Canada 2008: Official Thread

[cp]

Don't Greens tend to overpoll? I cannot see Quebec voting strongly Green and NDP, although the lower BQ numbers do help. Has Quebec suddenly become more federalist? I'm also shocked that the Greens are a point away from the Conservatives; even for Quebec that's sad. I thought Harper was trying to gain back the vote in Quebec... I guess he failed.

I'd like to see a Green actually win a seat. Maybe Elizabeth May can win one, or in Bruce or BC.

The NDP has a seat in Quebec now, so their numbers make sense. I'm surprised they're not higher, actually.

The Greens do tend to over poll, but the last provincial election in Ontario showed only a little bit of over polling. It's quite unfortunate, since the Greens are basically the NDP with a messed up economic policy.

Funny, I always thought it was the other way around.

On a more serious note, is this thread not jumping the gun a little? I know that an election looks likely but it's looked likely for the past 18 months.

[cp]

Miles better than Layton, but not quite as good as May.

[cp]

yeah, those polls also showed that Martin was their consistent favourite by something like 30 points over Harper and Layton . . . until Harper got elected, then Harper jumped to his own 30 point lead. People like the devil they know.

[cp]

She wont win, but a former Liberal backbencher in Quebec will be running for the NDP in Gatineau.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/25/ot-boivin-080225.html

It's rare to see a Liberal switch to the orange side, so I am happy to see this.  It looks like Mulcair may have started something.

Thank God for that. Her record indicates she was never really at home in the Liberal Party anyway. She was critical of U.S./Canada relations under Martin, which were never very chummy to begin with, and she only served one term in office before being ousted.

As for a trend, most of the Liberals in Quebec who left the party were conservative-leaning anyway. They're probably being courted by the Tories and Bloc more than the NDP.

[cp]

I'm not surprised, and not in the 'aren't Tories so evil' way. It's politics, rough and tumble, and of all the sins in the world to commit this one's pretty minor. I'm not sure whether this will take off into a major story (lasting longer than a week), but I wouldn't be surprised if it got quietly buried.

That said, if it does get a lot of exposure and there's enough to the allegations to make it stick, or even if there isn't, I expect it will leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Bribery is one thing, but bribing a dying man with a life insurance policy is just morbid. There's a kind of distasteful crassness and soulless ambition to it that would make anyone's skin crawl if they sat down to think about it.

I'm not sure about the law, but if this story has legs it's another straw on the camel's back that is public tolerance of Conservative Party policy and tactics. I doubt it's the one that will break it, but it certainly throws off any chance the Tories had to stay in charge of the message.

[cp]

 . . . just some more thoughts.

There's a lot of things about this story that don't add up:

1. Dona Cadman is the source of these allegations (via her statements in a biography released this month), yet she's also running for the Tories in her husband's old riding. What does she think she's doing? If she's telling the truth she's making a huge mess for the Party and the PM who, if the available evidence is to believed, would be criminally liable. If she's lying, she's making a slightly smaller mess, but one that all but assures her own defeat and earns her permanent exile from all future Tory governance.

2. Harper and his team are, if anything, quite litigious and meticulous. They MUST have known that something like this would get out, particularly from a disloyal loose cannon (from their perspective) like Cadman. This seems very out of character.

3. The offers, legal and illegal, alleged to have been made by the Tories don't make sense. The Tories claim they only offered to allow Cadman to return to the party unopposed in the next election. But they knew Cadman was on death's door and must have known he was unlikely to live till the writ was dropped, let alone run. It's a pretty flimsy offer if that's the only one they made.

On the other hand, if you looked for 1000 years you would never find a legitimate insurance broker who would sell a $1M policy to a man with terminal cancer, even if you did have connections in high places (which didn't include the Tory leadership in 2005, remember). I cannot imagine what the Tories thought they were going to do if Cadman accepted the offer.

[cp]

I've been out of the country for a while so my ear isn't quite as close to the ground as it should be but . . .

Dion's still shaky atop the Liberal Party. He hasn't really earned the benefit of the doubt from his caucus and he's made enough strategic errors for legitimate doubts about him to persist. Also, he's still personally unpopular in Quebec. Together these problems make people reluctant to swing their support to the Liberals despite their dissatisfaction with the Tories.

