Upcoming Federal by-elections

106 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2009-04-30 05:15

KenS

Where do I get this feeling Debater that is only an expression of what you hope is happening?

It may sound likely to you- but based soley on what you hope.

Its pretty basic knowledge of the dynamic of voter choices in Quebec that the Liberals are consistently the last choice of BQ voters- and that was true long before Dion. It was true even when Quebec friendly Paul Martin was leader.

That said, IF the Bloc is dropping in vote share, then that could tip a seat or two to the Liberals in close 2-way races... even if BQ voters do not switch to the Liberals. But when that kind of shift is happening, it is usually widely known [not just political junkies] and BQ voters are more likely to show up, and to tip against their second choice because they don't like the Liberals.

But that's a pretty modest dynamic, which IF it happens [and the Bloc is showing no signs now of headed towards that], might tip a seat or 2 to the Liberals.

Thu, 2009-04-30 09:04

#53

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

Debater, can we call you Master?

Thu, 2009-04-30 10:03

#54

Debater

KenS wrote:

Where do I get this feeling Debater that is only an expression of what you hope is happening?

It may sound likely to you- but based soley on what you hope.

That said, IF the Bloc is dropping in vote share, then that could tip a seat or two to the Liberals in close 2-way races... even if BQ voters do not switch to the Liberals. But when that kind of shift is happening, it is usually widely known [not just political junkies] and BQ voters are more likely to show up, and to tip against their second choice because they don't like the Liberals.

But that's a pretty modest dynamic, which IF it happens [and the Bloc is showing no signs now of headed towards that], might tip a seat or 2 to the Liberals.

Ken S, the analysis I am doing is not based on what I hope happens - it is based on the results of the last election, polling trends, and the wisdom of others more knowledgeable than us such as Chantal Hebert, L. Ian MacDonald, etc.

It seems to be that your analysis (and that of a couple of other posters on this subject) is based more on what you hope happens than on actual objective observation. Is it your prediction that the Liberals are only in contention to pick up 2 seats in Quebec next time? Isn't that prediction based on your dislike of the Liberals?

The same thing happened when I was talking about how the Gatineau seat is one of the ones the Liberals will probably win back next time and someone then (inaccurately) said that the Liberals weren't even in contention there last time and that it was only a BQ-NDP race. I then had to post the actual results to show that was incorrect and that the NDP only finished 1 percentage point ahead of the Liberals in the riding.

There was also a lack of objectivity involved in the Westmount race last fall - people predicted that Anne Lagace Dowson would be able to win. Marc Garneau ended up beating her by a 2-1 margin. Jeanne Le Ber was also supposed to be a seat the NDP was in contention in. The NDP finished a distant 3rd.

I'm just trying to engage in some objective discussion of the ridings, but if you would like to base your predictions more on what you hope happens than on the actual trends, there's nothing I can do. I have tried to help by posting the views of experts on these subjects along with the actual results, but I think I'm going to move on to another topic soon.

Thu, 2009-04-30 10:10

#55

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

Debater wrote:
Ken S, the analysis I am doing is not based on what I hope happens - it is based on the results of the last election, polling trends, and the wisdom of others more knowledgeable than us such as Chantal Hebert, L. Ian MacDonald, etc.

By "more knowledgeable", I presume that you mean "people who confirm your own pre-conceived biases". Hebert didn't think Mulcair would win the by-election; she didn't think he'd be re-elected; her record as a prognosticator is actually pretty bad. MacDonald is still spinning for Brian Mulroney. 'Nuff said there.

Thu, 2009-04-30 11:18

#56

Stockholm

"I have tried to help by posting the views of experts on these subject."

I have met a number of these self-styled "experts" over the years. They can be smart people, but they are not privy to any secret information and when it comes to pontificating about what the future holds in Canadian politics - they are essentially just political junkies like any of us that post on babble who are simply expressing their personal views on what they think will happen. The only difference between L. Ian MacDonald and Chantal Hebert and "debator" and Scott Piatkowski and Kens and myself are that the first tow get their personal opinions published in mass circulation media, while the rest of us don't. But quite frankly I don't think MacDonald or Hebert's personal opinions are necessarily worth anything more than the personal opinions of some of the more interesting people who post on babble. It just happens that the moment someone gets a soapbox like a column in a newspaper - the are suddenly anointed as an "expert" and suddenly we are supposed to hang on their every word - no matter how often they are wrong, wrong and wrong. For example in the US, Dick Morris is considered an "expert" because of his work for Clinton and for various Republicans etc... yet I keep reading his columns he has been 100% dead WRONG on every single solitary prognostication he made about American politics over the past year. (If you don't believe try reading all his columns from the past year and you'll see - wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong 100% of the time).

