Latest polling thread #8

With the NDP hovering close to 20% in the national poll I'm going to go out on a limb here and forcast that the NPD will win 3-5 seats in the next federal election in Quebec which however is a long, long way off. Mulcair and Layton appear to be on track towards making political history in Quebec.

I don't think the new EKOS poll got posted on the current polling thread, so I'll post it here now that you've opened up a new thread.  It just came out a couple days ago and it shows a Liberal/Conservative tie for the 2nd week in a row (it actually gives the Liberals a miniscule lead):

Liberals 31.6

Conservatives 31.1

NDP 14.6

Green 11

Bloc 9.1

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-aha-moment-...

okay now we have 2

Quebec numbers:

BQ  37.0

Liberals 29.1

Conservatives 16.2

NDP 9.3

Green 7.0

The Liberals have also emerged as the clear federalist alternative in Quebec

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_january_28.pdf

Sweet!

The New Democratic Party (NDP) remains a

strong third with 19 per cent (=), followed by the

Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent (+1), and the

Green Party with seven per cent (-1).

http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010.01.28_Politics_CAN.pdf

Debater, if the Liberals are so strong in Quebec, how come people there can't stand your leader?

I don't have a leader.  I am unaffiliated.  Did you read my comment to you on the previous thread about labeling me?

 at the above comment

Having an unpopular leader has to be problematic and worrysome for the Liberals as the whole election campaign, which we won't have for at least another year, revolves around the respective party leaders.

Even sweeter!

In British Columbia the governing party remains on top, but has lost five points in two weeks (35%). The NDP (30%) is now

ahead of the Liberals (25%) in BC.

http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010.01.28_Politics_CAN.pdf

debator, you are protesting too much, as your partisanship  is obvous and you are making yourself non-credible to the max by doing what you are, but hey silly me, forget I said that...carry on....we need to remember what Liberals are.

And sweetest of all.

Approval Rating:

Layton 27%

Harper 27%

Ignatieff 17%

http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010.01.28_Politics_CAN.pdf

This is a thread to discuss the poll results - not what people's personal political leanings may be or not be.

Let's stick to discussion of the numbers, please.  

You mean like this. 

The major difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is that the Cons will admit to your face they are the enemy whereas the Liberals lie about it.

Look, if it talks like a Liberal. and walks like a Liberal, you can probably assume it's a Liberal. 

I think in that post I was agreeing with another poster who pointed out to you that you had omitted to mention that it was the Liberals who first brought up the issue, not the NDP.

It does demonstrate that you tend to ignore positive things about the Liberals.  Isn't that true?

For example, on this thread have you noticed that you are ignoring the good polling numbers for the Liberals, and are only focusing on polls which show the NDP doing well, but ignore those that show it not doing well?

Liberal troll. 

Just wanted to help Polunatic2.

Debater: I know what you're generically getting at re the Liberals in Quebec, which is why I fundamentally agree with you re Laval--"native son" Mulcair notwithstanding, it's a natural Liberal/Bloc default seat, and even in the 2006 Liberal nadir the Grits were 7 points ahead of the Tories.  But in the case of La Pointe de l'Ile, we're talking about a seat so utterly sovereigntist that to state, point blank, under the present circumstances that the Liberals would be the obvious default option--even if, technically, they *are* in second place--is tenuous indeed.  And part of that is the federal Grit stigma of being the most sovereigntist-unfriendly of the major parties, i.e. there's a fair bet that in an echo of Hochelaga, plenty of disenfranchised LPdl'I Bloquistes would rather opt for a sufficiently viable NDP (or even Tory, at least if Harper were more like Mulroney in his appeal), simply because the Liberals are *ahem* the Liberals.

You might as well be using AudreyAlexa-era results on behalf of CPC in seats like York West.

I agree that La Pointe de I'Ile will probably remain a BQ seat, even if Francine Lalonde retires.  I don't think the Liberals are in contention to win there anytime soon.  I was just responding to ottawaobserver predicting that the NDP could win there if Lalonde retires.  What I was saying is that I think the next most likely party to replace the BQ there would be the Liberals based on recent results, but I agree with you that there isn't an overwhelming favorite to rival the BQ there right now.

I was also surprised to see ottawaobserver predicting that the NDP would be in contention in Laval since the NDP finished 4th there in the last election, behind the Conservatives, whereas the Liberals finished a strong 2nd as you pointed out.  If Laval were to change parties after Nicole Demers retires, it would likely be won by the Liberals rather than the NDP or the Conservatives.

