What are you saying then? I don't get it. You said: "the Libs are not tied in the majority with the Cons".
It seemed pretty evident to me, as the regional polls either showed the Liberals way back, or leading. It is only when that translates to national numbers is there a tie. There is no tie on a area by area basis. Thus the Liberals may only be climbing in support in the areas they already hold.
The Liberals took 26% of vote in the last election. If on election day they got the level of support the polls are all showing and got - say - 32% that would be a 6% increase. I think its pretty absurd to think that increase would only be in seats that they already hold and not at all in seats that they lost narrowly last time. I know its a bit of a cliche to say "a rising tide raises all ships" but there is some truth to it.
I am not sure what you do not get about my use of "may".
The Cons polling numbers, are concentrated to the areas they hold, the same could be true for the Liberals. People who did not vote last time in areas the Libs hold, may be indicating they will be voting, for example.
IMV, voting trends are no longer predictable based upon former holdings of the Liberals, their votes may no longer be efficient and could be just stacking up in areas they hold, like the Cons do.
There is a new large sample Quebec poll by Leger in Le Devoir
BQ - 35%
Libs - 30%
NDP - 16% (I'll take it)
Cons - 16%
http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/09/04/265563.html
The poll also shows that Layton is much more popular than either Ignatieff or Harper!
Hasn't Angus Reid actually been pretty accurate lately? Though I remember Lib partisans always insisting that the "only" pollster who can be trusted was Nanos.
There is a new large sample Quebec poll by Leger in Le Devoir
BQ - 35%
Libs - 30%
NDP - 16% (I'll take it)
Cons - 16%
http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/09/04/265563.html
The poll also shows that Layton is much more popular than either Ignatieff or Harper!
In the translation, it gets interesting:
"The Liberal Party of Canada receives 30%, down 5% compared to the survey in June. The Conservative Party is credited with 16% of voting intentions, up 4% for two months. Stephen Harper, however, share the last place of great parties with Jack Layton, who also receives 16% of voting intentions (up 1% since June)."
Jan, sadly its a waste of time to post anything about the coming election or about the future of Canada. All anyone cares about is Michael Bryant. i wonder how many babblers buy the national Enquirer every week? Probably more than we think.
The Greens were nipping at the nDP ankles ..now they are nipping at the nDP butt (16%/ 9.9%) ...now thanks to Jacks "pick me for a deal" fiasco. Can't wait to see the next poll to see how much damage was done. A 4% differance will be the story of the year. Just imagine the nDP trailing the Greens.
You obviously have a very active imagination. Do you also imagine that the world is flat? You can "imagine" whatever you want. I can imagine the Tories losing official party status and the NDP winning a majority government!
Isn't EMay going to start talking soon of a possible senate seat if Iggy wins???? Or is she still wandering around Canada trying to figure where to run? Did she move from Cape Bretin - not her home for many years? Just wondering because nobody is asking May what she thinks these days. Perhaps Greens will get a seat in next election.
The NDP won't be winning a majority government? After reading this board for the past several months, I thought that was a possibility? 
But yes, I agree with you that it is unrealistic of the Greens to think they can beat the NDP in the next election.
May is busy trying to "shore" up support within the Green Party and in SGI.
Apparently it is shaping up to be a rough fight against the left portion of the riding memebrship and some people are none too pleased about the parachute in.
However, she also burnt bridges in Guelph and cannot run there, even though she would have the better shot at actually winning.
Can you imagine having a leader so hated, no one, in a riding that has enough Green Party supporters, to make a difference, wanted said leader to run for them in their riding?
Also, given the lack of media coverage of May, in this possible election brouhaha, one can clearly see they are not interested in giving her access to any potential leader's debates.
Yes, I read that someone else from the Green Party is apparently challenging her for the nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
I guess they feel she is not automatically entitled to have the nomination this time around.
And she should have considered Guelph since the Greens actually did well there last time, and she already has run in Ontario once before. Why she wants to run all the way out to the west coast, I don't know. It's certainly unusual for a candidate to run on the east coast in one election and then at the opposite end of the country in the next. It's hard to find a candidate who has run in 2 elections farther apart than in Central Nova and Saanich-Gulf Islands.
