2017 British Columbia election

[Lotuslander]

Another junk IVR/robo poll by Forum Research:

NDP: 39%
Lib: 29%
Green: 18%
Con: 12%
Other: 3%

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/3d29e436-c19d-4939-aecf-11517b1b6687BC%20HR%20.pdf

[Lotuslander]

IVR has a terrible track record in BC. For starters, some of the IVR riding polls for the 2015 federal election in BC defied logic - the 2015 fed election results confirmed some IVR riding polls were wayyyyyyy off.

Again, during the last 2013 BC election, Ekos (IVR pollster) had the BC NDP ahead by 17% at the beginning of the 2013 campaign:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_bc_april_12_2013.pdf

At the end of the 2013 BC election campaign, Ekos held that the BC NDP had a 6% lead:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_bc_may_13_2013.pdf

Now we come back to Forum Research known as the McDonald's of the Canadian polling industry. A few weeks back, I posted herein the Forum Research numbers, which also had a 10% BC NDP lead.

Today's numbers again have a 10% BC NDP lead. But look closer - no "undecided" figure, which is always critical in election polling.

Moreover, Forum has the Cons at 12% - hell, for the first time in BC history, since the BC Cons were established back in 1903, they have no leader during a BC election. According to their website, they currently have 8 unofficial candidates/87 ridings. BC Cons have absolutely zero media coverage. No doubt that the BC Cons are back in fringe territory akin to the period between 1979 and 2009. I also have no doubt that the BC Cons will receive <1% popular vote share in 2017.

So why the 12% BC Con figure? Obviously brand confusion with the fed Cons. Most of the BC electorate not paying attention right now.

BTW, at the end of the 2013 BC election, Forum Research had its 2nd and final poll of the campaign and it still had a BC NDP win albeit closer than others.

IVR/robo polling in general typically attracts those who are "motivated" in terms of responding. Also very cheap stuff to produce. Unlike CATI with live telephone interviewers, IVR robo polls have no call-backs. On a personal note, over the past 5 years, I have been contacted by Forum Research twice (2 years apart) and did not answer phone. OTOH, during 2015 fed election, was contacted by a CATI pollster and finally answered after 3rd calling attemot.

And we are also seeing today what we were seeing back in the 2013 BC election - different IVR/opt-in online pollsters all over the map with their numbers. Caveat emptor.

OTOH, only much more expensive CATI polling has nailed BC election results. In 2013 BC election, BC Lib internal CATI polling (provincially/riding) nailed the results days before e-day - 4 days before e-day projected 48 seats (won 49). Also nailed the final BC province-wide results. Everyone (opt-in online panel/IVR) was on one side in the 2013 BC election, while the BC Libs internals were the only one on the "other" side. Why? Because CATI.

Nanos, CATI pollster, has nailed the last 5 fed elections. Also nailed the last 2 fed election BC results with their small ~140 sub-sample size - one helluva track record. Why? Because CATI.

Back in August, 2016, Innovative Research, CATI pollster, released their first ever BC polling results. Not long after, Mainstreet Research (IVR) also released BC results. Both results were completely different. Based upon 2013 election polling, quite simple to understand reasons behind same.

Now who is Innovative Research? Been around for ~15 years and the principle is Greg Lyle who is from BC and understands how to poll BC. Are their CATI polls accurate? Well, last fall both Nanos (CATI) and IR released provincial ON polls and they basically mirrored each others results. Nanos also nailed the previous ON provincial election.

Innovative Research will be releasing new BC CATI numbers soon and personally that firm will be the only one that I will rely on in terms of accuracy. I always prefer both reliability and accuracy. But if some wish to rely on obvious cheap junk polling in BC - no skin off my back.

[Lotuslander]

Mainstreet has a new poll with big honking sample size of over 5,000!

DL. You are a pollster. You should very well know that any sample size over 1,000 leads to diminishing returns in terms of margin of error. Even then, Mainstreet Research has basically the same results with it's smaller n = 1,650 sample size in its previous poll. Forget about the fact that IVR/robo pollsters in BC have been notoriously wayyyyyy off.

