2017 British Columbia election

[Hatman 🍁]

I am seeing a big range between pollsters. Is there a reason for this?

No one knows how to poll BC. What this all means is we're probably heading for a repeat of the last three elections in which the Liberals win by 3-5%.

[Holmes]

Is the NDP here doing the most NDP thing ever by squandering their healthy lead as the election approaches?

[136or142]

Is the NDP here doing the most NDP thing ever by squandering their healthy lead as the election approaches?

The B.C NDP likely never had a healthy lead.  Just one outlier poll that gave the NDP a 10% lead.

In any other province, I think a hopeless Premier like Christy Clark would be thrown out with barely a better result than the NDP here received in 2001.   

Only in British Columbia can the B.C Liberals get reelected.

[DC Al Fine]

I am seeing a big range between pollsters. Is there a reason for this?

No one knows how to poll BC. What this all means is we're probably heading for a repeat of the last three elections in which the Liberals win by 3-5%.

But why does no one know how to poll BC? High level of immigrants?

Is the NDP here doing the most NDP thing ever by squandering their healthy lead as the election approaches?

The B.C NDP likely never had a healthy lead.  Just one outlier poll that gave the NDP a 10% lead.

In any other province, I think a hopeless Premier like Christy Clark would be thrown out with barely a better result than the NDP here received in 2001.   

Only in British Columbia can the B.C Liberals get reelected.

BC reminds me of what Stephen Harper was trying to set up federally. The NDP are too left wing for too many people, and without a Trudeau style liberal party to vote for, they are forced to hold their nose for the BC Liberals/Socreds.

[RogueBeaver]

Palmer predicts a reduced Grit majority.

[Hatman 🍁]

I am seeing a big range between pollsters. Is there a reason for this?

No one knows how to poll BC. What this all means is we're probably heading for a repeat of the last three elections in which the Liberals win by 3-5%.

But why does no one know how to poll BC? High level of immigrants?

Is the NDP here doing the most NDP thing ever by squandering their healthy lead as the election approaches?

The B.C NDP likely never had a healthy lead.  Just one outlier poll that gave the NDP a 10% lead.

In any other province, I think a hopeless Premier like Christy Clark would be thrown out with barely a better result than the NDP here received in 2001.   

Only in British Columbia can the B.C Liberals get reelected.

BC reminds me of what Stephen Harper was trying to set up federally. The NDP are too left wing for too many people, and without a Trudeau style liberal party to vote for, they are forced to hold their nose for the BC Liberals/Socreds.

One of the axioms of BC elections is that the NDP can only win with a divided right. Also, the province is very polarized: the last 3 elections have produced pretty much the exact same result.

The fact that the Greens are polling well is throwing a bit of a wrench into matters, but they don't appear to be hurting the NDP that much. Quite a lot of their vote is coming from people who don't like either of the two main parties.

As for why polling in BC sucks, I suspect due to the polarization of the province, if your data is skewed toward one demographic or another, it will likely amplify your overall numbers. 

[136or142]

I am seeing a big range between pollsters. Is there a reason for this?

No one knows how to poll BC. What this all means is we're probably heading for a repeat of the last three elections in which the Liberals win by 3-5%.

But why does no one know how to poll BC? High level of immigrants?

Is the NDP here doing the most NDP thing ever by squandering their healthy lead as the election approaches?

The B.C NDP likely never had a healthy lead.  Just one outlier poll that gave the NDP a 10% lead.

In any other province, I think a hopeless Premier like Christy Clark would be thrown out with barely a better result than the NDP here received in 2001.  

Only in British Columbia can the B.C Liberals get reelected.

BC reminds me of what Stephen Harper was trying to set up federally. The NDP are too left wing for too many people, and without a Trudeau style liberal party to vote for, they are forced to hold their nose for the BC Liberals/Socreds.

One of the axioms of BC elections is that the NDP can only win with a divided right. Also, the province is very polarized: the last 3 elections have produced pretty much the exact same result.

Historically, that is a bit of a myth.  The NDP would have handily won the election in 1991 had it remained a mostly two party race between the NDP and Social Credit.  Prior to the 1991 debate the NDP were leading something like 48-35% over Social Credit with the B.C Liberals at around 12-15% support.

