Canada 2011 Official Thread

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The trouble is that regional breakdowns are often worse than useless... but that you have to look at them anyway wrt Canada for obvious reasons.

I thought that it was odd that there weren't any provincial-level polls there, but that explains it. It seems that sub-national polling, let alone polling of individual legislative races, is a mostly American phenomenon.

It's a financial issue, mostly.

[Хahar 🤔]

Will the fact that Liberal leader Ignatieff spent more than three decades away from Canada come back to haunt him in this campaign?

Already featured on Tory adverts. Not pleasant, even if it's mildly amusing to see the leader of a nationalist party on the wrong side of a base appeal to nationalism.

Saw one of them when I was in Canada. My group was thoroughly bemused by the idea that the Conservative Party was making those attacks.

[Foucaulf]

Will the fact that Liberal leader Ignatieff spent more than three decades away from Canada come back to haunt him in this campaign?

Already featured on Tory adverts. Not pleasant, even if it's mildly amusing to see the leader of a nationalist party on the wrong side of a base appeal to nationalism.

Saw one of them when I was in Canada. My group was thoroughly bemused by the idea that the Conservative Party was making those attacks.

Keep in mind that the Ignatieff campaign is more a question of trust than a question of loyalty. Ignatieff could have fought off terrorists in the Congo for thirty years and still be subject to the same claims*. This is why the Conservative slogan for the campaign is "Ignatieff: he didn’t come back for you."
Steven Harper, however, is being portrayed as a diligent patriot, and Ignatieff is the anti-Harper; therefore you see Conservative activists falling into a bonus false equivalency.

*Cf. Romeo Dallaire?


Let's take a look at the battlegrounds of this election.

The 905:  These are the suburbs of Toronto, named for their area code. Less socially liberal and cosmopolitan than their downtown counterparts. The Progressives Conservatives rode into power on these ridings' coattails. The Conservative Party has hanged onto them nicely. But the Liberals crave these ridings, because they're a hell of a lot easier to take than Western Canada. These ridings went for Chretien during his majority years, and swiftly went to Harper in 2006. In the greater context, the Liberals' results in this area will show whether they still maintain their big-tent appeal.
Newfoundland & Labrador:  Results from 2008 can be deceiving. Canada's easternmost province only swept the Liberals into power because Danny Williams--then the most popular premier in Canada--launched a "Anything But Conservative" campaign over equalization payments. But Williams was still leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and after his retirement the Newfies may drop a few seats for the Tories.
Toronto and Vancouver:  Harper wants the immigrants to vote for him. Pundits are quick to note that these immigrants are "socially conservative", but I think the switch is more superficial. Immigrants have lived through Harper for five years, and, not caring to note the subtle nuances, wish to keep a steady hand on the wheel. This can only be good news for the Conservatives, who have seen their MPs settle deeper and deeper into these cities. Vancouver is by far the easier of the two, with one riding - Vancouver South - settled due to a 20-vote margin.
Quebec:  This is not exactly a battleground, for the Conservatives are trying to gain a majority without Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois, however, is hoping to cement their stranglehold on the province by gobbling up some MPs. Liberal Justin Trudeau - Pierre Trudeau's son - is facing stiff competition from the Bloc, as will NDP Thomas Mulcair. Conservative seats in Quebec City will be targeted after money for an Arena there were taken away.

But I suspect all this speculation to be naught, since it's been three days and there has been little buzz. I fear a Germany '09 is in the making.

[The Vorlon]

It will be funny if voters reward Conservatives with a parliamentary majority on May 3rd -the exact opposite of Liberal hopes when they brought down this government.  

Is there any likelihood of this happening?  

I think the most likely outcome is a result more or less status quo.

There are a couple reasons to believe a Conservative majority may be possible.

1) - There are some signs voter turnout might be a bit better this election as the attitude "What the %^$% another election?" gets some traction - this might help the Conservatives.

