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

[136or142]

Jason Kenney would be the likeliest to win.

Most likely to run
1.Jason Kenney
2.Lisa Raitt
3.Doug Ford

Likely to run
1.Maxime Bernier

Might run
1.Michael Chong
2.Tony Clement

Also might run
1.James Moore
2.John Baird
3.Peter McKay

[Vosem]

Will the bloc actually rebound in seats? Ugh.

Eh, 2011 was still probably a mortal blow even if the Bloc does rebound now (the way 1993 was a mortal blow to the PCs, even though they rebounded in 1997 and stayed in Parliament until 2003). Discounting 2011, the Bloc's worst-ever performances were 38 seats (in 2000), 10.0% of the all-Canada vote (in 2008), and 37.9% of the Quebec vote (in 1997). Those were their worst performances, and they are nowhere near any of those numbers.

Yes, but there won't be any Quebecers who vote for any B.Q M.P (except maybe 1) not because they support the party, but because they like that person as an M.P.  So, I would expect their vote to be a lot more concentrated this time around.  As I've said before,  most polls are showing them with a lead in Central and Northern Quebec (except for North East Quebec where they seem to be in a battle with the Conservatives.)

Yes, the PC vote became much more concentrated in 1997. It wasn't enough. There are three precedents in Canadian political history relevant to this situation (one of which was the exclusively-Quebecois party that existed prior to the Bloc): Social Credit (in its Western existence, which was wiped out in 1958, came back to Parliament in 1962, but failed to regain relevance and lost all seats in 1968), the Ralliement creditiste (or the Quebec variant of Social Credit, which lost more than half of its support in 1965, experienced a mild comeback in 1968-1972, and then slowly died, losing all seats in 1980), and most famously the Progressive Conservatives (who went from a majority to 2 seats in 1993; came back in 1997; declined mildly in 2000 and "merged" with the Canadian Alliance in 2003, which was essentially a party disbanding).

All three cases show the same pattern:
Election 1) Lose official party status and more than half of support.
Election 2) Rebound, but not all the way to prior levels. OPS may be regained or not.
Election 3) Variable.
Elections 4+) Steady decline into nothingness.

Three is of course no significant sample, but it's worth noting that the 2011/2015 pattern of Bloc support has happened three times before in Canadian history, and it was always followed by an eventual decline into irrelevance. So the precedent is there.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I still think a Liberal majority is a distinct possibility. Progressives hate Harper.

[pikachu]

Will Mulcair resign if the NDP finishes third? And if he does, who'll replace him?

[136or142]

Will the bloc actually rebound in seats? Ugh.

Eh, 2011 was still probably a mortal blow even if the Bloc does rebound now (the way 1993 was a mortal blow to the PCs, even though they rebounded in 1997 and stayed in Parliament until 2003). Discounting 2011, the Bloc's worst-ever performances were 38 seats (in 2000), 10.0% of the all-Canada vote (in 2008), and 37.9% of the Quebec vote (in 1997). Those were their worst performances, and they are nowhere near any of those numbers.

Yes, but there won't be any Quebecers who vote for any B.Q M.P (except maybe 1) not because they support the party, but because they like that person as an M.P.  So, I would expect their vote to be a lot more concentrated this time around.  As I've said before,  most polls are showing them with a lead in Central and Northern Quebec (except for North East Quebec where they seem to be in a battle with the Conservatives.)

Yes, the PC vote became much more concentrated in 1997. It wasn't enough. There are three precedents in Canadian political history relevant to this situation (one of which was the exclusively-Quebecois party that existed prior to the Bloc): Social Credit (in its Western existence, which was wiped out in 1958, came back to Parliament in 1962, but failed to regain relevance and lost all seats in 1968), the Ralliement creditiste (or the Quebec variant of Social Credit, which lost more than half of its support in 1965, experienced a mild comeback in 1968-1972, and then slowly died, losing all seats in 1980), and most famously the Progressive Conservatives (who went from a majority to 2 seats in 1993; came back in 1997; declined mildly in 2000 and "merged" with the Canadian Alliance in 2003, which was essentially a party disbanding).

