If you want evidence as to just how far out of touch certain segments of the traditional media are in catching up to the NDP surge check out Maclean's magazine's Andrew Coyne's deeeeep contemplation of his endorsement. Here in a 19 paragraph piece is his learned consideration of the national party currently running second:
"I can eliminate two options off the top. While both the NDP and the Greens offer appealing proposals for democratic reform, I can't bring myself to vote for either. It isn't only their policies - the enormous increases in spending and taxes, the ill-judged market interventions - but their personnel. Simply put, neither party is ready for government."
C'est tout. That's it, that's all.
Eighteen paragraphs of somnolent assessment as to who, between the Tories and the Grits, he trusts more or less to reform democracy in Canada and that's all he can muster regarding the NDP. Notwithstanding the reportorial obligation he seems to have waived, let me take a crack at decoding his "analysis." The bit about personnel reflects his discomfit that nobody he knows at the Spoke Club or the Fraser Institute are or were NDP staffers. The stuff about spending and taxes is nonsense on its face. Here's Bill Curry in The Globe a day prior:
"On Bay Street, in academia, in newsrooms and living rooms, many are taking a closer look at just what, exactly, the surging party stands for. This is leading to panicked warnings of lost jobs and nervous markets in some conservative corners. But a key point in the commentary is the fact that the NDP's platform is far more mainstream than it used to be. In fact, in some key areas like eliminating the deficit and boosting health transfers, the planks of the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals are identical."
Anyway, Coyne's voting Liberal. Where was he when Kim Campbell needed him.