2) - NDP leader Jack Layton (even though I personally think he comes across as a sleazy used car salesman) has a LOT stronger personal ratings than the liberal leader (Who has horrid personal favorability, trust, etc...)  To the degree that this widens the Conservative/Liberal gap (or narrows the Liberal/NDP gap, depending on how you want to look at it),  the Conservatives do better.  ie if the popular vote is Cons 40%, Libs 25, NDP 20, the conservatives get more seats than if the Cons still get 40% but the Libs and NDP carve up their 45% say 30%, 15%

3) Both sides have an issue that is semi-working - The Coalition mantra of an aloof, arrogant Harper has gained a bit of traction, but so has the Conservative mantra of a power hungry coalition desperate to do anything it takes to reach for the brass ring...  We will see which narrative takes hold....

In 2008, as the following graphic illistrates, the Conservatives also underpolled in every single poll, as well as having the Conservative/Liberal gap understated, so the polls, while a guide, have ben less than perfect in Canada.

[The Vorlon]

What's the absolute best case scenario for the NDP? I take it that even with Layton cashing in on being the most likable federal politician for the past 3-4 years official opposition status is way out of their reach?

The talented Éric Grenier calculated 44 seats. I suspect this is an understatement. The NDP can hope for 50-60 seats if there was a real collapse of the Liberal Party - mind you, this would almost certainly result in a 200+ seat majority for the Tories, so it would be a rather Pyrrhic victory.  

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2011/03/february-2011-best-and-worst-case.html

Realistically, I have trouble seeing them gain much more than they have. They might hit 40 seats if the Liberals do badly, but that assumes the Liberals would be worse off now than they were in 2008 under Dion running on the Green Shift. Conversely, their floor is probably around 18-20 seats.

The "NDP best case" is really why Layton forced the election.

Ignatieff is so tragically flawed that a liberal decimation with the NDP rising as the "true opposition party" (ie setting up a two federalist party scenario, with the NDP as one of the final two...) is possible...  Not likely, but possible..

It would represent an historic breakthrough for the NDP.. I could happen if Ignatieff  were to seriously frack up his campaign.....

[The Vorlon]

The NDP will gain seats if the Liberals are weak, and the Liberals are currently weak. When it comes clear that Harper will win a majority, people will be "free" to switch to the party they "truly" support. Some of the NDP's best elections have been during Majority governments, because there is no pressure to vote for Party A to keep Party B out.

A clear and well stated point upon which you are correct.

[Hash]

I don't see why all talk must always be that this will be an epic Liberal rout, that the Liberals are doomed and so forth. Sure, Ignatieff is a poor leader and the odds aren't good. But Ignatieff is probably a marginally better leader than Dion - who also had sh**tpoor leadership numbers and when expectations are so low anything marginally positive can boost you up. Remember 1988.

At any rate, a Tory majority would be awful for this country; but if the people are retarded enough to go for it, then maybe the idiots should suffer the consequences and live with it afterwards. But for those who aren't idiots, it will be awful.

[The Vorlon]

I take it that even with Layton cashing in on being the most likable federal politician for the past 3-4 years official opposition status is way out of their reach?

Really hard to see it happen...

The BQ, baring some really unforeseen game changer, is unlikely to get under 50 in Quebec, and in the absence of an near total Liberal meltdown, it pretty hard to paint a scenario where the NDP gets over 50...

[RogueBeaver]

Speaking as a Quebecer, the BQ will pick up Brossard and Portneuf, which leaves them at 49. Duceppe's top priority is trying to unseat Trudeau in Papineau, though Trudeau will (thankfully) win again.

The poll numbers are not budging for Iggy nationally, and there is no animating issue to this campaign, all tax credits, mudslinging and spreading some corporate wealth around (to paraphrase POTUS) to students. He will lose 5-10 seats.

[Hatman 🍁]

The trouble is that regional breakdowns are often worse than useless... but that you have to look at them anyway wrt Canada for obvious reasons.

