Canadian federal election 2019 part 3

259 posts / 0 new
Last post
bekayne

pietro_bcc wrote:

Right now Singh has essentially reached Mulcair's mark, has all the momentum and is peaking at the perfect time.

Mulcair also had around 100 incumbant MPs.

pietro_bcc

Incumbency isn't as huge an issue here as in the US. Trudeau had few incumbent MPs in 2015, Layton had few in 2011. We're more prone to huge swings.

I think they can get 50-60, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do even better (it all depends on regional results). And this is coming from someone who criticized Singh ever since he became leader and thought he would crash the party, I've been proven wrong.

bekayne

pietro_bcc wrote:

Incumbency isn't as huge an issue here as in the US. Trudeau had few incumbent MPs in 2015, Layton had few in 2011. We're more prone to huge swings.

I think they can get 50-60, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do even better (it all depends on regional results). And this is coming from someone who criticized Singh ever since he became leader and thought he would crash the party, I've been proven wrong.

So what would be the inside of/outside of Quebec ratio of the 50-60 be?

lagatta4

This is very subjective, but the mood at Boulerice's campaign headquarters is really more upbeat. Pietro I agree with you about incumbency; a Westminster and several other parliamentary models are very different from Presidential or semi-Presidential ones. There are more huge swings.

JeffWells

Nanos says "We've seen a Singh surge on the ballot numbers, and on the preferred Prime Minister. Right now, we've got an orange freight train that could crush the Liberals." Am I right to think that Nanos is usually more circumspect than that?

https://twitter.com/People4Jagmeet/status/1183474180517515265?fbclid=IwA...

NorthReport

Incumbency doesn’t work that well when you are damaged goods like the Justin Trudeau Liberals are presently

pietro_bcc

bekayne wrote:

pietro_bcc wrote:

Incumbency isn't as huge an issue here as in the US. Trudeau had few incumbent MPs in 2015, Layton had few in 2011. We're more prone to huge swings.

I think they can get 50-60, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do even better (it all depends on regional results). And this is coming from someone who criticized Singh ever since he became leader and thought he would crash the party, I've been proven wrong.

So what would be the inside of/outside of Quebec ratio of the 50-60 be?

Considering the rebound that the NDP are currently experiencing in Quebec, I can see them holding onto all the seats they won comfortably in 2015 (some of which seem to correspond to areas where QS won seats last election) and losing the ones they barely won. I can see them winning in all the Montreal ridings they currently hold (even winning back Outremont is a stretch, but possible its a very progressive area), keep Guy Caron's seat, Ruth Ellen Brosseau's seat, Sherbrooke, Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Romeo Saganash's old seat. So that's 8 seats (9 if they win Outremont which is less likely.) This is of course only possible if the NDP get around 20% in Quebec.

They have a good chance of winning back most of the Atlantic seats they lost in 2015, maintaining their prairie province seats and making modest gains in both Ontario and BC. Considering the NDP won 44 in 2015, that would be more than enough for a 50 seat performance.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Have you ever hear of the red scare? I would be very careful. The orange crush of 2012  turned into the orange crash of 2015 because of the red scare. Islamophobia = niqab scare.

There are eight days left. This has been a dirty campaign and it is not over. The apple dumpling gang are pretty quiet and that has me nervous.

The NDP have surged way too early and the other two parties are scared with one week left. 

People are disgusted and angry with Justin. They are not scared of him. The NDP does scare people. We are a threat. It is a threat based on ignorance but it is ingrained and we scare people.

The niqab issue was planted into the campaign four years ago to stoke fear into people and to stop the NDP. Conservatives and big business would rather have the Liberals in power if they cannot have the Conservatives in there.

How do you scare the electorate in one week?