Thu, 2009-04-30 11:28

#57

Debater

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

Debater wrote:
Ken S, the analysis I am doing is not based on what I hope happens - it is based on the results of the last election, polling trends, and the wisdom of others more knowledgeable than us such as Chantal Hebert, L. Ian MacDonald, etc.

By "more knowledgeable", I presume that you mean "people who confirm your own pre-conceived biases". Hebert didn't think Mulcair would win the by-election; she didn't think he'd be re-elected; her record as a prognosticator is actually pretty bad. MacDonald is still spinning for Brian Mulroney. 'Nuff said there.

Hebert did not predict that Mulcair would not be re-elected in October as far as I know - if you have an article, please link to it. The point is whether or not the general trends predicted are accurate or not - it's hard to predict individual races precisely.

Yes - that's the point. MacDonald is a PC, not a Liberal. If he says the Libs are going up in QC, it's not because he works for them.

Btw, pollster Christian Bourque said earlier this week that Ignatieff is the type who will appeal to Quebec Is he going to be accused of being biased too?

Anyway, I noticed that you didn't deny that the NDP's own predictions have often been over-optimistic or inaccurate in places like Westmount, Jeanne Le Ber, Gatineau etc.

I also think the NDP is spending too much time on Quebec - the NDP only has one seat in Quebec. All its other seats are outside Quebec and it's important for the NDP to focus on those rather than on out of reach ones in QC. It's time to win seats in Saskatchewan again and in Ed Broadbent's old riding of Oshawa. Those used to be places where the NDP could win.

Thu, 2009-04-30 12:41

#58

ottawaobserver

I am suspicious of anyone who wants to reduce the amount of political competition in a democracy.

Thu, 2009-04-30 12:59

#59

KenS

Well you have managed to prove one thing Debater- that I was a fool for engaging with you.

Biases are fine. I engage with people that have very strong biases, and the opposite of mine. Some of them their bias even gets in the way of presenting a balanced view. [Balance is difficult. Thinking one is engaged in 'objective analysis' in this field is nothing more than conceit.]

I engage with these people because they have something more than their biases to offer.

You don't.

Bye.

Fri, 2009-05-01 01:57

#60

Debater

It's silly to take your ball and go home.

I was reporting accurately what is being said by most Quebec analysts and pollsters and you raked me over the coals for it even though I was proven right. I was not the one being biased.

All you needed to do was just acknowledge that based on the current trends, the Liberals are likely to pick up a number of seats in Quebec. Yet you went to great contortions to say that they will only pick up 2 seats in QC. Is that still your prediction? I hope you will consider changing it so you do better in your election polls.

Sat, 2009-05-02 06:22

#61

KenS

Some Greens (and me) commenting on whether or not May should/will run in CCMV.

http://reportongreens.blogspot.com/2009/04/another-quick-question.html#links

I just logged a comment that follows up on May's Globe blog interview last night.

Sat, 2009-05-02 10:14

#62

Stockholm

I hope she does run in CCMV. It would mean that she doesn't run in New Westminster-Coquitlam, which would be an irritating distraction for the NDP, and best of all if she runs in CCMV she almost certainly lose regardless so it would be a good way to further destroy her credibility - esp. if she comes in fourth.

Sat, 2009-05-02 16:22

#63

David Young

Consider this when it comes to when any by-elections can be held.

Nova Scotians will almost certainly be going to the polls on June 9th.

Harper won't call a by-election in C.C.M.V. or any other vacancies untill sometime after that.

My bet would be an early August call for a September date, just before the House of Commons returns from it's summer recess, so he can bask in the glow of a 'stunning Conservative victory' in the riding. (At least that's what the Conservative spin doctors will tell anyone who'll listen!)

Sat, 2009-05-02 17:37

#64

KenS

Nope.

Because he'd be obliged to call one in NWC as well. The Cons want that seat, and have a crack at it in a generl, but not a by-election. So they want to stall till the general on that one [and can easily do so at least till the Fall... and if there is no general call it at the last minute for bloody April if they want].

So CCMV will just have to go with that flow.

Sat, 2009-05-02 18:09

#65

Debater

KenS wrote:

Nope.

