• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Akin ‏@davidakin  · 6h6 hours ago 
“@PMHarper Performance Review” riffs off #CPC “The Interview” attack ad VIDEO from #LPC candidate @OmarAlghabra

http://bit.ly/1dMDgiu




 
Crantor said:
I thought that would have happened in the last provincial election but look what happened... :rage:

True, but the Public Service Unions and their front organizations will have a harder time influencing a national election (and if they split the Orange/Red vote, even better).
 
Baden Guy said:
David Akin ‏@davidakin  · 6h6 hours ago 
“@PMHarper Performance Review” riffs off #CPC “The Interview” attack ad VIDEO from #LPC candidate @OmarAlghabra

http://bit.ly/1dMDgiu

I had a tough time getting through that entire video.
 
Baden Guy said:
David Akin ‏@davidakin  · 6h6 hours ago 
“@PMHarper Performance Review” riffs off #CPC “The Interview” attack ad VIDEO from #LPC candidate @OmarAlghabra

http://bit.ly/1dMDgiu


I see several problems with the ad:

    1. It is, too obviously, a response ~ in other words, the CPC attack ad "Just Not Ready" (properly "The Interview") scored and the LPC feels a need to defend;

    2. The demographic is wrong ~ it features too many young people who, typically, don't vote in large enough numbers; and

    3. Too hard to follow ~ the "worst economic performance" message, for example, doesn't track with the general perception that Canada did "not too bad" in the Great Recession. The facts may be just that: true facts, but there is
        no context and they are not part of the generally prevailing narrative, whereas "Just Not Ready" built on existing (albeit unfair) perceptions about M Trudeau's youth and in experience.

In my opinion the first problem is the worst: by even allowing this to go on YouTube the Liberals are admitting that "Just Not Ready" worked and hurt them ... one should not admit weakness during the campaign.

It's time for new, better CPC ads ... emphasising Justin is in way over his head and Not up to the job but with emphasis on pocketbook issues.
 
I share ERC's feelings about the ad. It really comes across as a poorly done copycat response, and is not clear that the Liberal band is the best choice.

It is a bit like a Pepsi ad attacking Coke, but leaving out mention of its own brand, so the audience is not sure whether to go with Dr Pepper or Pepsi.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Lysiane Gagnon offers some interesting comment on two issues, the apparently enduring popularity of the NDP in Quebec (which is something that many of us, me included, did not expect back in 2011/2012) and the unreliability of polls in recent elections, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/in-quebec-the-tories-love-orange/article23596416/

...

I reiterate that, in my opinion, M. Trudeau must defeat M. Mulcair in Quebec if is to have any chance at forming a government in 2015. Right now the NDP has 54 of Quebec's 78 seats, the Liberals have only 7, the CPC has 5, there are 9 others (Bloc Québécois, Forces et Démocratie and Independents) and three are new seats for the 2015 election. Lets assume Mlle Gagnon is correct and the the CPC might make some very small gains, say to 6 seats and the NDP is solid in, say, 40 of its Quebec seats ... that leaves only 32 seats for the Liberals to contest, and it is likely that some (maybe a half dozen) will go to independents and nationalists and the NDP might beat them in a few, so, maybe, the Liberals can win 25 seats in Quebec. That's a big gain for them, but the Liberals won 36 Quebec seats in 2000, 21 in 2004, 13 in 2006, 14 in 2008 and only 7 in 2011 so the trajectory has been downwards in the 21st century. If M. Trudeau is held to fewer than 40 seats in Quebec then I think that a Liberal government, even a weak minority with, say, 130 seats, is out of range and even Leader of the Opposition may be difficult to achieve if he is held to, say, 20 seats.

_____


And Jeffrey Simpson, who (despite my many disagreements with him) is an expert in Canadian politics (and in health care, but not in much of anything else, especially not in foreign affairs, defence or finance) agrees in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/liberals-swimming-against-ndp-tide-in-quebec/article24797344/
gam-masthead.png

Liberals swimming against NDP tide in Quebec

JEFFREY SIMPSON
Montreal — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Jun. 04 2015

The Liberals cannot form a government without at least half of Quebec’s 78 seats. Today, they are nowhere near that target.

