2021 Canadian general election - Election Day and Results

[StateBoiler]

Impressive in a way: an election result that is genuinely embarrassing for every single party leader involved. For the major national parties, Trudeau has demonstrated extremely poor judgment and an inability to safely read the electorate and that's not good. O'Toole has failed to make any progress whatsoever and for a party specifically designed to contest for power, that's really, really not good. I don't think there's an argument for him being given a second chance other than 'tradition'. As for Jagmeet Singh, I can't think of a single rational or logical reason for the NDP to keep him. The party's performances in its target seats were strikingly poor across the country, the loss of several open seats must count as actively alarming, and there's no sign of new voters being brought to the table anywhere.

honestly yeah. This is a result that's just going to leave everyone wanting

Gut hot take: all 3 major national parties go into the next election with new leadership

[StateBoiler]

My two-cent outsider perspective:

-O'Toole went toward the middle like everyone to the left of the Conservatives said the party had to do, and it did not result in any changing of the voting attitudes of Canadians toward the Conservatives outside of the odd pocket here and there
-I think if Peter Mackay were Conservative leader we would've had the exact same result
-Chrystia Freeland to be next Prime Minister before the next election, if Trudeau runs in another election the Liberals will get destroyed, and if he resigns right before the election they'll also get destroyed
-like I asked pre-election, if Tom Mulcair was fired for winning 44 seats, how can the NDP be happy with Jagmeet Singh getting about half that number 2 elections in a row?
-that said, I think Singh would survive a leadership review; if he is out, it'd have to be due to "private discussions" and Singh's choice
-People's Party should consider this election successful for them, maybe the only party that can, but what now? (what a far-left name for a right-wing party, People's Party of Canada in another era could've been the name for the Communists)
-the cognoscenti out there think there's going to be a 2023 election due to the shakiness of minority governments, but they also rightfully pointed out no one is bringing down this government any time soon; throw on top of it there will be elections in Ontario and Quebec next year
-the Green Party are done as a national-level force, their elected MP in Kitchener was a fluke due to the Liberal candidate having issues and Elizabeth May is getting old with smaller winning margins, combined with a party that is probably taking a sharp turn left after Annamie Paul is removed in November
-a successful Bloc in Quebec makes it really hard for any party to form a majority because there are entire regions of the country where the main parties are uncompetitive: the Liberals largely don't exist going from Northern Ontario over to Vancouver, the Conservatives are marginal in Atlantic Canada (made headway this time), greater Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, and the NDP are pretty much a section of Ontario, B.C., and indigenous seats party with a few seats more or less in western cities

[StateBoiler]

Just wanna leave these results here:

Ontario:

LPC: 39.0% - 78 seats
CPC: 35.0% - 37 seats
NDP: 17.9% - 5 seats
PPC: 5.6% - 0 seats
GPC: 2.2% - 1 seat


British Columbia:

CPC: 33.4% - 13 seats
NDP: 29.0% - 13 seats
LPC: 26.8% - 15 seats
GPC: 5.3% - 1 seat
PPC: 5.1% - 0 seats

First past the post is really a wonderful system, isn't it?

If you're a Liberal, yeah!

There's a danger in this line of being satisfied with these results if you're them. They go down a few percent nationally, they completely collapse.

[StateBoiler]

It seems obvious to me that Tommy Douglas's canonization has a lot more to do with his time as premier of Saskatchewan than with his tenure as leader of the NDP, which was not successful by any measure I can think of. I don't really know what "the nature of the beast" being referred to here is, but I am reasonably sure that the NDP is not a Dutch-style confessional party that is content simply to get its message out; its purpose is to win elections, and given that Jagmeet Singh is not doing that and is not doing anything to bring the party closer to that, I'm not sure by what standard he could be considered anything but a failure. Maybe in forty years he'll be named one of the Greatest Canadians, but I wasn't under the impression that that is why the NDP exists. Maybe I'm wrong.

You realize that within a parliamentary democracy, "winning elections" isn't bound to winning government outright, as opposed to on a seat-by-seat basis--and also that "failed" bids at one level of government can act as practice runs for another level.  Indeed, there's many symbiotic levels at which elections, and running in the same, work; and they're not crudely bound to simply "winning".

Elections are a network of routes btw/ Point A and Point B which infer infinite routes beyond, they aren't a simple boring GPS-guided Interstate corridor.

The NDP has less influence on Parliament than a party that runs candidates in only one province, for the 2nd election in a row.

So much talk in this thread about the 4th party, compared to little about what is the future of Trudeau and O'Toole.