May's wikipedia entry lists Grey-Bruce-Owen Sound as another potential riding for her.
Jan, sadly its a waste of time to post anything about the coming election or about the future of Canada. All anyone cares about is Michael Bryant. i wonder how many babblers buy the national Enquirer every week? Probably more than we think.I found your comments interesting. On other political forums, Michael Bryant was around 12 posts in total, and it was over 400 posts and counting on babble. The election was numerous thread, yet babble was almost stoney silent if not in complete disbelief that an election is coming. There appears to be a little life as of recent.
I have to say I too am quite amazed that the Michael Bryant story is already on thread 5! Meanwhile the possible election doesn't have anywhere near as many posts. Why the almost lurid interest in the Bryant accident? I'm not saying it isn't a story, but the focus on it here reminds me a bit of how many threads there were on Ruby Dhalla when I came here in the spring and that scandal turned out to be a big flop in the end.
Bryant is a much more serious matter than Dhalla as there has been a death, and he faces serious charges, but nevertheless, the interest in it here does seem more than usual.
So let's con't about what this thread is about instead of being sidetracked.
I'm surprised that Warren Kinsella hasn't attempted to pin Bryant's predicament on Layon. Too busy organizing frat boys to do photo opps with the buckets of the Colonel I guess.
Here in Nova Scotia, the newly-elected NDP government has gotten more popular than it was when elected on June 9th!
A recent poll showed support around the 60% range.
Should there be a fall election, there should be a great deal of 'trickle-down' effect on the federal voting patterns, as people have finally shattered the generations-old traditions of 'voting like my parents and grandparents always voted'.
It appears Nanos is trying to shore up support for the Libs
There's little evidence to suggest a direct spillover at the ballot box from one level of government to another, pollster Nik Nanos says.
VOLUNTEERS
But, Nanos stresses, the health of a provincial party can significantly affect its federal mate when it comes to motivating volunteers and grassroots activists.
For instance, voters in Nova Scotia recently elected a New Democrat government. At the federal level, "that's not transferable (directly) to the ballot box," says Nanos, "but volunteers will have a spring in their step."
At the grassroots level, agrees Maharaj, "activists tend to be one and the same people," provincially or federally. If Liberal party activists are "battered or disheartened" at one level of government, they may well feel that way when they think about helping the other.
I guess some party is concerned about the spillover effect - that said, ONDP has been dealing with Bobby Rae spillover effect since the mid 1990s, so if one tells them this not to be true, well it must be true - righto!
How is this shoring up support for the Liberals? I see it as the exact opposite he is saying that the federal Liberals could be damaged by how unpopular and demoralized their provincial cousins are in places like Ontario and BC - while the NDP will be full of piss and vinegar in NS. makes sense to me.
Stock I guess we read this differently - yes to workers, volunteers - but it suggests what their counterparts are doing won't effect how "voters" see libs, for example, differently. Except, if you look to NS, in fact, it appears to definitely have a spillover "voter"/poll opinion effect, so hence, why I am wondering if it's about "potential damage control."
Who commissioned this poll or does NANOS just go out in the field, for giggles and laughs, to just check out their hunches?
I don't think it was a poll. I think Nanos was being interviewed as an analyst for the story. It's a question worth asking, because a few weeks ago people were trying to spin the St. Paul's provincial by-election as potentially having some federal impact if the provincial PCs could win it away from the Libs.
I think Nanos is the pollster of record for SunMedia and CPAC. His polling numbers are as good as anyone's, and perhaps a bit more accurate as you get closer to E-day, since he asks which two of your local party candidates you'd be most likely to support, and people tend to know who those are closer to the election.
A friend of mine thinks Nanos should stick to polling and stay out of strategic analysis, though, about which my friend thinks Nanos knows little, certainly not from any political-strategic experience. I don't know either way, but I wouldn't strongly disagree with what Nanos said in this particular story.
Here in Nova Scotia, the newly-elected NDP government has gotten more popular than it was when elected on June 9th!
A recent poll showed support around the 60% range.
Should there be a fall election, there should be a great deal of 'trickle-down' effect on the federal voting patterns, as people have finally shattered the generations-old traditions of 'voting like my parents and grandparents always voted'.
