• 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.
jollyjacktar said:
And that's why I said the buggers will win.  People are tired of Mr. H.  At the very least, I believe the CPC will get mauled.
Depending on your definition of mauled that may very well be true.  I think that (assuming the campaign doesn't matter) they will lose their close seats in Ontario and BC.  They will retain their not so close seats like Niagara West, easily but with less of the popular vote.  Official opposition, because even if they form a minority gov't the Libs and NDP will get together and make a coalition gov't, for the short term.

Canadian's choose parlament, parlament chooses the government...
 
Eric Grenier explains that despite the CPC being at historic lows in the polls, not everything is what it seems.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-at-historic-lows-in-the-polls-but-still-competitive-1.3141563

 
Underway said:
(assuming the campaign doesn't matter)

A fairly large assumption to make.  See "Election, General, BC 2013".
 
jollyjacktar said:
And that's why I said the buggers will win.  People are tired of Mr. H.  At the very least, I believe the CPC will get mauled.

The MSM and some vocal groups are tired of the PM. I, personally, am not. Neither are a lot of the grass root and other Conservatives (as well as those not sure which way to go). As with most elections, we (Conservatives) are just never very vocal or participate in polls. Both constantly, and always have, skewed the predictions and surprised the electorate on voting day (most times, not always).

Is he in for a ravaging? Maybe. Is it as cut and dried as the partisan press and special interest groups are hoping and broadcasting? Highly unlikely.

The only poll that counts is the one on election day.
 
i think that campaigns do matter.  Which is why I'm holding off on too much prognostication until this one officially starts.

However there are a number of things that I think will affect the campaign.

1. The economy.  The R word is being bandied about.  If the job numbers and economic reorts show teh economy is in decline (I believe it is) then I think this will be an issue.  The CPC's credibility will be at stake and the opposition will also have to make a strong case as to why they should be the ones to "rescue" it.  Expect attack ads to ramp up on all sides in regards to this.

2. The Duffy affair.  This will work one way or the other.  In particular Nigel Wright's testimony which will be likely during the middle of the campaign.  Either it will be explosive and damage the Harper brand  (I call it that since it seems the CPC is campaigning on the strength of Stephen Harper and nothing else) or it will be so anti-climactic that it will reinforce the Harper brand.  Either it will have an effect since the media will be displaying this goat rodeo quite prominently.

3.  A serious security issue (or not).  If, gods forbid, we suffer another serious security issue, this will play to the PM's strengths but I belive that the opposite is true, that if everything is relatively quiet, Canadians in their notoriously complacent attitudes might not care about how strong he is or has been in that regard. 

I'm sure we'll see many minor controversies perceived and real and attacks but none will have as much influence, I think, over the election as the three listed above.

(Understanding of course that many, many smaller issues can add up to bigger ones for all parties)
 
recceguy said:
The MSM and some vocal groups are tired of the PM. I, personally, am not. Neither are a lot of the grass root and other Conservatives (as well as those not sure which way to go). As with most elections, we (Conservatives) are just never very vocal or participate in polls. Both constantly, and always have, skewed the predictions and surprised the electorate on voting day (most times, not always).

Is he in for a ravaging? Maybe. Is it as cut and dried as the partisan press and special interest groups are hoping and broadcasting? Highly unlikely.

The only poll that counts is the one on election day.

So true.  Taking in to account that I am in the Halifax area, where the CPC's name is Mud, they are going to tank here.  This of course comes as no surprise to anyone as ER et al, have pointed out many times that this is becoming more and more of a Liberal bastion.  I don't, therefore, have a better idea of how the winds blow amongst the rest of us outside this area. 

Only October will tell.  I suspect that this will be a bumpy ride for all three main parties with many a slip between the cup and the lip, as they say.  I too do hope the beard is not our new alien overlord come November too.
 
recceguy said:
The MSM and some vocal groups are tired of the PM. I, personally, am not. Neither are a lot of the grass root and other Conservatives (as well as those not sure which way to go). As with most elections, we (Conservatives) are just never very vocal or participate in polls. Both constantly, and always have, skewed the predictions and surprised the electorate on voting day (most times, not always).