Well, based upon the rawest extrapolation from recent results.  But again, given the nature of the vote, it might be little better than predicting the BQ being the next most likely to replace the Liberals in a heavily federalist seat, simply because the Bloc's 18% was good enough for second last time.

It didn't strike me as a point-blank "in contention" declaration; more an exploratory questioning of what vestigial Mulcairite native-son machinery exists, in order to explore any potential "in contention" openings, however presently far in left field.

And in all honesty: fourth place or not, I wouldn't rule out any "in contention" possibility for the NDP in Laval much as I wouldn't do likewise for, yes, the Conservatives--and, well, given the dynamics going into 2006 and 2008 (let alone 1984), consider me vindicated in treating the Tories as a latently serious factor here, even if the "natural" leverage is Grits vs Bloc...

So what is there to gain from supporting dueling polls. As amusing as it may be to watch NR and Debator go at each other. There is nothing to support either one. Each is taking one poll at the edge of the range and assuming it is accurate.

There is some volatility right now. Fine to be hopeful but why not report and wait a while before taking a single poll as validation.

In both cases why not assume that you need to see a good three polls saying roughly the same thing before you can present it as a trend?

Yes, as an NDP supporter I'm glad to see the party up a couple points but it takes more than a poll for it to be more than just a hope.

Well anything is always possible of course, but usually it makes sense to explore what is likely to happen or what is somewhat likely to happen rather than something which is 99.99% unlikely to happen.  It's about as likely that the NDP will win in Laval as it is that the NDP or the Liberals will win in Wild Rose, Alberta.  

As for the Conservatives, as PQ analyst Josee Legault has said, it is very, very unlikely that the Conservatives are going to win any seats in the Montreal area at any time in the immediate future.  As she pointed out, not only will the Conservatives be unable to win seats in the 514, it will even be a struggle for them to win seats in the 450.

At the moment, the only 2 seats in Quebec that are in serious contention for the NDP are Outremont and Gatineau.  Those are certainly seats that can stay or go NDP next time, but any other seats are not likely without a major change in Quebec.

In a post BQ or post Harper world things could change somewhat - if the BQ continues to decline after Gilles Duceppe retires, other opportunities could open up for the NDP, and if the Conservatives were to get a Quebec leader or a red Tory like Jean Charest or Bernard Lord, seats in Montreal might be possible.  But while these speculations are fun, they don't have any relevance in the immediate future.

Its probably fair to assume that in the next election about 99% of the NDP's Quebec resources will be funneled into Outremont and Gatineau - with two or three other ridings on the "waiting list" in case if something breaks and the NDP starts to be in contention in more places in which case you might see Hull-Aylmer or Jeanne LeBer or even a sleeper like Drummond of Ste. Hyacinthe start getting resoruced.

Yes, I've seen Hull-Aylmer and Jeanne Le-Ber mentioned in discussions here several times before.  Realistically though, the NDP is not in contention in either seat as the distant 3rd place finishes in 2008 indicated.  They are both Liberal-BQ battles, and Marcel Proulx managed to increase his winning margin in Hull-Aylmer in 2008 from 2006.

Jeanne Le Ber will be a Liberal-BQ battle with the Liberals running Natalie Le Prohon to try and take the seat back from the BQ which the BQ only won by 2 percentage points in 2008.  It might be interesting to see what vote share the NDP gets though.  The NDP appears to be taking support away mainly from the BQ these days according to the latest polls so it could actually help the Liberals win back that riding.

For the record, and I can't find my quote right now, but I never predicted the NDP would win either seat, Debater.  I said they were ridings that should see some building efforts given that they were about to be vacant.

This is the Liberal party's main problem: they never build ridings over the long haul, but just want to do everything through a mass marketing campaign, appointing star candidates, and then try and spin their way into a win.  It used to work when they were in government and had a massively divided opposition, but it doesn't work anymore.

And who says there won't be a massive shift in Quebec?  There has been every few elections since I've been following politics.  Always assuming that everything will always go the way it always has (which all the pundits you keep quoting always do), is a recipe for boredom and lack of strategic vision and preparation.

"Jeanne Le Ber will be a Liberal-BQ battle with the Liberals running Natalie Le Prohon to try and take the seat back from the BQ which the BQ only won by 2 percentage points in 2008."

FYI: Le Prohon has given up on winning and resigned as Liberal candidate - it was front page news a few weeks ago in La Presse.

