Canadians favor Obama over McCain

[Goofball]

Not that surprising. As the article notes, we Canucks typically favor the Democrat candidate over the Republican offering. What is surprising is the huge margin by which we favor Obama. Even in Alberta, the Canadian bastion of conservatism (Alberta is our Texas), respondants favored Obama by a 28% margin.

I suspect it's mainly a reflection of how we northerners are completely disgusted with Bush, and have a hard time seeing McCain as anything different.

Anyhoo, since we don't vote in your election, this is just a bit of fluff, but I also found it interesting. It would be more interesting to see a poll on how Canadians feel about Hillary vs. Obama.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Canadians favour Obama over McCain


ALEXANDER PANETTA
The Canadian Press
May 21, 2008 at 4:15 PM EDT

Ottawa — Democrat Barack Obama would crush Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race by an almost four-to-one margin — 56 per cent to 15 — if it were up to Canadians.
That's the conclusion of a new Canadian Press-Harris-Decima poll that, for the first time, gauges Canadian opinion on a head-to-head contest between the Republican candidate and the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The same survey suggests Canadians consider the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush, among the worst presidents ever — if not the worst.
Forty-two per cent of respondents called Mr. Bush one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, 23 per cent said he was the absolute worst.

Only 4 per cent said he was among the better ones, and less than 1 per cent called Mr. Bush the best ever.
Pollster Bruce Anderson says the survey results are surprising even in a country that traditionally favours Democrats.
“While Canadians generally tilt more towards the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, this degree of disaffection is quite remarkable,” said the head of Harris-Decima.
“It cuts across the political spectrum. Very few Conservatives in Canada are prepared to say they have been satisfied, let alone enthusiastic about the accomplishments of Mr. Bush.”
While some of that antipathy toward the incumbent Republican could explain Canadians' overwhelming support for the presumed Democratic nominee, Mr. Anderson says Canadians like Mr. Obama for other reasons.
He says the candidate's three main promises are in lock-step with Canadian public opinion. His public declarations that he would renegotiate NAFTA appear, so far, to have ruffled few Canadian feathers.
Mr. Obama has said his first priorities in office would be expanding public health care, ending the war in Iraq, and creating an integrated environmental-energy policy.
“They're pretty consistent with Canadian values,” Mr. Anderson said.
The results were similar among different age groups, gender's, income categories, and in every province.
Even in the province where Mr. Obama was least popular — Alberta — respondents favoured him by a 28-point margin over McCain. Fifty-one per cent of respondents there supported Mr. Obama, and 23 per cent preferred McCain.
Mr. Obama was most popular in Quebec where 61 per cent of respondents favoured him, and was almost equally popular in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.
While the Illinois senator has struggled somewhat with lower-income and female voters in his primary contests against Hillary Clinton, the survey suggests he would not have no problem with them in Canada.
He received statistically identical support levels from men and women, and from respondents in different income categories.
The survey of 1,000 Canadians was conducted May 15-18 and is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Canadians favor Obama over McCain

I think any Canadian could have told you that.

It would be more interesting to see a poll on how Canadians feel about Hillary vs. Obama.

I think it would still lean towards Obama, maybe even by a similar margin.

[FactionHeir]

Even after all the NAFTA stuff?

[Goofball]

Even after all the NAFTA stuff?

As the article stated, that didn't seem to hurt him. At any rate, when Canada signed on to NAFTA there was considerable resistance here. Perhaps some of that sentiment still remains and some still feel we'd be better of without NAFTA.

The Americans have already shown us that NAFTA isn't really worth the paper it's written on; if they want to tax our exports (softwood lumber, for example) they'll go ahead and do it, NAFTA and international courts be damned...

What would we really be losing?

[Beirut]

Yep, we Canucks are true Obama fans. I said it before; if Obama wins and comes north for a state visit, he's going to get a reception like Elvis, the Beatles, and JFK all rolled into one.

[Xiahou]

Yep, we Canucks are true Obama fans. I said it before; if Obama wins and comes north for a state visit, he's going to get a reception like Elvis, the Beatles, and JFK all rolled into one.

Why?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why?

Most Canadians (especially urban), from my experience, seem to prefer candiates who inspire and have a message, rather than politicians who necessarily get things done. Take Stephen Harper - in my opinion, one of the best PMs Canada has had in at least a decade - who many residents of Ontario (I can't speak for outside of Ontario) like to slag off when they get the chance.

Even especially the CBC does it.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't care, they can keep both.

[Papewaio]

I thought Canada was part of Chicago or was that Babe-a-go?

[KarlXII]

Can't wait for the Territories delegate votes

[Beirut]

Why?

Relief that the W nightmare is over, for one. Also, that the US has found itself again, that a man from nowhere can rise up and achieve great things. After eight years of Bush, seeing a young black guy who espouses change come up the ranks like this is very inspiring.

I obviously can't speak for how y'all Americans see this from this inside, but from the outside, it's nothing less than astounding. I think having Obama in the White House would bring a lot of friends back into the American corner.

We lefty weak-kneed commie Canadians take a big interest in what y'all are doing down there as it affects us up here. When someone like Bush "does his thing" and wags his tail, we get swatted with it on the back swing. We're looking forward to having a President next door whose philosophy goes beyond "you're either with us or against us."

[Goofball]

Most Canadians (especially urban), from my experience, seem to prefer candiates who inspire and have a message, rather than politicians who necessarily get things done. Take Stephen Harper - in my opinion, one of the best PMs Canada has had in at least a decade - who many residents of Ontario (I can't speak for outside of Ontario) like to slag off when they get the chance.

Even especially the CBC does it.

