NDP Leadership 67

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
ottawaobserver

In other words, it doesn't look like any pattern there, except for the fact that Topp is dominating amongst the caucus. Not too surprising.

NorthReport

I'm not all that convinced that public endorsements by prominent members in the NDP mean that much in the scheme of things. And although it is their democratic right to do so, former leaders might retain more credibility by keeping their leadership opinions to themselves. Their day in the sun is done, and it could create more resentments than goodwill amongst the party's rank and file. 

Howard

Brian Topp additionally has the support of dissidents Doug Routley and Harry Lali.

Given the way the dissidents endorsed a variety of BC NDP leadership candidates and one even ran themselves (Nicholas Simons), I'd say the "beef" was thinking Carole James was going to lose the next election more than anything else.

Howard
NorthReport

ottawaobserver wrote:

In other words, it doesn't look like any pattern there, except for the fact that Topp is dominating amongst the caucus. Not too surprising.

 

Just not sure how much significance that has. Kwan didn't dominate the BC NDP Caucus but when she spoke she ruled. I know of at least one prominent BC MP who is playing their cards close to their vest, as many other members are as well.

Does it matters all that much who we pick as leader? They are all good candidates and we will all rally around whoever wins, n'est pas?

ottawaobserver

NDP's Nash rips Harper (re London EMD lock-out)

Quote:

"Stephen Harper, get your head out of the tarsands," Nash told a crowd outside the gates of Electro-Motive Canada, a London-based company where workers have been locked out since Jan. 1 after rejecting a 50% pay cut and reduced benefits.

 

Howard

ottawaobserver wrote:

In other words, it doesn't look like any pattern there, except for the fact that Topp is dominating amongst the caucus. Not too surprising.

Topp has received A LOT of BC endorsements. Eventhough it is not official, BC NDP leader Adrian Dix essentially endorsed Topp near the beginning of the campaign and some of Adrian Dix (and Carole James') campaign teams are working on the Topp campaign.

Howard

What do people make of Chisholm's endorsements? Could any of them switch allegiances now that Chisholm is out? Are they waiting on Chisholm to endorse someone else?

Endorser list

NorthReport

Precisely, that's all it ever was about. Nothing more, and nothing less. We just can't afford to lose another election. 

Howard wrote:

Brian Topp additionally has the support of dissidents Doug Routley and Harry Lali.

Given the way the dissidents endorsed a variety of BC NDP leadership candidates and one even ran themselves (Nicholas Simons), I'd say the "beef" was thinking Carole James was going to lose the next election more than anything else.

ottawaobserver

My guess is that it will be some kind of Nova Scotia strategy. I bet all the candidates are courting the provincial folks heavily.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Winston wrote:

Your automatic dismissal of others' arguments is certainly not a very persuasive approach either.

 

 

Several posters, including me, had fairly calmly set out the problems with the overblown "apres Mulcair, le deluge" rhetoric any number of times.  It's only once I told you off for it that I've seen any efort to actually respond to our criticisms - and FFK's response was merely to tell us we were cluless.

When you present aruments, I will address them.  When you present bald assertions of crystal ball visions as fact, I'll dismiss them.

KenS

Howard wrote:

Brian Topp has talked about the NDP winning 55 more seats but he hasn't really specified where they would come from. I am sure Brian has a plan, and I am just wondering if his plan is to win those seats in Ontario (GTA+?, Southwestern Ontario?). I wouldn't mind to see Brian start to play his cards in this regard by pounding the pavement in those next 55 seats he wants to win and giving the other NDP candidates a run for their money

So, after paragraphs of gushing praise for Mulcair based on general pep talks he gives about winning, Brian Topp is a nobody until he delivers a detailed plan about where we win the seats?

Smile

Just for the record, he does rattle them off in a quick verbal span across the country- not specific seats of course. But strategies and hooks for different provinces and regions within provinces.

Personally, I dont think that means a lot. People ask the question at meet and greats, so he answers it. But you arent going to see him make a feature of it in debates or other 'big events/venues'. Nor should he, or any other candidate. 

ottawaobserver

Malcolm, shouldn't that be "sans Mulcair, le deluge"? It's his opponents who believe "après Mulcair, le deluge", I believe. ;-)

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Wilf Day wrote:

Saskatchewan voters cast enough NDP votes to deserve 5 MPs, and elected none.