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Ethics watchdog pushes for 'collusion' probe of Conservatives, oil lobby

By Carl Meyer in NewsEnergyPolitics | October 11th 2019

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/10/11/news/ethics-watchdog-pushes-collusion-probe-conservatives-oil-lobby

NorthReport

These 20 fossil fuel firms are responsible for a third of all carbon pollution

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/10/10/news/these-20-fossil-fuel-firms-are-responsible-third-all-carbon-pollution

NorthReport
Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sorry I think you are making a mistake here. PR is a group of models that may include an absolute proportional weighting between provinces but many models of it do not. If they did there would be more constitutional and political obstacles to PR than there are.

The proportion is about each party's representation in the unit. some of these unites are the regions, others the provinces and some are modified slightly, the design is to make the parties have a equal share of the seats as votes. It doe snot mean the provinces all have an equal share of the seats as their population.

I am in favour of the first and not the second. My reasoning is twofold: first I do not want the Constitution to be an obstacle to proportioning votes among the parties based on support.

Second with diffrent sized provinces if the proportion of seats is equal some will still have outsized power -- especially Ontario and this does not benefit Canada, other provinces or even Ontario itself (unity is a value). I have explained this before and can do it again if needed.

Given that splitting Ontario to help is not an immediate possibility, we have to do other things to balance this province. Sure we can imagine Eastern Ontario becoming a Province and the nother joining Manitoba but this still leaves an outsized influence. The alternative is to reduce the proportional number of seats for Ontario and increase the proportion of seats the smallest provinces have. This is what we now have and could increase it slightly more.

It is wrong to say that PR means proportional seat count to provincial population. It only means proportional seat count to votes.  Not all PR models have seats even allocated by geography at all. Many have balancing exttra seats.

Please stop saying that PR balances provincial seats by population becuase it is not about that.

Okay well now I am completely confused yet again. I have to do stuff so I will reread tonight. 

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
Misfit Misfit's picture

F

NorthReport wrote:

One person one vote In Canada it’s not even close

https://www.thestar.com/politics/2019/10/13/one-person-one-vote-in-canada-its-not-even-close.html

This is pure garbage. 

NR:? I have been posting and watching the northern Saskatchewan riding of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River very closely. On 338Canada.com they have that riding in the Orange category. This is good. However, there is a strong chance that the riding will go Liberal or Conservative anyway and that is due to remoteness. The NDP is the strongest in the Northen part of the constituency but the NDP supporters have a much harder access to vote. There are large numbers of First Nations people in northern Saskatchewan who do not have any ability to realistically get out to vote.

So please do watch Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River very closely and if the NDP loses the riding you can thank your whining like this article which overlooks the stark realities that people in remote Ridings face which denies them their right to vote. 

Selfish and self-centered, snivelling  Torontonians who drive six city blocks to go to the polls don’t understand this and they don’t care.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Misfit wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

One person one vote In Canada it’s not even close

https://www.thestar.com/politics/2019/10/13/one-person-one-vote-in-canada-its-not-even-close.html

This is pure garbage. 

<snip>

Selfish and self-centered, snivelling  Torontonians who drive six city blocks to go to the polls don’t understand this and they don’t care.

I find this subject an interesting and difficult one, which is worth a comment. First of all, suppose we were setting up a legislature for a hypothetical new country. Let's assume it is to be an fptp system similar to what we have in Canada. It seems to me that one of our main objectives would be to ensure that each MP represented the same number of voters, as far as reasonably possible. Simple fairness dictates this. In a territory with relatively uniform geography and demographics, this might be the one, ruling principle of our system.

However, other values would come into play if the geography and demographics were widely different in different parts of the territory. As Misfit points out, fairness would suggest ideas such as allowing isolated and sparsely populated areas to have representation which is greater than simple arithmetic would dictate. Otherwise, such regions would have no effective representation at all, being reduced to merely insignificant parts of regions quite unlike themselves, and with quite distinct interests.

As a city boy myself, who has a poll on election day one block from my home, but had to travel around 10 blocks to vote in the advance poll on Friday, I don't think all people in my situation are self-centred and snivelling. I suspect a good many of us understand and respect the point Misfit is making, just as a lot of us know where Saskatchewan is.