It's also something of a myth that the B.C Liberals surged from nowhere on the strength of Gordon Wilson's one liner in the debate.  

In the 1986 election, then B.C Liberal leader and former Federal Liberal M.P Art Lee brought the party back to some respectability by getting the B.C Liberals back to around 7% of the vote. (Calculating the actual vote the Liberals received is a bit tricky due to the large number of dual member ridings that existed in that election.  The people in those ridings had two votes, so their votes are double counted.)  

In addition to the 7% of the vote though, Art Lee managed to get Provincial Liberal candidates in nearly all ridings in the province and succeeded somewhat at building up a party infrastructure in all regions, if not in all ridings.

So, it wasn't like Gordon Wilson just came out of nowhere.

Then even before the debate, the Vancouver Sun wrote an editorial mentioning that the B.C Liberals were running a number of high profile candidates and four of those were in competitive races with Social Credit in ridings where NDP support was poor.

The four were:
1.Art Cowie, a well known Vancouver Parks Commissioner who ran in Vancouver-Quilchena

2.Fred Gingell, a prominent businessperson who ran in Delta South.  Among other business concerns, Gingell had been the President or Chair of a Co-Operative gas station chain I believe named "Mohawk Gas."

3.Clive Tanner, a fairly well known book store owner who briefly ran against Gordon Wilson for the B.C Liberal Party leadership who ran in Saanich North.  Tanner had been the Minister of Health in Yukon prior to moving to B.C, and I believe he was often interviewed by the Victoria area media.

4.David Mitchell, a well known B.C Historian who ran in a West Vancouver riding.  David Mitchell is most famous for writing a biography of WAC Bennett, and for his book covering the 1986 Social Credit leadership campaign.  (I've read it, it's a pretty good book.)

All four were elected, but Art Cowie was a dud who was essentially tricked by Gordon Campbell into stepping down to allow Campbell a seat in the legislature and Clive Tanner was a disaster.

Anyway, after the debate, B.C Liberal support only increased to around 25% from the 12-15% prior, and had it not been for Social Credit's inability to refocus their campaign to go after the B.C Liberals who were taking their supporters, the B.C Liberals probably wouldn't have done anywhere near as well as they did.  So, Social Credit continued to campaign against Mike Harcourt and the NDP, even though after the debate, all that did was convince some voters in many parts of the province to vote B.C Liberal.

If I recall correctly, after the campaign, the Social Credit campaign director admitted that like the Generals at the start of World War I,  they had planned out their entire campaign and had all of their resources committed and they had no way to respond to any changing campaign circumstances.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

A couple of new riding polls
Courtenay-Comox
BC Liberals (I) 44%
NDP 29%
Green 27%

Sannich Norh and The Islands
NDP (I) 34%
BC Liberal 34%
Green 32%

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/poll-b-c-liberals-lead-in-comox-dead-heat-in-saanich-north-1.18540492

[Lotuslander]

Historically, that is a bit of a myth.  The NDP would have handily won the election in 1991 had it remained a mostly two party race between the NDP and Social Credit.  Prior to the 1991 debate the NDP were leading something like 48-35% over Social Credit with the B.C Liberals at around 12-15% support.

It's also something of a myth that the B.C Liberals surged from nowhere on the strength of Gordon Wilson's one liner in the debate.  

....

Anyway, after the debate, B.C Liberal support only increased to around 25% from the 12-15% prior, and had it not been for Social Credit's inability to refocus their campaign to go after the B.C Liberals who were taking their supporters, the B.C Liberals probably wouldn't have done anywhere near as well as they did.  So, Social Credit continued to campaign against Mike Harcourt and the NDP, even though after the debate, all that did was convince some voters in many parts of the province to vote B.C Liberal.

If I recall correctly, after the campaign, the Social Credit campaign director admitted that like the Generals at the start of World War I,  they had planned out their entire campaign and had all of their resources committed and they had no way to respond to any changing campaign circumstances.

The foregoing is the worst case of historical revisionism that I have ever read on this site. Bar none.

Right off the bat, since 1975, the then incarnation of the BC Libs was considered fringe and dead. Same with the BC Cons. Election after election thereafter, BC Libs received virtually no media coverage and signage was essentially non-existent.

