Canadian by-elections, 2017 (next event: Calgary-Lougheed, AB prov.: Dec 14)

[Hatman 🍁]

I'd say that we only won it because of Watts.

Maybe, but it's not exactly a Liberal riding. It hasn't gone Liberal since 1968.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'd say that we only won it because of Watts.

Maybe, but it's not exactly a Liberal riding. It hasn't gone Liberal since 1968.

It didn’t even go Liberal in 1968. In ‘68 all of Surrey was one riding and it went NDP that year. So Surrey-White Rock has actually NEVER ever elected a Liberal

Oops, must've looked up the wrong riding.

ETA: The riding DID vote vote Liberal in its history; the last time was 1949 when it was part of New Westminster riding.

[Hatman 🍁]

Anyways, here is my profile of Mount Pearl North: http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.ca/2017/11/mount-pearl-north-by-election-preview.html

[Hatman 🍁]

polls closed.

1/41 polls reporting

Lib: 97
PC: 84
NDP: 36
Ind: 2

[Hatman 🍁]

Even though they finished third, the NDP did very well. Best ever result, I think.

[Hatman 🍁]

Correction: the NDP got 26% of the vote in 1975 when they Helen Porter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Fogwill_Porter). A good result, considering they didn't win any seats that year.

[Hatman 🍁]

Wow. Not good news for the NDP. But I'm glad the Liberals lost the seat. I really hated how they dealt with the electoral reform plebiscite.

[Hatman 🍁]

PEI is not really the beacon of socialism. The Greens are doing well because of a desire for change and due to its cultural NIMBYism I think.

This is all very interesting of course, because I could see the Greens actually forming government one day. They have the momentum. All it would take is a dumb premature election call a la Theresa May or Jim Prentice.

[Hatman 🍁]

PEI is not really the beacon of socialism. The Greens are doing well because of a desire for change and due to its cultural NIMBYism I think.

This is correct. PEI is also becoming "Vermontified" for lack of a better word. There's a decent number of Green friendly types immigrating from other provinces to work in tourism and agriculture because they like the idyllic lifestyle.

So what you're saying is the NDP needs to get a Bernie Sanders type to run there?

[Hatman 🍁]

None of those seats are NDP targets. Don't buy into the pundit narrative that the NDP is dead because it did terrible in a bunch of seats they didn't really bother to campaign in.

One very important thing to realize when it comes to by-elections (and this should be evident to anyone who has followed more than a half dozen over the years) is that typically voters treat them differently than general elections, in that they often become strict two-party races compared to how they would vote in a general election. Whether this is because would-be third party voters are staying home or voting strategically is up for debate, but the evidence is clear. Even though there is no difference between a by-election and a general election in terms of how our voting system works, voters psychological inclinations are different. In a general election, voters will often vote for their preferred party rather than candidate, while in a by-election it is more about the local race.

You needn't go any further than the Vaughan 2010 by-election to see what I mean. The NDP won just 1.7% of the vote; 5 months later they went back up to 12% in the riding, and we all know how well they did across the country in the 2011 election. Their pitiful result was not a harbinger for the future.

The next true test for the NDP will be in Outremont. Conventional wisdom suggests the Liberals will get it back, but tell that to Denis Coderre. The Montreal mayoral race was a good NDP-Liberal proxy race, and Plante won Outrement, so, I wouldn't count the NDP out there quite yet.

[Hatman 🍁]

Calgary Lougheed: Since the Liberals are targetting it (they are running their leader after all), they will do better than normal
Kelowna West: Since it is safe Liberal seat, I don't expect any polarization unless the NDP really puts up a fight, which would hurt the Greens. (See the result in Battlefords-Lloymdminster as an example)

[Hatman 🍁]

Not often you see two party leaders going head to head in a riding, even if one of them is DOA.

It reeks of desperation from the Liberals.  This kind of thing happens all the time actually, but almost exclusively by fringe parties.

[Hatman 🍁]

Actually it's three leaders going up against each other: the Green leader is running in Lougheed, too.

lol. Well, the Alberta Greens are especially irrelevant due to not having their s**t together as a party. This despite the federal Greens doing well in certain pockets of the province in the past.

[Hatman 🍁]

Swings:

UCP: +8.35% (from combined WRP + PC)
NDP: -15.24%
ALP: +4.48%

UCP notional HOLD (+11.80%)

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, the NDP and combined conservative vote was more evenly distributed in 2015.

Here are the election day results by neighbourhood:

Bridlewood
UCP: 69.6% (+10.2)
NDP: 19.6% (-14.9)
ALP: 7.9% (+2.1)

Evergreen
UCP: 74.2% (+9.7)
NDP: 14.2% (-16.8 )
ALP: 9.4% (+4.8 )

Woodbine
UCP: 63.0% (+0.6)
NDP: 21.3% (-11.2)
ALP: 11.8% (+6.8 )

Woodlands
UCP: 61.6% (-2.2)
NDP: 23.4% (-7.7)
ALP: 12.3% (+7.1)

Interesting swing in Woodlands...