Thanks for the update.  I was not up on that.

I don't mind seeing her go, actually.  She was too corporate for my liking. 

Debater wrote:

Well anything is always possible of course, but usually it makes sense to explore what is likely to happen or what is somewhat likely to happen rather than something which is 99.99% unlikely to happen.  It's about as likely that the NDP will win in Laval as it is that the NDP or the Liberals will win in Wild Rose, Alberta.  

Given that we're talking about a 25-point gap in Laval vs a 65-point gap in Wild Rose (and indeed, an standing NDP share in Laval that's itself over 50% higher than that in Wild Rose), all you're proving is that when it comes to the eroticism of psephology, you're a terminally lousy lay. kiddo.

Size matters.

adma wrote:

Debater wrote:

Well anything is always possible of course, but usually it makes sense to explore what is likely to happen or what is somewhat likely to happen rather than something which is 99.99% unlikely to happen.  It's about as likely that the NDP will win in Laval as it is that the NDP or the Liberals will win in Wild Rose, Alberta.  

Given that we're talking about a 25-point gap in Laval vs a 65-point gap in Wild Rose (and indeed, an standing NDP share in Laval that's itself over 50% higher than that in Wild Rose), all you're proving is that when it comes to the eroticism of psephology, you're a terminally lousy lay. kiddo.

I made the comparison to make a point about how unlikely a win in Laval would be for the NDP.  I chose a slightly exaggerated comparison for that reason.  Your choice of words in your response is a little, er, unusual.

But anyway, moving on . . .

There were actually several ridings in Quebec in 2008 in which the NDP finished ahead of the Liberals.  The margins were small, but they are still interesting to think about.  Perhaps these could be ridings where the NDP could build support to become the alternative to the BQ as ottawaoberver suggests.

I looked through the 75 ridings and the other places where the NDP finished ahead of the Liberals include:

Repentigny

Lotbiniere-Chutes-de-la-Chaudiere

Saint Hyacinthe-Bagot

Our great candidate in Repentigny, labour economist Rejean Bellemare, is already renominated.  I'd guess it's the highest priority of the three.  The Bloc just elected a very very young person (Nicholas Dufour) to replace Father Ray Gravel, who stepped down after only a partial term, given that he was elected in the by-election after Benoit Sauvageau's untimely death in a car accident.

Sean with the overwhelming enthusiasm you display in your support for the NDP  I actually would prefer you supported another party. 

Quite frankly I am not able to understand why you say you support the NDP.

If I were a campaign manager for one of the ridings I can assure you that I would keep you as far away from the campaign office as possible during an election campaign.

Yes, the openly gay Father Gravel was apparently pressured to chose between allegiance to the Church and his political career and felt he had to step down in order to keep his devotion to the priesthood.  I think that the Church told him he could not continue to vote a certain way if he wanted to remain in the priesthood and so he decided not to run again.

I've seen Dufour speak in Parliament.  I think he is currently the youngest MP in the House of Commons and I've seen him and Justin Trudeau get into it a few times.

Debater wrote:

adma wrote:

Debater wrote:

Well anything is always possible of course, but usually it makes sense to explore what is likely to happen or what is somewhat likely to happen rather than something which is 99.99% unlikely to happen.  It's about as likely that the NDP will win in Laval as it is that the NDP or the Liberals will win in Wild Rose, Alberta.  

Given that we're talking about a 25-point gap in Laval vs a 65-point gap in Wild Rose (and indeed, an standing NDP share in Laval that's itself over 50% higher than that in Wild Rose), all you're proving is that when it comes to the eroticism of psephology, you're a terminally lousy lay. kiddo.

I made the comparison to make a point about how unlikely a win in Laval would be for the NDP.  I chose a slightly exaggerated comparison for that reason.  Your choice of words in your response is a little, er, unusual.

But it's a stupid "slightly exaggerated comparison".  When it comes to psephology, you're an uninspired Tragically Hip fan when you should be an anarchically diabolical Simply Saucer fan.

Indeed, if you want to invoke zones of historically exaggeratedly lopsided victories, one can try something closer at home like Mount Royal--and as proof of how one can't rule *anything* out, it saw the best CPC result in the greater Montreal area in 2008.  Extrapolating from that as well as pre-election polls that saw the Tories in the 20s in Montreal, it *could* have been a CPC pickup, imagine that...

We won't be having an election this year.

