NDP strategy for the next federal election, whenever that may be. (Thread 2)

Well as I think you know, the Liberals aren't just targeting one seat - they are targeting a couple dozen seats in Quebec.  It's just that Outremont is considered of symbolic importance to the Liberals and is one they desperately want back.

Why is it symbolic?

And desperately is an interesting choice of word usage, that indicates the Liberals are full of dispair and  have lost hope, and as such are full of anxiety and neediness, as they await more disaster to befall them.

Outremont is a long-term Liberal seat - that's why it's symbolic.  It's loss was a blow to the Liberals and getting it back would represent a comeback in Quebec.

It's just like the NDP really wants Oshawa back because it is of symbolic value as the former riding of Ed Broadbent and the home of the autoworkers.

Btw, you are reading way too much into the word "desperately" - I used the word to emphasize that all parties have certain seats that they salivate for and intensely desire to win.  You realize your comments above mentioning "lost hope", "anxiety and neediness" and "disaster" are a little silly, yes?

No fear no prisoners!

So the Liberals are going to crush the NDP are they.

Let's have a look at the popular vote over the past 4 general elections.

This trend looks very, very bad for the Liberals, and surprisingly Dion is just a minor blip on the radar screne.

Who knew!

Somebody somewhere has spotted a weakness.

I guess this tells the NDP which party to target, eh

Getting close, will the next election be the one?

2008 election - difference 8.1%

Libs - 26.3%

NDP - 18.2%

2006 election - difference 12.7%

Libs - 30.2%

NDP - 17.5%

2004 election - difference 21% 

Libs - 36.7%

NDP - 15.7%

2000 election - difference 32.5%

Libs - 40.8%

NDP - 8.5%

No sorry, debator, you can't shift those goal posts, you used the word desperately, perhaps it was a sub consciously truthful error, if you are now trying to retract your use of it, but the fact remains you still used it, and it still indicates exactly what it means, the Liberals are desperate, and you were speaking in the singular, about the Liberal Party, not plural parties.

Having said that, it is not as if we all did not know that the Liberals were desperate anyway, so I am not sure why you are trying to shift  that truth away out of sight. I thought it was refreshing honesty on your part.

BTW, good try on the focus shift by trying to frame me as "silly", and please do refrain from such a personal attack again. And I have asked you to stop the personal attack of using "silly" in respect to myself directly, before, and should not have had to ask again.

Yes, the continual trending down is obvious NR,  so it is no wonder Liberal insiders are calling themselves desperate.

The Liberals need only lose 4% more and the NDP to gain that 4% for a  tie to occur, and again I say no wonder the Liberals are desperate.

But you are using last year's election numbers when you talk about the Liberals going down 4% and the NDP going up 4% in order to come up with this tie in the popular vote.  The current poll numbers show about a 12-15 point gap between the Liberals and the NDP and that could end up being the gap in the next election.  Your analysis depends on last year's numbers rather than the current trends.

And as I said above, you have misinterpreted the use of the word desperately, but I'm not going to even bother on that one except to say that "The Liberals desperately want to win in Outremont" is no different than a man saying "I desperately want to have sex with that beautiful woman."  It expresses a strong, lustful desire for something - it does not mean something is falling apart and collapsing.

Debator

Beginning of Sept last year the Liberals were polling 12% above the NDP, and it meant nothing at the end of the day. The NDP closed the gap by 6% on election day.

Indeed on Sept 19, of last year, a poll for ON  had the Liberals at 37% and look where they ended at election time 33.8%, and indeed the same poll had the Liberals at 28% in BC,  and the NDP at 18%, final score at election time was Liberals at 19.3% and the NDP at 26.1%. A almost complete reversal of the poll predictions, in less than a month before the election.