Hopefully it will lead to the NDP winning South Shore-St. Margaret's in the next federal election.
Careful, Debater. You could get kicked out of your party for saying things like that ;-)
From this morning's Hill Times, here are the numbers that pollster Michael Marzolini of Pollara apparently gave to the Liberal caucus last week (N = 3000 MoE = 1.5% on the national sample).
There is an obvious typo in the table in the paper, however (the Bloc aren't at 16% nationally, and the NDP aren't at 7%), so I swapped them below. Also the Quebec numbers add up to more than 100%, but I guess when you're getting them from a Liberal leaker, you can't expect perfection.
Party | Ntl | Ont. | Que. | M&S | Alta. | B.C. | Atlantic
Con | 37% | 40% | 20% | 58% | 55% | 38% | 25%
Libs | 34% | 40% | 38% | 20% | 28% | 33% | 39%
NDP | 16% | 16% | 10% | 16% | 13% | 23% | 33%
Grn | _3% | _3% | _5% | _5% | _2% | _5% | _3%
Bloc | _7% | ----- | 31% |
Ontario by Area Code ::
Party | 416 | 905 | 519
Con | 29% | 39% | 44%
Libs | 56% | 44% | 32%
NDP | 11% | 15% | 20%
Grn | _3% | _3% | _2%
Preferred Government ::
Liberal Majority 24%
Liberal Minority 22%
Total 46%
Conservative Majority 28%
Conservative Minority 10%
Total 38%
It seems they're hanging their strategic hat on the 46% that want to see a Liberal majority or minority, and I would probably infer further that we're going to see another round of strategic voting bids in our direction, especially in Ontario. From these numbers, I'd say they already got back everything they lost to the Greens last time.
In a frank moment, Peter Donolo once said that the Libs need the NDP to be below 10% in order to regain the kind of majority they had in 1993. Doesn't look like they're going to get it this time, does it.
OK, I just noticed another thing: more people want a Conservative majority than a Liberal majority according to these numbers. That can't have left the Libs feeling very good.
Also, 519 is starting to look like a 3-way race (that's southwestern Ontario for the rest of you who don't commit Ontario area codes to memory). I suppose it includes Hamilton, London, Windsor and Welland. But it makes me wonder if Sarnia and Chatham shouldn't get a bit more attention now.
Woops, it doesn't include Hamilton and Welland; they're in 905. Here's a map of Ontario area codes:
and here's the Inset for Toronto and the Golden Triangle
I guess we need to look at Guelph and Kitchener again then.
I guess we need to look at Guelph and Kitchener again then.
And perhaps look at Oxford again. Oxford isn't a hotbed of NDP activity but we did elect an NDP MLA when Bob Rae formed government in Ontario. Besides, Woodstock now has a huge Toyota plant and the city is rapidly changing from a rural agricultural base to auto and auto parts manufacturing.
In a frank moment, Peter Donolo once said that the Libs need the NDP to be below 10% in order to regain the kind of majority they had in 1993. Doesn't look like they're going to get it this time, does it.
No kidding - the Liberals aren't likely to get that type of majority anytime soon. Even getting a minority is not a guarantee. I'm not sure what the point of Donolo's statement is about 1993 - how can any party be expect a large majority these days?
And perhaps look at Oxford again. Oxford isn't a hotbed of NDP activity but we did elect an NDP MLA when Bob Rae formed government in Ontario.That was the 1990 Miracle on Ice. Most ridings that went NDP for the first time in that era, have no interest in going NDP again, and certainly not without alot of thought and a strong candidate.
Besides, Woodstock now has a huge Toyota plant and the city is rapidly changing from a rural agricultural base to auto and auto parts manufacturing.Which is more reason to see the CPC vote increase. Look around at ridings with Large AutoPlants and they vote Conservative. Oshawa, Oakville, Cambridge. Those that buck the trend are in Windsor, and that is mainly because Windsor has been in multiple recessions in its history and knows the value of the NDP. Provincially, Windsor goes Liberal. Many well paid working class individuals don't think NDP, until out of a job and many forget NDP as soon as their recalled. So, it makes sense that NDP numbers could go up in these regions, but, unless the NDP has been in striking distance, it will not be enough to grab a seat.