Because he'd be obliged to call one in NWC as well. The Cons want that seat, and have a crack at it in a generl, but not a by-election. So they want to stall till the general on that one [and can easily do so at least till the Fall... and if there is no general call it at the last minute for bloody April if they want].

So CCMV will just have to go with that flow.

Exactly - and that's why I said on another thread that the Elections Act should be reformed to require a by-election to be called within one month of a vacancy rather than the current one which allows the PM almost unlimited time to do so. Ed Broadbent saw the abuse that a PM can cause with by-elections when he was trying to run in Ottawa Centre under Paul Martin.

Are we going to see any changes proposed to the Elections Act to require by-elections to be called earlier the way Ed Broadbent has suggested?

Sat, 2009-05-02 18:20

#66

KenS

It should keep being brought up. But at best it will be a long haul because neither the Libs or Cons want to see it happen.

The fact it should be called for has nothing to do with figuring out the dynamic we can expect to see unfold around the by-elections [if there are any].

Sat, 2009-05-02 19:58

#67

Politics101

What has been the practice in those provinces where the NDP governments have had to call a by-election - have they called them within one month or have they waited until it was politically opportune.

Have any of the NDP governments in BC, Sask, Man. or Ont. brought this in when they were in government and if not why not?

Will those babblers on here from Nova Scotia bring this issue up if that province goes to the polls in the next month or so especially since there is a good possibility of an NDP win there.

Sat, 2009-05-02 20:34

#68

Stockholm

Keep in mind that there is a law that says that a byelection must be called within six months of there being a vacancy. Dawn Black resigned on April 12 (I believe) so Harper must call these byelections by some time in October.

Sat, 2009-05-02 20:57

#69

West Coast Lefty

Stockholm wrote:

Keep in mind that there is a law that says that a byelection must be called within six months of there being a vacancy. Dawn Black resigned on April 12 (I believe) so Harper must call these byelections by some time in October.

Indeed, and since there will be at least 2 other seats vacant in October (CCMV and Paul Crête's federal seat), Harper will be obliged to call all 3 by-elections at once (I agree with David Young that the more likely scenario is an August call for a mid-Sept by-election, so the new MPs will be seated when Parliament resumes for the fall sitting). The only wild card is whether Ménard will actually step down as Hochelaga-Maisonneuve's MP and run in the Montreal municipal election, and if so, when his actual resignation takes place.

La Presse is reporting today that Dion not only will not resign his seat, he will run again in the next election! Apparently he has his heart set on being a Minister in Iggy's Cabinet, but anybody who saw his farewell speech to the Lib coronation, er convention, on Friday will know that Dion has not improved one iota as a politician.

On other points made above, does May not have any hope at all in CCMV? What if Casey endorses her? Any speculation on what role, if any, Casey will play in the by-election campaign? Again, I am shocked that the Cons are heavy favourites to win this by-election, given how they treated Casey in the last few years.

Also, I don't see why the Cons would not be competitive in the New West-Coquitlam by-election - it will be a tough hold for the NDP and the 2 candidates for the NDP nomination to date don't come close to Dawn Black's stature and profile in the riding. The Cons easily took Surrey North when Penny Priddy stepped down (I know it was a general election but the same trends apply in New Westminster-Coquitlam IMHO). I'd say it's 50/50 right now whether the NDP or Cons take the seat in the by-election, depending on who the candidates are and how the May 12 provincial election reverberates in the by-election campaign.

Sat, 2009-05-02 21:33

#70

Stockholm

1. There is absolutely ZERO chance of Casey endorsing May in any byelection. He now has a job as the NS governments representative in Ottawa. He cannot do anything partisan. In any case, Casey was always a mainstream Tory, he didn't revolt from his party over any environmental issues - it was all about the Atlantic accord. CCMV is easily the most big "C" Conservative riding in Nova Scotia. I suspect that any reasonable Tory candidate will win it easily and the bad blood between Casey and the Harper gang will be ancient history in that riding.

2. The Tories did not "easily take" Surrey North after Penny Priddy retired. It was actually a very close race and the Tories had the advantage of running Chuck Cadman's widow. Also, in the last federal election, the Tories did very well in BC and took 44% of the vote in the province. Their support has plumeted since then and byelections tend to favour the opposition. I'm sure that once the provincial election is out of the way, the NDP will shift to focussing on finding some really stellar people to run in NWC. The wild card will be the fact that the Liberals will almost certainly try to compete strongly and its hard to say what impact a stronger Liberal campaign would have on the race.

