Canada General Discussion: Trudeau II

[MaxQue]

Scheer isn't helping himself every time he harps on and on about the Agha Khan, as if anyone south of Queensway cares.

What should he be pushing exactly? Liberal corruption sounds like a winning issue to me.

The issue is than nobody I know thinks of that when they think of Liberal corruption.

[Hatman 🍁]

Scheer isn't helping himself every time he harps on and on about the Agha Khan, as if anyone south of Queensway cares.

Heh. That's the first time I've head the Quensway used the in same way as "The Beltway".

[136or142]

Actually, I'd like to get the rooms opinion on this.

What issues/strategies should Scheer and Singh be pushing from now until the writ drops?

Symbolism over substance seems to be the biggest thing the public has concerns about.

As I wrote previously though, Canadian conservatives are in every bit as much of a bubble as American ones and they want red meat.

[Kingpoleon]

Apparently one of the claims against JT is that he had a consensual relationship with a male conservative staffer, and that both parties were aware during the 2015 election. If that's really it, this is a nothingburger.

If true, he was cheating on his wife, so that's got to count for something... *sigh* who am I kidding, you're probably right.

I remember reading sketchy rumours about Obama and Rahm Emanuel hitting the bath houses in Chicago, or Obama being lovers with his Pakistani college roommate. They were all BS, but still funny to read.

> sketchy
> rumors


Pick one.

[136or142]

While I never want to make any firm predictions considering how often the unexpected has happened, I see a Conservative majority is extremely unlikely.  Minority perhaps (but I suspect the NDP and Liberals would gang up them to keep them out).  The best case scenario for the Tories, albeit not most likely, is around 150 seats, otherwise 7 in Atlantic Canada, hold what they have in Quebec, 60 seats in Ontario, 20 seats in Saskatchewan/Manitoba, 32 seats in Alberta, and 20 seats in British Columbia.  Obviously they will likely do worse, but if the Liberals continue to mess up and the Tories have a strong platform and campaign, I see this as their best case scenario. 

There's still time for a major scandal or the economy to take a downturn, but assuming neither of those happen, the trickle of unforced Liberal errors won't be good for anymore than a Tory minority and probably not even that. Eyeballing the polls, it looks like the Tories will take back a decent number of seats from the Liberals in Anglo Canada, but the Liberals will more or less break even by swallowing the NDP and Bloc Quebecois in Quebec.

Someone needs to emerge as a clear runner up in Quebec to force a minority (assuming the Tories don't pick up the pace in the ROC). The Liberals will run the table in Quebec if the polls hold and the result is something like 45-15-15-15

With Andrew Scheer Stupidity as Conservative Party leader.  I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservatives lose another 20-30 seats in the next election.

[mileslunn]

While I never want to make any firm predictions considering how often the unexpected has happened, I see a Conservative majority is extremely unlikely.  Minority perhaps (but I suspect the NDP and Liberals would gang up them to keep them out).  The best case scenario for the Tories, albeit not most likely, is around 150 seats, otherwise 7 in Atlantic Canada, hold what they have in Quebec, 60 seats in Ontario, 20 seats in Saskatchewan/Manitoba, 32 seats in Alberta, and 20 seats in British Columbia.  Obviously they will likely do worse, but if the Liberals continue to mess up and the Tories have a strong platform and campaign, I see this as their best case scenario. 

There's still time for a major scandal or the economy to take a downturn, but assuming neither of those happen, the trickle of unforced Liberal errors won't be good for anymore than a Tory minority and probably not even that. Eyeballing the polls, it looks like the Tories will take back a decent number of seats from the Liberals in Anglo Canada, but the Liberals will more or less break even by swallowing the NDP and Bloc Quebecois in Quebec.

Someone needs to emerge as a clear runner up in Quebec to force a minority (assuming the Tories don't pick up the pace in the ROC). The Liberals will run the table in Quebec if the polls hold and the result is something like 45-15-15-15

With Andrew Scheer Stupidity as Conservative Party leader.  I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservatives lose another 20-30 seats in the next election.

Possible but the Tories are more or less down to their core now so I still think modest gains are more likely than losses.  While harping on the scandal may seem silly and most may not care, generally that is what opposition parties do, their job is not to be nice to the government but to go after their weaknesses.  Governments never lose on single issues, its when enough baggage develops.  At the moment the Liberals need a lot more baggage to lose, but as an opposition your goal is to speed that up.  The real problem the Tories face is with the NDP weakness it will likely be a two way race so even if they won 130 seats (not saying they will not just saying what if) they would still remain in opposition and the Liberals even at that could still get a majority.

[mileslunn]

Actually, I'd like to get the rooms opinion on this.

What issues/strategies should Scheer and Singh be pushing from now until the writ drops?

I would say you should still go after those.  Saying no one cares is simply not true.  A more accurate statement is one scandal won't move the needle much, but if it happens repeatedly it will.  So its more you establish a pattern of behavior than one off.  Also Scheer and Singh need to develop policies but at the same time don't reveal too many now as any popular one they propose, the Liberals will just adopt so that is why you keep the powder dry until closer to the election so the Liberals cannot react.

For the NDP I would recommend the following.  Run on a truly progressive platform and focus on creating a new national program, I think pharmacare would be a good one or perhaps even guaranteed annual income or something along those lines.  Otherwise don't get to caught up on bringing PR or other left wing causes, focus on pocket book issues that will help those left behind.  Also promise to close the stock option loophole which the Liberals promised but haven't done yet and make affordability and helping those left behind the main theme.  Trudeau is appearing fairly left wing, but a lot of that is more talk than action.