Is he in for a ravaging? Maybe. Is it as cut and dried as the partisan press and special interest groups are hoping and broadcasting? Highly unlikely.

The only poll that counts is the one on election day.

I supported the CPC initially and actually quite a few Public Servants were happy to see the Libs go, we were hoping for some ethical leadership. There was certainly a grace period while they learned how to drive the government, but now the communication clampdowns, ommibills, poorly written and rushed bills and a Work Force Adjustment which even now we are still to refill the cuts have all whittled that quiet support. The Duffy scandal was the icing on the cake, the difference that the CPC could hold up over the Liberals was gone. I personally expect that Duffy going to trial will cause the issue to whither legally, as it's clear accounting rules were lax and a whole culture of the place is bad. But it taints the CPC and the PM. I also see that the grassroots of the CPC are annoyed, which is not good because that is the foundational strength of the party. Despise volunteering and donating to my MP, it took many attempts just to get a form letter out of him for a hot local issue. I don't want a sock puppet for a MP and it seems sock puppets is what the PMO wants. 
 
How the FP sees things right now. With the amount of external turmoil growing (Greece, China, ISIS, Ukraine, South China Sea, etc.) it is almost impossible to predict what the conditions in the rest of the world will be like, much less the effects on Canada.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-europe-is-in-crisis-china-is-in-turmoil-isil-is-expanding-mulcair-is-gaining-so-why-isnt-harper-panicked

Kelly McParland: Europe is in crisis, China is in turmoil, ISIL is expanding, Mulcair is gaining. So why isn’t Harper panicked?
Kelly McParland | July 8, 2015 1:19 PM ET
More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland

Judging by the headlines, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be cowering in his bed, sheets pulled to his chin, counting down the days until he has to find a new home. The news is rotten, there’s more Duffy to come, his cabinet is deserting him and his caucus is checking the want ads for jobs in a post-political world.

Yet Harper doesn’t look all that worried. Maybe he’s kidding himself, figuring Canadians will finally warm to him just in time for October’s election. After all it’s only been nine years. There’s still time. A little, anyway.

Or maybe it’s something else.

The numbers, for instance. Even a few weeks before an election call it’s dangerous to put too much stock in polls. Rachel Notley said she didn’t seriously absorb the likelihood she could become premier of Alberta until a couple of weeks before it happened. Still, most soundings tend to agree the Tories are facing a profoundly disgruntled electorate. We’re told that 60-65% of the population is determined to vote for any party but the Conservatives. Thomas Mulcair is doing his best to look like a male version of Notley, and gaining ground. Justin Trudeau has finally released some policies, and they aren’t all bad.

Lousy as they appear on the surface, however, the polls aren’t definitive. An analysis for CBC suggests the Conservative vote, while below 30%, is so efficiently divided the impact could be much less painful than expected. Lost support in the West could be more than made up in Ontario, where the Tories have made gains and 15 new seats have been added. But more crucial is the sharp division of support between its opponents: the rise in support for the NDP has eaten deeply into potential Liberal votes. After more than two years as leader, Justin Trudeau runs well behind Mulcair as potential prime ministerial material, and even trails Harper.

This suggests Trudeau’s novelty value has peaked and is losing ground at the worst moment. The roll-out of Liberal platform plans appears to be having limited impact. If the anti-Harper vote, which is significant, coalesces behind Mulcair – as appears eminently possible – the Liberals could well be looking at a prolonged stay in third place.

But even that isn’t a given. The NDP wave owes a lot to the euphoria that greeted Notley’s election. Important questions remain about the party’s policy plans and how it would actually govern. On trade, for instance: Mulcair has resolutely avoided taking a firm position on two new free trade pacts that will have an enormous impact on Canada’s future, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement reached with the European Union, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership with the U.S., Japan and nine other Pacific Rim countries, which involves about 40% of world GDP and could be concluded this summer.