The poll of 45 battleground ridings across the country was conducted for The Globe and Mail newspaper and CTV by the Strategic Counsel,

http://www.punditsguide.ca/index.php [79]

Moreover, the NDP had 2 missing candidates, and several cases of nasty politics by the Liberals that actually deflated the NDP's votes, say nothing of EMay telling the Green Pary voters to vote Liberal, all of which over inflated the Liberal numbers and the phoney strategic voting whine did too. Had that stuff not occured, one wonders just how far the Liberals would have been down from what they actually got at election time.

IMV, they could have easily been down 4% lower than what they actually achieved. And as such, it is easily doable for the NDP to overtake the LIberals. No NDP candidate problems and no shilling for the Liberals, by another political party's leader, would make that 4%  deficit up easily.

And indeed, around this time last year, NDP poll numbers were at about 14-15% and now they are steady at 18%. And given they finished at 18.2%  3-4% above poll projections  from this time last year, the future looks pretty bright for continued NDP increases at actual election time. Especially given the trend over the last 9 years is for the NDP increasing and the Liberal Party decreasing, at election time, and that cannot be denied, nor discounted.

This gives even more weight to the premise that an increase of 4% by the NDP, at the Liberals expense is easily doable. And indeed even more is possible, all things given. Iggy is falling flat and their numbers  are just not good enough. They are only 2% above where the polls were last year around this time, and are only polling 3.7% above their election totals.

http://paulitics.wordpress.com/poll-index/national/ [80]

Also, good example to support my interpretation of your use of desperate, only now I can also add delusional thinking to the desperation descriptor for the Liberal Party.

As any man who looks across the street and thinks; "I desperately want to have sex with that beautiful woman",  is needy, anxious, and desperate to delude himself. He would be in a state of dispair with himself over his lack of  having his own beautiful, and known to him, woman  to have sex with, and thus is relegated to imaginings, over actuality.

Will refrain from making any commentary about how sexist and disparaging to women, that analogy you used is too.

I know what nobody knows
Where it comes and where it goes
I know its everybodys sin
You got to lose to know how to win - Aerosmith, Dream on

Another way the NDP could shave some dollars off the deficit would be to cancel massive subsidies to the oil and gas sector. They could also cancel agricultural subsidies and put in place "tariff-based" equivalents against equivalent imported agricultural goods. This would have a net zero economic effect, and a net positive fiscal effect (e.g. you would not change Canadian agriculture's competitive position and tax payers would a) no longer have to foot billions of dollars/year in subsidies and b) would have revenues from tariffs). Of course, for the tariff-based equivalents scheme to work, you would have to make sure that it could stand up legally before international trade panels, etc. I think it makes sense to "tarrifise" the subsidies anyways, because that makes it easy to build them these things as a (concrete and) new bargaining chip in free trade negotiations. It is also more honest than reducing tariffs through trade negotiations all the while boosting subsidies, and avoids the disingenuous and wasteful haggling over what constitutes a "subsidy" and in light of that, the value of protectionist "concessions." The subsidies are also arbitrary. They favour scale in agriculture, which screws over the small producer without the proper political connections or abilities to chase after cash. A tariff system would be more equitable to the Canadian farmer.

There are surely billions and billions of other dollars that could be shaved off the deficit if other subsidy programs were slashed or turned into tariffs. There are also some bizarre Crown Corps and service providers in government that were created back in the dark ages of the Canadian economy (e.g. pre-WWII) that could (and should) be privatised because of the big savings that privatising them could generate for the government and in some cases consumers- not to mention the taxpayers that underwrite these corps. A strategic review of government service providers and Crown Corps with an eye to privatising say the 5% that have the least business being in government, would not be the worst thing for government or the Canadian people. The Liberals would probably fight these move tooth and nail, as these government fossils are often their preferred place for packing patronage appointments and the like.

It's time for the NDP to get down to brass tacks and knuckles and show Canadians that they can a) manage the public finances tightly and in the public interest and b) fund the big social programs that Canadians really care about like child care, a pharmacy benefit, post-secondary education, and a robust social safety net.

The comment is not disparaging or sexist in any way - it's a normal human reaction people of all sexes and orientations have.  You need to get with the real world.

