Federal Election, 2015 - Seat Predictions

771 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

Actually in the '04, '06 and '08 elections the Tories only got 34-36% of the vote in BC. they got 46% in '11 but I think they will lose a ton of votes to the Liberals

Centrist

Stockholm wrote:
Actually in the '04, '06 and '08 elections the Tories only got 34-36% of the vote in BC. they got 46% in '11 but I think they will lose a ton of votes to the Liberals

BC Con popular vote share:

2011 - 46%

2008 - 44%

2006 - 37%

The Libs back in 2006 had a blue Lib Martin as leader, which resonated with many Con-Lib switchers as many still were not comfortable with the Harper Cons. OTOH Herr Trudeau comes across as somewhat more as a red Lib IMHO than a blue Lib. The Cons advertising "JT is not ready to lead" will likely resonate with these folk during an election campaign.

But yep, within the City of Vancouver proper itself the Cons will bleed alot of former Con voters to the Libs after the Lib collapse in 2011. More natural Lib turf. One reason the Cons will lose Vancouver South. And in neighbouring North Van and Richmond, the Cons will also bleed former Con voters to the Libs as well. Only likely impact is the loss of North Vancouver to the Libs though. Elsewhere not as much bleeding and will not impact seat results IMHO.

janfromthebruce

Actually Trudeau comes across as a blue liberal and is wholly backed by the blue Martin Liberal faction.

oreobw

 

I haven't posted anything for a while, so here is my prediction for 2015;

148 Cons
110 Libs
70 NDP
10 other

Cons would then govern with support from the Libs for one or two years. This gives Trudeau time to learn to look and act like a PM and Harper time to resign.

Soon after the Cons pick a new leader, the Libs will force an election, get a majority and form the government, probably in 2017.

Me, I'll vote NDP as usual and hope for the best. 

NorthReport

Thanks oreobw.

Marco C

gadar wrote:

war on workers, first nations, minorities etc will continue. More people will lose rights. Police will get more powers. Democracy will be weakened further. People who think that their privileges are not threatened by the Cons will shrug their shoulders, irrespctive of the party they belong to. They will then go on to do the post mortem of the election.

Some will blame the NDP for vote splitting, others will blame Liberals for the vote splitting. Harpers integrity, strength, and tactical acumen will be praised. It will all be the fault of Trudeaus hair. Some will gloat and strut around saying that they had been saying that the pretty boy wasnt upto it and conveniently ignore that the former liberal was also on the losing side. Others will question their enthusiasm at the election results. Others like me will be disgusted by the results and swear to stay away from it all in the future, but will be back after about an year....

I am hoping I will be wrong about this.

 

Well aren't we Mr. Sunshine today.

I don’t like to make predictions like this, as I have said before what going to happen in 2015 is not a game or a horse race. This election might well be one of the most pivotal in our history; whether we chose to build Canada in to something truly great or accept the mediocrity of the past and the lowest common denominator of the present.  Whether to make our nation into a beacon of hope and progress for a world slowly descending into the dark or continue down the path of hypocrisy and ignorance.

 

Nothing is set in stone and the election is still to come, it's on our shoulders to make the world we want. If you fear for the future now is the time to stand up and fight for change, now is the time to join a campaign, donate your time and money, enlist volunteers and start canvasing.

 

Look up, march forward and above all remember Courage my friends, 'tis not too late to build a better world

NorthReport

Great post MC and thanks.

mark_alfred

Agreed.  Great post Marco.

PrairieDemocrat15

janfromthebruce wrote:

Actually Trudeau comes across as a blue liberal and is wholly backed by the blue Martin Liberal faction.

Agreed. I have no idea what makes Centrist think Trudeau is a left-leaning Liberal.

thorin_bane

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Actually Trudeau comes across as a blue liberal and is wholly backed by the blue Martin Liberal faction.

Agreed. I have no idea what makes Centrist think Trudeau is a left-leaning Liberal.


