, TC, is that someone works with the opposite party, therefore he has leadership, therefore he works with the opposite party, and so on?

That's arguing in a circle.

"That's arguing in a circle."
Perhaps he lives under a circular bridge?

@dD: That is just simply BS.

Harper (conservative) got 40% of the vote last election, but won 166 out of the 308 seats. One could claim that the election is fixed for the conservatives.

However back in 2000, the Liberals won 172 seats with 41% of the vote. The elections are not rigged in favor of any leader. However Chretien did a great job at creating a split vote between the Alliance and Reform parties allowing him to win the election. Harper did the same thing but between the Liberals and NDP.

One could claim based on the 2000 presidential election that the split favors the Republicans, were Gore got more then 50% of the vote and lost.

However based on the 2008 election, where Obama got 1% more of the popular vote but 3 times the amount of electoral votes, one could say the split favors the democrats.

The best example of proof of how the split favors no party is the JFK election. Where Kennedy only campaigned in the states with a split vote while Nixon campaigned everywhere. Nixon got killed despite taking 0.1% less vote.

It matters how you campaign and where you campaign. It doesn't favor either party...

respond to rest later, I have to go

"Bill Clinton offered leadership in 1997.
Working with a Republican House Clinton was able to cut taxes and cut spending.
WoW!

The bill cut taxes by $85 Billion and cut spending by $300 Billion.

The United States economy didn't fall off a cliff.
Clinton produced a surplus.

The historical record argues that the budget does not require a tax increase.
In fact the historical record shows that spending cuts and tax cuts both can reduce the deficit.
Just look at the bill that Bill Clinton signed on 5-15-97. "

That couldn't be closer to the truth. In fact raising taxes only decreases spending. For example last time them Liberals raised income tax by 10%, they suffered a 2% decrease in revenue. Taxes, especially during a recession, are the worst possible thing to be raising.

Cause what it does (and this has been proven) is reduce spending, weakening the GDP and the economy.

I am torn between wanting Obama to go crying to congress for help and agreeing on tax and spending cuts or wanting to see America default and the emerging chaos.

Both would be very, very interesting.

I will be crying myself to sleep for weeks to come if the republicans end up striking a deal with Obama that makes Obama look good.

Reagan was a cut-and-run, tax-and-spend liberal.

Fasces, Excellent points all.
Especially the point that raising taxes does not increase revenue.
An ancillary fact is that increases in tax revenues lead to bigger increases in spending.
For every $1 in increased revenue Congress in its infinite wisdom will spend $1.25-$1.50.
I don't care about anyone looking good though.
Cut government spending, cut government spending, cut spending.
That is the only way out of this mess.
Cut government spending, cut government spending, cut government spending.
Government spending does not create permanent jobs.
Government spending reduces the amount of money in the private sector that will create permanent jobs.

The fact of the matter - the taxes they want to raise are ones that will have no effect on the broader economy - they will basically be taking money these rich people forgot they had.

Gobbledygook, The buck stops with the President. He is responsible. Congress takes it cues from the White House. The President gets the blame and the applause for everything.
It is never about Congress obstructing anything, ever ever ever.
It is always about the occupant of the oval office using his great political skill to get the job done.
It's called being a CEO.
Barack Obama is a piss poor politician, CEO, and President when it comes to getting the job done on the debt and the economy.
Congress is not the problem. The President can veto or approve anything Congress does.
Only if Congress overrides a veto does the responsibility pass from the President.
I would like to see you try your argument with a shift manager at a McDonald's.
Can you see the manager trying to blame the employees for the problem.
The President can't fire the members of Congress, but those with political skill- Reagan/Clinton- control the policies that Congress enacts.

The crisis in Europe is a wake up call for the United States.
The debt is job #1 President Obama.
Cutting spending and getting the private sector to create jobs is how we will effectively deal with the debt crisis.
Obama is MIA on both issues.

Clinton didn't show leadership. The Clinton election ushered in the Mid-Term election of a Republican Majority, and, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, the congress forced Clinton into accepting tax cuts, etc. Clinton didn't propose any of these things on his own....so I can hardly understand why anyone would suggest that he led on these issues. The only thing he did was agree to Newt's budget and he signed it into law, because he understand that the American people did not believe in his policies, and threw his party out of office.

