Canadian by-elections, 2012

[Hatman 🍁]

Just this:

2nd place map:

[CalgaryManifesto]

I'll see if I have the Etobicoke and Durham data handy. I'm 5 posts away from links, so I should be able to start posting maps pretty quick here

[lilTommy]

So looks like the NDP has the highest profile candidate coming forward for the Kitchener-Waterloo by-election so far.

"Catherine Fife, trustee and chair of the Waterloo Region District School Board and president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association..."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1225356--ontario-public-school-boards-association-catherine-fife-seeks-ndp-nomination

I hate this term but, Game changer?

[Hatman 🍁]

Hmm I would be tempted to vote Tory in that by-election (only situation that I would vote "strategically", but if the NDP stands a chance at winning, then I would vote for her. Luckily I am not going to be forced to sell my soul.

[lilTommy]

I don't believe in selling my soul... i voted Pants (Pantalone) when a lot of my progressive friends were going Smithy (Smitherman) last municipal to stop Ford... ya how that turn out for us.
I think Strategic voting is always a failure... its like a one night stand, you usually just hate yourself no matter what happens

[Hatman 🍁]

I would have voted for Pantalone too. But that's different. As a social democrat, I saw Smitherman being not much better than Ford.  However in this case, I would vote strategically to help the NDP. Even if that means voting Tory. Liberal victory means the NDP loses all of their power. A Tory (or NDP) victory means the NDP holds a huge amount of power. Don't get me wrong, I loathe strategic voting, but this is probably the only justifiable time for it. 

[lilTommy]

I would have voted for Pantalone too. But that's different. As a social democrat, I saw Smitherman being not much better than Ford.  However in this case, I would vote strategically to help the NDP. Even if that means voting Tory. Liberal victory means the NDP loses all of their power. A Tory (or NDP) victory means the NDP holds a huge amount of power. Don't get me wrong, I loathe strategic voting, but this is probably the only justifiable time for it. 

Ahhh i see your point, the keep this a minority. Interesting point... i wonder if we will see PCs voting NDP with this announcement? the Tory Candidate (on paper, i don't know her) sounds weaker in terms of elected experience so... using your logic could they switch and vote NDP to keep the yet-to-be-named Liberal out?

[Hatman 🍁]

Maybe? But this minority government isn't giving the Tories much power, so, it's not as important to them. Although, keeping a minority government means an earlier provincial election, which is good for them.

BTW, the Liberals appear to have a contested nomination meeting. One of the candidates is a city councillor.

[Holmes]

ew I voted for Smitherman.

[adma]

Ahhh i see your point, the keep this a minority. Interesting point... i wonder if we will see PCs voting NDP with this announcement?

Or, more properly, Witmer voters--those who opted for the person rather than the party.  (Remember that federally, K-W hasn't been anything like the Conservative stronghold it is provincially.)

[Hatman 🍁]

ew I voted for Smitherman.

[Holmes]

ew I voted for Smitherman.

But also for Anthony Perruzza so I think that cancels out my one mistake.

[lilTommy]

ew I voted for Smitherman.

But also for Anthony Perruzza so I think that cancels out my one mistake.

... Yes, yes it does
Ahhh yes i read that, and if Karen Scian the councillor wins the Liberal Nom, then its an all female cast. Whitmer was rather moderate no? more a Davis PCer? Interesting to see where the "personal whitmer vote" will  drift to. With recent provincial polling very bad for the liberals and well a "need to win" mentallity they probably have... its going to be a battle. I might even take some time to trek up there and volunteer for the NDP, i've got a number of old ONDY friend who are still there.

[adma]

It was an all-female (4 parties) cast in 2007, too, when Fife previously bore the NDP standard.  (Only getting into high teens; but that's with Witmer an incumbent, and when the strategic electoral climate generally didn't work in the NDP's favour, whatever the credentials of the candidate.)

[lilTommy]

It was an all-female (4 parties) cast in 2007, too, when Fife previously bore the NDP standard.  (Only getting into high teens; but that's with Witmer an incumbent, and when the strategic electoral climate generally didn't work in the NDP's favour, whatever the credentials of the candidate.)

Good Catch, i thought she had run before but i just didn't look ... to Fife's credit, she was the only candidate to make gains in 2007... picking up 6% while Whitmer (-2) and the Libs (-9)... your right, this year the situation is going to be much more favourable to the NDP

[adma]

Well, the Greens made gains in 2007, too: don't forget.  (And it's also worth noting that she did better than her 2011 successor--or, for that matter, her 2011 federal counterpart.)

