2018 Ontario Polls

482 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Remarkable results for the NDP as they have gained 10% on the Liberals and most importantly 6% on the PCs in one week

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Remarkable results for the NDP as they have gained 10% on the Liberals in one week

Contray to what Ken Burch keeps insisting on (Ford is NOT poaching NDP supporters) I've been on alot of message boards, and the narrative is clear for the NDP surge. Many self identifying PC supporters have written on message boards that they are turning to the NDP as the alternative because they cannot stomach Ford.

So yes there is an NDP surge. But for every NDP supporter that is going to Ford, the NDP is picking up PC AND Liberals supporters who are coalecing around Horwath.

I hope Horwath can pull this off.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

NDP now within 5% of right-wing Ford as Liberals fade in latest poll

PCs 40%

NDP 35% 

Libs 22%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_2018#Opinion_polls

Woah!

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

If the roles were reversed and the Liberals were 5 points behind Ford, everyone would be saying "Don't Vote Out Of Fear"

So after YEARS of decrying strategic voting, now everyone on this board is advocting strategic voting to STOP FORD by voting NDP.

I've never been against strategic voting.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

josh wrote:

I've never been against strategic voting.

I'm glad to hear that Josh. If Horwath can pull this off (and I pray she can) babblers shouldn't complain about strategic voting in 2019 Federal Election to stop Scheer if he has a surge over Trudeau if Singh is third.

gadar

But the polls are biased and fake tho.

No one should believe them, least of all the people like me who call them fake all the time.

I call it a Con Majority and that is the only true prediction.

Polls shmolls pfffft

JeffWells

Mighty Middle wrote:

If the roles were reversed and the Liberals were 5 points behind Ford, everyone would be saying "Don't Vote Out Of Fear"

So after YEARS of decrying strategic voting, now everyone on this board is advocting strategic voting to STOP FORD by voting NDP.

Not everyone.

I'll never advocate "strategic voting," for reasons too numerous and boring to get into here.

I am relieved, however, to see a coalescing of anti-Ford vote. IMO it wouldn't have mattered this election whether that was around the NDP or the Liberals, their platforms and principals are as good as indistinguishable at this point.

After Horwath's Ford-lite campaign last election I have no enthusiasm for her or her party, and I was looking forward to her resignation and perhaps a renewed vision for the ONDP. But if the NDP is the vehicle to defeat Ford then that will need to wait.

 

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

JeffWells wrote:

I am relieved, however, to see a coalescing of anti-Ford vote.

That is strategic voting, and if it wasn't the NDP wouldn't have said "Don't vote out of fear" in past elections.

NorthReport

What is of concern however is that the PCs are still at 40%, so unless the NDP is able to pick up more support, and there is time but......

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

JeffWells wrote:

I am relieved, however, to see a coalescing of anti-Ford vote.

That is strategic voting, and if it wasn't the NDP wouldn't have said "Don't vote out of fear" in past elections.

I have never voted strategically, nor have I advocated that people should. I can't even say that I would never vote strategically - never is a long time and circmstances can vary enormously. But I do acknowledge that some people do - that's called democracy.

More importantly, complaining about strategic voting will not gain the Liberals one more vote. 

Here's an analysis of how votes are moving from one party to another. As with any analysis it's not perfect, but it's better than my or your opinion. 

An online poll provided to iPolitics by Innovative Research Group shows the Liberals “are under siege,” according to president Greg Lyle. It helps explain why the Liberals are levelling so many attacks against the NDP, because Lyle said not only are the New Democrats taking back their base, but they and the PCs are also eating into the Liberal base.

The poll identifies the values that motivate voters and then divides them up into six groups based on issues like populism, government spending and redistribution. It had 1,010 respondents between May 7 and 11. Because it’s an online poll there’s no margin of error.

It uses the same methodology and questions as polls conducted by Lyle’s company during the 2014 provincial election in which the Liberals pulled off a majority upset. This time around, it shows the Liberals losing ground even among voters who would typically align with the party’s “core” values.

For example, in Lyle’s 2014 polling immediately following their victory, the Liberals enjoyed 53 per cent of the vote among centre left supporters. A month out from the June election the gap is gone and the NDP appear to be overtaking the Liberals, with 38 per cent support compared to 35 per cent.

On the centre-right, the poll shows the massive lead that helped the Liberals win in 2014 is gone. According to the poll, the Tories and Liberals are neck-and-neck with 37 per cent each. Compare that to 2014 when the Liberals held the group with 54 per cent.