Because he supports legalization Wink But economic say he is as right as Martin, that is to say further to the right then Michael Wilson under Mulroney

Jacob Two-Two

He said he comes off as a left-leaning Liberal. I think we all agree that this isn't the case, but it is accurate to say that he's being sold that way, and primarily bought by the public as such.

Centrist

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Agreed. I have no idea what makes Centrist think Trudeau is a left-leaning Liberal.

I guess I better clarify myself. I view Paul Martin, John Manley Frank MacKenna et al as "blue" Libs. IOW, austerity budgets, lower taxes, and the rest of that right-wing mantra.

My impression of Herr Trudeau is that he is not one from their ilk eg. does not preach austerity budgets or lower taxes (AFAIK) and leans the other way towards "red" Libs. Better should have said that he gives me the impression that he lies somewhere in-between. What he actually stands for I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps free national hair care?

Jacob Two-Two

I don't think Justin is anything per se. Meaning, I think he'll take whatever positions are expedient to him at the moment, and then change them just as quick. It's just vastly more likely that the expedient course will always be to follow his austerity mentors and do what they tell him to.

mark_alfred

Centrist wrote:
What he actually stands for I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps free national hair care?

Heh.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I don't think Justin is anything per se. Meaning, I think he'll take whatever positions are expedient to him at the moment, and then change them just as quick. It's just vastly more likely that the expedient course will always be to follow his austerity mentors and do what they tell him to.

A puppet.

Marco C

Like most liberal leaders after PET, jr will follow that same mantra of promiss the sky, scare people into voting against themselves and then running the the right if they get elected.

 

The son is not at all the father, either in deed or spirit. PET real sucessors reside in the NDP.

NorthReport
NorthReport

===================

ctrl190

*delete*

Debater

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I don't think Justin is anything per se. Meaning, I think he'll take whatever positions are expedient to him at the moment, and then change them just as quick. It's just vastly more likely that the expedient course will always be to follow his austerity mentors and do what they tell him to.

I think you're describing Tom Mulcair.

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm sticking with the same predictions I made quite some time ago:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/federal-election-2015-predictions

Why stick to the same seat predictions you made nearly 2 years ago?  I don't get it.  A lot has changed since then.  For one thing, the NDP is in a much weaker position now than it was 2 years ago.  In early 2013, the NDP could make an argument that they were the primary alternative to Harper - that's certainly no longer the case now after the past 2 years of polling & by-election results.

As Chantal Hébert wrote last month, it is the Liberals who are now clearly the main alternative to the Harper Conservatives and who enter 2015 in a much stronger position than the NDP.

Shouldn't seat predictions be something that we regularly update each year as circumstances change?

NorthReport

Debater

You have already been politiely asked to courageously make your forecast if you have the guts, but to not come here and take cowardly pot shots at others and without making a forecast yourself.

 

Debater wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm sticking with the same predictions I made quite some time ago:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/federal-election-2015-predictions

Why stick to the same seat predictions you made nearly 2 years ago?  I don't get it.  A lot has changed since then.  For one thing, the NDP is in a much weaker position now than it was 2 years ago.  In early 2013, the NDP could make an argument that they were the primary alternative to Harper - that's certainly no longer the case now after the past 2 years of polling & by-election results.

As Chantal Hébert wrote last month, it is the Liberals who are now clearly the main alternative to the Harper Conservatives and who enter 2015 in a much stronger position than the NDP.

Shouldn't seat predictions be something that we regularly update each year as circumstances change?

NorthReport

These sites are for amusement purposes.

24% wrong in 2011  Frown

http://www.electionprediction.org/2009_fed/index.php

NorthReport

Another political website:

Election Almanac

www.electionalmanac.com

ajaykumar

the popularity of premier dix of bc, premier horwath of ontario, and premier dexter combined with the popularity of premier selinger of manitoba will start a tidal wave, tRudeau is toast!

