Canadian federal election - October 19, 2015 (Official Campaign Thread)

[136or142]

This doesn't belong here, but TnVolunteer's email was hacked.  I just received a pornographic message from his email.  Don't believe there was a virus in it.

There is a thread about it in the Atlas Forum.

Thanks, I deleted my post.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with this for several reasons
1.In regards specifically to the Liberals it leaves out that that party has on economics both the left leaning Red Liberals and the right leaning Blue Liberals.

More generally though,  I'd say there are three problems:
1.This analysis leaves out the ever increasing roll the leader plays.  The political views of the political party in question are more or less the views of the leader.  It may be argued that the leader's positions reflects the views of the membership, but in the case of both Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau, I'd argue that their policy positions were secondary considerations for most of the people that voted for them. That said, no doubt in order to keep their party in line, they have adopted a number of political positions that most of the members of their respective parties support.

2.While I would agree that the 'little guy' Jean Chretien governed more on the right than expected, I'd also argue that the multi millionaire Paul Martin governed more on the left than was expected.  The main reason for this is that Chretien got elected in a situation where Canada was nearly bankrupt, and so had to adopt major cuts in spending and then later faced security concerns following September 11.  In contrast, the short lived Martin government was flush with cash and could 'reinvest' billions of dollars.

So, what that analysis leaves out is that the policy of the government is often driven by the situations they are facing.

3.Finally, there are even some serious political commentators who argue that even the Harper government has been largely liberal, especially in economics.  The basic point here is that governments of all stripes pass many laws that deal with every file imaginable.  Some of the laws all governments pass would be considered to be on the left, and some would be considered to be on the right. So, anybody who wants to cherry pick those laws can argue convincingly that any government is both on the left and the right.  I don't know if politicalcompass did that, however.

[136or142]

The Liberals campaign left and govern right.
The NDP campaigns left and governs incompetently.

How do the CONS campaign and govern?  I'd say they campaign with fear and govern with corruption.

[136or142]

Odd, the B.C numbers in that poll virtually mirror the national numbers. Who would ever have thought that B.C would represent the 'average Canadian' on anything?

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1997 Liberal Claude Drouin was elected with nearly 50% of the vote and a nearly 2-1 win over the B.Q. In 2000, Drouin was reelected with 56% of the vote. In the 2004 election that was referenced above, the Conservative Party ran, not the P.C/Alliance Parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauce_(electoral_district)

If the NDP end up at around 50% in Quebec and the Conservatives fall to around 13%, I could see Maxime Bernier losing.  It would be very close, but he could lose.

[136or142]

Ipsos: 33/30/29.

Interesting because Ipsos/Reid usually gets results that favor the Conservatives.

If polls continue to show similar results such as these, I wonder if it will decrease the incidence of strategic voting as people will think that even if the Conservatives win the most seats, they won't be able to form a government.

If that is the case, it would make sense for the Conservatives to not bring up the coalition thing or the 'party that wins the most seats is the only party entitled to form a government' lie, while it makes sense for the NDP to bring up the notion that the Liberals might back the Conservatives in power.

Despite correcting his recollections of the Beauce riding, I'd sincerely be most interested in hearing Hatman's take on this.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1997 Liberal Claude Drouin was elected with nearly 50% of the vote and a nearly 2-1 win over the B.Q. In 2000, Drouin was reelected with 56% of the vote. In the 2004 election that was referenced above, the Conservative Party ran, not the P.C/Alliance Parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauce_(electoral_district)

If the NDP end up at around 50% in Quebec and the Conservatives fall to around 13%, I could see Maxime Bernier losing.  It would be very close, but he could lose.

Interestingly Beauce is also the home county of the first big name in the NDP Robert Cliche. Cliche was a lawyer in Beauce who led the NDP in Quebec in the 60s and was very respected. He ran in Beauce in 1965 and had the second best NDP result in the province and was a strong second to a Social Credit incumbent. He ran in Laval in 1968 and lost very narrowly. Some think if cliche had won in '68 he would have been the next federal leader of the NDP. He was named a judge and headed up the high profile Cliche Commission into corruption in unions in Quebec and his co- commissioner was a young lawyer named Brian Mulroney. Today there are monuments and public buildings named after Robert Cliche all over Beauce

Yes, I posted this on another thread in this board sometime ago.  There were at least two other high profile candidates for the NDP in either 1965 or 1968 (maybe one in each) Laurier LaPierre from This Hour Has Seven Days and Charles Taylor, the famous philosopher who much later was the head of the commission that led to the bans on certain types of women's outfits proposed by the then P.Q government (which was exactly the opposite of what Taylor recommended.)