Sat, 2009-05-02 23:16

#71

adma

West Coast Lefty wrote:
La Presse is reporting today that Dion not only will not resign his seat, he will run again in the next election! Apparently he has his heart set on being a Minister in Iggy's Cabinet, but anybody who saw his farewell speech to the Lib coronation, er convention, on Friday will know that Dion has not improved one iota as a politician.

Yet you're viewing him through the prism of Liberal leadership. It isn't like he was an unredeemable catastrophe in Cabinet or anything...

Sat, 2009-05-02 23:21

#72

ottawaobserver

You're right, adma, but I think his stint in the leadership hurt rather than helped people's perception of him as a potentially competent minister, and I think Liberals now kind of wish he'd slip away to a sinecure rather than run again. I would mark him as a bit of a weak incumbent right now, and I certainly would be thinking about trying to recruit a strong candidate to run against him on the assumption that he might be weakened enough to at least step down the next time.

Sat, 2009-05-02 23:59

#73

KenS

West Coast Lefty wrote:

On other points made above, does May not have any hope at all in CCMV? What if Casey endorses her? Any speculation on what role, if any, Casey will play in the by-election campaign? Again, I am shocked that the Cons are heavy favourites to win this by-election, given how they treated Casey in the last few years.

Also, I don't see why the Cons would not be competitive in the New West-Coquitlam by-election - it will be a tough hold for the NDP and the 2 candidates for the NDP nomination to date don't come close to Dawn Black's stature and profile in the riding. The Cons easily took Surrey North when Penny Priddy stepped down (I know it was a general election but the same trends apply in New Westminster-Coquitlam IMHO). I'd say it's 50/50 right now whether the NDP or Cons take the seat in the by-election, depending on who the candidates are and how the May 12 provincial election reverberates in the by-election campaign.

CCVM: Presumably Scott Armstrong will be nominated. And Bill Casey will certainly help him [not that he will need it], he'd probably help any nominee. Politics is the opposite of a blood sport here, and he Cons are still more or less seen as PCs. People will vote on issues. Punishing the Cons will not come in. And its a riding where even without an incumbent, things favour the Cons... enough to comenstae for not liking Harper and worry about the economy. There is a longshot chance a by-election could change that enough, especially if May wre not only to run here, but declare early and campaign the whole time. But she won't do the latter.

NWC: The Cons will easily be 'competitive'. But the odds are against them. Since the seat is within their reach, and a by-election would not favour them, why do you think they would not stall as long as possible? Let alone call a summer by-election? And potentialy put CCVM at least somewhat in play when they have a cakewalk there in a general election?

Sun, 2009-05-03 00:07

#74

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Keep in mind that there is a law that says that a byelection must be called within six months of there being a vacancy. Dawn Black resigned on April 12 (I believe) so Harper must call these byelections by some time in October.

Right, but that's a LONG time for a PM to be able to wait to call a by-election.

As Ed Broadbent has said, the law should be that a by-election must be held within one month of there being a vacancy.

Sun, 2009-05-03 00:22

#75

Stockholm

I agree 100%. In the UK when MPs resign or die and a riding becomes vacant, the byelection is typically called within DAYS of the vacancy occurring.

Sun, 2009-05-03 01:10

#76

West Coast Lefty

Stockholm wrote:

1. There is absolutely ZERO chance of Casey endorsing May in any byelection. He now has a job as the NS governments representative in Ottawa. He cannot do anything partisan. In any case, Casey was always a mainstream Tory, he didn't revolt from his party over any environmental issues - it was all about the Atlantic accord. CCMV is easily the most big "C" Conservative riding in Nova Scotia. I suspect that any reasonable Tory candidate will win it easily and the bad blood between Casey and the Harper gang will be ancient history in that riding.

2. The Tories did not "easily take" Surrey North after Penny Priddy retired. It was actually a very close race and the Tories had the advantage of running Chuck Cadman's widow. Also, in the last federal election, the Tories did very well in BC and took 44% of the vote in the province. Their support has plumeted since then and byelections tend to favour the opposition. I'm sure that once the provincial election is out of the way, the NDP will shift to focussing on finding some really stellar people to run in NWC. The wild card will be the fact that the Liberals will almost certainly try to compete strongly and its hard to say what impact a stronger Liberal campaign would have on the race.

Thanks Stockholm, I had a brain freeze re Casey having to be non-partisan with his new appointment - I will bow to the consensus that CCMV is an easy Conservative gain. I also stand corrected re the Surrey North results, it was indeed close so my memory of Election Night 2008 failed me in this case.

