The Newest Polling Thread

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
ocsi
The Newest Polling Thread

The Liberals and Conservatives are deadlocked in latest EKOS poll.

ottawaobserver

That was just followed up by an Angus Reid poll (PDF of details).

Cons 36
Lib 30
NDP 16
BQ 10
Grn 7

Wish I could take these summer polls more seriously, but I just can't.  I don't think anyone is paying the least attention; they're probably only worthwhile as a baseline for later on.  Unless I'm missing something.

Also, I can't take the analysis very seriously.  For example, Frank Graves in the Ekos poll cover story above says "For the New Democratic Party, however, the Ontario numbers must be worrisome. The party's lead over the fourth place Green Party has dropped to just a few percentage points".  Oh shit, thinkest I, and goes to look at the breakdown fearing 9% or something.  But no, we're at a not great but reasonably good 14.9%, with the Greens at an if-they-ever-actually-get-that-on-E-Day-I'll-eat-my-shoe 12.0%.

Finally, it's not worth looking at anyone but CROP and Leger in Quebec anyways, so I'll just count myself happy that we're up in the Prairies and BC, note that we're on the happy side of the Atlantic small-N gyrations (and more happily that we're actually hiring an Atlantic organizer to try and take better advantage of it all now), and enjoy a bit of glee that Iggy's negatives are up.

Anything else worth paying attention to in these ones?

Uncle John

I predict that if the Liberals keep voting for the Conservatives in Ottawa, more Liberals are going to vote Conservative. At this rate, Iggy's going to do even worse than Dion...

West Coast Lefty

ottawaobserver wrote:

That was just followed up by an Angus Reid poll (PDF of details).

Cons 36
Lib 30
NDP 16
BQ 10
Grn 7

Wish I could take these summer polls more seriously, but I just can't.  I don't think anyone is paying the least attention; they're probably only worthwhile as a baseline for later on.  Unless I'm missing something.

Also, I can't take the analysis very seriously.  For example, Frank Graves in the Ekos poll cover story above says "For the New Democratic Party, however, the Ontario numbers must be worrisome. The party's lead over the fourth place Green Party has dropped to just a few percentage points".  Oh shit, thinkest I, and goes to look at the breakdown fearing 9% or something.  But no, we're at a not great but reasonably good 14.9%, with the Greens at an if-they-ever-actually-get-that-on-E-Day-I'll-eat-my-shoe 12.0%.

Finally, it's not worth looking at anyone but CROP and Leger in Quebec anyways, so I'll just count myself happy that we're up in the Prairies and BC, note that we're on the happy side of the Atlantic small-N gyrations (and more happily that we're actually hiring an Atlantic organizer to try and take better advantage of it all now), and enjoy a bit of glee that Iggy's negatives are up.

Anything else worth paying attention to in these ones?

I think you are right with respect to the horse race numbers, OO - whether the Libs are up by 2 or the Cons are up by 1 is totally irrelevant given the MOE, and even the 6 point gap in the Angus Reid poll is not necessarily significant.  The media hyperbole on each poll is absolutely ridiculous - the worst recent example is the coverage of the last Strategic Counsel poll in the Globe where the headline was something like "Conservatives surge into lead in new poll."  I was expecting an Angus Reid type result from that headline, when in fact the gap was exactly 1 point.

There are some significant trends developing in the recent polling results, however - Iggy's negatives are clearly up since the EI election showdown debacle, and Harper has a definite lead on handling the economy and other key issues.  The Lib momentum in Quebec seems to have stalled and the BQ is still holding or slightly gaining support, with Harper still at rock-bottom levels in Quebec. Ontario is starting to trend Conservative again.  Overall, it's good news for Harper and worrying news for Iggy - with Layton and the NDP holding steady in general but gaining in the Atlantic on the Dexter surge in NS.

Aristotleded24

ottawaobserver wrote:
we're up in the Prairies and BC

That's the crucial region for the NDP, because it's the only region where an NDP rise comes clearly at the expense of the Conservatives. Glad to see this trend, hope it continues.

ottawaobserver

Well, Aristotleded24, you got me curious, so I went back and looked at the month over month.

In the Ekos numbers, the NDP was indeed up across the Prairies: in Sask/Man at the expense of the Conservatives, and in Alberta ... probably at the expense of the Greens, since the Liberals and Conservatives appear to have also exchanged about 3 points between themselves.  In BC, though, we stayed the same, while the Libs lost directly to the Conservatives.  May as well vote for the real thing.

In the Angus Reid numbers, the NDP was way down in BC (14% from 22%), as were the Conservatives but less so (41% down from 45%), to the benefit of the Liberals (36% up from 22%).  The June Angus Reid numbers for Alberta were real outliers, as they had the Greens at 18%, although they were back down to 8% there by July.  Same goes for Sask/Man, where he had the Greens up at 11% in June, and down to an almost too low 1% in July.  The Conservatives also bounced from 38% in June to 56% in July there.  Given the likely miniscule sub-sample sizes, I'm not taking any of this too seriously at all.

Reid had us at 14% in Ontario in June, and up to 19% in July.  But the Quebec numbers went the opposite way, down from 17% to 12%.  Even though those sub-samples would have had slightly better N's, I think I ought not to have read anything into regional numbers at all, and overall am not sure my original observations were correct either.

Should have just stuck with the general point that summer polls aren't worth too much in terms of deep insights.

ETA the PDF links:  Ekos June | July and Angus Reid June | July

NorthReport

Vancouver Sun Columnist Barbara Yaffe is getting desperate.
Who could blame her? It's all smoke and mirrors. As she says, where's the beef!