Same heading into the 1991 BC campaign. Heading into the 1991 campaign, Socred Rita Johnston (a frumpy Zalmoid so-con retread) was up against the Harcourt NDP - a foregone conclusion on the eventual outcome in a "change election"- one would think.

Interestingly enough, BCTV (now Global BC) ran a daily provincial voting intention tracking poll from the commencement of the writ period on their 6 pm newscast. Back then BCTV (with anchor Tony Parsons) was the dominant powerhouse in BC in terms of ratings. Global BC is still dominant in terms of market share/ratings in terms of their 6 pm newscast, but not the same powerhouse today.

In any event, the daily BC election tracking poll led the BCTV 6 pm newscast each and every evening. Fascinating stuff. At the commencement of the 1991 writ period, the BC NDP was in mid-40% range, Socreds in mid/upper 30% range, and BC Libs ~10% range (Socred vote parking akin to BC Cons relatively recently). While BCTV only showed decided vote, they also show undecided vote separately, which was in mid-20% range.

The 1991 TV leaders debate was strictly a Socred Johnston/NDP Harcourt affair. They both opposed any new entrant such as unknown BC Lib Gordon Wilson. The BC Libs, running candidates in 71/75 ridings, felt that they were also entitled to be at the TV leaders debate. So much so, that they launched a protest and had picketers in front of the CBC building in downtown Van City. The pressure built and the network eventually capitulated.

9 days before e-day, the 1991 TV debate occurred - now with 3 party leaders. And during the debate, BC Lib leader Gordon Wilson "had his moment" with this famous poli quip: "This reminds me of the legislature and here's a classic example of why nothing ever gets done in the province of British Columbia". Archived CBC news story:

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/bc-elections-1991-gordon-wilsons-debate-triumph

That Gordon Wilson clip was the highlight of all TV/radio newscasts the next day. And the rest is history.

But that BCTV tracking poll at the top of their 6 pm evening newscasts also played a major part of the overall 1991 campaign. Their BC Lib numbers the following night saw a spike, which further fed into the media narrative. Another BC Lib spike the next night. So much so that the BC Libs tied the BC NDP at ~37% each with the Socreds falling to mid-20's range.

And then, ~4 - 5 days after the debate, one night BCTV's nightly tracking poll had the BC Libs over-taking the BC NDP by 1%.

Over a course of just a few days one also saw same on the ground. BC Lib lawn signs were akin to a Sasquatch siting prior to the 1991 TV leaders debate and since 1972. All of a sudden, BC Lib lawn signs sprouted akin to mushrooms all over Metro Vancouver lawns and elsewhere, which fed into that visual momentum.

The BC NDP were so concerned that they held a major press conference attended by BC NDP pitbulls such as Glen Clark and Moe Sihota, which also had major media coverage - BC NDP attacked BC Libs as untested with no experience and a dubious, uncosted platform. Wise strategic decision. Definitely blunted upward BC Lib momentum, which was also included soft-leaners.

Moreover, the BC media also then focused upon the BC Libs/their platform picking apart same. BCTV tracking polls then saw a stall in BC Lib momentum with BC NDP regaining a slight lead.

Remember this was over the course of ~6 days (~9 days from TV debate to e-day). After e-day, BC NDP strategists confided to Van Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer that, had the writ period lasted another week, 1991 would have seen a BC Lib majority gov't with their momentum. Palmer has even written about same over the past decade. Google is your friend.

Final 1991 election outcome:

BC NDP: 40.7% - 51 seats
BC Lib: 33.3% - 17 seats
Socred: 24.1% - 7 seats

As a result of Socred/Lib vote splits, BC NDP won seats in 1991 that they have never won before or since.

Had BC Lib Gordon Wilson never attended the 1991 TV leaders debate, the BC NDP/Socred spread would undoubtedly have been much closer with BC Libs only obtaining perhaps 10% siphoning off anti-Zalmoid Socred votes and the seat count would have been much closer as well.

BTW, I wrote a UBC poli 101 paper on this exact topic back in the day.

[136or142]

Historically, that is a bit of a myth.  The NDP would have handily won the election in 1991 had it remained a mostly two party race between the NDP and Social Credit.  Prior to the 1991 debate the NDP were leading something like 48-35% over Social Credit with the B.C Liberals at around 12-15% support.

