Ontario 2018 election

[adma]

Let's look at the 1990 map, shall we?

In the north, you can see that individual candidates mattered a lot in terms of riding the NDP didn't win and this time the same will be true with Fidelli in Nipissing and Gravelle and Mauro in Thunder Bay.

It wasn't just "individual candidacy" in Kenora: an independent candidate took most of the reserve polls that might otherwise have gone NDP.

"Individual candidates" also made a difference in seats the NDP *did* win; case in point being Victoria-Haliburton (HKLB's predecessor), an open seat (formerly John Eakins' Liberal stronghold, a rarity in Eastern Ontario--though pre-Eakins, it was home base for onetime Tory premier Leslie Frost) where Dennis Drainville's outside-populist appeal won the day.

And sometimes, party affiliation helped--as seats with incumbent Tories (and rare survivors of the 1987 rout), Burlington, Markham, and Mississauga South went landslide for the status quo in a way they might not have had the incumbents been Liberal.  Ditto with the byelected London North.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though not necessarily the same ridings.  For one, I can see Monte McNaughton benefiting from individual-candidatedom in LKM,  with an added boost from the lack of large urban centres (though Wallaceburg's long been a powerful NDP node, and there are several reserves for good measure).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mike Farnan in Cambridge was kind of like the Taras Natyshak of 1990: parlayed a "surprise" 1987 victory into a 60%+ landslide.  As for the present, both Cambridge's Liberal incumbency and PC history are shallower than it looks--indeed, the surprise-2014-pickup of the former explains the shallowness of the latter; basically, it stayed Tory for so long *precisely* because the pre-2014 Liberals were so traditionally weak and the NDP traditionally strong (but not strong enough to win in the post-Rae fallow years).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What helped in Muskoka-GB is that the incumbent was Liberal (an open-seat 1987 pickup), giving more incentive for a "throw the bums out" NDP vote. (Also helped that the seat included Midland.)  By comparison, Simcoe's two incumbent Tory seats stayed within the fold.

As for Barrie: remember that Simcoe Centre (another 1987 Lib pickup) was also "rurban"--in fact, the Lake Simcoe white-trash exurbia of Innisfil proved stronger for the NDP than Barrie proper.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Halton North had the lowest winning share of all in 1990 (30.9%).  But today, it's effectively split among two ridings; and the "stronger" NDP part is now in Tory stronghold Wellington-Halton Hills  (if *that* goes NDP, we're really talking about an electoral earthquake)

As for Brampton in 1990: had the ridings been drawn differently (i.e. split east-west rather than north-south), a hypothetical "Brampton East" *would* have gone NDP; and that's because of pre-ethnoburban Bramalea serving as a "new town Labour" sort of node.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Innisfil, it was white-trash exurban Lake Simcoe populism in Georgina that ruled the day in York-Durham.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a third PC seat in 1990, and another case of individual candidacy mattering: populist Tory Chris Stockwell in Etobicoke West.

Individual candidacy (Alvin Curling) also explains the 1990 version of Scarborough North staying Liberal; and that was also pre- the Tamil boom and the development of neighbourhoods like Morningside Heights--in fact, those areas which tend to be NDP bastions now (Malvern et al) were also strongest for the NDP in 1990.  And the strongest 1990 Liberal base (the west-of-Markham-Rd Chinese) is now the strongest *Tory* base.

And re St. Paul's: provincially, no such riding existed in 1990.  You must be thinking of longtime Grossman PC bastion St. Andrew-St. Patrick, which was really more like the present University-Rosedale set perpendicularly so that it was Forest Hill, not Rosedale, counterbalancing the Annex.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It must be internal polling explaining the non-competitiveness in N-PS--the NDP hasn't done *that* much worse here in recent elections than in surrounding ridings.

Worth considering that the NDP was actually stronger in much of Eastern Ontario c1980 than 1990--holding Cornwall and Carleton East as well as Ottawa Centre.  (Much like in 2011 federally, the Liberal brand was more resilient in the Ottawa zone than elsewhere in 1990.)

[King of Kensington]

Yeah, St. Paul's is quite a different creature from St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

St. Paul's contained 46% of St. Andrew-St. Patrick, 44% of Eglinton, 32% of Oakwood and 21% of Dovercourt.  

The Hillcrest-Humewood area of St. Paul's (I grew up there) is very progressive, and would probably be more NDP-friendly in a more favorable riding configuration (or like in today's case, without a popular left-ish Liberal MP/MPP on the ballot like Carolyn Bennett or Eric Hoskins).

St. Andrew-St. Patrick was redistributed as follows: 46% to St. Paul's, 32% to Trinity-Spadina, 16% to Toronto Centre-Rosedale and 6% to Eglinton-Lawrence.