The poll also shows the Tories have their base on lock and the NDP wresting their base back after ceding much of it to the Liberals in the last election.

“The NDP are not as strong on the left as the Tories are on the right,” Lyle said, “but the NDP are on the move.”

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/15/campaign-notebook-ford-takes-the-fight-t...

If you click on the twitter url in the next post you will see the change in voting patterns between 2014 and today. 

jerrym

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">

href="https://twitter.com/InnovativeRG?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@InnovativeRG</a> <a

NorthReport

Ontario election: NDP overtakes Liberals as the ‘anti-Ford’ party, according to Ipsos poll

“But the Liberals are really falling away fast.”

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4208537/ontario-election-ndp-liberals-anti-ford/

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

If the roles were reversed and the Liberals were 5 points behind Ford, everyone would be saying "Don't Vote Out Of Fear"

So after YEARS of decrying strategic voting, now everyone on this board is advocting strategic voting to STOP FORD by voting NDP.

Really. Everyone??????

I don't think this is true of many and nowhere near a majority but "everyone"?

There is a huge difference between those who advocate for strategic voting and those who say the NDP is the only party in a position where it could stop Ford. I don't hear New Democrats telling Liberals how to vote strategically in any numbers. This is not a strategy New Democrats normally use and here is why:

Liberals acknowledge that the NDP platform is apparently more attractive to some people -- and that is the source of the strategic voting idea -- a compromise. NDP supporters generally are mystified as to why Liberals are trusted at all and why anyone thinks they could be better. NDP supporters don't tend to ask Liberals to compromise and vote NDP so much as recognize why NDP should be a better choice.

When New Democrats do speak of strategic voting they are often clearly suggesting turnaround on hypocritical Liberals rather than seriously thinking this as a strategy. The NDP may say this as a way to underline that voting Liberal for this purpose is now nonsense. The NDP tend to want Liberal supporters to vote for them as a better choice not a compromise.

A party of course is a collection of individuals. There is a minority of voters -- not dedicated supporters -- who believe in strategic voting. These are the ones who vote Liberal at times. If some of those suggest now voting NDP for that reason there is nothing hypocritical about that either for them or for people who always vote NDP.

I think that the majority of NDP supporters here may  be delighted to see turnaround but do not suggest Liberals vote NDP out of strategy other than the fact that the Liberals are a poor choice to start with.

However, after the NDP has lost so many votes over the years to a crappy strategic voting strategy, it is not hypocritical to welcome voters opting out of strategy for the NDP. As much as you can dislike that strategy, you can see that the NDP has paid enough for it to be grateful if it turns around.

The hypocrisy would be asking for strategic voting while opposing reform. That is a Liberal thing. So long as the NDP is in favour of PR there is simply no case to be made if an NDP supporter did speak of strategic voting in the meantime.

Read page 81 of the full platform:

https://www.ontariondp.ca/sites/default/files/Change-for-the-better.pdf

NorthReport

Ontario Poll Tracker updated, as the NDP's gains continue to grow.

 

https://twitter.com/EricGrenierCBC/status/996406741746274305

 

jerrym

The following poll suggests what is driving the rapid growth in NDP popularity and it's not simply strategic voting.

In this poll of "Which party is the best to deal with this issue?", the Liberals do not rank first on any issue with voters, while the NDP ranks first on: Healthcare, the most important issue; social assistance programs; education funding; investment in public transportation; aboriginal issues; improving tolerance for minorities; big cities issues; and new immigrant issues. Furthermore, momentum on these issues clearly favours the NDP.

The PCs are ahead on: economy and jobs; taxes; energy; crime and public safety; debt repayment and balanced budget; fighting corruption; rules for sale of marijuana; small town and rural issues; and small business issues. 

Click on the url below to see the above results in chart form. 

With the Ontario election now officially underway, candidates will continue their attempt to convince voters that their party is best to manage the key issues facing Ontario. But according to a new Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News, Ontarians have already taken their own stance on what issues they believe to be the most important issues for this election, and who is best to lead on each issue.

Healthcare, the economy/jobs, lower taxes, and lower energy costs are the most-important issues to Ontarians, consistent with the findings of Ipsos’ previous issues poll conducted in April. Healthcare (54%) continues to dominate as the most prevalent issue, and is gaining momentum since April (up 4 pts). The issue resonates most with Baby Boomers (66% vs. 53% Gen X’ers and 39% Millennials) and Liberal voters (61%). The economy and jobs (36%; -3pts) remains the second-most important issued, followed by lower taxes (29%; -2pts) in third place, and lower energy costs (28%; +2pts) in fourth.