For the Conservatives I would focus on fiscal responsibility and the upcoming economic challenges.  Otherwise things like lower taxes and balanced budgets for sure but those alone won't be enough.  Instead I think issues like an aging population, automation they should think of conservative solutions.  They could go the cultural wars route as I do get a sense seem feel Trudeau is pushing too far on the PC front, but that is extremely risky and go easily blow up in their face.  I think rather bold economic ideas that involve smaller government but will help create strong growth is where they should go.  Erin O'Toole, Andrew Saxton, Michael Chong, and Maxime Bernier all had much more detailed plans so use some of those.  Also Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta elections will be interesting as they can learn from those.  If the Ontario PCs, CAQ, and UCP win (not a given but quite possible) they should probably try and adopt some of their more popular policies while if they lose figure out why and stay away from those.

[2952-0-0]

Scheer isn't helping himself every time he harps on and on about the Agha Khan, as if anyone south of Queensway cares.

What should he be pushing exactly? Liberal corruption sounds like a winning issue to me.

Nobody ever explained what was the quid pro quo in exchange for the vacation, and the polls show that voters have simply tuned out.

Scheer should, if he is cunning, learn from Harper's ruthlessness and willingness to silence his backbenchers whose bozo eruptions doomed the 2004 Conservative campaign. But the landscape will be even worse than in 2004, since the Liberals will be eager to attack him as Harper-lite. Worse, they could attack him as Trump-lite, a charge that he will find hard to refute without alienating his base.

Before anyone says the Conservatives are at their bottom and could only go back up, keep in mind that the Liberals were in the exact same position a decade ago (30% of the vote, 100 or so seats, a leadership race that leads to an upset by a not-a-leader who goes on to lose byelections to the government). And frankly, when they're actually posting nonsense like this, it doesn't look like they really understand why they're where they are.

The NDP should appeal to those who voted Liberal and feel disappointed at a government that is basically Harper-lite with a smile. They could point out that some of Canada's biggest social achievements were done under a Liberal minority that depended on NDP support, and make inroads in inner-city ridings to at least offset their expected losses in Quebec.

[mileslunn]

Scheer isn't helping himself every time he harps on and on about the Agha Khan, as if anyone south of Queensway cares.

What should he be pushing exactly? Liberal corruption sounds like a winning issue to me.

Nobody ever explained what was the quid pro quo in exchange for the vacation, and the polls show that voters have simply tuned out.

Scheer should, if he is cunning, learn from Harper's ruthlessness and willingness to silence his backbenchers whose bozo eruptions doomed the 2004 Conservative campaign. But the landscape will be even worse than in 2004, since the Liberals will be eager to attack him as Harper-lite. Worse, they could attack him as Trump-lite, a charge that he will find hard to refute without alienating his base.

Before anyone says the Conservatives are at their bottom and could only go back up, keep in mind that the Liberals were in the exact same position a decade ago (30% of the vote, 100 or so seats, a leadership race that leads to an upset by a not-a-leader who goes on to lose byelections to the government). And frankly, when they're actually posting nonsense like this, it doesn't look like they really understand why they're where they are.

The NDP should appeal to those who voted Liberal and feel disappointed at a government that is basically Harper-lite with a smile. They could point out that some of Canada's biggest social achievements were done under a Liberal minority that depended on NDP support, and make inroads in inner-city ridings to at least offset their expected losses in Quebec.

Agreed Scheer needs to control the bozos.  As for going lower, possible but the problem is the Liberals are a centrist party Tories on the right and Trudeau running on a left wing platform so if you are on the right you have nowhere else to go unless it splits again.  Now perhaps many on the moderate right might stay home.  The Liberals by contrast essentially had their progressive flank go over to the NDP and right flank go over to the Conservatives.  Not saying Conservatives cannot lose, just saying I think Canada is a left leaning country, but I wouldn't say its overwhelmingly left wing, there still is a sizeable minority on the political right and at the moment they only have one political option. 

As for the vacation, I don't think it hurt the Liberals much in the polls but one scandal never brings down a government.  You make the most of it since if it becomes a repeated pattern it does become politically devastating.  Some seem to be saying the Tories should just shut up and I don't think that is the way to go.  Opposition is not there to be singing the praises of Trudeau and there is a sizeable chunk albeit minority on the right who are unhappy with Trudeau so its important to have a party speak for them.  In terms of support the reason I think they are more likely to gain than lose is more regional breakdown.

Atlantic Canada: Tories can only go in one direction and while I doubt they will pose much of a challenge to the Liberals there, I suspect they will win a few seats next time around although unless the Liberals do something stupid far less than the Liberals.

Quebec:  Agreed Liberals should gain here and Tories could lose some here, but probably won't get shut out.

Ontario: Could go either way although lets remember rural Ontario pretty much always goes conservative unless the right is divided like in the 90s so things would have to go really badly to lose more than 10 seats here and that would mean losing in many traditional strongholds.  By contrast a slight uptick and slightly better splits would pick up a whole whack of seats (They had many strong second finishes throughout the province) but will be tough to pull ahead of the Liberals and even if they did beat the Liberals here, probably just a Liberal minority due to Liberal gains in Quebec sort of like 1972.

Prairies: Could lose a few urban seats but could gain a few but would be surprised if the change is more than +/-5 in either direction.  Rural parts of the Prairies except the two northern ridings are solidly conservative so don't see that changing.

British Columbia: Could lose although from historical perspectives they are now at rock bottom, but there is some signs millennials are much more progressive than older generations so maybe a generational change.  Also NDP and Greens are strong so BC has better splits never mind if you look at provincial politics, the centre-right BC Liberals still won almost half the seats so winning back the Interior and some of the more affluent Lower Mainland ridings is certainly possible but agree winning more than half of the seats in BC unlikely although BC is quite unpredictable and wacky in its federal voting patterns so tough to predict.  The Reform/Alliance did quite well in the 90s even when the province went NDP provincially.

[mileslunn]

Actually, I'd like to get the rooms opinion on this.