NorthReport

I know people can post their opinions at EPP but who actually decides what their useless forecasts are? 

NorthReport

You have now reached the entertainment section for elections.

Seat Projection Error Rates for 2011 Election


May 2, 2011 Actual Results: C- 166, N - 103, L - 34, B - 4, G - 1 Total 308

 

Aggregator / Cons / NDP / Libs / BQ / Oth / Seat Errors / Per Cent Error 

EPP / 146 seats / 65 seats / 63 seats / 33 seats / 1 seat / 117 seats / 38%  - Favoured Liberals over NDP by 67 seats and/or 49% - Disasterous Results but at least owner admits he is a Liberal.

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

308 / 143 seats / 78 seats / 60 seats / 27 seats / 1 seat / 98 seats / 32%  - Favoured Liberals over NDP by 51 seats and/or 37% - Almost as disasterous as EPP, and this owner represents (Hint: starts and ends with a "L")  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

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

LISPOP / 144 seats  / 98 seats  / 51 seats  / 15 seats / 0 seats  / 56 seats / 18% - Favoured Liberals over NDP by 22 seats and/or 16% 

 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

I know people can post their opinions at EPP but who actually decides what their useless forecasts are? 

In previous elections they over-ruled the comments. I assumed that was what they were doing this time. However, when I did a check a couple days ago, it seems to me they followed the comments quite closely.

The last election was their greatest failure and it does not look like they cooked the result.

Rather it seems to me that this is simply a problem with methodology -- the idea that a small group of people posting can give an on-the-ground opinion valid in dozens of seats. When people are giving recomendations across the country they are merely being informed by the polls.

I would love to see an experiment where comments must come only from the people living in or near the riding. The way to do this is limit the number of ridings a person can comment on -- perhaps to a maximum of 4 or 5. Then we can see if it comes to a different conclusion that the pollsters and which is the more accurate. Presently, the site comes to the same conclusion as the pollsters -- right or wrong.

I thought there was a Liberal bias but when I went looking for it I really could not find evidence of that. The bias is the use of polling to inform the result (by distant observers) rather than local information contrary to the state purpose of the site.

adma

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I thought there was a Liberal bias but when I went looking for it I really could not find evidence of that. The bias is the use of polling to inform the result (by distant observers) rather than local information contrary to the state purpose of the site.

Actually, you might as well include Milton Chan himself in that hierarchy of "distant observers"; because he's central in making the final judgment.  (And to be honest: if it were all about "local information", it's more than likely that a lot of those hinterland seats would have no entries at all.)

Probably the bigger issue is when the EPP entries/info is accumulated over a considerable length of time (i.e. before it's clear what the final pattern'd be); as well as the quality of the individual contributors (i.e. the present early-going "Craig Hubley" problem--look: turning an Etobicoke North entry into a long shill for Kirsty Duncan without *at all* making reference to the seat being the political heart of Ford Nation; if *anything* embodies Sean of Ottawa's "distant observers" dillemma, *that* does)

adma

And really: when it comes to these prediction/projection sites in general, I *agree* that they're at their insufferable worst when they're about "strategically guiding the voter" through heavy-duty and all-too-often quackish "scientific formulae", as opposed to, well, just having some creative psephological fun.

Let me put it this way: when it comes to making sense of our electoral geography and landscape, I'd rather take a "cartographer's approach": i.e. drafting a comprehensive map which pinpoints the general coordinates and patterns at hand, yet with elbow-room for many a side trip and meander and diversion if and when necessary.  I provide the landscape in which the voters are empowered to  "follow their muse"; and if said muse happens to be "strategic", so be it.

By comparison, a lot of these election-projectionists aren't going at it as cartographers like myself, but as GPS programmers, i.e. the people responsible for the comforting voice that guides you to "turn left at XXX Street".  Which is too tethered, too devoid of wiggle room, and a formula for disconnected sloth.