The chart below shows the percentage of Ontarians who rank each issue among their top-three, with tracking back to our poll conducted in April. 

Once ranked, Ontarians were asked a follow-up question to select which party would be best suited to deal with each of their top-three ranked issues.

Ontarians have lost faith in the Liberals’ ability to handle the hard-hitting issues, and the Liberals are unable to differentiate themselves in a positive way against their rivals. Instead, Ontarians are turning to the PCs or the NDP. While Ontarians believe the NDP will be best suited to deal with the top ranked issue of healthcare, the Tories hold strong on the second, third, fourth and fifth-most important issues.

Further, Ontarians no longer trust the incumbent Liberal government to deal with many of the issues that have defined their reigning years. Ontarians believe increasing minimum wage, preventing climate change, and investment in public transportation could be better handled by the NDPs, while the rules governing the growing, sale and consumption of marijuana in Ontario would be a best-suited issue for the PCs.

...

Momentum on policy issues appears to be with the NDP on healthcare (+11), social assistance programs (+16), transportation (+14) and education (+10). The Tories have seen positive movement on lower taxes (+10), lower energy costs (+6), crime (+7), corruption, (+21) and the legalization of marijuana (+20). The Liberals have failed to improve significantly on any of the most-important issues.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/Global-News-Ontario-Vote-Issues-M...

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

If the roles were reversed and the Liberals were 5 points behind Ford, everyone would be saying "Don't Vote Out Of Fear"

So after YEARS of decrying strategic voting, now everyone on this board is advocting strategic voting to STOP FORD by voting NDP.

Actually, it's the best of BOTH worlds.  Left-of-center people who have voted Liberal all these years just to stop the PC's can now vote to stop the PC's AND to get something closer to what they actually want.  It's not strategic voting, it's voting with a clear conscience.

Out of interest, what case would you still make for voting Liberal?  Those who voted NDP instead of voting "strategically" in the past did so because the party they preferred had stronger principles than the party they were pressured to vote for strategically.   Can you make any comparable argument for still voting Liberal, or at least for voting Liberal in an NDP-PC marginal seat?

NorthReport

FWIW the latest CBC seat projection model has the Ontario Liberals projected to win 2 seats (that is not a typo)

https://twitter.com/Dleebosh/status/996414497366700033

Umm.....

http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/would-pc-party-led-doug-ford-reduce-ndp-...

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

jerrym wrote:

Here's an analysis of how votes are moving from one party to another. As with any analysis it's not perfect, but it's better than my or your opinion.

    An online poll provided to iPolitics by Innovative Research Group

For the THIRD time (and you seem to be tone deaf about this)

It was an online poll, and studies have shown most online polls that use participants who volunteer to take part DO NOT have a proven record of accuracy.

From Pew Research Group

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/12/29/how-accurate-are-online-polls/

Online Polls Are Rising. So Are Concerns About Their Results.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/upshot/online-polls-are-rising-so-are...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't hear New Democrats telling Liberals how to vote strategically in any numbers. This is not a strategy New Democrats normally use and here is why:

How soon you forget 2015

"The NDP is the only party that can defeat the Conservatives"

and

"NDP is only 35 seats from victory"

Even Jagmeet Singh got into the action saying if you want to Stop Harper, then the NDP is the only party you can vote for that will Stop Harper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvB5E7l2Ww

Don't forget the colorful "STOP HARPER" signs the NDP had their supporters wave at rallys.

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, it's the best of BOTH worlds.  Left-of-center people who have voted Liberal all these years just to stop the PC's can now vote to stop the PC's AND to get something closer to what they actually want.  It's not strategic voting, it's voting with a clear conscience.

And what would you say if the roles were reversed. If it was the Liberals 5 points behind Ford with the NDP in single digits. Would you tell people, don't get behind the party that can stop Ford. But vote with  your conscience, a vote that could split the vote?

You can't have it both ways. Either you support strategic voting or not. If you didn't in the past, then  you are talking out of both sides of your mouth now.

It's great that some here now support strategic voting (voting NDP to get stop Ford). Just don't turn around in 2019 and say "Don't vote out of fear" if Andrew Scheer surges while Jagmeet Singh is stuck in third place. Because your past comments here touting strategic voting (voting Horwath to Stop Ford) are on the record now.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

NorthReport wrote:

FWIW the latest CBC seat projection model has the Ontario Liberals projected to win 2 seats (that is not a typo)

https://twitter.com/Dleebosh/status/996414497366700033

Third party advertisters linked to the Conservatives have poured time, money and resources demonizing Kathleen Wynne for the past three years on Social Media. With real vile and vicious attacks on social media (in particular on Facebook) All in the hopes of driving voters to the Conservatives.

