Canadian federal election - 2015

[RogueBeaver]

NDP candidate in Papineau resigns after her Option Nationale flirtation was revealed.

[DL]

NDP candidate in Papineau resigns after her Option Nationale flirtation was revealed.

I think there is more to this story...she would not resign just because she had once been a member of Option Nationale. Lots of people in the NDP were once in Quebec Solidaire or the PQ etc...

[Boston Bread]

There's also her statement comparing Quebec to colonized African countries. I don't think she has to leave if she doesn't believe that anymore, but I can understand the reason.

[Hatman 🍁]

Hopefully the NDP will run a star candidate in Papineau. It is - believe it or not - winnable.

[2952-0-0]

Hopefully the NDP will run a star candidate in Papineau. It is - believe it or not - winnable.

But wouldn't Justin have to eat kitten and puppy burgers for him to be in danger in western Montreal?

[Hash]

Hopefully the NDP will run a star candidate in Papineau. It is - believe it or not - winnable.

But wouldn't Justin have to eat kitten and puppy burgers for him to be in danger in western Montreal?

Papineau is not in western Montreal.

Technically, the seat is winnable for the NDP, but it would require a perfect storm so it's very unlikely.

[Hatman 🍁]

The only reason JT won it in 2011 is because the race in 2008 was close, so a lot of would-be NDP voters strategically voted for either him or the BQ, thus suprressing the NDP vote. You can tell this, because the NDP swing was lower in Papineau than in other ridings on the island, while the swing away from the Liberals and BQ was lower. 

If Papineau had the same swing as neighbouring Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, JT would have lost by about 10 points.  Admittedly, Rosemont is not the best comparison as it's very different demographically, but the next best riding (Ahuntsic) also a depressed NDP vote for the same reason as Papineau.

[Хahar 🤔]

Fiery Dipper calls for the death of Liberalism.

Funny how he sees the US Democrats as a model rather than "an obstacle to true progressive policies."

Then again, the NDP was founded, in part, to appeal to "liberally minded Canadians."

The NDP was founded as a union of the farmers' movement and the labor movement. I don't see where liberalism comes into play.

[cp]

The only reason JT won it in 2011 is because the race in 2008 was close, so a lot of would-be NDP voters strategically voted for either him or the BQ, thus suprressing the NDP vote. You can tell this, because the NDP swing was lower in Papineau than in other ridings on the island, while the swing away from the Liberals and BQ was lower.  

If Papineau had the same swing as neighbouring Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, JT would have lost by about 10 points.  Admittedly, Rosemont is not the best comparison as it's very different demographically, but the next best riding (Ahuntsic) also a depressed NDP vote for the same reason as Papineau.

Trudeau won in 2008 and 2011 because he had built up a ground game that was strong enough to overcome incumbent advantage and one-time wave over-performance, respectively. That's what reduced the swing away from the Libs/BQ and toward the NDP.

Also, it's myopic to believe that anyone (except perhaps contributors to this forum) would decide their vote based on strategic considerations extrapolated from data analytics derived from the preceding election.

[King of Kensington]

The NDP was founded as a union of the farmers' movement and the labor movement. I don't see where liberalism comes into play.

That would be its predecessor, the CCF.  The CCF never received significant support from unionized industrial workers and after topping out at 16% of the vote and 28 seats, saw its support shrink in four subsequent elections.  It received just 9.5% of the vote and 8 seats in 1958.

The NDP was created for the purpose of both strengthen its ties to the trade union movement and to appeal to the liberally minded middle classes.  A 1958 declaration passed by the Canadian Labour Congress called for “a fundamental realignment of political forces in Canada in…a broadly based people’s political movement which embraces the CCF, the labour movement, farmer organizations, professional people and other liberally minded persons interested in basic social reform and reconstruction through our parliamentary system of government.”

Although the 1958 election was disastrous for the CCF, the Liberals were also reduced to a rump in a Conservative landslide.  So a lot of Canadian small-"l" liberals and social democrats saw an opening for a new progressive party; there were even talks at the time about a Liberal-CCF merger.

"Liberally minded Canadians" were the third pillar of Canadian social democracy.

ETA:  In its founding document, Stanley Knowles predicted the NDP would become "one of Canada's two major parties" by the end of the decade.  However the Liberals shifted leftward in the 1960s and oversaw the expansion of Canada's welfare state, undercutting the new party.

[adma]

Trudeau won in 2008 and 2011 because he had built up a ground game that was strong enough to overcome incumbent advantage and one-time wave over-performance, respectively. That's what reduced the swing away from the Libs/BQ and toward the NDP.

However, I think his ground game was also augmented by a touch of Grit-central "Save Justin" overdrive--perhaps inadvertently sacrificing a few presumed "safe seats" (NDG, Pierrefonds-Dollard, etc) in the process.

Also, any NDP gains were likely tempered by the Bloc candidacy of Vivian Barbot, the former MP who, pre-Orange Crush, seemed Justin's primary threat.

[RogueBeaver]

Grits are starting to lose confidence, though in the palace guard rather than Trudeau himself. One problem is that even had Trudeau replaced them all, who would he replace them with?