It's also something of a myth that the B.C Liberals surged from nowhere on the strength of Gordon Wilson's one liner in the debate.  

....

Anyway, after the debate, B.C Liberal support only increased to around 25% from the 12-15% prior, and had it not been for Social Credit's inability to refocus their campaign to go after the B.C Liberals who were taking their supporters, the B.C Liberals probably wouldn't have done anywhere near as well as they did.  So, Social Credit continued to campaign against Mike Harcourt and the NDP, even though after the debate, all that did was convince some voters in many parts of the province to vote B.C Liberal.

If I recall correctly, after the campaign, the Social Credit campaign director admitted that like the Generals at the start of World War I,  they had planned out their entire campaign and had all of their resources committed and they had no way to respond to any changing campaign circumstances.

The foregoing is the worst case of historical revisionism that I have ever read on this site. Bar none.

Right off the bat, since 1975, the then incarnation of the BC Libs was considered fringe and dead. Same with the BC Cons. Election after election thereafter, BC Libs received virtually no media coverage and signage was essentially non-existent.

Same heading into the 1991 BC campaign. Heading into the 1991 campaign, Socred Rita Johnston (a frumpy Zalmoid so-con retread) was up against the Harcourt NDP - a foregone conclusion on the eventual outcome in a "change election"- one would think.

Interestingly enough, BCTV (now Global BC) ran a daily provincial voting intention tracking poll from the commencement of the writ period on their 6 pm newscast. Back then BCTV (with anchor Tony Parsons) was the dominant powerhouse in BC in terms of ratings. Global BC is still dominant in terms of market share/ratings in terms of their 6 pm newscast, but not the same powerhouse today.

In any event, the daily BC election tracking poll led the BCTV 6 pm newscast each and every evening. Fascinating stuff. At the commencement of the 1991 writ period, the BC NDP was in mid-40% range, Socreds in mid/upper 30% range, and BC Libs ~10% range (Socred vote parking akin to BC Cons relatively recently). While BCTV only showed decided vote, they also show undecided vote separately, which was in mid-20% range.

The 1991 TV leaders debate was strictly a Socred Johnston/NDP Harcourt affair. They both opposed any new entrant such as unknown BC Lib Gordon Wilson. The BC Libs, running candidates in 71/75 ridings, felt that they were also entitled to be at the TV leaders debate. So much so, that they launched a protest and had picketers in front of the CBC building in downtown Van City. The pressure built and the network eventually capitulated.

9 days before e-day, the 1991 TV debate occurred - now with 3 party leaders. And during the debate, BC Lib leader Gordon Wilson "had his moment" with this famous poli quip: "This reminds me of the legislature and here's a classic example of why nothing ever gets done in the province of British Columbia". Archived CBC news story:

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/bc-elections-1991-gordon-wilsons-debate-triumph

That Gordon Wilson clip was the highlight of all TV/radio newscasts the next day. And the rest is history.

But that BCTV tracking poll at the top of their 6 pm evening newscasts also played a major part of the overall 1991 campaign. Their BC Lib numbers the following night saw a spike, which further fed into the media narrative. Another BC Lib spike the next night. So much so that the BC Libs tied the BC NDP at ~37% each with the Socreds falling to mid-20's range.

And then, ~4 - 5 days after the debate, one night BCTV's nightly tracking poll had the BC Libs over-taking the BC NDP by 1%.

Over a course of just a few days one also saw same on the ground. BC Lib lawn signs were akin to a Sasquatch siting prior to the 1991 TV leaders debate and since 1972. All of a sudden, BC Lib lawn signs sprouted akin to mushrooms all over Metro Vancouver lawns and elsewhere, which fed into that visual momentum.

The BC NDP were so concerned that they held a major press conference attended by BC NDP pitbulls such as Glen Clark and Moe Sihota, which also had major media coverage - BC NDP attacked BC Libs as untested with no experience and a dubious, uncosted platform. Wise strategic decision. Definitely blunted upward BC Lib momentum, which was also included soft-leaners.

Moreover, the BC media also then focused upon the BC Libs/their platform picking apart same. BCTV tracking polls then saw a stall in BC Lib momentum with BC NDP regaining a slight lead.

