By-Elections, 2014 Edition, Vol. II

223 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston

Debater wrote:
But considering that the NDP has bombed in Western Canada under Tom Mulcair (in every riding so far), is there any evidence that the NDP will be competitive in the West next year?

The new electoral map should help the NDP in Saskatchewan.  Though it's true they're not seen as "the alternative party" judging by by-election results in the West where they've been losing ground. 

Even though Mulcair has cited the Manitoba NDP as a model of competent social democracy several times, he hasn't done well in the Prairie provinces.  "Prairie populist" support for the NDP petered out after 1988.

Pierre C yr

adma wrote:

Pierre C yr wrote:

I think we are reading too much into the by elections. They are typically protest votes but the participation rates were rock bottom. If people wanted that much to protest they would have shown up to vote. If you look at Yellowhead the tories are bouncing back from the Fort Mac lows...  Oshawa result was better than the tories got in 2006. And thats WITH Flaherty as a well known candidate there.

 

 

ConservativeJim Flaherty43.86 

LiberalJudi Longfield 38.75

 

Now as protest votes go this wasnt a good one for any opposition party. For the tories to get 49% with a mediocre candidate at the tail end of a long run in office with Harper approval ratings near his career lows tells me voters arent voting with just Harper in mind. 

(1) Flaherty was running against incumbency (and the "bump" that provides) in 2006.

[2]As the recent Mayor of Whitby, Pat Perkins isn't "mediocre".

 

That incumbency was at a very unpopular time for the libs but Flaherty was a well known and popular guy. Im not seeing enough swing away from the tories in Ontario and from the NDP in Quebec to give the libs that majority. The libs are bouncing back from historical lows which shouldnt be surprising but at 35% they are nowhere where they used to be when in power when they should be at this point in time after a long and up to recently unpopular Tory rule. The NDP floor at 20-25% will keep that lib majority from happening. 

Hebert is ignoring some basic facts in the NDP majority seat hold in Quebec. Quebec voters dont bail on parties after one trial run.  The same 'fragility' was said of the BQ back when they came in and pundits were writing obits the day after their first election.  They stayed 15 years.

The liberal govs in Quebec and Ontario are doiing increasingly unpopular austerity policies that will reflect on the federal gov.

 

Perkins was widely said to have had issues when mayor and was far from a star candidate.

 

 

adma

GTY wrote:
In any case, the advanced poll results will give a reasonable snapshot of what went on prior to the second Forum poll. Unfortunately Elections Canada won't release the poll-by-poll results for three months. I still believe that the trending only started after the massive publicity given to the doctored Forum Research poll pretending there was a close race.

Though countering that is the traditional NDP tendency to underperform in advance polls (except in certain incumbent/competitive "urban progressive" seats--Trinity-Spadina was always like that)

adma

Pierre C yr wrote:
Perkins was widely said to have had issues when mayor and was far from a star candidate.

Well, maybe she wasn't a Hazel McCallion-style powerhouse; but it isn't like she was a Susan Fennell or Linda Jackson case, either.

And besides, in the end, how "widely said" are we speaking?  And "far from a star" to whom?  Like, if you're hearing this anecdotally from the sorts of people who wouldn't have been that inclined t/w her or the Cons in the first place (or, given this is Babble, who would have been heck-or-high-water Trish McAuliffe supporters--not that there's anything rawly wrong with that), it might be a little like that tendency from *both* left *and* right (though more municipally in the latter case) to overstate Adam Vaughan's "widely said issues" as Ward 20 Councillor...

Unionist

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/21/byelections_show_why_the_n... show why the NDP should move left: Walkom[/url]

Quote:

If there is a political lesson from this week’s federal byelections, it is that the New Democrats must go left.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are eating up the middle. There is increasingly little room for Tom Mulcair’s New Democrats there. [...]

If the NDP truly wants to distinguish itself from the Liberals, it could do worse than stake out territory on the left. It has made a feint in that direction with its proposed universal child-care scheme.

But on personal taxes, deficit financing and free trade, New Democrats — so far, at least — are hewing strictly to the Liberal-Conservative line.

There is an argument to be made for the federal government involving itself directly in Canada’s hard-hit manufacturing sector, for instance.

But I don’t see the NDP making it.

Instead, New Democrats seem to want to sell themselves to voters as the better Liberals. As the byelections demonstrate, this is a losing enterprise.

Amen.

Lord Palmerston

I just shared this piece on my FB page.  A Montreal school trustee who I am FB friends with (Julien Feldman) had this to say:

"Walkom is Toronto-centric and on the fringes of the new NDP's Quebec heartland."