The story of the Liberals in Quebec has been one of steady decline since the ascension of Justin Trudeau to the leadership. His victory sent Liberal hopes aloft. Buoyed by gratifying poll numbers, respectable-to-large turnouts at party gatherings and the novelty of Mr. Trudeau’s persona, federal Liberals felt they were back in the political game in Quebec.

National political arithmetic showed that Liberals had to be back in Quebec, or they would not be back in the country, at least not in the sense of competing for power. Liberals could, and would, do better in Atlantic Canada and Ontario than in the 2011 election, but gains there needed to be supplemented by renewed strength in Quebec.

Quebec was a Liberal fortress – a long time ago. Since 1984, the Liberals have never carried the largest number of seats in Quebec in a federal vote. The closest they came was in 2000, their final election with Jean Chrétien, when the party won 36 seats compared with 38 for the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Chrétien got a majority government despite taking only 36 seats in Quebec because his Liberals won a staggering 100 seats in Ontario. The Liberals have no chance whatsoever of approximating that result in the coming election, not with the right-of-centre forces no longer divided, as was the case in 2000.

When Quebeckers gave up on the Bloc in the 2011 election, they did not turn to the Liberals or the Harper Conservatives. Instead, an “orange wave” of New Democrats washed over Quebec. Liberals under Mr. Trudeau reckon that waves recede. They might have forgotten that waves come back, too.

This election will be the first since 1993 in which Quebeckers will be engaged in the issues and personalities of national politics in much the same way as other Canadians are. For more than two decades, from the creation of the Bloc to the 2011 election, Quebeckers withdrew from federal affairs, preferring to vote for the Bloc or, in the last election, the NDP, a party that had no chance of winning power.

With the Bloc moribund, and the NDP looking more credible across the country, Quebeckers seem to have decided that the orange wave should become an orange high tide. Which presents a different challenge to the Liberals.

Instead of positioning themselves as the obvious and best alternative to the Conservatives in Quebec, the Liberals now have to contain the New Democrats. If Quebeckers want to rid their province and Canada of the Conservatives, the NDP is the best-bet alternative for the largest number of francophone voters.

Mr. Trudeau thus far has failed to present a formidable team of candidates with resonance beyond their corners of Quebec. Given his inexperience, he needed a few high-profile candidates to make Team Trudeau. He also needed to advance some strong policy ideas, which until recently he had not.

Indeed, by musing that the gun registry might have been a mistake and supporting oil pipelines, he found himself offside attitudes in his home province. Also, his support (with amendments) for Bill C-51, with its enhanced security powers for government, rested uneasily with his opposition to extending the military mission against the Islamic State. The Conservative government obviously supported both; the NDP opposed both; the Liberals appeared divided.

The Liberals’ decline in Quebec might hurt the party outside the province among swing voters who could vote New Democrat or Liberal to defeat the Conservatives. If the Liberals cannot win Quebec, some of those voters might reckon they cannot, therefore, form the government, in which case the NDP becomes their default or preferred anti-Conservative option.

The Liberals will soon release an advertising campaign in Quebec. They can only hope it will do some good in a province where Stephen Harper gets attention by virtue of being the Prime Minister, and the NDP by virtue of having the largest number of seats and a well-regarded Quebecker as its leader. Although decried as illegal by the other parties, the New Democrats shifted some of their staff and budget from Ottawa to Quebec to help implant the party in the province.

Obviously, the Liberals have to improve in all regions of Canada to finish first among the big three parties. But they absolutely have to do much better in Quebec, and for the moment they are not.


As Jeffrey Simpson pointed out, early on M Trudeau took positions (the gun registry and pipelines) that would help him in the West but which are "out of step" with Quebecers. If he backtracks he will pay a price in the West and rural Ontario but it is not clear that he will make any real gains in Quebec by backtracking.