Who knew that all of their blood, sweat and tears would just drive voters to Horwath? Maybe she will send them a fruit basket when this is all over as a thank you.

In terms of the poll tracker, this is an aggregated poll as he is combining data from polling firms whose methology is questionable at best.

Forum Research, Mainstreet and all of the online polling all have questionable methology when it comes  to their data. When it comes to aggregate, those questionable polls are thrown together with the more reliable polling and spews out these results. Which again skews the results and creates an misleading narrative in the media about seat range.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Here's an analysis of how votes are moving from one party to another. As with any analysis it's not perfect, but it's better than my or your opinion.

    An online poll provided to iPolitics by Innovative Research Group

For the THIRD time (and you seem to be tone deaf about this)

It was an online poll, and studies have shown most online polls that use participants who volunteer to take part DO NOT have a proven record of accuracy.

From Pew Research Group

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/12/29/how-accurate-are-online-polls/

Online Polls Are Rising. So Are Concerns About Their Results.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/upshot/online-polls-are-rising-so-are...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't hear New Democrats telling Liberals how to vote strategically in any numbers. This is not a strategy New Democrats normally use and here is why:

How soon you forget 2015

"The NDP is the only party that can defeat the Conservatives"

and

"NDP is only 35 seats from victory"

Even Jagmeet Singh got into the action saying if you want to Stop Harper, then the NDP is the only party you can vote for that will Stop Harper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvB5E7l2Ww

Don't forget the colorful "STOP HARPER" signs the NDP had their supporters wave at rallys.

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, it's the best of BOTH worlds.  Left-of-center people who have voted Liberal all these years just to stop the PC's can now vote to stop the PC's AND to get something closer to what they actually want.  It's not strategic voting, it's voting with a clear conscience.

And what would you say if the roles were reversed. If it was the Liberals 5 points behind Ford with the NDP in single digits. Would you tell people, don't get behind the party that can stop Ford. But vote with  your conscience, a vote that could split the vote?

You can't have it both ways. Either you support strategic voting or not. If you didn't in the past, then  you are talking out of both sides of your mouth now.

It's great that some here now support strategic voting (voting NDP to get stop Ford). Just don't turn around in 2019 and say "Don't vote out of fear" if Andrew Scheer surges while Jagmeet Singh is stuck in third place. Because your past comments here touting strategic voting (voting Horwath to Stop Ford) are on the record now.

See?  You just admitted that your whole agenda was to pressure ONDP supporters to vote Liberal.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Here's an analysis of how votes are moving from one party to another. As with any analysis it's not perfect, but it's better than my or your opinion.

    An online poll provided to iPolitics by Innovative Research Group

For the THIRD time (and you seem to be tone deaf about this)

It was an online poll, and studies have shown most online polls that use participants who volunteer to take part DO NOT have a proven record of accuracy.

From Pew Research Group

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/12/29/how-accurate-are-online-polls/

Online Polls Are Rising. So Are Concerns About Their Results.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/upshot/online-polls-are-rising-so-are...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't hear New Democrats telling Liberals how to vote strategically in any numbers. This is not a strategy New Democrats normally use and here is why:

How soon you forget 2015

"The NDP is the only party that can defeat the Conservatives"

and

"NDP is only 35 seats from victory"

Even Jagmeet Singh got into the action saying if you want to Stop Harper, then the NDP is the only party you can vote for that will Stop Harper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvB5E7l2Ww

Don't forget the colorful "STOP HARPER" signs the NDP had their supporters wave at rallys.

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, it's the best of BOTH worlds.  Left-of-center people who have voted Liberal all these years just to stop the PC's can now vote to stop the PC's AND to get something closer to what they actually want.  It's not strategic voting, it's voting with a clear conscience.

And what would you say if the roles were reversed. If it was the Liberals 5 points behind Ford with the NDP in single digits. Would you tell people, don't get behind the party that can stop Ford. But vote with  your conscience, a vote that could split the vote?

You can't have it both ways. Either you support strategic voting or not. If you didn't in the past, then  you are talking out of both sides of your mouth now.

