Canadian by-elections, 2015

[adma]

You are clearly misrepresenting what I actually previously stated. Again, Forum Research's opinion poll from Wednesday had the NDP at 12% federally and 13% right here in BC. Undoubtedly the largest collapse of support that I have ever seen happen so quickly. Why is that relevant? 'Cause it's quite apparent that roughly 90% of folk posting here are NDP supporters - obviously not representative of the electorate at large.

But again--that's the *federal* NDP.  We're dealing here with the *provincial* BCNDP--a party without the traditional third-party stigma we see in Ontario; and indeed, one whose own (in spite of itself?) big tent encompasses a lot of present-day "Justin Liberals", i.e. those who were leaning Mulcair until they joined the Red Wave in the end.

Which is also to say: because of the special binary case that is BC (as opposed to three-party Ontario, where there's more inherent fed + prov echo), let's wait until we see *provincial* polling to judge whether the BCLibs are getting a "Justin bump" here.

[DL]

As most of us know - federal and provincial politics in BC are very disconnected. The BC NDP attracts the votes of people who vote NDP federally plus the votes of left of centre types who vote Liberal federally - of whom there are many. The Social Credit party (under its fake name BC Liberals) is supported by federal Tories and by that shrinking segment of very rightwing federal Liberals... Even in Ontario where the lines between federal and provincial parties are more blurred than in BC - the same Forum poll that had the federal Liberal enjoying a honeymoon also said that Kathleen Wynne is gown to just 231% approval and that an Ontario election how would mean a PC government with the Ontario NDP as official opposition.

We can speculate all we want about the provincial political scene in BC - at some point someone will put out a poll on provincial political preferences and then we will have some hard numbers to look at rather than this silly guessing game.

[Lotuslander]

But again--that's the *federal* NDP.  We're dealing here with the *provincial* BCNDP--a party without the traditional third-party stigma we see in Ontario; and indeed, one whose own (in spite of itself?) big tent encompasses a lot of present-day "Justin Liberals", i.e. those who were leaning Mulcair until they joined the Red Wave in the end.

Which is also to say: because of the special binary case that is BC (as opposed to three-party Ontario, where there's more inherent fed + prov echo), let's wait until we see *provincial* polling to judge whether the BCLibs are getting a "Justin bump" here.

Correct to a point. But has been already posted all over the 'net about the Insights West opinion poll of BC residents on e-day (exit poll of actual voters), that 44% of NDP voters in BC only selected the NDP as their second choice. First choice was either the Liberals or Greens federally.

Suspect that these 44% of NDP voters in BC selected the NDP as their second choice as they perceived the federal Liberals as moribund in BC to their own peril. And that they were in both 2008 and 2011. Would have resulted in a 14.5% fed NDP popular vote share in BC... even less than Ontario.

Will tell ya right now that the 13% federal NDP support in BC (Forum Research) will also have an impact upon BC provincial voting intentions in terms of any future "CATI polling" in BC. Haven't seen the NDP poll that low in BC federally since the 1990's Audrey McLaughlin NDP.

Conversely, as ya stated, the JT psychological win effect will also positively impact the BC Lib political brand. Not by much. But by at least a few points. Just political reality.

In any event, anyone who has any political instinct here in BC can quite obviously discern that the BC NDP has major problems - unseen since after the 2001 debacle - leadership, financial, media exposure, internal schisms, resource development schisms, etc., etc.

As long-time (couple of decades) Global BC News political reporter Keith Baldrey recently stated: "The BC Liberals are a lot closer to the centre of the political spectrum than the BC NDP". And that's also close to where the federal Liberals are as well. FWIW, elections are always won by votes from the centre of the electorate. Not the "wings".

PS. I forgot to mention the BC Green Party and Andrew Weaver. Now changes the BC poli dynamic moving forward as well and further complicates matters for the BC NDP with the Green's own "wedge issues". No doubt about that.

[DL]

speculate all you want Lotuslander..,your predications for BC in the federal election were virtually all dead wrong. You seemed so 100% certain the Green Party would win Victoria that I actually felt sorry for the humiliation you must have felt when the NDP held it easily and won 14 seats in BC, the largest number since 1988.