I question your statement that the CPC support in BC has plummeted since Oct 2008, the polling I've seen indicates the Cons are still fairly strong in the West and the Prairies, the slippage to the Libs is in Ontario for the most part and the CPC is now back to marginal support levels in Quebec. In any event, Dawn Black was a very popular and well-known incumbent and she only won by about 1,500 votes in 2008, so it would not be a huge leap for the CPC to take the riding. I have contacts on the ground in this area and there is no evidence of "stellar" people lining up to run for the NDP in this by-election. There is a New West city councillor and a Coquitlam city councillor, both OK but neither one as compelling as Dawn Black was on the local scene here.

Sun, 2009-05-03 01:21

#77

West Coast Lefty

KenS wrote:

CCVM: Presumably Scott Armstrong will be nominated. And Bill Casey will certainly help him [not that he will need it], he'd probably help any nominee. Politics is the opposite of a blood sport here, and he Cons are still more or less seen as PCs. People will vote on issues. Punishing the Cons will not come in. And its a riding where even without an incumbent, things favour the Cons... enough to comenstae for not liking Harper and worry about the economy. There is a longshot chance a by-election could change that enough, especially if May wre not only to run here, but declare early and campaign the whole time. But she won't do the latter.

NWC: The Cons will easily be 'competitive'. But the odds are against them. Since the seat is within their reach, and a by-election would not favour them, why do you think they would not stall as long as possible? Let alone call a summer by-election? And potentialy put CCVM at least somewhat in play when they have a cakewalk there in a general election?

Thanks KenS, for the local CCMV context. I concede it's a CPC lock unless something unusal happens, and even if May runs, she's not the same personality she was even last election, her star has faded a lot in my view.

Where we disagree on the by-election timing is that I'm convinced Harper wants to avoid a general election in 2009 like the plague. The recent commentary indicating some kind of common ground between the CPC and the BQ (and in Chantal Heberts universe, the CPC and the NDP), and the general political landscape would likely push Harper to delay the writ drop until spring 2010. He is putting all the Opposition days in the spring session very soon, and will reportely schedule the fall 2009 opp days for as late in the session as possible. There is already informed reporting that the 2010 budget will be presented late in March after the 2010 winter Olympics.

Harper will wait because: a) waiting allows Iggy's honeymoon halo to tarnish (this is already happening according to the latest Ipsos and Nanos polling; b) the first game-changer is the Dec 2009 climate change conference in Copenhagen, giving Harper a chance to contribute to an international agreement on GHG reductions by endorsing Obama's cap-and-trade plan, getting lots of photo ops with B.O. at the same time; c) the 2nd game changer is the 2010 Vancouver Olympics where Harper wants to stand in front of that torch and welcome the world to Canada.

Plus, having the by-elections (assuming it is just the 3 we know about now) is a can't lose proposition for the CPC - they don't hold any of those 3 seats now, and they are almost certain to pick up CCMV and they are competitive in New West-Coq. If the NDP wins in NWC, that's not bad for Harper either as it dents Iggy's momentum, same for a BQ hold in Crête's old federal seat. So, at worst, they lose 3 seats they don't have now, and at best, they pick up 1 or possibly 2 seats and gain momentum leading up to the general election in spring 2010.

Sun, 2009-05-03 01:46

#78

Debater

ottawaobserver wrote:

You're right, adma, but I think his stint in the leadership hurt rather than helped people's perception of him as a potentially competent minister, and I think Liberals now kind of wish he'd slip away to a sinecure rather than run again. I would mark him as a bit of a weak incumbent right now, and I certainly would be thinking about trying to recruit a strong candidate to run against him on the assumption that he might be weakened enough to at least step down the next time.

St-Laurent-Cartierville is one of the safest Liberal seats in Canada - that one's not going anything but Liberal.

Sun, 2009-05-03 01:49

#79

KenS

I agree about Harper avoiding a general. I started a [sleepy] thread with an opening post that concludes that the BQ is in the catbirds seat for some time.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/so-lib-spin-bunk-what-lay-federal-politics

But a general may happen regardless. And Harper will be keeping his options open to call one in the event things turn his way. Admittedly unlikely... but the last year has been full of reversals. Maybe the rookie ignatieff finds an unexpected depth of talent for self-inflicted wounds? Whatever.

We're talking about a man who has already dragged out waiting for by-election calls to extreme lengths, for smaller strategic benefits than having a substantially better crack at NWC in a general.