People think of the NDp in tough times, but don't always show up to vote. Expect some broad attacks against the NDP to tarnish the brand and drive those polling numbers down.
It seems they're hanging their strategic hat on the 46% that want to see a Liberal majority or minority, and I would probably infer further that we're going to see another round of strategic voting bids in our direction, especially in Ontario. From these numbers, I'd say they already got back everything they lost to the Greens last time.
I think you are thinking too short term. I suspect that Ignatieff assumes that multiple elections lie between him, and the PMO. Consider Ignatieff's options. Given that economic growth started up in June 2009, unemployment should start falling soon, and with it go Ignatieff's chances of victory. An election in 6 months might bring small gains, while an election now should at least restore the Liberals to 2006-levels of support.
Ignatieff doesn't expect to win, rather, he is teeing up for an eventual victory. When? He will wait till the Conservatives have to make spending cuts in order to combat the deficit. Then he will use his added clout in parliament to vote down the Tories (possibly with the support of the NDP, who would have to vote against a budget with major spending cuts), win a majority, and implement the same spending cuts.
It is interesting to contrast the Pollara poll with recent publicly released polls. The Atlantic, Ontario and Alberta results are broadly similar but there are significant discrepencies eleswhere.
The Liberal lead in Quebec is unique to Pollara. Both the Libs and the Cons are higher there than in other polls.
The Cons have an inexplicably enormous lead in Man and Sask, even higher than in Alberta.
In BC the Liberals are much higher in Pollara.
I am heartened that the Greens are down to 3%, half to a third what other polls give them. The lower the Green vote, the less mischief they can play with the election and the less likely the Cons will get a majority.
Hmmm...according to that poll info, the Green Party is polling at 5% in BC, does not look good for EMay in SGI, nor any spin off accelerated voting even, in other ridings like Carr's. At best they could possibly go back up to where they were at 9.4, in the last election. Even with a leaders bump of 8-12% May is far behind.
Also, 519 is starting to look like a 3-way race (that's southwestern Ontario for the rest of you who don't commit Ontario area codes to memory). I suppose it includes Hamilton, London, Windsor and Welland. But it makes me wonder if Sarnia and Chatham shouldn't get a bit more attention now.
Woops, it doesn't include Hamilton and Welland; they're in 905. Here's a map of Ontario area codes:
My political crystal ball says that 519 will be one of the big battlegrounds in an election- which I am still not convinced will be this fall. An NDP that wants to be conpetative need put a fair amount of resources into ridings, including some targeted rural ridings.
From this morning's Hill Times, here are the numbers that pollster Michael Marzolini of Pollara apparently gave to the Liberal caucus last week (N = 3000 MoE = 1.5% on the national sample).Party | Ntl | Ont. | Que. | M&S | Alta. | B.C. | Atlantic
Con | 37% | 40% | 20% | 58% | 55% | 38% | 25%
Libs | 34% | 40% | 38% | 20% | 28% | 33% | 39%
NDP | 16% | 16% | 10% | 16% | 13% | 23% | 33%
Grn | _3% | _3% | _5% | _5% | _2% | _5% | _3%
Bloc | _7% | ----- | 31% |
I assume that you obtained the provincial subset numbers from this article:
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2009/september/7/marzolini/&c=2
But where did you receive the detailed break-down for Alberta and Manitoba/Saskatchewan? None of those figures are listed in the Hill Times article.
And the Greens are listed at 1% in Quebec.
From this morning's Hill Times, here are the numbers that pollster Michael Marzolini of Pollara apparently gave to the Liberal caucus last week (N = 3000 MoE = 1.5% on the national sample).Party | Ntl | Ont. | Que. | M&S | Alta. | B.C. | Atlantic
Con | 37% | 40% | 20% | 58% | 55% | 38% | 25%
Libs | 34% | 40% | 38% | 20% | 28% | 33% | 39%
NDP | 16% | 16% | 10% | 16% | 13% | 23% | 33%
Grn | _3% | _3% | _5% | _5% | _2% | _5% | _3%
Bloc | _7% | ----- | 31% |I assume that you obtained the provincial subset numbers from this article:
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2009/september/7/marzolini/&c=2
But where did you receive the detailed break-down for Alberta and Manitoba/Saskatchewan? None of those figures are listed in the Hill Times article.