[Hatman 🍁]

I wouldn't put them into fringe party status yet. Their by-election performance was... respectable... but definitely below expectations. But yeah, it was definitely a fringe party move to run their leader.  Real parties wait for a good opportunity

[Hatman 🍁]

None of those seats are NDP targets. Don't buy into the pundit narrative that the NDP is dead because it did terrible in a bunch of seats they didn't really bother to campaign in.

One very important thing to realize when it comes to by-elections (and this should be evident to anyone who has followed more than a half dozen over the years) is that typically voters treat them differently than general elections, in that they often become strict two-party races compared to how they would vote in a general election. Whether this is because would-be third party voters are staying home or voting strategically is up for debate, but the evidence is clear. Even though there is no difference between a by-election and a general election in terms of how our voting system works, voters psychological inclinations are different. In a general election, voters will often vote for their preferred party rather than candidate, while in a by-election it is more about the local race.

You needn't go any further than the Vaughan 2010 by-election to see what I mean. The NDP won just 1.7% of the vote; 5 months later they went back up to 12% in the riding, and we all know how well they did across the country in the 2011 election. Their pitiful result was not a harbinger for the future.

The next true test for the NDP will be in Outremont. Conventional wisdom suggests the Liberals will get it back, but tell that to Denis Coderre. The Montreal mayoral race was a good NDP-Liberal proxy race, and Plante won Outrement, so, I wouldn't count the NDP out there quite yet.

True, but I think these results suggest the NDP isn't really competitive nationally (not that you would necessarily disagree with that.)

I realize this part of Scarborough has never been a big NDP area but parts of Scarborough are and I think it may be indicative that the NDP can't break through in the rest of Scarborough despite having prominence in other parts of the (former) city and despite having elected a number of high profile people from Scarborough.

Of course, it's possible Scarborough is similar to Surrey.  Just because the NDP is competitive in North Surrey, I'd hardly expect them to be competitive in South Surrey.

In the case of Battlefords-Lloydminster, I gather this was smaller than the present riding and the additional areas aren't as NDP friendly, but the NDP won the previous riding of Battlefords-Meadow Lake at times up until 1993.  (The NDP was at times competitive in, but never won the Kindersley-Lloydminster riding.)

Of course, the demographics have changed and the NDP has changed as well, but, I think it's fair to say that neither Scarborough nor rural northern Saskatchewan aren't areas where the NDP is unheard of and that it's fair to question if it means anything that in these byelections that they basically received the vote share of a largish fringe party.

If the NDP won a majority government, it would include exactly zero of those seats, so their result is indicative of nothing.

Though, I've come to terms with the fact that the NDP won't be winning a majority with Singh. They need rural Quebec to get a majority, and that's not happening. That's why the result in the Lac Saint Jean by-election is more worrisome.

[Hatman 🍁]

Battlefords--Lloydminster isn't even an area the NDP needs to win provincial government in Saskatchewan.

An NDP majority would basically be the 2011 map expanded to include smaller urban areas in Ontario, winning rural seats in Atlantic Canada, urban areas on the Prairies, winning most of Edmonton, and winning in traditional seats in rural BC and inner-suburban BC. Battlefords-Lloydminster is a safe Conservative seat, and is thus not attainable.

[Hatman 🍁]

Lloydminster swung heavily to the SP in the last election (resources?) as well as that region of Saskatchewan in general. As an urban area though, The Battlefords is winnable, and is probably a riding they will have to win to form government. I was thinking more of the rural area around it when I made my last post. 

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, taking a look at election-atlas.ca, it appears the poll flipped to the Liberals (!?) and saw a dramatic decrease in turnout. Maybe they removed an on-reserve polling station? Terrible if true.

But, there was a huge swing to the SP in that whole part of the province:

[Hatman 🍁]

In the past, the NDP has often times been helped by a split on the right between the PCs (later SP) and the Liberals.  This was definitely true the last time the NDP won in 1999 (of course, the Liberals ended up helping the NDP minority government, so maybe they weren't all that right wing at the time).

Let's look at some recent NDP wins:
1999: NDP vote: 39%; SP+Lib: 60% (the SP alone won a plurality of the popular vote)
1995: NDP vote: 47%; PC+Lib: 53%
1991: NDP: 51%; PC+Lib: 49%

1978: NDP: 48%; Lib+PC: 52%
1975: NDP: 40%; Lib+PC: 59%
1971: NDP: 55%; Lib+PC: 45%

The NDP has more often than not benefited from a split on their right. But interestingly, the last two times they've won big have been when ending the reign of the previous governing party (also true for the CCF in 1944). Certainly a good omen for the next election.