Or on the economy. The world is a frightening place right now. Europe is in turmoil over the crisis in Greece. The eurozone could be in a state of collapse by the time of the election. China – everyone’s choice as default alternative to the U.S. economy until recently – is bordering on panic. Nearly half the stocks on Chinese markets had ceased trading by Wednesday morning, in a collapse being compared to the crash that set off the Great Depression. While attention has been riveted on Greece, turmoil in China has the potential for a far greater impact on global prosperity.

Security is also uncertain. ISIL has spread its hideous terror campaign from Iraq and Syria to Egypt, and could soon find itself confronting Israel from inside Gaza. While Harper’s response may seem heavy-handed, both the NDP and Liberals have pledged to abandon involvement altogether, outside some training and humanitarian aide. President Barack Obama seems determined to conclude an agreement giving Iran access to nuclear weapons and a multi-billion-dollar boost to its economy, and flooding the world with yet more oil.

That being the case, is now the time Canadians would choose to roll the dice on a left-wing government – even if Mulcair appears less left-wing than his predecessors? Historically, Canadian voters have chosen to balance the parties, putting Conservatives in charge of provincial governments when the Liberals run Ottawa, and vice versa. Given the economic challenges, how safe will they feel with an inexperienced new NDP government in Alberta, a leftwing Liberal government in Ontario – where the credit rating was lowered again Tuesday, citing runaway debt and a lack of action on spending restraint – and an untried NDP government in Ottawa, learning the ropes of governing nationally for the first time? For a country noted for its traditional caution, that would be an usual display of risk-taking.

Voters have become so disaffected from politics it’s hard to know what they’ll do at any given moment. The TPP may be the single most important economic decision the country will make since NAFTA, yet 75% of Canadians say they’ve never heard of it. China could be flat on its back before Canadians took time enough away from the barbecue to pay attention. Decisions continue to be made on vague impressions in place of informed opinion. If wariness about Mulcair grows as NDP platform details emerge, will voters swallow their misgivings and move to the inexperienced Trudeau? Will they stay home in disgust? Or grudgingly put up with the relative safety of the government they know, if only for the sake of the mortgage, and a sense that Canada has a bigger role to play in the world other than interested observer?

At this point it’s still impossible to know. Perhaps that’s why the Prime Minister is showing no signs of panic. After almost a decade of power, he knows the contest hasn’t really started yet.
 
Colin P said:
I supported the CPC initially and actually quite a few Public Servants were happy to see the Libs go, we were hoping for some ethical leadership. There was certainly a grace period while they learned how to drive the government, but now the communication clampdowns, ommibills, poorly written and rushed bills and a Work Force Adjustment which even now we are still to refill the cuts have all whittled that quiet support. The Duffy scandal was the icing on the cake, the difference that the CPC could hold up over the Liberals was gone. I personally expect that Duffy going to trial will cause the issue to whither legally, as it's clear accounting rules were lax and a whole culture of the place is bad. But it taints the CPC and the PM. I also see that the grassroots of the CPC are annoyed, which is not good because that is the foundational strength of the party. Despise volunteering and donating to my MP, it took many attempts just to get a form letter out of him for a hot local issue. I don't want a sock puppet for a MP and it seems sock puppets is what the PMO wants.

Annoyance and disagreement, with the party, does not necessarily equate to lost votes. Especially when the alternatives are weighed.
 
recceguy said:
Annoyance and disagreement, with the party, does not necessarily equate to lost votes. Especially when the alternatives are weighed.


I agree.

I know that some (at least one) "conservative" who is very annoyed with the CPC, and disagrees with, probably, more than half its policies, but ... that same "conservative" disagrees with many, many more of the Liberal and NDP policies and promises and, so, will stick with the CPC as the better (not just least bad) of the reasonable choices.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I agree.

I know that some (at least one) "conservative" who is very annoyed with the CPC, and disagrees with, probably, more than half its policies, but ... that same "conservative" disagrees with many, many more of the Liberal and NDP policies and promises and, so, will stick with the CPC as the better (not just least bad) of the reasonable choices.