As for the various parties' chances in the next election, the conventional wisdom is that since the Tories have such a huge organizational advantage they're bound to pick up seats, particularly in Quebec where falling support for the Bloc (whether or not it shifts to the Tories) means they gain seats.

That said, the Tories are still weak in urban centres and with several key demographics. In addition their tenure has been marked by a rather acerbic attitude toward Ontario where they might have picked up seats, particularly if the Liberals ran weak against the NDP. This looks unlikely as the Liberal machine in Ontario is still quite strong and the NDP is stagnant.

The big question, thrillingly given centre stage today with Blair Wilson's floor crossing, is what role the Green Party will play in all this. With a sitting MP it's likely that Elizabeth May will get to be in the leaders debates. This is significant both for the exposure of the Green Party and the dynamics of the race. The Greens, and May herself in particular, have an affinity for the Liberals so they'll be more likely to work toward their advantage, which is to say attacking the Conservatives and nipping at the heels of the NDP. Greens tend to draw their support evenly from all parties but if May outshines/distracts Layton or throws enough mud at Harper you could see the dynamics shift wildly.

It's also worth noting that now that there's a real Green presence in the race and Harper's preferred election date falls over a Jewish holiday, he could have to rethink his election call. If he does, and the by-elections on the 8th go ahead, it's a whole new ball game.

[cp]

The Liberals, NDP, and Green do differ on various aspects of policy but they're rather nuanced and complicated to explain. The main point is that they differ less with each other than they do with the Conservatives.

The longevity of the 39th Parliament owes to a lot of factors. Liberal weakness has to be at the top of the list. A year-long leadership race followed by a year-long baptism by fire for the leader chosen precluded any legitimate chance that the Liberals would bring down the government.

Dion doesn't deserve all the blame for this, though. The Liberals have a weak financial structure that's been in the making for almost a decade. Their problems in Quebec are rooted in the previous leaders' actions (though Dion has been unable to do anything to correct this) and the Liberals are still adjusting to being in Opposition. 13 years of acting like a governing party doesn't get unlearned that fast.

Finally, whether or not Dion is worthwhile on his own merits the Conservatives have worked overtime to convince people he isn't. Their attack ads, which are a by-product of their monetary advantage, made it difficult for Liberals to gain much traction in the media or in parliament.

[cp]

On September 8, the Liberals get humiliated in the by-elections.

Well the Hill Times seems to disagree:

Conservatives canceling byelections for tactical reasons, say observers
http://thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2008/september/1/byelections/&c=2

This bears out what some friends of mine in Guelph and Montreal have said. The Conservatives, theoretically very strong on the ground, aren't gaining any traction among voters, particularly in Quebec where the recent arts funding cuts and the environment are most on peoples' minds. That said, a Liberal sweep is unlikely, meaning that whatever good press they could glean from this would be tempered by the usual charges of Dion's weakness, being cash strapped, etc.

As for the relative position of the parties, the Liberals and Tories have been tied, short-lived bumps aside, since 2007. This actually probably indicates the Tories are behind, though. Conservative support is concentrated in places like Alberta, which artificially inflates the national numbers. If the Tories are tied with the Liberals at 33% each, it typically means they're well behind in Ontario and Quebec and would be unlikely to tie the Liberals for seats should an election occur.

Incumbency also tends to inflate their numbers. Until there's an election a lot of people just give the government the benefit of the doubt. This is especially evident in 'leadership polls'. Until January 2006 Stephen Harper polled in the low 20s when it came to 'best leader' or equivalent criteria. Paul Martin was in the mid 50s. After he won in 2006, though, Harper jumped to (surprise, surprise) the mid 50s, while Stephane Dion remains in the teens and low 20s. It's a really misleading way to gauge support of people's voting intentions.

[cp]

So do the Tories. They're hoping that a national campaign with all cylinders firing can fight the tide of opinion in Ontario, BC, and Quebec.

[cp]

CBC is reporting that Harper will ask the Governor General to hold the election on October 14.