So you then actually agree that the BC Greens are at 19% in BC and are tied with the BC NDP on Van Isle? Obviously means BC Green vote concentrated on the southern half of Van Isle and major loss of NDP seats. Frankly, doubt that ya agree with that.

Hell, I have been following national German pollsters, for example, for over a decade, and the smallest sample size utilized by one of the German major pollsters is  n = ~1,000+ for obvious reasons described above.

[Lotuslander]

Now looks like a bombshell will be dropped in the middle of the campaign that will likely change the dynamic/narrative thereto.

4 days before the TV leadership debate, the U.S. government will release its decision on Canadian softwood lumber duties. That decision will potentially affect the entire dynamic of the 2017 campaign as forestry workers are extant all over BC - from NW BC to NE BC to interior BC all the way down to Van Isle. Will likely spook the electorate and likely turn political narrative entirely into "jobs and the economy":

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-us-softwood-lumber-duties-1.4069893?cmp=rss&utm_content=bufferfce4e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Lotuslander]

The same thing happened in the federal election (according to our numbers), with about 2 weeks to go. Then the Green vote collapsed as people started voting strategically.

Kinda ironic that Ekos is now the official internal pollster of the BC Green Party.

[Lotuslander]

The NDP came closer in Kamloops North last time than they did in Cariboo-Chilcotin and the popular Liberal incumbent is quitting

Kamloops-North Thompson (2009 result):

BC Lib: 47%
BC NDP: 45%
BC Green:  7%

Kamloops-North Thompson (2013 result:)

BC Lib: 52.1%
BC NDP: 39.1%
BC Con: 7%

In 2013, major shift away from BC NDP throughout interior BC as a result of "Kinder Morgan Surprise" as a symbol of BC NDP anti-resource development stance.

Kamloops-North Thompson (2017 candidates)

BC Lib: Peter Milobar (Kamloops mayor who received 78.1% in November, 2014 muni election)
BC NDP: Barb Nederpal: (public sector unionist and prez of Kamloops & District Labour Council)
BC Green: Dan Hines

Aside from provincial issues, a major over-riding local Kamloops issue is the proposed Ajax Mine in the southern edge of city limits. While located in neighbouring Kamloops-South Thompson, still a city issue. A well-organized contingent of Kamloops residents oppose the proposed Ajax Mine -

http://www.stopajaxmine.ca/home
https://www.facebook.com/stopajaxmine

As a matter of fact, back in 2012, the USW pulled out of the Kamloops and District Labour Council over the KDLC's opposition to the proposed Ajax Mine:

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/news/city-region/steelworkers-pull-out-of-labour-council-over-ajax-opposition-1.1243531

The BC Libs tacitly endorse the proposed Ajax Mine subject to environmental assessment completion.  No one really knows where the 2 local BC NDP candidates stand (all over the map), while the 2 BC Green candidates (including Kamloops councillor Donovan Cavers) oppose the proposed Ajax Mine.

BTW, the BC Greens are heavily targeting the 2 Kamloops ridings and Andrew Weaver has been there a few times already. Van Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer/Global BC political affairs reporter Keith Baldrey were on Kamloops radio station CHNL a few weeks back discussing provincial political scene. Both brought up that they are hearing rumblings that the BC Greens may actually finish 2nd in both Kamloops seats. I will believe it when I see it.

Finally, Kamloops-North Thompson can be considered BC's "bellwether riding". Since 1903, no political party has formed BC gov't without winning in Kamloops.

[Lotuslander]

Another Mainstreet Research poll. IVR/robo pollster. I don't put much/if any weight on these in BC, but here are decided results:

BC NDP: 39%
BC Lib: 37%
BC Green: 20%
BC Con: 3%

Greens lead on Van Isle with 38%.