It costs him nothing, and there is nothing material to gain in going earlier than he has to.

I can see him calling them in October for late November- if surviving the Budget vote looked pretty certain. But how can that be even pretty certain, even after a Fall confidence vote deal with the Bloc. Duceppe might change his mind, the political fallout of the deals may get onerous, etc. So I can also see Harper having the gall to call the bloody by-elections for April... just on the chance there might be a general first.

[And even to calculate the date so there is a repeat of last year: by-election Edays that fall a couple weeks before they will be trumped by a general election if it happens. Best of both worlds- NWC doesn't vote till the general, and the Cons have the resources to sluff off the drains of an inhumanly long campaign.]

Sun, 2009-05-03 10:31

#80

Stockholm

Harper has also called byelections very quickly when it suited him. When London North Centre became vacant, Harper called the byelection almost instantly.

"In any event, Dawn Black was a very popular and well-known incumbent and she only won by about 1,500 votes in 2008, so it would not be a huge leap for the CPC to take the riding. I have contacts on the ground in this area and there is no evidence of "stellar" people lining up to run for the NDP in this by-election. There is a New West city councillor and a Coquitlam city councillor, both OK but neither one as compelling as Dawn Black was on the local scene here."

I don't expect NWC to be a cakewalk, but I think the factors tend to favour the NDP. A number of polls have shown Tory support falling in BC (while they remain popular on the Prairies). Keep in mind that in 2004, the NDP came within 60 votes in NWC and that was with a generic candidate who was nothing special and was NOT Dawn Black. I suspect that after the coming provincial election is out of the way, the NDP braintrust will start aggressively trying to get someone high profile to run. Its not as if the Tories have such grat choices either - Paul Forseth who Black defeated in '06 apparently wants to run again - but he is just the kind of dated old Reform Party type that won't go down well in this day and age and the woman who came close in '08 for the Tories is now a senator!

Sun, 2009-05-03 10:46

#81

ottawaobserver

Debater wrote:

St-Laurent-Cartierville is one of the safest Liberal seats in Canada - that one's not going anything but Liberal.

Sounds like what they said about Outremont. But, by all means, continue to take it for granted, please.

Sun, 2009-05-03 13:47

#82

Stockholm

The extent to which Outremont was ever a "safe" Liberal seat was a bit exagerrated. It went Tory in 1988 and in both 2004 and 2006 the Liberal vote was less than 40% - it was pretty clear that if the NDP and BQ votes could be unified the Liberals would be vulnerable. In contrast St. laurent has always gone Liberals sweeping margins. It is heavily non-francophone and has none of the intelligentsia that Outremont has.

Sun, 2009-05-03 16:58

#83

Debater

ottawaobserver wrote:

Debater wrote:

St-Laurent-Cartierville is one of the safest Liberal seats in Canada - that one's not going anything but Liberal.

Sounds like what they said about Outremont. But, by all means, continue to take it for granted, please.

Stockholm has it right. The comparison between Outremont and St. Laurent is inaccurate.

Outremont has not been a safe Liberal seat since the early 1980's when it was held by Pierre Trudeau's right-hand man Marc Lalonde. The Liberals lost it in 1988, and though they won it back in 1993, both Martin Cauchon and then Jean LaPierre only won it by margins of about 2,000 - 3,000 votes over the BQ in those years.

St.Laurent on the other hand, has seen Liberal victories by tens of thousands of votes for many years. In fact, Dion's margin of 62% in October was the largest margin of victory of any of the current 14 Liberal ridings in Quebec, and I believe was the largest of any Liberal riding in Canada except the 70% margins of a couple of the Newfoundland seats and maybe a couple in the GTA.

Please view the election results here - you will also notice that the NDP finished 4th in this riding.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/098/

I engage in objective analysis of the numbers, and if I was a strategist for Jack Layton I would not suggest wasting a lot of money on this riding. If you would counsel him to do so, I don't think Jack would be that impressed with your strategic planning!

Sun, 2009-05-03 19:19

#84

KenS

Your smugness is really disgusting.

If pissing people off is your goal, you are doing a good job. And don't flatter yourself that its the content of what you have to say. It's just your charming way of going about what I guess you would call "debating".

Sun, 2009-05-03 21:58

#85

Debater

Me, smug? What about you and ottawaobserver? You guys are always telling me I am less intelligent than you are. What you don't like is that I provide proof with actual numbers. I don't make stuff up. I provide a link to the results of a riding so people can see it for themselves.