By default, the primitivism of EPP (i.e. the founding "project" having more to do with the novelty of late-90s-style social media than with mathematical matrices) is actually the most "cartographically-compatible"--and hey, why not; it originated at a time when GPS wasn't yet a standard feature in automobiles (or was some newfangled electronic doodad you could buy at Canadian Tire).  Otherwise, the cartographically-inclined these days is more likely to find a hospitable home in places like Pundit's Guide...

terrytowel

The Cons are going to win this election as they are on track to winning the most seats

The only question, majority or minority.

So the Cons are halfway there.

We can only pray that they get a minority.

NorthReport

EPP 

Cons - 96 seats

NDP - 37  seats

Libs - 36 seats 

BQ - 1 seat

Grns - 1 seat

Too Close - 122 seats

Unknown - 48 seats

Total - 338 seats

 

http://www.electionprediction.org/2015_fed/index.php

Sean in Ottawa

terrytowel wrote:

The Cons are going to win this election as they are on track to winning the most seats

The only question, majority or minority.

So the Cons are halfway there.

We can only pray that they get a minority.

The only way the Cons get a minority is if the Liberals vote to keep them in power.

adma

Looking at EPP now, a lot of those Con-predicted seats are really easy drop-in-the-bucket things: rural/suburban Prairies, that sort of thing.  I woudn't panic.  (And the comparable dearth of Lib/NDP is more like erring on the side of caution, given the lack of incumbent Grits to earn drop-in-the-bucket honours, or the overall hard-to-tellness re Quebec's NDP caucus.)

adma

Another thing to keep in mind re EPP and erring on the side of caution: more often than not, "Too Close" is code language for "endangered/threatened incumbent seat".  Which often aren't "called" until the electoral ducks start to sort themselves out t/w the end of the campaign.

NorthReport

Niow we have seen the Abacus and EKOS polls out today showing support for the NDP in the mid-twenties, and EKOS even showing the NDP within 5% of the Liberals, does anyone want to change their seat projections?

I think I'll stick with mine, but just askin'.

NorthReport

EPP

Cons - 102 seats

N - 37

L - 36

B - 1

G -1

Too close - 126

Unknown - 35

Total - 338

NorthReport

EPP

Party / Mar 26 / Mar 30 / Change

Cons / 96 / 111 / Up 15 seats 

NDP / 37 / 41 / Up 4 seats

Libs 36 / 40 / Up 4 seats 

BQ 1 / 1 / Unchanged

Grns 1 /1 / Unchanged

NorthReport

Sure looks like the Liberals have taken a shit-kicking the last few weeks.

308

Party / Mar 26 / Mar 30 / Change

Cons / 136 / 143 / Up 7 seats

NDP / 69 / 73 / Up 4 seats

Libs / 128 / 117 / Down 11 seats

BQ / 3 / 3 / Unchanged

Grns / 2 / 2 / Unchanged

NorthReport

Too close to call website

CONSERVATIVES FAVORITE TO WIN BASED ON LATEST EKOS AND ABACUS POLLS

 

Cons / 135 seats

NDP / 84 seats

Libs / 114 seats

BQ / 4 seats

Grns / 1 seat

ajaykumar

From this source I get :

The NDP is down everywhere compared to 2011, including in Quebec. However, thanks to the Bloc staying below 20% and the Liberals down as well (compared to their level after Trudeau became the Liberal leader), they'd still easily win the most seats in la Belle Province. This alone guarantees that the NDP wouldn't collapse completely or go back to its pre-2011 level (despite not being polled a lot higher than in the past!).

NorthReport

You need to be aware of people's track records. What was his track record last election?