I thought that it was odd that there weren't any provincial-level polls there, but that explains it. It seems that sub-national polling, let alone polling of individual legislative races, is a mostly American phenomenon.

It's a financial issue, mostly.

There are a few, but they aren't very good. Our districts are much smaller than in the US.

[2952-0-0]

The poll numbers are not budging for Iggy nationally, and there is no animating issue to this campaign, all tax credits, mudslinging and spreading some corporate wealth around (to paraphrase POTUS) to students. He will lose 5-10 seats.

I don't know about you, but it appears Harper's excellent tendency to shoot himself in the foot whenever things are going well has been proven again. As soon as the election was called he immediately accused the opposition of plotting to form a coalition (instead of doing the safe and sensible thing, which is to focus on the economy). This issue might be coming back to bite him with accusations of his own coalition attempts. Expect the Liberals and NDP to seize this case and use it build their theme of a government of "contempt".

[Lief 🗽]

I don't see why all talk must always be that this will be an epic Liberal rout, that the Liberals are doomed and so forth. Sure, Ignatieff is a poor leader and the odds aren't good. But Ignatieff is probably a marginally better leader than Dion - who also had sh**tpoor leadership numbers and when expectations are so low anything marginally positive can boost you up. Remember 1988.

At any rate, a Tory majority would be awful for this country; but if the people are retarded enough to go for it, then maybe the idiots should suffer the consequences and live with it afterwards. But for those who aren't idiots, it will be awful.

To be fair to Canada, even if the Tories do win a majority, it'll be with something like 55 to 60% of the country voting against them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The poll numbers are not budging for Iggy nationally, and there is no animating issue to this campaign, all tax credits, mudslinging and spreading some corporate wealth around (to paraphrase POTUS) to students. He will lose 5-10 seats.

I don't know about you, but it appears Harper's excellent tendency to shoot himself in the foot whenever things are going well has been proven again. As soon as the election was called he immediately accused the opposition of plotting to form a coalition (instead of doing the safe and sensible thing, which is to focus on the economy). This issue might be coming back to bite him with accusations of his own coalition attempts. Expect the Liberals and NDP to seize this case and use it build their theme of a government of "contempt".

...and, of course, the Canadian electorate is a remarkably volatile thing. I mean, even the volatility during campaigns is real, unlike here.

Which isn't to say that the Tories aren't the favourites to win (and maybe win outright?), but a foregone conclusion this is not.

[bullmoose88]

But with the NDP and Libs presumably splitting the non-tory vote outside Quebec (perhaps in it too), isn't it virtually impossible for the tories not to have the most seats?

How can the NDP and Libs possibly make the case that (if the worst the Tories can do is form a minority gov't)...that they should be offered the chance to hold government...would the BQ really be a suitable ally either in coalition or for supply?

[cinyc]

Per the Montreal Gazette, the most recent Quebec polling is downright disastrous for the Liberals:

Leger Marketing:
Bloc: 39%
Conservatives: 22%
Liberals 18%
NDP: 16%

CROP:
Bloc: 38%
Conservatives: 23%
NDP: 20%
Liberals: 11%

Leger's poll was a subsample of a larger national poll.  CROP's poll was Quebec-only.  CROP's poll also shows the Tories holding their own in the Quebec City region despite opposing federal funding for a new hockey arena, trailing the Bloc by 3.

[Hatman 🍁]

I've seen the Tories trailing in Quebec City, and I see them losing a few seats there. I like the CROP poll. If the NDP is at 20% in Quebec... wow...

[MaxQue]

I've seen the Tories trailing in Quebec City, and I see them losing a few seats there. I like the CROP poll. If the NDP is at 20% in Quebec... wow...

Well, that is an interesting thing, not only saw in those polls. In general, since a few months, NDP polling in Quebec depends much on the pollster.