 

Liberal advances in January receding in recent months

 

Installation of Michael Ignatieff as leader was a positive first impression but seven months on, a policy for the country is still missing

 

 

 

  By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver SunJuly 13, 2009  

 

Two polls last week confirm that Liberal party support, which has been growing steadily since Michael Ignatieff took the helm, has stalled or is in decline.

Liberals and Conservatives were statistically tied in a Strategic Counsel poll while a second poll by Angus Reid shows Liberals with 30 per cent support to the Conservatives' 36 per cent.

The advances the official Opposition party saw after switching leaders in January clearly were about the positive first impression Ignatieff made on Canadians.

But seven months on, many are wondering, where's the beef? Grits have yet to outline where they'd take the country on a number of crucial policy fronts

 

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Liberal+advances+January+receding+r...

NorthReport

EKOS

Cons - 34.1%, up 2.3%

Libs - 32.4%, down 0.2%

NDP - 15.2%, down 0.8%

Bloc - 8.7%

 

 

 

 

Stockholm

I think that in these dog days of summer - all the polls are measuring is that Harper has been in the news and the other leaders haven't.

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

I think that in these dog days of summer - all the polls are measuring is that Harper has been in the news and the other leaders haven't.

That hasn't necessarily been a good thing for him.

Debater

Policywonk wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I think that in these dog days of summer - all the polls are measuring is that Harper has been in the news and the other leaders haven't.

That hasn't necessarily been a good thing for him.

True - Harper got into a bit of trouble at the G8 last week when he attacked Ignatieff for something he never said and Harper and Dimitri Soudas then had to apologize to Ignatieff.

It shows Harper hasn't yet learned the risks of making inflammatory comments (eg. arts and culture last election) - luckily for Harper it was during the summer when most people weren't paying attention and not during the middle of an election.

melovesproles

I think people are waking up to the fact Ignatieff isn't an improvement.  There was a lot of optimism amongst the public around the time of the coalition for someone new but its become clear that he has all of Harper's negatives and is twice as phony.   Despite it all I could see Harper hanging onto another minority, the Liberals deserve the wilderness.  The only lesson they learned from the Dion experiement was to be less democratic and progressive.

Debater

The odds for the next election still favour Ignatieff, but there are certainly no guarantees.

NorthReport

Says who? You. Laughing

KenS

Debater wrote:
The odds for the next election still favour Ignatieff, but there are certainly no guarantees.

Typical rhetorical device. "Certainly no guarantees" being the pro forma obvious but empty statement... which appears to cover the absolute lack of substantiation for "the odds for the next election still favour Ignatieff".

Since when did they favour your party? And on what basis specifically?

I have for one said precisely why I think the odds to continue to favour Harper- and that includes the degree of confidence I have overall, and the contingencies. [As opposed to a general and vacuous, 'no guarantees of course'.]

I don't recall you doing that once.

You could always start now.

NorthReport

Actually according to latest poll, the odds favour Harper getting the most no of seats in the next election.

Angus-Reid, Jul 15-16/09 

Cons - 33%, up 1%

Libs - 30%, down 1%

NDP - 18%, same

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/668272

Stockholm

Actually, though (naturally)the article doesn't mention it, 18% for the NDP is an increase of 2% from the last ARG survey. It's also nice to see the so-called Greens continue their slow march to oblivion at 6%.

janfromthebruce

made a comment on the star site Stock - a boost for the NDP Laughing

THANKS

West Coast Lefty

NorthReport wrote:

Actually according to latest poll, the odds favour Harper getting the most no of seats in the next election.

Angus-Reid, Jul 15-16/09 

Cons - 33%, up 1%

Libs - 30%, down 1%

NDP - 18%, same

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/668272

There are so many polls over the last few weeks - we had maybe 4 major polls in the entire BC provincial election and now there are about a dozen national polls over the dog days of summer Surprised I guess a lot of polling firms really thought Iggy was serious about bringing down Harper over the EI issue and are now releasing all of their scheduled "election" polling surveys.

The Conservative support level is actually down from the 36% reported in the last ARG poll, but this is still great news for Harper, esp after all the G8 summit gaffes and esp the gay-bashing from his MPs over the Pride parade funding by Ablonczy.  The Cons have a structural advantage over the Libs in terms of funding, organization and seats - they start with about 80 sure seats which is more than the entire Liberal caucus right now, the BQ has about 40 safe seats and the NDP around 25-30. 

It is virtually impossible for the Libs to win a majority under those conditions as they would have to hold 100% of the incumbents and win every competitive seat in the country. I have never understood this assertion that the Lib vote is more "efficient" than the Conservatives - the Libs are essentially shut out of the game West of Ontario except for maybe 10 seats - they are concentrated in Toronto and the GTA suburbs in Ontario, and Anglo Montreal and a few surrounding ridings in QC.  The Cons and NDP both showed strength in Atlantic Canada in 2008 and that will only grow next time, esp with the Dexter NDP breakthrough in NS.  The Libs are efficient in delivering big wins in their urban core seats and a few rural enclaves, but I don't see how that helps them grow enough to win government.