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/liberals-greens-gain-writs-dropped/

[Lotuslander]

Well, yesterday morning was the first radio debate between the 3 BC leaders (which was also live-streamed) and here is the take from Global BC Newshour at 6 pm yesterday:

https://www.facebook.com/GlobalBC/videos/10155153659162808/?pnref=story

[Lotuslander]

Another new poll out by Justason Market Intelligence - opt-in online panel methodology:

BC NDP: 39%
BC Liberal: 36%
BC Green: 19%
Other: 5%

http://www.justasonmi.com/?p=5074

To put matters into context, at this point in the 2013 BC election campaign, Justason Market Intelligence also had an opt-in online panel poll showing the BC NDP with a 22% lead:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/04/29/NDP-22-Point-Lead/

[Lotuslander]

New Mainstreet Research poll is out:

BC NDP: 44%
BC Lib: 34%
BC Green: 22%

Gotta love IVR/robo polls.

[Lotuslander]

Entertaining that some folk here take this Mainstreet Research poll with more than a grain of salt. A key metric/number buried therein should jump out as a "RED FLAG". Right away. Analytically. But I will let others attempt to figure it out. Doubtful though.

[Lotuslander]

I think the NDP is more likely to win Kamloops North than either of the Cariboo seats

Interestingly enough, the first riding poll of the campaign is Kamloops-North Thompson by JMI, which was commissioned by the Kamloops Voters Society. IVR methodology and n = 239 with 2013 changes in brackets:

BC Lib: 47% (-5%)
BC NDP: 31% (-8%)
BC Green: 15% (+15%)
Communist: 8% (+8%)

https://armchairmayor.ca/2017/04/28/election-poll-shows-milobar-ahead-doctor-shortage-biggest-issue/

Why high Communist intention? Likely due to IVR methodology & smaller sample size. Still surprised BC Libs even leading with IVR here.

PS. Kamloops (now Kamloops-North Thompson) is BC's bellwether riding. Since 1903, whoever wins this seat wins gov't.

PPS. Also note that this "poll" was conducted pre-TV leaders debate.

[Lotuslander]

Sigh. IVR in BC has a heavy NDP bent/bias. Anyone who diligently follows BC politics is fully cognizant of same. No question about that.

To wit, not only 2013 BC provincial election polls but 2015 federal riding polls in BC as well. It almost seemed IVR methodology was from another planet.

Frankly, I also suspect that IVR pollsters pumped out numerous polls for specific ridings until they obtained their desired result (or their clients) -  akin to IVR riding polls showing fed Con leads in downtown Toronto and Ottawa, fed NDP leads in Leeds-Grenville, and fed Lib leads in all northern Ontario ridings.

Just not a plausible scenario. Period.

In that vein, some 2015 BC fed riding polls (with actual results in brackets)

1. Cariboo-Prince George (Environics)

NDP: 36% (25.8%)
Con: 30% (36.6%)
Lib: 29% (31.5%)
Green: 5% (3.5%)

2. Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam (Environics)

NDP: 34% (27.3%)
Con: 31% (32%)
Lib: 29% (35.3%)
Green: 6% (3.8%)

3. North Okanagan-Shuswap: (Environics)

NDP: 37% (25.6%)
Con: 33% (39.3%)
Lib: 22% (30%)
Green: 8% (5.2%)

4. Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge: (Environics)

NDP: 41% (29.6%)
Con: 35% (31.4%)
Lib: 19% (33.9%)
Green: 6% (4%)

And so many more examples as well. Again, corroborating/confirming that IVR has a heavy NDP bias in BC akin to opt-in online panel polls. Caveat emptor.

As for those IVR polls by Mainstreet Research? Well, an April, 2017 press release from MRIA - the Canadian governing body of polling companies - confirming that Mainstreet Research has been suspended from the organization:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://mria-arim.ca/sites/default/uploads/files/Mainstreet%20Research%20Sanction%20Posting.pdf

All cheap polling junk. Rinse, spit, and repeat.