 

And despite the "write off Saskatchewan" crowd, it is worth noting that the NDP took 32.3% of the pupolar vote in Saskatchewan.  Only in Quebec (42.9) and the Northwest Territories (45.8) did the party d significantly better than that.  (BC at 32.5 and Newfoundland and Labrador at 32.6 were virtually the same.)

Wilf Day

One great advantage Mulcair has is his actual cabinet experience and knowledge.

For example, on proportional representation, he was a member
of Charest’s cabinet when they decided in the summer of 2003 to move forward
with proportional representation for Quebec. He was part of the caucus
closed-door debates for the next year on the exact model to put forward. He watched
what happened after the caucus insisted on the very-small-region model proposed Dec. 15, 2004, mostly five-seat regions, three local MNAs, two regional MNAs, too small for smaller parties like Quebec Solidaire. He watched the public debate on the model over the next two years.

He was part of the cabinet decision to have the National Assembly’s Select Committee and the Citizen’s Committee jointly hold public hearings, an excellent consultation model launched June 15, 2005. He left cabinet Feb. 27, 2006, in the middle of those hearings. The Citizens’ Committee issued its report April 12, 2006, calling for a better model, with compensation established at the provincial level subject to a 5% threshold, and with regional lists and the usual two-vote ballot.

In September 2006, Jack Layton invited him to Quebec City to address delegates at the NDP’s convention, and the rest is history. So Thomas Mulcair should know more about proportional representation than most NDP MPs, I would hope.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

Malcolm, shouldn't that be "sans Mulcair, le deluge"? It's his opponents who believe "après Mulcair, le deluge", I believe. ;-)

 

Hey, I'm one of those guys whose French isn't good enough to run for leader.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Is it possible that some insiders may prefer to hold off on PR, while hoping to game the current system into a majority? Presently, PR would seem to favour both the Greens and the Bloc-- mostly at the expense of the NDP, particularly in Quebec.

Winston

ottawaobserver wrote:

NDP's Nash rips Harper (re London EMD lock-out)

Quote:

"Stephen Harper, get your head out of the tarsands," Nash told a crowd outside the gates of Electro-Motive Canada, a London-based company where workers have been locked out since Jan. 1 after rejecting a 50% pay cut and reduced benefits.

If she was trying to cast aside the image of the "same-old" (i.e. boring) NDP, she could have done a lot better.  I mean, "Get your head out of the tarsands?"  Really??  Did Alexa's endorsement come with her old communications people?

That said, kudos to her (and Dewar and any other contenders) that showed up to stand with the locked-out workers.

Winston

KenS wrote:

Just for the record, he does rattle them off in a quick verbal span across the country- not specific seats of course. But strategies and hooks for different provinces and regions within provinces.

I thought Topp was pretty clear on it here in Winnipeg; he left no doubt in my mind where (generally) the next 60 seats will be won.  He didn't mention any specific ridings, but then why should he?  How would it be to his advantage or to the Party's to let the strategy be known in detail to all?

Winston

Malcolm wrote:

And despite the "write off Saskatchewan" crowd, it is worth noting that the NDP took 32.3% of the pupolar vote in Saskatchewan.  Only in Quebec (42.9) and the Northwest Territories (45.8) did the party d significantly better than that.  (BC at 32.5 and Newfoundland and Labrador at 32.6 were virtually the same.)

It's not about "writing off Saskatchewan", it's about the sheer numbers!  It's a fact that while there are 75 seats in Québec, 106 in Ontario and 36 in BC, there are only 14 in Saskatchewan.  The redistributions are going to increase this disparity.

Yes, it's important to win seats in Saskatchewan, but even in the unlikely event that Tommy Douglas' ghost possesses the souls of the province delivering a clean sweep in 2015, that doesn't win us government.  We need to look elsewhere for enough seats to put us over the top.

Wilf Day

DSloth wrote:

I will be very disappointed if some of the charicterizations of Mulcair's comments turn out to be true but I'm definitely going to wait on a source that isn't second hand.  PR is an important issue to me and one where there actually is some daylight between the candidates. There is absoultely no needfor a referndum or opening up the bloody constitution, those are defintiely losing conditions.