And in spite of the mainstream press' attempt to not let it happen, the NDP will probably break 20% in the polls this year, while  frustrating for the Conservatives, will be particularly upsetting for the Liberals.

North Report your comment is of course personal and devoid of any substance relevant to this debate. I think there is a word for that and it is not normally tolerated on this board.

I sincerely hope that you do not become a campaign manager for a riding that requires people to work together because I suspect you would drive away half the valuable volunteers with an attitude like that. I have worked on a good many NDP campaigns and my work has been appreciated BTW. Given your approach I would be happy to never work with you in any capacity on any thing.

I assume you figure that an exaggeration of support by flogging shamelessly the best poll result of the last 4 months is some replacement for real work and support-building for the NDP. I can agree with you therefore that I also wish that we were in different parties. Yours is the kind of thinking that keeps the NDP sub 20%, celebrates losses as if they were victories and drives away people that want to work realistically and effectively to making a difference. It is interesting that you choose this time to bring out your venom just because I suggested you are going overboard with your multiple posts celebrating the same poll.

I personally would prefer to keep perspective so the next time a poll comes out at 16% or so we don't have to explain that the roof is falling in and we lost 4 points. It is as reasonable a strategy as yours just with a little more forethought. Opinion polls don't win elections-- good communications and hard work does.

You can be assured that my respect for you now is about where yours is for me. There you can go on to your day and feel you have done your good deed defending what you think the NDP needs.

It is tricky to throw all resources in to a couple ridings. There always needs to be a balance between going after the ridings we might be able to get this time and providing enough ground support to make progress for the future and provide the sense of a provincial momentum now. Getting it wrong by going too much in one direction could lead to not getting seats that we could have had or on the other side sending discouraging signals to other campaigns that could be important to building future support. Indeed what might go a long way in securing the ridings is seeing the NDP go up in provincial polls due to a strong province-wide campaign. These are very difficult decisions to make and they can make or break a campaign.

It is foolish to assume there will with certainty be no election this year. Everybody I suspect knows that given the opportunity (poor polls for the Cons and an issue) the opposition would bring down Harper.

If I had to guess I would say the most likely would be the Spring budget of 2011. But I would suggest people should be prepared because this is not the most predictable of situations.

The parties generally have little will to work together and so much animosity that patience could be overtaken by other motivations.

I do believe the opposition would be smarter to wait if they can however. The economy is not in that good shape and the Cons are about to cut. It may be better to let the Cons show more of their hand before going to the polls. Next winter ought to be tough on the Cons with many files in trouble not just the economic but even the Afghan pull-out and the findings of committees. Ptience is likely good advice but we should not assume any certainty because an opportunity might present itself...

I'm just saying- if Sean were to show up in our riding looking for campaign jobs - we would find him some lickety split!!!

Have often thought about NR,  in the manner that he just referred to Sean, but have never felt that way about Sean... though I just disgard that "personal" perception as being non-applicable in the public realm.

Also, what this indicates is the great diversity that is within the NDP, and that is a good thing.

We just need to realize we do not need to impose cookie cutters upon one another. There is room for all...

One's style might not appeal to another, but would appeal to yet another.

Stephen Harper has not given up on winning more seats in Quebec, including in Montreal.  It is important not to underestimate him.  The Conservatives still want to win seats in Montreal.  As former Montreal PC MP Gerry Weiner said last year, it is unfortunate that it has been 20 years since voters in Montreal have had the opportunity to have a Conservative MP to represent them.

With no MP's in Montreal right now it means that Montrealers are excluded from having an MP in the Government to represent them.

Do you also think its unfortunate that though all those years of Liberal government - people in Calgary kept insisting on not electing any Liberals and condemning themselves to having no voice in government?

PS: Its also smart not to OVER-estimate Harper. He has proven over and over again that for every brilliant tactical move - he does something that totally backfires. I don't think he's that politically shrewd but as the saying goes a broken clock can be right twice a day.

Well, NR and Sean, if I was a manager on a campaign and you both came into my campaign office with your differences, I would learn what I could from the substance of your disagreements, and then I would drag you both out for a beer until they were all sorted out and everyone was laughing again. And if that didn't work, we'd just have to resort to Irish Whiskey.

Seriously, we have such a high mountain to climb already, it would be a shame to lose anyone on the way. So put on your happy faces, and smile, smile, smile.

NR, as I've pointed out in the past, objectivity is important in politics.  It's good to be passionate, but when you are always claiming that the NDP will be winning 200 seats in the next election it tends to cloud your reason.  Remember:  as Pierre Trudeau said, "Reason before passion".  