[Lotuslander]

New poll by JMI - opt-in online panel. Good that they posted an appropriate caveat therein:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BC Lib: 38% (+2%)
BC NDP: 37% (-2%)
BC Green: 21% (+2%)
Orther: 4% (-1%)

http://www.justasonmi.com/?p=5122

[Lotuslander]

During the 2009 BC election, Mustel (CATI) was in the field for one week from April 29 to May 6. Election was May 12, 2009. The TV debate was on May 3, 2009. Moreover, then BC NDP leader Carole James "won" the 2009 TV leaders debate. Even then, both Mustel's CATI numbers as well as Ipsos (then CATI) numbers were still within their margin of error at extremities.

Angus Reid (opt-in online) was a newcomer to the BC political scene both as a pollster as well as its new methodology - first opinion poll was in late, 2008. Prima facie, their panels  were more in tune with the electorate wayyy back then. Since then, it has been obvious that online panels have had relatively major recruiting problems - folk dropping out/new folk coming in skewing their results.

2013 election opt-in online pollsters Angus Reid & Ipsos had final results holding a BC NDP lead at 9% and 8% respectively. OTOH, the BC Libs won by ~4% margin - a 12% to 13% reversal.

During the 2014 Ontario provincial election, the Toronto Star retained a pollster to test the 3 different methodologies (CATI, IVR, opt-in online panel) v. the actual ON election result. Their opt-in online methodology finding:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/15/polling_the_electorate_three_different_ways_with_differing_results.html

[Lotuslander]

Speak of the devil. Another new opt-in online panel poll by Ipsos:

BC Lib: 43% (+4)
BC NDP: 41% (-3)
BC Green: 14% (+2)

Green numbers are low with Ipsos.

[Lotuslander]

Weaver says he'd prefer working with Clark in a minority situation.

I saw the 6 pm Global BC newscast and that is not what I inferred from his statements. In any event, Weaver's characterization of Horgan was just brutal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Edited to Add: Headline on story is also obviously wrong. Suspect it will be modified. Weaver also stated "I'm not going to pick one" in terms of potential minority gov't support.

Further Edit: Headline now changed to "B.C. Election: Andrew Weaver says ‘neither Liberals nor NDP can be trusted with majority government’.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lotuslander]

Innovative Research likes Clark's chances.

I've been waiting for Innovative Research to produce a CATI poll - gold standard in BC polling. Decided results:

BC Lib: 38%
BC NDP: 33%
BC Green: 20.3%
BC Con: 6.3%
Other: 2.5%

They also produced opt-in online panel methodology favouring Libs but meh.

[Lotuslander]

Firstly, Innovative Research is a reputable polling firm (around for ~20 years) unlike other pollsters out there. As for their CATI voting intention question based upon data tables? Unprompted as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for the 6.2% BC Con vote (unprompted), BC Lib 2013 campaign internals (CATI daily tracking polls) found that:

1. 1/3 had brand confusion with fed gov't;
2. 1/3 parked vote with BC Cons until realized that would result in NDP win and then vote BC Lib at end of day;
3. 1/3 actual BC Con voters;

[Lotuslander]

Historically, that is a bit of a myth.  The NDP would have handily won the election in 1991 had it remained a mostly two party race between the NDP and Social Credit.  Prior to the 1991 debate the NDP were leading something like 48-35% over Social Credit with the B.C Liberals at around 12-15% support.

It's also something of a myth that the B.C Liberals surged from nowhere on the strength of Gordon Wilson's one liner in the debate.  

....

Anyway, after the debate, B.C Liberal support only increased to around 25% from the 12-15% prior, and had it not been for Social Credit's inability to refocus their campaign to go after the B.C Liberals who were taking their supporters, the B.C Liberals probably wouldn't have done anywhere near as well as they did.  So, Social Credit continued to campaign against Mike Harcourt and the NDP, even though after the debate, all that did was convince some voters in many parts of the province to vote B.C Liberal.

If I recall correctly, after the campaign, the Social Credit campaign director admitted that like the Generals at the start of World War I,  they had planned out their entire campaign and had all of their resources committed and they had no way to respond to any changing campaign circumstances.

The foregoing is the worst case of historical revisionism that I have ever read on this site. Bar none.