Given that the last time Mulcair was involved in serious detailed discussions about PR was in the Quebec cabinet in 2003-6 when the left in Quebec was insisting on the "compensation" (proportionality calculation) being at the "National" level -- Quebec-wide -- it is just possible that Mulcair assumes the NDP wants a Canada-wide calculation for PR, rather than doing it province-by-province. This would indeed require a constitutional amendment. Maybe we just need to tell him no one is talking about a Canada-wide proportionality, not even the PEI Green Party (the only ones who might need it.)

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

autoworker wrote:

Is it possible that some insiders may prefer to hold off on PR, while hoping to game the current system into a majority? Presently, PR would seem to favour both the Greens and the Bloc-- mostly at the expense of the NDP, particularly in Quebec.

Not at all.

For instance, if the NDP wins government in 2015 and then passes legislation replacing FPTP with PR, PR wouldn't be implemented until the next federal election in 2019.

Also, outside of Quebec, the NDP didn't win seats in regions where they actually should have picked up some seats.

Wilf Day can address this topic much better.

Wilf Day wrote:

Saskatchewan voters cast enough NDP votes to deserve 5 MPs, and elected none.

Alberta voters cast enough NDP votes to deserve 5 MPs, and elected only one.

Manitoba voters cast enough NDP votes to deserve 4 MPs, and elected only two.

New Brunwick voters cast enough NDP votes to deserve 3 MPs, and elected only one.

Ontario voters cast enough NDP votes to deserve 27 MPs, and elected only 22. They were shortchanged in the GTA, Eastern Ontario and even in South Central and Southwestern Ontario.

In BC, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador NDP voters elected a fair share of NDP MPs. In Quebec they are over represented, yes.

Brian Glennie

Malcolm wrote:

 Clearly you believe that Mulcair is in the best position both to consolidate the gains in Quebec and to make further gains elsewhere.

Jack thought about this and decided, "Nope, we'd better hold a leadership race".

mtm

Brian Glennie, the majority of your one-line posts don't even make sense.

Howard

Winston wrote:

KenS wrote:

Just for the record, he does rattle them off in a quick verbal span across the country- not specific seats of course. But strategies and hooks for different provinces and regions within provinces.

I thought Topp was pretty clear on it here in Winnipeg; he left no doubt in my mind where (generally) the next 60 seats will be won.  He didn't mention any specific ridings, but then why should he?  How would it be to his advantage or to the Party's to let the strategy be known in detail to all?

Ok. I just haven't had the privilege of hearing this speech. I'm wondering what regions, etc because I want to evaluate Topp on the basis of his ability to drum up support in those regions. Of course, endorsements do not equal support and we will likely never now what region voted for whom after all the ballots are tallied but I am curious. I'd love to hear the same description of "where is next" from the other candidates. While Mulcair has not said x seats here and x seats there, he has said clearly in some provinces that he is not writing them off (e.g. PEI) and in others he has said how he will take the fight to the Conservatives (e.g. Alberta, on their poor economic and fiscal record).

Hunky_Monkey

Winston wrote:

If she was trying to cast aside the image of the "same-old" (i.e. boring) NDP, she could have done a lot better.  I mean, "Get your head out of the tarsands?"  Really??  Did Alexa's endorsement come with her old communications people?

That said, kudos to her (and Dewar and any other contenders) that showed up to stand with the locked-out workers.

I was thinking the exact same thing. That's what truly worries me about Nash. But there's a large group of New Democrats comfortable with sliding back into the "old NDP" pre-Jack Layton so it wouldn't surprise me if she ended up leader on March 24th.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Winston wrote:

It's not about "writing off Saskatchewan", it's about the sheer numbers!  It's a fact that while there are 75 seats in Québec, 106 in Ontario and 36 in BC, there are only 14 in Saskatchewan.  The redistributions are going to increase this disparity.

Yes, it's important to win seats in Saskatchewan, but even in the unlikely event that Tommy Douglas' ghost possesses the souls of the province delivering a clean sweep in 2015, that doesn't win us government.  We need to look elsewhere for enough seats to put us over the top.

