Ukraine: Keep The Damned Faith Straight Through To The End.

I have no time for Russian apologists or sympathizers who go on and on about alleged Ukraine corruption and why that should disqualify that country from obtaining ongoing defensive Western military aid. That matter will inevitably have to be addressed internally before European Union membership is ultimately granted. But there's no time for that, smack right in the middle of a Russian invasion that Putin has finally called a war.

Putin, because he's losing and fears above all else potentially losing control at home, is suddenly calling for bona fide negotiations to put an end to the conflict. That won't ever end this war for any number of reasons: first and foremost, this is a clear war between good and evil, just like WWII and those types of wars ultimately end only with unmitigated military victory. That's what will happen here. War crimes have been committed, mostly on the Russian side, and Putin and his entourage seriously risk being the pipers who will pay for that. 

Another reason why the war will continue is because of serial management of oligarchs and other opponents by The Kremlin: poisoning is the soup-du-jour with balcony swan dives as an eventual appetizer, if necessary. Internal opponents have to get lucky once, while Putin and his people arrange things to be serially lucky and brutally effective all of the time. It's that blood-chilling message that keeps him in power and makes damned sure that no fifth column develops internally that could take him out. 

So, like I said, this won't end like Georgia or Ukraine I. This thing goes all the way to the end. Putin is not of a mind to have the West blow Russia off the face of the Earth so the nukes will never, ever, fly. With his intelligence background, he knows perfectly well that it's not in Russia's national security interests to expand this war by attacking NATO. So, that also is a non-starter. In short, Russia is hurting, and its economy is taking a serious battering. There is no winning endgame for Russia, and Putin knows that. He would do well not to take deliberate action that would eventually corner him. How he must regret his personal folly, which is unlikely to lead to military victory, nor to the retention of much of occupied Ukraine. Watch Crimea above all else. What happens there will likely show the way ahead for the rest of the war.

Jagmeet Singh: No Rhyme Nor Reason.

Am I full of shit? You see, I back the political conventional wisdom -- the one that says that Singh is a fool for repeatedly agreeing to back the Trudeau Liberals -- and therefore, he should get his head handed to him by the Liberals in the next election. You know how it goes: serial NDP leaders back the Liberals on confidence and end up having their lunch eaten by Liberal candidates in a subsequent election.

But, but, but...what's the thing in the polls about Canadians actually preferring Jagmeet over Trudeau or Poilièvre!? Get this, many of them aren't planning to vote NDP, but they still prefer Singh over the other leaders. Singh to this day is still over 50%. So, what's this wrinkle all about?  Damned if I know.

So, in short, I'm taking it back about NDP MPs pro forma losing their seats in the next election. At a minimum, I have to caveat my political assumptions. My foundational conclusions about Jagmeet and his party may not actually be on target in the end. Imagine that.

Now, politically, if the NDP keeps most of their seats and remains relatively strong, what does that do to Liberal chances under Trudeau or a successor? Can they still come up the middle and win re-election? For sure, not as easily as if NDP support collapsed in an election, but hey, Trudeau might just be able to hang on. Maybe.

That to me is at the very least distressing, if not shocking. Trudeau might win again. Well, that ruins my day and the rest of the year. Fortunately, only one day remains on the calendar.

He's Still Behind The Curve Jerome.

Jerome Powell has been reborn. Today, he's a natural reflection of his true economic nature, basically, a Volcker-inspired monetarist. How tough it must have been for him to be truly accommodative, pushing forward with QE while knowing that inevitably it would be massively inflationary. Things were chugging along just great straight through 2021 with The Fed Funds Rate effectively at below 1%. 

After all of that, it was almost a foregone conclusion that The Federal Reserve would put blinders on and remain inexcusably dovish. Rates almost imperceptibly began to rise, but remained below the 2% target all the way up to last spring. First, The Fed said that the 2% target would not be breached, and it was. Then they argued that inflation would be transitory, and it wasn't. Now they call it sticky and stubborn.