We can all editorialize all we want with personal pontifications...I'm sure sometime soon there will be a provincial poll in BC and I predict it will probably give the BC NDP a low to mid single digit lead and will have the greens at an irrelevant 10% or so...but we shall see. We may not see any public domain BC polls until the new year.

[King of Kensington]

It's odd how Lotuslander seems to be mainly focused on gloating how the NDP is collapsing in BC when that is the province where the NDP vote actually held up best in this election.  

It was the Conservatives, not the NDP, that really saw their vote crash there (which was not the case in Ontario, for example).

[136or142]

"In any event, anyone who has any political instinct here in BC can quite obviously discern that the BC NDP has major problems - unseen since after the 2001 debacle - leadership, financial, media exposure, internal schisms, resource development schisms, etc., etc."

This is certainly true up to this point, especially in regards to their fundraising (though a good deal of that is likely because the NDP was focusing on fundraising for the Federal election.)

There is already a sign this could be changing though:

From facebook (I've obviously left out who posted this:

"November 12 at 8:12pm ·
John Horgan, BC NDP leader, speaking at the Vancouver Fairmont Hotel to a largely business crowd. 400+ Great vibes!"

Media exposure is always a problem for any opposition leader, and in these days of social media it can be argued that getting into the newspapers or television is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

That said, the NDP convention and Horgan's speech at it received generally rousing reviews in a number of media outlets, especially The Tyee (http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2015/11/09/BC-NDP-Tubas/) but also the Globe and Mail.  The only outlet offside was the Vancouver Sun editorial page which seems to be doubling down in illogical defences of right wing governments.

In the case of the Federal election, the Sun opined something like "British Columbians appreciated that the Harper government truly made the west feel it was 'in.'  I guess to the Vancouver Sun British Columbians showed this by cutting the share of the Conservative vote in the 2015 election by fully 1/3 (from 45% to 30%)  and by cutting their share of the seats by up to almost 2/3 (redistributed riding results gave them 28 of the 42 seats in 2011 and they were reduced to ten seats in this election.)  The rest of that ridiculous editorial then essentially argued that the new Liberal government should be more concerned with the needs of Alberta's oil industry and its workers than with the concerns of British Columbia environmentalists.   I know that some of the workers in the Alberta oil patch live in British Columbia, but I don't doubt there are a great number more environmentalists in British Columbia than there are oil workers.  I also realize that British Columbia has a relatively small oil industry situated in the Peace River area, but the editorial concentrated on the need to build pipelines which I don't believe is a major concern for the British Columbia oil sector (though I could be wrong on that.)

the Sun editorial on the recent NDP convention said that the NDP would likely have a hard time winning the next election due to their narrow defeats in the 2005, 2009 and 2013 election which is valid enough, but they then added that this was also supported by that opinion poll from the spring of 2015, as if that poll has any relevancy to today.

2.As long-time (couple of decades) Global BC News political reporter Keith Baldrey recently stated: "The BC Liberals are a lot closer to the centre of the political spectrum than the BC NDP".

I personally like Keith Baldrey though I'm aware that a lot of people deride him for mainly being an outlet and a defender of establishment conventional wisdom.  That said, there is no question that he generally leans to the right and, as you've given no evidence from Baldrey to back up this statement, it's entirely possible that what he really meant is that the B.C Liberals are closer to his views than the NDP is.

Anyway, everybody will make that decision for themselves come election time, so why should anyone care what Baldrey's opinion is on this?


3."PS. I forgot to mention the BC Green Party and Andrew Weaver. Now changes the BC poli dynamic moving forward as well and further complicates matters for the BC NDP with the Green's own "wedge issues". No doubt about that."

As Bill Tieleman wrote recently, this federal election was the 3rd (or 2nd) straight election in which the Green Party share of the vote declined nationally.  Of course, some of that was due to 'strategic voting' but their share of the vote has fallen by nearly half federally since, I think, 2006.