Yes, Iggy has been polling well in Quebec and that could be a game changer if it is sustained, but even the best case scenario for the Libs is a pickup of maybe 15 seats there - they stand to lose about the same number of seats in the West and Atlantic Canada IMHO. They may only hang on to Hedy Fry and Joyce Murray in BC and Anita Neville was almost knocked off in Manitoba, Wascana may be vulnerable if Goodale retires, etc.

ottawaobserver

The regional breakdowns over the past couple of Angus Reid polls have been pretty weird.  I see they don't have any details of the horse-race numbers on their website yet (maybe they didn't know the Star was going to write about anything but the visa question today).  I'll be curious to see if there are any more wild variations there this month.

remind remind's picture

Okay this is a thread drift, but what did Harper say at the G8 about Iggy? I missed it.

ocsi

This is what Harper said about Iggy.

ottawaobserver

Dimitri Soudas, his press aide and Quebec advisor, misattributed a quote to Michael Ignatieff that really came from someone else, about how a new international body could/should surface that would omit Canada, in an email briefing he gave to the PM.  The PM immediately took the opportunity in his closing news conference to trash Ignatieff for it, in quite a nasty way (ok, usual for him).

About 20 minutes later, Soudas came out and told the media that it was his mistake, he took full credit for it (although, note, he has not been suspended the way Ryan Sparrow was during the campaign for a similar gaffe), and the PM apologized to Iggy.

NorthReport

This is from www.election.almanac.com 

 

Is this the best site for the most recent polls?

 

And of course the most recent ARS is not yet included in their list so I have added it just above the 2008 election results:

 

THE Party order is alphabetical

BQ

CON

GR

LIB

NDP

 

2009/07/16

11

33

06

30

18

Angus reid Strategies 

 

 

Election 2008
10
37.6
6.8
26.2
18.2
-

2009.07.09
9.3
31.8
10.7
32.2
16
EKOS Research Associates

2009.07.05
11
34
7
33
15
Strategic Counsel

2009.07.03
10
36
7
30
16
Angus Reid Strategies

2009.06.29
9
31
11.5
32.2
16.2
EKOS Research Associates

2009.06.23
9
34.8
9.3
32.6
14.3
EKOS Research Associates

2009.06.21
9.8
32.2
4.8
36.3
16.8
Nanos Research

2009.06.18
11
32
7
31
18
Angus Reid Strategies

2009.06.16
8.4
32.4
9
33.7
16.3
EKOS Research Associates

2009.06.09
9.2
30.3
10.4
35
15.1
EKOS Research Associates

2009.06.08
9
31
8
35
15
Harris-Decima

2009.06.07
9
30
11
34
16
Strategic Counsel

2009.06.04
9
33
9
36
12
Ipsos Canada

2009.06.01
8
31.8
7.4
37.2
15.7
Nanos Research

2009.05.29
9
31
7
33
17
Angus Reid Strategies

2009.05.28
8.7
32.3
10.4
33.5
15.1
EKOS Research Associates

2009.05.24
9
35
8
33
14
Ipsos Canada

2009.05.10
9
30
11
35
16
Strategic Counsel

2009.05.03
9
29
11
34
15
Harris-Decima

2009.04.30
9
33
7
36
15
Nanos Research

2009.04.30
9
33
8
36
13
Ipsos Canada

2009.04.22
10
33
6
33
15
Angus Reid Strategies

2009.04.19
9
29
11
32
16
Harris-Decima

2009.04.13
9.4
30.2
8.1
36.7
15.5
EKOS Research Associates

2009.04.05
10
32
9
34
15
Strategic Counsel

2009.03.23
9
34
6
35
14
Leger Marketing

2009.03.18
10
33
8
36
13
Nanos Research

remind remind's picture

OMG, what an embarassment Harper is on the world stage, what kind of leader does that shit?

ottawaobserver

Apparently Byers said on E+1 that he was going to run again, which I'm glad about, because Hedy Fry is already 67 and won't be running there forever.

Meanwhile the Angus Reid details came out (PDF file).  ETA:  Sorry, this is the PDF file; that was just the blog post.

I've noticed some good sites for collected poll results:  PollingReport.ca is one, and the Paulitics Socialist Investigations poll index is another.

NorthReport

West Coast Lefty wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Actually according to latest poll, the odds favour Harper getting the most no of seats in the next election.

Angus-Reid, Jul 15-16/09 

Cons - 33%, up 1%

Libs - 30%, down 1%

NDP - 18%, same

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/668272

There are so many polls over the last few weeks - we had maybe 4 major polls in the entire BC provincial election and now there are about a dozen national polls over the dog days of summer Surprised I guess a lot of polling firms really thought Iggy was serious about bringing down Harper over the EI issue and are now releasing all of their scheduled "election" polling surveys.

The Conservative support level is actually down from the 36% reported in the last ARG poll, but this is still great news for Harper, esp after all the G8 summit gaffes and esp the gay-bashing from his MPs over the Pride parade funding by Ablonczy.  The Cons have a structural advantage over the Libs in terms of funding, organization and seats - they start with about 80 sure seats which is more than the entire Liberal caucus right now, the BQ has about 40 safe seats and the NDP around 25-30. 

It is virtually impossible for the Libs to win a majority under those conditions as they would have to hold 100% of the incumbents and win every competitive seat in the country. I have never understood this assertion that the Lib vote is more "efficient" than the Conservatives - the Libs are essentially shut out of the game West of Ontario except for maybe 10 seats - they are concentrated in Toronto and the GTA suburbs in Ontario, and Anglo Montreal and a few surrounding ridings in QC.  The Cons and NDP both showed strength in Atlantic Canada in 2008 and that will only grow next time, esp with the Dexter NDP breakthrough in NS.  The Libs are efficient in delivering big wins in their urban core seats and a few rural enclaves, but I don't see how that helps them grow enough to win government.

Yes, Iggy has been polling well in Quebec and that could be a game changer if it is sustained, but even the best case scenario for the Libs is a pickup of maybe 15 seats there - they stand to lose about the same number of seats in the West and Atlantic Canada IMHO. They may only hang on to Hedy Fry and Joyce Murray in BC and Anita Neville was almost knocked off in Manitoba, Wascana may be vulnerable if Goodale retires, etc.