Unfortunately, Obama is too much of a self-absorbed arrogant prick to grasp that the Republican turn-over this time was even greater than Gingrich;'s gains...and Obama apparently doesn't read polling data like Clinton did to understand that the *vast* majority of Americans despise his policies. Clinton caved in to Republicans by understanding the mood of the American people and going along with them...meaning he had a second four years to at least try to push through his agenda. Obama is such am ideologue that he is incapable of reading the mood of the American people...or unwilling, because he is so infatuated with himself. As a result, not only will be lose in 2012, but he will also drag his party even further into the cess-pool and, most likely, the Republicans will not only earn the White House, but they will increase perhaps to a super-majority in the House, and will garner their majority in the Senate. Then, instead of Obama compromising and having anouther 4 years to at least protect his gains, he will be kicked out in a favor of a party that will do everything in their power to undo what he has accomplished.

Obama is not a leader by any definition of the word.

Oh good, we needed a thread where all the far right nut-jobs could get together and agree with each other and confirm and strengthen their own cognitive biases. Congratulations Fasces, krellin and Tettleton's Chew; your heads are officially so far up your own asses you've become human Klein bottles.

Stop quoting statistics without context, and without developing actually descriptive causal links.
Stop stating your opinions of things as though they are fact.
Start actually engaging in debate with the points other people make.
And stop muting the people who debate against you. Seriously, if you're actually going to try and debate on the forum, you shouldn't mute your opponents. It kinda defeats the purpose.
If you're unwilling to make these basic concessions, then go join Free Republic and leave our forum alone. Christ.

We need simley to bring back the "Tettleton's Corner"

"Reagan was a cut-and-run, tax-and-spend liberal."
Well he did triple the deficit...

"For every $1 in increased revenue Congress in its infinite wisdom will spend $1.25-$1.50."
Only a $1.50? lol

"Cut government spending, cut government spending, cut spending.
That is the only way out of this mess. "
That is debatable. Truth be told America is in the tightest fix in 200 years. (I would say the repercussions of this recession will end up being worse then the depression.

It has been proven that steady reduces in spending make recessions last longer. So ideally to get out of this recession Obama should be cutting taxes and raising spending. That is the easiest way to get out of a recession. However the only issue with that is what cut and spending does is drains the treasury for a quick recovery (which I argue is a mistake cause it only shortens the recession, not out right prevents it). However unfortunately for Obama he (and Bush. Bush raised the debt by 5 trillion in 8 years, Obama has risen the debt by 4 trillion in 3 years. So you can't just blame Bush, which most Liberals are a huge fan of doing. It was stupid spending increases in Health Care that got the debt to where it is now.) drained the treasury BEFORE he could enact a Keynesian recovery program. (However I personally think Keynesian economics reduce the GDP in the long run because of what you said, taking jobs out of the private sector and putting them in the public sector. However every democracy has reacted to every recession since the great depression by using them. And as a result we find ourselves in another one every 15-25 years.)

Now despite the facts Obama still insists on doing to worst possible solution:
Raising taxes and raising spending. Which has time and time again proven to increase the deficit and weaken consumer spending, neither of which I think is a reasonable solution to fixing the economy. (since both of them only make the economy worse)

However to answer your question as to whether or not Obama is a failed politician. I would actually say the opposite. I would say he is a good politician, but a terrible leader.

"The fact of the matter - the taxes they want to raise are ones that will have no effect on the broader economy - they will basically be taking money these rich people forgot they had."
Are you talking about the 5% of Americans who control 35% of the spending and the entire corporate world? Those 5% have no affect on the economy what so ever. And every tax raise on them has cause them to horde money more.

The Globe and Mail (which is generally a liberal newspaper) admitted that reducing taxes on the rich would increase the GDP and revenue. However its a bad idea but it will make income to unequal.

"The crisis in Europe is a wake up call for the United States.
The debt is job #1 President Obama.
Cutting spending and getting the private sector to create jobs is how we will effectively deal with the debt crisis.
Obama is MIA on both issues."
Actually Europe is a completely different situation entirely. Its not Obama's fault, its the socialist governments of Spain, France and Italy, Portugal, and Greece's fault. However they are more left wing then Obama...

"Clinton didn't show leadership. The Clinton election ushered in the Mid-Term election of a Republican Majority, and, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, the congress forced Clinton into accepting tax cuts, etc. Clinton didn't propose any of these things on his own....so I can hardly understand why anyone would suggest that he led on these issues. The only thing he did was agree to Newt's budget and he signed it into law, because he understand that the American people did not believe in his policies, and threw his party out of office.

