why did strategic voting turn into voting Liberal?

I think this documentary sums up the "Liberal" or Democrat" problem from a socialist point of view. It also explains why so many people are happy to continue switching between the same two parties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzULm4d8h8w

As for strategic voting, it is usually code for vote Liberal. They tried it last election, they tried it this election and they will try it next election.

No, it's not strategic voting. It was Anyone But Harper voting, which then morphed into Liberal bandwagon voting. Liberal voters, some of them quite literally (because I've talked to some) don't understand that strategic voting has to be decided at the riding level. They see the national polls and think that a bandwagon approach will rise the tide enough to flood the country red. In this case, they were not far off the mark, because that's kind of what happened. But that's just normal voting. That's not strategic voting.

And it's not true that strategic voting is code for Liberal voting, as the Lead Now effort has shown. They just got flooded out by the tide, I guess. Still, I think there is some consensus that strategic voting did occur in BC and did win or save some seats.

Strategic voting unfortunately requires co-operation among the different factions. NDP may not benefit as much from it, as Liberal voters I suspect just tend to go with their first choice anyway, maybe secretly thinking because Lib is an old-guard, established party, and therefore more successful at ursurping. But I think I was seeing some co-operation in the urban ridings, and on Vancouver Island. The message was definitely getting through more this election. It was almost ubiquitous in any conversation about the election.

And from Ekos, same week:

takeitslowly wrote:

I always like B.C better than Toronto.

Look Toronto had a huge brain fart politically and not the first time, but its a great city, with a lot to offer, this sad act of stupidity on its part doesn't change all that the GTA has to offer, just because its politically foolish.

 To error is human, to forgive is divine. 

Brachina wrote:

True and in a sick way that might have been a sign of approval or in some cases simply incompetence. A detailed looked a policies would have show that the NDP's policies were more leftwing, but just more slower to get off the ground too. People didn't want to wait.

Yes I think $15/day daycare would be one of those.

It's the economy stupid.

When people are offered an economic platform that is rightly or wrong perceived as to the right of the Liberals, they tend to vote for the real thing.

This "balanced budget" stuff was pure crap.  Whatever campaign war room types thought up that should be given the heave-ho.   People are wisely quite okay with running deficits right now after years of austerity under Harper (and before that under the Liberals).    When someone comes along and offers them something other than austerity (even if it is bullshit), people will go for it.

Also, the TPP has been a topic of discussion for the last 4-5 years.   The NDP should have been talking about it from the get go.   But they were afraid of being perceived as "anti-trade" and didn't talk about it until they were crashing in the polls and the deal was done.

The NDP needs the domestic equivalent of a Jeremy Corbyn campaign to shake things up.   Return to those messy policy debates that the party apparatchiks just hate.

Quote:

true,. if the media is gonig to attack us anyways, might as well

That was the approach of Jeremy Corbyn's campaign to lead the UK Labour Party.   Despite a totally hostile mass media, his campaigned signed up a record number of new members to the Labour Party and he won the party leadership with 60% of the vote...mopping the floor with all of the other Blairite candidates.

I believe they were involved in taking down the WTC and giving kids autism via vaccines too.

Agree. Stop believing their lies and backing their sellouts..

The NDP: presented a very "don't rock the boat" campaign presenting items that would all be very comfortable on a Liberal or even Conservative list. As soon as the NDP was in the lead it was all about "if you want to stop Harper vote NDP" and trying to ridicule Trudeau. Mulcair went with a "Stop Harper" campaign saying he needed fewer seats, as though he owned the ones the NDP already had.

Balanced budgets may not be right wing but the argument that deficits are leaving a burden on the next generation is. Saying he would consider the F-35s in a new bidding process emphasized his centrist approach.

Trudeau proved himself in the debates, so when the niqab issue came up, there was no reason to stick with the NDP. They were interchangable with the Liberals and the Liberals had a solid platform so why not go with them?

The NDP lost because they didn't give voters a reason to stick with them. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Had the NDP won their centrist position would have been cemented. Like Harper's social conservatives, the more progressive arm of the party would have been silenced.

Our elections are decided by people who don't understand how our elections work.

Geoff wrote:

In true Liberal fashion, Trudeau and his team lifted their campaign from that of Jack Layton in 2011 - hope and optimism (I think they might have missed the "love" bit). It proved even more successful for the Liberals than it did for the NDP.

While Jack Layton gets due credit for having run a hopeful, optimistic campaign in 2011, he neither invented that approach nor was he the most prominent exponent in recent memory.  I rather think that you have to give that to Obama.  And Liberals still look to Laurier's "sunny ways".  

What Layton and Trudeau had in common was indefatigable energy, perceived youthfulness, a ready (and believable) smile.

If the NDP candidate was the leading non-con in Oshawa, strategic voters would have voted orange. So what Oshawa experienced, based on your post at least, was not strategic voting, which very few people actually do. That was the result of a wave of momentum and support for JT, kind of like Jack was able to achieve last time around.

takeitslowly wrote:

does anyone know why strategic voting led to 180 something liberal mps and 99 conservative and 44 ndp mps? thats not staretgic voting. can someone explain to me what happens?