Sean is trying to provide a reasonable interpretation of events.  That is something important for a campaign to have - not something to scorn.

No wonder the NDP has not won any federal elections yet, and similiarly if the comments made here by Debater are representative of  Liberal party strategy, which I have no doubt they are, it's no wonder the Liberals are having difficulties getting the support of the Canadian public as well.

--

No CONservative MP's represent their constiuents anyway, so truthfully it is no big loss, unless of course you are tring to infer that Montrealers are missing out on feeding at what the CONservatives believe is their trough, the way other COn constituencies did when they received their big phoney CONservative Party logoed cheques, when it should have been our Canadian government logos on the cheques, as it is tax payers money, NOT the CONs.

Those receiving the fake cheques and saying nothing, about the expropriation of the CONservatives of tax payer dollars to buy votes for themselves, in order to keep their bellies at the trough, deserve as much condemnation, as do the CONservatives. As ya'll 100% represent what is wrong in Canada, and with politicians.

And perhaps Montrealers feel blessed that they have not had a CONservative representing them for 20 years, or even did ya think it could be that they are well pleased with themselves, as it is their choice NOT to have such  ugly anti-people and anti-life representation, as they would have had with voting for a CONservative MP.

Every CONservative MP out there is a very nasty piece of work that deserves, IMV, no allocades, only condemnation and rejection.

I can't disagree with Ottawa Observer's sentiments. Thank you!

The registered parties' fourth quarter financial returns for 2009 are posted at www.elections.ca [49].
Contributions by individuals:

• Conservatives - $4.87M - 40,004
• Liberals - $1.91M - 18,777
• NDP - $1.65M - 16,726
• Greens - $0.48M - 4,776
• BQ - $0.21M - 1,936

Thanks Krago.

The NDP is raising almost as much money as the Liberals which of course is a good sign.

Now the next step for the NDP is to up the ante and start competing with the Cons for funding from the voters.

Tories rake in twice as much cash as Liberals, but Grits closing gap

Except for the Liberals, all other parties' saw their donations drop last year from their election-fuelled results in 2008.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/83302572.html

"Grits closing gap" that  made me so laugh my ass off..... they only have 3 million to go, the Liberals round up like the Green Party rounds down.

New Harris-Decima poll:

Con   32%

Lib    32%

NDP   15%

Bloc   10%

Grn      9%

http://www.harrisdecima.ca/sites/default/files/releases/2010/02/01/hd-20...

The Liberals are most certainly not "closing the gap". Not even remotely in absolute terms, where the Conservatives continue to leave everyone way behind in the dust.

The Liberals aren't even doing well in relation to anything else- except to having been in the dangerous dumps in 2008. They had one real good quarter in 2009, and a lot of that was delegate fees for the Convention, with the rest being $1100 max donors at events who they have since tapped out. The 3rd and 4th Quarters came in slightly under breakeven levels, and the Q4 was a shade less than was raised in the 2007 Q4 in the middle of the Dion doldrums.

The strong first half was enough to pay off their debt, and now they are breaking even or close to it. Which is an improvement over 2007 and 2008, but isn't 'closing the gap' with any one.

We better hide this new poll from North Report.  I don't want him to get too upset that it goes against his recent predictions.

Excerpt from Harris-Decima report:

"it is clear that the Liberals are making some substantial inroads in battle ground constituencies. They are emerging as the dominant federalist alternative to the BQ in Quebec and they are now ahead in riding-rich Ontario for the first time since September. Perhaps even more importantly, seats that looked to be in the Conservative's win column in the 905 area code are once again competitive and the Liberals are regaining their historic advantage with women voters. In sum, the Conservative's slow motion redrawing of the Canadian political map that we were witnessing for the better part of 2009 is now being erased in first weeks of 2010."

This period has got to be a win-win-win situation for the NDP.

Having in Layton the most most popular federalist leader in Quebec, sitting at 19% NDP support federally from a credible pollster, and the best NDP fund-raising in a non-election year ever, must be the reasons for the lilt in Layton's walk these days. 

http://punditsguide.ca/2010/02/fourth-quarter-financial-results-what.php

I don't know about the lilt in his walk.  He threw his back out lifting weights over the weekend.

The Liberals know not to try taking that to the bank.