Unionist

Lord Palmerston wrote:

"Walkom is Toronto-centric and on the fringes of the new NDP's Quebec heartland."

All right, I've worked up the nerve to admit that I don't know what Feldman meant by that comment. Maybe I'm the only one here who doesn't understand it. Humour me, LP - what does it mean?

 

Lord Palmerston

I don't either.  I think he's saying that the NDP "moving to the left" wouldn't fly in Quebec. 

Debater

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Looking at the numbers now, the Liberals would likely pick up a few west island seats like Pierrefonds-Dollard that were kind of NDP flukes anyway, but they're likely just to pile up bigger pluralities in existing ridings.  So the NDP looks like it'll retain most of its Quebec seats at the moment.

1.  The Liberals only got 14% of the vote in Québec in 2011 under Ignatieff.  They are at 32% in this latest poll under Trudeau.  That means Trudeau is polling more than twice as high as Ignatieff. (And during Trudeau's honeymoon in Québec last year, he was polling over 40% and beating Mulcair among Francophone voters).  Those numbers give the Liberals the potential to nearly sweep Montreal and also win seats outside Montreal.

2.  The NDP is doing well in the sense that it is currently ahead in Francophone voters, but remember that the NDP is down nearly 10 points from where it was under Layton.  The NDP has 34% in this poll.  Layton received 43%.

3.  It makes sense that some Québec voters are parking with the NDP right now, just as they parked with the BQ up until April 2011 when they dropped them.  Polls in Québec change overnight (just look at the provincial scene over the past year).  Hébert's point is that if the NDP still looks like it is going to be 3rd in ROC in a few months from now, some of the Québecers who are currently with the NDP may jump ship to the Liberals if Trudeau looks more likely to beat Harper.

DLivings

Debater wrote:

The NDP actually said that Joe Cressy was going to win Trinity-Spadina,

You mean like "running to win?"   What a concept!

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Looking at the numbers now, the Liberals would likely pick up a few west island seats like Pierrefonds-Dollard that were kind of NDP flukes anyway, but they're likely just to pile up bigger pluralities in existing ridings.  So the NDP looks like it'll retain most of its Quebec seats at the moment.

1.  The Liberals only got 14% of the vote in Québec in 2011 under Ignatieff.  They are at 32% in this latest poll under Trudeau.  That means Trudeau is polling more than twice as high as Ignatieff. (And during Trudeau's honeymoon in Québec last year, he was polling over 40% and beating Mulcair among Francophone voters).  Those numbers give the Liberals the potential to nearly sweep Montreal and also win seats outside Montreal.

Forgeting of course that Ignatief's vote didn't collapse until 2 weeks before election day. If there is going to be any "strategic voting" in Quebec, it is certainly going to be BQ voters shifting to the NDP to prevent Liberals winning.

I see no arguments here that suggest that Quebeckers who have happily voted in large numbers for the BQ knowing quite well that their representatives were unlikely to sit in government (in fact, perhaps that was kind of the point -- a vote for the BQ was an abstention from collaboration with the government of Canada) are so wedded to the outcome, as to vote strategically for the Liberals in contests between the NDP and the Liberals.

I don't think these voters are quite yet willing to go full circle and end up voting for the Liberals en masse, as in the day of yore.

Voter preference has not solidified by any means, either in Quebec or the rest of Canada.

Mindful also of the fact that Canadian in general can be swayed by campaign, and the NDP were able to pull themselves from a third place in 2011 -- when they were at 13% nationally on April 1st, 7 to 10 points lower than they are now -- despite the "strategic voting" factor. Liberals should be forwarned that putting all their eggs in that basket are is to court disaster, and another Conservative majority.

Trudeau better start offering up some meat and potatos, or the Liberals are likely to continue to look directionless. Trudeau's voter prefernce level is stagnant and possibly sliding because they are bleeding right. The honeymoon is over.

Debater

Rokossovsky wrote:

Forgeting of course that Ignatief's vote didn't collapse until 2 weeks before election day. If there is going to be any "strategic voting" in Quebec, it is certainly going to be BQ voters shifting to the NDP to prevent Liberals winning.

I don't think that's likely to be the case.  Trying to prevent the Federal Liberals winning is not the objective of most Québecers right now.  The Liberals are not the incumbent government, and as Chantal Hébert said (and as we all know) the main person that Québecers dislike and want out is Harper & the Conservatives.