It's great that some here now support strategic voting (voting NDP to get stop Ford). Just don't turn around in 2019 and say "Don't vote out of fear" if Andrew Scheer surges while Jagmeet Singh is stuck in third place. Because your past comments here touting strategic voting (voting Horwath to Stop Ford) are on the record now.

See?  You just admitted that your whole agenda was to pressure ONDP supporters to vote Liberal.

Where did I say that?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

As to 2015 I haven't never personal defended the "only 35 seats" strategy, nor much of anything ELSE Mulcair did in that election, as you know perfectly well.

And I have never been a categorical opponent of the very concept of "strategic voting".  What I've said, and what I STILL say about that, is that strategic voting arrangements need to be on a level of parity between the cooperating parties.

Here's my model for a strategic voting agreement:

1)Neither of the parties in the agreement try to defeat either of the other party's sitting officeholders;

2)BOTH parties would run only paper candidates in the race where the other party was stronger against the right-wing party;

3)In the minority parliament a strategic voting arrangement would hopefully produce, the FIRST piece of legislation introduced and passed would be an electoral reform deal replacing first-past-the-post with some form of proportional representation.

So no, you haven't caught me in a contradiction at all.  The only form of "strategic voting" I oppose is the type YOU insist on-the type where everybody else always, no matter what defers to the greater glory of the Liberals.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The massive swing from the Liberals to the NDP, however, is not a product of "strategic voting" at all...at its root, its the UK election of 1922, when the old Liberals were finally replaced by Labour as the main non-Tory party, due to the fact that the policies of the old Liberals in the UK were no longer relevant to the needs of the voters of that country.  That's all that is happening here, MM.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

See?  You just admitted that your whole agenda was to pressure ONDP supporters to vote Liberal.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said that

NorthReport
Ciabatta2

The Liberals can't win only two seats with a vote total above 10%.  Stuff like this is shamefully bad prognosticating and hurts the credibility of all political analysis.

cco

The NB Tories managed to win 0 with 39% of the vote. The federal PCs won only 2 with 16%. 10% under FPTP doesn't get you a thing unless it's concentrated in the right places.

NorthReport

Another forecaster who says his system is the most accurate. They all claim that, eh!

https://globalnews.ca/news/4209270/ontario-ndp-tories-poll/

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

See?  You just admitted that your whole agenda was to pressure ONDP supporters to vote Liberal.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said that

It was the what you were refererring to in that post there, when you demanded that everyone declare their absolute support or absolute opposition to the idea of strategic voting.  Up thread, I had reminded you that I never took a position in ABSOLUTE opposition to "strategic voting",  but simply stated the conditions under which I would accept it in particular situations.

josh

Ken Burch wrote:

The massive swing from the Liberals to the NDP, however, is not a product of "strategic voting" at all...at its root, its the UK election of 1922, when the old Liberals were finally replaced by Labour as the main non-Tory party, due to the fact that the policies of the old Liberals in the UK were no longer relevant to the needs of the voters of that country.  That's all that is happening here, MM.

I don't see that.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

See?  You just admitted that your whole agenda was to pressure ONDP supporters to vote Liberal.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said that

It was the what you were refererring to in that post there, when you demanded that everyone declare their absolute support or absolute opposition to the idea of strategic voting.  Up thread, I had reminded you that I never took a position in ABSOLUTE opposition to "strategic voting",  but simply stated the conditions under which I would accept it in particular situations.

http://rabble.ca/comment/5415206#comment-5415206

Please provide a direct quote (from link above) where I was advocating ONDP to vote Liberal in this election.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Here's an analysis of how votes are moving from one party to another. As with any analysis it's not perfect, but it's better than my or your opinion.

    An online poll provided to iPolitics by Innovative Research Group

For the THIRD time (and you seem to be tone deaf about this)

It was an online poll, and studies have shown most online polls that use participants who volunteer to take part DO NOT have a proven record of accuracy.

From Pew Research Group

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/12/29/how-accurate-are-online-polls/

Online Polls Are Rising. So Are Concerns About Their Results.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/upshot/online-polls-are-rising-so-are...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't hear New Democrats telling Liberals how to vote strategically in any numbers. This is not a strategy New Democrats normally use and here is why:

How soon you forget 2015

"The NDP is the only party that can defeat the Conservatives"

and

"NDP is only 35 seats from victory"

Even Jagmeet Singh got into the action saying if you want to Stop Harper, then the NDP is the only party you can vote for that will Stop Harper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvB5E7l2Ww

Don't forget the colorful "STOP HARPER" signs the NDP had their supporters wave at rallys.