I was providing numbers and historical background to what Stockholm said above.

And I was asking a serious question - would an NDP analyst recommend spending resources in the St. Laurent riding?

Sun, 2009-05-03 23:43

#86

adma

Debater wrote:

And I was asking a serious question - would an NDP analyst recommend spending resources in the St. Laurent riding?

Depends; after all, Dion did skew the picture in '08. If he weren't running, though, I could imagine murmurs of the seat being "targetable", not unlike how some regarded LaSalle-Emard following PMPM's retirement--though there, too, the NDP finished a poor fourth.

So it's all a matter of how ambitious the NDP is--think of it as akin to spending resources in Scarborough-Rouge River. (And don't laugh; with the right candidacy and campaign, a seat like that could make a good test case--after all, if it were in Greater Vancouver rather than Greater Toronto, it *would* be within NDP radar, definitely.)

Sun, 2009-05-03 23:51

#87

Wilf Day

Debater wrote:
I was asking a serious question - would an NDP analyst recommend spending resources in the St. Laurent riding?

That would depend how fluid the situation became.

In 2001 the average individual income in the riding was $27,421, compared with $18,540 in Montreal City and $21,888 in Metropolitan Montreal. Not the first target.

Still, when voters shift you never know:

Peterborough, 1958, 1960 by-election

PC 19032, 10246

Lib 7254, 5394

CCF/NP 1887, 13207

Mon, 2009-05-04 05:13

#88

KenS

Debater wrote:
Me, smug? What about you and ottawaobserver? You guys are always telling me I am less intelligent than you are. What you don't like is that I provide proof with actual numbers.

Neither I nor OO ever said or implied you were less intelligent. That's your passive-aggressive read.

OO explicitly challenged how much you know about election cycles. And its fair enough to say that the construction of my qestions implied what amounts to the same thing. And it takes a reasonably intelligent person to conveniently divert questions of how much one knows into people supposedly questioning your intelligence.

Nor would you have been questioned about how much you know if you weren't so prone to grand sweeping statements that are not backed up. And someone who thinks they have "proved" a statement because they sprinkled it with some numbers, and then tells people they should therefore admit they are wrong... thats a pretty good definition of one kind of smug.

Mon, 2009-05-04 10:22

#89

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

adma wrote:

West Coast Lefty wrote:
La Presse is reporting today that Dion not only will not resign his seat, he will run again in the next election! Apparently he has his heart set on being a Minister in Iggy's Cabinet, but anybody who saw his farewell speech to the Lib coronation, er convention, on Friday will know that Dion has not improved one iota as a politician.

Yet you're viewing him through the prism of Liberal leadership. It isn't like he was an unredeemable catastrophe in Cabinet or anything...

Actually, I'd argue that he was a complete disaster as Environment Minister. His Kyoto strategy consisted almost entirely of naming a dog after it.

Mon, 2009-05-04 14:06

#90

Peter3

For a sense of what Ms. Hebert had to say about the NDP, including its prospects in Quebec, a little over a year ago:

http://www.thespec.com/article/330451

My recollection is that she made comments on one of the various talking head panels on which she is a regular that minimized Thomas Mulcair's chances in 2008, but I'd be hard pressed to point to a source.

If nothing else, this look back reinforces that reading the future from opinion polls is a mug's game at the best of times. In the current volatile political climate polling punditry cannot be taken seriously.

Mon, 2009-05-04 20:32

#91

Debater

KenS wrote:

Debater wrote:
Me, smug? What about you and ottawaobserver? You guys are always telling me I am less intelligent than you are. What you don't like is that I provide proof with actual numbers.

Neither I nor OO ever said or implied you were less intelligent. That's your passive-aggressive read.

OO explicitly challenged how much you know about election cycles. And its fair enough to say that the construction of my qestions implied what amounts to the same thing. And it takes a reasonably intelligent person to conveniently divert questions of how much one knows into people supposedly questioning your intelligence.

Nor would you have been questioned about how much you know if you weren't so prone to grand sweeping statements that are not backed up. And someone who thinks they have "proved" a statement because they sprinkled it with some numbers, and then tells people they should therefore admit they are wrong... thats a pretty good definition of one kind of smug.

I know quite a bit about election cycles. And both have you have implied that I am not smart because I have talked about polling trends or have referred to this political analyst or that one.

I have not made sweeping statements - I have backed up what I have said with links to polls, election results and individual ridings and know many of those results off by heart because I follow numbers and ridings so closely.