The point of the comparison was to show you that certain parties lust for certain ridings in an almost sexual way, and that is why I used a sexual analogy.

It is disparaging to women, it is a sexually objectifying commentary, as if any "beautiful" stranger across the street is up for grabs because a male is lusting for her. Do not try and normalize it as a "normal reation".

But of course you just used this format to try and again marginalize my voice by stating I am not in the real world. Not much different than the personal attack of "silly", eh?!

Moreover, if this  disparaging and objectification and feeling free to be so sexist, is the "real world" for Liberal men, then they need to get the hell out of it. They are no friend to women's equality rights, and it is not the real world for well over 50% of the population. That you believe it is a prevailing societal one, when it isn't, indcates just how deep the Liberal's belief in their privilege is, and how ugly it is too.

It  is no wonder the Liberal Party has been trending down down down over the last 9 years, and with no hope in sight for an increase given the numbers I detailed above.

There are polls and there are polls.

And it is quite easy to manipulate a poll, and that is what some polls are used for. There are so many different ways to do it.

Here's one way:

All the pollster has to do is poll in an area where one knows there is strong, say Liberal Party support, and voila, the Liberals are going to win, because the polls say so.  

Here's another way:

The pollster polls every day, until the political party, say the Liberals, who the pollster supports, starts to go up, The day the polling uptick for the Liberals ends, the pollster releases the results, just prior to when the Liberals start to drop in the polls.

A reason the connections between some of the polling firms and some of the political parties are so strong, is because there are so many ways the polls can be manipulated.

It's quite simple really.

Not saying every pollster does it, but it is done much more often than what the public, and even some of the people who work for polling firms, realize.

Now we can expect the usual polls are accurate, and polls are not biased, and polls are honest, and some of the rest of the usual BS response, by the poll defenders.

And I say to them, give us a break, as federal elections are knock-down, drag-em in the mud, dirty tactic politics, and some folks will use any means at their disposal to try and win, including polls.

These are some of the reasons there is so much hulabaloo about polls, and why it is usually much better to look at election result-to-election result  trends.

"3 NL St John's South-Mount Pearl 2nd, 3%, 949 votes C"

Another correction for you - the above riding is Liberal-held NOT Conservative.

Thanks Stock, the correction has been made.

Let's go for broke here.

Does anyone know what the next 3 Liberals ridings are to make it an even 20?