Unfortunately, Obama is too much of a self-absorbed arrogant prick to grasp that the Republican turn-over this time was even greater than Gingrich;'s gains...and Obama apparently doesn't read polling data like Clinton did to understand that the *vast* majority of Americans despise his policies. Clinton caved in to Republicans by understanding the mood of the American people and going along with them...meaning he had a second four years to at least try to push through his agenda. Obama is such am ideologue that he is incapable of reading the mood of the American people...or unwilling, because he is so infatuated with himself. As a result, not only will be lose in 2012, but he will also drag his party even further into the cess-pool and, most likely, the Republicans will not only earn the White House, but they will increase perhaps to a super-majority in the House, and will garner their majority in the Senate. Then, instead of Obama compromising and having anouther 4 years to at least protect his gains, he will be kicked out in a favor of a party that will do everything in their power to undo what he has accomplished.

Obama is not a leader by any definition of the word."
I agree, but the republicans are not much better then Obama. In all honesty, if faced in an election between Obama and Bush, I would still vote Obama.

So our option is to find a republican candidate who actually knows what he is doing (aka Tim Pawlenty) or we will a republican party candidate that is just as bad as Obama and Bush.

The only problem with Pawlenty is he is not as charismatic as Obama, so might loose the election.

"Oh good, we needed a thread where all the far right nut-jobs could get together and agree with each other and confirm and strengthen their own cognitive biases. Congratulations Fasces, krellin and Tettleton's Chew; your heads are officially so far up your own asses you've become human Klein bottles.

Stop quoting statistics without context, and without developing actually descriptive causal links.
Stop stating your opinions of things as though they are fact.
Start actually engaging in debate with the points other people make.
And stop muting the people who debate against you. Seriously, if you're actually going to try and debate on the forum, you shouldn't mute your opponents. It kinda defeats the purpose.
If you're unwilling to make these basic concessions, then go join Free Republic and leave our forum alone. Christ."
now why the hell would we do that? Most of my statistics are from the news papers I read. And am WAY to lazy to go actually see if there is an online version of the article, let along find it and post it for your convenience.

@Putin: Sorry for not responding to you yet. I am still trying to find the National Post article that talks about how the immigrants voting for Harper lead to his majority.

"nd Obama apparently doesn't read polling data like Clinton did to understand that the *vast* majority of Americans despise his policies."

According to what polls? http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/01/how-americans-really-feel-about-healthcare-reform

13% in the "oppose" camp want a healthcare reform law that goes *further* than the one passed. If you combine that number with the 45% who consistently say they support the law, that's a sizable 58% majority.

So I'd like to see your polling that says "vast majorities despise Obama's policies". That's utter garbage.

"So I'd like to see your polling that says "vast majorities despise Obama's policies". That's utter garbage."

I despise him therefore everyone does, because everyone agrees with my opinion like it's fact, right?

look at the line on that right above your line which supports you.
It says 71% of people thought Obama's healthcare plan went to far.

"It says 71% of people thought Obama's healthcare plan went to far."
"If you combine that number with the 45% who consistently say they support the law, that's a sizable 58% majority. "

These people seem quite fickle.

And yet only 37% favor repeal, roughly the same number who are actually in the oppose camp because they actually oppose the law (since a small % are undecided).

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/suspicious-health-law-hurt-economy-abc-news-washington/story?id=12639778

ok, your point is valid, the retards known as american voters support Obama's Healthcare. However that doesn't mean its a good idea.

"However that doesn't mean its a good idea."
It doesn't matter, it's democratic.

Anyway the Republicans are going to get swept out of the House in 2012 and are going to be destroyed in the Presidential election. Who are the Republicans going to put forward? Romney? The base absolutely hates him. So sure, nominate him and the base doesn't show up to vote. Obama-hate and the usual anti-Obama race baiting won't be enough to motivate droves of Romney voters. Or you could nominate Bachman or some loon like that and drive independents and moderate Republicans into the waiting arms of the Democrats. Either way you're done. Especially since it's near certain that the liberal base, after enduring horrific Republican governments at the state level and a batshit House of Reps are going to turn out to vote. Recalls are underway in Wisconsin right now. Many of the Republicans Governors, particularly in Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin, are horrendously unpopular. Kasich was polling at something like 30%. The Florida governor I think was at 23%.

Republican "leadership" at the state level has been a house of horrors. Nobody wants to give this insane party the Presidency.