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, it's the best of BOTH worlds.  Left-of-center people who have voted Liberal all these years just to stop the PC's can now vote to stop the PC's AND to get something closer to what they actually want.  It's not strategic voting, it's voting with a clear conscience.

And what would you say if the roles were reversed. If it was the Liberals 5 points behind Ford with the NDP in single digits. Would you tell people, don't get behind the party that can stop Ford. But vote with  your conscience, a vote that could split the vote?

You can't have it both ways. Either you support strategic voting or not. If you didn't in the past, then  you are talking out of both sides of your mouth now.

It's great that some here now support strategic voting (voting NDP to get stop Ford). Just don't turn around in 2019 and say "Don't vote out of fear" if Andrew Scheer surges while Jagmeet Singh is stuck in third place. Because your past comments here touting strategic voting (voting Horwath to Stop Ford) are on the record now.

Please read a book about logic. You need to if you want to make these arguments and not look like an idiot.

To say a party is the only one that can beat another party is not advice to vote strategically. It is a statement of a fact of the situtation. It might even be a statement to reject BS arguments about strategic voting.

Many people are saying the NDP is the the only party that could stop Ford. some of them are conservatives. In your distorted logic are you suggesting that conservatives are saying that people should vote NDP to defeat them?

You are lying about the present peoplpe you claim are supporting strategic voting and you are lying about the past when you said they were then.

Many of the quotes you pull out of your ass here are people who were arguing against strategic voting now, in the past and will in the future.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

See?  You just admitted that your whole agenda was to pressure ONDP supporters to vote Liberal.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said that

You are acting like a troll. It is predictable that people will call you what you behave like. Don't blame them. Blame the behaviour you display.

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

The Liberals can't win only two seats with a vote total above 10%.  Stuff like this is shamefully bad prognosticating and hurts the credibility of all political analysis.

Yes the Progressive Conservatives nationally couldn't win 16.2% of the vote and only two seats. Oh, wait.

I guess this must be bad history?

The point of First Past the Post elections is that this is exactly what can happen. If every seat is uniform you oculd in theory get 49% of the vote in a two party election and 0 seats.

The reason the Liberals can win so many easily with a lower vote is that they do not waste many votes in strongholds. A uniform drop, loses almost everything.

The reverse is also true: A party with blowout concentrations can cross 40% and still not win a majority of seats. The Conservatives should be concerned about this. There is a margin of efficiency. The Conservatives could end up with 40% of the vote and a minority of seats -- while the NDP even get a majority with 38% in the same election. A party can be wiped out if they lack concentrations when their vote declines.

Vote distribution is everything unless you have PR. The Liberals could run second to the Conservatives AND second to the NDP across the board, have the most votes, and no seats. Unlikely but possible.

It is harder for either the NDP or the Conservatives to do that becuase of the uneveness of their support. This is what makes it harder for them to win AND harder for them to be eleimnated with a low vote. The Liberals with flat support can win it all easily or lose most of it, just as easily.

The reason Kim Campbell was blown out was that she lost her fortress seats and the rest of her support was spread evenly. With three points less the BQ got 26 times the number of seats. With 2 points more the Reform party got 25 times the number of seats. With 10 points less the NDP got 5 times the number of seats.

Ciabatta2

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

The Liberals can't win only two seats with a vote total above 10%.  Stuff like this is shamefully bad prognosticating and hurts the credibility of all political analysis.

Yes the Progressive Conservatives nationally couldn't win 16.2% of the vote and only two seats. Oh, wait.

I guess this must be bad history?

...

Vote distribution is everything unless you have PR. The Liberals could run second to the Conservatives AND second to the NDP across the board, have the most votes, and no seats. Unlikely but possible.

Exactly my point. If you look at how their votes and seats are distributed across Ontario (not Canada, not New Brunswick), it is practically impossible for the Liberals to get above 10% of the popular vote but only win two seats. Not going to happen in the Ontario 2018 context. Awful analysis.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You are lying about the present peoplpe you claim are supporting strategic voting and you are lying about the past when you said they were then.

I just feel you can't nuanced about strategic voting. Either you support or you don't. And if people here support it, great, Just don't turn around in 2019 and start saying "Don't vote out of fear" in an effort to keep the Conservatives out if the NDP are stuck in third.

So we will see how people feel about strategic voting in 2019 if the Conservatives surge and the NDP are stuck in 3rd.

Sean in Ottawa

About that strategic voting thing:

So when would it make a difference?

1) when a party could win the legislature / parliament and a couple seats realistically could make the difference.