1 SK Sastatoon-Rosetown-Biggar 2nd, 1%, 262 votes  C

2 NS South Shore-St Margaret's 2nd, 2%, 932 votes C

3 NL St John's South-Mount Pearl 2nd, 3%, 949 votes L-1

4 BC Surrey North 2nd, 3%, 1,106 votes C

5 QC Gatineau , 2nd, 3%, 1,577 votes B

6 BC Vancouver Island North 2nd, 4%, 2,497 votes C

7 ON Oshawa 2nd, 7%, 3,201 votes C 

8 ON Parkdale-High Park 2nd, 7%, 3,373 votes L-2

9 NU Nunavut 3rd, 7%, C

10 NS Dartmouth-Coal Harbour 2nd, 8%, 3,223 votes L-3 

11 ON Beaches-East York 2nd, 9%, 4,092 votes L-4

12 BC Newton-Nrth Delta 3rd, 10%, L-5

13 SK Regina-Qu'Appelle 2nd, 10%, 2,809 votes C

14 SK Palliser 2nd, 10%, 3,294 votes C

15 BC Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo 2nd, 10%, 5,608 votes C

16 BC Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca 3rd, 11%, L-6

17 NS Halifax West 2nd, 12%, 4,928 votes L-7 

18 ON Essex 3rd, 13%, C

19 BC Vancouver-Centre 3rd, 14% L-8

20 ON Davenport 2nd, 15%, 5,057 votes L-9

21 BC Nanaimo-Alberni, 2rd, 15%, 9,250 votes C

22 ON Guelph 4th, 16%, L-10

23 ON Kenora 3rd, 17%, C

24 ON Hull-Aylmer 3rd, 17%, L-11

25 BC Vancouver South 3rd, 18%, L-12

26 NB Fundy-Royal 2nd, 18%, 9,304 votes C

27 ON York South-Weston 2nd, 19%, 6,430 votes L-13

28 BC Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission 2nd, 19%, 9,618 votes C

29 ON Kitchener Centre 3rd, 19%, C

30  Brossard-La Prairie 4th, 20%, L-14

31 AB Edmonton East 2nd, 20%, 8,169 votes C

32 MB Kildonan-St Paul 2nd, 21%, 7,658 votes C

33 ON Kingston & the Islands 3rd, 22%, L-15

34 NS King-Hants 3rd, 22%, L-16

35 ON London North Centre 3rd, 22%, L-17

36 BC Fleetwood-Port Kells, 3rd, 22%, C

37 ON Scarborough Southwest 3rd, 23%, L-18

38 SK Regina-Lumdsen-Lake Centre 2nd, 23%, 7,090 votes C

39 QC Westmount 2nd, 24%, 9,137 votes L-19

NS Cape Breton 3rd, 27%, L-20

   Y Yukon 4th, 37%, L-21

Not to rain on your parade North Report, but in addition to a 20 ridings the NDP might hypothetically steal from the CPC, you must realise that the Liberals are more competitive than the NDP in many more Conservative ridings (the Liberals have more second place finishes than the NDP and make rebate in more ridings). This means that all things equal, even the NDP stealing 20 seats from the Liberals wouldn't guarantee official opposition status because there is the greater number of seats the Liberals could put the CPC under fire in that you have to consider. As such, your idea is a good one, but I favour an approach that looks at each riding on its merits as opposed to some conceit about 20 seats switching from Liberal to NDP...Just a matter of personal preference.

As for the remaining 3 seats. How about Brossard-La-Prairie, Guelph, Yukon (small # of voters = big swings), or some place where voter turnout sharply dropped (indicative of alienated voters)?

V. Jara I agree with you, Thanks for the riding suggestions, and some changes above have been made.

Nothing is cast in stone here.

Just wanted to have, from the list of ridings that the NDP did not win in the last election,  a list of the ridings in order of closeness to winning for the NDP.

Now, as you suggest, it's time to dissect each riding.

But in the end, so did the Liberals (Kildonan St Paul and, of course, Central Nova)

No the NDP  had to have paper candidates slotted into Dana's and Brad's ridings after their forced resignations. So in actual fact they were down 4, 2 below the Liberals. But it was good to see the Liberal's  dirty tricks coming back to bite them in the ass anyway.

This was posted at the same time that Maysie closed the thread... however it is relevant to this thread ... sorry for any confusion...from the polling thread now closed..

NorthReport wrote:I supported it, and it was brilliant NDP strategy, and the NDP has been reaping the benefits of it. What Layton did by coming first out of the gate, was to box Ignatieff in, who is no shape to run against a seasoned pro like Harper, and forced the Liberals once again to support the Cons, destroying what little credibility the Libs had left, of contrasting themselves to the Cons.

1) Boxing yourself in.. is a strategy..it is not brilliant.  What works in Parliment, doesn't always work with the electorate. Few people think it was brilliant to say the NDP are voting against the bill without seeing it.  This makes no sense to the general public. If you have to explain it to them... its too late.

2) Ignatieff is only boxed in until the next election cycle. This is the same box that Dion was in. Harper pulled the plug last time, this time, Ignatieff will be able to choose when to get out of the box. The NDP will have no control when this occurrs.

3) The Liberals don't need credibility, the NDP do. The LPC will get cut alot of slack. People do not like Harper, and his antics on the worldstage continue to hold him back. People are looking for the alternative and Ignatieff is not Dion. Layton is tied to the failed Dion because of the Coalition. Ignatieff has freely disassociated himself from the coalition and Layton.