The provincial Green Party has also seen it's share of the vote decline since the 2001 election, although provincially they seem to have stabilized at around 8% of the vote.  Of course, given the antipathy many British Columbians feel towards Christy Clark and her government, it's also possible the provincial Green Party will be a victim to strategic voting in 2017.


The Green Party has increased its share of the vote federally in B.C in the mainly urban parts of Vancouver Island, but they collapsed in Vancouver Center without Adrian Carr as their candidate in this election, and they've fallen to little more than fringe party status in nearly all of the rest of British Columbia, including in the West Kootenay area where they used to have a lot of popular support during the 1990s and the early 2000s especially in Nelson and a couple other of the towns there.


I realize that the Green Party has an elected MLA now, but I think the vast majority of people pay no attention to the legislature (with the exception that many of these same people also complain when MLAs don't attend the legislature), and, other than giving Andrew Weaver a platform to get in the media slightly more often, I don't know that it's doing the Green Party all that much good.

Of course, having an MLA also means that the Green Party is now on record with votes of what its member supports and opposes which can be a double edged sword.

[Lotuslander]

speculate all you want Lotuslander..,your predications for BC in the federal election were virtually all dead wrong. You seemed so 100% certain the Green Party would win Victoria that I actually felt sorry for the humiliation you must have felt when the NDP held it easily and won 14 seats in BC, the largest number since 1988.

Everybody had Victoria pegged for the Greens. What happened? The NDP and Mulcair kept stating throughout his BC tours in the BC media that "Only the NDP can defeat the Cons"... insinuating that the Liberals were D-E-A-D (and Greens risky choice). Feel sorry for the poor saps that bought into that false meme.

As a matter of fact, again, Insights West held an election day "exit poll" of actual BC voters. An astounding 44% of NDP voters in BC voted NDP as their SECOND choice. IOW, either the Liberals or Greens were their FIRST choice! Van Isle had the highest level of these voters BTW.

Had these folk actually voted their first choice, both Victoria and Vancouver Island would have seen completely different riding maps/outcomes. Along with the rest of BC.

Even then the fed NDP in BC dropped 7% popular vote share from 2011, dropped into 3rd place in BC in terms of popular vote share, and lost Surrey Centre/Surrey Newton.

Now back to the forthcoming BC by-elections:

1. Vancouver-Mount Pleasant:

- Pete Fry will be running for the BC Greens and had previously garnered 2nd top councillor spot for the municipal Greens (with transposed results within the riding boundaries) during the November, 2014 Vancouver municipal election.

- Matt Toner (2013 BC NDP candidate in neighbouring Vancouver-False Creek provincial riding and the best catch for the BC NDP in 2013 IMHO who is a 30's-something hi-tech entrepreneur) jumped over to the BC Greens earlier this year and wanted to run for the Greens here but stepped aside for Pete Fry; Toner, BTW, is now BC Green finance critic;

- Diana Day, who ran for the BC NDP nomination in this by-election, has now decided to back the BC Green's Pete Fry;

2. Coquitlam Burke Mountain:

- Joe Keithley, who ran for the BC NDP nomination here in 2013, is now the BC Green candidate;

- BC NDP doesn't even have a potential candidate here yet;

As ya can see, considerable BC NDP ----> BC Green movement already happening in just these 2 constituencies. BC politics is gonna be a helluva lot of fun moving forward from here.

PS. Are ya also from Ontario like almost everyone else here seems to be?!

[adma]

Everybody had Victoria pegged for the Greens. What happened? The NDP and Mulcair kept stating throughout his BC tours in the BC media that "Only the NDP can defeat the Cons"... insinuating that the Liberals were D-E-A-D (and Greens risky choice). Feel sorry for the poor saps that bought into that false meme.

So if things didn't work out the way you called it, "it's their fault".  Droll.

[Hatman 🍁]

speculate all you want Lotuslander..,your predications for BC in the federal election were virtually all dead wrong. You seemed so 100% certain the Green Party would win Victoria that I actually felt sorry for the humiliation you must have felt when the NDP held it easily and won 14 seats in BC, the largest number since 1988.

Everybody had Victoria pegged for the Greens.