They've been reporting that for over a week

I don't think that you can conclude that the Conservatives are "well behind in Ontario" just because national polls are tied.  The GTA offsets Alberta, to some extent.  Some 416 ridings are as anti-Tory as Alberta ridings are anti-Liberal (though the Liberals and NDP tend to split the 416 vote).   

Not true. Liberal support in the GTA averages in the low 50s with very few ridings showing more than 60% support for the Liberals. The Tories, by contrast, pull in 60-70% support in most of Alberta's ridings and a good deal more in SK and BC. Whether or not the NDP and Liberals split the anti-Tory vote, the Tories still get artificially inflated in national numbers because of their disproportionately high support in the west.

On another note, a strategic counsel poll just came out. It's not good news

CPC: 37
Libs: 28
NDP: 17
Bloc: 8
Green: 7

On the bright side, SC usually over samples the Conservatives and NDP and in every election campaign the incumbent party loses support. Want more troubleshooting? It shows the Libs at 26% in Quebec to the Conservatives 23%.

[cp]

Don't mind Earl. He's a hard core dipper (NDP supporter for those outside Canada) and they have a fetish about saying they're the only left wing party in Canada and the Liberals are actually rightists. They say it all the time. It's like a verbal tick.

Sadly, my comment is part of the answer to your second question. The NDP and Liberals would be loathe to form a coalition government. The Liberals see the NDP as no better than gum on their shoe and want nothing to do with them. Especially if it means putting them in a position of power or influence. The NDP sees the Liberals (as I mentioned) as repackaged Conservatives. Some, out of desperation to finally form a government, might swallow their pride and agree to a coalition but most would see it as selling out.

As for the Greens, your suggestion that they 'should' be supporting the NDP sounds a lot like the Liberal argument that the NDP 'should' be supporting them. After all, if you add up all the NDP and Liberal votes the Conservatives would be in permanent opposition, and who could argue with that? (sarcasm intended)

Frustration at vote splitting is a legitimate grievance, particularly when it benefits a sinister bully like Harper. That said, wishing for a coalition of NDP/Liberal/Green is naive. Though they're both leftist parties, the NDP and Liberals disagree on a lot of issues; finding a common banner would be difficult and probably wouldn't last. The Greens transcend the left/right economic divide, though they're pretty close to the NDP and Liberals on social issues. The ideological roots of the three parties just aren't close enough to support a coalition. It's a nice thought, though.

[cp]

Thank you for posting the graphs of those swing riding polls. It makes comparison a whole lot easier

Two things to note about them, it's worth taking these data with a truckload of salt. By limiting themselves to 45 ridings, all so spread out, they're corrupting the sample pool. This isn't fatal, as all sample pools are inherently somewhat corrupted, but adding to it makes the figures less reliable. Also the number of people polled is lower (and the margin of error higher) across the board, so I'm a little dubious about these polls overall. What they're best for is what you've done with them, cinyc: observing long term trends. On that note . . .

It seems like the Liberals are clawing back their lead in Central Canada. This pretty much precludes a Tory majority, especially if the Greens and NDP stay where they are around 15% (the NDP's above that now, and good for them, but I wonder even more about the accuracy of NDP/Green returns because of how small the support is to begin with). More bad news for the NDP comes from BC where it seems they've been on a constant downward slide. If that continues you might see the Tories take a huge number of the seats, wiping out the Liberals and all but destroying the NDP.

The really interesting thing, though again highly dubious because of the sample size, is the rise of the Green Party in Quebec. It's very small, but I think it's significant as the Green Party has done significantly worse in Quebec than in the rest of the country in the pre-election polls. That they're now matching the rest of the country (around 10% instead of 5%) might mean they'll play spoiler in ridings where the NDP might try to knock off the Bloc or the Liberals, or where the Conservatives are trying to knock off the Bloc.

[cp]

Yowzah,

How was there 10 pages of discussion in three days? I really shouldn't be focusing on schoolwork at a time like this

Sadly the debates started at 2am for me so I didn't get to watch them. I must say I'm pleased that the general consensus is that Dion came out on top. I'm almost certain he won't do so tomorrow, but at least then Elizabeth May will be at her best.