Good analysis WCL.

And unless there is some kind of significant change, between now and the election, my hunch is that the combined LIB-NDP seat projections will not add up to the 155 seats that are required to govern. Jack is somehow going to have to pull a rabbit of the hat here. 

Has Byers been nominated yet, and if so, has he started campaigning yet? 

 

 

 

 

 

ottawaobserver

BTW, Layton is ahead of Ignatieff as best PM in both Quebec and the Atlantic in this poll !!

NorthReport

Another interesting question looming over the horizon for the Liberals is, how many seats are they going to have to win for Iggy to hold onto his job as party leader?  The last few elections resulted in the following results for the Libs:

  

 

2008 - Dion - 77 seats, 26.3% pop vote  

2006 - Martin - 103 seats, 30.2% pop vote

2004 - Martin - 135 seats, 36.7% pop vote

2000 - Chretien - 172 seats, 40.8% pop vote

1997 - Chretien - 155 seats, 38.5% pop vote

1993 - Chretien - 177 seats, 41.3% pop vote

NorthReport

ottawaobserver wrote:

BTW, Layton is ahead of Ignatieff as best PM in both Quebec and the Atlantic in this poll !!

Thanks for the link OO.

WOW, 35% for the NDP in Atlantic Canada. That recent NS election appears to be looming large over the federal scene.  

ottawaobserver

Although, given how all over the place the Angus Reid regional numbers have been lately, I'll take it as part of a trend, but not as gospel by any means !

remind remind's picture

Really?

 

NorthReport

To form government it's essential that the NDP secure a solid base in Quebec. When he took over as Leader Jack said he had a 10-year plan for Quebec. And since Jack became Leader the NPD support in Quebec has gone from 2% to 12%.

I think unionist may be correct though, in that when Jack has had enough, Mulcair will have to take his place as Leader, to ensure the NPD's continued success in Quebec.  

 Le NPD mise sur Brome-Missisquoi

Prise possible

Pourquoi cibler précisément Brome-Missisquoi? Notamment en raison du niveau élevé d'organisation de l'exécutif qu'on y retrouve, mais aussi parce qu'il s'agit d'une circonscription qui a changé d'allégeance à plus d'une reprise au cours des dernières décennies.

"C'est un comté qui peut bouger, et ça, c'est très intéressant pour nous", a résumé Christelle Bogosta, qui a déjà exprimé le souhait d'être à nouveau candidate aux prochaines élections.

Quant à Jack Layton, il espère voir se répéter le scénario qui avait permis à Thomas Mulcair de devenir le seul député néo-démocrate québécois à la Chambre des communes l'automne dernier, lui qui avait été élu dans Outremont, pourtant un château-fort libéral.

"Les appuis qu'on a eus dans Brome-Missisquoi à la dernière élection ressemblent beaucoup à ceux dans Outremont avant l'arrivée de M. Mulcair, a noté M. Layton. De plus, il y a ici une énergie qu'on ne retrouve pas partout, avec une candidate qui est très impliquée dans la communauté. C'est clair qu'il existe un esprit de communauté très fort ainsi qu'une grande présence de valeurs sociales-démocrates."

Questionné à savoir si une seconde victoire en sol québécois ne passerait pas plutôt par la présentation d'un autre candidat vedette, le chef néo-démocrate a réitéré sa position selon laquelle il cherchait avant tout des personnes connues et impliquées localement.

"On ne cherche pas des vedettes, on cherche des racines, a-t-il lancé. Ça prend du temps, changer les choses. Quand je suis devenu chef il y a six ans, nos appuis étaient à 2 % au Québec et, aujourd'hui, ils sont à 12 %. C'est pourquoi le projet de construction du NPD se poursuit et, petit à petit, l'oiseau fait son nid."

 http://www.cyberpresse.ca/la-voix-de-lest/actualites/200907/07/01-881909-le-npd-mise-sur-brome-missisquoi.php 

 

2008 Election results for Brome-Missisquoi

B - 35%

C - 19%

L - 33%

N - 9%

V - 4%

NorthReport

Yup. Laughing

 

Although Jack was born in Quebec, the NPD has never had a leader who lives in Quebec. It's time, and the goal is to form government, isn't it?

 

Who did you have in mind?

 

Somehow though the NDP needs to elevate the role of regional leaders

 

Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

And unless there is some kind of significant change, between now and the election, my hunch is that the combined LIB-NDP seat projections will not add up to the 155 seats that are required to govern. Jack is somehow going to have to pull a rabbit of the hat here. 

I think all that is required is for the combined Liberal-NDP seat totals to exceed the Conservatives. If the Conservatives go down that far, it will be difficult to make the case that they should continue to govern, if the Liberals choose to make some sort of arrangement with us to topple the government when it faces the House and present an alternative. Of course in this case, the knives will be out for Harper. If the Liberals don't make a significant recovery, the knives will be out for Ignatieff.

adma

NorthReport wrote:
I think unionist may be correct though, in that when Jack has had enough, Mulcair will have to take his place as Leader, to ensure the NPD's continued success in Quebec. 

Unless it's a matter of nullifying the BQ default-left choice, "have to" comes off as clumsily simplistic to me.  What matters, first of all, that Mulcair survives in Parliament, in order to continue to validate the NPD brand.  And from that point, it's a matter of making the NDP/NPD into a sufficiently robust entity that it wouldn't need a Mulcair-as-leader crutch in the first place.