No: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/ekos-seat-projection/

I'd been following our (EKOS) numbers in Victoria throughout the campaign. The Greens never had the lead there. In fact, it was the safest NDP seat on the island throughout the campaign.

If it weren't for the strong Green campaign, and the Liberal candidate dropping out, the Liberals would've been competitive there.

[136or142]

1.Everybody had Victoria pegged for the Greens. What happened? The NDP and Mulcair kept stating throughout his BC tours in the BC media that "Only the NDP can defeat the Cons"... insinuating that the Liberals were D-E-A-D (and Greens risky choice). Feel sorry for the poor saps that bought into that false meme.

So, you acknowledge that 'strategic voting' hurt the Green Party in the federal election.  I suspect that right now there is every chance you'll be acknowledging it after the next provincial election as well.

[Hatman 🍁]

1.Everybody had Victoria pegged for the Greens.

Did you not just read my last post?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...let's wait until we see *provincial* polling to judge whether the BCLibs are getting a "Justin bump" here.

...and even if they do, how long will it actually last? Because (as everyone here knows/ought to by now) post-electoral-victory-honeymoons tend not to be permanent.

[adma]

1.Everybody had Victoria pegged for the Greens.

Did you not just read my last post?

Just a case of Adam T accidentally forgetting the "quote" function in quoting lotuslander.  (Forgiven.)

[Lotuslander]

No: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/ekos-seat-projection/

I'd been following our (EKOS) numbers in Victoria throughout the campaign. The Greens never had the lead there. In fact, it was the safest NDP seat on the island throughout the campaign.

If it weren't for the strong Green campaign, and the Liberal candidate dropping out, the Liberals would've been competitive there.

One only needs to look to the Elections Canada website for the popular vote share of Greater Victoria (all 4 ridings therein) confirming the Greens won the overall popular vote share:

Green: 32%
NDP: 30%
Liberal: 20%
CPC: 18%

BTW, the final Ekos numbers for BC (with n = 224) were:

CPC: 38%
Liberal: 28%
NDP: 23%
Green: 10%

Those Ekos numbers were wayyyyyy off and would have produced a completely different outcome for BC. Don't know how ya could extrapolate the Greater Victoria numbers as a subset from that same n = 224 for BC overall. With my own personal interaction with Frank Graves, I have always liked the guy and he is quite down to earth.

Yet, Ekos and IVR typically have terrible results historically here in BC. OTOH, Nanos (CATI) final numbers for BC were virtually bang-on in both 2011 and 2015 (for 3 major parties). Quite remarkable actually.

PS. Rick Pasin, president of the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce has announced he will seek nomination for the BC Liberals in Coquitlam-Burke Mountain by-election. With the BC NDP, OTOH, just hearing crickets.

[Hatman 🍁]

1.Everybody had Victoria pegged for the Greens.

Did you not just read my last post?

Just a case of Adam T accidentally forgetting the "quote" function in quoting lotuslander.  (Forgiven.)

Oops sorry.

No: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/ekos-seat-projection/

I'd been following our (EKOS) numbers in Victoria throughout the campaign. The Greens never had the lead there. In fact, it was the safest NDP seat on the island throughout the campaign.

If it weren't for the strong Green campaign, and the Liberal candidate dropping out, the Liberals would've been competitive there.

One only needs to look to the Elections Canada website for the popular vote share of Greater Victoria (all 4 ridings therein) confirming the Greens won the overall popular vote share:

Green: 32%
NDP: 30%
Liberal: 20%
CPC: 18%

BTW, the final Ekos numbers for BC (with n = 224) were:

CPC: 38%
Liberal: 28%
NDP: 23%
Green: 10%

Those Ekos numbers were wayyyyyy off and would have produced a completely different outcome for BC. Don't know how ya could extrapolate the Greater Victoria numbers as a subset from that same n = 224 for BC overall. With my own personal interaction with Frank Graves, I have always liked the guy and he is quite down to earth.

Yet, Ekos and IVR typically have terrible results historically here in BC. OTOH, Nanos (CATI) final numbers for BC were virtually bang-on in both 2011 and 2015 (for 3 major parties). Quite remarkable actually.