[cp]

I heard from some that Dion actually defied expectations and got points across. I personally wouldn't put him in last.

Layton and May were clearly on top, from what I've heard.

Hardly, Layton came off as peevish and frenetic. He kept flailing off in all directions without really landing any good points (his mention of aboriginal issues notwithstanding, of course).

May was a disappointment for me, but I think she came across well. I was really hoping she'd knock Harper completely off his balance by calling him out on his record. She did call him out, but not forcefully enough to crack that lithium-soaked smile of his.

Dion was better than expected and better than he was in all the Liberal leadership debates from 2006. Thankfully Layton didn't turn his attention to Dion until the end of the debate so he didn't get very far with his criticisms.

[cp]

Wow, can you be any more of an anti-NDP hack? I mean, the media was all over Layton's performance. And as much as I hate the Green Party, I'll give credit where it is due and say May did a good job.

I must admit, there were times that I could not understand Dion, and his lack of ability in the language made him fumble in the debates, like when Layton attacked him on being a lousy opposition leader (total ownage by the way). Dion couldn't come back with anything snappy. It was very Turneresque of him.

These are the only highlights of the debate you need to see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny8Z5DC4UIY

I believe this is an example of the teapot calling the kettle 'hack'

And I stand by what I said: Layton was shrill and miles behind May.

[cp]

Indeed. A friend of mine in St. John's told me the day after the election was called (or near then) that the NDP candidate in St. John's East was hugely popular. It's probably not going to end up with a 44 point victory, but if he's the local hero then it doesn't really matter what party he's running for.

[cp]

It wasn't me you guys! lol

The Liberals are usually the one's up to no good. Rumour has it they stole a bunch of our signs (and Green signs) to make the race look like it was between the Libs and Tories. (This was in Ottawa South).

And of course, there's the stories of ovencleaner on signs...

Ottawa South is a two way race. Live with it.

In any case, I've heard some quite nasty things from one of Earl's former coworkers on the Hill about what the NDP does as standard practice: having non-English speaking women in burqua's visit several different polling stations on election day, crossing electoral boundaries for their own sign vandalism, etc.

Frankly I'm proud of them. I always suspected that the NDP's squeaky clean image wasn't true; they didn't take politics seriously so they wouldn't ever form a government or even an opposition on the federal level. With the revelation that Jack Layton's the same kind of sleazy, underhanded, hypocritical politician as Harper and Dion, I just might be convinced to vote NDP! (Actually there's no chance; I don't want my seat falling to Harper so I'm switching from Green to Liberal - hopefully I'm not the only one).

[cp]

Oh yeah, I forgot to say, I thought it was obvious

I'm in Ottawa-South, same riding as Earl.

Picking up on another topic mentioned above, the same source who told me about the NDP tactics had some interesting insights on the aftermath of a Liberal defeat. He said most of the party will flock to Ignatieff. Iggy was the runner up, he's probably the strongest candidate to face in any future election, and he's been a solid performer in the caucus for the past two years. However, Bob Rae will likely contest an Ignatieff coronation. Whether or not he'll get any support he'll be appallingly well-funded and well-connected, meaning there could be another costly leadership fight in 2009.

On the bright side, we both agreed that if Harper fails to get majority yet again there will be whisperings about the length of his tenure.

[cp]

"The Conservatives contend the Dion speech used "31 per cent" of the Corell text and never gave any attribution."

31%, eh? Just like your poll numbers?

I'm not one to condone plagiarism, but this is a weak comeback in response to Harper's copy/paste job last week. It's not even as bad as Biden's plagiarizing of Niel Kinnock's speech in 1988. At least in those cases the substance of the speech was in question; in this case Dion's just lifting statistics and hyperbole's about climate change.

In any case, it's a non-issue. The story of the day seems to be Dion's speech to the Empire Club this afternoon. It's not really noteworthy unto itself, but it's telling that Harper gave a speech to the same crowd immediately afterward and there's not a word printed about it. The media's taken up Dion's cause in the last few days, possibly out of pity, possibly out of a vacuum created by the lack of a Tory presence on the airwaves.