I have been correct in my numbers on the Gatineau, Outremont and St. Laurent ridings when others have been mistaken.

Mon, 2009-05-04 21:34

#92

David Young

I don't know how accurate CTV's Power Play is with babblers, but there was some speculation tonight that Liberal Irwin Cotler was being offered a Senate seat in Montreal.

Not that there would be much doubt as to who'd win a by-election in Mount Royal, eh?

Mon, 2009-05-04 22:55

#93

Debater

Of course there would be doubt. One should never assume what the outcome of an election will be. The NDP can win in Mount Royal if it works hard there.

I'm not familiar with this story though. Why would a Liberal like Irwin Cotler be appointed to the Senate? Harper will only appoint Conservatives to the Senate as he wants to get a majority in there.

Mon, 2009-05-04 23:11

#94

ottawaobserver

Actually, Debater, given the Conservative party's entrés with the Jewish community, and the relatively strong candidate they ran there last time, I believe they would make a strong push for that seat. I heard it said last time that, but for Cotler, the Jewish community in Montreal was ready to vote Conservative in that seat. What the interim period has done for that relationship I have no idea, but it would be an interesting test of their current strength, depending on who the Liberals could recruit to run in Cotler's place.

Mon, 2009-05-04 23:28

#95

Debater

The Liberal vote has indeed fallen in Mount Royal. The Liberals only got 55% of the vote in Mount Royal on October 14.

It is also true that the Liberals lost some of the Jewish vote in a couple of other ridings such as Thornhill in Ontario where Susan Kadis lost the seat to Peter Kent.

However, that was under Dion. Dion was bad at connecting with every single demographic - that was one of his many, many problems as a leader. Ignatieff is planning to win that vote back and I believe the Liberal party is holding a fundraiser out in BC this week which is being attended by some prominent Jewish Canadians.

Anyway, who knows whether Cotler is leaving since it is just rumour at this point. The Conservatives though have a big problem - Mount Royal is in Quebec. This is a province where their numbers have fallen and Montreal is the worst part of the province for Conservatives. They have yet to win a single seat in the city, and according to PQ analyst Josee Legault, they are unlikely to ever win a seat in the city of Montreal under Harper's leadership.

Mon, 2009-05-04 23:50

#96

Stockholm

Also, Tory support in Quebec has totally collapsed since the election - so I think that losing Mount Royal by a 2-1 margin in October is about as well as they will ever do. Even if the Tories MASSIVELY improved their showing among the 33% or so of voters in Mount Royal who are Jewish (and that is a BIG "if") - they will be lucky to get even 5% of the vote among the other 67% of the riding. Considering how the Tories were obliterated in Outremont where the Jewish community is far more religious and small "c" conservative than it is in Mount Royal tells me that all of Harper's pathetic attempts to do what he thinks will attract Jewish voters will be a total failure.

Thu, 2009-05-21 23:02

#97

Stockholm

I was reading that this guy from Coquitlam city council might be about to announce he is running for the NDP nomination in New Westminster-Coquitlam.

http://www.votefin.com/

He could certainly add some sex appeal to the NDP benches.

Thu, 2009-05-21 23:09

#98

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:
Considering how the Tories were obliterated in Outremont where the Jewish community is far more religious and small "c" conservative than it is in Mount Royal tells me that all of Harper's pathetic attempts to do what he thinks will attract Jewish voters will be a total failure.

What goes on in Thornhill, stays in Thornhill?

Thu, 2009-05-21 23:18

#99

Stockholm

Let me put it this way. I think that Harper's attempts to pander to Quebecers with junk like recognizing Quebec as a nation etc... and his attempts to pander to Jews by being more pro-Israel than most Israelis - have something in common. Both stratgeies will fail miserably.

Thu, 2009-05-21 23:21

#100

Lord Palmerston

But didn't the second "work" at least to some extent, last time?

Thu, 2009-05-21 23:29

#101

Stockholm

Its hard to say - the fact that the Tories totally bombed in Outremont where there is a very large orthodox Jewish population would indicate that their plot didn't work. In any case, in the most recent election, the Tories gained a lot of votes across the board from the Liberals in suburban areas because Dion was such a total flop. Let's see what happens next time.

If Harper really wants to go to such extraordinary lengths to win ONE riding (ie: Thornhill) - then I have a better suggestion for him - why not simply endorse the Tamil Tigers and then possibly sweep all the Scarborough ridings in the next election!

Pages

Topic locked