After the last 50 basis points rate hike, the FFR is now at 4.4%. The consensus among the so-called experts is that a pause in hikes is now in order, with some speculating that rate drops could begin as soon as this spring. 

Talk about pie in the sky: the official inflation rate is now 7.1% having dropped from a high of 7.7% previously. That of course is the cooked number that does not include housing, food or gas. In reality, the unofficial number is more like 15%, having dropped about two points from earlier monthly calculations.

So...The Fed still remains massively behind the curve and has no other choice but to wreck the economy in search of future perceptible inflation drops. People forget that when Volcker came in and got started, the FFR was already at 11%! He finally broke the back of inflation by raising rates all the way to 19.5%.

That means the wrecking ball is already on order and about to be delivered. There's no chance of a soft landing for this economy -- in fact, I expect continued rate hikes at least all the way to the fall, coupled with a sooner than expected recession onset. IMHO, it's only once a recession is confirmed that The Fed will finally begin to pause and then backtrack. Not before.

Put succinctly, a recession is definitely in the cards, along with a steady move up in unemployment. Jerome knows he's still behind the curve, so don't expect Powell to change course anytime soon. Going forward, it's not just inflation that's sticky and stubborn. So's Powell, or at least his mindset. For the foreseeable future, it's still full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, come what may.

Chuck, Nancy, Dumplings.

Yes, I watched it on CNN and thought it was great fun,  especially when Nancy said a family intervention was required. Dead on but ultimately hopeless IMHO. Trump is his own worst enemy. No one else even comes remotely close and that's saying something.

Unlike both of them, I've broken with Biden. Sure, he has accomplishments some of which are not insignificant but hey, Joe totally blew it on the economy and inflation. So, he needs to go, period. Same with Trump.

I want to see a new generation of leadership in both parties. As much as I like and admire Nancy, I'm glad she's going too. Frankly, she should have taken responsibility in 2020 and left then.

So, 2024 could be interesting. My first choice in 2020 was Kamala and later Pete. The country is too sexist and misogynist for her to win a general so I hope Pete gets in again. I'm definitely not for Newsom. Nope, no thanks.

On the Republican side, DeSantis is not the great savior people make him out to be. So, others could emerge and I don't mean Paul, Cruz or any of the other usual suspects. They need a breakthrough nominee to win big and DeSantis ain't it. 

In the end, it could potentially go either way. But frankly, it isn't in the cards for Biden and probably not Trump, if an A-lister can be found.

But as 2022 showed all of us, predictions are now but the folly of fools. 

Pierre Poilièvre: I Just Don't KNOW!

My God, I've just got to write this out, you know, as a form of political and psychological therapy: I mean, Pierre's leadership is like exploring the dwarf planet Pluto. I've got no strong conclusions, convictions, or even keen insights about where this leadership will go and worse than that, I have no reference points in my mind and frankly, it's driving me fucking bananas!

I've never, ever, seen this before with any politician: in other cases, I started out either liking, loving or hating them, mostly from the get-go and my political feelings and instincts took it from there. Most of the time, luckily, I was on target but sometimes I completely blew it: think of the POS known as Trump. 

But back to Pierre: got absolutely no firm idea where this is really going. It's like it's up to the fates rather than us mere mortals -- I don't sense a train chugging along either to victory or defeat -- it's like I'm in a void, some kind of a black, empty space where I simply can't get my political bearings. Like I said, in 61 years, it's never, ever, happened before and it positively blows my mind. 

So, I've just got to continue writing it out as it flows. One senses that both God and humans have already had enough of Trudeau at the helm but is that, in and of itself enough to lead to regime change in Ottawa?

Damned if I know. Not at all. In short, don't count on me next time for precise analysis, inductive reasoning, insightful break throughs or anything else because for the first time in my life, I just don't know. Talk about an ego crusher and riddle that deflates previous political pride at mostly getting it right. 

So there you have it for whatever it's worth; if it's worth anything at all. And it didn't involve my psychiatrist which is great because he's already overworked within the system.