I'll be interested to see how the NDP and Greens fare with this new dynamic. The Tory slide seems to have benefited the Liberals most, but the conventional wisdom is that when the Liberals are strong they attract leaning/undecided voters who would otherwise vote NDP/Green/Bloc/etc. If there's a drop in support for those parties in the next few days this could turn out to be different than has been predicted.

[cp]

Hmm, strange. My friend working in Central Nova gave me a very different story when I asked her what's going on. She said Conservative support was slipping after MacKay's lackluster performance in the local candidate debate and that it was flocking to the Greens. The Green offices have been flooded with volunteers in the past week and the signage war is well in their favour: 2 Green signs for every Tory one and the NDP virtually non-existent, by her estimate.

We'll have to wait and see before we know for sure. Insider polling is seldom unbiased and, frustratingly for all us poll junkies, polling in the Maritimes is guesswork at the best of times.

I also saw a poll, I think on the globe and mail website, that showed Conservative/Liberal support solidifying and NDP/Green support softening up. It's a very strange dynamic now that the Tories are sliding and the Liberals are back in the game. I suspect a lot of people had been supporting Green/NDP candidates because they figured a Tory minority was a foregone conclusion; now that it's not, they might reconsider their support. *fingers crossed for a 2004-style NDP-to-Liberal shift*

Quick update: A friend of mine who worked in the PMO this past year confirmed your speculation, Verily: that Harper would be isolated by the caucus if he doesn't win a majority or a sizable minority on the 14th. Apparently, they truly believe their rhetoric about Dion not being a leader; a failure to beat Dion would send these guys into convulsions. It certainly would make for an interesting political sideshow, but all things considered I'd still rather see a Liberal government elected instead.

[cp]

I just entered mine!

[cp]

He's one of the best the NDP has.

A sad comment about the NDP, but I digress . . .

I think the silence in the Regan interview was a technical problem, not a fumble. It still doesn't look good, but it's not something Regan can be held responsible for.

As for Dion's video, it's quite clear that he was having trouble comprehending the question, but as to whether that's a problem with his English or a problem with his hearing is unknown. He hasn't shown this kind of response to equally vague questions in the past; this episode stands as an outlier rather than the norm. I suspect that if he really had that level of difficulty with his English comprehension he would not have risen as far as he has. Also, a hearing impairment would make it difficult for him to learn to speak another language, so this might explain the persistence of his thick French accent despite so much exposure to English.

Whether or not you like Dion, it's not appropriate to mock him for a physical impairment. Even if you think it disqualifies him for the job, using it as an attack is crude and malicious. The Tories are treading on thin ice by making an issue of this (remember their attack on Chretien in 93?). This isn't the same situation, of course, but it's something they should have left to the media to inflate and repeat. Even if it works, this kind of thing leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.

[cp]

I watched the video, I saw the same thing you did. He clearly had trouble comprehending the question and, as I said, it's unknown as to whether it's a physical impairment or poor comprehension skills. Not being able to hear a question clearly would make it difficult to understand, so your contention that it's obviously NOT a disability isn't really valid.

Anyways, the thing that really bothers me is CTV's decision to air it in the first place. Moments like that are regularly withheld, whether or not the interviewee asks for it. I worked at the CBC archives one summer and saw plenty of 'blooper' footage of politicians, artists, and writers stumbling over their words and asking for retakes. Dion's was far from the worst I've seen and he wasn't out of line asking for it to be withheld. Giving Dion the benefit of the doubt, he may have asked for so many retakes only because he knew it wasn't a live performance and he had the option for do-overs, the previous incarnations of which would not be aired.

This kind of thing is usually a tempest in a teapot but since it comes at the start of the last news cycle before the election it's more important. Just out of curiosity I checked out the blogs to see how this is being digested and there's quite a division of opinion, among even the partisans: Tories saying this is a cheap shot, Liberals saying this was a huge gaffe, etc. Such division indicates that this probably won't change any minds, just reinforce existing opinions. The election will still be decided by the voters flipping a coin between the NDP/Green and the Liberals. 4 Days to go!

[cp]

No, not naive. But that doesn't mean they won't endorse the Liberals. If they didn't pull their support in 2006 there's no way they'd do it now.