NorthReport

Either everyone's vote is equal or it is not.

Giving rural areas more value for their votes than urban areas is one of the resons the right-wing does as well as it does in elections. 

kropotkin1951

NorthReport wrote:

Either everyone's vote is equal or it is not.

Giving rural areas more value for their votes than urban areas is one of the resons the right-wing does as well as it does in elections. 

There should be equality in voting but it has to be balanced with access to your elected official. Nathan Cullen's riding is one where it is way harder for the same number of voters to walk into his constituency offices and get the help of their MP than in Burnaby South.

NorthReport

There are always positives and negatives no matter where you live, but we have been beating the Democratic PR thingy for some time now, which I agree with, as we wants peoples votes for a political party to be as equal as possible in the election results. And Democray's aim as well needs to be, as much as possible, one person one vote so everybody's vote carries equal weight.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
Misfit Misfit's picture

Michael,

The majority of Canadians have easy access to their polling station, myself included.

The author of that opinion piece feels that he is being short changed because his vote carries less weight in his constituency than it would in a riding with a smaller population size. He wants more federal Ridings to be concentrated in the GTA in order to even out the vote weight playing field. This means that remote constituencies like D-M-CR which I already alluded to would have to be even larger in geographic area than it is now in order to even out the population size. D-M-CR would only be able to expand south into the white settler farming communities which are an entirely different voting demographic.

This is the way the constituency was set up during the Harper years when the PC’s swept all the Ridings in Saskatchewan consistently. They designed all the Ridings to have an urban/rural split so they the rural Conservstive vote would water down the urban NDP vote and pull all the Ridings Conservstive. 

First Nations communities rightly complained that the agricultural communities in the south were taking away their voice in the North, and the Conservatives could win D-M-CR without even having to show up in northern Saskatchewan. 

The 2015 election was the first one which redrew the constituency maps in Saskatchewan away from the Conservative-friendly bias towards a more balanced boundary redistribution that better reflected the make-up of our province. The NDP won the constituency back and it was a First Nations constituency. The NDP won two other Ridings in Saskatoon and Regina.

If we have to redraw the maps again in order to please some people in Toronto and what they consider fairness to be, then  the First Nations people in northern Saskatchewan would again lose their voice. It would send a loud and clear message to them that they do not matter.

If you buy a lottery ticket with a 1 in 100,000 chance of winning, your chances while possible are pretty slim to none. If they increased the price and improved the odds to 1 in  70,000, your chances would still be pretty slim to none.

Therefore, the argument of a vote carrying less weight on a scale of this size and magnitude is an insignificant issue. But the consequences of vote weight redistribution can have sramatic consequences elsewhere. The article conveniently overlooked this.

So yes, people like the writer of this opinion piece are snivelling whiners. They may be able to locate Saskatchewan on a map, but it isn’t really about SaskatchewAn to them.  It is all about Toronto and their vote being worth 1 in 78,000 rather than 1 in 100,000 because that, apparently, is all that matters to them.

cco

We could increase the size of the House enough to leave rural ridings intact while providing adequate representation for urban areas.

NorthReport

That would be the best approach however we also have sort some of the smaller ridings in the Maritimes. As population shifts the ridings have to adjust to represent the current populations

cco wrote:
We could increase the size of the House enough to leave rural ridings intact while providing adequate representation for urban areas.

NorthReport

I have also heard some talk about our Indigenous Peoples being allocated a certain number of seats in Parliament based on their population and they could contest those ridings amongst themselves and at first glance it sounds like a good idea.

Aristotleded24

Scheer under fire for campaigning in Winnipeg while under a state of emergency:

Quote:

Evacuees in Manitoba driven from their homes by a recent, massive snowstorm that cut power to tens of thousands said today they were annoyed by Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer's decision to campaign in Winnipeg today.