All three cases show the same pattern:
Election 1) Lose official party status and more than half of support.
Election 2) Rebound, but not all the way to prior levels. OPS may be regained or not.
Election 3) Variable.
Elections 4+) Steady decline into nothingness.

Three is of course no significant sample, but it's worth noting that the 2011/2015 pattern of Bloc support has happened three times before in Canadian history, and it was always followed by an eventual decline into irrelevance. So the precedent is there.

In regards to the Progressive Conservatives you left out that they won a by election in Ontario shortly before their leadership race which was won by a person who lied that he wouldn't seek out this 'merger.'

My own view is that had Joe Clark remained on as leader until the sponsorship scandal came to light, that the P.Cs under his leadership in the next election would have come close to sweeping Ontario and maybe much of the Atlantic and likely some parts of Quebec as well. 

So, you leave out that the result that poor decision making by the parties involved played a role in their eventual demise and they were maybe not as inevitable as you seem to be suggesting.  (In the case of Clark, there had been rumors for a number of years following the 1995 referendum that some Federal Quebec Liberals had been engaged in illegal activity, as was more or less eventual brought to light.  He should have found out at what stage those rumors were being investigated before resigning as leader.)

In the case of the B.Q, I would point out that they have a reason for existing that those other parties didn't and, therefore their support should not dry up completely, that, of course, of seperatism. 

[Cassius]

Should be remembered that the NDP also experienced a similar electoral pattern to the PC's and Ralliement Créditiste in the 1990's - they went from their best performance in history in 1988 to one of their worst in 1993, losing official party status just like the Tories did. They then rebounded, again like the Tories, in 1997, only to fall back in 2000, narrowly avoiding losing official party status again. Yet, in the end, as we know the NDP revamped itself somewhat and got a new, very popular leader, who was able to exploit the change political climate of the 2000's to eventually take the NDP to the status of Official Opposition. So I wouldn't count out the Bloc - obviously it's a very different party to the federal NDP and only competing in Quebec means that it faces a rather different task to a party competing across the country. Nonetheless, the Bloc has already been able to offset decline (in 2004), and circumstances may emerge in the future in which it is able to return to something like it's old strength.

[DL]

One thing to keep in mind about the BQ that will also hasten their extinction is money. The BQ has very very very poor fundraising and has been almost totally dependent on the per vote subsidy which has been phased out. In this election the took all the money they had saved up over the last four years from the quarterly cheques of subsidy money and blew it all on the campaign. After October 19 they will be deeply in debt and have almost no capacity to raise any money. They may even have to file for bankruptcy.

Also keep in mind that the only thing giving the BQ any life at all right now is Gilles Duceppe as leader. But a. Even if the BQ wins a handful of seats Duceppe faces a very uphill battle in his own seat of Laurier-ste. Marie. It's a very downtown, cosmopolitan bohemian Montreal riding where the BQ's "Front Nationale" style racist campaign is unlikely to resonate. Also Duceppe is 68 and would be very unlikely to stick around for long anyways, particularly if he is leading half a dozen MPs with no official party status and no balance of power.

[toaster]

Will Mulcair resign if the NDP finishes third? And if he does, who'll replace him?

If they manage to get anything under what they got at the last election (103 I think it was), then yes, he'd have to.  They really need to find someone a little more charismatic.  Had Jack been around, this would have surely been an NDP sweep.  I think Mulcair's move of the party to the centre, and his lack of charisma is what helped with the demise.  Everything seems calculated, whereas with Jack, everything was for the good of the people.  I have a hard time thinking of someone who has the charisma to bring the party to win. Someone who is a little less offensive, like Dewar or Nash, could make good options.  If they really want to go after the Youth-Vote, trying to get someone a little younger could help too.