Remember this was over the course of ~6 days (~9 days from TV debate to e-day). After e-day, BC NDP strategists confided to Van Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer that, had the writ period lasted another week, 1991 would have seen a BC Lib majority gov't with their momentum. Palmer has even written about same over the past decade. Google is your friend.

Final 1991 election outcome:

BC NDP: 40.7% - 51 seats
BC Lib: 33.3% - 17 seats
Socred: 24.1% - 7 seats

As a result of Socred/Lib vote splits, BC NDP won seats in 1991 that they have never won before or since.

Had BC Lib Gordon Wilson never attended the 1991 TV leaders debate, the BC NDP/Socred spread would undoubtedly have been much closer with BC Libs only obtaining perhaps 10% siphoning off anti-Zalmoid Socred votes and the seat count would have been much closer as well.

BTW, I wrote a UBC poli 101 paper on this exact topic back in the day.

You are the biggest liar in the B.C election thread forum, bar none.

The BCTV polls were junk polls. On the day before the election, they showed the Liberals in the lead and this was duly reported on the front page of the Vancouver Sun.  After the actual results came in, Mike Harcourt doing a riff on President Harry Truman held up the newspaper and said something like "The good news is we won the election, the bad news is the latest BCTV poll shows us in third place."

In explaining why the BCTV polls were wrong a fair bit outside the margin of error, their polling director gave the nonsensical answer of "Our polls didn't take into account the superior NDP get out the vote organization."  No election expert would ever believe that a superior campaign organization could result in a 10% difference between a poll and the actual result.  

If you actually take those junk BCTV polls in the 1991 election seriously, you clearly aren't the expert on polling you believe yourself to be.

As to the rest, the NDP on the basis of their anti-free trade campaign in the 1988 Federal Election won 19 of 32 seats federally, (and lost two other ridings by under 200 votes.)  Those 21 seats were in ridings that virtually map the 51 ridings the NDP won provincially.  The handful of credible polls in that election said why I showed, the NDP with a roughly 13% lead over Social Credit going into the debate and likely set to win the same ridings that they ended up winning.

The NDP won 19 of 32 seats and the P.C's 12 even though the NDP won the popular vote just 37.0% to 35.3%.  The Federal Liberals took the other seat and 20.4%.  This was even though the Federal Liberals also ran an anti free trade campaign, and, in that simple sense, should have split the vote with the NDP, and not the P.Cs.  So, again, the precedent of the NDP not needing a vote split on the right to win a provincial majority had already been established just 3 years before the provincial election.

The things you wrote about the B.C Liberal Party pre-debate actually backs up what I wrote:  The B.C Liberals started the campaign at around 10%, their highest level since 1975 (and increased it slightly going into the debate), and they had nearly a full slate of candidates, largely based on the organizational work of Art Lee that was followed up on by Gordon Wilson.

I don't know what would have happened to B.C Liberal support if Gordon Wilson hadn't have been in the debate, it's a counterfactual.  I have no doubt they wouldn't have scored the breakthrough they did, but it's very possible that the debate between Rita Johnson and Mike Harcourt would have turned so many viewers off that the B.C Liberals would have seen their support increase anyway.  At the very least, with or without being in the debate, it's very likely those 4 B.C Liberal candidates I mentioned would have been elected.

So, not only did you not show that my comment was revisionist history, you actually back up a good deal of it.  And, the part where you claim I'm wrong is based on the junk BCTV polls that you take seriously for some reason, even though they were as off as the 2013 election polls were. (Of course, I know why you take them seriously, they showed bad results for the NDP. So, even though they were junk, I can only presume you must believe those polls were actually right and the election result must somehow have been wrong.)

You are a liar and a troll and everybody here knows it.  I honestly have no idea why you keep posting here. I think pretty much every poster here has you on ignore.  Again, for not paying on the bet you lost to me and for 'doxing' me, I again ask the mod here to ban you from this website.

[Lotuslander]

You are a liar and a troll and everybody here knows it.  I honestly have no idea why you keep posting here. I think pretty much every poster here has you on ignore.  Again, for not paying on the bet you lost to me and for 'doxing' me, I again ask the mod here to ban you from this website.