Charles Taylor ended up running against Pierre Trudeau in Westmount as Trudeau was recruited by the Liberals in part to stop Taylor from winning.  My dad lived in Westmount at that time and voted for Taylor, but Trudeau won handily. Renowned economist Eric Kierans was also recruited to run against Robert Cliche in 1968 though Kierans did run for the Liberal Party leadership in 1968 before that. Ironically, after Kierans was no longer in Parliament he left the Liberals and joined the NDP.

As far as I can tell, the Liberals did not taking LaPierre's candidacy seriously and he also lost handily.

[136or142]

Charles Taylor ended up running against Pierre Trudeau in Westmount as Trudeau was recruited by the Liberals in part to stop Taylor from winning.  My dad lived in Westmount at that time and voted for Taylor, but Trudeau won handily. Renowned economist Eric Kierans was also recruited to run against Robert Cliche in 1968 though Kierans did run for the Liberal Party leadership in 1968 before that. Ironically, after Kierans was no longer in Parliament he left the Liberals and joined the NDP.

As far as I can tell, the Liberals did not taking LaPierre's candidacy seriously and he also lost handily.

Not quite right. Trudeau and Taylor never ran in Westmount. They ran against each other in Mount Royal - which in the 60s included all of the present day riding of Mount Royal plus the western half of what is now Papineau. The guy who really came close to creating an NDP breakthrough in Quebec was CG "Giff" Gifford and RCAF fighter pilot and professor who came close to winning NDG in 1965.

In 1968, the NDP ran a bit of an all-star team in Quebec: Cliche in Duvernay (in Laval), Taylor in Dollard, Lapierre in Lachine-Lakeshore, Gifford in NDG - but they were all swept away by Trudeaumania. If the Liberals had picked anyone but Trudeau as their leader in 1968 - the NDP likely would have had a major breakthrough in Quebec that year and might have even had an "orange crush" 43 years earlier!

Oh sorry, I knew a 'Mount' was in there.  My dad did live in Mount Royal, and he did vote for Charles Taylor.   I'd never heard of Gifford before. 

Did the NDP ever have a chance in Quebec after the 1968 election and before the 1988 election?  The only candidate I know of who did even remotely well in Quebec was Jean Paul Harney (or John Harney as he was called in Ontario) in the 1984 election when he got nearly 20% of the vote in Gaspe in 1984.

I'm pretty sure my dad and everybody else in my family moved away from Quebec sometime before the 1972 Federal election.  Like a lot of Quebec Anglophones they were spooked by the October Crisis.

[136or142]

Did the NDP ever have a chance in Quebec after the 1968 election and before the 1988 election?  The only candidate I know of who did even remotely well in Quebec was Jean Paul Harney (or John Harney as he was called in Ontario) in the 1984 election when he got nearly 20% of the vote in Gaspe in 1984.

Duncan Graham almost beat a Socred in 1972 in Compton.

I've never heard of him before either.  I knew a guy who ran for the NDP in Quebec in either the 1979 or the 1980 federal election.  He later moved here to Richmond B.C.  I forget his name, but I can probably find it if you're interested.  He was also an anglophone, though, as a New Democrat, he was very sympathetic to the Quiet Revolution, if not quiet to the nationalists. He also supported Bill 101 in principle, he just wished that there had been more time given for the English speaking population to adjust.

[136or142]

This is the only thing on the internet I can find about Duncan Graham:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/FederalRidingsHistory/hfer.asp?Include=Y&Language=E&rid=158&Search=Det

When he ran again in 1974 he fell to just 3% of the vote!

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll bet it's because he gave out graham crackers in that election

The name of the guy I knew is Buff Norman.  He ran for the NDP in Lachine in both 1979 and 1980.

31   1979/05/22   NORMAN, Buff   N.D.P.   LACHINE
32   1980/02/18   NORMAN, Buff   N.D.P.   LACHINE

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/FederalRidingsHistory/hfer.asp?Language=E&Search=Cres&canName=&canParty=67&ridProvince=10&ridName=&submit1=Search

He was a very smart guy. I believe he owned a boat repair business or something like that in Quebec.

[136or142]

LPC - 68%
NDP 65%
GPC 63%
CPC 54%

This is the most accurate result I've had from one of these. I think it shows that I don't agree much with Bernie Sanders on economic issues.

[136or142]

In B.C, by the end of today, the only slot left to fill out the ballot for the three main parties is the NDP need a candidate for Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies.  

It seems both the Conservatives and the Liberals appointed at least one candidate.  In the Conservative case though, it was only in Matsqui-Mission-Fraser Canyon where the original candidate, Liv Grewal was dropped.  The Liberals also appointed only one or two candidates, in their case, the candidate(s) they appointed were people who lost the nomination in nearby ridings.