There are 308 seats.  There will be 338 seats.  We'll need to run effective campaigns in 338 seats.  Unlike a US presidential election, we won't win "states," we'll win constituencies.

We don't target (or write off) provinces.  We establish effective campaigns in 338 seats (some for immediate victory and some for party building) and we designate certain seats in every region and every province for extra resources.

CanadaApple

Wilf Day wrote:
Relax. He misspoke. If you have heard anyone say we need to change the Constitution to have Electoral Reform, please quote them, and they can be corrected (although that is more often said by opponents who will ignore the correction.)

Here it is again:

">http://www.fairvote.ca/sites/fairvote.ca/files/VotingCountsElectoralRefo...

I can't remember exactly, but I think it was on the At Issue panel once. But thanks for the info!

 

Wilf Day

Malcolm wrote:

We don't target (or write off) provinces.  We establish effective campaigns in 338 seats (some for immediate victory and some for party building) and we designate certain seats in every region and every province for extra resources.

Consider the seats we did not win, but got more than 30% of the vote. Sure, we'll have new boundaries next time, but this gives a general impression of where they are:

Saskatchewan 9

Quebec 9

BC 8

Ontario 7

Manitoba 2

NS 1

Alberta 1

NB 1

Total 38

Wilf Day

CanadaApple wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:
If you have heard anyone say we need to change the Constitution to have Electoral Reform, please quote them, and they can be corrected (although that is more often said by opponents who will ignore the correction.)

I can't remember exactly, but I think it was on the At Issue panel once. But thanks for the info!

Unlikely. Andrew Coyne would have corrected them instantly -- he's such a PR fan he's even spoken at Fair Vote Canada meetings -- and if he was away that night, Chantal Hebert would have. You can find many quotes from her. Even before the last election she wrote on May 28, 2010, in a Toronto Star column, Time for Liberals to wise up on electoral reform:

Quote:
If the Liberals are serious about restoring their status as a national institution, it is time for them to abandon their faith in short-term electoral short cuts and rethink their approach to a more proportional voting system.

CanadaApple

Wilf Day wrote:
Unlikely. Andrew Coyne would have corrected them instantly -- he's such a PR fan he's even spoken at Fair Vote Canada meetings -- and if he was away that night, Chantal Hebert would have. You can find many quotes from her. Even before the last election she wrote on May 28, 2010, in a Toronto Star column, Time for Liberals to wise up on electoral reform:
Quote:
If the Liberals are serious about restoring their status as a national institution, it is time for them to abandon their faith in short-term electoral short cuts and rethink their approach to a more proportional voting system.

 

Well then I can't remember, sorry.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I stopped reading:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5-yKhDd64s&feature=relmfu

Let's get back to Jack's message. Take a Stand. I'm with you.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

AND I fear most won't listen to my videos for the repetition. Can I please get some comment on this one???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgT1AidzRWM&feature=related

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Btw; that's the destruction of Detroit..coming to a city near you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAuo8IOFNuE&feature=related

Booyah!

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Stupid ads, sorry.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I really hope some kid comes around and tells us whats up???

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Ya, here they go but what do you got???

Have you listened? I'd be surprised if some of you have. I listen to you, please entertain me once.

KenS

v

KenS

Mulcair's "PR is going to have difficulties" is very much out of character.

Because his overall strategy is about maximum favour currying by sticking to telling us the policies he likes, that we also like. That there might be challenges that put to question whether we are going there, is not somewhere he goes.

So I chalk what he said in Alberta to some kind of brain burp.

I doubt it will be difficult to put this to bed without resorting to 'misquoted' or 'mispoke'. Just cast it in the right manner at the next opportunity, and it will dutifully show up in all these myriad word of mouth [internet]  places where the flub of last night was reported.

He does seem to be ill informed. But if he had not strayed from his usual approach to policy questions, that would never have come up.

 

David Young

Wilf Day wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

We don't target (or write off) provinces.  We establish effective campaigns in 338 seats (some for immediate victory and some for party building) and we designate certain seats in every region and every province for extra resources.