What issues/strategies should Scheer and Singh be pushing from now until the writ drops?

Symbolism over substance seems to be the biggest thing the public has concerns about.

As I wrote previously though, Canadian conservatives are in every bit as much of a bubble as American ones and they want red meat.

True enough but if Scheer was smart he would do what Patrick Brown did and flip flop.  Will anger the base but they have nowhere else to go.  Definitely right the red meat policies sell well to the base but not the general public although even though Scheer's history suggests he is pretty right wing as Harper did its not that hard to convince the public you aren't provided you run on a more centrist platform.  Liberal attack ads will portray him like that and if he takes the bait or has many bozo eruptions (Hudak 2014 or Harper 2004) it will work very well.  But if he doesn't take the bait could smack of desperation (Harper 2006) nonetheless in 2006 Liberals had been in power for 13 years and people were ready for change whereas after 4 years people rarely turf a government unless they screw up badly.

[136or142]

While I never want to make any firm predictions considering how often the unexpected has happened, I see a Conservative majority is extremely unlikely.  Minority perhaps (but I suspect the NDP and Liberals would gang up them to keep them out).  The best case scenario for the Tories, albeit not most likely, is around 150 seats, otherwise 7 in Atlantic Canada, hold what they have in Quebec, 60 seats in Ontario, 20 seats in Saskatchewan/Manitoba, 32 seats in Alberta, and 20 seats in British Columbia.  Obviously they will likely do worse, but if the Liberals continue to mess up and the Tories have a strong platform and campaign, I see this as their best case scenario. 

There's still time for a major scandal or the economy to take a downturn, but assuming neither of those happen, the trickle of unforced Liberal errors won't be good for anymore than a Tory minority and probably not even that. Eyeballing the polls, it looks like the Tories will take back a decent number of seats from the Liberals in Anglo Canada, but the Liberals will more or less break even by swallowing the NDP and Bloc Quebecois in Quebec.

Someone needs to emerge as a clear runner up in Quebec to force a minority (assuming the Tories don't pick up the pace in the ROC). The Liberals will run the table in Quebec if the polls hold and the result is something like 45-15-15-15

With Andrew Scheer Stupidity as Conservative Party leader.  I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservatives lose another 20-30 seats in the next election.

Possible but the Tories are more or less down to their core now so I still think modest gains are more likely than losses.  While harping on the scandal may seem silly and most may not care, generally that is what opposition parties do, their job is not to be nice to the government but to go after their weaknesses.  Governments never lose on single issues, its when enough baggage develops.  At the moment the Liberals need a lot more baggage to lose, but as an opposition your goal is to speed that up.  The real problem the Tories face is with the NDP weakness it will likely be a two way race so even if they won 130 seats (not saying they will not just saying what if) they would still remain in opposition and the Liberals even at that could still get a majority.

About half of the Conservatives 33 seats are in the 905 (I think four) and 12 or so are in South West Ontario (as I describe them, the London to Windsor region and the Kitchener to Niagara region.)  Of course the Conservatives have support in South West Ontario, but the are usually very competitive ridings, except for the most rural ridings.  Pierre Polievre's riding in Ottawa I think is winnable as well.

I think the NDP could knock of Brad Trost in Saskatchewan.

In British Columbia, the Conservative held ridings of Richmond, Cariboo-Prince George, Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo and maybe Langley-Aldergrove are all possible pick up opportunities for the Liberals.

I'm less knowledgeable about opportunities for the other parties in Alberta or Quebec.

Of course, this isn't to say that the Conservatives will lose any riding, but after the 2006 election, the Liberals continued to lose seats for a couple elections and I don't think by any means the Conservatives are down to just their core ridings.

[Hatman 🍁]

While I never want to make any firm predictions considering how often the unexpected has happened, I see a Conservative majority is extremely unlikely.  Minority perhaps (but I suspect the NDP and Liberals would gang up them to keep them out).  The best case scenario for the Tories, albeit not most likely, is around 150 seats, otherwise 7 in Atlantic Canada, hold what they have in Quebec, 60 seats in Ontario, 20 seats in Saskatchewan/Manitoba, 32 seats in Alberta, and 20 seats in British Columbia.  Obviously they will likely do worse, but if the Liberals continue to mess up and the Tories have a strong platform and campaign, I see this as their best case scenario. 

There's still time for a major scandal or the economy to take a downturn, but assuming neither of those happen, the trickle of unforced Liberal errors won't be good for anymore than a Tory minority and probably not even that. Eyeballing the polls, it looks like the Tories will take back a decent number of seats from the Liberals in Anglo Canada, but the Liberals will more or less break even by swallowing the NDP and Bloc Quebecois in Quebec.

Someone needs to emerge as a clear runner up in Quebec to force a minority (assuming the Tories don't pick up the pace in the ROC). The Liberals will run the table in Quebec if the polls hold and the result is something like 45-15-15-15

With Andrew Scheer Stupidity as Conservative Party leader.  I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservatives lose another 20-30 seats in the next election.

Possible but the Tories are more or less down to their core now so I still think modest gains are more likely than losses.  While harping on the scandal may seem silly and most may not care, generally that is what opposition parties do, their job is not to be nice to the government but to go after their weaknesses.  Governments never lose on single issues, its when enough baggage develops.  At the moment the Liberals need a lot more baggage to lose, but as an opposition your goal is to speed that up.  The real problem the Tories face is with the NDP weakness it will likely be a two way race so even if they won 130 seats (not saying they will not just saying what if) they would still remain in opposition and the Liberals even at that could still get a majority.

I think the NDP could knock of Brad Trost in Saskatchewan.

Hilarious to think that Trost's riding name has "University" in its name.