One problem that the NDP has, is an inability to allow issues to form in the public and this rush to judgement and action has hurt potential growth for the NDP.  The Dion Fiasco, the Voting against it before seeing it, are not winning over the hearts and minds of the voter.

These "Strategic" parlimentary tactics may work in parliment, but they are not accepted by the public as reasons to vote NDP.

The NDP risks getting labelled with the same "Gamesmanship" that Harper uses.

One good thing about the LPC choice of Ignatieff is that it allows the opportunity to demonstrate that the Liberal Leader is the tweedle dum of the CPC leader.

The NDP needs to reassert why there has to be NDP members in parliment.

The NDP has strength in Quebec that it didn't have. Part of the reason is Layton, and part of the reason is Muclair.

Why don't they set up Mulclair as the Quebec Leader of the NDP, and run the NDP as a Nationalist-Federalist alternative kind of like the Quebec Liberals? Layton would remain the Federal Leader, but operations in Quebec would be more or less decentralized to a Quebec NDP organization.

Perhaps they are already to a good extent, but I guess what I am saying is that they should be seen to be so.

There are a good number of Bloc seats which could be ripe for the picking. Both the Liberals and the Tories know this, however ideologically the NDP seem to be the best party to compete head-to-head with the Bloc.

If the NDP were serious about Quebec and were willing to recognize Quebec as a nation within a Canadian federation, and they set up a Quebec organization, they have the potential to be a permanent and endearing part of the Quebec political landscape, even more so than they are now.

I think the provincial victory in Nova Scotia could bode well for this.

The NDP is already highly decentralized and there already is a Quebec NDP with its own organization etc... - the NDP is willing to "recognize Quebec as a nation within a Canadian federation" that was proven when the party voted for the H of C resolution to that effect in 2006.

"2) Ignatieff is only boxed in until the next election cycle. This is the same box that Dion was in. Harper pulled the plug last time, this time, Ignatieff will be able to choose when to get out of the box. The NDP will have no control when this occurrs."

The NDP actually has just as much control over when the plug gets pulled as does Ignatieff. It happens that the NDP has it clear that their answer to any vote that involves non-confidence in Harper is "bring it on!" - but that was a decision the party made. There is nothing (apart from riots by party members) to stop Layton from announcing tomorrow that the NDP will start propping up Harper and saying "the Liberals propped him up 79 times. Now its our turn".

3) The Liberals don't need credibility, the NDP do. The LPC will get cut alot of slack. People do not like Harper, and his antics on the worldstage continue to hold him back. People are looking for the alternative and Ignatieff is not Dion. Layton is tied to the failed Dion because of the Coalition. Ignatieff has freely disassociated himself from the coalition and Layton.

Dion is ancient history. The public has long forgotten who he was. He's irrelevant. Ignatieff knows that he can only go so far in "dissociating" himself from a coalition or from Layton because he has to know that there is virtually ZERO chance of a Liberal majority after the next election and that means that Iggy will be FORCED to deal with the NDP - or else he will never be PM - its as simple as that. I predict that no one will be able to pin Iggy down to the point where he will categtorically rule out any coalition. He will never want to tie his hands that way.

And besides, Canada's banksters commanded Iggy not to push an election at this time. Iggy and Liberals will do as instructed by our not democratically elected banksters and Bay Street running the show in this Northern Puerto Rico. Liberals would never dream of biting the hand that feeds that party of opportunists' political fortunes.

Hull-Aylmer isn't going to happen.

I think that's correct.  Liberal MP Marcel Proulx increased his margin of victory in the last election and ended up winning by 15 percentage points whereas in the previous election it had been close between him and the BQ.  This time the BQ dropped in support.

The NDP, although it had a somewhat high-profile candidate like Pierre Ducasse, finished 3rd and this year he is apparently going to be running in Montreal municipally instead.  I assume that the main riding in the Outaouais that the NDP will continue to target will be Gatineau.