And the Greens are listed at 1% in Quebec.
I have a hard copy of the paper. The table is in the paper, but not in the online version of the story.
My political crystal ball says that 519 will be one of the big battlegrounds in an election- which I am still not convinced will be this fall. An NDP that wants to be conpetative need put a fair amount of resources into ridings, including some targeted rural ridings.
Well, what ridings to target then? Sarnia-Lambton, Essex, Chatham-Kent-Essex, Elgin-London-Middlesex, Brant? Guelph (I gather Mike Nagy is not running for the Greens again, but have not heard whether Tom King is ready for another endurance test; poor man, that campaign went on FOREVER), Kitchener Centre?
From this morning's Hill Times, here are the numbers that pollster Michael Marzolini of Pollara apparently gave to the Liberal caucus last week (N = 3000 MoE = 1.5% on the national sample).Party | Ntl | Ont. | Que. | M&S | Alta. | B.C. | Atlantic
Con | 37% | 40% | 20% | 58% | 55% | 38% | 25%
Libs | 34% | 40% | 38% | 20% | 28% | 33% | 39%
NDP | 16% | 16% | 10% | 16% | 13% | 23% | 33%
Grn | _3% | _3% | _5% | _5% | _2% | _5% | _3%
Bloc | _7% | ----- | 31% |I assume that you obtained the provincial subset numbers from this article:
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2009/september/7/marzolini/&c=2
But where did you receive the detailed break-down for Alberta and Manitoba/Saskatchewan? None of those figures are listed in the Hill Times article.
And the Greens are listed at 1% in Quebec.
I have a hard copy of the paper. The table is in the paper, but not in the online version of the story.
Thanks!
Well, what ridings to target then? Sarnia-Lambton, Essex, Chatham-Kent-Essex, Elgin-London-Middlesex, Brant? Guelph (I gather Mike Nagy is not running for the Greens again, but have not heard whether Tom King is ready for another endurance test; poor man, that campaign went on FOREVER), Kitchener Centre?
My advice, which might be worth about as much as it is costing after all. Would be not to worry about targeting ridings as much as targeting candidates. A few key candidates with some profile and who in any other party would be talked about as possible cabinet picks would in my mind be a better strategy. If they concide with a good riding all the better.
There are New Democrats out there who are very prominent in certain sectors who could garner enough attention to pull up ridings around them- thus creating a kind of regional surge for the lack of a better word. But they will not make the jump just to wave the flag - they are doing to much good work elsewhere.
And we can not forget rural ridings. They may only be a handful, but they are the fundamental difference between being government and being opposition. The Liberals understand this. The Conservatives understand this. Time the NDP did too. They may not win this time out, but if they are constantly under-resoursced the NDP will never crack the 20% mark let alone march higher. The other thing that needs to happen is more ads run on/in regional media. The NDP is often all but invisible in that regards.
When was the last time that the NDP targeted and/or came even remotely close to winning an agricultural seat in a federal election - apart from one or two seats in Saskatchewan in the early 90s that were a vestige of another era?
New CTV/Strategic Counsel, hot out of Lloyd Robertson's mouth:
Con 35% (up 1%)
Lib 30% (down 2%)
NDP 14%
Bloc 12%
Gr 9%
Ontario:
Con 41%
Lib 39%
Quebec:
Bloc 49%
Lib 23% (down 7%)
Con 16%
Well sit on the oppostion benches forever then. Time to figure out how and why the other parties target these ridings. And all of SW Ontario is not rural ridings as much as it might seem so from the COTU and rural does not mean simply agricultural.
The flip of your question, as rhetorical as it was - would be when was the last time the NDP had a crediable rural/small town portion to the platform that spoke specifically to our issues?
BA, I was asking an honest question. YOu implied that there was a time in the past when the NDP targetted rural ridings. I'd like to know when that was an where. i have looked at federal election results in Ontario in every election since 1935 and NEVER has the CCF or NDP been even remotely in contention is any rural seat in Ontario unless you count mining and forestry ridings in the north.