I'm with you on that one. I like Harper. I was leery of him at first, because of his Reform/Alliance background, but he has shown himself to be my kind of conservative: one who puts fiscal responsability first and leaves Christian morality as a personal choice for Canadians, not something to be legislated.

[Beirut]

...and leaves Christian morality as a personal choice for Canadians, not something to be legislated.

Here - here!

I don't care if our PM is an atheist, pagan, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or worships of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and has eight wives, as long as he shuts up about it and spend his time in office protecting the freedoms and privacies of the common man. A lot of Canadians feel this way.

Obama (I think) is far more likely to protect the personal freedoms of Americans than any of the other candidates, that's another reason Canadians like him.

[Devastatin Dave]

And in other news, the sky is still blue, the grass continues to be green, and Rosie O'Donnel's breath still smells like old tuna.

[Devastatin Dave]

. I think having Obama in the White House would bring a lot of friends back into the American corner.

LOL, uh-hu...

[Goofball]

LOL, uh-hu...

You don't think so Dave? Though their reasoning might be wrong, I'm inclined to agree that a lot of nations that have been lukewarm toward you guys over the past eight years might well make conciliatory gestures if Obama were to be elected.

[Beirut]

LOL, uh-hu...

Always happy to make you laugh Dave, you Senior Member type of guy, you.

I was only offering an outsider's view in. Nothing more. Take it for the two cents it's worth.

[Devastatin Dave]

Take it for the two cents it's worth.

With the rate the dollar is going, it ain't much!!! But in all seriousness, I wouldn't be too happy around the world if Obama is elected over McCain. Obama is still all for this ethanol garbage which is causing food shortages and prices to go up, McCain has always been against it. Of course you'll never hear this if Obama's elected since the media is in the tank for him. SOme of the policies he's suggesting will cause more harm to the world than GW could cause in 3 terms. But you'll never read about it or understand it. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Devastatin Dave]

You don't think so Dave? Though their reasoning might be wrong, I'm inclined to agree that a lot of nations that have been lukewarm toward you guys over the past eight years might well make conciliatory gestures if Obama were to be elected.

I know North Korea and the Iranians (not necessarily the citizens, but Anotherdinnerjacket and Kim Jong Il) will be thrilled when he puts his hand on the Quran next year.

[KarlXII]

Well, I can't agree with his proclaimed position to appease Iran.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, I can't agree with his proclaimed position to appease Iran.

I'm more curious on how the policies of Republicans compare to the policies of Democrats over Israel. While I don't necessarily like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, at least they don't want to strap bombs to their chests and blow up Westerners. They're on our side - it's not necessarily a moral choice, but it's realpolitik, and I am nothing if not a fan of Bismarck.

[Beirut]

Well, I can't agree with his proclaimed position to appease Iran.

How would you qualify the word "appease" in this case? Do you define it as merely talking, or is Obama planning to hand over the Sudetenland to Ahmadinejad?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Do you define it as merely talking, or is Obama planning to hand over the Sudetenland to Ahmadinejad?

Better they have it than those damned Czechs.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama (I think) is far more likely to protect the personal freedoms of Americans than any of the other candidates, that's another reason Canadians like him.

I think Obama is much more disdainful of the constitution than McCain.

How would you qualify the word "appease" in this case? Do you define it as merely talking, or is Obama planning to hand over the Sudetenland to Ahmadinejad?

Going over to molly-coddle Iran's leaders and act as though their whacked out statements are legitimate greviences.

"Why yes, it is such a hardship you endure with Israel's existence."

CR

[Tribesman]

Going over to molly-coddle Iran's leaders and act as those their whacked out statements are legitimate greviences.

It isn't a whacked out statement and it is a legitimate grievance , no country on this planet recognises the state currently based from Jerusalem .

[The Black Ship]

It isn't a whacked out statement and it is a legitimate grievance , no country on this planet recognises the state currently based from Jerusalem .

Huh?

You saying noone recognizes Israel?

[KukriKhan]

Huh?

You saying noone recognizes Israel?

I think he means: in it's current geographical configuration.

WB, The Black Ship. Good to see an old-timer.

[Beirut]

I think Obama is much more disdainful of the constitution than McCain.

In what way?

Going over to molly-coddle Iran's leaders and act as those their whacked out statements are legitimate greviences.

"Why yes, it is such a hardship you endure with Israels existence."

CR

Ohhh, that's a whole lot of assumptions. We jumped from talking, to appeasing, to accepting their most extreme grievances as legitimate. Let's just stick to what the issue is; talking. Just... talking.

What about McCain, do you see him as so inherently weak-willed that if he was to be in the same room as Ahmedinejad he'd hand over Alaska and his first born simply because the Iranian leader is so indomitable in spirit that any American in his presence will be reduced to servility? Why do you have so little faith in the moral fortitude of your fellow Americans? Isn't there any man in your country who can go face to face with Amedinejad and tell him what the score is?

A strong and intelligent man isn't afraid to talk to anyone about anything. Communication isn't molly-coddling; communication is communication.

[The Black Ship]

Doesn't it boil down to what Obama is going to say? If he's just going to repeat current policy and position then what's the point? Talking between states usually requires give and take... what's Obama willing to give? Nukes? Support for Israel? Acceptance of Iranian support for Hezbo? Winking at Iran's arming of Alqueda in Iraq and the Mahdi army?

He's already saying he's scooting out of Iraq nomatterwhat... who's he willing to play ball with in the region once we're out and Iraq falls back to civil war?

[Beirut]

I don't understand, and I mean I really don't understand, why, in some people's mind an essential component of communication must be to cave in like a sinkhole during the conversation.

Why is the other guy so strong and your guy so weak? Why, in your view, can't an American leader talk to another national leader without collapsing like a house of cards?

Teddy Roosevelt would be aghast.