Truth is  Proulx recovered a bit of what he formerly lost in the 2004 election, debator, and  he is far from the 51% the Liberals had in 2000, with his 37.5% and there was a new Bloc candidate last year. The votes are fluid in that riding, and if Iggy continues his flop, it could be up for grabs.

Why anyone would vote for a reptile like Marcel Proulx is beyond me. take one look at him and he seems like some retread from the Duplessis era who is probably active in the Knights of Columbus!

Why?

Because their crystal ball says so. And besides, they dont want to have to put any more time and effort into it than necessary if they can guess the NDP's strategy. And they'd sooner take a hit on votes to seats proportionality than backup the NDP's motion on electoral reform. Their crystal ball mumbo-jumbo is more fun this way.

Uncle John,

I think you are onto something here.  Maybe the NDP could have spokespeople such as:

Quebecois - Mulcair

First Nations - ?

Indo-Canadian - ?

Oriental - Olivia Chow

Etc.

Anyway, something to think about, and might help the NDP work on its diversity issues as well.

A lot of that already happens. When Chinese media want to interview someone from the NDP in Chinese - who do you think they call???

Olivia Chow is a rug????

Okay, re Ontario, using the "incumbent/target/no hope" formula delineated in another thread (and bearing in mind "no hopers" are still to be taken seriously in a 308-seat strategy)...here's something quick + haphazard

AJAX-PIC: no hope unless the 905 votes in more of a Greater Vancouver fashion; then someone like Kevin Modeste could be competitive

ALG-MAN: incumbent; maybe safer than it looks

ADFW: possible target, depending on how much Liberal/Green and "Reform populist" vote can be tacked onto the Dundas/Westdale base

BARRIE: no hope--but second place possibility

BEACHES-EY: still a supertarget, even if Minna's remained invincible

BRAM-GORE-MAL: no hope

BRAMP-SPR: probably no hope, though NDP overachieved in '04 due to the Dhalla appointment schism

BRAMP W: no hope

BRANT: medium target--20%+ in '04 + '06; Derek Blackburn past

BRUCE-GREY-OS: any hope's been snuffed by the Greens

BURLINGTON: no hope

CAMBRIDGE: close 3rd means there's still hope in this baby yet

CARLETON-MM: no hope even in Doogie Munterland

C-K-ESSEX: targetable, thanks to 20%+ in '06 + economic factors

DAVENPORT: target

DVE: no hope

DVW: no hope, though David Sparrow proved you can make the most of a no-hoper

DUFF-CAL: no hope, except maybe for second

DURHAM: maybe targetable if on a roll--proximity to Oshawa helps, and McKeever did well for a withdrawn candidate; second place within reach

EG-LAW: no hope

ELGIN-MID-LON: possible hope, at least for second place; close third in '08 + geography and economic factors help

ESSEX: target, esp. w/o Susan Whelan

ETOB C: no hope

ETOB-LS: probably no hope given representation; but riding history justifies making the most of it

ETOB N: hitherto underrated; '08 proves worth targeting

GLEN P+R: no hope

GUELPH: still target against the Green grain; Green + NDP outpolled either Lib or Con in '08

HALD-NOR: no hope

HALIB-KL-BR: hope for 2nd

HALTON: no hope

HAM C: incumbent; safe

HAM E-SC: incumbent; vulnerable to repatriated Liberal vote

HAM MTN: incumbent; maybe similarly vulnerable, unless Liberal + Tory cancel each other out

HUR-BRU: no hope on paper; but they work hard against the stigma

KENORA: target

KINGSTON + I: targetable, esp. if Milliken retires

KITCH CEN: urban core = targetable

KITCH CON: likely no hope, though a surprising base in S Kitchener and '08's last-minute candidate overachieved