Consider the seats we did not win, but got more than 30% of the vote. Sure, we'll have new boundaries next time, but this gives a general impression of where they are:

Saskatchewan 9

Quebec 9

BC 8

Ontario 7

Manitoba 2

NS 1

Alberta 1

NB 1

Total 38

It won't be just the ridings that came close to voting NDP that it will take to defeat Steven 'Der Fueher' Harper in 2015.

It will be the quality of the candidates who contest the ridings where the NDP has had lesser support that will be the deciding factor.

Electing a leader whom Canadians will think will be a competent P.M. is the next step.  The leader will draw candidates willing to make the commitments to win seats.

I still think that if Alexis McDonald would return as candidate in Central Nova in 2015, she could be beat Peter McKay.

Julius Grey would be a fantastic candidate in Westmount-Ville Marie.

The list goes on!

Find the right candidates in enough ridings, and we can be rid of Herr Harper in four-year's time.

 

Gaian

The state of the Canadian economy - joblessness, shrinking of social safety net, etc. - JUSt MIGHT also provide an opening to advance economic policy that is more acceptable and likely to meet national needs than conservative cant, shows promise for a return to some kind of safety for the average Canadian.

But as all pundits proclaim - and they are ALL antagonists at election time -those policies will have to promise a means of paying for that preferred lifestyle.

The RIGHT CANDIDATES would also be a tremendous help.

ottawaobserver

David's right.

The kinds of ridings to look at in that regard are ones like London North Centre or Winnipeg South Centre or Vancouver South or Labrador, which lost Liberal incumbents last time, where the early nomination of a strong local NDP candidate, backed by an invigorated riding association will take advantage of our position as the presumptive replacement for the Conservatives in Ottawa.

Another kind of riding to look at is the kind where we moved past the Liberals this past time in seats where they had been the presumptive alternative but were too weak to defeat the Conservatives, and where if we look like the presumptive alternative next time could assemble a majority of the vote. Here I'm thinking Saint John or Brant or Edmonton Centre.

There are others where we nearly took out the Liberals, such as Westmount-Ville Marie or Vancouver Centre, and a few others where we were within 10% of them like Halifax West or Ottawa-Vanier or Toronto Centre.

And others where we lost a seat we need to win back (Sault Ste. Marie, Elmwood-Transcona, Winnipeg North).

So I would be looking well beyond simply seats where we were 10 points back of the winner, for example.

And then you have to factor in redistribution, which will hamper incumbency effects somewhat, and bring demographic targeting into things a lot more in certain areas.

Howard

A lot depends on redistribution, but in the meanwhile, people can play around with this to see if they can come up with where the next 55 seats will be.

NorthReport

THe NDP will win next time if they focus primarily on jobs and the econony. If they don't, they won't.

ottawaobserver

Howard, that UBC Voter Migration Matrix doesn't take the increase in seats into account. Also, it doesn't take into account any of the additional targeting factors I mentioned above. So, it will yield basically the same set of seats, give or take, as Wilf came up with, which is not enough.

But, thanks for the link - I didn't know it was out yet.

Howard

ottawaobserver wrote:

David's right.

The kinds of ridings to look at in that regard are ones like London North Centre or Winnipeg South Centre or Vancouver South or Labrador, which lost Liberal incumbents last time, where the early nomination of a strong local NDP candidate, backed by an invigorated riding association will take advantage of our position as the presumptive replacement for the Conservatives in Ottawa.

Another kind of riding to look at is the kind where we moved past the Liberals this past time in seats where they had been the presumptive alternative but were too weak to defeat the Conservatives, and where if we look like the presumptive alternative next time could assemble a majority of the vote. Here I'm thinking Saint John or Brant or Edmonton Centre.

There are others where we nearly took out the Liberals, such as Westmount-Ville Marie or Vancouver Centre, and a few others where we were within 10% of them like Halifax West or Ottawa-Vanier or Toronto Centre.

And others where we lost a seat we need to win back (Sault Ste. Marie, Elmwood-Transcona, Winnipeg North).

So I would be looking well beyond simply seats where we were 10 points back of the winner, for example.

And then you have to factor in redistribution, which will hamper incumbency effects somewhat, and bring demographic targeting into things a lot more in certain areas.