[mileslunn]

While I never want to make any firm predictions considering how often the unexpected has happened, I see a Conservative majority is extremely unlikely.  Minority perhaps (but I suspect the NDP and Liberals would gang up them to keep them out).  The best case scenario for the Tories, albeit not most likely, is around 150 seats, otherwise 7 in Atlantic Canada, hold what they have in Quebec, 60 seats in Ontario, 20 seats in Saskatchewan/Manitoba, 32 seats in Alberta, and 20 seats in British Columbia.  Obviously they will likely do worse, but if the Liberals continue to mess up and the Tories have a strong platform and campaign, I see this as their best case scenario.  

There's still time for a major scandal or the economy to take a downturn, but assuming neither of those happen, the trickle of unforced Liberal errors won't be good for anymore than a Tory minority and probably not even that. Eyeballing the polls, it looks like the Tories will take back a decent number of seats from the Liberals in Anglo Canada, but the Liberals will more or less break even by swallowing the NDP and Bloc Quebecois in Quebec.

Someone needs to emerge as a clear runner up in Quebec to force a minority (assuming the Tories don't pick up the pace in the ROC). The Liberals will run the table in Quebec if the polls hold and the result is something like 45-15-15-15

With Andrew Scheer Stupidity as Conservative Party leader.  I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservatives lose another 20-30 seats in the next election.

Possible but the Tories are more or less down to their core now so I still think modest gains are more likely than losses.  While harping on the scandal may seem silly and most may not care, generally that is what opposition parties do, their job is not to be nice to the government but to go after their weaknesses.  Governments never lose on single issues, its when enough baggage develops.  At the moment the Liberals need a lot more baggage to lose, but as an opposition your goal is to speed that up.  The real problem the Tories face is with the NDP weakness it will likely be a two way race so even if they won 130 seats (not saying they will not just saying what if) they would still remain in opposition and the Liberals even at that could still get a majority.

About half of the Conservatives 33 seats are in the 905 (I think four) and 12 or so are in South West Ontario (as I describe them, the London to Windsor region and the Kitchener to Niagara region.)  Of course the Conservatives have support in South West Ontario, but the are usually very competitive ridings, except for the most rural ridings.  Pierre Polievre's riding in Ottawa I think is winnable as well.

I think the NDP could knock of Brad Trost in Saskatchewan.

In British Columbia, the Conservative held ridings of Richmond, Cariboo-Prince George, Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo and maybe Langley-Aldergrove are all possible pick up opportunities for the Liberals.

I'm less knowledgeable about opportunities for the other parties in Alberta or Quebec.

Of course, this isn't to say that the Conservatives will lose any riding, but after the 2006 election, the Liberals continued to lose seats for a couple elections and I don't think by any means the Conservatives are down to just their core ridings.

Of the 905 ones, Durham, York-Simcoe, Dufferin-Caledon, and Wellington-Halton Hills are all fairly rural so unless something dramatic happens don't see those flipping.  Oshawa could go NDP but won't go Liberal.  Markham-Unionville is winneable and actually I was surprised the Tories held that one.  Thornhill was their best showing in Ontario, mind you it is heavily Jewish and Harper's pro-Israel stance was popular so be interesting to see if Scheer holds the Jewish vote like Harper was able to.  Milton probably would have gone Liberal had it not been for Lisa Raitt mind you all four Halton ridings were fairly close so anything from the Liberals sweeping all four to the Tories sweeping all four seems possible to me.  Flamborough-Glanbrook is fairly rural at the moment but depending on how many new subdivisions are added might be more competitive.  Niagara West is a safe Conservative one.  Niagara Falls could flip, a lot will depend if Rob Nicholson runs again or not.  If he runs then it should stay Tory, but if he steps down could flip.  In Central Ontario, Barrie-Oro Medonte-Springwater is the only one I could see them losing.  In Southwestern Ontario, most of the ridings they won were rural.  The only ones that have large urban components were Kitchener-Conestoga, Brantford-Brant, and Sarnia-Lambton and even in those the Tories tend to run up the margins in the rural parts but definitely could see those three flipping, but that is about it.  Pierre Polievere's riding went over 60% Tory in 2011 and even Hudak cracked the 50% mark so asides from the 2015 election, its one of the safest seats in Ontario.  A lot of civil servants were mad at Harper so you saw a stronger swing in the National Capital Region than elsewhere but how things will go going forward is tough to say.  His riding is also more rural than suburban so a lot will depend on how many new subdivisions get built as each new one benefits the Liberals.

In terms of Brad Trost, he can be defeated but only if there is a strong level of strategic voting.  His riding does include areas where the Saskatchewan Party got over 70% last provincial election and the more affluent parts of Saskatoon.  Nonetheless that was when Brad Wall was still widely popular and Brad Trost's extreme views just might cost him the riding.

In BC, all the ridings mentioned could flip although if you look at the history of BC, the Tories had their worst showing since 1968 and they've never performed that poorly in two back to back elections.

I think the bigger reason why the Liberal decline after 2006 cannot be applied here is where do they go.  The NDP under Layton was fairly moderate so he could pick up off many left leaning Liberals while the Tories while Harper had a minority also were pretty moderate so he could pick off many Blue Liberals.  He only turned rightward once he got a majority and most of those Blue Liberals ditched him then.  By contrast right now, Trudeau is a left leaning not Blue Liberal so if you are on the political right you won't be voting Liberal or NDP.  Otherwise I think the country as a whole leans to the left, but I don't think it's 75% or 80% left wing.  I think you've always had at least 30% who are on the right side of the political spectrum and thus the only way to push the Tories below that is if the right splits like it did in the 90s or if the federal Liberals become like the BC Liberals, a pro free enterprise coalition and I see neither happening.  Lets remember Liberals in 1988 and PCs in 1997 all rebounded after their massive defeat the year before so historically when parties lose usually they tend to rebound although not enough to defeat the government.  Liberals declining was an exception to the rule.