Rokossovsky wrote:

I see no arguments here that suggest that Quebeckers who have happily voted in large numbers for the BQ knowing quite well that their representatives were unlikely to sit in government (in fact, perhaps that was kind of the point -- a vote for the BQ was an abstention from collaboration with the government of Canada) are so wedded to the outcome, as to vote strategically for the Liberals in contests between the NDP and the Liberals.

I don't think these voters are quite yet willing to go full circle and end up voting for the Liberals en masse, as in the day of yore.

I don't think anyone is predicting that Québecers are going to be voting 'en masse' for the Liberals at this point -- just that there is the potential for some major gains and for an NDP decline.

I would also keep in mind that a lot has changed since 2011.  Québecers have seen that voting NDP did not result in getting rid of Stephen Harper (something that many of them wanted to achieve) and that a vote for the NDP probably means being without cabinet representation.

There is also an increasing desire among some Québecers to participate in Canada and to move away from sovereignty, as we saw in the election of Phillippe Couillard earlier this year.  There is a lot of fluidity in Québec these days and voters are open to different options.  Look at the rising support of the CAQ earlier in the year, or the way that Justin Trudeau was ahead of Mulcair in Québec for a period of time.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Voter preference has not solidified by any means, either in Quebec or the rest of Canada.

Mindful also of the fact that Canadian in general can be swayed by campaign, and the NDP were able to pull themselves from a third place in 2011, several points below where they are now, despite the "strategic voting" factor. Liberals should be forwarned that putting all their eggs in that basket are is to court disaster, and another Conservative majority.

I agree that voter preference has not solidified in Québec -- that's the point that I'm making and that Hébert is exploring.  The NDP is not guaranteed to stay on top in Québec, particularly if Tom Mulcair steps down after the next election.

But voter preference has solidified in ROC -- there it is a Conservative vs. Liberal race with the NDP clearly in 3rd.  It's possible it could change in 6 months from now, but for now the Liberals have won the battle for the middle, and as Hébert, Andrew Coyne & others have said, the Liberals have a big advantage on the NDP right now as the main alternative to the Conservatives.

And yes of course a good campaign or debate can change things, but remember that a lot of factors are different now than in 2011.  In 2011 the NDP had Layton, and the Liberals had Ignatieff.  The NDP was elevated by its leader and the Liberals were dragged down by theirs.  That is no longer the case.  The NDP also got to that high result because the Liberals had a weak apparatus that had deteriorated and had been taken for granted -- it is now in much stronger shape under Trudeau than Ignatieff.  And the NDP got a big surge because of a large increase in Québec, it does not have the same potential for an increase on that scale in any of the other provinces.  So the NDP cannot necessarily expect to replicate all the same conditions of 2011.  They're playing with a different deck of cards this time, and right now the hand favours the Liberals.

Rokossovsky

He is good at jettisoning people from the Liberal caucus while posturing righteously about ethics, I must admit that. It looks good, and is impressive at first but its going to get tired after a while -- besides he has run out of senators eject and will run out of no-name backbenchers soon enough.

Rokossovsky

Hebert has also noted that Trudeau's popularity largely comes from the fact that the Conservatives have set him up as the stuffed dummy to beat upon, which acts to promote him as the contender in the race. If the Liberals are being propped up by Conservative propaganda, as Hebert suggests, and not Trudeau's own merits, that suggests a real weakness that is only going to become clearer as Canadian tune in to the election, and compare. Conversely she has endorsed Mulcair political accumen time and time again.

Mulcair is a veteran campaigner, and a winner, who has vaulted all the way from a backbencher in the Quebec legislature to leader of the Official Opposition, in less than ten years.

Hebert, and a growing number of political commentators, many of who are solid Liberal supporters are becoming increasingly vocal and worried about the apparent lack of policy positions for voters to sink their teeth into as the election approaches, echoing my point above.

Trudeau is running like a frontrunner but his lead is paper thin. I didn't ask for further conjecture about "theoreticals", "polling", and romantics but empty rhetoric about Trudeau. I asked, as they have: where is the meat an potatoes?

Trudeau doesn't just have to beat the NDP, he has to beat the Conservatives. I hope you understand this point. And right now, it looks like Trudeau is bleeding right, and not picking up much vote share left, seeing as the NDP are still at least 5-7% higher in the polls than they were when the campaign began in 2011.

I hope you understand that a major factor in Ignatieff's downfall was also vacuity.

nicky

The Liberals biggest asset and biggest liability in Quebec is one and the same - Justin. 

In the short run he has lifted them off the canvass and saved them from near extinction. He has consolidated their vote in non-Anglophone Quebec and likley ensured that they keep what they have and sweep the West Island.