Right off the bat, since 1975, the then incarnation of the BC Libs was considered fringe and dead. Same with the BC Cons. Election after election thereafter, BC Libs received virtually no media coverage and signage was essentially non-existent.

Same heading into the 1991 BC campaign. Heading into the 1991 campaign, Socred Rita Johnston (a frumpy Zalmoid so-con retread) was up against the Harcourt NDP - a foregone conclusion on the eventual outcome in a "change election"- one would think.

Interestingly enough, BCTV (now Global BC) ran a daily provincial voting intention tracking poll from the commencement of the writ period on their 6 pm newscast. Back then BCTV (with anchor Tony Parsons) was the dominant powerhouse in BC in terms of ratings. Global BC is still dominant in terms of market share/ratings in terms of their 6 pm newscast, but not the same powerhouse today.

In any event, the daily BC election tracking poll led the BCTV 6 pm newscast each and every evening. Fascinating stuff. At the commencement of the 1991 writ period, the BC NDP was in mid-40% range, Socreds in mid/upper 30% range, and BC Libs ~10% range (Socred vote parking akin to BC Cons relatively recently). While BCTV only showed decided vote, they also show undecided vote separately, which was in mid-20% range.

The 1991 TV leaders debate was strictly a Socred Johnston/NDP Harcourt affair. They both opposed any new entrant such as unknown BC Lib Gordon Wilson. The BC Libs, running candidates in 71/75 ridings, felt that they were also entitled to be at the TV leaders debate. So much so, that they launched a protest and had picketers in front of the CBC building in downtown Van City. The pressure built and the network eventually capitulated.

9 days before e-day, the 1991 TV debate occurred - now with 3 party leaders. And during the debate, BC Lib leader Gordon Wilson "had his moment" with this famous poli quip: "This reminds me of the legislature and here's a classic example of why nothing ever gets done in the province of British Columbia". Archived CBC news story:

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/bc-elections-1991-gordon-wilsons-debate-triumph

That Gordon Wilson clip was the highlight of all TV/radio newscasts the next day. And the rest is history.

But that BCTV tracking poll at the top of their 6 pm evening newscasts also played a major part of the overall 1991 campaign. Their BC Lib numbers the following night saw a spike, which further fed into the media narrative. Another BC Lib spike the next night. So much so that the BC Libs tied the BC NDP at ~37% each with the Socreds falling to mid-20's range.

And then, ~4 - 5 days after the debate, one night BCTV's nightly tracking poll had the BC Libs over-taking the BC NDP by 1%.

Over a course of just a few days one also saw same on the ground. BC Lib lawn signs were akin to a Sasquatch siting prior to the 1991 TV leaders debate and since 1972. All of a sudden, BC Lib lawn signs sprouted akin to mushrooms all over Metro Vancouver lawns and elsewhere, which fed into that visual momentum.

The BC NDP were so concerned that they held a major press conference attended by BC NDP pitbulls such as Glen Clark and Moe Sihota, which also had major media coverage - BC NDP attacked BC Libs as untested with no experience and a dubious, uncosted platform. Wise strategic decision. Definitely blunted upward BC Lib momentum, which was also included soft-leaners.

Moreover, the BC media also then focused upon the BC Libs/their platform picking apart same. BCTV tracking polls then saw a stall in BC Lib momentum with BC NDP regaining a slight lead.

Remember this was over the course of ~6 days (~9 days from TV debate to e-day). After e-day, BC NDP strategists confided to Van Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer that, had the writ period lasted another week, 1991 would have seen a BC Lib majority gov't with their momentum. Palmer has even written about same over the past decade. Google is your friend.

Final 1991 election outcome:

BC NDP: 40.7% - 51 seats
BC Lib: 33.3% - 17 seats
Socred: 24.1% - 7 seats

As a result of Socred/Lib vote splits, BC NDP won seats in 1991 that they have never won before or since.

Had BC Lib Gordon Wilson never attended the 1991 TV leaders debate, the BC NDP/Socred spread would undoubtedly have been much closer with BC Libs only obtaining perhaps 10% siphoning off anti-Zalmoid Socred votes and the seat count would have been much closer as well.