Now not saying the Tories cannot lose seats, they most certainly can, just saying they are pretty close to the core so they have to mess up really badly to fall much further.  

[Njall]

While I never want to make any firm predictions considering how often the unexpected has happened, I see a Conservative majority is extremely unlikely.  Minority perhaps (but I suspect the NDP and Liberals would gang up them to keep them out).  The best case scenario for the Tories, albeit not most likely, is around 150 seats, otherwise 7 in Atlantic Canada, hold what they have in Quebec, 60 seats in Ontario, 20 seats in Saskatchewan/Manitoba, 32 seats in Alberta, and 20 seats in British Columbia.  Obviously they will likely do worse, but if the Liberals continue to mess up and the Tories have a strong platform and campaign, I see this as their best case scenario. 

There's still time for a major scandal or the economy to take a downturn, but assuming neither of those happen, the trickle of unforced Liberal errors won't be good for anymore than a Tory minority and probably not even that. Eyeballing the polls, it looks like the Tories will take back a decent number of seats from the Liberals in Anglo Canada, but the Liberals will more or less break even by swallowing the NDP and Bloc Quebecois in Quebec.

Someone needs to emerge as a clear runner up in Quebec to force a minority (assuming the Tories don't pick up the pace in the ROC). The Liberals will run the table in Quebec if the polls hold and the result is something like 45-15-15-15

With Andrew Scheer Stupidity as Conservative Party leader.  I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservatives lose another 20-30 seats in the next election.

Possible but the Tories are more or less down to their core now so I still think modest gains are more likely than losses.  While harping on the scandal may seem silly and most may not care, generally that is what opposition parties do, their job is not to be nice to the government but to go after their weaknesses.  Governments never lose on single issues, its when enough baggage develops.  At the moment the Liberals need a lot more baggage to lose, but as an opposition your goal is to speed that up.  The real problem the Tories face is with the NDP weakness it will likely be a two way race so even if they won 130 seats (not saying they will not just saying what if) they would still remain in opposition and the Liberals even at that could still get a majority.

About half of the Conservatives 33 seats are in the 905 (I think four) and 12 or so are in South West Ontario (as I describe them, the London to Windsor region and the Kitchener to Niagara region.)  Of course the Conservatives have support in South West Ontario, but the are usually very competitive ridings, except for the most rural ridings.  Pierre Polievre's riding in Ottawa I think is winnable as well.

I think the NDP could knock of Brad Trost in Saskatchewan.

In British Columbia, the Conservative held ridings of Richmond, Cariboo-Prince George, Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola, Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo and maybe Langley-Aldergrove are all possible pick up opportunities for the Liberals.

I'm less knowledgeable about opportunities for the other parties in Alberta or Quebec.

Of course, this isn't to say that the Conservatives will lose any riding, but after the 2006 election, the Liberals continued to lose seats for a couple elections and I don't think by any means the Conservatives are down to just their core ridings.

Opportunities for non-Conservative parties in Alberta:

In Edmonton, the most realistic target would be Edmonton Griesbach for the NDP. Kerry Diotte of the CPC, who hasn't turned out to be the most effective/well-liked MP, only won the riding with 40% of the vote. Janis Irwin of the NDP had been seen as a possible winner here, but the LPC's surge later in the election led the vote to split 34% NDP and 22% LPC. The riding overlaps with provincial NDP strong areas as well, so if the progressive vote consolidates around the NDP in this riding in 2019, it would be winnable. The rest of Edmonton will be much trickier.

In Calgary, the most obvious target would be Calgary Confederation for the LPC. The LPC's Matt Grant only lost here by 2.5% to Len Webber in 2019, and like Diotte in Edmonton, Webber has not proved to be the most effective MP. Calgary Forest Lawn also has the potential to become competitive in the future, with longtime CPC incumbent Deepak Obhrai having only been able to take 48% of the vote in 2015, but will likely still go CPC in 2019. I would be very surprised if any of the remaining 6 Calgary ridings currently held by the CPC became competitive at any point soon.

[RogueBeaver]

More women are accusing Stoffer of sexual harassment, dating back almost 20 years.

[DC Al Fine]

As for the vacation, I don't think it hurt the Liberals much in the polls but one scandal never brings down a government.  You make the most of it since if it becomes a repeated pattern it does become politically devastating.  Some seem to be saying the Tories should just shut up and I don't think that is the way to go.  Opposition is not there to be singing the praises of Trudeau

snip

Miles touches on the point I was trying to make. This board and many analysts seems to have two biases when assessing Scheer's performance (and Singh and Trudeau's but it seems to come up most often with Scheer); progressive bias, and political junkie bias.

The progressive bias is not understanding that the Tories face a different calculus from the Liberals and therefore will behave in a puzzling manner to many progressives. A party with a low ceiling that needs to turn out a large base alienated from the other parties is very different from being a centrist party with a smaller base but a much higher ceiling. To apply this to the Aga Khan case: so what if there is no smoking gun? It keeps the base motivated and has the added benefit of not being prone to "bozo eruptions" like say an immigration gaffe would be.

The other side of progressive (or conservative in many cases) bias is saying things are bad politics because one doesn't like them. Take the Khadr settlement for example. I read many columns in the media and posts on Atlas discussing how the Tories were discussing non issues or risking backlash by attacking the settlement despite the bulk of Canadians opposing the decision, including a majority of Liberal and NDP supporters. This language seemed based on opposition to the Tories position rather than a rational evaluation of the Tories political strategy.

Lastly is political junkie bias; judging things as people who obsessively follow the Hill, and not the average voter who isn't particularly interested in politics. We sometimes think politicians should focus on policies that few people care about, or scandals that are too intricate to gain much traction. "Trudeau takes taxpayer funded vacation with lobbyist" or "Trudeau promotes middle class tax cut" are both easy to digest. The in and out scandal or anything to do with parliamentary procedure is not.