Willie Sutton Never Said It: 'That's Where the Money Is'.

The legend based on nothing is a good starting point for discussing Sinema: one would think it's obvious why she's ditched the Democrats when for many people it won't be. It's all about holding on to her job and increasing her chances of re-election, which was probably unlikely had she remained a Democrat. 

So...clearly, it's a play for future independent votes, of which there are many, and this Democrat won't be shitting on her for that. I'm a what's good for the goose is good for the gander type of guy. If it's OK for Bernie or King, then it's fine with me. Maybe it'll save her, and perhaps she'll go down fighting anyway.

Downside, it's still a 51-49 Senate but being even more accommodating to Sinema's views (and Manchin's) will require clever stick handling as we say up North. Otherwise, Harris will be in for a very long and tiring two years. 

Biden Is So Lucky That 2024 Isn't Tomorrow.

As a Democrat, I'm amazed that Biden actually wants to run for re-election. Let's face it, Biden would be an unusually weak candidate for re-election, and everyone knows it. It's no news to Joe: his polling ain't great, with approval ratings running from 36 to 45 percent, and those aren't solid re-election numbers. No other incumbent president with numbers like that has ever won re-election, period.

Then there's the implicit self-admission by The White House that Biden cannot or likely will not win re-election under the current caucus and primary system. That's why Biden is proposing change: you know, making South Carolina a first-in-the-nation primary, followed by Nevada and Iowa, then Georgia, Michigan, etc. Let's face it, if Biden is president, he can largely thank Jim Clyburn for that. So this looks like payback, in a good way, and it's cynical as hell. 

No one expected the midterm results, other than a very few. Biden seems to think that those results can be extended all the way to 2024. I don't think so. Biden's only hope is Trump. If any other Republican becomes the nominee, then Biden is unlikely to win. Every Democrat already knows that. So, it's either pray for Trump or go thru the motions straight to defeat. 

In short, I like Biden, but he's definitely not strong enough to practically assure re-election. So, Biden needs to do an LBJ, both for the good of the party and the country. He likely won't significantly improve his odds by monkeying with primaries and caucuses. As I said before, these proposed changes are an admission of Biden's weakness as a candidate. Only fools would go into a general election with such a vulnerable candidate. Shades of McGovern, or Dukakis, all over again... 

Trump: Choose Your Alternative Universe.

Man, it actually all boils down to this. I mean, Trump's candidacy in '24 is not a normal candidacy. If you want to keep the faith, it means choosing from two alternative universes: the midterms are like the bible and meant to be unquestioned. They provided political reality as exhibited on the ground and now suggest a path forward -- a snapshot -- for moving ahead. 

What was their message? First and foremost, it was a message of hope and positive thinking for the future, both collectively and individually. In some ways it was the mushy middle: it revealed many of the positive traits exhibited by the average American: that ingrained sense of integrity, decency, honesty, optimism, generosity of heart, and desire to do good both at home and abroad. In short, it reflected the best of what America is and has always been. It's why the United States, even to this day, remains the most remarkable country on the face of the Earth, period.

Voters spoke without sending love to either party, but they did send a message about what is or what they viewed as un-American. And they massively rejected that in so many races. Good on them.

So, if you're still for Trump, you've got two choices: you have to live in a world where how people voted is not necessarily impactful on future political events. You have to believe that, no matter what Trump says or does, that he's somehow still enormously popular with the average American. And finally, you have to believe that the vote will come out massively in '24, without Trump asking. That's alternative universe number one. 

And then there's the diehard fringe who revel in fascism and think it was all hunky-dory on January 6th. These people believe Trump should be in office for life, not to mention that a legitimate presidential election is not only obsolete but in effect irrelevant in the Trump world. That is politics, Italian-style. Make no mistake, the numbers of those who believe this is not inconsequential. The gullibility level of these people is off the charts and nothing that man ever does can in fact or perception ever be perceived as wrong, dishonourable or dishonest. Like I said, the land of the true believers. For these people, what Americans did at Pearl Harbor, Normandy and Iwo Jima means nothing. The principles of those men and women who fought, died or were wounded were for naught, in so many of today's eyes. 