A few dozen people evacuated from rural Indigenous communities hit hard by the storm were in the lobby of the city's Radisson Hotel this morning, waiting for a Red Cross bus to take them to other temporary housing, when journalists following Scheer's campaign tour showed up for an afternoon policy announcement.

Several of the evacuees said Scheer's choice of venue for the announcement — in a city and a province that have declared states of emergency in the wake of the storm — was misguided.

"If Andrew Scheer wants to campaign, he should help us," said Margaret Missyabit of Lake Manitoba First Nation, one of at least nine Indigenous communities in Manitoba that have declared states of emergency.

"He should be standing here helping us."

Scheer's really receiving a great deal of bad press for coming here under the present circumstances.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:
Okay well now I am completely confused yet again. I have to do stuff so I will reread tonight.

The only thing that PR guarantees is that every voter would get a vote that would count towards determining the makeup of the HoC. Under First Past the Post, votes that do not help to elect an MP in a riding have zero effect on the makeup of the HoC.

Versions of PR that still have ridings do NOT ensure that all votes are weighted equally. And all versions of PR that would be considered in Canada include ridings.

The number of voters per riding varies wildly between provinces. For Example, ridings in PEI have about a quarter of the population of ridings in Ontario, and other smaller provinces are overrepresented as well.

Back when the current elections act passed into law in the 80's, Quebec was also overrepresented in the HoC. In order to appease Quebec, the elections act stipulates that no province can have fewer ridings than what it had in 1985. PEI had four ridings in 1985, and it still has four ridings today. PR would not change this. In order for ridings in Ontario to have the same population as those in PEI, there would have to be four times as many ridings in Ontario. This would be as politically toxic as cutting the number of ridings in Quebec would be.

NDPP

WATCH: "At a campaign rally in London, Ontario today, I told Justin Trudeau that he is a supporter of Israeli apartheid and a human rights hypocrite and that he has no business being the Prime Minister of Canada."

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1183847642889109504

Or the other ones. Don't vote for Apartheid Israel supporters!

NorthReport

'

Sean in Ottawa

Lots of good conversation coming from the hypothetical if we were to create a new map for a hypothetical country.  A very good way to put it.

Unfortunately there is not enough understanding here about the effects of the difference in the size of provincial units.

I would start by saying that you would have to have equal size provinces in order to imgaine that equal size ridings would result in a fair balance. The problem with that is you would also need to engineer the equal size provinces to also make sense in terms of having something in common. then you would have to address the density issue.

People do not always think about how the governance of the country works in practice. MPs caucus often in provincial blocks when you have a large party (needed to be big enough to govern), sharing concerns convincing each other. they trade support for each other and they can do this more esily if they are dense neighbours than massive low density ridings. The interests are shared as well even if they do not discuss this directly - just by virtue of the ridings being similar. Being part of a dense urban group of MPs who have a lot in common and identify as having the same province adds weight.

As well, provincial governments also have weight the grouping concentrates this power so if you are significant in a large province you can bring the weight of that province whereas a seperate group of the same size but in a separate province wuld be weaker.

I know some will say that the smaller provinces can bad together but this is not true as they may have differences of ideaology with different governments and enough differences in priorities that this is impossible. Becuase they are not the same province they are not forced to work out the differences regionally and can effectively ignore each other at the federal table wherever they disagree (if they are not actually in opposition).

The tension in Canada between provincial and federal powers is a major part of how this country works. Regional power is significant as well as provincial power.

People identify with their province frequently and their MPs and provincial governments can work together when ideology does not divide them.

All of this means that being part of a larger province adds weight. Being part of a larger group who have the same problems and interest adds weight. You cannot just combing different places into single provinces to resolve this. You can improve it by breaking down larger provinces that have distinct regions (like Ontario East; North, Central-south) but this will not resolve what are large population differences.