[mileslunn]

I think an NDP win is a longshot here simply because in the past they haven't gotten over 25% in a long time.  Even in the last federal election they scored below the provincial average although I do wonder how many of the Liberal votes were from university staff and students who voted strategically as like many university ridings, it appears the Liberals held their vote better than elsewhere.  I agree without Witmer the Tories would have had a much tougher time winning this riding and in fact probably would have not won it in the past three elections, however with the Liberals provincially doing poorly, they may still hang on, especially if there is a strong three way split.  I think the Liberals would have had a better chance in a general election than by-election as one of the questions asked will be does McGuinty deserve a majority and some who want the Liberals to win, but only with a minority would vote Liberal in a general election but not by-election at least not when one considers this will give him a majority.

[adma]

I think an NDP win is a longshot here simply because in the past they haven't gotten over 25% in a long time.  Even in the last federal election they scored below the provincial average although I do wonder how many of the Liberal votes were from university staff and students who voted strategically as like many university ridings, it appears the Liberals held their vote better than elsewhere. 

You're overlooking the huuuuge, exceptional factor in K-W federally in 2011 that skewed everything: Andrew Telegdi--who ran practically (and in a way that anticipated the present Etobicoke Centre circumstance) as a Liberal-incumbent-cheated-through-recount, hogging all the "strategic left" energy and, in a way, forcing the NDP camp into a little-more-than-nominal effort.

Had Telegdi not run, and the NDP not shoved into the margins by the Telegdi factor, it would have been much different--and K-W isn't a hyper-strategic-Liberal-into-eternity Etobicoke Centre or Don Valley West circumstance, either...

[mileslunn]

I should also note the NDP didn't do very well in Kitchener Centre either.  Cambridge is really the only area in the metro K-W area where they have a strong base.  While Telegdi no doubt helped, I should note that in both suburban Ottawa and Toronto you had several ridings without incumbents where the Liberals came in second.  Also it seems in most university area ridings the Liberals did quite well like Guelph, Kingston & the Islands (which lacked an incumbent), London North Centre, Kitchener-Waterloo and even in Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, the Liberals were quite strong around McMaster University, they just did horrible everywhere else in the riding.  My understanding is Kitchener-Waterloo has above average income as well as more educated than most ridings and that is the demographic the Liberals are usually strongest amongst, otherwise too educated to vote Tory, but too wealthy to vote NDP.

[adma]

I should also note the NDP didn't do very well in Kitchener Centre either.  Cambridge is really the only area in the metro K-W area where they have a strong base.  While Telegdi no doubt helped, I should note that in both suburban Ottawa and Toronto you had several ridings without incumbents where the Liberals came in second.  Also it seems in most university area ridings the Liberals did quite well like Guelph, Kingston & the Islands (which lacked an incumbent), London North Centre, Kitchener-Waterloo and even in Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, the Liberals were quite strong around McMaster University, they just did horrible everywhere else in the riding.  My understanding is Kitchener-Waterloo has above average income as well as more educated than most ridings and that is the demographic the Liberals are usually strongest amongst, otherwise too educated to vote Tory, but too wealthy to vote NDP.

Well, in Kitchener Centre, Karen Redman was Telegdi's "partner in crime" when it came to surprise/narrow 2008 Liberal defeatees aggressively bidding for a 2011 comeback--though with a 2008 losing margin larger than Telegdi's 17 votes and a stronger NDP challenge, it wasn't quite as bald a "strategic left" consensus in her case; but still, she skewed the KC picture as well.  And when it comes to the kind of suburban Ottawa/Toronto ridings you're alluding too: the infrastructure in place in such seats already heavily favoured the Liberals--we're talkiing about the kinds of seats where where even factoring out the AudreyAlexa terminally-single-digit era, "normal" NDP shares pre-2011 were closer to 10% than 20%.  Whereas in K-W, NDP reached high teens except when Green took a big bite in '08 (indeed, it had the *highest* NDP share in Waterloo Region in '06, higher even than Cambridge--though that may have been partly a kneejerk reaction to the Conservatives having nominated a turbanned candidate that year.)

And while you have a point about a certain sustained "university/educated class" skew t/w voting Liberal in 2011, remember that some of it had to do with a perception that Michael Ignatieff was "one of them"--in a post-Iggy era with the NDP consilidating its claim upon Official Opposition and plausible-government-in-waiting in lieu of the Liberals, it's those town'n'gown "Iggy Grits" that might be most open to sliding NDPward.