Part of it was strategic voting. But most of it was using anaytltics to court votes.

If you also notice most (but not all) NDP seat loses were in urban centers. The GTA, Halifax, Winnipeg Center, etc That is because the Liberals had a better communication message about infastructure spending. People in those big cities are stuck in gridlock, bridges are crumbling, roads need to be built. Even in rural areas the Liberals snatched seats because of concern over crumbling bridges and new roads that need to be paved.

This was about infastructure vs $15 a day childcare. Urbanities & rural voters responded more to infastructure spending.

Again people mocked me for saying Liberals are using anayltics during the campaign to communicate their message. While saying it was fine for NDP to ignore using anaytlics. But as Sean in Ottawa said the NDP had a communications problem. Anayltics allows parties to penatrate their message to the electorate.

Obama won two elections for heavily using anayltics, and the Liberals jumped on that bandwagon. All to sell their infastructure message to urban centers and rurual voters. And it worked, they swept the GTA. And snatched seats from the rural Tory landscape.

The NDP had ignored using anayltics in this campaign. They need to start using this type of messaging if they want to be competitive.

From Nanos, Oct 16:

Vote Together endorsed candidates in 29 ridings: 17 went Liberal, 9 NDP, 3 Conservative

http://www.votetogether.ca/riding/list/?filter=recommendations

 Bah! Leadnow and all the rest are Lib front groups, and strat vote is just an excuse for telling people to vote Liberal. Period!

And I am going on record righ now, Trudeau WILL NOT change anything!

dp

takeitslowly wrote:

and being on facebook alot, i noticed alot of liberals and they are massive bullies, and i read a story just a few days before the election, a bunch of kids were tearing off ndp election signs, and trudeau protrayed himself as a boxer /fighter and he tweeted pictures of himself boxing just before teh debate...does anyone feel uncomfortable with that?  hes trying to impose his physical superiority over the leaders and i saw alot of that bullying and talking over tom mulcair during the debate, its going to get ugly. I will speak loud and proud against this bullying and i will not let the media tell me its mean and bad if we pick on little trudeau, i dont give a fuck.

i am going to fight them everyday for the next four years.

The NDP was trying to paint Trudeau as a spoiled rich kid, weak. At the same time they were trying to paint Mulcair as a kindly grandfather.

Trudeau showed Canadians that he isn't weak and that he shares their values through showing how he spends his time.

You can go ahead and "pick on little Trudeau" if you are determined to ensure the NDP remains in third place or you want to sound like a Reformcon.

If you want the NDP to be progressive and to win elections it won't be a productive path.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Tom and Peggy did it out of desperation. The NDP as a party doesn't endorse Stacked Voting, er strategic voting. You are confused. There is one issue, the NDP's stupid, don't give people a reason to vote for us campaing, and strategic voting. Keep your eye on the ball. Here it comes now....SWING BATTAAA!!!!!!!!

I received something in the mail from the NDP before the slide began, it had the 100/35 pitch in it.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, you aren't keeping your eye on the ball, here it comes, SSSWWWINNGGGG BATTAA!!!!!

What ball? The election is over. Trudeau won. He will probably win in 2019 again, and in 2023 if the NDP doesn't get its act together and focus on the two primary umbrella challenges facing the country, income inequality and environmental degradation.

Had the NDP spent the last 4 years focused on how trade deals promote income inequality and prevent environmental protection measures they could have fought this election on those issues. That is how you appeal to the 99%.

Stop being afraid of genuine democracy. Stop thinking of voters as stupid and blaming them for the NDP's inability to connect.

Time to ignore the Liberals and the Conservatives and focus on the Leap Manifesto. Stop trying to appear as Liberal lite so as to not scare voters.

Mighty AC wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

does anyone know why strategic voting led to 180 something liberal mps and 99 conservative and 44 ndp mps? thats not staretgic voting. can someone explain to me what happens?

Only a tiny percentage actually vote strategically. People wanted change and to oust Harper. I think the influx of new voters gravitated towards the more charismatic, positive, energetic and photogenic leader who was promising the moon.

It took a little while for JT to get comfortable campaigning and communicating but he quickly remedied his problems and was a force afterwards. I'm willing to bet that a regular one month campaign would have led to a CPC minority with an NDP official opposition. Harper miscalculated with his scheme to outspend and Mulcair though competent just isn't exciting or energetic.

I agree.  This is a good analysis.  Though I will say that for stifling the NDP, the long campaign was effective.  They have the least money, and this disadvantage was magnified by the long campaign.  For Trudeau, on the other hand, it gave him more time to be likeable and charismatic in public.  The long campaign basically gave him the opportunity to play to his greatest strength.

AC, I have no clue what you are trying to say. The game is over. Trudeau won a majority.