With the NDP at 18% in Ontario, does anything think Bruce Hyer has a chance in Thunder Bay-Superior North?  May has visited the area several times, and it's always been standing room only.

[DC Al Fine]

One thing to keep in mind about the BQ that will also hasten their extinction is money. The BQ has very very very poor fundraising and has been almost totally dependent on the per vote subsidy which has been phased out. In this election the took all the money they had saved up over the last four years from the quarterly cheques of subsidy money and blew it all on the campaign. After October 19 they will be deeply in debt and have almost no capacity to raise any money. They may even have to file for bankruptcy.

Also keep in mind that the only thing giving the BQ any life at all right now is Gilles Duceppe as leader. But a. Even if the BQ wins a handful of seats Duceppe faces a very uphill battle in his own seat of Laurier-ste. Marie. It's a very downtown, cosmopolitan bohemian Montreal riding where the BQ's "Front Nationale" style racist campaign is unlikely to resonate. Also Duceppe is 68 and would be very unlikely to stick around for long anyways, particularly if he is leading half a dozen MPs with no official party status and no balance of power.

Yeah. I think the Bloc will make minor gains this time and then fade away in the next several years.

Will Mulcair resign if the NDP finishes third? And if he does, who'll replace him?

If they manage to get anything under what they got at the last election (103 I think it was), then yes, he'd have to.  They really need to find someone a little more charismatic.  Had Jack been around, this would have surely been an NDP sweep.  I think Mulcair's move of the party to the centre, and his lack of charisma is what helped with the demise.  Everything seems calculated, whereas with Jack, everything was for the good of the people.  I have a hard time thinking of someone who has the charisma to bring the party to win. Someone who is a little less offensive, like Dewar or Nash, could make good options.  If they really want to go after the Youth-Vote, trying to get someone a little younger could help too.

I wouldn't want Dewar. He has major French issues, which is a problem if you're running to win rather than have the balance of power.

As others have noted, the NDP are sort of caught in a Catch-22. The Liberals don't suffer from the same radical left reputation, so they can afford to outflank the NDP when the NDP goes centre. However if the NDP goes left, they'll get slammed as extremists. I don't think its as simple as replacing  Mulcair.

[DL]

Regarding the CPC leadership post Harper another name you sometimes see bandied about is Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall though his French is not good and he may be too much of a regionalist voice. I'm not so sure Queen Jason Kenney would run. I think the queen wants to be King maker. There is a lot of speculation that Kenney the "intensely private bachelor" would not be able to handle all the scrutiny of his private life if he were leader. Instead he would handpick who will get his support and become leader.

[DL]

As for Mulcair, I predict that if he quits as leader it would be 100% of his own volition. He campaigned competently and I think that the consensus in the NDP will be that whatever vote share he gets will still be far better than if the NDP had picked any of the other leadership contenders for leader. Seriously if the NDP had picked Topp or Dewar or Nash in 2012 they would probably be polling in single digits right now. The NDP tends to be very forgiving of leaders and the reality is that there are no "factions" to speak of who would want him gone and usually for a party to depose a leader there has to be an obvious successor waiting in the wings and ideally that person is organizing behind the scenes. As far as I know that person does not exist in the NDP right now. The fact is Mulcair still has strong net favourability ratings and the party just spent over $20 million making him a "known quantity" to Canadians AND we will almost certainly elect a minority parliament meaning another election in as little two years time. So I predict Mulcair stays unless he just decides to pack it in for personal reasons.

[2952-0-0]

Riding projections put him at risk in his own seat. If the NDP falls to, say, 60 seats and he loses his own seat to the Liberals, he's out.

[DL]

Riding projections are garbage. They are fine for estimate the total number of seats each party will win, but at the individual riding level, you might as well play a game of pin the tail on the donkey and you'd have as good a chance of predicting who will win what seat.