The way you create soemthing equitable is to balance some of these seats with additional weight to smaller populations who have less in common against larger populations who have more in common and more weight. this gives the chance that anada can work with a large province like Ontario. By equal vote weight we would make insignificant the needs of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, PEI, the Northern Territories, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. You would make the power of Canada a negotiation betweenQuebec, Ontario, Alberta, and BC with so much centred around Ontario that it would need only one other region to dominate the whole country. People here have illustrated many times how the rest of Canada feels when Ontario and Quebec decide between themselves on something and force it on the rest of the country.

The balance in the Commons is done with some thoguht - even though it is not perfect.

Ontario gives up some weight to the Atlantic provinces; Alberta and BC give up some for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon and North West Territories. Quebec has a shade more than its share, in part considering its distinctive language (no, I will not debate nationhood here as it will derail the argument since the weight to Quebec in seats is not very significant).

Of course Ontario is nothing like the Atlantic provinces and BC nothing like Alberta which is nothing like Saskatchewan and Manitoba or the North.

Equal and equitable are far from the same thing.

NorthReport

Constructive comments Sean. Thanks for them.

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

You are doing one hell of a job Justin!

Emergency response at Trans Mountain’s Burnaby tank farm could take 6 hours: Report

https://globalnews.ca/news/6037056/emergency-response-at-trans-mountains-burnaby-tank-farm-could-take-6-hours-report/

NorthReport
NorthReport

Scheer Folly: Promised Coast-to-Coast Energy Corridor Makes No Sense

Conservatives want to make taxpayers pay for oil and gas industry’s mismanagement. And the bill could be huge.

 

Andrew Nikiforuk Today | TheTyee.ca

Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for three decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee. Find his previous stories here.​

PipelineConstructionWinter.jpg

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has promised a big ‘energy corridor’ for Canada. Such big political dreams always turn into costly taxpayer nightmares. Photo via Shutterstock.

Guess what? Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer wants to build an energy corridor megaproject from coast to coast and make Canada great again.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, EVENTS & MORE FROM TYEE AND SELECT PARTNERS

Scheer announced the huge project to much fanfare, despite the lack of details or any information on the cost.

He said that the colossal undertaking would “move oil, gas, hydro, telecommunications and accommodate other linear infrastructure.”

The transcontinental corridor would “generate economic and social benefits for the entire country,” Scheer said. “A national energy corridor will provide Quebec with new opportunities to export its hydroelectricity to new markets. It will provide rural communities the opportunity to connect to vital telecommunications infrastructure.”

And get this. “It will provide economic activity for Indigenous communities along the route,” Scheer said.

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

 Join us and grow independent media in Canada

That’s a bold and bizarre claim, given that the plan is based on pushing the corridor through First Nations’ traditional territories with or without their consent.

Scheer’s election promise contradicts just about every old school conservative principle — if such things still exist in the globe’s crazed new politics.

Scheer still says he believes in small government, but “energy corridors” are big, Soviet-style deals that suck money out of taxpayers’ pockets faster than a hospital parking lot. (China’s Communist party, for example, is very fond of energy corridors, and willing to expropriate land and force hundreds of thousands of people to move to clear the way for them.)

And megaprojects are bad news for taxpayers. Oxford University economist Bent Flyvbjerg has documented the common characteristics of these giant projects. He found they consistently go over budget, fail to meet construction schedules and rarely deliver any benefits.

Why? Because they are inherently risky, complex and, as in Scheer’s case, politically motivated. They start with a big political dream and end up as a costly taxpayer nightmare.

Scheer says Canada needs an energy corridor, because it is time to dream big.

Really? More than a decade ago, Newfoundland’s then premier Danny Williams had a big dream and promised another energy corridor. The Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project would produce power, he said, and undersea transmission lines would connect it to the North American energy grid. The project would provide revenues and let Newfoundland and Labrador “achieve self-reliance by becoming masters of our own house.”

But the energy project is at least a year behind schedule. The original $6.2-billion budget has almost doubled. The project’s $13-billion cost could bankrupt the province unless there is a major federal bailout.