Same here. Better the devil you know.
 
But here is an interesting graphic, from ABACUS Data, that shows the view of those who want change in selected key areas:

CJbVpJsUMAA2Sbz.png:large


It's a horserace between the Liberals and the NDP, right now, and the CPC still can (but not necessarily will) "come up the middle" in October.
 
I think David Parkins, in the Globe and Mail, tells us all we need to know about M Trudeau's campaign dilemma in this illustration:

                   
webthuedcar09col1.jpg


The ABACUS Data numbers suggest a 'dead heat,' but the media perception seems to be that it's all Harper vs Mulcair, with "the kid" watching from the sidelines.
 
Crantor said:
I think that campaigns do matter.  Which is why I'm holding off on too much prognostication until this one officially starts.
...
I'm sure we'll see many minor controversies perceived and real and attacks but none will have as much influence, I think, over the election as the three listed above.

(Understanding of course that many, many smaller issues can add up to bigger ones for all parties)


I agree.

I was thinking about 30 years ago, the 1984 campaign. The Liberal incumbent, John "Chick" Turner was rusty, out of touch, as his infamous slap on Iona Campagnolo's (admittedly very attractive) bum proved. It wasn't a game changer, but it did, I guarantee, resonate with some women, especially "women over forty"* who (unlike their twenty-something sisters) vote in large numbers and who were reliably Liberal voters.

But the turn in the campaign hinged on five words ...

         
turner_80_edit.jpg

          "You had an option, sir!"

Brian Mulroney was already leading, as I recall, but that line, in a televised debate, seemed to seal the election and it gave the Progressive Conservatives a historic, trans-Canadian victory.

The late British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously reminded us that ...

         
quote-a-week-is-a-long-time-in-politics-harold-wilson-199835.jpg


              ... and we have more than 14 "long times" to go before an October election.

Campaigns do matter, they can turn things upside down.

_____
* Now there's a pop-cultural reference that only a few of us will remember ...
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I was thinking about 30 years ago, the 1984 campaign. The Liberal incumbent, John "Chick" Turner was rusty, out of touch, as his infamous slap on Iona Campagnolo's (admittedly very attractive) bum proved. It wasn't a game changer, but it did, I guarantee, resonate with some women, especially "women over forty"* who (unlike their twenty-something sisters) vote in large numbers and who were reliably Liberal voters.

And don't forget when Robert Stanfield - literally - dropped the football.
 
Yet another reason to NOT vote Conservative. It's funny that they cited "intrusion into the private lives of Canadians" as a primary reason to get rid of the long form census, and then they turn around and pass C-51.

The data captured in the census is crucial for formulating good public policy. A government that wants LESS information to do this, and not more should not be a government period. As the article points out, this lack of data is affecting both the public AND the private sector, and it's actually COSTING us money. The Conservatives can't even seem to govern according to their own ideology.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cities-footing-the-bill-for-data-gap-after-long-form-census-scrapped/article22695286/

More broadly, it has “inhibited research into inequality and identifying winners and losers in economic growth, research into understanding the national problems of the have-nots in the economy, and research into how best to provision local government services.”

In the private sector, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose network represents 200,000 businesses across the country, is publicly calling on the federal government to restore the mandatory long-form census....

Sara Mayo, social planner at the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton, says the result of the census changes has been less data for more money. “In terms of fiscal prudence, this made no sense. Why would any government want to pay more for worse-quality data?”"


 
The "You had a choice, sir" line is perhaps the reason that we still have TV debates at all; since everyone is waiting for a knockout blow like that one. Unfortunately, this is also the reason TV debates are now tripe, since no one will actually say or do anything, or take a position, or articulate a belief in the fear that this could lead to a "You had a choice, sir" moment.

Which is truely sad, since I would actually like to know the positions of the leaders, and hear them articulate their positions and beliefs. Oddly, having had the opportunity to actually see the Prime Minister and the Young Dauphin "up close and personal" on separate occasions in small settings, I know they are entirely opposite of their "media" personas (Yes, the Young Dauphin is not only slow on his feet, he really isn't very charismatic in person either...), which makes watching even more tedious. You might as well hire actors playing Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair and the Young Dauphin for the debate, since they will at least be able to project some feeling into the performance.
 