2) when you happen to be in such a seat that is that close within an election over all that is that close

When it makes no sense:

1) when the outcome of the election is not going to be close overall.

2) when the outcome of the riding is not going to be close.

and then --

1) You have to trust the party that you vote for strategically to do the things you want them to and not hook up with the party you are trying to stop

I dislike strategic voting and the argument in favour of it is magnified from perhaps less than 1% of viable times into a con-job to get people to vote against what they really want.

I am now in Ottawa South. I think my riding will go Conservative. If it does, I need to hope that the rest of the Province does not. I don't think I could save the Liberal -- even if I wanted to. I don't think saving the Liberal here would make a difference in government. I don't trust the Liberals either. Given my very high test for strategic voting, I have never yet come across an election that it made sense to me. I am not absolute in saying I could never, even if my disgust for the practice is well known.

If you are Liberal and truly believe that the LPO is the best choice -- then vote for them. I hope they all lose. Encouraging someone to vote NDP would be because I encourage them to see that as the best choice not becuase I want some Liberal to think I endorse pointless strategic voting. If you find that your test for strategic voting -- which may be different than mine -- suggests you should vote for them then by all means.

Why should I encourage Liberals to be even more hypocritical than they already are? So if you believe in strategic voting why not consider the NDP? I am not saying I agree with the practice or that someone who does not believe in it should vote strategically. But what is wrong with encouraging the people who like to vote strategically to place their vote for the NDP as the best strategic choice -- especially if they have already done so against the NDP in the past?

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

The Liberals can't win only two seats with a vote total above 10%.  Stuff like this is shamefully bad prognosticating and hurts the credibility of all political analysis.

Yes the Progressive Conservatives nationally couldn't win 16.2% of the vote and only two seats. Oh, wait.

I guess this must be bad history?

...

Vote distribution is everything unless you have PR. The Liberals could run second to the Conservatives AND second to the NDP across the board, have the most votes, and no seats. Unlikely but possible.

Exactly my point. If you look at how their votes and seats are distributed across Ontario (not Canada, not New Brunswick), it is practically impossible for the Liberals to get above 10% of the popular vote but only win two seats. Not going to happen in the Ontario 2018 context. Awful analysis.

Where is your data? You criticize the analysis saying it is bad -- so where's yours? Liberal vote distribution in the province is notoriously even. The strongholds were in Toronto and the poll suggests them losing those to either the NDP or Conservatives. Also the analysis provided a range with the most likely being this number.

The number was produced through math not a guess. I can see how that could bear out. The distribution of votes for the Liberals give them maximum advantage when they reach a threshold. Below that it is really bad -- for the same reason -- very even results across the province except with slightly better in Toronto -- if they lose that then they lose almost all.

Other than not liking the conclusion explain why you think it is not the most likely in these numbers.

You might also want to look at Manitoba's history to see exactly the same dynamic -- Liberals running second to the NDP in some and second to the PCs in some and winning very few. Many ridings tilt either toward the NDP or Conservatives and will go Liberal most of the time when the Liberals have a high enough vote. When that vote drops it is all gone.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You are lying about the present peoplpe you claim are supporting strategic voting and you are lying about the past when you said they were then.

I just feel you can't nuanced about strategic voting. Either you support or you don't. And if people here support it, great, Just don't turn around in 2019 and start saying "Don't vote out of fear" in an effort to keep the Conservatives out if the NDP are stuck in third.

So we will see how people feel about strategic voting in 2019 if the Conservatives surge and the NDP are stuck in 3rd.

You are talking about other people's positions not your "feelings" and to suggest that a response to the strategic voting which has been rammed down the throats of NDP supporters for decades is not nuanced is idiotic. Even if you "feel" that way.

And for some people -- even those who hate it and hate the fact that they are in this position -- it can still be agonizing.

To be both against and open-minded about the possibility is not a contradiction. I have hated strategic voting and still thought carefully about it many times. Whether you like that being nuanced or not I really don't give a shit. I consider my vote important.

Plus I am not being nuanced in saying you are straight up lying about people's positions here.

To make a statement that the NDP is in the best position THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR STRATEGIC VOTING. THAT IS A STATEMENT ABOUT A CAMPAIGN THAT IS LOOKING PRETTY GOOD NOW.

Is that clear enough for you?

Please stop bullshitting on this -- it is very tiresome.

PREDICTION: Mighty Middle will, if still around in 2019, continue to misrepresent people's positions on strategic voting then as he is doing now. People will still call him a troll for doing so.