[StateBoiler]

You talk about a network of routes between Point A and Point B; what is Point B for the NDP? How exactly are their current leader and electoral strategy advancing them toward it? It doesn't appear to be by winning votes. If the election was a success because all the NDP candidates got valuable experience running an election campaign, well, the NDP runs a full slate at every election. By that standard, every election is a success for the NDP because it participates so fully in the democratic process. Maybe that's the purpose of the NDP, but I'd like to think there's something more. There certainly seemed to be something more when Jack Layton was leader.

However, would you say that about Jack Layton had 2011 not happened?  After all, it caught even *them* unaware--behind Jack's bold talk, they were preparing for the same old incremental gains.

And re the "what is Point B" question: besides the "network of routes" argument, let's also look at a "network of purposes" argument, and also beyond the notion that everything *between* that Point A and Point B is a void, a no-man's land, something that's only there to be traversed.  Or even the macro-vs-micro subtleties behind what Point B is.

So, in the case of a mythological "Mother Road" like Route 66, one might argue that if Chicago is Point A, Santa Monica is Point B.  And even if one doesn't make that full traverse, one who's aware of that mythology knows *of* the Point B in question, which lends a "meaningful" quality to traversing segments of the route, including those that have been bypassed by the Interstate and presently serve as little more than local roads.

Or because we're talking about Canada...well, the Trans-Canada.  Again, one is not bound to the full Newfoundland-to-BC traverse--and heck, one isn't even bound to the strict present-day routing, even if one is *aware* of its nearby presence.  Like, driving through the centres of various bypassed towns, or opting for the "old route" of 1A over the present-day T-C btw/Calgary & Banff--or simply the awareness that one *could* do so--can make things more enriching.  (Or conversely, actually *opting* for the Trans-Canada btw/Kamloops and Hope, as opposed to the faster-and-more-boring Coquihalla.)  And all along, one knows that the Trans-Canada is *there*, as a symbolic bond.

So rather than asking "what is Point B?", don't look at it in strict dumb "GPS coordinate and Siri guiding you along a designated route" terms.

Though I will say this about the US electoral system: psephologically speaking, it often works out more "interestingly" in a Canadian fashion at a party-primary level.  (By comparison, Canada doesn't have primaries--candidates are chosen by local committees or by party central.)

If you voted or had a vote in Tom Mulcair's leadership review, did you vote in favor of Mulcair or against?

The whole "trying to dodge this discussion" I get it, but the party forcibly threw out their leader for a poor election result 5 years ago and you're now attempting to make the case "election results don't matter" for a guy that could easily be given a pass for a poor result in 2019, but not making any headway at all the 2nd time around. Uh yeah, the party voted at convention election results did matter ousting Mulcair. That's recent history by Canadian political standards. Even if it was just an excuse because some party members didn't like the rightward turn of the party, that was still the excuse.

If the NDP wants to keep him because they like him, fine, it's their party, but $20 says they don't win more than 40 seats next federal election.

[StateBoiler]

If the Conservative grassroots turf O'Toole and elect Poilievre as leader, and assuming that Freeland replaces Trudeau as Liberal leader, then the next election will become a repeat of the US election from 2016. 😱

I don't think a ton of Canadians and even a bunch of Liberals have hated Chrystia Freeland for more than 20 years.

[StateBoiler]

Although, Freeland is a native of Peace River Country in Alberta. If she pulls an Elizabeth Warren and emphasizes her hardscrabble heartland upbringing, it could help to counter her Laurentian elite image.

Well I'm not sure she really wants to go the Warren route. Warren never really pulled off her "I'm just a gal from the heartland" act in the sense that her base was cripplingly confined to wonky urban liberals.

Freeland isn't going to be some prairie populist darling who suddenly starts winning seats in Alberta. Despite her being from the province, she's spent much of her adult life in Europe, and when she came back to Canada, Toronto. Albertans might not hate her as much as Trudeau, but she's inextricably tied to his brand. I also don't think she can counter her Laurentian Elite image by emphasizing her prairie upbringing because what we've seen of her, at least publicly, is only slightly less Laurentian than Justin Trudeau, a man who couldn't be more of a Laurentian Elite if he put on a top hat and started going by "J.P. Trudeau".

That said, I do think Freeland has more personal appeal broadly than Trudeau because she's seen as being more competent. I don't think people who hate the "Liberal elite" are really in play for the LPC, so it's probably not worth worrying about, but people who find Trudeau vapid might find more appeal in her. Her struggle compared to Trudeau might be Quebec because of her relatively weak French and lack of connection to the province.