KITCH WAT: less targetable than Cen; more targetable than Con

LAMBTON-K-M: no hope, but Wallaceburg a NDP pocket flailing to get out

LAN-FRON-L+A: no hope, except maybe for 2nd

LEEDS-GREN: no hope but for 2nd

LON-FAN: incumbent, survived surprisingly well but still threatened at both ends

LON-NC: targetable, but Glen Pearson's incumbency and left-compatibility may cancel things out

LON W: judging from 20%+ in '06, even this is targetable

MARKHAM--no hope, but 10%+ in '08 a shocker

MISSISSAUGA x 5--no hope for any of them unless an NDP "ethnic strategy" is in place

NEPEAN-C: no hope

NEWM-AUR: no hope

NIAGARA FALLS: plausible target, esp. w/an NDP MP now next door

NIAGARA W-GB: no hope, through ripples from Hamilton felt

NICKEL BELT: incumbent

NIPISSING: underrated but targetable

NORTHUMBERLAND: historically no hope, but lately tried hard to be viable

OAK R-MAR: no hope

OAKVILLE: no hope

OSHAWA: supertarget

OTTAWA CEN: incumbent; *maybe* watch those Liberals

OTTAWA-ORL: no hope

OTTAWA S: no hope, Mazigh in '04 notwithstanding

OTTAWA-VAN: slight hope--well, if any other seat besides OC jumps...

OTTAWA W-NEP: no hope

OXFORD: probably no hope, but surprisingly close 3rd in '08

PARKDALE-HP: GK probably knocks it down the target list, but there's no harm in still trying

PS-MUSKOKA: no hope--but maybe second; who knows

PERTH-WEL: targetable if Stratford had more clout

PETERBORO: targetable according to '06 (*not* '08) results

PICK-SCAR E: no hope

PE-HASTINGS: likely no hope, unless a Jodie Jenkins runs

RENFREW-N-P: no hope as long as C Gallant's there

RICHM HILL: no hope

ST CAT: targetable a la NF; even "strategic voting" couldn't bring NDP % significantly down

ST P: targetable w/a "Paul Summerville" strategy *ahem*

SARNIA-L: surprisingly targetable; rare case of NDP ahead of Lib for 2nd

SSM: incumbent, but never one with a strong lead

SCARB-AG: weakest NDP in Scarberia; but ethnicity = "potential"

SCARB CEN: surprisingly good '08 result (15%+) means, should be targetable according to "Scarborough strategy"

SCARB-GW: targetable through parameters set provincially in '07

SCARB-RR: another '08 surprise; worth pursuing a la Etob N

SCARB-SW: strongest NDP history in Scarb; therefore targetable

SIMC-GREY: no hope; maybe second

SIMC N: no hope; maybe second if Penetang makes a big shift

SDG: no hope

SUDBURY: incumbent; most vulnerable

THORNHILL: no hope

TBA/TBN: incumbents

TJB: incumbent

TOR CEN: took step from targetability back to no-hopedom last time--unnecessarily so

TOR-DAN: incumbent; but even Jack should warch his back

TRIN-SPA: incumbent; but vulnerable w/changing demos

VAUGHAN: no hope

WELLAND: vulnerable incumbent

WEL-HH: no hope

WHITBY-OSH: who knows; hope for 2nd

WILLOWD: no hope

WIND-TEC: incumbent

WIND W: incumbent

YORK CEN: no hope

YORK-SIMC: most hope of any Simcoe-York Region seats--but that's on the grade

YORK S-W: target

YORK W: a targetable sleeper

I think you've nailed it there, adma.  Can't disagree with any of your assessments amongst the ridings I know.

I do not see Sudbury as vulnerable, why do you OO?

Nice work adma. It'd be fun to explore your targets and "vulnerable" seats further.

ETA: It's fun to mention, that with the NDP at a highish watermark of 17 ON seats, it's interesting to be thinking of so many other seats as potentially in contention. At least at some point in the future.

Because Sudbury isn't Nickel Belt--it's the pickup nobody expected.  Even Algoma, with its LBP history, was more "expectable" than Sudbury, which had an aura of Liberal permanence even through the Diane Marleau years.