Though it might help if a non-Mulcair Layton replacement was the sort to have Quebec "reach" in his/her own right.  (Interesting to consider that there are presently 3 NDP MPs "bordering" Quebec: Angus, Dewar, Godin--at least two if not all three of which have been commonly viewed as valid potential leadership successors.)

ottawaobserver

Anyone notice that the Hochelaga NDP nomination meeting has now been scheduled for early August.  This is good because Bloc MP Real Menard is going to run for city council in Montreal, and we're running our labour candidate again.

NorthReport

That's good news.

The NPD have a 36% margin to make up from the Bloc who won it last time with 50% of the vote.

So who is running for the Bloc or do we not know that yet.

 

West Coast Lefty

NorthReport wrote:

Another interesting question looming over the horizon for the Liberals is, how many seats are they going to have to win for Iggy to hold onto his job as party leader?  The last few elections resulted in the following results for the Libs:

  

 

2008 - Dion - 77 seats, 26.3% pop vote  

2006 - Martin - 103 seats, 30.2% pop vote

2004 - Martin - 135 seats, 36.7% pop vote

2000 - Chretien - 172 seats, 40.8% pop vote

1997 - Chretien - 155 seats, 38.5% pop vote

1993 - Chretien - 177 seats, 41.3% pop vote

I think if Iggy doesn't get more seats than Harper, he's gone.  The man is 62 and he already ran for leader and lost in 2006 and then won uncontested in 2008/2009.  If he doesn't get at least a minority government, I think the knives will come out fast.  Plus, Iggy is clearly not suited for opposition and that's becoming more obvious over time (though he'd probably not do very well in government either).  The Libs haven't lost 3 straight elections since 1962 and they clearly think Harper is unworthy to hold office, they won't be kind to a leader with as much positive media and momentum as Iggy who can't defeat a Conservative government in the worst recession in decades.

NorthReport

In the last election the Cons elected 143 seats compared to the Libs 77 seats, for a difference of 66 seats.

Realistically, the chances of the Libs getting more seats than the Cons in the next election are next to nil.

The two questions that will be on people's minds as they head to the voting booth will be whether or not the Cons get a majority government, and whether or not the NDP can overtake the Libs to form the Official Opposition.

Stockholm

These are all good reasons why after the next elections when the Liberals wind up with fewer seats than the tories, you are going to see Iggy suddenly become extrmely enthusiastic about resurrecting an opposition coalition. It will be the only way for him to save his skin.

NorthReport

In other words the entire Liberal campaign is going to be based on a lie. Sounds like every other Liberal election campaign to me.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

In the last election the Cons elected 143 seats compared to the Libs 77 seats, for a difference of 66 seats.

Realistically, the chances of the Libs getting more seats than the Cons in the next election are next to nil.

The two questions that will be on people's minds as they head to the voting booth will be whether or not the Cons get a majority government, and whether or not the NDP can overtake the Libs to form the Official Opposition.

This makes no sense.

1) The Liberals  and the Cons are almost even in the polls.That is hardly a nil chance proposition.

2) When a government goes in tied with the opposition- usually the opposition wins- that's because an election puts the light more evenly on the parties than a pre-election period.

3) The Cons have a long habit of huge majorities in their strongest areas, the Liberals have seen little of this in years. The Liberal support is wider and more efficient. Political scientists have long maintained that the Cons need an edge on the Liberals to win. If you look at the last election

4) The Cons have been losing support disproportionately in areas where they have the slimist margins

5) The Liberals were at historic lows in the last election with an ineffective unpopular leader without basic communications skills, an unpopular poorly considered platform, a leader running from the left of the party with little appeal to those who could vote Conservative and a government with a fairly new mandate. Much of this has changed. While Ignatief may not be popular among left wingers- those are not the folks who vote Conservative. Further, considering all his weaknesses he is better than Dion on most counts.

6) The 66 seat difference sounds bigger than it is. The Liberals if they have a modest recovery in Quebec could pick up 10 seats there from the BQ. The Liberals could take back 5 from the NDP (While this is not a result I would chear for I cannot say the chances are nil. At the same time the NDP could take 5 from the Cons mostly in the West. That would leave them with 92 vs 138 for the Cons. The difference is now 46. The Liberals would then need to win 24 seats from the Cons to make them the biggest party. Considering the polls have consistently show the Liberals up between 5 points 9 points and the Cons down between 4 and 7 points. This is a realistic expected turnover.

7) Between now and election day, there are more risks for the government in many ways than there are for the opposition- particularly from the economy as the government is claiming that the deficit can be erased with recovery but economists are saying it can't without tax increases or cuts to programs and services. This is important because the difference between the two is the amount the Cons have wrecked the economy because once the recession is no longer there any blame for a deficit is theirs alone. I believe Canadians will understand this easily. Their lost credibility lagging behind everyone with rosy predictions whle the economy soured did not help people trust them. There is a real chance the distrust on the economy could reach critical mass.

8) The government cannot force another quick election having played that card last year. If the situation looks good for the government-- it won't fall.

9) The Liberals no longer pose a good target for the Cons. By saying little they have allowed their previous government to fade. The Martin government was not that unpopular- it was the Chretien government that was the source of the anger. That government ended almost 6 years ago.

10) The move for change in the US-- even as much as it is window dressing is unhelpful for Harper.

It is possible if things get very bad for the Liberals to manage a majority -- momentum can do strange things. That I think is very unlikely however.

It is possible for the Liberals to get more seats than the Cons and govern certainly. It is also possible that Canadians will dislike Ignatief enough for the Liberals to fade during a campaign to no better than they are now-- all are possible.