So, basically as Trump supporters, pick your poison. But then give your head a shake and remember this: no one likely can stop Trump from becoming the nominee, but prepare yourselves for a massive repudiation at the ballot box cause as sure as I'm breathing, it's coming in '24, Biden or no Biden.

I suggest all of you try to think back, what you were like before you met Trump. To use a cooking analogy, marinate on that. Then run it around in your head how you've changed post-Trump. May it prove to be both revealing and enlightening.

Midterms: How Sweet It Is!

I'll gladly wear egg on my face: I got it spectacularly wrong, and I'm happier than a pig in shit. The Democrats have held on to the Senate while Republicans have not yet taken the House, five days after the vote. 

It's reasonable to portray the election results as a hodgepodge of issues that favoured the Democrats: the desire by independents and others to get out front of and extinguish election deniers and those who deny the fundamental nature of American democracy. For women and some men, abortion and voting rights were also key, as was, as an interesting subset, the brutal attack on Paul Pelosi. All of the above changed the game and made an election that should have been based on presidential incumbency, inflation, the economy and crime one that moved the goalposts to reflect other issues.

So...here I go again with another pet theory: it seems to me that given the fact that Republicans have still not yet won the House outright, it flows from that with each passing day, their odds of winning the House become diminished. These twenty seats that are still in play are incredibly tight and representative of the struggle between Democrats and Republicans. Independents will call the tune in the end, and it's my contention that the Dems could end up still controlling the House. Maybe, just, maybe.

All of the above is important, but nothing is more so than making sure that Trump becomes a spent political force as quickly as possible. I will put it to you that with these midterm results, that Trump has almost no chance of winning the presidency, should he become the Republican nominee in 2024. 

Republicans would do well to go elsewhere and choose someone else as their nominee if they want 2024 to be at least competitive for them. But are they smart and politically sophisticated enough to do it? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Midterms: A Democratic Rout?

In a nutshell, that's the question of the hour. Democrats do well to bring out the heavy guns, Biden, Obama and the Clintons in an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging. Because hemorrhaging is exactly what it is. In a good economy, incumbent presidents tend to lose on average between twenty and thirty House seats and usually up to two to four in the Senate. 

But this is a disastrous economy and inflation is rampant: so it doesn't take a genius to see big Republican gains ahead. Could Republicans win fifty House seats? Maybe. Could they also win up to five Senate seats? Maybe. That's how I read it. Frankly, I hope I'm wrong. 

But in the end, Biden did this to himself when he renominated Powell. What America needed was a stop to QE much earlier than it happened and rises in interest rates much sooner than they actually happened. When Biden went with Powell, he cut his own throat and that of fellow Democrats across the country. 

So, the chips will fall where they may. And Biden will be a lame duck the day after. Some will say no, no, Reagan, Clinton and Obama came back and won two years later. Sure. But none of them had the so-called Biden Inflation. Joe should cut his losses after the midterms and not run again. But don't dare whisper that in Democratic circles, even if that's reality because reality hurts.

Midterms: The Incoming Tide Is Republican.

No question about that. Republicans will win big in the midterms up and down the ballot, largely due to independents, who've abandoned the Democrats. This thing has seesawed back and forth, but Republican momentum is now clear and perhaps unshakable: Walker and Oz are proof enough of that. 

The generic congressional polls show that the Republican tide may eventually turn into a landslide, but more than likely not a rout for Democrats. 

And then there's the terrible attack on Paul Pelosi. People will be appalled, disgusted, but will it ultimately move enough votes to mitigate or reverse the Republican trend? Who knows. It's the only thing not already baked into the cake.