Ontario is the key for M Trudeau - give him Atlantic Canada, say half (16) or even 20 of Atlantic Canada's 32 seats and, say, 10 to, even, 20 of the West's 117 seats that means he must win 130 to 145 seats in Ontario and Quebec (out of 199) - if he can only win less than 40 of Quebec's seats then he needs around 100 in Ontario, and that's not going to happen.

My guess is that M Trudeau can/should win 20 to as many as 60 seats in Ontario, but I will be shocked if he can win many more. That means a majority or even a strong minority is out of reach.

My current guesstimate is that while the CPC can win a small majority if the vote splitting works for them, the most likely outcomes are:

    1. A weak CPC minority but with neither the Liberals nor the NDP being ready and able to lead a coalition ~ this will, probably, result in another election in winter 2015/16; or

    2. A weak NDP minority which will govern for a a year or 18 months, maybe even two years.
 
So the tactical plan for both the CPC and NDP revolves around shutting the Liberals out of Quebec and Ontario.

In Quebec, the CPC does not have enough horsepower to split votes or take a lot of ridings, so this is pretty much Tom Mulcair's show to run. In Ontario, the CPC could do well to link the wretched economic performance of Ontario to the Liberals (a given, really) and link the Liberal party of Ontario to the LPC (pretty easy to do, given how Preimier Wynn made such a big point of courting the Young Dauphin). I hope Ontarians have come to their senses, but even if not, there is always the "Orange Wave" card to play.

One thing which might take everyone by surprise is Atlantic Canada. Everyone seems to assume the Maritimes will be a safe Liberal bastion, but who is to say that the Orange Wave might not roll in there as well? The loss of several Liberal seats in Atlantic Canada, either directly to the NDP or indirectly through vote splitting will change the political dynamic of the region, and also keep the LPC firmly in third place (the overriding goal of both the CPC and NDP). Squeezing the Liberals out of the center is the plan, and that might be the lever to do it.
 
As a political junkie the only thing I am certain of in this confusing political moment is the uncertainty of making a prediction.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html?spref=tw

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2668747111/
 
Not quite ...

Thucydides said:
So the tactical plan for both the CPC and NDP revolves around shutting the Liberals out of Quebec and Ontario. Agreed

In Quebec, the CPC does not have enough horsepower to split votes or take a lot of ridings, so this is pretty much Tom Mulcair's show to run. Not quite ... in QC the Conservatives want, need, to fight hard for the handful of seats in which they have a good to very good chance, say ten, in all. In the remaining 50-60 they need to fight against the Liberals in order to help the NDP and, thereby, deny the Liberals a room to grow In Ontario, the CPC could do well to link the wretched economic performance of Ontario to the Liberals (a given, really) and link the Liberal party of Ontario to the LPC (pretty easy to do, given how Preimier Wynn made such a big point of courting the Young Dauphin). Agreed ... and, in the suburbs, campaign TO the "ethnic vote," especially East and South Asians I hope Ontarians have come to their senses, but even if not, there is always the "Orange Wave" card to play. Don't forget that Ontario often (almost traditionally) votes for different parties at provincial and federal levels ~ that should help the CPC but could, also, help the NDP

One thing which might take everyone by surprise is Atlantic Canada. Everyone seems to assume the Maritimes will be a safe Liberal bastion, but who is to say that the Orange Wave might not roll in there as well? The loss of several Liberal seats in Atlantic Canada, either directly to the NDP or indirectly through vote splitting will change the political dynamic of the region, and also keep the LPC firmly in third place (the overriding goal of both the CPC and NDP). Squeezing the Liberals out of the center is the plan, and that might be the lever to do it. Agreed
 
Baden Guy said:
As a political junkie the only thing I am certain of in this confusing political moment is the uncertainty of making a prediction.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html?spref=tw

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2668747111/


Agreed, but .....