Federal polling, Quebec-subsample: Around 14%
Quebec polling, federal voting question (Léger Marketing and CROP): Around 20%

Why? Does asking provincial voting intention first is raising NDP votes?
It doesn't seem quite logic.

[Hatman 🍁]

I've seen the Tories trailing in Quebec City, and I see them losing a few seats there. I like the CROP poll. If the NDP is at 20% in Quebec... wow...

Well, that is an interesting thing, not only saw in those polls. In general, since a few months, NDP polling in Quebec depends much on the pollster.

Federal polling, Quebec-subsample: Around 14%
Quebec polling, federal voting question (Léger Marketing and CROP): Around 20%

Why? Does asking provincial voting intention first is raising NDP votes?
It doesn't seem quite logic.

You live in Outremont, right? What are things like there so far? the rest of the island?

[RogueBeaver]

NDP often polls well but if you check 308 it doesn't translate into seats. They'll keep Mulcair's seat and that's it.

Re contempt: polls show that the economy and healthcare are by far the most important issues. It doesn't poll well outside the Hill-verse. 62% think the economy trumps ethics, so once the PM starts discussing the economy the Liberals can keep prattling on about the irrelevant issue.

[Hash]

This thread is turning into a real hackfest.

[The Vorlon]

Per the Montreal Gazette, the most recent Quebec polling is downright disastrous for the Liberals:

Leger Marketing:
Bloc: 39%
Conservatives: 22%
Liberals 18%
NDP: 16%

CROP:
Bloc: 38%
Conservatives: 23%
NDP: 20%
Liberals: 11%

Leger's poll was a subsample of a larger national poll.  CROP's poll was Quebec-only.  CROP's poll also shows the Tories holding their own in the Quebec City region despite opposing federal funding for a new hockey arena, trailing the Bloc by 3.

Using a simple "uniform shift" model in Quebec based on the last election:

The CROP Leger poll projects:

BQ = 51
Tories 10
Dippers 2
Grits 12

The Leger Poll CROP projects:

BQ = 55 (+5)
Tories 12 (+2)
Dippers 6 (+5)
Grits 2 (-14)

The Liberals at 11% seems... deeply unlikely......

[Hash]

I regret breaking the hackfest, but here's Nanos' poll. It's the first serious reliable poll out there since EKOS/HD.

Purgatories 38.4
Libs 28.7
NDP 19.6
BQ 9.1
GRN 4.1

Nanos was best in 2006, but Angus-Reid performed best in 2008.

[The Vorlon]

I regret breaking the hackfest, but here's Nanos' poll. It's the first serious reliable poll out there since EKOS/HD.

Purgatories 38.4
Libs 28.7
NDP 19.6
BQ 9.1
GRN 4.1

Nanos was best in 2006, but Angus-Reid performed best in 2008.

For the (tiny) bit it is worth...

Punching the Nanos numbers into a regional uniform shift model suggests..

Tories:    148
Grits:        76
Bloq:         50
Dippers:    34

Why are we having an election again?

Nanos was (scary) accurate in 2006, out by a fair bit in 2008,

[bullmoose88]

Why are you having an election again...is there a serious chance that tories wouldn't be the largest party (out right majority or plurality) in the commons?

How would it work where they wouldn't be asked to form the government...and how stable/viable would that situation be?

[The Vorlon]

Why are you having an election again...is there a serious chance that tories wouldn't be the largest party (out right majority or plurality) in the commons?

How would it work where they wouldn't be asked to form the government...and how stable/viable would that situation be?

In theory....

Tradition in Canada (indeed the whole Commonwealth) is that The Governor General asks the leader of the party with the most seats to form the Government... the GG could, at least in theory, ask somebody else....

There is also precedent (not in Canada but other British Style democracies) for a so called vote of "Constructive Confidence" where multiple parties vote to create a government out of multiple parties...

In theory... The Grits, Dippers, and Bloq could do this.

In 1980 the Grits under Trudeau and the NDP under Broadbent formed a defacto coalition government though it was never "officially" a coalition.