RealClear Politics:

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Republicans (R)	Democrats (D)	Spread
RCP Average	10/12 - 10/27	--	48.0	45.1	Republicans +2.9
Data for Progress (D)**	10/26 - 10/27	1217 LV	49	45	Republicans +4
Trafalgar Group (R)	10/25 - 10/27	1089 LV	48	42	Republicans +6
Rasmussen Reports	10/23 - 10/27	2500 LV	49	42	Republicans +7
InsiderAdvantage	10/25 - 10/25	750 LV	48	44	Republicans +4

FiveThirtyEight:

Generic ballot, 2022

AVG.

Oct.26-27	1,217	LV	B Data for Progress		Democrat	45%	49%	Republican		Republican	+4
Oct.25-27	642	LV	B/C Tufts University		Democrat	48%	47%	Republican		Democrat	+1
Oct.25-27	1,089	LV	A- Trafalgar Group		Democrat	42%	48%	Republican		Republican	+6
Oct.23-27	2,500	LV	B Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research		Democrat	42%	49%	Republican		Republican	+7
Oct.24-26	1,014	RV	B/C Echelon Insights		Democrat	48%	45%	Republican		Democrat	+3

Midterms: The Economy Number One, Inflation Number Two.

What an election is ahead: neither Biden nor Trump are on the ballot, but both have negatives above 50%. That will affect results in the midterms. 

With roughly two weeks to go, I won't be making any predictions just yet, but I want you to enjoy the last leg of the race.

Here are the two places to go to. Don't miss them.

FiveThirtyEight | FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories about politics, sports, science, economics and culture.

RealClearPolitics - Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Xi Is Now Dictator.

The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party has come to a close and in public fashion, Xi has put the final touches on the purge -- Hu was unceremoniously escorted out of the meeting allegedly for health reasons -- but seemingly showing resistance to leave, at least at first.

It was a spectacular and dramatic display that sent exactly the right message: Xi's takeover of the party is now complete.  Jiang and Zhu were nowhere to be found at the Congress, and Hu's protégée, Li, lost his position as number two on the Standing Committee. That means he'll be replaced as Premier soon enough.

But as they say, live pictures don't lie: just check out the guy who was sitting on Hu's left: the guy is sweating throughout and that says it all. He even takes out a handkerchief to wipe his face. End of story. That's pretty much it.

Of course, all of this has wider implications for world peace: first, Putin and his adventurism in Ukraine and now Xi unchallenged, who could strike at Taiwan at any time without being checked internally. Call it the second leg of the WW III stool. All we need now is the last leg, and where will that come from? Iran, North Korea, or somewhere else? Not good.

Québec Solidaire et le Parti Québécois: refus du serment d'allégeance au souverain.

Pourtant, la Loi constitutionnelle 1982, à l'article 128, est clair: pour siéger, les membres de l'Assemblée nationale doivent porter le serment d'allégeance au souverain, le roi Charles III. Québec Solidaire et le Parti Québécois refusent. 

On cite une décision de la Court of Appeal for Ontario sur la déclaration du serment qui stipule que le serment est plutôt porté envers les institutions démocratiques et le gouvernement. Voilà le raisonnement de Paul St-Pierre Plamondon et les autres.

Premièrement, cette décision est une décision qui porte sur une loi fédérale, mais elle est limitée au territoire géographique de cette province.

Le débat constitutionnel au Québec semble indiquer d'une part que l'Assemblée nationale pourrait adopter une motion en chambre pour changer le serment. Ou, le gouvernement du Québec pourrait préparer un projet de loi dans ce sens. 

D'autres diront qu'il faudra adopter au fédéral un amendement constitutionnel avec un appui de toutes les législatures des provinces.

Pour ma part, je crois, au minimum, que l'Assemblée nationale devra non seulement adopter une motion, mais également une loi à cet effet. De plus, Québec devra pareillement envoyer une demande de renvoi devant la Cour d'appel du Québec. Et si la cour rend un jugement favorable, c'est beau.

Is This It?

The Federal Reserve is scrambling to prop up Swiss banks, via The Swiss National Bank, their central bank. 