The most likely scenario right now is a very close race between the Cons and the Liberals with the NDP losing in some places but somewhat insulated by the fact that Ignatief is a right wing Liberal who does not appeal particularly to the left of centre set.There are many tight ridings the Cons hold and these could be lost.

 

The NDP is very likely to lose some seats, however it may pick up others so it is hard to say if the total seat count for teh NDP will be down. My suspicion is it will not change by much even though the polls show the NDP down there is a campaign in between.

Sean in Ottawa

Some of the Seats the Cons could lose if there is a general even if small decline in their support:

1 Egmont (margin less than 1%- L)

2 West Nova (margin less than 4%-L)

3 Miramichi (margin 5%-L)

4 Saint John (margin less than 2%-L)

5 Beauport (Margin less than 5%-BQ)

6 Roberval L-S-J (Margin less than 4%-BQ)

7 Kenora (Margin less than 9%-L)

8 Kitchener Centre (Margin less than 2%-L)

9 Kitchener Waterloo (Margin less than 1%-L)

10 London West (Margin less than 4%-L)

11 Mississauga Erindale (Margin less than 1%-L)

12 Oak Ridges Markham (Margin less than 1%-L)

13 Oshawa (Margin less than 6%-NDP)

14 Ottawa Orleans (Margin lesss than 7%-L)

15 Ottawa West Nepean (Margin less than 9%-L)

16 Thornhill (Margin less than 10%-L)

17 Saskatoon Roestown Biggar (Margin 1%-NDP)

18 North Van (Margin less than 5%-L)

19 Saanich-G-I (Margin less than 5%-L)

20 Surrey N (Margin less than 1%-NDP)

21 Van Island N (Margin less than 5%-NDP)

22 Nunavut (Margin less than 6%-L)

 

Numbers following these changes

Cons 143 -22 = 121

Liberals 77 +16 = 93

BQ 48 +2 = 50

NDP 36 +4 = 40

Other seats the Liberals could get:

From BQ even if the BQ does not deline if the Con support goes mostly Liberal these seats will fall:

Ahuntsic (1%) Alfred Pellin (9%) Brome Missisquoi (3%) Jeanne Le Bar (3%) Laval (9%) H-Gaspesie La-M-M (2%) Pontiac (8%) St Lambert (9%)

New Count

Cons 121

Liberals 101

NDP 40

BQ 42

If the Liberals took 5 from the NDP which could happen as there are close races there too:

Cons 121

Liberals 106

NDP 35

BQ 42

This puts the Liberals only an 8 seat swing from the Cons-- some seats that were won by margins of 10% or more by the Cons would be lost-- if the Liberals did go up by 7 points to 33 and the Cons went down by 4 points since that is a change of over 10 points and it is unlikely such a change would happen in Alberta, the change will be more pronounced elsewhere. 8 more seats than I have shown in these conditions is not a nil possibility.

I am just making the point that the next election is not predictable to the point of saying that the chance of Harper losing is nil -- which is what some are saying here.

The ranges are just as volatile as ever-- the NDP anywhere between 25 and 50 seats; the Cons anywhere between 110 and 150 seats; the Liberals anywhere between 70 and 125 seats; the BQ anywhere between 30 and 50 seats. Lots of government possibilities and coalitions exist there. And that is based on current numbers. There is more risk that the Cons would drop to everyone else's benfit than the reverse.

NorthReport

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

In the last election the Cons elected 143 seats compared to the Libs 77 seats, for a difference of 66 seats.

Realistically, the chances of the Libs getting more seats than the Cons in the next election are next to nil.

The two questions that will be on people's minds as they head to the voting booth will be whether or not the Cons get a majority government, and whether or not the NDP can overtake the Libs to form the Official Opposition.

This makes no sense.

1) The Liberals  and the Cons are almost even in the polls.That is hardly a nil chance proposition.

2) When a government goes in tied with the opposition- usually the opposition wins- that's because an election puts the light more evenly on the parties than a pre-election period.

3) The Cons have a long habit of huge majorities in their strongest areas, the Liberals have seen little of this in years. The Liberal support is wider and more efficient. Political scientists have long maintained that the Cons need an edge on the Liberals to win. If you look at the last election

4) The Cons have been losing support disproportionately in areas where they have the slimist margins

5) The Liberals were at historic lows in the last election with an ineffective unpopular leader without basic communications skills, an unpopular poorly considered platform, a leader running from the left of the party with little appeal to those who could vote Conservative and a government with a fairly new mandate. Much of this has changed. While Ignatief may not be popular among left wingers- those are not the folks who vote Conservative. Further, considering all his weaknesses he is better than Dion on most counts.

6) The 66 seat difference sounds bigger than it is. The Liberals if they have a modest recovery in Quebec could pick up 10 seats there from the BQ. The Liberals could take back 5 from the NDP (While this is not a result I would chear for I cannot say the chances are nil. At the same time the NDP could take 5 from the Cons mostly in the West. That would leave them with 92 vs 138 for the Cons. The difference is now 46. The Liberals would then need to win 24 seats from the Cons to make them the biggest party. Considering the polls have consistently show the Liberals up between 5 points 9 points and the Cons down between 4 and 7 points. This is a realistic expected turnover.

7) Between now and election day, there are more risks for the government in many ways than there are for the opposition- particularly from the economy as the government is claiming that the deficit can be erased with recovery but economists are saying it can't without tax increases or cuts to programs and services. This is important because the difference between the two is the amount the Cons have wrecked the economy because once the recession is no longer there any blame for a deficit is theirs alone. I believe Canadians will understand this easily. Their lost credibility lagging behind everyone with rosy predictions whle the economy soured did not help people trust them. There is a real chance the distrust on the economy could reach critical mass.