Generally speaking, K-W may be of above-average income and education--but not to the point where it's an "Oakville" or "Ottawa-Orleans" kind of riding.  It's a SW Ontario heartland riding, where under non-abnormal (i.e. non-Telegdi) circumstances NDP pars tend to be higher.  A lot of it is affluent; but a lot of it isn't--student-class, and even a fair-sized and very NDP-amenable blue-collar element in North Kitchener.

Provincially speaking: yes, Witmer won in 1990; but within these boundaries (thank North Kitchener!) the seat would have gone NDP.  And the reason for Witmer winning in an otherwise NDP year had more to do with 1990 being more of an "anti-Liberal" than "pro-NDP" vote per se, and Witmer had already gotten her foot in the door as a "non-Liberal replacement-MPP-in-making" through a strong if futile 1987 bid.  If Witmer weren't the PC placeholder, her seat, too, might have gone with the province-wide NDP flow.

Right now, we're talking about the NDP (federal and provincial alike) on a roll--and if there's a candidate perfectly expressive of that fact for K-W, it's Fife, who could very easily assemble a grand coalition of "Witmer Tories" and "Iggy/Telegdi Liberals" en route to victory--and as with Witmer in 1987, Fife in 2007 could be seen as a foreboding dress rehearsal for a future open seat.  (Even if she was third rather than second; but such was the state of the ONDP in 2007.)

It isn't that she absolutely will win; it's that she should be taken absolutely seriously as a contender.

[lilTommy]

I wouldn't call KW necessarily SWON but its definetly got much of the same characteristics... i'd call it that transition zone between the GTA and SWON... Historically (90s) it was very working class, germanic/white, auto/industrial (Cambridge in particular)... but since then RIM helped boots it to be a very Yuppie/hi-tech super boom area that one woul think votes Liberal and well with the Gov't for the most part (as you can see the seats now are moslty gov't or Liberal Guelph being the standout). Yes it has its relative affluence but also i'd say a growing commutter population since housing is way less then in TO.
My point, I agree with adma; in today's politics on ON the NDP can't be counted out especially with a solid candidate and a by-election. Some things we can't forget about the atmosphere this by-election:
- Liberals polling consistently in third provincewide
- A number of bad news stories recently (Liberal party called for cancelling gas plant not the gov't) looks like vote buying.
- RIM is not the same RIM as 2007; there have been many job losses, mostly in the KW area
- the Liberal post-sec. EDU plank is being skuered by student's... the qualifications for this 40% business is so specific, most won't get it.
- The NPD rise fed/Prov; Andrea is in KW almost on a weekly basis (from my FB KW friends) and i'd bet there is a push to get Mulcair to visit.
- The PC's in opposition: they have been terrible, not relevant during the budget, zero media coverage it was and since then has been a Lib/NDP fight in most media outlets (for good or bad). They looked opportunistic supporting the NDP motions, in fact voting against their election platform... will they be called out on that in this by-election? They should be.

This is going to be a three-way race and i think its will come down to do the liberals deserve a majority? If no, then is the NDP or the PC best suited to win.

[adma]

I wouldn't call KW necessarily SWON but its definetly got much of the same characteristics... i'd call it that transition zone between the GTA and SWON... Historically (90s) it was very working class, germanic/white, auto/industrial (Cambridge in particular)... but since then RIM helped boots it to be a very Yuppie/hi-tech super boom area that one woul think votes Liberal and well with the Gov't for the most part (as you can see the seats now are moslty gov't or Liberal Guelph being the standout). Yes it has its relative affluence but also i'd say a growing commutter population since housing is way less then in TO.

RIM and high-tech notwithstanding, I still wouldn't bunch K-W (or even Guelph, for that matter) up w/the GTA--and besides, in a post-Orange Crush environment when old easy-pigeonholes of "NDP constituency" have been rendered archaic, apparent yuppieism or GTA-commuterism isn't necessarily a barrier to real or latent NDP support.  After all, Cambridge has been subject to the same demographic forces as K-W and Guelph; and yet the NDP has swung back to a clear federal second place there, and the ONDP nearly turned it into a 3-way marginal.

And besides, once again, when it comes to Guelph or K-W federally, the Liberalism (and perhaps, too, the impression thereof as grandfathered down provincially last year) was more out of circumstance than out of "natural conviction" (other than the town'n'gown "Iggy Liberal" phenomenon).  With Guelph, we had the rare circumstance of a SW Ontario seat that stayed Liberal in '08--one of only two such seats west of Peel Region--and yet, that was a under-third-of-the-vote circumstance squeezed out of a chaotic 4-way-race situation.  No matter; the Liberals went into 2011 as incumbent, and under a whole lot of pressure thanks to the '08 result they soaked up all the "strategic left" energy, decimating the once-competitive Greens and knocking the NDP beneath their 04-06 share.  None of this had anything to do with "GTAification".