Hebert may well be right that he can make further gains in Queebc if the race in TROC narrows to the disheartening choice of Trudeau vs Harper.

BUT, it is no coincicence that Justin's approval rate has consistently been lower in Quebec than anywhere elese - and not just by a little bit. His standing among Francophones is particularly meagre. This is partly because nationalists distrust the Trudeau name. it is ironic that the sense of unreal projection that buoys Justin the TROC is a drag on him in Quebec.

The main reason is I think that Quebecers know him best. Their perception is of a self-entitled narcisist with no real qualifications beyond pedigre. They are ahead of the rest of the country in this regard. It remains to be seen whether TROC catches up to Quebec's perceptions or whether the Liberals are successful in insulating him through the election. 

If they are we will have elected our least qualified PM ever. 

But the worst part may be enduring the gloating of his groupies.

adma

Debater wrote:
1.  The Liberals only got 14% of the vote in Québec in 2011 under Ignatieff.  They are at 32% in this latest poll under Trudeau.  That means Trudeau is polling more than twice as high as Ignatieff. (And during Trudeau's honeymoon in Québec last year, he was polling over 40% and beating Mulcair among Francophone voters).  Those numbers give the Liberals the potential to nearly sweep Montreal and also win seats outside Montreal.

If we're looking at uniform swing, that is.  But I wouldn't be surprised if the more dramatic share jumps are dead cat bounces en route to Chretien-era Grit share normalcy in the 450; that sort of thing...

pebbles

Rokossovsky wrote:

He is good at jettisoning people from the Liberal caucus while posturing righteously about ethics, I must admit that. It looks good, and is impressive at first but its going to get tired after a while -- besides he has run out of senators eject and will run out of no-name backbenchers soon enough.

 

Are you talking about the harassment thing?

What would you have done?

Rokossovsky

pebbles wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

He is good at jettisoning people from the Liberal caucus while posturing righteously about ethics, I must admit that. It looks good, and is impressive at first but its going to get tired after a while -- besides he has run out of senators eject and will run out of no-name backbenchers soon enough.

 

Are you talking about the harassment thing?

What would you have done?

I have essayed at length on what I think would have been an appropriate response from the Liberals to this issue, on the threads where it is being discussed.

Debater

nicky wrote:

The Liberals biggest asset and biggest liability in Quebec is one and the same - Justin. 

In the short run he has lifted them off the canvass and saved them from near extinction. He has consolidated their vote in non-Anglophone Quebec and likley ensured that they keep what they have and sweep the West Island.

Hebert may well be right that he can make further gains in Queebc if the race in TROC narrows to the disheartening choice of Trudeau vs Harper.

BUT, it is no coincicence that Justin's approval rate has consistently been lower in Quebec than anywhere elese - and not just by a little bit. His standing among Francophones is particularly meagre. This is partly because nationalists distrust the Trudeau name. it is ironic that the sense of unreal projection that buoys Justin the TROC is a drag on him in Quebec.

The main reason is I think that Quebecers know him best. Their perception is of a self-entitled narcisist with no real qualifications beyond pedigre. They are ahead of the rest of the country in this regard. It remains to be seen whether TROC catches up to Quebec's perceptions or whether the Liberals are successful in insulating him through the election. 

If they are we will have elected our least qualified PM ever. 

But the worst part may be enduring the gloating of his groupies.

The usual sneering, snarky post from you, absent of any objective analysis and largely guided by your emotions rather than your reason.

The reason that the Liberals aren't yet back on top in Québec isn't because of Justin Trudeau -- they've had problems in the province for many years and there is a lot of re-building to do.  This point was noticeably absent in your analysis.  I wonder why?

Trudeau's numbers are actually pretty good in Québec -- remember that he has been ahead of Mulcair several times over the past year, including with Francophones.  This point was also absent from your analysis.  Another accidental oversight, I assume?

Mulcair has had it pretty easy in Québec.  He inherited nearly 60 seats from Jack Layton, with all the advantages of incumbency, momentum, a popular predecessor and very little competition from the other parties to worry about.  Mulcair has come along at a time where he has very little competition from the BQ, and virtually none from the incumbent PM & the Conservatives, either.  And yet the NDP's numbers are still only in the 30's.  Mulcair certainly couldn't have gone up against Pierre Trudeau or Brian Mulroney at the height of their popularity in Québec.

Thus, Tom's only competitor is a party that has to build back up from only 7 seats compared to one that has 50+, and the fact that the Liberals are also recovering from a lot of historical baggage.  The NDP being a new party and one that has never been in power before, doesn't have much baggage or a record.