8) The government cannot force another quick election having played that card last year. If the situation looks good for the government-- it won't fall.

9) The Liberals no longer pose a good target for the Cons. By saying little they have allowed their previous government to fade. The Martin government was not that unpopular- it was the Chretien government that was the source of the anger. That government ended almost 6 years ago.

10) The move for change in the US-- even as much as it is window dressing is unhelpful for Harper.

It is possible if things get very bad for the Liberals to manage a majority -- momentum can do strange things. That I think is very unlikely however.

It is possible for the Liberals to get more seats than the Cons and govern certainly. It is also possible that Canadians will dislike Ignatief enough for the Liberals to fade during a campaign to no better than they are now-- all are possible.

The most likely scenario right now is a very close race between the Cons and the Liberals with the NDP losing in some places but somewhat insulated by the fact that Ignatief is a right wing Liberal who does not appeal particularly to the left of centre set.There are many tight ridings the Cons hold and these could be lost.

 

The NDP is very likely to lose some seats, however it may pick up others so it is hard to say if the total seat count for teh NDP will be down. My suspicion is it will not change by much even though the polls show the NDP down there is a campaign in between.

 

Is this some sort of Liberal Party fantasy world response?

 Of couse it does not make any sense, if the election were to be held today, however we have absolutely no idea when the next election is going to take place.

 Many, many people, blinded by their hatred of Harper, have seriously underestimated him from day one. That has constantly been a big mistake.

Almost all the so-called experts, including people like Chantel Hubert, never thought Dion was going to win the Liberal leadership. Some people often just cannot see the forests for the trees. Dion initially was popular, until the Cons went to work on him, and destroyed his credibility.

 Ignatieff has relatively recently taken over as Liberal leader, and yet already the cracks are beginning to show, such as the impact of the "Republicans for Ignatieff" website which has been major news around the country this week. Harper is just beginning to warm up. How many Canadians are going to vote for a Liberal Leader who hates Canada?

 We're in the most serious recession in decades, we're involved in a war, and yet Harper is still more popular than Ignatieff.

Harper will decide when we have the next election, it may be years away from now, and by that time, there is a  possibility, that Ignatieff will be in a similar boat as Dion was, in the last election.

Harper has been slowly, steadly, increasing his support. The last election Harper got 143 seats, very, very close to a majority, and there is no question voters will be reflecting on that as they head to the polls.

Similiarly, since he has taker over as NDP Leader, Jack Layton has been slowly, surely, increasing NDP support. With the recent election of the first NDP government in Atlantic Canada, combined with the NDP beachhead, finally secured in Quebec for the first time in a general election, there is a possibility that the 8% popular vote gap could be overcome by the NDP, and one ought not to discount the possibility of Layton becoming Leader of the Official Opposition in the next election.

Debater

KenS wrote:

Debater wrote:
The odds for the next election still favour Ignatieff, but there are certainly no guarantees.

Typical rhetorical device. "Certainly no guarantees" being the pro forma obvious but empty statement... which appears to cover the absolute lack of substantiation for "the odds for the next election still favour Ignatieff".

Since when did they favour your party? And on what basis specifically?

I have for one said precisely why I think the odds to continue to favour Harper- and that includes the degree of confidence I have overall, and the contingencies. [As opposed to a general and vacuous, 'no guarantees of course'.]

I don't recall you doing that once.

You could always start now.

The Liberals are not necessarily "my party", but having said that - here's the main reason Ignatieff still has the edge over Harper:

Historically, and in particular over the past 40 years, the top federalist leader in Quebec usually wins the election.  That leader is Ignatieff so far.

I already posted a discussion of this on another thread last week, but perhaps you missed it.

NorthReport

 Ignatieff's support is sure to go up in Quebec once Quebeckers find out that he hates Canada. So that reasoning is just brilliant.Laughing

ottawaobserver

I thought Sean in Ottawa gives a well-reasoned run-down of likely seat changes, and NorthReport makes a good point about how things could unfold much differently given some time.  I don't think you two are in as much disagreement as you may think.

One point I might ask Sean about, is whether there are other Liberal seats vulnerable to the Conservatives in Ontario, or NDP ones for that matter?  I was thinking in the Mississauga-Brampton area for example as between the Libs and Conservatives, or some of the blue collar areas between them and the NDP.

KenS

Debater wrote:
I already posted a discussion of this on another thread last week, but perhaps you missed it.

I didn't miss it. And it was interesting. But that was a discussion of historical patterns.

Usually when someone says 'the odds for the next election favour _____', we think of polling dynamics, projection of likley campaign dynamics and basis for suggestions thereof... the usual fodder.

Unless it is for something for which there is only a remote chance it will happen, one can always find some historical patterns that shine for the outcome one hopes.

NorthReport

West Coast Lefty wrote:

The Conservative support level is actually down from the 36% reported in the last ARG poll, but this is still great news for Harper, esp after all the G8 summit gaffes and esp the gay-bashing from his MPs over the Pride parade funding by Ablonczy.  The Cons have a structural advantage over the Libs in terms of funding, organization and seats - they start with about 80 sure seats which is more than the entire Liberal caucus right now, the BQ has about 40 safe seats and the NDP around 25-30. 

It is virtually impossible for the Libs to win a majority under those conditions as they would have to hold 100% of the incumbents and win every competitive seat in the country. I have never understood this assertion that the Lib vote is more "efficient" than the Conservatives - the Libs are essentially shut out of the game West of Ontario except for maybe 10 seats - they are concentrated in Toronto and the GTA suburbs in Ontario, and Anglo Montreal and a few surrounding ridings in QC.  The Cons and NDP both showed strength in Atlantic Canada in 2008 and that will only grow next time, esp with the Dexter NDP breakthrough in NS.  The Libs are efficient in delivering big wins in their urban core seats and a few rural enclaves, but I don't see how that helps them grow enough to win government.