Case in point:

The NDP should appeal to those who voted Liberal and feel disappointed at a government that is basically Harper-lite with a smile. They could point out that some of Canada's biggest social achievements were done under a Liberal minority that depended on NDP support, and make inroads in inner-city ridings to at least offset their expected losses in Quebec.

Citing the Pearson and Trudeau Sr. administrations to win votes in 2018? You'd have to be collecting CPP now to even remember the administration that created it. Perhaps the Tories should win back their seats in Calgary by attacking the NEP . People's memories just aren't that long, nor are most folks that interested in policy. That's why opposition parties like focusing on scandal.

[2952-0-0]

Miles touches on the point I was trying to make. This board and many analysts seems to have two biases when assessing Scheer's performance (and Singh and Trudeau's but it seems to come up most often with Scheer); progressive bias, and political junkie bias.

The progressive bias is not understanding that the Tories face a different calculus from the Liberals and therefore will behave in a puzzling manner to many progressives. A party with a low ceiling that needs to turn out a large base alienated from the other parties is very different from being a centrist party with a smaller base but a much higher ceiling. To apply this to the Aga Khan case: so what if there is no smoking gun? It keeps the base motivated and has the added benefit of not being prone to "bozo eruptions" like say an immigration gaffe would be.

The other side of progressive (or conservative in many cases) bias is saying things are bad politics because one doesn't like them. Take the Khadr settlement for example. I read many columns in the media and posts on Atlas discussing how the Tories were discussing non issues or risking backlash by attacking the settlement despite the bulk of Canadians opposing the decision, including a majority of Liberal and NDP supporters. This language seemed based on opposition to the Tories position rather than a rational evaluation of the Tories political strategy.

The Omar Khadr payout was almost exactly like the niqab issue in 2015: perhaps the majority of Canadians agreed with the Conservatives, but they didn't like the attitude exhibited. As a result, Scheer received virtually no post-election leadership bump.

And it's not my idle punditry. The strategy employed by the Conservatives has, materially, not worked: they have lost not one but two long-held seats to the government. They should have held these seats to at least stay in the game, and instead bizarrely spun these losses as wins. This indicates their strategy of merely motivating their base isn't working, especially when it also depends on a simultaneous Liberal slump and NDP surge (entirely outside their control).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conservatives aren't the only party that can and will use that tactic. "Scheer's campaign was/is run by a neo-nazi propagandist" or "Harper is slinking around as the Conservative Party fundraising director" are also easy to digest to a target demographic.

[mileslunn]

Miles touches on the point I was trying to make. This board and many analysts seems to have two biases when assessing Scheer's performance (and Singh and Trudeau's but it seems to come up most often with Scheer); progressive bias, and political junkie bias.

The progressive bias is not understanding that the Tories face a different calculus from the Liberals and therefore will behave in a puzzling manner to many progressives. A party with a low ceiling that needs to turn out a large base alienated from the other parties is very different from being a centrist party with a smaller base but a much higher ceiling. To apply this to the Aga Khan case: so what if there is no smoking gun? It keeps the base motivated and has the added benefit of not being prone to "bozo eruptions" like say an immigration gaffe would be.

The other side of progressive (or conservative in many cases) bias is saying things are bad politics because one doesn't like them. Take the Khadr settlement for example. I read many columns in the media and posts on Atlas discussing how the Tories were discussing non issues or risking backlash by attacking the settlement despite the bulk of Canadians opposing the decision, including a majority of Liberal and NDP supporters. This language seemed based on opposition to the Tories position rather than a rational evaluation of the Tories political strategy.

The Omar Khadr payout was almost exactly like the niqab issue in 2015: perhaps the majority of Canadians agreed with the Conservatives, but they didn't like the attitude exhibited. As a result, Scheer received virtually no post-election leadership bump.

And it's not my idle punditry. The strategy employed by the Conservatives has, materially, not worked: they have lost not one but two long-held seats to the government. They should have held these seats to at least stay in the game, and instead bizarrely spun these losses as wins. This indicates their strategy of merely motivating their base isn't working, especially when it also depends on a simultaneous Liberal slump and NDP surge (entirely outside their control).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conservatives aren't the only party that can and will use that tactic. "Scheer's campaign was/is run by a neo-nazi propagandist" or "Harper is slinking around as the Conservative Party fundraising director" are also easy to digest to a target demographic.

If you look at the 12 by-elections since the last election, the Tories have seen their share of the popular vote go up in 9 down in 3 so while certainly not enough to win a general election hardly a disaster.  Yes agree those losses look bad although also both were won in 2015 largely due to local candidates and the Liberals attracted star candidates (admittedly if they do this across the country they could pick up several). 

I think the problem with many on both sides is those on the right think Trudeau is hated as much as they hate him which is false thus why he would almost certainly win an election if held today.  But I think many progressives wrongly assume support for conservative ideas is much smaller than it is.  Conservatives aren't the majority far from it, but they aren't a tiny minority, there is still a solid 30% who sit on the right side of the political spectrum.  Also calling the party extreme right works with some but I find most people make their own judgement of where they think a party lies not what those from other parties say it is.

[2952-0-0]

If you look at the 12 by-elections since the last election, the Tories have seen their share of the popular vote go up in 9 down in 3 so while certainly not enough to win a general election hardly a disaster.  Yes agree those losses look bad although also both were won in 2015 largely due to local candidates and the Liberals attracted star candidates (admittedly if they do this across the country they could pick up several).

I think the problem with many on both sides is those on the right think Trudeau is hated as much as they hate him which is false thus why he would almost certainly win an election if held today.  But I think many progressives wrongly assume support for conservative ideas is much smaller than it is.  Conservatives aren't the majority far from it, but they aren't a tiny minority, there is still a solid 30% who sit on the right side of the political spectrum.  Also calling the party extreme right works with some but I find most people make their own judgement of where they think a party lies not what those from other parties say it is.