BTW, I wrote a UBC poli 101 paper on this exact topic back in the day.

[Lotuslander]

You are a liar and a troll and everybody here knows it.  I honestly have no idea why you keep posting here. I think pretty much every poster here has you on ignore.  Again, for not paying on the bet you lost to me and for 'doxing' me, I again ask the mod here to ban you from this website.

Hahahaha. Pffft. What a maroon. You are what negatively stereotypes BC across Canada - a fringe, loony left-wing BC flake. Now run along and put me on your ignore list.

[Lotuslander]

Final Mainstreet (IVR) poll:

NDP: 40% (-2)
Lib: 39% (+2)
Green: 21% (=-0)

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/bc-liberals-set-majority/

Mainstreet also conducted riding polls in 4 swing ridings:

Surrey-Fleetwood, Delta-North, Saanich North & The Islands and Fraser-Nicola - All had Liberal leads.

Ipsos:

NDP: 40% (-1)
Lib: 39% (-4)
Green: 17% (+3)

[Lotuslander]

Well... Forum Research has now chimed in as well. Can't have an election without Forum, eh?

Forum's final poll in 2013 was a 2% BC NDP lead. Ditto for 2017. Who woulda thunk?

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/07171cf6-1255-4199-a512-2d782fbda181BC%20FINAL%20Election.pdf

[Lotuslander]

Haha. I see the NDP cultists continue to inhabit this site. C'est la vie. Nothing like a major BC poli site (whereby I have been a mem for over 10 years) inhabited by centre-left/centre/centre-right folk sans the NDP cultists akin to here. It is what it is.

Now back to regularly scheduled programming...

BC hasn't seen a minority since 1952 - 65 years ago when W.A.C. Bennett and the Socreds first came on the BC political scene. Somewhat unchartered territory for BC in terms of political history.

Interior BC saw swing toward BC Libs while Metro Van inner belt saw swing toward the NDP with BC NDP taking all of the BC Lib-held swing seats. Still analyzing/digesting the whole matter.

In terms of popular vote share (with changes from 2013):

BC Libs: 41% (-3%)
BC NDP: 40% (+-0%)
BC Greens 16.7% (+8.6%)
BC Cons: 0% (although likely ~0.3%) (-4.5%)

Prima facie, overall provincially, the BC Greens were the beneficiary of the 2017 vote loss by the BC Libs/BC Cons from 2013. But voter migration modeling is much more complex than that. Just keeping it simple.

My fave riding in 2013 was Saanich North & the Islands (long-time BC Lib riding) - a true 3-way race whereby each party received ~1/3 vote. Here are 2017 results (2013 changes in brackets):

BC Green: 41.7% (+9.7%)
BC NDP: 30.3% (-3%)
BC Lib: 26.9% (-6.1%)

As seen in many ridings across BC, here the BC Greens took twice as many disaffected 2013 BC Lib votes v. BC NDP voters. Something I suspect that BC Green leader Andrew Weaver is cognizant of.

Now we come to the 2017 election high-profile riding of Courtenay-Comox. After redistribution/boundary changes, this riding was a relatively safe BC Lib seat based upon 2013 transposed results. 2017 result with 2013 transposed result changes:

BC NDP: 37.15% (+1.8%)
BC Lib: 37.12% (-10.7%)
BC Green: 18.1% (+7%)
BC Con: 7.6% (+1.7%)

Looks like both the BC Cons and esp. the BC Greens took a chunk of 2013 BC Lib vote in this riding. Now the BC NDP leads by 9 votes at initial count. BTW, the BC Cons took 2,061 votes here last night.

Another 176,000 special ballots, absentee ballots and similar category ballots will be tabulated and included in final results in two weeks time, which equates to ~2,000 votes per riding.

The BC NDP had a net gain of 25 votes in this final count in 2013 under the old Comox Valley riding boundaries with strong BC NDP areas Denman/Hornby Isles and Cumberland since removed.