British Columbia is now repeating Newfoundland’s nightmare with the Site C dam.

Despite Scheer’s naive daydreams, energy corridors don’t have a happy history in Canada.

Remember the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, which was supposed to create a natural gas corridor from north to south in the 1970s, and was revived with promises of prosperity in 2011?

Environmentalists and Indigenous people opposed the megaproject. But economics killed it.

The low price of natural gas made it impossible to recoup costs for the $16-billion behemoth, let alone maintain infrastructure built on melting permafrost.

Now Scheer thinks we should have something like a Mackenzie Valley pipeline running across the country.

It’s telling that nobody in Canada is actually sitting in coffee shops and asking for a transnational energy corridor. Unless, of course, it’s a coffee shop favoured by oil and gas industry lobbyists, or CEOs hoping to prop up their struggling industry.

Scheer, of course, promises his energy corridor megaproject will be profitable because it will be vetted by a “blue ribbon panel.”

In modern parlance, that means a bunch of industry lobbyists.

Consider the case of Alberta’s struggling natural gas industry. Companies across North America have flooded the market with fracked gas, which is expensive to produce, and driven down prices. Alberta companies are struggling.

Last year, Alberta’s energy minister invited an expert panel to come up with a solution.

The panel consisted of three pipeline activists: Hal Kvisle, the former CEO of TransCanada Pipelines; Brenda Kenny, the former director of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association; and Terrance Kutryk, the former CEO of Alliance Pipeline.

The blue-ribbon panel reached a reasonable assessment of the problem.

“Traditional markets for Alberta natural gas are oversupplied,” it reported. “Prices, and therefore industry and government revenues, are crushingly low.”

So, did the panel of pro-pipeline activists recommend a reduction in supply?

No way.

Instead it recommended that governments should intervene in an oversupplied market place and champion new energy export corridors and liquefied natural gas development. The report called for cuts to regulatory oversight and an examination of ways to cut taxes on the companies. All to increase production from cash-burning fracking outfits.

The report ignored some stunning economic realities. The shale gas industry is highly indebted and not making profits. Investors have soured on the sector. Rystad, a Norwegian energy consulting firm, has reported that 40 U.S. shale companies have been struggling with losses for almost a decade and are awash in debt. Nine out of 10 U.S. shale oil companies are losing money because fracking is costly and complex, Rystad reported in May.

Economists at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis described the bleak outlook for the sector in an August report.

“Until fracking companies can demonstrate that they can produce cash as well as hydrocarbons, cautious investors would be wise to view the fracking sector as a speculative enterprise with a weak outlook and an unproven business model.”

That’s the industry the Alberta government and Scheer are seeking to champion.

At one time, a good conservative used to understand the law of supply and demand.

But Scheer’s energy corridor is effectively a massive government subsidy for energy companies that can’t attract private investment because their business model is broken.

And it’s a subsidy for a sector facing even greater challenges as a result of volatile oil and gas prices.

Last year the International Energy Agency warned oil-exporting nations that price volatility will continue. Lower prices could cost exporters $7 trillion in revenue over the next decade, the report found.

Those losses, in turn, mean economic disruption, large debts and deep cuts to government spending.

Does Scheer really want to propose an energy megaproject in the face of that kind of economic chaos?

Real conservatives know that energy corridors don’t make jobs or support freedom.

When China built a pipeline to access natural gas in western Burma, there were reports of forced labour, relocated villages and corruption.

Those kinds of things are inherent in energy corridors, which enrich the powerful at the expense of the weak.

The great conservative writer Wendell Berry has noted that corridors reflect the general malaise in global economic thinking.

For too long, globalization has promoted the unaccountable idea that if our own economy isn’t meeting our needs, we can just reach out and tap to somewhere else around the globe.

“This is the most damaging idea that we’ve ever had,” Berry wrote. “It’s still with us, still current, and it still excuses local plunder and theft and enslavement. It’s an extreme fantasy or unreality, the idea that if we don’t have it here, we can get it somewhere else — if we use it up here, we can get it somewhere else. It’s the stuff of fantasy.”