Here is a guesstimate, based, in part, on what Éric Grenier said in your link, and, partially, on my own sense of how the West might break:
          West  Ontario  Quebec  Atlantic
          (107)  (121)      (78)        (32)
CPC        70        56          5            5    = 136 (realistically, 110 to 150 seats)
NDP        22        32          47          10    = 111 (realistically, 100 to 140 seats)
LPC        12        31        16          16    =  75  (realistically,  50 to 110 seats)
Others      3          2          10          1    =   16
                                                              338

I think
130-140 is a workable minority for 12 to 18 months. I also think that is within reach, using today's numbers, for both the CPC and NDP but NOT for the LPC.

If that holds, even if you reverse the CPC and NDP numbers so that you have an NDP minority (which I am 99.99% certain M Trudeau would refuse to join as the "junior partner"), then I suspect it will be ...

       
justin-trudeau.jpg

          ... Bye bye, Justin
 
I think we can agree that the next election will be Mr Harper's last election. The outcome only determines the speed at which he exits. Mr Trudeau on the other hand, is expected to form the Government, perhaps even a majority government. Failing to do neither will see him cast on the dustheap with Messrs Martin, Dion and Ignatieff. Only Mr Mulcair can survive intact regardless of the outcome of the election.
 
You know, a 135-seat NDP minority might just be what the country needs.  Thin enough that there is a safety valve against "Rae Days" (who, BTW, still holds the record for greatest number of aggregate days of proroguement during a leader's tenure...not Mr. Harper as many/most would have us believe), in the form of some highly likely opportunity for a non-confidence vote in the first 12-18 months...

:stirpot:
 
One of Harper's aims was to cripple the LPC.  That's done.

What should be next?  Bury the LPC so deeply that it dissolves into two factions which join the NDP and CPC, or start knocking the pins out from under the NDP?

I don't see a healthy future for Canada under an NDP government (majority, minority, or senior partner in a coalition) which owes favours to QC.  It would only be worse if favours were also owed to ON. 
 
Good2Golf said:
You know, a 135-seat NDP minority might just be what the country needs.  Thin enough that there is a safety valve against "Rae Days" (who, BTW, still holds the record for greatest number of aggregate days of proroguement during a leader's tenure...not Mr. Harper as many/most would have us believe), in the form of some highly likely opportunity for a non-confidence vote in the first 12-18 months...

:stirpot:

The problem with the opposition holding the NDP in check is that people might believe they're not so bad and subsequently give them a majority.
 
Brad Sallows said:
One of Harper's aims was to cripple the LPC.  That's done.

What should be next?  Bury the LPC so deeply that it dissolves into two factions which join the NDP and CPC, or start knocking the pins out from under the NDP?

I don't see a healthy future for Canada under an NDP government (majority, minority, or senior partner in a coalition) which owes favours to QC.  It would only be worse if favours were also owed to ON.


I understand the desire for a two party system but if the two parties are CPC and NDP then we have our own version of the British or (current) US systems, neither of which works.

I think we want two strong centrist parties, and I believe that the NDP will have a hard time shedding its roots and core and being real centrists. Therefore, I want a strong Conservative Party and an equally strong Liberal Party, both fighting for the centre, while the NDP represents the real left and, if need be, we have a reborn Something Party (Reform?) representing the real, hard right.

This is a centrist, mushy middle country: it needs centrist, mushy middle governments ~ sometimes leaning a little left, other times leaning a bit to the right. If we get to something akin to a Tea Party and the US Democrats then we are totally f__ked beyond all recognition.
 
ModlrMike said:
The problem with the opposition holding the NDP in check is that people might believe they're not so bad and subsequently give them a majority.

Manitoba is a classic example....the NDP give enough goodies to satisfy the base instincts to lots of people, and we can't get rid of the buggers...... ::)

It doesn't help the the PC's are flatlining.....
 