Hahahaha. Pffft. What a maroon. You are what negatively stereotypes BC across Canada - a fringe, loony left-wing BC flake. Now run along and put me on your ignore list.

[136or142]

You are a liar and a troll and everybody here knows it.  I honestly have no idea why you keep posting here. I think pretty much every poster here has you on ignore.  Again, for not paying on the bet you lost to me and for 'doxing' me, I again ask the mod here to ban you from this website.

Hahahaha. Pffft. What a maroon. You are what negatively stereotypes BC across Canada - a fringe, loony left-wing BC flake. Now run along and put me on your ignore list.

I've explained this to you three times, you are on my ignore list already.  Not a surprise you're not intelligent enough to understand my explanation.

[DC Al Fine]

A couple of new riding polls
Courtenay-Comox
BC Liberals (I) 44%
NDP 29%
Green 27%

Sannich Norh and The Islands
NDP (I) 34%
BC Liberal 34%
Green 32%

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/poll-b-c-liberals-lead-in-comox-dead-heat-in-saanich-north-1.18540492

That's not good for the Greens. That's pretty much the same result in Saanich North and the Islands as 2013.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Two more riding polls this morning
Esquimalt-Metchosin
NDP (I) 40%
BC Liberals 32%
Green 28%

Cowichan Valley
BC Liberals 37%
NDP (I) 35%
Green 24%

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/poll-ndp-leading-in-esquimalt-metchosin-cowichan-valley-close-1.18650467

[DL]

The conventional wisdom is that the two best chances the Greens have in the whole province of gaining any seats are Saanich North and Cowichan Valley. If they can't lock down Saanich North and are trailing this badly in Cowichan Valley it suggests they may be lucky to get anything beyond the 1 seat they currently have. Weaver may end up Asa footnote in history as the Ralph Nader of 2017

[adma]

You are a liar and a troll and everybody here knows it.  I honestly have no idea why you keep posting here. I think pretty much every poster here has you on ignore.  Again, for not paying on the bet you lost to me and for 'doxing' me, I again ask the mod here to ban you from this website.

Hahahaha. Pffft. What a maroon. You are what negatively stereotypes BC across Canada - a fringe, loony left-wing BC flake. Now run along and put me on your ignore list.

Ho-hum, recycling the old "loony left-wing flake" bashing.  Can it; it's juvenile.

But that said, the answers lie in between.  I actually agree with you on how, in certain respects, the 1991 election *actually* transpired--but at the same time, I agree with Adam T. that the Liberals had already been building up their game in 1986 (remember: they only got .5% in 1979, and 2.7% in 1983), and that was the foundation from which they were operating in 1991.  So, the BCGrits were already operating with that eventuality in mind, which is why they made a point of nominating more credible candidates than would have been the case a decade earlier--a sort of "electoral credibility banking".  There are parallels where all that + an exemplary debate (or at least soundbite) performance led to an electoral jackpot; Manitoba's Carstairs Liberals in 1988 comes to mind, or even the federal "Le Bon Jack" phenomenon in 2011.  In fact, in some ways the BC Liberals were actually *saved* by their still-limited legislative gains in 1991; by and large the best people won, and the caucus was relatively accidental-flake-free, which formed a solid foundation for the Gordon Campbell era.

Given the context of the time, I also disagree with the assessment of BCTV polls as "junk polls"--junk, maybe, to the geeks that populate this forum; but in those pre-Internet days when the masses still gathered around the TV screen for their evening news regimen, they carried a lot of clout, even if there was arguably a touch of push-poll or confirmation bias about them--the latter borne out by how they didn't *quite* capture the final result.

I think, in the end, we all should quit these accusations and counter-accusations re what is or isn't a junk poll (or at least, heavy-handedly bandying around the term "junk poll", which is as obnoxious as duels over what is or isn't "fake news").  I mean, there are obvious signals/cases of "junkiness" (like, taking the BC Cons electorally seriously in 2017); but it might be more useful to simply strategically regard it *all* as one form or another of "junk" which provides useful trend and pattern data all the same, cum grano salis or not.  Distill it all, and form our own conclusions with a touch of "chance allowance", and let everything fall as it may and draw more conclusions from *that*.