This is solid thinking and I think it would be good enough to get the NDP the first 20-30 seats they need to start closing the gap with the Conservatives. For the next 25-35 seats, you need to look at "waves" like the one that happened in Québec. The main dynamic of these waves is you need to have uniform support in a province or region and then rise to first place in popular support. The places where the NDP support is relatively uniform/diffuse (pre-redistribution of course) and the party is closest to first place are: Saskatchewan, Atlantic Canada, and maybe Manitoba. After that, you are looking at regions of Ontario.

So that is the path I see to victory.

To organise for the path to victory, you have to actually do the opposite of what the NDP usually does (which is look for the low-hanging fruit) and start looking at where waves could happen and putting the pieces in place for those areas to see sweeps, just like was done in Québec. Then, once you have built up some strategic depth in "wave" regions (and as things get closer to election day), you do all the things David and OO talked about for the ridings that are low-hanging fruit. In other words, you start by organising for waves, then you move to organising target ridings 45-55, and then you whittle it down until you are announcing around election day who your star candidate is in target riding #1 (e.g. Elmswood Transcona). Organising for waves is a lot different than organising target ridings. As Québec showed, you don't need a lot of physical infrastructure in place but you do need to develop a lot messaging and a minimum of infrastructure (as well as high calibre candidates).

For the election campaign, you use the low-hanging fruit/top target ridings like a gas pedal, visiting them when you need to build momentum; and then you spend a lot of time in wave regions trying to push a surge over the top of the bathtub (which is the first place popular vote percentage). Any votes that go over the top of the bathtub result in major gains of seats. Thus is the world of FPTP.

Of course, one major detail to what I've written above is that you have to consolidate the gains you already have. Among many things, that means kicking your MPs' (and their staff's) butts and getting them all to prepare and execute plans for their re-election. If the MPs are slacking, it's time to go talk to the riding associations about the truancy.

Howard

ottawaobserver wrote:

Howard, that UBC Voter Migration Matrix doesn't take the increase in seats into account. Also, it doesn't take into account any of the additional targeting factors I mentioned above. So, it will yield basically the same set of seats, give or take, as Wilf came up with, which is not enough.

But, thanks for the link - I didn't know it was out yet.

Yes and no. It will yield seats based on how big the % gap is between the NDP and first place. It will yield those seats on the basis of how you think votes will move around (i.e. from what party to what party). Otherwise I agree.

ottawaobserver

The other thing is that I was just focusing on the Liberals in that bit, but there is another piece of thinking we need to do in terms of the Conservatives.

I figure some of the "stable government to look after the economy" vote they got this past time is potentially up for grabs. If the Liberals would re-orient themselves in the direction Stockholm suggests, they could take back some of their seats on the margin like the Willowdales, North Vancouvers, and so forth - the well-heeled middle-class ridings who value science and socially progressive views, but hate (or fear) the poor and thus won't ever vote NDP.

Another part of that puzzle is in western Canada where we will be at a different part of the electoral cycle in Saskatchewan (which is good) and BC (maybe not so much, but the BC Libs will be in utter disarray), but also Manitoba (at least the federal Liberals will be dead). So there is some hope for Conservative-to-NDP switching, or at least sufficient Conservative disillusionment to keep some of them at home.

ottawaobserver

Howard wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Howard, that UBC Voter Migration Matrix doesn't take the increase in seats into account. Also, it doesn't take into account any of the additional targeting factors I mentioned above. So, it will yield basically the same set of seats, give or take, as Wilf came up with, which is not enough.

But, thanks for the link - I didn't know it was out yet.

Yes and no. It will yield seats based on how big the % gap is between the NDP and first place. It will yield those seats on the basis of how you think votes will move around (i.e. from what party to what party). Otherwise I agree.

But again, Liberal vote in many ridings last time was based on the presumption that they were the alternative, or in fact on their own incumbency. What we've seen from ridings where the former Liberal MP defeated in 2008 came back to run again in 2011, is that they couldn't keep their vote (e.g., against Malcolm Allen in Welland). So, taking the 2011 Liberal vote as a starting point in many ridings is already taking an inflated figure, relative to their overall popular vote intention. Wascana is the case in point in Saskatchewan. When Goodale steps down, the Liberal vote in that riding will almost certainly revert to the provincial average.

Pages

Topic locked