NEWSFLASH: People have every damn right to advocate for their positions and even change their positions regardless of the "feelings" of Mighty Liberal or any other Liberal propaganda artist.

Only Propaganda artists and trolls come with a mind to hold positions from previous years over people's heads to beat them with it. These are by definition the most close-minded people there can be.

FOR THE RECORD: the people here have been extremely consistent on strategic voting. My record here on the subject goes back 14 years and 11 months. Go back and troll through that. My position on this has not changed. I detest it. I understand rare examples of it. I call out Liberals for being hypocritical about it. And I call out Mighty Liberal for misrepresenting people's positions on it.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
above is

NorthReport
NorthReport

NDP has a lot of work to do to prevent a PC majority

PCs 81.3 seats, Down 2 seats

NDP 29.9 seats, Up 5.6 seats

Libs 12.8 seats, Down 3.6 seats

http://blog.qc125.com/2018/05/mise-jour-de-la-projection-qc125-en.html

NorthReport

I wonder who would be the "gruesome twosome"?

https://twitter.com/Dleebosh/status/996860558640066560

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

 

Why CAN'T we be nuanced about it?  Why can't we approach the idea on a case-by-case, situation-by-situation basis?  
​In Ontario, for example, there may have been a case for strategic voting exclusively during the Harris years, due to the utter vileness of that particular government.  In B.C., a case for it probably existed between the Greens and the NDP.  At the risk of Godwinning, it should have been done in Germany in the early Thirties.

I acknowledge those historic situations.

And if you read my post upthread, I outlined the conditions I could tolerate strategic voting in future elections:

1) If there's an agreement by the parties in strategic arrangement to not waste resources trying to take seats from each other during the strategic period(and not one moment afterwards);

2) If there's an agreement that BOTH party will run paper candidates against each other in the races where the other party is the only one that can beat the party being strategized against;

3) If there's legislation introduced and passed immediately after the legislative body produced by the strategic voting arrangement to implement proportional representation at the next election, no matter when that election is held;

THAT, and only that, would be a legitimate strategic voting arrangement MM.  But I seriously doubt that you would accept anything remotely like that.  For you it seems obvious that strategic voting means ONLY one thing:  NDP voters voting Liberal in all future elections until the time the provincial PC's or the federal CPC cease to elect outright monsters as leader.  You can't accept that strategic voting would mean a partnership, with the parties involved according each other "parity of esteem", and no party holding to the notion that it is the ONLY legitimate "governing party".  And you don't seem to accept, as Justin T. also refuses to accept, that the strategy would have to culminate in the end of first-past-the-post elections that produce false majority governments.

 

 

NorthReport

Apparently the shift to the NDP is continuing 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
above is

Nice pictures - is this always what you do when you have nothing to offer in logic or argument?

 

Ciabatta2

NorthReport wrote:

Apparently the shift to the NDP is continuing 

 

I wouldn't get too excited yet.  There are still three weeks in the election and another debate.  This level of momentum will be hard for the NDP to keep up.  And the answers on daycare have been weak.

If I were a Liberal strategist, I wouldn't be too worried about polling numbers yet.  No one loves the underdog narrative more than an actual frontrunner.

And don't be fooled. In terms of campaigning, they're the incumbent, they have the most money, the most capacity, the most professionalism.  For campaigning, the Liberals are the front runner.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Nice pictures - is this always what you do when you have nothing to offer in logic or argument?

You just opened a door.

NorthReport
JeffWells

Ciabatta2 wrote:

I wouldn't get too excited yet.  There are still three weeks in the election and another debate.  This level of momentum will be hard for the NDP to keep up.  And the answers on daycare have been weak.

If I were a Liberal strategist, I wouldn't be too worried about polling numbers yet.  No one loves the underdog narrative more than an actual frontrunner.

And don't be fooled. In terms of campaigning, they're the incumbent, they have the most money, the most capacity, the most professionalism.  For campaigning, the Liberals are the front runner.

The electorate isn't exactly volatile. It seems like most voters already know what matters most to them, and to many of them that's ending the Liberal government and stopping Doug Ford. It's not difficult to see ideal conditions for the NDP, especially given Horwath's perceived competance and likeability. And the party's moderation, while disheartening to many on the left, appeals to voters who want a liberal government without the Liberal Party.

IMO if Liberal strategists aren't worried it's because they have a Bay Street drop zone for their golden parachutes. Three weeks can be a long time in an election, but it doesn't feel that way this time. Wynne is finished.

Pages