Yahoo News and others are on top of it:

Swiss National Bank makes another big draw on Fed swap line (yahoo.com)

We all heard rumours about Credit Suisse. And what about UBS and other banks?

UK: They Truss No Longer.

Now, this is interesting. We know a few things now that Truss is gone: firstly, that stimulative income tax cuts don't necessarily go with high and seemingly galloping inflation. Secondly, what a disaster her policies have been for the British pound.

But what intrigues me is who was for Truss getting the boot. Was it only a plurality in caucus or was the party membership on the same wave length?

I think there was a psychological divorce there: caucus largely was for her resignation but not most of the party membership. So, expect trouble ahead and that will inevitably affect who becomes the next leader and PM. In short, expect another Johnson loyalist as it appears that Johnson won't be having a go -- he's too busy cashing in apparently on speeches -- or so they say.

Finally, how will this rollercoaster reverberate in our politics? Will it make our leaders more vulnerable to caucus' whims and dictates? I think so. Caucuses at all levels will be feeling their oats, empowered you might say. So, leaders had better tread rather lightly if they know what's good for them.

It could very well even lead to Liberal MPs finally getting religion and ditching their albatross at last, you know, the guy who can no longer get beyond useless minority governments. It might just end with Trudeau taking a hint and finally getting lost. We can only hope. Otherwise, caucus might end up giving him a big and final push out the door. Now that would be humiliating and likely to seriously unswell that head of his, such as it is...

Will It Be Danielle Smith...

Or, will it be Danielle Smith! That depends mostly on her. You see, context and perspective rightly goes out the window once the drums of war start to beat. Smith learned that lesson the hard way. 

That's what makes this a killer political moment. Can she come back from this? Theoretically, sure but don't bet the farm on it.

Before the war, it was OK, if not misguided, to want Ukraine to remain neutral. That's what NATO wanted -- it's why they turned down membership for Ukraine the first time. Sweden and Finland lived and breathed their neutrality.

But war changes people and especially governments. Today, Sweden and Finland are being fast-tracked for NATO membership while other countries are also looking at joining.

But back to Smith. She seemingly gets it now but will it be politically forgiveable? I don't know but the apology might take the steam out of a potential caucus revolt...might.

As to the nuclear weapons angle, that one is easily forgiveable. Just think back to what Clinton and George W. said before they ultimately learned the foreign policy ropes. You can throw in Obama as well. 

So, this is going to be interesting, to say the very least. Right now, Smith comes off as politically unfit. It's disqualifying, some will say even after the apology. 

I've got my drink and popcorn handy, eagerly awaiting to see how this one turns out. Maybe it's Saint Paul on the road to Damascus but probably not.

Angus Reid: 50 to 37.

This is the way I like to dissect polls: who's ahead nominally and who's really ahead. To begin, this is a huge poll so it needs to be taken extremely seriously. Secondly, there's a debate about AR polls and how they possibly tend to over poll CPC numbers. I'm not qualified to support or refute that statement.

Now, back to the poll: it shows the CPC ahead in the nominal horse race and way ahead among men.

But, but, but, we trail badly with women -- who vote more reliably than men and who are by and large progressives. So, Pierre still has his work cut out for him to move that needle which the CPC hasn't done so far.

A plurality of Canadians support either the Trudeau Liberals or the NDP -- I can understand where diehard Liberals are coming from but geez, why anyone in their right minds would vote NDP after Jagmeet keeps selling himself to the Liberals is way, way, beyond me. But I digress.

So, what does polling generally say about women and climate change, the COVID-19 crisis and trucker protests? Where are women on inflation and a bad economy? I wonder what focus groups will ultimately reveal and whatever it is, we'll have to adjust our policy priorities accordingly in order to have a serious and clear shot at winning. Pierre seems to get that but can he bend sufficiently to make considerable inroads in the 905? We'll see.

So, burn that in our brains: it's 37 percent versus 50 and we need to move those numbers especially with voting women. That's the real big picture, not inflation or a bad economy. Those two issues alone won't sufficiently move those numbers for us. Period. In short, we won't win without women. We need to do what Harper did, at minimum, to win.