E.R. Campbell said:
For reasons I'm not at all sure I understand, political polls have become suspect. I'm told, by people who should know, that consumer/audience polls are still highly reliable but political polls have two problems:

    1. Apparent inconsistency ~ too many (public) polls are biased and produce results that only further confuse the general public. We should, for example, not be surprised when a polling firm with a long history with Party A
        produces a poll that differs substantially from that produced by another firm with a long history with Party B. The media makes it worse by failing, normally, to explain polling to viewers/readers; and

    2. Public disenchantment with politics. Canadians, likie Australians, Brits, Chileans and Danes and so on are disenchanted with politics and mistrust politicians so they tend to treat political polling calls as a chance to "hit back"
        and they flat out lie to the pollsters.

The two trends feed upon each other.

My wholly unscientific guess is:

    Now, nearly six months out -

          Conservatives have a firm 20%± of the vote, even if the damned economy collapses and the PM is caught in some sort of scandal they'll get at least 17.5%;

        Liberals have a firm 20%+ of the vote, even if Justin Trudeau makes a series of HUGE gaffes they'll get at least 20%;

          The New Democrats have a firm 15±% of the vote, no matter what goes wrong they'll get at least 12.5% of the vote; and

          All the Others have a firm grip on 10% of the vote.

That means that, between now an voting day, 40% of the vote can be shifted from one camp to any of the others.


In a three+ party system a comfortable majority can be had with 40% of the popular vote. Both the Conservatives and Liberals are, almost automatically, half way there when they start. (Remember than even in 1993, when the PCs were, effectively, wiped out, reduced to the status of just two "independent members," they got 16% of the popular vote.) Which brings up a second point: vote efficiency is just as important as vote strength. It is far, far better to win many seats by small margins than a few seats by very large numbers, as the Conservatives do in many rural areas and the Liberals do in urban Montreal and Toronto.


Edit: typo


An article in today's Globe and Mail, citing Abacus Data's results says that:

        "Among all respondents, only 9 per cent both identified as Conservative supporters and agreed with the statement “I know how I will vote and it won’t change.” That was better than the same responses for the Liberals and NDP,
            which each got 6 per cent, but not dramatically so."


1993 was a disaster year for both the NDP and the (now defunct) PCs: the Dippers got less than 7% of the vote and the Tories came in at less than 17%. But the PCs could, and did, fall farther down in public support, when Joe Clark led them to less than 13% (and fifth party (out of five) status in the HoC) in 2000. The worst the Liberals have done was in 2011 when they polled under 20%.

I think that Stephen Harper has cemented right of centre support for the CPC and my guess is that a 20% "floor" is reasonable for both the CPC and LPC, but could be "soft" if either party does something to alienate its base.
 
While waiting for coffee to brew in the 1 Can Div coffee room, I received indirect evidence that the Duffy Affair and the Senate scandal in general will not be a factor in the election. The CBC commentator reading the news report on the emerging scandal mentrioned Sen Duffy, failed to mention Sen Harb and the part about the other Senators who are now under investigation by the RCMP was quickly passed over near the end. Why so quickly? Five of the seven Senators under investigation are Liberals.

Since that part of the story does not support the "narrative", I predict it will be allowed to die quiickly and won't be a factor in the general election campaign (If the LPC brings up the Duffy affair it will rapidly blw up in their faces).
 
One of the 2 asked to step down was Colin Kenny. Pretty bring name to fire back at LPC if they bring up Duffy.
 
Thucydides said:
While waiting for coffee to brew in the 1 Can Div coffee room, I received indirect evidence that the Duffy Affair and the Senate scandal in general will not be a factor in the election. The CBC commentator reading the news report on the emerging scandal mentrioned Sen Duffy, failed to mention Sen Harb and the part about the other Senators who are now under investigation by the RCMP was quickly passed over near the end. Why so quickly? Five of the seven Senators under investigation are Liberals.

Since that part of the story does not support the "narrative", I predict it will be allowed to die quiickly and won't be a factor in the general election campaign (If the LPC brings up the Duffy affair it will rapidly blw up in their faces).

What makes the Duffy trial different from all those cases is the PMO involvement.  That's why it will be bigger news than all the others. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top