It definitely beats the kicks in the teeth they have been getting. But they are well aware of how short lived their polling spikes have been over Iggy's tenure. And they know that this could even more easily and quickly turn drastically back against them under the pressure of a campaign... let alone campaigning when they are ill prepared and the Conservatives are super primed.

As to what to expect over the mid and longer run- its just another shift in the horse race that changes this much every couple months.... without any party getting significantly away from where they were in October 2008 [or 2007, or...].

Apropos the Liberals and fundraising, I posted this at Pundits Guide:

Canada

Liberals: 31.9 (+0.3)

Conservatives: 31.0 (-0.1) 
NDP: 15.4 (+0.8)
Bloc Quebecois: 8.4 (-0.5) (34.9 (-2.1) in Quebec)
Green: 10.9 (-0.1)
Other: 2.4 (-0.2)

Undecided/Ineligible: 14.5 (+2.1)



British Columbia (MoE 5.09)
Conservatives: 30.4 (-2.0)
Liberals: 27.6 (+0.5)
NDP: 23.0 (+1.1)
Green: 16.4 (+1.8)
Other: 2.7 (-1.3)




Alberta (MoE 6.19)
Conservatives: 52.1 (+1.9)
Liberals: 18.3 (-0.3)
Green: 13.0 (-2.4)
NDP: 10.4 (+1.0)
Other: 6.2 (-0.2)

 

Saskatchewan/Manitoba (MoE 6.46)
Conservatives: 39.9 (-4.5)
NDP: 31.2 (+11.3)
Liberals: 19.8 (-4.1)
Green: 7.9 (-0.9)
Other: 1.2 (-1.8)

See, NDP? I was saving the good news til we hit Saskitoba, where a good, old-fashioned prairie socialist revival appears to be in full swing, with the NDP rocketing into second place with a double-digit jump from last week's numbers, at the expense of pretty much every other party on the EKOS ballot.  

Ontario (MoE 2.95)
Liberals: 40.6 (+1.4)
Conservatives: 32.4 (+0.8)
NDP: 14.0 (-0.8)
Green: 10.5 (-1.9)
Other: 2.4 (+0.5)

 

Quebec (MoE 3.64)
Bloc Quebecois: 34.9 (-2.1)
Liberals: 27.0 (-2.1)
Conservatives: 17.8 (+1.6)
NDP: 9.8 (+0.5)
Green: 8.8 (+1.8)
Other: 1.7 (+0.3)



Atlantic Canada (MoE 6.16)
Liberals: 38.8 (+5.0)
Conservatives: 31.7 (-5.4)
NDP: 19.2 (-1.9)
Green: 9.6 (+3.0)
Other: 0.7 (-0.6)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/ekos-of-the-day-another-week-another-statistical-tie-is-this-the-new-normal.html

And the margin of error for a provincial segment of a national poll is?

And I thought Ekos had been discredited-- but now we want to cherry pick a provincial sub-result (based on how many respondents?) because we like that number?

Somehow we are supposed to cheer for the Sask numbers while at the same time rejecting the national numbers? Or are we also to cheer for Sask and accept the Ontario numbers 14%? Or cheer for the Sask numbers based on a tiny sample but say the Green results are ridiculous even as they are based on a wider sample nationally and are at almost 11% within 4.5% of the NDP?

This is sure some selective analysis.

I'd rather reject the whole Ekos poll which I think is flawed from start to finish than go in to the fine print contorting logic into a pretzel in order to have something to feed the propaganda machine. 'Cause that is some thin silver lining in a poll that is overall pretty negative and most likely BS from an outfit that has a poor track record at least according to the same person crowing about the Sask number. Bizarre.

My own view of the Ekos poll is that i have some qualms about their methodology and there is reason to believe that they are grossly inflating the Green/Other vote - but that being said I accept the trend line they are showing and we cannot ignore their poll gradually going from a 14% Tory lead to the Tories being behind by 1% and that trend is being picked up in other surveys as well. They give us a good idea of which way the river is flowing - even if they may err when it comes to measuring the depth of the water!

I thought it was me questioning the Ekos approach, not NR, Sean.

You know Ontario really pisses me off....

sometimes, not always

lol Me too and I live here. Bob Rae remind, nevermind what party he is in now, but it's Bob Rae. Funny Harris's stink never really lingered despite the worst government we have ever had, yes much worse than McGuinty. But somehow Rae is what Ontarians always point to as far as the NDP go. Or "the unions"

If Ontarians were the least bit honest with themselves, then they would not be swinging towards the Liberals and Bob Rae. And they would be running as fast and as far as they could from the CONservatives,  which as you say Thorin were far worse than Rae.