[RogueBeaver]

Completely agreed with Kinsella. So who's gonna literally and figuratively get in Justin's face about it?

[Hatman 🍁]

The only reason JT won it in 2011 is because the race in 2008 was close, so a lot of would-be NDP voters strategically voted for either him or the BQ, thus suprressing the NDP vote. You can tell this, because the NDP swing was lower in Papineau than in other ridings on the island, while the swing away from the Liberals and BQ was lower.  

If Papineau had the same swing as neighbouring Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, JT would have lost by about 10 points.  Admittedly, Rosemont is not the best comparison as it's very different demographically, but the next best riding (Ahuntsic) also a depressed NDP vote for the same reason as Papineau.

Trudeau won in 2008 and 2011 because he had built up a ground game that was strong enough to overcome incumbent advantage and one-time wave over-performance, respectively. That's what reduced the swing away from the Libs/BQ and toward the NDP.

Also, it's myopic to believe that anyone (except perhaps contributors to this forum) would decide their vote based on strategic considerations extrapolated from data analytics derived from the preceding election.

Then how come the same thing happened in Ahuntsic and in Brossard-La Prairie? Both of those ridings are outliers in terms of swing, and all of them saw close races in 2008.

Come on man, it's not "data analytics". Strategic voting is a thing, and the #1 resource strategic voters use to do so is the past result in their district.

I've mapped the swing in the election, and those three ridings stood out as outliers. What else do they have in common that could result in that?

[RogueBeaver]

Mulcair says he's still talking with Chow about a comeback. Funny how quickly things change in a year.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Tactical voting does absolutely exist, but it's all a bit weirder than that. I don't think anyone really understands exactly how it happens or works or fails to work.

[cp]

The only reason JT won it in 2011 is because the race in 2008 was close, so a lot of would-be NDP voters strategically voted for either him or the BQ, thus suprressing the NDP vote. You can tell this, because the NDP swing was lower in Papineau than in other ridings on the island, while the swing away from the Liberals and BQ was lower.  

If Papineau had the same swing as neighbouring Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, JT would have lost by about 10 points.  Admittedly, Rosemont is not the best comparison as it's very different demographically, but the next best riding (Ahuntsic) also a depressed NDP vote for the same reason as Papineau.

Trudeau won in 2008 and 2011 because he had built up a ground game that was strong enough to overcome incumbent advantage and one-time wave over-performance, respectively. That's what reduced the swing away from the Libs/BQ and toward the NDP.

Also, it's myopic to believe that anyone (except perhaps contributors to this forum) would decide their vote based on strategic considerations extrapolated from data analytics derived from the preceding election.

Then how come the same thing happened in Ahuntsic and in Brossard-La Prairie? Both of those ridings are outliers in terms of swing, and all of them saw close races in 2008.

Come on man, it's not "data analytics". Strategic voting is a thing, and the #1 resource strategic voters use to do so is the past result in their district.

I've mapped the swing in the election, and those three ridings stood out as outliers. What else do they have in common that could result in that?

A good ground game. Or better fundraising. Or good campaign messaging/literature. Or clever deployment of resources before/on election day. Or local endorsements ...

My point wasn't that strategic voting wasn't a factor in any Papineau voters' minds in 2011, just that inferring from a uniform swing pattern that strategic voting was the "only reason" for Trudeau winning (or those other ridings coming up with the results they did) is rather fanciful.

Perhaps I went too far when I implied virtually no one would decide their vote on strategic grounds, but in general I think strategic voting is overestimated. Research on this is largely inconclusive, or at least contested, and even the studies that show it exists ascribe low single digits to it (in terms of percentage of votes cast) at best.

In short, singular explanations are seldom sufficient, but if I was going to pick one for why Trudeau won in 2011, I'd say a good ground game was more important than strategic voting by a long shot.

[Hatman 🍁]

The only reason JT won it in 2011 is because the race in 2008 was close, so a lot of would-be NDP voters strategically voted for either him or the BQ, thus suprressing the NDP vote. You can tell this, because the NDP swing was lower in Papineau than in other ridings on the island, while the swing away from the Liberals and BQ was lower.  

If Papineau had the same swing as neighbouring Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, JT would have lost by about 10 points.  Admittedly, Rosemont is not the best comparison as it's very different demographically, but the next best riding (Ahuntsic) also a depressed NDP vote for the same reason as Papineau.

Trudeau won in 2008 and 2011 because he had built up a ground game that was strong enough to overcome incumbent advantage and one-time wave over-performance, respectively. That's what reduced the swing away from the Libs/BQ and toward the NDP.

Also, it's myopic to believe that anyone (except perhaps contributors to this forum) would decide their vote based on strategic considerations extrapolated from data analytics derived from the preceding election.

Then how come the same thing happened in Ahuntsic and in Brossard-La Prairie? Both of those ridings are outliers in terms of swing, and all of them saw close races in 2008.

Come on man, it's not "data analytics". Strategic voting is a thing, and the #1 resource strategic voters use to do so is the past result in their district.

I've mapped the swing in the election, and those three ridings stood out as outliers. What else do they have in common that could result in that?