The Conservatives could just as easily have recruited star candidates. South Surrey White Rock was previously held by Dianne Watts, who herself was a star candidate who clearly believed she was just wasting her time being a backbencher of a party that won't win in 2019. They could have simply convinced her not to resign, and not trigger a byelection at all. So blaming their losses on Liberal star candidates smacks of sour grapes. And if the Liberals continue to appear to hold the upper hand, they will continue to have better luck attracting star candidates.

Agreed, that Conservatives don't understand that their hatred of Trudeau isn't shared by those outside their bubble. Also agreed that I think the absolute worst (barring a Scheer-BBQing-kittens scandal) the Conservatives could do is like Dion in 2008. It wouldn't require any of the Conservative base voting Liberal: a small minority of that base (say 10% of their 30% base, so 3% of the electorate) concentrated in say 20 ridings could be convinced to stay home, or worse not to donate. Insinuating that the CPC is infested by the far-right would merely serve to convince those who voted Liberal in 2015 and who feel disappointed at Trudeau's centrist policies and are tempted to vote NDP (say 5% of the total electorate), to stay with them. In our age of microtargeting, the parties don't even need to run messages for everyone, when they can channel their finite budgets into advertising to limited swing demographics like the two mentioned.

[136or142]

Miles touches on the point I was trying to make. This board and many analysts seems to have two biases when assessing Scheer's performance (and Singh and Trudeau's but it seems to come up most often with Scheer); progressive bias, and political junkie bias.

The progressive bias is not understanding that the Tories face a different calculus from the Liberals and therefore will behave in a puzzling manner to many progressives. A party with a low ceiling that needs to turn out a large base alienated from the other parties is very different from being a centrist party with a smaller base but a much higher ceiling. To apply this to the Aga Khan case: so what if there is no smoking gun? It keeps the base motivated and has the added benefit of not being prone to "bozo eruptions" like say an immigration gaffe would be.

The other side of progressive (or conservative in many cases) bias is saying things are bad politics because one doesn't like them. Take the Khadr settlement for example. I read many columns in the media and posts on Atlas discussing how the Tories were discussing non issues or risking backlash by attacking the settlement despite the bulk of Canadians opposing the decision, including a majority of Liberal and NDP supporters. This language seemed based on opposition to the Tories position rather than a rational evaluation of the Tories political strategy.

The Omar Khadr payout was almost exactly like the niqab issue in 2015: perhaps the majority of Canadians agreed with the Conservatives, but they didn't like the attitude exhibited. As a result, Scheer received virtually no post-election leadership bump.

And it's not my idle punditry. The strategy employed by the Conservatives has, materially, not worked: they have lost not one but two long-held seats to the government. They should have held these seats to at least stay in the game, and instead bizarrely spun these losses as wins. This indicates their strategy of merely motivating their base isn't working, especially when it also depends on a simultaneous Liberal slump and NDP surge (entirely outside their control).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conservatives aren't the only party that can and will use that tactic. "Scheer's campaign was/is run by a neo-nazi propagandist" or "Harper is slinking around as the Conservative Party fundraising director" are also easy to digest to a target demographic.

If you look at the 12 by-elections since the last election, the Tories have seen their share of the popular vote go up in 9 down in 3 so while certainly not enough to win a general election hardly a disaster.  Yes agree those losses look bad although also both were won in 2015 largely due to local candidates and the Liberals attracted star candidates (admittedly if they do this across the country they could pick up several).  

I think the problem with many on both sides is those on the right think Trudeau is hated as much as they hate him which is false thus why he would almost certainly win an election if held today.  But I think many progressives wrongly assume support for conservative ideas is much smaller than it is.  Conservatives aren't the majority far from it, but they aren't a tiny minority, there is still a solid 30% who sit on the right side of the political spectrum.  Also calling the party extreme right works with some but I find most people make their own judgement of where they think a party lies not what those from other parties say it is.

I don't consider myself a 'progressive' but I don't know of Canadians who believe that Conservatives (and conservatives) are a 'tiny minority' (unless you are referring to mostly New Democrats who like to claim 'they represent the powerful, we represent the people') to which I always say should be added, 'even though the people actually vote for the parties who we say represent the powerful.'

I have always written here that the base Conservative voter support is between 30-33%.  

However, as we know at times a small swing in the total vote can lead to fairly large swing in seat totals.

The 2015 election result was 39.5% Liberal, 31.9% (32%) Conservative.  If the 2019 election was instead 41.5% Liberal, 30.0% Conservative, I could see the Conservatives losing somewhere around 20 seats. And if the Liberals could gain some votes at the expense of the NDP in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, and end up at around 43% support, I could see the Conservatives losing 25-30 seats.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In British Columbia, don't assume that the Liberals asserting national authority to push through the pipeline would hurt the Liberals, the reality is outside of the most affected ridings, there seems to be little indication that beyond the hardcore environmental and the hard core 'resource development' types, that very many British Columbians care all that much about this.

According to this site: there is an up to 87% chance of an oil spill in the Burrard Inlet occurring in the next 50 years.  (This is from an anti pipeline website, so I suspect that's an 87% chance in the next 50 years with no mitigation effort.)

Indeed: https://tinyurl.com/y7otffhc (I swear I did not know this was the result directly below the first google link.)
Mitigation makes probability of oil spill very low, according to risk analysis done for Kinder Morgan

So, if the reality is the odds of a spill in the Burrard Inlet is, say, 25% over the next 50 years, that's the exact same odds of a major earthquake occurring in British Columbia over the next 50 years.
http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/earthquake-facts.aspx

Now, of course, people are generally very poor at assessing risk, and even though the odds may be roughly equal that doesn't mean people think the outcomes would be equally bad "I'm willing to take my chances because I like living in British Columbia but there's nothing in that pipeline for me."