If census supporters want a more detailed census to return, they first need to exercise self-discipline in two respects:
1) Do not be over-intrusive.
2) Do not mine the data to create far-reaching excuses for public spending.

Those who abuse something relentlessly risk it being taken away by exasperated people.  There is no particular right to demand a more nuanced response.
 
Bruce Anderson (ABACUS Data) is, generally, regarded as a Liberal insider, but I think this analysis, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is insightful:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-can-only-win-if-they-own-up-to-their-weaknesses/article25386988/
gam-masthead.png

Conservatives can only win if they own up to their weaknesses

BRUCE ANDERSON
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Jul. 09, 2015

    Bruce Anderson is the chairman of polling firm Abacus Data, a regular member of CBC The National’s At Issue panel and a founding partner of i2 Ideas and Issues Advertising. He has done polls for Liberal and Conservative politicians
    in the past, but no longer does any partisan work. Other members of his family have worked for Conservative and Liberal politicians, and a daughter currently works for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. He writes a weekly digital column for
    The Globe and Mail.


I’ve been in losing political campaigns. They are, the cup half-full people say, learning moments.

Each campaign has its own dynamics; losers lose for different reasons. The lessons from a defeat aren’t always portable. But if there’s one lesson that should only be learned once it is this: If there’s a chance you’re going to lose, lose with your eyes open. Get a handle on what’s going wrong, and try everything you can to turn things around.

It sounds obvious. Shouldn’t have to be said. But you’d be amazed.

Political parties are prisoners of hierarchy. Leaders lay down a strategy, and everyone else is encouraged to acknowledge that it is perfectly formed.

Such strategies rarely include the caveat that they might need to be re-invented if circumstances change. But sometimes, like this year, say, a winning campaign might all come down to being nimble.

Stephen Harper has a decent chance of winning another election this fall. But right now, there’s as good a chance he will lose.

Six months ago, there was wind in his sails. Today, doldrums.

The air around him seems stale, the arguments feel old, some of his best talent is gone. His poisoned relationship with the media is getting even worse. He’s been pouring money into government and party advertising, only to watch support dwindle.

The Harper strategy seems, in a nutshell, this: the other guys are lame. We’ll send people cheques, have some debates, remind people what we’ve done, buy plenty of advertising, our boots on the ground are better. No need to sweat. Canadians will get it right.

If such a strategy were based on a cool assessment of strengths and weaknesses, risks and opportunities, that would be one thing. But it might have more to do with eyes-closed ego-driven group-think arrogance.

Recently, on national TV, a Conservative spokesman said his party’s advertising offers voters information they can trust: “We’re better than news – because we’re truthful.”

There’s no good explanation for saying such a thing into an open microphone. It’s plainly not true and wouldn’t be any more true if another party offered it up. It would be funny except the fellow seemed to actually believe it.

WKRP’s disc jockey Johnny Fever said “when everybody’s out to get you, paranoia is just straight thinking.” A good laugh line in a sitcom. And might make sense if you are Ezra Levant.

Some will argue that haranguing the news media rallies the base, pleases the trolls, raises more money, and where’s the harm.

But a more honest, eyes-open assessment is that the whole media bashing strategy is foolish. It’s not clever, nor a sign of strength; it comes off as amateur and petty.

By now mistakes like this should be wearing thin on Conservatives who are running to win seats.

There are likeable politicians in the Harper cabinet who rarely get put front and centre. Instead, Pierre Poilievre and Paul Calandra have been the Huntley and Brinkley of the Conservative Party in the first half of 2015.

Those Conservatives with more talent are probably wondering why, in an election year, the strategy still seems to be about delighting a too-small fragment of the population and getting under the skin of everybody else.

There was a time when top-level ministers had the kind of relationship with a Prime Minister which might encourage a frank word of advice for the boss. An honest and blunt account of what things feel like outside the 24 Sussex and Langevin Block bubble.