Yes, Iggy has been polling well in Quebec and that could be a game changer if it is sustained, but even the best case scenario for the Libs is a pickup of maybe 15 seats there - they stand to lose about the same number of seats in the West and Atlantic Canada IMHO. They may only hang on to Hedy Fry and Joyce Murray in BC and Anita Neville was almost knocked off in Manitoba, Wascana may be vulnerable if Goodale retires, etc.

The above is worth repeating.

The Liberals at least these days, are no match for the Cons, and I'm not even sure the NDP is, but the NDP would give it a better shot, because of their fundamental differences with the Cons. I don't watch TV but I'm told however, that there are relentless attacks on Ignatieff similiar to the previous attacks on Dion It may take a month, it may take 2 years, but it is only a matter of time before these attacks bear fruit (they are already having some effect) and when they are significant enough, we will have our election.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Is this some sort of Liberal Party fantasy world response?

 Of couse it does not make any sense, if the election were to be held today, however we have absolutely no idea when the next election is going to take place.

 Many, many people, blinded by their hatred of Harper, have seriously underestimated him from day one. That has constantly been a big mistake.

Almost all the so-called experts, including people like Chantel Hubert, never thought Dion was going to win the Liberal leadership. Some people often just cannot see the forests for the trees. Dion initially was popular, until the Cons went to work on him, and destroyed his credibility.

 Ignatieff has relatively recently taken over as Liberal leader, and yet already the cracks are beginning to show, such as the impact of the "Republicans for Ignatieff" website which has been major news around the country this week. Harper is just beginning to warm up. How many Canadians are going to vote for a Liberal Leader who hates Canada?

 We're in the most serious recession in decades, we're involved in a war, and yet Harper is still more popular than Ignatieff.

Harper will decide when we have the next election, it may be years away from now, and by that time, there is a  possibility, that Ignatieff will be in a similar boat as Dion was, in the last election.

Harper has been slowly, steadly, increasing his support. The last election Harper got 143 seats, very, very close to a majority, and there is no question voters will be reflecting on that as they head to the polls.

Similiarly, since he has taker over as NDP Leader, Jack Layton has been slowly, surely, increasing NDP support. With the recent election of the first NDP government in Atlantic Canada, combined with the NDP beachhead, finally secured in Quebec for the first time in a general election, there is a possibility that the 8% popular vote gap could be overcome by the NDP, and one ought not to discount the possibility of Layton becoming Leader of the Official Opposition in the next election.

North Report for your first comment - I can say something that rhymes with/sounds like Good Luck to you.

I am fed up with people here who toe the party line so much that if they suggest something other than what people want to hear they assume it is some kind of opposition political ploy. I gave my analysis as I did -- for one reason it is what I think would happen -- I understand-- perhaps better than some here the difference between what I want to happen and what I think will happen.

I supported my comments with reasons-- quite a few of them. To that you want to dismiss anything I say as from a Liberal fantasy? In what world can you imagine that I am a Liberal. Do some fucking research before you call names like that.

That said I also believe that it is in the NDP's interest for the Liberals to win the next election-- especially given the leader the Liberals have and especially if the win is a weak one. I laid out in another thread why I think the NDP has its best chance at over taking the Liberals at the moment they are losing power than when they are both sitting in opposition. But that is not why I said what I did.

Harper has a lot of negatives right now and Ignatief is not well known. Ignatief is also politically smatter than Dion in that he is not going to lead with his chin on policy. He is going to allow Harper to defeat himself. Frankly, it does not make me a Liberal to recognize that this is sound strategy. For the Liberals to pick someone on the right to compete directly with the Cons for votes is also sound strategy-- there are few seats the Cons can slip up the middle in NDP-Liberal fights. It is better strategy for a weaker Liberal party to try to bang off some Con Liberal switch voters from the right and let the NDP win some battles on the left. The NDP given a choice will always give a Liberal the chance to govern before a Conservative. If the Liberals can take 30 seats from the Cons it doesn't even matter if they lose ten to the NDP-- they still become government.

Never mind all that North Report, my point was a discussion of what was possible in light of the previous statement that there was nil chance that the Liberals could win. I don't like absolutes and I also understand the difference between what is possible and what is likely and what is unlikely and what has a nil chance. Frankly, you are making an absolute fool of yourself arguing that the Liberals have a nil chance of forming a government after the next election. Even if it is not the most likely result it certainly is possible and Harper certainly has some negatives and risks more as the economic problems force the government into choices that may not be popular, scandals as people realize that they have damaged the economy through stupid tax cuts and a war spending budget that may be easily tolerated while cutting taxes but could prove to be an albatross when we are running deficits, slashign programs and increasing taxes-- or any combination of the three. When there is less money to go around there will be more people pissed off about not getting any. If Harper manages to win the next election in this context that will not be a foregone conclusion but a masterful political victory. I am yet to be convinced that this is likely. I need no convincing that Harper has some political problems-- not the least of which is that he has lost control of the agenda in that he cannot choose the timing of the next election. That is a significant thing and likely will be seen as a huge error (his playing too soon the card of the last election-- in order for that gamble to have worked he need a majority in order to control the agenda for 4 years. Without it he does ntop get to choose the next election. As I said, the Liberals will pull the plug only when and if they have an issue and support to win. That alone ought to give you pause.

I write political analysis based on what I think will happen not dream world fantasies.

 

Pages

Topic locked