What Will Be The Pierre Principle?

This title is the ask of the decade: what will be Pierre Poilièvre's game plan to power, and will it work out spectacularly or blow up in his face? That doesn't depend on Byrne or anyone else. It depends on Poilièvre's own judgment and his strategic ability to play what's right to build further and continuous momentum until an election is called.

No doubt about it, Pierre is smiling right now: those ascending poll numbers are primarily based on two things: a crashing economy and increased inflation. Add to that Trudeau Fatigue, to put it politely, and you have the baseline for solid polling advances. But here's another factor that Team Poilièvre will never admit -- practically no one knows Pierre, who he really is and what he stands for -- he's basically a blank canvas in the minds of most Canadians, especially likely voters.

So, this is where things become politically dangerous: who gets to ultimately paint the canvas before and during an election, Pierre or the Trudeau Liberals? We need to get out front on that and solidly paint that picture ourselves. And far more importantly, we need to paint a picture that a Liberal room will find difficult or next to impossible to counter in Canadians' minds.

Do I see that solidly taking shape so far? Not really. Most of it will come from the totality of policy, and some from the company that the leader keeps. Pierre already knows that some of his policy will lead to the big payoff politically, while others need to be jettisoned yesterday as they already serve as a counterweight to his political momentum. Namely, truckers and vaccines. Opposition to vaccine policy and support for truckers are definitely not issues that will win us government. Far from it. Add to that the company he keeps at his rallies and events. Those attendees need to be seriously vetted before PP goes anywhere near an individual at an event. Know who the most prominent people are beforehand and know what makes them prominent, good or otherwise. In short, protect the leader from potential PR disasters that build anti-PP photographic momentum. And then comes putting aside one's own pride and ego and allowing the leader to publicly distance himself from the wrong people in a timely and definitive manner. That's crucial to putting out Liberal war room fires before they seriously get going.

Now, let's take a look at polling numbers: our party has been continuously ahead since the second week of August. I wasn't expecting that. Most polls have us in the lead between one and eight percent. And far more importantly, the three pollsters with the best consistent track record put us somewhat out front: Nanos by three points, Ipsos by five and Léger with a six points advance. That's momentum that's building.

Finally, I need to address conventional wisdom where supporters of a strong NDP jump ship to the Liberals in a campaign to STOP the Conservatives. It has happened repeatedly before. Again, much of this will be based on the look that PP will have built between now and the next vote. Right now, Pierre gets to shape the clay of his political face, or he can let the opposition parties do it for him. Scheer and O'Toole didn't get that. What about Poilièvre? 

Legault Wins.

This result is almost unprecedented: it's a super majority for the CAQ and that's never healthy for democracy.

Expect the CAQ to be increasingly arrogant and anti-democratic. You know, my way or the highway.

But the results are not fair to QS and the PQ nor to the PCQ to a lesser extent.

However, the voters are always right even if sixty percent of voters find the end result disgusting.

Paul Saint-Pierre Plamondon: The Best Campaign.

This guy is a natural campaigner who, unlike the others in this campaign, actually sweats authenticity. What you see is what you get, and Quebecers liked what they saw. The PQ progressed from a low of seven percent to a high of fifteen in the last Léger poll.

Yes, Plamondon will hold on to a few vulnerable seats, but will his party breakout elsewhere? We likely will see little boomlets in several regions of the province. So, this election is a win for the PQ.

QS and the Liberals are stuck with no final momentum to speak of. For their part, the PCQ has joined the big leagues and has the luxury of being likely supported by many voters who won't disclose their allegiance to pollsters. So, I expect polls to undercount PCQ support.

However, with three parties basically tied and the PLQ seemingly going nowhere, who will form the Official Opposition? The Liberals, perhaps and perhaps not.

And then there's the elephant in the room: the grand presumption by almost all political analysts that the CAQ will win another majority. I'm not so sure. I've got doubts creeping in, but that could be nothing more than wishful thinking.