PS. Rick Pasin, president of the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce has announced he will seek nomination for the BC Liberals in Coquitlam-Burke Mountain by-election. With the BC NDP, OTOH, just hearing crickets.

So now we're talking about the Greens winning "Greater Victoria"? How was anyone supposed to know you weren't talking about the riding?

We had been doing polling since January, so we had lots of data over time to look at, not just the final 224 cases.

[Lotuslander]

So now we're talking about the Greens winning "Greater Victoria"? How was anyone supposed to know you weren't talking about the riding?

We had been doing polling since January, so we had lots of data over time to look at, not just the final 224 cases.

Sigh. With all due respect Hatman, firstly read and comprehend what I post.

In any event, EKOS never produced a Victoria-specific riding poll. At all. EKOS only polled BC, over time, with smaller sample sizes. Even the final BC subset was n = 224. Any pollster worth his salt will tell ya that an n = 300 is the basic minimum for any sample size. The EKOS poll numbers only mattered federally overall.

And with Van Isle representing 25% of the BC n = 224 sample size, the result thereto would be worthless. Not to mention that Greater Victoria is even a smaller subset thereto.

Even then, what happens in January, 2015 in a "riding specific" poll is irrelevant. Only riding polls during the final week of the campaign count. And here in BC, only CATI riding polls. Not IVR or opt-in online panel. Historically they have terrible results here in BC.

That said, even on August 25, 2015, Insights West (with a much larger sample size) had the NDP at 39% and Greens at 30% on Van Isle. Personally understanding riding specific demographics and underlying provincial ridings and voting patterns thereto, the Greens "strength" has always been on the southern half of Van Isle - esp. in Greater Victoria.

http://www.cheknews.ca/new-insights-west-poll-shows-surging-greens-112894/

PS. I guess that ya are from Ontario as well?

[adma]

Lotuslander: king of the creative cherry-pickers.  Checkmated with Victoria riding?  Just substitute *Greater* Victoria and whoop de do, he's on top again.

OTOH to everyone else: just a warning.  When you overplay the "BC Liberals = Nouveau Socred" argument, you just play into lotuslander's hands.  "It's more complicated"--and you don't even have to be a native BCer to recognize the fact. 

(Though to turn tables here: if lotuslander's so eager to play the Ontario-bashing card, what business does he have to agree with my spot judgment re Whitby?  In fact, despite said spot judgment I'm *far* more open-ended about the possibilities, under whatever circumstance--as I said, six months earlier, I might have judged differently.  Whereas an Ontario version of lotuslander would probably *always* be of a crude "NDP no chance ever here--no way", much as he'd have been re seats like Waterloo or London West prior to *their* byelections.)

[Hatman 🍁]

So now we're talking about the Greens winning "Greater Victoria"? How was anyone supposed to know you weren't talking about the riding?

We had been doing polling since January, so we had lots of data over time to look at, not just the final 224 cases.

Sigh. With all due respect Hatman, firstly read and comprehend what I post.

In any event, EKOS never produced a Victoria-specific riding poll. At all. EKOS only polled BC, over time, with smaller sample sizes. Even the final BC subset was n = 224. Any pollster worth his salt will tell ya that an n = 300 is the basic minimum for any sample size. The EKOS poll numbers only mattered federally overall.

And with Van Isle representing 25% of the BC n = 224 sample size, the result thereto would be worthless. Not to mention that Greater Victoria is even a smaller subset thereto.

Even then, what happens in January, 2015 in a "riding specific" poll is irrelevant. Only riding polls during the final week of the campaign count. And here in BC, only CATI riding polls. Not IVR or opt-in online panel. Historically they have terrible results here in BC.

That said, even on August 25, 2015, Insights West (with a much larger sample size) had the NDP at 39% and Greens at 30% on Van Isle. Personally understanding riding specific demographics and underlying provincial ridings and voting patterns thereto, the Greens "strength" has always been on the southern half of Van Isle - esp. in Greater Victoria.

http://www.cheknews.ca/new-insights-west-poll-shows-surging-greens-112894/

PS. I guess that ya are from Ontario as well?