I don't see how you figure that. I can remember when this was done even in my life time. Certainly the CCF targeted rural ridings and progressives had some early successes. During my day I can remember when rural ridings were targeted quit strongly. As much as 1990 was a sort of fluke, it also was based on a long time of work in those areas.
However, with the amalgamation of many rural ridings those issues have been all but pushed aside. The time is ripe in rural Ontario to push a strong message. Many of the ridings we might hope to win also have strong rural parts attached to them now. Winning those ridings means having a rural platform that acknowledges the struggles rural and small town areas face and how they are often different that more urbanized areas (which of course face their own unique problems too). And yes it takes some agricultural policy recognition that isn't just everyone should be organic and all things will be okey-dokey. In fact often the central message undermines strong NDP candidates in those areas because it re-inforces the sense that the NDP is a downtown Toronto party. Which we all know is not true.
As I said- they might be just a handful of ridings, but they are crucial as to where the NDP is going long term in terms of governace. The Libs and the Cons have figured it out - time we did. The NDP absolutely has the best policies to address rural/small town concerns, but we seem to prefer hiding our light in the bush.
I asked for an example of ANY time in Canadian political history when the CCF/NDP was seriously in contention in an agricultural riding in southern Ontario. So far the only quasi-example I can find is Agnes McPhail running as a CCF supported indepndent in Grey-Bruce in 1935.
I suppose there are some ridings the NDP has won in the past that had some small number of rural votes in them (ie: we once held Brant, but about 95% of the votes in that riding were in the city of Brantford). I'm not saying that the NDP shouldn't target rural seats, I'm just pointing out that they never have in the first place - sor do social democratic parties anywhere else in the western world. Ask your British friends how many seats the Labour Party wins in rural areas. Ask your Australian friends seats the Australian labour party wins in farming areas (answer NONE). Perhaps there are people much more knowledgeable than me who can explain why it is that throughout the western world - rural voters tend to reject leftwing parties.
How be you look closer to home and ask the Nova Scotia NDP how important rural seats were to becoming government. Or look to BC.
And you could contemplate the last time the NDP offered a platform that spoke directly to rural/small town issues in areas like SW Ontario and didn't leave candidates to swing in the breeze or construct their own platforms from the dregs.
Again the Liberals and the Conservatives have figured out the route to government. When will the NDP?
But I know your little hobby horse is to dengrate rural people as mindless reactionaries, so I think I will quit for now. OO postulated something interesting about an area I actually know something about on the ground so I was more interested in that anyway.
Well, we did win some in 1990 in Ontario, and most recently in Nova Scotia. Elmer Buchanan was a very popular agriculture minister in Ontario (I understand he left to join Bob Rae's leadership campaign, but hasn't given the Liberals any money since then). We've targetted Selkirk-Interlake by running Ed Schreyer, and its provincial counterparts are provincial swing seats, along with Swan River. Those are both seats we held in the 1980s. Out west, the farmers in the south want to ditch the wheat board, while the ones further north are in favour of it, which I gather is the same pattern in each of the 3 prairie provinces.
I do agree with Bookish Agrarian about the value of strong candidates, though. I notice we just renominated Ryan Dolby in Elgin-Middlesex, who was one of the CAW activists from St. Thomas, and Taras Natyshak is running again in Essex riding.
BA, so you think platform development has been lacking, there, too. Hopefully the folks who can do something about that are reading this thread!
I'm hard pressed to name a single federal Liberal seat that could be called "agricultural" apart from a few in PEI and maybe Scott Brison's seat in Nova Scotia. In Ontario the Liberals are now almost entirely a GTA party - at least the NDP has the north.
That's true, for sure. I think their only remaining rural ridings are in the Atlantic, and Wascana of course (which also contains part of Regina, and which would become a Conservative - NDP race once Goodale himself steps down). There's Nipissing-Temiskaming, but that falls under your "forestry and mining" rubric.
But they are the 2nd place party in most of rural Ontario. I'd have to look it up to see if that's true out west as well.