NorthReport

EPP

Party / Mar 26 / Mar 30 Revised / Change

Cons / 96 / 111 / Up 15 seats 

NDP / 37 / 42 / Up 5 seats

Libs 36 / 40 / Up 4 seats 

BQ 1 / 1 / Unchanged

Grns / 1 /1 / Unchanged

Too Close / 143 seats

Total / 338 seats

 

http://www.electionprediction.org/2015_fed/index.php

 

NorthReport

Fprum today is forecasting a Conservative majority

Mulcair's approval ratings go up but NDP still in third place behind Conservatives and Liberals: poll

“We’re seeing here the very gradual erosion of the lead the Liberals have enjoyed since electing Trudeau as leader, to the point where the two parties [Conservatives and Liberals] are functionally tied and, because of the quirks of the 338-seat distribtion, the Conservatives stand to win a majority,” said Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff. “It is not unlikely we will see this gradual erosion continue until either the Iraq mission goes off the rails or the economy suffers even worse than it already has.”

 

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2015/04/01/mulcairs-approval-rati...

ajaykumar

So NDP is at 23, where its been for years. Hahahaha .

adma

ajaykumar wrote:
So NDP is at 23, where its been for years. Hahahaha .

Actually, by pre-Orange Crush standards (to say nothing of the Audrey/Alexa-era doldrums), 23 would have been overachievingly impressive.  Just saying.

ajaykumar

adma wrote:

ajaykumar wrote:
So NDP is at 23, where its been for years. Hahahaha .

Actually, by pre-Orange Crush standards (to say nothing of the Audrey/Alexa-era doldrums), 23 would have been overachievingly impressive.  Just saying.


NDP got 19% in 1988. NDP hasn't achieved 23% yet under Mulcair. Polls are unreliable. NDP is actually somewhere around 76% currently. I think in the campaign NDP will get+ 10 to 86%. 300 seats for the NDP is doable. Tories will get 35 seats. Lib will be doomed.

ilha formosa

Pondering wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
There is no such thing as "winning a minority government" in our system of government. We elect a parliament and whoever can pass a throne speech will government.

I know that is how it works legally, but in practice, people expect the party with the highest number of votes to form the government.

Which "people"?

Only people who blindly follow Harper or are otherwise ignorant of how Canadian governments are formed "expect the party with the highest number of votes to form the government." In actuality, whoever makes the best case to the GG that they can hold the confidence of the House forms the government.

Pondering wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
  If people are left suspecting that Trudeau will prop up harper - they will drop him like a hot potato.

Canadians expect the opposition to work with minority governments not automatically defeat them.

Which Canadians?

And how can it be an opposition if it works with the minority government? You got it backwards, a minority government stays in power by designing legislation that will satisfy enough of the opposition that it can pass.

Harper's minority governments lasted because of a fragmented opposition that posed no real electoral threat to the Cons at the time, which included the BQ and the Gomery inquiry-tainted Liberals with their string of weak leaders. 

adma

ajaykumar wrote:
adma wrote:

ajaykumar wrote:
So NDP is at 23, where its been for years. Hahahaha .

Actually, by pre-Orange Crush standards (to say nothing of the Audrey/Alexa-era doldrums), 23 would have been overachievingly impressive.  Just saying.

NDP got 19% in 1988. NDP hasn't achieved 23% yet under Mulcair. Polls are unreliable. NDP is actually somewhere around 76% currently. I think in the campaign NDP will get+ 10 to 86%. 300 seats for the NDP is doable. Tories will get 35 seats. Lib will be doomed.

Ajaykumar, you speak of the NDP as if it were some ungrateful ex-wife extorting you for alimony or something.  Just saying.

bekayne

ilha formosa wrote:

Which "people"?

Only people who blindly follow Harper or are otherwise ignorant of how Canadian governments are formed "expect the party with the highest number of votes to form the government." In actuality, whoever makes the best case to the GG that they can hold the confidence of the House forms the government.

If any party got a clear plurality then, yes, most Canadians would say that party won the election and they should be given a chance to govern

NorthReport

What's a clear plurality as opposed to a plurality? Are you taking about seats or votes?

Pages