Frankly, I get negligible "Alberta girl" vibe from her--at least, as something that the Libs would massively exploit.  Or it could just as well be in conjunction with her NDP family background (and maybe the "more competent" could be used to portray her as Rachel Notley-esque--and providentially enough, Halyna Freeland was the federal NDP candidate in Rachel's Strathcona in '88).

And when it comes to "Laurentian Elite-ness" vs Justin; well, I'd say Chrystia comes across as even *more* so, because while Justin is definitely Laurentian, he *doesn't* project as terribly "Elite" except as a silver-spoon beneficiary of the same.  True Laurentian Elite-ness is heavyweight; Justin's a lightweight...

There's frankly nothing more elite than claiming roots to something that does not exist and everyone knows is a bald-faced lie.

[StateBoiler]

... from my experience, Every. Single. Toronto. Riding. Many voters are not looking at their local race, they hear the Leaders, they hear the messaging from the LPC that only they can stop the CPC... and it sells them. It's maddening!

Theory: Considering Annamie Paul's incredibly poor performance in Toronto Centre compared to her by-election result, and the other by-election held then in York Centre which was almost a flip but won more comfortably this time, is the only time Liberal voters in Toronto free will vote in by-elections when they know that if the Liberal does not win, it's not going to change who runs government?

[StateBoiler]

Economist Mike Moffatt has been breaking down the election results by urban/rural and everything in between on Twitter. 

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1442972922281218064

There are other similar tweets if you check his twitter feed. For disclosure:  I believe Moffatt has done consulting work for the federal Liberals, but this seems to be strictly empirical.

Dense urban almost all in Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver so not surprising strong left wing tilt.

Urban was more smaller cities, but Calgary being included probably skewed Tories upward a bit as despite drop there, it was still by far their best urban showing, even more so than Regina and Saskatoon.  

Suburbs look awful for Tories, but remember that includes Quebec where Tory support close to 10% so in Ontario and BC probably Liberals ahead but Tories in 35-37% range, not 31%.

Exurban actually includes what many of us think of as being rural ridings in Southern Ontario and Southwestern Quebec.  35% seems low for Tories, but my guess is Quebec dragging it down where Tories did horrible here, but in Ontario I am guessing Tory support north of 40%.  

Rural may seem low for Tories, but includes Atlantic Canada where yes Tories saw biggest gains in support, but was still quite competitive.  Also includes Quebec where outside Quebec City region, most went for BQ.  Likewise in BC was probably close NDP/CPC race as most in this category were Vancouver Island and Okanagan Valley and former going NDP latter CPC.

Probably make sense to take his analysis and segregate Quebec results out in order to compare apples to apples.

[StateBoiler]

We all know that if Bloc+CPC was over 170 we would have PM O'Toole.

Evidence please.

Anyway, Paul Wells on his Facebook posted "so in 3 separate conversations in Ottawa the past few days, 3 different people asked me 'so what do you think Chrystia Freeland is up to nowadays?' "

[StateBoiler]

We all know that if Bloc+CPC was over 170 we would have PM O'Toole.

Evidence please.

Anyway, Paul Wells on his Facebook posted "so in 3 separate conversations in Ottawa the past few days, 3 different people asked me 'so what do you think Chrystia Freeland is up to nowadays?' "

Legault endorsing specifically a CPC led government. The Bloc's modern political existence is dependent on the CAQ - who look set to improve their majorities next year BTW - whose policies conflict with the national Liberals and were tacitly endorsed by the national Conservatives. There is a reason why the Bloc defends Quebec's French-style nationality laws. Going against Legault would arguably be suicide.

Reminder that the Bloc are not factionally ideological anymore, they are an amorphous tent that captures all parts of the political spectrum - as long as they support Quebec uniqueness and a Quebec voice, and therefore by extension, the CAQ,

Right, so you think everyone in this amorphous tent wanted O'Toole to be Prime Minister? I'm sure some did, but your thought process is one that can exist on paper in theory but falls apart a bit trying it practically.

[StateBoiler]

The decline of the NDP in the industrial centers of Ontario is really quite striking.  Charlie Angus down to 35%.  Third place in Nickel Belt for the first time since the 1960s.  Third place in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek. The old working class "labor party" constituency has eroded.

I mean, I'm sure all the places you mentioned have changed quite a bit over the decades, but the provincial party, which is famously very competent and not at all a human disaster, still wins them all without too much trouble, so maybe, just maybe this line, which gets wheeled out every time a social democratic party does badly, does not cover all the factors involved.