It is also the stuff of Canadian conservative politics.  [Tyee]

Read more: Election 2019EnergyFederal Politics

Now that you’re here, we have a favour to ask…

Canada is in the midst of a federal election. Right now, journalism in the public interest is more important than ever.

The Tyee is funded in large part directly by our readers. This means we don’t have to rely solely on advertising to fund our reporting or lock our hard-hitting journalism away behind a paywall.Your contribution of as little as three dollars per month means we can keep paying for high-quality, in-depth journalism that is free for everyone to read.

If you value independent journalism that works for readers, not advertisers, please become a Tyee Builder today.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/10/16/Scheer-Energy-Corridor-Folly/

josh
NorthReport

Like Obama knows Jagmeet Singh, eh!

bekayne

Here come the (laughably) fake news memes:

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Analysis: Could Scheer Lose His Own Seat to the NDP ?

Quote:
In 2015, Scheer won the partially urban, partially rural riding in large part due to a surge in Liberal Party votes.  Della Anaquod – a placeholder candidate – surged to over eighteen percent of the vote in the red wave that brought Liberals to a majority government.

With that wave crashing back in 2019, riding New Democrats and others on the centre-left are pressing hard to keep the vote behind the local New Democratic candidate, and deny the Tory leader his own seat in the House of Commons – a situation that would throw the already divided Conservative Party into chaos in a minority Parliament.  Higher voter turnout and a coalescence of support around the New Democratic candidate, and surging support for the People’s Party among right wing voters over the issue of Quebec equalization, could lead to the Tory leader losing in his own seat.

NorthReport
knownothing knownothing's picture

n/a

 

cco

The Buffalo Chronicle is fake, despite how much we'd all like to believe what they say about Trudeau.

NorthReport
knownothing knownothing's picture

 

 Whoops... sorry about that... I didn't know/// after all... I know nothing

R.E.Wood

Left Turn wrote:

Analysis: Could Scheer Lose His Own Seat to the NDP ?

Quote:
In 2015, Scheer won the partially urban, partially rural riding in large part due to a surge in Liberal Party votes.  Della Anaquod – a placeholder candidate – surged to over eighteen percent of the vote in the red wave that brought Liberals to a majority government.

With that wave crashing back in 2019, riding New Democrats and others on the centre-left are pressing hard to keep the vote behind the local New Democratic candidate, and deny the Tory leader his own seat in the House of Commons – a situation that would throw the already divided Conservative Party into chaos in a minority Parliament.  Higher voter turnout and a coalescence of support around the New Democratic candidate, and surging support for the People’s Party among right wing voters over the issue of Quebec equalization, could lead to the Tory leader losing in his own seat.

Oh, that would taste SO sweet! 

Aristotleded24

R.E.Wood wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

Analysis: Could Scheer Lose His Own Seat to the NDP ?

Quote:
In 2015, Scheer won the partially urban, partially rural riding in large part due to a surge in Liberal Party votes.  Della Anaquod – a placeholder candidate – surged to over eighteen percent of the vote in the red wave that brought Liberals to a majority government.

With that wave crashing back in 2019, riding New Democrats and others on the centre-left are pressing hard to keep the vote behind the local New Democratic candidate, and deny the Tory leader his own seat in the House of Commons – a situation that would throw the already divided Conservative Party into chaos in a minority Parliament.  Higher voter turnout and a coalescence of support around the New Democratic candidate, and surging support for the People’s Party among right wing voters over the issue of Quebec equalization, could lead to the Tory leader losing in his own seat.

Oh, that would taste SO sweet! 

It would be sweet, but I think that's wishful thinking.

NorthReport

Listening to Charles Adler this morning as he was telling Conservative voters to take their head out of their ass if they think Obama's endorsement would hurt Justin. 

Pages