A good ground game. Or better fundraising. Or good campaign messaging/literature. Or clever deployment of resources before/on election day. Or local endorsements ...

My point wasn't that strategic voting wasn't a factor in any Papineau voters' minds in 2011, just that inferring from a uniform swing pattern that strategic voting was the "only reason" for Trudeau winning (or those other ridings coming up with the results they did) is rather fanciful.

Perhaps I went too far when I implied virtually no one would decide their vote on strategic grounds, but in general I think strategic voting is overestimated. Research on this is largely inconclusive, or at least contested, and even the studies that show it exists ascribe low single digits to it (in terms of percentage of votes cast) at best.

In short, singular explanations are seldom sufficient, but if I was going to pick one for why Trudeau won in 2011, I'd say a good ground game was more important than strategic voting by a long shot.

Never, ever did I say strategic voting was the only reason, but it absolutely exists. All you got to do is look at voting patters in adjacent ridings. I know you're originally from Ottawa, so let's look at Ottawa for an example. The neighbourhood of Carlington is split down the middle, with the eastern half in Ottawa Centre and the western half in Ottawa West-Nepean. Not much difference between both halves demographically. Yet, the NDP won the eastern half, and did not win the western half. Progressives in the eastern half voted NDP because Paul Dewar was the MP, and they knew they had to vote for him to stop the Conservatives. In the western half, where the NDP has never won before, progressives were split. Some voted NDP due to the surge, while others voted Liberal, knowing that the NDP never does well there. As a result, the Conservatives won most of the polls there due to vote splitting.

[cp]

Respectfully, that's complete conjecture. In the absence of data indicating what motivated people to vote a given way (exit polls, demographic break downs augmented by qualitative surveys, even anecdotal evidence with some corroboration) it's reasonable to assume that the standard factors affecting vote patterns were at play: economic trends, candidate profile, campaign efficiency, historical voting trends.

Meanwhile, there's every reason to believe based on scholarly work examining strategic voting that it has a very small influence at best (and according to one study, less so in marginal seats).

And, again, in your words: "The only reason JT won it in 2011 is because the race in 2008 was close, so a lot of would-be NDP voters strategically voted for either him or the BQ, thus suprressing the NDP vote." [emphasis added]

[adma]

Never, ever did I say strategic voting was the only reason, but it absolutely exists. All you got to do is look at voting patters in adjacent ridings. I know you're originally from Ottawa, so let's look at Ottawa for an example. The neighbourhood of Carlington is split down the middle, with the eastern half in Ottawa Centre and the western half in Ottawa West-Nepean. Not much difference between both halves demographically. Yet, the NDP won the eastern half, and did not win the western half. Progressives in the eastern half voted NDP because Paul Dewar was the MP, and they knew they had to vote for him to stop the Conservatives. In the western half, where the NDP has never won before, progressives were split. Some voted NDP due to the surge, while others voted Liberal, knowing that the NDP never does well there. As a result, the Conservatives won most of the polls there due to vote splitting.

Not just vote splitting, but "incumbent advantage" and "perceived viability", i.e. if the boundaries of OC were redrawn to include *all* of Carlington, there wouldn't be such hesitancy in the hitherto non-NDP parts.  (A little like how in the various draws of Niagara Centre/Welland riding, a lot of the the "parts added" magically discovered their inner NDPdom.)

[Hatman 🍁]

Respectfully, that's complete conjecture. In the absence of data indicating what motivated people to vote a given way (exit polls, demographic break downs augmented by qualitative surveys, even anecdotal evidence with some corroboration) it's reasonable to assume that the standard factors affecting vote patterns were at play: economic trends, candidate profile, campaign efficiency, historical voting trends.

Meanwhile, there's every reason to believe based on scholarly work examining strategic voting that it has a very small influence at best (and according to one study, less so in marginal seats).

And, again, in your words: "The only reason JT won it in 2011 is because the race in 2008 was close, so a lot of would-be NDP voters strategically voted for either him or the BQ, thus suprressing the NDP vote." [emphasis added]

Well, don't I feel silly.

Anyways, from what I've seen anyalysing thousands of election maps is that strategic voting is a thing that happens. It has an effect on a few seats, and it just so happens that there is a correlation between the closeness of the 2008 result in Quebec ridings and the NDP swing to 2011. You can chalk it up to whatever factors you want, but my theory is it has to do with strategic voting (and we're only talking about 10% of the electorate, anyways). 

[RogueBeaver]

Cullen: Mulcair will talk with Trudeau about a coalition if Harper wins a plurality.

[Boston Bread]

A surprising Guelph riding poll shows the NDP leading by 10, despite placing third last time. Retiring incumbent + C-51 causing a bigger shift there? I'd imagine Waterloo and Kingston would also go NDP if Guelph did.

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/5746804-guelph-s-political-loyalties-may-be-shifting/

[King of Kensington]

Yeah, Guelph and Kingston strike me as the kind of places where C-51 is a big issue.

[Hatman 🍁]

It makes sense that the NDP would be leading in Guelph if they're going to form government. I'd expect a couple more seats in that area too (Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge, Brantford)