So, unlike in 2011 when the Liberals appointed or nominated a number of candidates who had never lived anywhere near where they ran, it seems that if not all the the candidates for the three main parties  live in where they're running, they live very close to where they are running.  (the NDP may also have appointed/nominated one candidate who did not live near where they ran, I can't remember.)

I guess the NDP could appoint or nominate a candidate in that Prince George riding who doesn't live anywhere near there, but they had said previously that they were talking to a few people (although none has yet emerged.)  If they didn't pan out, there were two defeated nomination candidates in the adjacent Cariboo-Prince George riding, and one of them lives in Prince George, and she may be persuaded to run.  She might not be interested, of course, as while Cariboo-Prince George may be a winnable riding for the NDP if the B.C polls stay as they are now, Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies almost certainly still isn't.

[136or142]

Wells on Grit polling. We'll see what happens when the Phony War ends next week.

What a stupid article. First,  it puts way too much importance on the regional sub samples which are too small to believe the numbers are dead on.

More importantly, it overlooks that when Dion got 26% of the vote in 2008, it wasn't a 3 way race.  If the Liberals got 26% of the vote this time, they'd probably win 100 seats.

I'd tweet that to Paul Wells, but if I did, I understand he'd block me.  He is said to be the most thin skinned journalist in Ottawa.

[136or142]

Maybe you could get your friend to tweet that at Wells just for fun

When I read that piece I thought it was really simplistic, but then I wondered whether that was because Wells was pitching his 'analysis' to a broader audience - i.e. not the psephologist-level discussion we have on forums like this.

Heh, as if on cue, Wells shows what a grade-a dick he is.  

"Paul Wells ‏@InklessPW  7h7 hours ago
Paul Wells retweeted Raffi Cavoukian
The Governor General, Elections Canada and the Constitution disagree with you, you flatulent crank.  

Raffi Cavoukian @Raffi_RC
it's the Harper #elxn42 run that ought to be in question—a lawless, rogue PM, running again—that's the issue. 1/2 https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/638752419623620608 …

I doubt Paul Wells is well Hoang

Edit: I called him a 'dick' and showed him the Jon Stewart youtube link. I wonder how long before he's blocked me as well.

Maybe it's wrong of me, but annoying people who are easily annoyed is so much fun.

[136or142]

Wells on Grit polling. We'll see what happens when the Phony War ends next week.

What a stupid article. First,  it puts way too much importance on the regional sub samples which are too small to believe the numbers are dead on.

More importantly, it overlooks that when Dion got 26% of the vote in 2008, it wasn't a 3 way race.  If the Liberals got 26% of the vote this time, they'd probably win 100 seats.

I'd tweet that to Paul Wells, but if I did, I understand he'd block me.  He is said to be the most thin skinned journalist in Ottawa.

You say that as if the party system simply sprung into existence from nothing. For better or worse, there's a large segment of leftish voters who would have voted Liberal in 1997, or 2004, or even as recently as last year, that will probably vote NDP. The Liberals' inability to bring these voters back into the fold is a major cause for them staying between 25-30%, and is a major aspect of their performance. To handwave that away as part of the three party system, doesn't do it justice.

I was just commenting that 26% in a three way race would likely result in the Liberals winning a lot more seats than they won in 2008 with 26% of the vote.

[136or142]

http://factscan.ca/

Canada's political fact-checker.
Independent. Transparent. Non-partisan.

[136or142]

Email I sent to factscan.ca

Your site says that you are transparent.  I don't doubt that your site is impartial and makes the best effort at being correct and honest, but I think transparency includes open comment, not merely allowing people to send comments on your fact check articles to the editors.

For example, I'd say this post is misleading: http://factscan.ca/justin-trudeau-by-denying-climate-change-stephen-harper-denied-canadians-opportunity/

While the Harper government has done a few things on climate change, he has put off full action until 2100 (I know that is misleading in and of itself, as I'd certainly expect that interim steps would be taken, but the 2100 date does allow this government to not do anything meaningful until the end of their term.)  Harper himself lies that a carbon tax would do nothing and lies in calling it a 'tax on everything' (I guess that's a lie as I actually haven't really got a clue what that nonsensical talking point is supposed to mean). As a supposed economist, Harper clearly knows that carbon taxes would impact the supply and demand curves and also should  know that, if any tax is, it's the income tax that is the closest to being a 'tax on everything.'  As a supposed economist Harper should also know that nearly every real economist agrees that carbon pricing (and pollution pricing in general) are by far the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions.  So, Harper again knows that he is lying when he says that regulations are the best way.

So, given that the Conservative government has done virtually nothing to address AGW, I think it's pretty obvious that Harper himself still believes that efforts to address climate change are a 'socialist scheme' and his comments that admit the reality of global warming are just empty words.