If one were to do that now, here’s what they might say:

“Our agenda will never please everyone, but we should be able to get a fair hearing from at least two of three voters. Too many aren’t open to hearing us right now. Our talking heads sound smug and preoccupied with party, not country. The rest of us are seen as arrogant by association.

“We talk about our achievements, but voters are interested in what lies ahead. Our opponents’ promises are attracting interest. We need to fish where the fish are.

“Our treatment of the news media is a losing proposition. Maligning them makes life harder for candidates.

“To win this election, we need to a forward looking, nuanced, less partisan, more appealing approach.”

Whether this advice will be tendered, or well received, is anyone’s guess. But in a well functioning political party, necessity is the mother of invention. There’s little chance that a strategy built on 2014 context will work in 2015.

Now, embedded in this "good advice" is a plea to "go easy on Justin Trudeau, please," but there is, in fact, some merit in that. Attack ads work; I don't think any serious campaign strategists doubt that, but they can also backfire ~ remember the Kim Campbell campaign's ads that were perceived to make fun of Prime Minister Chrétien's facial deformity which was caused by a childhood bout of Bell's palsy. The fact that they are still using them means, I believe, that the CPC believes that"Just Not Ready" is working for them; I'm guessing that their polling says the ad campaign is defining M Trudeau.

In my opinion the CPC campaign must aim at provoking battles between the Liberals and the NDP to split the anti-Conservative vote as evenly as possible. The CPC can win with less than 39% of the popular vote IF it gets a very, very efficient vote (Jean Chrétien won a comfortable majority in 1997, with 38.46% of the popular vote and Stephen Harper won, in 2011, with 39.62%) ~ enough "even splits" (33% CPC, 30% Liberal and 30% NDP) in many ridings. That's easier said than done, of course.

I repeat, I think the CPC and the Liberals have "firm bases" of about 20% (each) of the electorate and I also think that the NDP has a stranglehold on 15% and other parties "own" a further 5% ~ those are votes that will (almost) never desert their favoured parties. But that means that 40% of the electorate is "up for grabs," but I believe that nearly ⅓ of that is pretty solidly progressive most of the time so that means that only 25% of the electorate can be persuaded to vote CPC. the CPC needs to persuade most of those voters ~ two out of three of them, at the very least ~ to support them one more time (20% solid + 18% undecided = 38%+ result which = slim majority).

I don't think the CPC can stop bashing the media, not, anyway, until it gets a whole new "front office," maybe it's part of the current (Harper's) team's political-cultural DNA. I do think they can run a carefully balanced, nuanced campaign, that tells voters that both the Liberals and the NDP are fiscally irresponsible and, on a riding by riding basis, "picks a favourite" amongst the Liberals and Dippers in order to try and "come up the middle" in each, separate tight, three way race. (and the CPC needs 150+ of those tight, three way races.)
 
Or......they could run on their record in 9 years in power.

That would be the "Conservatives vote FOR something, rather than AGAINST something", would it not?  It has been said many times on here, and I wish it were true, but most of us here seem to be 'anti-Trudeau' or 'anti-NDP' far more than we are FOR Harper.

Personally, I think all parties are barking up the wrong tree if they think the majority of the electorate cares about what "tribe" is who.  50 years ago, one would never see voters choosing between parties on far opposite sides of the spectrum.  One might have seen voters vacillate between the old Socreds and the Conservatives, or similar left wing parties.  Nowadays, we regularly see people choosing between polar opposites (Wildrose and NDP for example, or even BQ and a Federalist party in Quebec).  This tells me that party loyalty is a thing of the past, and is probably just a function of the modern society we live in, and its 24/7 access (pun intended) to all sides of issues. 

That's not to say that there isn't a "base".  There will always be some that will vote for their "tribe" regardless of what they have done, what they say they'll do, or who the leader is, but I think those traditional bases may be dwindling.  I think you have actually identified that, as your "base" numbers are lower now for each party than one would have estimated in the past.

Harrigan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top