That they hold the rest of Canads hostage federally, is most annoying.

At least Quebec is an actually get up and change things kinda of province, so one does not feel like banging heads off of walls, hoping they grab a clue for once.

Seat projections:

Cons - 109

Libs - 122

NDP - 31

Bloc - 45

Ind - 1

Total - 308

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/seat-projections-raise-...

Gag....

Actually I'm encouraged by that seat projection - it has Liberal+NDP at 153 seats - just two seats shy of being a majority betwene them and being able to shut out the Tories and give the NDP a clear balance of power without any need for the BQ to be involved - what's not to like?

I don't want the NDP to lose any seats but gain them. That said, the NDP always does better in campaigns. Iggy is untried and I think when the election comes and Canadians get to hear Iggy day and day out it will be good for the NPD. Those are my views!

the Liberals could do just like the Conservatives and work with whomever they please on each thing.

What's wrong?  I thought you wanted a Liberal-socialist coalition?

Augustus, Why don't you make yourself useful over there at the Conservative Resource Group, and help your leader draft a classy statement on Jack Layton's health? Funny that we've yet to hear from the PM on this, wouldn't you think?

Since the NDP is polling well in Quebec these days (there are more NDP supporters than you think there), I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the NDP's biggest target would be Gatineau. It's within striking distance (2,600 votes, 3.2% of the vote in 2008), and this is the NDP's number one priority pick-up seat in the province.

All this should be done *after* giving Mulcair everything he needs and more to fend off the Liberal hordes. If he falls, then the NDP would need to pick up at least two/three other seats there to wipe out the PR embarrassment.

Edmund, it's already a very high priority, and Françoise Boivin has been elected co-president of the federal party's Québec wing by way of reinforcing that.

I think they should be priorizing a number of seats for building there. And about 3-4 more full-fledged campaigns.

Thanks, ottawaobserver. It`s good to hear confirmation.

A long-term bet for a full-fledged campaign would be Duceppe`s seat. I am quite serious. Duceppe is not getting any younger, and retirement has to be at least on his mind. I am willing to bet a lot of voters would be forced to look at who they vote for when he steps down, and that for a lot of them, their values best find a voice with the NDP.

Agreed. I'm not an expert on Montreal municipal politics, but apparently the results there confirm that this is prime territory for the NDP to target once Duceppe steps down.

I was just whimsically thinking: if Justin Trudeau were somehow incapacitated, Papineau would also be realistic as a NDP target...

Viviane Barbot is going to run again. I think those two have to have one more go around, before people are ready to move on.

The man has got a lock on that seat. However, a return visit to Sudbury any time soon might not be advisable. It seems he has his father's way with words regarding his opponents.

Adma, I would need to see some serious data/reasons before I'd count Papineau as an NDP target, even without the demigod's presence. The NDP vote last time around was under 9%, and that was getting on for a high water mark.

I agree, Papineau will not be on my short-list for the forseeable future. Holding Outremont, winning Gatineau and then focusing on ridings like Jeanne Le-Ber, Hochelaga, NDG-Lachine and Westmount Ville-Marie would be my priority list - depending on the relative fortunes of the BQ and Libs when the election is called, and the quality of NDP candidates in those ridings. 

Let's not forget Hull Aylmer. It was the third best NDP showing in Quebec last time and it tends to have a good four way race.

One key to Hull-Aylmer might be Pierre Ducasse's situation with respect to the election timing. He had a very strong, although ultimately unsuccessful performance last fall running for a municipal seat in Hull (now part of the amalgamated city of Gatineau; > 45% of the vote). And he and his wife had a new baby recently.

It would be a natural target seat for the NDP, given all the factors Stockholm mentions, and the cross-border experience with New Democrats like Marion Dewar, Mike Cassidy, Ed of course, and Paul, along with the fact that many of its residents would be federal public servants.

But unlike Gatineau, we don't have a presumptive candidate working the community really hard now, although I could stand to be corrected on this point. So far as I know, Ducasse is working on a book. Hopefully that helps recharge his batteries for one more federal run, because Proulx is such a weak weak MP, and the Bloc is really vulnerable in the National Capital Region after Daniel Paillé's economic plan to fire all kinds of federal public servants.

I think Pierre is so gifted, and would hate to lose his energy and spirit. Hope he runs again for us.