I haven't looked over too many of the other fact checking posts on your site, but I have to say, if your writers take all the words of the politicians at face value, as your quotations of Harper there clearly do, then I think your site is pretty much worthless.

[136or142]

Notice that when its a three way split in Ontario - its the Liberals who get burned by FPTP because their supportr is so spread out

Yes, because nothing has changed in the last 70 years

You don't have to go back 70 years - look at how in 1975 the Ontario Liberals took 34% of the vote and got 36 seats while the Ontario NDP got 38 seats with just 29%.

Also in the 2011 federal election in Ontario the NDP took 25.8% of the vote and the Liberals took 25.3% - but in seats the NDP got 22 seats and the Liberals just 11 seats.

The Liberal vote in ontario is very efficient when it is at high levels but it quickly becomes very ineffecient at lower levels...particular when the gap between Liberals and NDP gets into low single digits or negative

1975 was more recent but the politics of the Ontario Liberal Party were still completely different then than now.  At that time, the Liberal Party was the most right wing party, and was largely rural based,  in contrast to the centrist Progressive Conservatives under Bill Davis.

So, I don't think that even though this is more recent that it's necessarily reflective of where things are today.

That said, I agree that at least provincially, the Liberal vote is likely the least efficient of the three parties as they are the most competitive party over most of the province, the only areas where they have little support are the rural ridings of Eastern Ontario mostly near Ottawa and the 'cottage country' directly but well north of Toronto.

Of course, even in the rural ridings of Eastern Ontario, federally Don Boudria made his riding of Glengary-Prescott-Russel  a personal fiefdom for many years, but more recently his Liberal successors have been unable to resist the more general regional trends.

[136or142]

Peter Pensahue is running for the Tories in Labrador

I guess Mr Peanut wasn't available.

[136or142]

As the new head of the Procrastinator Party (I'm also the only member) I just want to announce we will be holding our first nomination for the upcoming election on October 20, 2015.

[136or142]

To make up for the last post silliness (obviously our first nomination will be on October 20, 2016), according to the wiki candidates page: these are the numbers of candidates nominated so far by each of the three main parties by province:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_by_riding_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

Newfoundland and Labrador
NDP: 7/7
Liberal 7/7
Conservative 3/7

Prince Edward Island:
NDP 4/4
Liberal 4/4
Conservative 4/4

Nova Scotia
NDP 10/11 (the one missing is because the candidate stepped down)
Liberal: 11/11
Conservative 11/11

New Brunswick
NDP 10/10
Liberal 10/10
Conservative 10/10

Quebec
NDP 78/78
Liberal 77/78
Conservative 70/78

Ontario
NDP 121/121
Liberal 121/121
Conservative 121/121

Manitoba
NDP 11/14
Liberal 14/14
Conservative 13/14

Saskatchewan
NDP 14/14
Liberal 13/14
Conservative 14/14

Alberta
NDP 34/34
Liberal 31/34
Conservative 34/34

B.C
NDP 42/42
Liberal 42/42
Conservative 42/42

Territories
NDP 3/3
Liberal 3/3
Conservative 3/3

Total
NDP 333/338
Liberal 333/338
Conservative 325/338

[136or142]

Manitoba NDP MLA Erin Selby confirms she will resign her seat to run federally in St Boniface-St Vital.

The initial reaction from at least one political scientist is that this would hurt Liberal Dan Vandal who is likely the front runner for this riding, but I'm not so sure.  In addition to being controversial among New Democrats for her having been a member of the Gang of Five, she was also regarded by many Manitobans as a completely incompetent Health Minister.

My guess right now is that she will actually do less well than a no name New Democrat would have done.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/04/former-manitoba-health-minister-running-for-federal-ndp-seat_n_8088762.html

[136or142]

Fife reported that Tory insiders are complaining about Byrne running a rudderless, crap campaign. I hope the complainers have their own alternatives and are expressing them in strategy sessions.

This is my alternative: Tell Sleazy Stevie to tell the truth one single f-ing time. Who knows once it does it the first time it may even become a habit for it as it may decide that since it's going to lose, it should at least lose while gaining a modicum of dignity.

Roguebeaver, you yourself are a decent guy but everytime I see the picture of that thing you use for your avatar, it literally makes me sick.

Fortunately it's no longer going to be Prime Minister in around 2 months.

[136or142]

More evidence the criminal Conservative Administration is about to be consigned to the dust bin of history where it belongs.

Latest Nanos poll:
NDP 32.7%
Liberal 30.8%
Conservative 26.2%

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/support-for-conservatives-dips-on-response-to-migrant-crisis-poll-shows/article26246364/

No regional breakdown yet or numbers for the Greens or Bloc.

In a different article, This poll reported that the number of Canadians who would even consider voting Conservative is now down to slightly over 36%.

The fat lady is getting warmed up.