If Sudbury isn't now vulnerable, I don't know what existing NDP seat in Ontario *is*.

Well naturally the Liberal support in that riding (and in many others) isn't back up at 2000 levels because the Liberals were far below the 2000 levels in 2008!  Doesn't that go without saying?  The Liberals won a majority government in 2000 and won the popular vote in Quebec and their best performance in Quebec since 1980.  2008 was far below that result.  2000 and 2008 are not comparable elections.

The point is that a number of ridings in Quebec, including Hull-Aylmer, showed modest Liberal recovery in 2008 and showed the Liberals on the upswing in Quebec rather than going down as in 2004 and 2006.

Therefore, since the Liberals didn't lose Hull-Aylmer even when they were at rock bottom levels in Quebec during the sponsorship scandal, they are unlikely to lose it anytime soon now that they are going up again.

I think that's an excellent analysis, adma.  I think it is fair game to say the NDP to has to be careful in Sudbury and Welland as they were very close calls. 

You have done some good analysis there adma, much appreciated.

The potential for the NDP to be competitive in a riding also comes down to how familiar a particular candidate is in that riding.

To run for the NDP, candidates should automatically be prepared to have their names stand two (or three) times.

Look at all the northern Ontario New Democrat M.P.'s who ran 2 or 3 times before they were elected.

Here in South Shore-St. Margaret's, Gordon Earle was a comfortable third the first time he ran in 2004, came second in 2006, and was just 932 votes short of winning in 2008.  Hopefully, he will agree to run once more, and given the provincial results of June 9th, stands an exceptional chance at winning S.S.S.M. next time. 

I will predict that Ignatieff will completely and fully rule out ANY coalition. That will score more points then lose.

I predict that Jack Layton will say the NDP are ready for a coalition and that should just about put a nail in the coffin for many NDP candidates looking to win a new NDP seat.

Coalition has become a dirty word. It will reappear in the next election because the Conservatives already see the political merit in pointing it out. They will use it to try to pin both Ignatieff and Layton down.

Jack is still defending his coalition maneuver and the fact that he has to defend it would suggest that this is an issue that puts the NDP on their heels not stepping forward.

The better NDP route would be to maintain working with the parliment that Canadians Form, which by all accounts will be another minority government. 

WHile a coalition is a far superior tool then the current Bullshit we see today in parliment, IE a written agreement not to bring down the government is far better then the threat of election every third day, the fact is, people don't understand the value of a coalition and its far to late to explain that after the fact.  Its not campaign material.

Therefore I fully and completely expect Ignatieff to say in no uncertain terms... NO COALITION and then after the seat count and the election is over.... a coalition if necessary. :)

I expect the NDP has a strong base, but will spend alot of the next campaign on their heels.

Its hard to promote a party that is viewed in the general public as a party that has been against everything, and exactly what did the NDP accomplish in the last parliment? 

Directly contradicting what madmax just said

I agree with Stockholm that this will be what Iggy and the Liberal brain trust will decide. But it will only work if Iggy improves hugely and real fast on not letting panic and loose tongue get away with him. One slip on this one and he'll end up painting himself into a corner: no coalition.

Bottom line- whatever they decide, whatever he does, whether he slips or not, there is going to be a whole lot of squirming and pressure in the good ship LPC around this one. Whatever the particular eventual outcome, such pressure causes people to get thrown off.... and the LPC are under a LOT of such pressure points. Iggy obviously does not handle that well, and maynot have time to learn [if he can]... but even though the brain trust rarely speaks directly to the public, I certainly don't get the impression that they handle this pressure well either. Seem too prone to be effected by drinking all that bath water.

Despit having said I am contradicting madmax, I think this is plausible:

But it sounds plausible now before we hear all the framing the Conservatives will be doing. When we see how that works, the Libs changing tack will look hugely more expensive, even if they do get to be government that won't solve all credibility problems.

Closing for length.