As long as we are talking hypotheticals, I would agree that if Mulcair lost his own seat, he would resign. But I think that would be his own decision, no one would be pushing him...for all the reasons I gave above - there is no obvious successor and there has never been any organized faction that is ojt to get him. This is Canada not Australia!

[Holmes]

So no one had the NDP winning Papineau when the NDP were at 50% in Quebec, but now that it's closer, people are projecting Outrement going Liberal?

lol

[toaster]

Riding projections are garbage. They are fine for estimate the total number of seats each party will win, but at the individual riding level, you might as well play a game of pin the tail on the donkey and you'd have as good a chance of predicting who will win what seat.

As long as we are talking hypotheticals, I would agree that if Mulcair lost his own seat, he would resign. But I think that would be his own decision, no one would be pushing him...for all the reasons I gave above - there is no obvious successor and there has never been any organized faction that is ojt to get him. This is Canada not Australia!

The labour-left isn't quite thrilled with Mulcair.  He isn't seeing the support Horwath saw in blue-collar Ontario, nor is he capturing left-wing progressive urban Toronto either.  Layton, somehow, was able to get both, and I think that's what the NDP will need after this election.

[Poirot]

Does the Liberal party want to reverse the per vote subsidy elimination?

I found a news article on Radio-Canada dating September 1st. It said the Bloc would spend about the same as the previous election, between 3 and 4 million dollars. I've never been exposed to tv advertising from the Bloc. I've heard a couple on radio when they were pitching people return to the Bloc. I got a leaflet last week. Also received one from Liberal and Conservatve party.

The Liberal party is spending much more in advertising in the Montreal market. This weekend I feel bombarded by them. On the radio, Liberal ads, when I go on newspaper website there are big Liberal ads, I watch tv there are many Liberal ads. I see NDP tv ads much less. The Liberal local candidate has added big signs to the smaller ones he had.

In the Radio-Canada article it said the Bloc would put efforts in their targets:
Three ridings in Gaspésie, Manicouagan, Jonquière, the two in Abitibi.
In the area of Québec city, Québec and Beauport/Ile d'Orléans/ Charlevoix.
Sherbrooke.
In Montreal, Laurier/Sainte-Marie, Hochelaga, Pointe de l'Ile.
And a dozen in the Montreal 450 area code suburbs.

Basically where the PQ does best provincially. There were not many people interested to lead the Bloc last time so a Bloc without Duceppe... I don't know who would be leader

[DC Al Fine]

Basically where the PQ does best provincially. There were not many people interested to lead the Bloc last time so a Bloc without Duceppe... I don't know who would be leader

Yeah, the Bloc really buggered things up with the whole Beaulieu thing. Fortin and Bellavance both had reasonable shots at re-election and would have made decent leaders.

Does the Bloc have any decent candidates? I recognize a few old MPs on their slate but no names really jump out at me.

[RogueBeaver]

EKOS: 35.3/33.1/19.
Nanos: 35.1/29/25.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, seems like polls are all over the place once again.

[Vosem]

Basically where the PQ does best provincially. There were not many people interested to lead the Bloc last time so a Bloc without Duceppe... I don't know who would be leader

Yeah, the Bloc really buggered things up with the whole Beaulieu thing. Fortin and Bellavance both had reasonable shots at re-election and would have made decent leaders.

Does the Bloc have any decent candidates? I recognize a few old MPs on their slate but no names really jump out at me.

I don't know how the Bloc caucus will look in the aftermath of this coming election, which will decide a lot, but in the aftermath of the 2011 election, the Bloc had 4 MPs left, all 4 of whom would've made perfectly decent leadership material, and 3 of whom were ambitious enough to seek leadership during the 2011-2015 Parliament. The Bloc rejected all three, electing first a tired if well-meaning has-been who had to step down due to illness, and then a totally random extremist who came out of nowhere. The Bloc's weakness in polling during the past 4 years was entirely self-inflicted, and Duceppe stepped in to save the party from itself. The party needs to learn to refrain from picking the worst available leadership candidate in every election.