It doesn't matter where I live; Sure I know Ontario better than the rest of Canada, but you'd be foolish to think I don't know anything about the rest of the country. I've been doing this kind of thing since I was 10.

I only mentioned January, because that was when we started our federal polling (actually it was December, but whatever). Obviously polling from then isn't going to be the same (though, the Liberals were polling well back then, and the actual election results were closer to what our polls were saying in January than in say August). BUT, it does mean that I was able to follow our numbers over an 11 month timeframe, and the Greens never led in Victoria (the riding). Back in January, we had the Liberals in the lead there, actually (though the sample size was too small to be reliable).

We even had the Greens leading on Vancouver Island over Thanksgiving, but even then they were not leading in Victoria. (Of course, this may have just been a sample size issue).

Anyways, the Greens only won Greater Victoria because of the large margin that Elizabeth May won by, so it's not really fair to include it.

[136or142]

OTOH to everyone else: just a warning.  When you overplay the "BC Liberals = Nouveau Socred" argument, you just play into lotuslander's hands.  "It's more complicated"--and you don't even have to be a native BCer to recognize the fact. 

It has been more complicated than 'Nouveau Socred' the B.C Liberals are obviously much more of an urban based party than Social Credit was, especially obviously the Social Credit government of WAC Bennett from 1952-1972.

That said, the B.C Liberals are a continuation of the 'anti NDP coalition' that started with 'The Coalition' and then continued with Social Credit.  Even the B.C Liberals say that.

So, if people use "Social Credit" as a shorthand for 'anti NDP coalition' I don't have a problem with that.

[Hatman 🍁]

Perhaps equally as ridiculous as the Liberals claiming to the "free enterprise party".

[Vosem]

I'm no expert, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Campbell-era and post-Campbell BC Liberal Party is essentially a successor to the Socreds under a different name. Is the Socred legacy really still so unpopular in BC that "Socred" is used as a smear by the BC Libs' opponents?

[Citizen Hats]

OTOH to everyone else: just a warning.  When you overplay the "BC Liberals = Nouveau Socred" argument, you just play into lotuslander's hands.  "It's more complicated"--and you don't even have to be a native BCer to recognize the fact. 

It has been more complicated than 'Nouveau Socred' the B.C Liberals are obviously much more of an urban based party than Social Credit was, especially obviously the Social Credit government of WAC Bennett from 1952-1972.

That said, the B.C Liberals are a continuation of the 'anti NDP coalition' that started with 'The Coalition' and then continued with Social Credit.  Even the B.C Liberals say that.

So, if people use "Social Credit" as a shorthand for 'anti NDP coalition' I don't have a problem with that.

The BC Liberal Coalition really only dates back to 1972, when the remaining Tories and the Liberals finally abandoned their parties and joined Social Credit and Bill Bennett.  WACky's SoCreds were more of a stand-alone political force of populist-conservatives, and about a fifth of the electorate continued to vote for the Liberals during those years.  The Post '72 SoCreds were rather explicitly of the coalition mindset

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All for one and one for all, all committed to looting the public purse. How noble.

[Citizen Hats]

I don't think it's really a matter of unpopularity at this point, though they were towards the end.  The Social Credit party was a long time ago. 

But it's usually associated with assorted slurs and misunderstandings (the BC Liberals are just Harperites!) or 'Socred-retred' ,rather than any attempt to use the term as shorthand.  Certainly enough ol' socreds out there who might not object to the term at all.
 

[adma]

And, consider the fact that for all its "non-socialist coalitionness", the present BC Liberal apron also encompasses unabashed fed-Liberal Joyce Murray types--so it's not unfair to point it out as a "moderate-compatible" option; the Carole Taylor/Art Phillips crowd certainly hasn't been a bunch of raving Stockwell Day/Randy White ReformAlliancers.  However, it's *also* not unfair to point out how its rightward fed-Con flank can be an albatross, esp. in the eyes of certain "Justin progressives"--which happens to be the key as to whether the recent federal election bodes well or ill for the party.  (Pending polling, of course.)