It's a reason why, in my heart, I prefer post-mortem analysis to prediction analysis, and why I do *not* like to predict percentages, seat numbers, etc--any or this sports-pool/playing-the-stocks  boring-dude type of stuff.  I don't mind *witnessing* them in boards like this one; I just don't like to participate--I'd rather sponge off the rest of you, who are, in the end, no more "junky" than the polls you deride....

[136or142]

You are a liar and a troll and everybody here knows it.  I honestly have no idea why you keep posting here. I think pretty much every poster here has you on ignore.  Again, for not paying on the bet you lost to me and for 'doxing' me, I again ask the mod here to ban you from this website.

Hahahaha. Pffft. What a maroon. You are what negatively stereotypes BC across Canada - a fringe, loony left-wing BC flake. Now run along and put me on your ignore list.

Ho-hum, recycling the old "loony left-wing flake" bashing.  Can it; it's juvenile.

But that said, the answers lie in between.  I actually agree with you on how, in certain respects, the 1991 election *actually* transpired--but at the same time, I agree with Adam T. that the Liberals had already been building up their game in 1986 (remember: they only got .5% in 1979, and 2.7% in 1983), and that was the foundation from which they were operating in 1991.  So, the BCGrits were already operating with that eventuality in mind, which is why they made a point of nominating more credible candidates than would have been the case a decade earlier--a sort of "electoral credibility banking".  There are parallels where all that + an exemplary debate (or at least soundbite) performance led to an electoral jackpot; Manitoba's Carstairs Liberals in 1988 comes to mind, or even the federal "Le Bon Jack" phenomenon in 2011.  In fact, in some ways the BC Liberals were actually *saved* by their still-limited legislative gains in 1991; by and large the best people won, and the caucus was relatively accidental-flake-free, which formed a solid foundation for the Gordon Campbell era.

Given the context of the time, I also disagree with the assessment of BCTV polls as "junk polls"--junk, maybe, to the geeks that populate this forum; but in those pre-Internet days when the masses still gathered around the TV screen for their evening news regimen, they carried a lot of clout, even if there was arguably a touch of push-poll or confirmation bias about them--the latter borne out by how they didn't *quite* capture the final result.

I think, in the end, we all should quit these accusations and counter-accusations re what is or isn't a junk poll (or at least, heavy-handedly bandying around the term "junk poll", which is as obnoxious as duels over what is or isn't "fake news").  I mean, there are obvious signals/cases of "junkiness" (like, taking the BC Cons electorally seriously in 2017); but it might be more useful to simply strategically regard it *all* as one form or another of "junk" which provides useful trend and pattern data all the same, cum grano salis or not.  Distill it all, and form our own conclusions with a touch of "chance allowance", and let everything fall as it may and draw more conclusions from *that*.

It's a reason why, in my heart, I prefer post-mortem analysis to prediction analysis, and why I do *not* like to predict percentages, seat numbers, etc--any or this sports-pool/playing-the-stocks  boring-dude type of stuff.  I don't mind *witnessing* them in boards like this one; I just don't like to participate--I'd rather sponge off the rest of you, who are, in the end, no more "junky" than the polls you deride....

1.I meant junk polls in that their methodology was clearly terrible.  I don't mean it in the sense that people didn't take them seriously.  I also made no claim that their polls were deliberately biased against the NDP.

2.I somewhat agree about the quality of the Liberal M.L.As elected in 1991.  Of the 17, there were only four good M.L.As - Fred Gingell, Gary Farrell Collins, Wilf Hurd and, for awhile, David Mitchell.

But many were harmless non entities like Val Anderson and Doug Symons, Dan Jarvis, Ken Jones, Art Cowie, Lynn Stephens, Robert Chisholm (elected in Chilliwack,I actually don't remember him) but quite a few were outright noxious - Jeremy Dalton, Clive Tanner, Judi Tyabji, Gordon Wilson and Linda Reid.  

Allan Warnke was one of the strongest critics for awhile, as he was one of the most knowledgeable Liberals on government and legislative procedure having been a political science professor.  But, he became a relatively high profile critic on the basis of his bombast, and after short while, it became clear that all he had to offer was bombast.