If the BC Libs win this seat after final recount, other recounts, then the BC Libs have squeaked by a bare majority of 44 seats to 43 seats for the combined opposition BC NDP/ BC Greens. But even that is problematic for the BC Liberals. The BC Liberals win need to appoint a speaker leaving a 43-43 tie vote in the legislature albeit the Speaker can break that tie vote under most circumstances.

Further problems arise... if one BC Lib MLA is sick, in the hospital, dies, stuck in traffic, etc. and unable to make a key vote in the legislature such as a Throne Speech, monetary bill, etc. with the opposition showing up - the gov't could fall (I don't know if Speaker is able to tie a vote under those circumstances).

OTOH, if the BC NDP retains Courtenay-Comox after final recount we are left with 43 BC Libs, 41 BC NDP, and 3 BC Greens.

So what happens next? Clark is still the preem. Weaver is now the king-maker and has numerous options at his disposal.

Weaver has a few options:

1. BC Greens act as opposition without formal support for BC Libs/BC NDP without bringing down minority gov't - abstaining from voting on monetary bills in exchange for some compromises (my gut instinct);

2. BC Greens form accord with either BC Libs/BC NDP - problematic for numerous reasons - his 2017 voters and potential pitfalls at next election siding with one side or the other;

3. BC Greens form coalition with one party or other - when gov't falls, BC Greens likely to be obliterated as these small 3rd parties have experienced obliteration in similar circumstances;

Now let's look at Weaver wants:

1. Ban on corporate/union party funding (non-negotiable) - BC NDP wants a legislative bill whereas BC Libs propose independent panel to review matter for recommendations;

2. PR - BC NDP proposes referendum on their own PR version. BC Libs non-committal;

3. BC Greens currently have 3 MLAs while 4 are required for official opposition party status, which brings additional funding, research staff, etc.

Right now, that's what Weaver has stated what is looking for.

Now who can Weaver work with? Interestingly enough, Global BC's Keith Baldrey interviewed Weaver a few weeks back and Baldrey asked Weaver point blank... "Who will you feel more comfortable supporting in a minority gov't - Clark or Horgan?" Weaver responded that "You're putting me on the spot... Horgan has exploded on me multiple times... he has to control his temper... he doesn't want to bring people to work with him... whereas with Clark you can have a respectful disagreement and it's not personal".

Frankly, that was quite a signal right there and I suspect Weaver is prepared to not oppose the BC Libs governing in minority with Weaver/ BC Greens abstaining from voting on monetary bills, which would bring down the gov't. Of course, with the BC Libs agreeing to his 3 main conditions listed above.

Just speculation and conjecture on my part. Weaver could support Horgan and BC NDP as well.

Minority gov'ts also have a shelf life up to 18 months and highly likely that we will be in election mode within that time frame. No party will attempt to bring down a minority gov't... during the interim... as the electorate will punish same. We will also likely be in campaign mode - as opposed to actual governing over the next 18 months as well - considerable political uncertainty as well.

Moreover, seems like the BC Libs still have a large war chest while the BC NDP/BC Greens have depleted their financial resources.

Interestingly enough, Insights West released an opinion poll today focused, in part, upon this topic...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Suspect Weaver will walk a fine-line moving forward. My 2 cents.

[Lotuslander]

Haha. Posters here are always entertaining. Love it. But caveat emptor.

Van Sun's Vaughn Palmer, Global BC's Keith Baldrey & Globe and Mail's Justine Hunter have been live on Shaw TV over the past hour discussing the BC election. Lottsa interesting nuggets, which now provides some logical sense as a backdrop into Metro Vancouver's 2017 results.

For example, just Surrey, a major municipality in Metro Vancouver... the BC Libs lost ~20,000 votes compared to the 2013 BC election. So what happened to these votes in 2017? While some went to the BC NDP, more went to the BC Greens, while the majority just stayed home. Never saw that coming.

Again, that's just Surrey.

It's known as drilling down into the numbers and voter migration.

And yep. CATI is the gold standard in BC. Bar none.