By the way, after the fiasco that just unfolded at the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting in Iqaluit, where not one Finance Minister stayed for the community dinner (to avoid issues related to the seal hunt), I suspect the Conservatives have really made people feel pretty bad up there. I can't imagine this is good for their reelection chances in that riding at all. Nunavut is often a 3-way race, and I suspect they may wind up electing a different MP next time around.

It looks like the PMO wanted to railroad their foreign guests, and wound up making everyone look and feel bad. Just another example of smarty-pants bully-boy tactics backfiring spectacularly yet again.

But remember (when it comes to "serious reasons"): that was up against the spotlight-hogging Trudeau vs Barbot battle royal--we're looking at a hapless superfluous-third-wheel circumstance not unlike that faced by CPC in Parkdale-High Park vs Kennedy vs Nash.  And if it was "high water mark", it's because practically every 2008 NDP result in Quebec was a 20-year high water mark.

That's why I emphasize the "somehow incapacitated" point (and with ottawaobserver raising the Barbot factor as well)--I'm not saying the NDP should target Papineau this instant, but it's definitely the kind of seat that'd be on-radar if the Liberal were less demigod-ish and the Bloc ran an autopilot "Daniel Paillé conservative". 

So I'm dealing with hypotheticals, not practicalities here--and if even under that hypotheticalized circumstance Papineau's a total write-off, then we're getting back into the "practically everything but Outremont and Gatineau" zone...

That's a lot of undecided

Nik on the Numbers

The latest Nanos tracking has the Conservatives dropping in the new year with a dead heat between the Tories and the Liberals. The Conservatives continue to lead in the Prairies and British Columbia but are statistically tied with the Liberals in Atlantic Canada, Ontario. The Bloc Quebecois leads in Quebec at 33% followed by the Liberals at 29% and the Conservatives at 22%, the NDP at 11% and the Greens at 5%.

Although the Harper Conservatives ended the year with a comfortable 10 point margin, their advantage in the ballot box has all but evaporated.

To chat about this poll join the national political online chat at Nik on the Numbers. The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website along with regional breakdowns. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates.

Methodology
Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between January 29th and February 4th 2010. A survey of 1,002 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20, for 783 committed voters, it is accurate to within 3.5 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Margins may be larger for smaller samples.

Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)

The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between December 10th and December 13th, 2009.

National Committed Voters Only (n=783)
Conservative 35.6% (-3.9)
Liberal 33.9% (+3.7)
NDP 16.4% (-2.3)
BQ 8.5% (+0.8)
Green 5.6% (+1.6)

Note: Undecided 21.9% (-3.8) of total voters surveyed

Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Tracking Poll."

Just so we're clear, what exactly do you mean, "somehow incapacitated"? I'm struggling to picture scenarios here.

If they wish to remain viable as a federal political party, the Liberals will have no choice but to turn to Justin to lead them after the next election.

Yikes-- you think that would make them viable? I guess it can't hurt but I don't think he is the prescription either.

I think he means "if Justin Trudeau were incapacited, somehow".  For example, by losing the seat next time, or becoming involved in a scandal or in some other way becoming a non-viable candidate, Edmund.

NR, I think both Justin Trudeau and Martin Cauchon (should he win his seat) would be in the race.  I'm not sure Trudeau's leadership would make them "viable".  I have not been terribly impressed by him at all; I find him quite shallow.  His brother Sacha has a lot more depth in my eyes.

Actually if I knew what would make them viable again-- I'd keep it to myself 

We have had enough of them being politically viable, economically dishonest, ethically bankrupt and intellectually berift. In that context, I find it somewhat refreshing to see them politically not viable.

Justin is certainly as deep as a Vancouver snow

It's the dynasty thingy. It's all in the name like Kennedy, Bush, etc. Competency is irrelevant.

Anyway as Chantal discussed in her column this AM, Canada's next PM could well come from Alberta.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Or even, I regret to say, dying.  To clarify, I'm not wishing anything upon Justin: just examining all hypotheticals that can be encompassed by "incapacitated, somehow".

Though speaking of dying, I'm reminded of how Dief's seat became a posthumous NDP pickup...

Well, *anything* could happen to *anyone* at *any* time, I suppose, but we don't need to take our speculation that far, do we?

Which is why I didn't refer to "dying" in the first place--just the royal "incapacitated"  Even I know it's macabre.

Of course, the most recent vivid case of dying as a cue for change: Scott Brown in Massachusetts...

Closing for length. Please continue in a new thread.