Will the bloc actually rebound in seats? Ugh.

Eh, 2011 was still probably a mortal blow even if the Bloc does rebound now (the way 1993 was a mortal blow to the PCs, even though they rebounded in 1997 and stayed in Parliament until 2003). Discounting 2011, the Bloc's worst-ever performances were 38 seats (in 2000), 10.0% of the all-Canada vote (in 2008), and 37.9% of the Quebec vote (in 1997). Those were their worst performances, and they are nowhere near any of those numbers.

Yes, but there won't be any Quebecers who vote for any B.Q M.P (except maybe 1) not because they support the party, but because they like that person as an M.P.  So, I would expect their vote to be a lot more concentrated this time around.  As I've said before,  most polls are showing them with a lead in Central and Northern Quebec (except for North East Quebec where they seem to be in a battle with the Conservatives.)

Yes, the PC vote became much more concentrated in 1997. It wasn't enough. There are three precedents in Canadian political history relevant to this situation (one of which was the exclusively-Quebecois party that existed prior to the Bloc): Social Credit (in its Western existence, which was wiped out in 1958, came back to Parliament in 1962, but failed to regain relevance and lost all seats in 1968), the Ralliement creditiste (or the Quebec variant of Social Credit, which lost more than half of its support in 1965, experienced a mild comeback in 1968-1972, and then slowly died, losing all seats in 1980), and most famously the Progressive Conservatives (who went from a majority to 2 seats in 1993; came back in 1997; declined mildly in 2000 and "merged" with the Canadian Alliance in 2003, which was essentially a party disbanding).

All three cases show the same pattern:
Election 1) Lose official party status and more than half of support.
Election 2) Rebound, but not all the way to prior levels. OPS may be regained or not.
Election 3) Variable.
Elections 4+) Steady decline into nothingness.

Three is of course no significant sample, but it's worth noting that the 2011/2015 pattern of Bloc support has happened three times before in Canadian history, and it was always followed by an eventual decline into irrelevance. So the precedent is there.

In regards to the Progressive Conservatives you left out that they won a by election in Ontario shortly before their leadership race which was won by a person who lied that he wouldn't seek out this 'merger.'

This isn't really relevant, since my post discusses long-term trends and not specific events like by-election victories (by-elections are not usually predictive of the upcoming general election) and leadership elections (in which, for the record, I agree with you that MacKay lied).

My own view is that had Joe Clark remained on as leader until the sponsorship scandal came to light, that the P.Cs under his leadership in the next election would have come close to sweeping Ontario and maybe much of the Atlantic and likely some parts of Quebec as well.

The PCs could not have come close to sweeping Ontario because maybe 1/3 of right-wing voters in the province were loyal CA voters, and PC voters tended to be concentrated in more Liberal areas, like suburbs. They may have gained, but not enough. They also would not be able to break through in Quebec under a western leader in Joe Clark. They may have gained seats in your hypothetical 2004, but they couldn't hit 30 across Canada, and such a party has no long-term future.

So, you leave out that the result that poor decision making by the parties involved played a role in their eventual demise and they were maybe not as inevitable as you seem to be suggesting.  (In the case of Clark, there had been rumors for a number of years following the 1995 referendum that some Federal Quebec Liberals had been engaged in illegal activity, as was more or less eventual brought to light.  He should have found out at what stage those rumors were being investigated before resigning as leader.)

You can answer "poor decision-making" to a lot of things, but that ignores the reasons behind the poor decision-making. Also, are you blaming Joe Clark for not being able to see the future in this post?

In the case of the B.Q, I would point out that they have a reason for existing that those other parties didn't and, therefore their support should not dry up completely, that, of course, of seperatism. 