It is a flat-out lie to state that Justin's approval rate has "consistently been lower in Quebec than anywhere elese".  A total fiction made up by nicky.  Trudeau regularly ranks 2nd in Québec, and last month he was 1st!  And the Abacus poll and many others show he is a net asset overall in Québec, not a liability.  Perhaps nicky is confusing his numbers with Alberta.

Debater

Rokossovsky wrote:

Hebert has also noted that Trudeau's popularity largely comes from the fact that the Conservatives have set him up as the stuffed dummy to beat upon, which acts to promote him as the contender in the race. If the Liberals are being propped up by Conservative propaganda, as Hebert suggests, and not Trudeau's own merits, that suggests a real weakness that is only going to become clearer as Canadian tune in to the election, and compare. Conversely she has endorsed Mulcair political accumen time and time again.

Mulcair is a veteran campaigner, and a winner, who has vaulted all the way from a backbencher in the Quebec legislature to leader of the Official Opposition, in less than ten years.

Hebert, and a growing number of political commentators, many of who are solid Liberal supporters are becoming increasingly vocal and worried about the apparent lack of policy positions for voters to sink their teeth into as the election approaches, echoing my point above.

Trudeau is running like a frontrunner but his lead is paper thin. I didn't ask for further conjecture about "theoreticals", "polling", and romantics but empty rhetoric about Trudeau. I asked, as they have: where is the meat an potatoes?

Trudeau doesn't just have to beat the NDP, he has to beat the Conservatives. I hope you understand this point. And right now, it looks like Trudeau is bleeding right, and not picking up much vote share left, seeing as the NDP are still at least 5-7% higher in the polls than they were when the campaign began in 2011.

I hope you understand that a major factor in Ignatieff's downfall was also vacuity.

1. If you're talking about Hébert's most recent column, I assume she was trying to convey the reasons why the NDP thinks it is doing badly.  I'm assuming those aren't all her opinions, but based on what she was told by the NDP strategists making excuses at the Broadbent Institute event last week.  The Conservative attack ads on Justin Trudeau are not the reason why the NDP is doing badly - they may be one factor, but if the NDP really believes they would be on their way to winning otherwise, they are fooling themselves.  The NDP is doing badly because Mulcair is a weak campaigner, the party can't win Ontario or win red tories, and because it has not outlined what its vision for Canada is, as well as making a series of incomprehensible decisions & choices over the past 3 years.

2. Mulcair's rise was largely as a result of one thing - LUCK.  He had an easy opponent in the Outremont by-election & an easy win.  And then he was carried to being a member of the Official Opposition as a result of Layton's popularity.  And the reason he became Official Opposition leader is because Layton was taken away by cancer.  If it hadn't of been for that, he wouldn't be in the position he is in right now.  This is frequently the way it is in politics - circumstance dictates your destiny a lot more than skill.

3.  Trudeau doesn't have to beat the Conservatives, actually.  He only has to beat the NDP.  Winning back Official Opposition is all he needs to do.  Mulcair, on the other hand, is the one that is at risk of having to step down as leader after the next election if he can't move his party up and if it drops down to 3rd.

4.  The NDP are the Official Opposition - it makes sense they would have higher numbers now than they had when they were the 4th party.  But they have the worst numbers of any Official Opposition in recent history.  They've spent most of Mulcair's term in 3rd place, both in polls & by-election results.  Not even Igantieff & Dion had numbers that low.

Brachina

 Calling somone elses posts sneering coming from you debater is laughable.

nicky

Astonishing for a Justin groupie like Debater to claim everything Mulcair has just fell into his lap!

I am not making up the approval numbers like D does.

The last EKOS for Quebec:

Trudeau - 30% approval, 30% disapproval

Mulcair - 41% approval, 12% disapproval

I may indeed have overstated it by saying that trudeau's Quebec numbers were worse than any where else. i shd have said anywhere except Alberta where they were +23 -39.

Nationwide:

Trudeau: +36 -32

Mulcair: + 35 -22

I reiterate my point:

"BUT, it is no coincicence that Justin's approval rate has consistently been lower in Quebec than anywhere elese - and not just by a little bit. His standing among Francophones is particularly meagre. This is partly because nationalists distrust the Trudeau name. it is ironic that the sense of unreal projection that buoys Justin the TROC is a drag on him in Quebec.The main reason is I think that Quebecers know him best. Their perception is of a self-entitled narcisist with no real qualifications beyond pedigree. They are ahead of the rest of the country in this regard. It remains to be seen whether TROC catches up to Quebec's perceptions or whether the Liberals are successful in insulating him through the election."

Pages