And indeed, it's hard to see the *provincial* Nickel Belt falling or under threat except in a 1995 circumstance.  On such grounds, the erosion carries an aura of being not necessarily terminal--nonetheless, when it comes to all the mewling about Quebec being lost under Jagmeet, maybe more must be said about the blue-collar "red wall Labour" vote being neglected under Jagmeet.  Or as I've put it, those who want "meat and potatoes" issues addressed without arbitrary "Punjabi" stunting on behalf of the TikTok crowd...

Which ridings don't fit in with the rest?

Alexander Boulerice, 48.6%, Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, Que.
Matthew Green, 48.7%, Hamilton Centre, Ont.
Lindsay Mathyssen, 43.4%, London-Fanshawe, Ont.
Brian Masse, 44.2%, Windsor West, Ont.
Carol Hughes, 40.2%, Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing, Ont.
Charlie Angus, 35.1%, Timmins-James Bay, Ont.
Niki Ashton, 42.6%, Churchill-Keewatinook Aski, Man.
Daniel Blaikie, 49.7%, Elmwood-Transcona, Man.
Leah Gazan, 50.3%, Winnipeg Centre, Man.
Blake Desjarlais, 40.5%, Edmonton Griesbach, Alb.
Heather McPherson, 60.7%, Edmonton Strathcona, Alb.
Taylor Bachrach, 42.6%, Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.
Richard Cannings, 41.3%, South Okanagan-West Kootenay, B.C.
Jagmeet Singh, 40.3%, Burnaby South, B.C.
Peter Julian, 48.8%, New Westminster-Burnaby, B.C.
Bonita Zarrilo, 37.2%, Port Moody-Coquitlam, B.C.
Jenny Kwan, 56.4%, Vancouver East, B.C.
Don Davies, 52.3%, Vancouver Kingsway, B.C.
Gord Johns, 44.2%, Courtenay-Alberni, B.C.
Alistair MacGregor, 42.8%, Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, B.C.
Randall Garrison, 42.8%, Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke, B.C.
Lisa Marie Barron, 28.8%, Nanaimo-Ladysmith, B.C.
Rachel Blaney, 39.6%, North Island-Powell River, B.C.
Laurel Collins, 43.9%, Victoria, B.C.
Lori Idlout, 47.9%, Nunavut

Any word on if the NDP are considering moving Federal Party Headquarters to Vancouver?

[StateBoiler]

Even with the Liberal trend in Metro Van, it's interesting to see there's a contiguous "orange corridor" running from East Van through the eastern suburbs

Yeah, they have as many members of Parliament from Vancouver Island as they do Ontario.

[StateBoiler]

I counted a narrow defeat as any riding lost by around 12.5%.  I chose 12.5% for my cutoff, after initially having it at 10%, because I kept wanting to find more close riding losses for the N.D.P but many of the ridings they lost were somewhere between 10-12.5%, so I decided to make it 12.5%

Selection bias.

[StateBoiler]

I counted a narrow defeat as any riding lost by around 12.5%.  I chose 12.5% for my cutoff, after initially having it at 10%, because I kept wanting to find more close riding losses for the N.D.P but many of the ridings they lost were somewhere between 10-12.5%, so I decided to make it 12.5%

Selection bias.

Any cutoff point for what is and isn't a narrow defeat is arbitrary.  It's only a half a dozen or so ridings that were greater than 12.5% that I considered to be narrow defeats.  

You chose to change your definition of what you considered close to benefit a particular group. Granted, you can do the results for 10%, but if you're wanting to do a mathematical analysis of results, you need to take a cruel unsympathetic point of view and not caring what is outside or inside based on how it makes your results look unless you're specifically being a blind partisan, perhaps even to yourself. Numbers don't have feelings. So you change it from 10% to 12.5% to help the NDP, and then you include extra results right outside that number, so really it's not 12.5%, it's 13%. You lay out in your post the case you want to make and then before you even start diving into the numbers make your case more wishy-washy. Just trying to help you become better.

[StateBoiler]

If you're an American and commenting on a Canadian election, you should be aware that Canadian ridings tend to have far greater swings from election to election than American U.S House districts.  So, whereas a 55-45% U.S House district is barely competitive unless that was the result in a wave year, in Canada that's much more competitive historically.

I can't help thinking of the bemusement of a lot of Canadians when they hear of a Mississippi US Senate race being deemed "safe GOP" even at a projected 55-45 margin--but that's all heavily racialized terminal inelasticity making its mark...

The size of our electorates is much larger, so the number of votes difference between a Canadian Parliament seat being spread by 10 points and a U.S. Senate seat being spread by 10 points is very large.