Keep in mind that in the 2011 federal disaster, by the time E-day rolled around the Liberals were basically reduced to supertargeting four SW Ontario seats: salvaging Guelph and London NC, and taking back those two Kitchener-area seats (with the former seatholders) which they unexpectedly lost in '08.  They only batted 1 for 4; but those were the only SW Ontario seats where they surpassed 30% (or even a quarter) of the vote.

Incidentally, may I correct an earlier point: while it had the highest NDP vote tally, K-W did *not* have Waterloo Region's highest NDP share in '06--it fell short of Kitchener Centre by half a percentage point.  (But it's worth noting that Kitchener Centre's candidate in '04 and '06, Richard Walsh-Bowers, ran as an independent in K-W in 2011--perhaps further depressing the NDP vote through perceptions of a schism, versus the "solid front" behind Telegdi.)

[adma]

Also with consideration of the whole "affluent demo" question: true, there are big swaths of suburban Waterloo that are ordinarily disinclined (even by 1990 standards) to vote NDP.  However, we're dealing with a situation where the PCs are the incumbent party (and on top of the provincial polls); yet the "inclination" is more Liberal/Red Tory moderate (and therefore indisposed to Randy Hillier-ish excesses).  With that under consideration, the NDP could well prevail over a "split right", sweeping a whole lot of North Kitchener and downtown Waterloo polls as the other parties cancel themselves out elsewhere...

[RogueBeaver]

Bev Oda is now officially out. Good riddance.

[adma]

Incidentally, while I haven't yet done a provincial 2011 divvying-up, here's a federal 2011 divvying-up of Kitchener-Waterloo--rough, un-double-checked figures, and using strictly e-day regular and "400" polls (but not "500" polls, or advance or special polls)

laurelwood--Con 1970 (44.32), Lib 1620 (36.45), NDP 663 (14.92), GP 161 (3.62), PP 24 (.54), Ind 4 (.09), ML 3 (.07)
rummelhardt--Con 1878 (44.28), Lib 1608 (37.92), NDP 564 (13.30), GP 175 (4.13), PP 6 (.14), Ind 6 (.14), ML 4 (.09)
northfield--Con 2256 (43.68), Lib 1677 (32.47), NDP 926 (17.93), GP 262 (5.07), PP 19 (.37), Ind 16 (.31), ML 9 (.17)
lexington--Con 4491 (47.81), Lib 3060 (32.57), NDP 1405 (14.96), GP 386 (4.11), Ind 22 (.23), PP 20 (.21), ML 10 (.11)
university--Lib 1193 (41.77), Con 790 (27.66), NDP 662 (23.18), GP 162 (5.67), PP 31 (1.09), Ind 13 (.46), ML 5 (.18)
ec waterloo--Lib 2534 (37.54), Con 2522 (37.36), NDP 1240 (18.37), GP 394 (5.84), PP 30 (.44), Ind 24 (.36), ML 6 (.09)
beechwood--Lib 1296 (46.50), Con 975 (34.98), NDP 380 (13.63), GP 117 (4.20), PP 12 (.43), Ind 6 (.22), ML 1 (.04)
wc waterloo--Lib 1380 (47.21), Con 901 (30.82), NDP 393 (13.45), GP 231 (7.90), PP 12 (.41), Ind 5 (.17), ML 1 (.03)
westvale--Con 1598 (42.26), Lib 1362 (36.02), NDP 624 (16.50), GP 176 (4.65), PP 11 (.29), Ind 6 (.16), ML 4 (.11)
nw kitchener--Con 1777 (44.58), Lib 1187 (29.78), NDP 870 (21.83), GP 119 (2.99), PP 14 (.35), Ind 13 (.33), ML 6 (.15)
nc kitchener--Lib 1266 (37.85), Con 1116 (33.36), NDP 674 (20.15), GP 250 (7.47), PP 19 (.57), Ind 15 (.45), ML 5 (.15)
ne kitchener--Con 1202 (38.98), NDP 837 (27.14), Lib 834 (27.04), GP 171 (5.54), PP 22 (.71). Ind 16 (.52), ML 2 (.06)
bridgeport--Con 870 (53.21), Lib 364 (22.26), NDP 326 (19.94), GP 62 (3.79), PP 7 (.43), Ind 4 (.24), ML 2 (.12)