Canadian federal election - 2015

[cp]

I think Mulcair and Trudeau are both pretty well ensconced in their respective ridings. They're good fits personality-wise and they have strong local organizations behind them to turn out the vote. They have both fought close elections recently (Mulcair was only reelected by 5 points in 2008) and regardless of how their respective parties are doing, they're both personally popular in the province.

A more interesting question might be will the BQ win a seat for its leader, Daniel Paillé. Paillé lost his seat in 2011 by 17 points and, considering the BQ's numbers lately, might have trouble finding any seat in the province that could be considered 'safe'.

On the other side of the country, Elizabeth May won her seat by a solid margin and is unlikely to lose it for the same reasons Mulcair and Trudeau won't.

[cp]

Has Beaulieu shown any inclination toward right-wing populism? There's definitely a lot of crossover between pur et dur nationalists and pure laine rightwingers but I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of Beaulieu making any appeals to the latter.

Also, would it be incorrect to compare rightwing Quebec nationalists with Ford nation?

[cp]

So, I kinda follow Canadian politics but not terribly in depth, but I realized that there's a LOT of party switching. I take it this is due to more inter-party ideological similarity and more fluidity than the US, correct?

That's as good as any single explanation is. The multiparty nature of Canadian politics also facilitates greater flexibility, as opposed to the zero-sum game of the US two-party system. You could also make an argument for Canadian politics being more volatile - or, rather, prone to more volatile shifts - than the US. Nothing like the Orange Wave in 2011, the deterioration of the Liberal Party in the 00s, or the split/recreation of the rightist parties in the 90s has happened in the US.

Truth be told, I'm not sure that party switching is terribly more common in Canada than in the US, or that when it happens it's for very different reasons. Craven political opportunism, individual policy stands, and intraparty power struggles seem to motivate politicians on both sides of the border.

[cp]

Possibly, but I wouldn't be confident of that prediction until I'd seen some sub-regional polls in Ontario. What's their strength in the GTA/905 compared to other regions? Where are the areas of NDP or Liberal strength?

It could just as easily go the other way, with Tories benefiting from a left-wing split. 

[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.

[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.

[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]

[cp]

Well, this is certainly interesting, in a menacing kind of way

[cp]

Which, if true, means Harper's finest are back on the payroll

[cp]

Harper to start re-election bid by being forced to take 'no' for an answer on Keystone

It's astonishing how long this has taken to finally collapse. This was being debated in the 2006 campaign, no?

[cp]

Keystone will be dead so long as there's a Dem in the WH.

Only insofar as there's also a Harper at 24 Sussex refusing to give even a patina of environmental consideration to plans for tar sands exploitation.

[cp]

Well, obviously. After 8 years of posturing and well-poisoning (in every sense of the term), not even Clinton could rescue that mess.

[cp]

70 days until election, 31 until recession

On the Baird scandal, there's a lot left to hear before it can be verified or believed. Even if it's true it seems unlikely to cause too much damage to Harper, as Baird is out of government and largely forgotten.

Personally, I find it more interesting from an LGBT politics/history perspective. Other than that, though, it's pretty irrelevant.

[cp]

More bad news for Harper

[cp]

CP, in a report about new Tory anti-Mulcair ads, says Harper will go to Rideau Hall tomorrow.

Hopefully the GG has been pre-screened


On a slightly different note, the G&M did an interesting piece about the four most likely Tory seats in Alberta to change hands. They are Calgary Centre, Lethbridge, Calgary-Skyview, and Edmonton-Mill Woods. Strangely, they see the Liberals as the principal opponents in all but Lethbridge. Still worth a read, tho.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/four-alberta-ridings-the-federal-conservatives-are-likely-to-lose-in-october/article25809980/

[cp]

Hehehe. If the G&M was trying to play favourites I think they would have abstained from publishing anything critical of the Tories in the first place

Which other seats do you thing are more likely than E-MW?