Eh. Separatism existed before the BQ, too. In 2011, the Bloc failed to win a majority of separatist voters (and I'm unsure if they managed a plurality against the NDP). One issue -- even an issue as monumental as separatism -- is insufficient for the existence of a political party.

Should be remembered that the NDP also experienced a similar electoral pattern to the PC's and Ralliement Créditiste in the 1990's - they went from their best performance in history in 1988 to one of their worst in 1993, losing official party status just like the Tories did. They then rebounded, again like the Tories, in 1997, only to fall back in 2000, narrowly avoiding losing official party status again. Yet, in the end, as we know the NDP revamped itself somewhat and got a new, very popular leader, who was able to exploit the change political climate of the 2000's to eventually take the NDP to the status of Official Opposition. So I wouldn't count out the Bloc - obviously it's a very different party to the federal NDP and only competing in Quebec means that it faces a rather different task to a party competing across the country. Nonetheless, the Bloc has already been able to offset decline (in 2004), and circumstances may emerge in the future in which it is able to return to something like it's old strength.

Your point about the '90s-era NDP is true, and I overlooked it. However, the way the NDP managed to avoid death in that era is by changing its geographical base; essentially reinventing itself as a political party. In 1993, more than half the NDP's seats were in Saskatchewan, and all were west of Ontario. McLaughlin engineered a surge in Atlantic Canada in 1997 (fitting the pattern I laid out), and the party then declined in 2000 (fitting the pattern). Jack Layton totally changed the party's base, moving the party from west to east and from rural ridings into the cities. In 2004, the party had no seats in Saskatchewan and a majority of its seats were in Ontario+the Atlantic; then, in 2011, the party won a majority of its seats in Quebec. While the party has not ideologically shifted much (though it has moved to the right), the identity of the people who vote for it has changed dramatically. The "appeal to some new people because your old people are no longer willing to vote for you" tactic isn't really available to the Bloc (or most political parties, for that matter).

So no one had the NDP winning Papineau when the NDP were at 50% in Quebec, but now that it's closer, people are projecting Outrement going Liberal?

lol

People had Trudeau losing Papineau when the NDP were at 50% in Quebec. Now that the Liberals seem like they're going to sweep Montreal, folks have Mulcair losing Outremont. (For my part, I don't think Trudeau or Mulcair have been in any danger during this campaign).

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Looks like we're maybe heading to a Liberal minority.

On another note: if the Tories become the Official Opposition, would Harper immediately resign or would his ego keep him as leader of the opposition? Who would be in the best position to replace Harper as Tory leader?

Seats predictions based on CBC: 131/122/80/4/1

Probably step down, most former PM or Premiers step down as leaders after being defeated. As well Harper already has stated he would resign as PM if his party finished 2end in seat count.
  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-peter-mansbridge-interview-stephen-harper-1.3218348

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's entirely possible (and if they end up sub-20, probable) that Mulcair will step down of his own volition just out of sheer embarrassment, but I think ditching him as a leader would be very shortsighted, particularly if there's a minority government. They ran a bad campaign, but it's not because Mulcair was disliked or bad at politics. Starting fresh with a new leader would be a big mistake, and could result in the damage done to their Quebec support being irreparable. In the event of a minority government, taking the gut-punch, sitting tight, and shoring up left-wing support with a leader everyone already knows while waiting for the government to trip up is their best bet.

[morgieb]

Why does EKOS seem to have a higher conservative vote than most.

[2952-0-0]

Why does EKOS seem to have a higher conservative vote than most.

They seriously underestimated Conservative support in 2011 and reevaluated their model to assume lower turnout among celll phone only voters. This time, Graves claims this demographic is three times larger and much more engaged. But he isn't adjusting his model.

[RogueBeaver]

If Mulcair loses Stornoway then he's gone. Forget the party, it will be personally humiliating and he will not play second fiddle to a man he is viscerally contemptuous of.