After Gordon Campbell became leader, he recruited Geoff Plant to run as the Liberal nominee in Richmond-Steveston against Allan Warnke, and Warnke ended up running as independent and received less than 3% of the vote.  Geoff Plant was an excellent M.L.A.

I think Fred Gingell would have made a better finance minister than Gary (Farrell) Collins did, but you can't always get what you want.

While Gordon Wilson, following up on the work of Art Lee did continue to build on the organization of the B.C Liberals, and ran candidates in nearly every riding, the quality of the candidates was sometimes lacking.  One of the things that stopped the B.C Liberal's momentum in that election was Wilson's admission that he hadn't met every B.C Liberal candidate in the province. This was taken as an admission that he knew practically nothing about at least some of his party's candidates.

3.Most importantly, irrespective of the B.C Liberals, the NDP was going to easily defeat Social Credit in 1991 had the election remained a mostly two way race with the B.C Liberals getting between 10-15% of the vote.  The NDP did not need a 'split on the right' to win in 1991.

[Lotuslander]

Final Mainstreet (IVR) poll:

NDP: 40% (-2)
Lib: 39% (+2)
Green: 21% (=-0)

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/bc-liberals-set-majority/

Mainstreet also conducted riding polls in 4 swing ridings:

Surrey-Fleetwood, Delta-North, Saanich North & The Islands and Fraser-Nicola - All had Liberal leads.

Ipsos:

NDP: 40% (-1)
Lib: 39% (-4)
Green: 17% (+3)

[136or142]

CKNW talk show host Simi Sara is giving away a prize to any person who emails her with the correct seat total prediction. (She doesn't know what prize yet, I've offered her some of my B.C politics books)

Even better, the winner will be interviewed by her on Wednesday.

I hope it's OK to post her (work) email address here:
simi@cknw.com

[jaichind]

If NDP and LIB are neck-to-neck then my guess is that NDP will win.  I assume the pollsters have adjusted their methods after the 2013 polling failure to pick up LIB support.  My guess they mostly have over adjusted and this time NDP will under-poll.

[DC Al Fine]

If NDP and LIB are neck-to-neck then my guess is that NDP will win.  I assume the pollsters have adjusted their methods after the 2013 polling failure to pick up LIB support.  My guess they mostly have over adjusted and this time NDP will under-poll.

Perhaps you are right, although my gut reaction is to assume the left can't win unless there's two rightist parties because British Columbia

[DL]

The final poll from Insightwest is out and it its another indication of a cliffhanger:

NDP - 41%
Libs - 41%
Greens - 17% (and a distant 3rd on Vancouver Island now)

http://www.insightswest.com/news/outcome-uncertain-as-a-divided-british-columbia-prepares-to-vote/

PS: People say the NDP has only ever won when the rightwing vote was split - but in 1991 the BC Liberals were nothing like the BC Liberals of today. They ran as a sort of federal Liberal-like small "l" liberal party that was more left of centre

[Lotuslander]

Well... Forum Research has now chimed in as well. Can't have an election without Forum, eh?

Forum's final poll in 2013 was a 2% BC NDP lead. Ditto for 2017. Who woulda thunk?

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/07171cf6-1255-4199-a512-2d782fbda181BC%20FINAL%20Election.pdf

[DL]

Forum did a final IVR poll all conducted yesterday that also points to a photo-finish. Looks like they finally came to their senses and stopped prompting for the BC Conservatives and they also seem to find a last minute drop off for the Greens

NDP 41% (up 4 from last week)
Liberals 39% (up 10 from last week)
Greens 17% (down 7 from last week)
Other 3% (unchanged)
Conservatives 0% (down from 7% last week)

I wouldnt be surprised if the Greens fall further to 14-15% as people go to the polls seeing screaming headlines about a photo-finish

[Hatman 🍁]

Green vote collapsing as expected. However, it seems to be helping the Liberals. Perhaps the NDP can only win when the centre and centre-right are divided? Green voters are as a whole not in the centre, but perhaps their softest supporters are in the centre.

Much of the talk is that even if the NDP wins the popular vote by a point or two, they will still lose because of inefficient vote distribution. But, that's assuming a uniform swing from the last election, so it's foolish to bet on that entirely. Remember in 1996 the opposite scenario happened.