But, all in all, I think a lot of people overlook that British Columbians have learned to accept a high degree of risk, even if they don't think about it every day.

I think Terry Beech will likely lose to the NDP in Burnaby North-Seymour, but I don't think the pipeline would  effect any other incumbent Liberal riding. I also don't think the Liberals sticking up for the pipeline would benefit the Federal Liberals in the Interior, but the Liberals could swing the other Kelowna riding, the Kamloops riding and the Prince George-Cariboo riding on the basis of taking a small amount of Conservative votes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, I could also see a Conservative minority government being the result of the 2019 election, but Andrew Scheer Stupidity is going to have to grab a brain.

The Khadr situation is actually a great example of conservatives (and Conservatives) being in a bubble.  Yes, most Canadians of all political stripes were unhappy with the payout, but the responses to many of the other questions showed the fairly frequent 2/3 to 1/3 split, with about 2/3 of Canadians responding to the other questions with a great deal of nuance while conservative Canadians largely saw the situation in stark terms.

So, if that becomes an issue in the next election, I would expect Conservatives would play the issue to their base rather than find a way to nuance the issue so that most Canadians would support them on it.

Of course, it's always possible that Andrew Scheer Stupidity is in reality Andrew Scheer Genius and he's just playing rope-a-dope (which is actually largely what Justin Trudeau and the Federal Liberals did in 2015.)

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/key-accusation-against-patrick-brown-false-ctv-now-admits

Oops

#PatrickBrown2018?

[RogueBeaver]

Justin blasts Horgan for sabotaging his climate plan.

[mileslunn]

Justin blasts Horgan for sabotaging his climate plan.

This will get interesting.  Probably a wash overall for him, but should help him amongst Liberal-Conservative swing voters who mostly support the pipeline and are BC Liberals provincially but might hurt him amongst NDP-Liberal swing voters and NDP-Green swing voters.  I've heard Horgan has a tendency to lose his temper so will see what happens.

[DC Al Fine]

The Khadr situation is actually a great example of conservatives (and Conservatives) being in a bubble.  Yes, most Canadians of all political stripes were unhappy with the payout, but the responses to many of the other questions showed the fairly frequent 2/3 to 1/3 split, with about 2/3 of Canadians responding to the other questions with a great deal of nuance while conservative Canadians largely saw the situation in stark terms.

So, if that becomes an issue in the next election, I would expect Conservatives would play the issue to their base rather than find a way to nuance the issue so that most Canadians would support them on it.

This seems to parallel a wedge issue the Liberals have been pushing lately; abortion. Polls indicate that:

a) Canadians are generally pro-choice including a majority of Tory supporters.

b) Positions are generally more nuanced than the Liberal-NDP-Bloc stance of no law regulating abortion.

Would you say the Liberal Party of Canada and their supporters are in a bubble too?

Now as much as I would hate to admit, I think the Liberals were doing the politically advantageous thing by putting the abortion attestation in the Canada Summer Jobs Grant application (although the blowback was probably more than they would have liked). Similarly, I think the Tories made the right decision slamming the Khadr payout. Yeah it would be dumb if they made it the focus of their campaign, but in the middle of a popular Prime Minister's mandate, it makes sense to attack him over his unpopular decisions even if they aren't platform material.

Furthermore, I think you are slipping into the political junkie bias I described earlier by suggesting that the Tories should have been more nuanced. You still need a simple, attention grabbing message, especially outside of campaign season when no one is paying attention to politics. "Middle class tax cut" instead of "flat tax" works. I don't really see an equivalent for the Khadr case.

What's the *attention grabbing* line/message they should have taken on Khadr? Mealymouthed quibbling isn't going to grab headlines.

Of course, it's always possible that Andrew Scheer Stupidity is in reality Andrew Scheer Genius and he's just playing rope-a-dope (which is actually largely what Justin Trudeau and the Federal Liberals did in 2015.)

That's some CBC commenter level of silly. Do you call the parties CONservatives and LIEbrals too?

[DC Al Fine]

The Omar Khadr payout was almost exactly like the niqab issue in 2015: perhaps the majority of Canadians agreed with the Conservatives, but they didn't like the attitude exhibited. As a result, Scheer received virtually no post-election leadership bump.

And it's not my idle punditry. The strategy employed by the Conservatives has, materially, not worked: they have lost not one but two long-held seats to the government. They should have held these seats to at least stay in the game, and instead bizarrely spun these losses as wins. This indicates their strategy of merely motivating their base isn't working, especially when it also depends on a simultaneous Liberal slump and NDP surge (entirely outside their control).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conservatives aren't the only party that can and will use that tactic. "Scheer's campaign was/is run by a neo-nazi propagandist" or "Harper is slinking around as the Conservative Party fundraising director" are also easy to digest to a target demographic.

One has to consider polling numbers in context. Trudeau is in his first mandate. His government has only had minor screwups and the economy is strong. The NDP haven't picked up much,  but I don't think they should abandon their strategy of attacking the Liberals from the left, because it's still the best option despite the lack of movement in the polls.

I don't think it's fair to lay the lack of leadership bump at Scheer's feet entirely. The Khadr's case didn't occur until he had been leader for two months and Singh is also lacking a big bump.

According to Grenier's polling average, the Tories are up two points from their 2015 result. Those aren't winning numbers, but they aren't nothing. How much more should the Tories have shaved off the Liberals and more importantly how? You've said the Tories should prevent bozo eruptions. That's all well and good but you still need a message to push.

Your last paragraph proves my point. If the Liberals can (and I really think they should) attack the Tories with simplistic messaging, why on earth do you think the Tories attacking Trudeau with the same is a bad idea?