[Wisconsin+17]

Looks like the Forum poll is no bueno. Ekos has it 35-34 NDP/PC.

[Holmes]

Well, it's Forum. But it would be insane if they actually ended up nailing it.

[Wisconsin+17]

http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ndp-heavily-favoured-for-provincial-election-leaked-poll

Yeah, but it's not an encouraging sign when you're well outside of your margin and into the 5% of the 19/20 disclaimer.

[Hatman 🍁]

Not that I'm saying it'll matter in the end, but Bay of Quinte is the most likely seat the "poppy" issue will cost the NDP - if there's one.

I saw The National Post made something over that.  Maybe they should stop posting articles from disgraced convicted felon Conrad Black before they judge other people.

Is he still relevant? I know he went apesh*t when Bob Rae got elected and maybe single handily played a role in bringing down the NDP government. How will Bay Street react if the NDP wins this time?

He did?! What's the source on that?

If true, I wish I'd known that a couple years ago when I was at a conference with the two of them

Perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic, but this is a very good article about the Bay St attacks on the NDP government: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/the-hidden-history-of-bob-raes-government-in-ontario/article1314254/

[Hatman 🍁]

Let's look at the 1990 map, shall we?

In the north, you can see that individual candidates mattered a lot in terms of riding the NDP didn't win and this time the same will be true with Fidelli in Nipissing and Gravelle and Mauro in Thunder Bay.

It wasn't just "individual candidacy" in Kenora: an independent candidate took most of the reserve polls that might otherwise have gone NDP.

"Individual candidates" also made a difference in seats the NDP *did* win; case in point being Victoria-Haliburton (HKLB's predecessor), an open seat (formerly John Eakins' Liberal stronghold, a rarity in Eastern Ontario--though pre-Eakins, it was home base for onetime Tory premier Leslie Frost) where Dennis Drainville's outside-populist appeal won the day.

And sometimes, party affiliation helped--as seats with incumbent Tories (and rare survivors of the 1987 rout), Burlington, Markham, and Mississauga South went landslide for the status quo in a way they might not have had the incumbents been Liberal.  Ditto with the byelected London North.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though not necessarily the same ridings.  For one, I can see Monte McNaughton benefiting from individual-candidatedom in LKM,  with an added boost from the lack of large urban centres (though Wallaceburg's long been a powerful NDP node, and there are several reserves for good measure).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mike Farnan in Cambridge was kind of like the Taras Natyshak of 1990: parlayed a "surprise" 1987 victory into a 60%+ landslide.  As for the present, both Cambridge's Liberal incumbency and PC history are shallower than it looks--indeed, the surprise-2014-pickup of the former explains the shallowness of the latter; basically, it stayed Tory for so long *precisely* because the pre-2014 Liberals were so traditionally weak and the NDP traditionally strong (but not strong enough to win in the post-Rae fallow years).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What helped in Muskoka-GB is that the incumbent was Liberal (an open-seat 1987 pickup), giving more incentive for a "throw the bums out" NDP vote. (Also helped that the seat included Midland.)  By comparison, Simcoe's two incumbent Tory seats stayed within the fold.

As for Barrie: remember that Simcoe Centre (another 1987 Lib pickup) was also "rurban"--in fact, the Lake Simcoe white-trash exurbia of Innisfil proved stronger for the NDP than Barrie proper.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Halton North had the lowest winning share of all in 1990 (30.9%).  But today, it's effectively split among two ridings; and the "stronger" NDP part is now in Tory stronghold Wellington-Halton Hills  (if *that* goes NDP, we're really talking about an electoral earthquake)

As for Brampton in 1990: had the ridings been drawn differently (i.e. split east-west rather than north-south), a hypothetical "Brampton East" *would* have gone NDP; and that's because of pre-ethnoburban Bramalea serving as a "new town Labour" sort of node.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Innisfil, it was white-trash exurban Lake Simcoe populism in Georgina that ruled the day in York-Durham.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a third PC seat in 1990, and another case of individual candidacy mattering: populist Tory Chris Stockwell in Etobicoke West.

Individual candidacy (Alvin Curling) also explains the 1990 version of Scarborough North staying Liberal; and that was also pre- the Tamil boom and the development of neighbourhoods like Morningside Heights--in fact, those areas which tend to be NDP bastions now (Malvern et al) were also strongest for the NDP in 1990.  And the strongest 1990 Liberal base (the west-of-Markham-Rd Chinese) is now the strongest *Tory* base.

And re St. Paul's: provincially, no such riding existed in 1990.  You must be thinking of longtime Grossman PC bastion St. Andrew-St. Patrick, which was really more like the present University-Rosedale set perpendicularly so that it was Forest Hill, not Rosedale, counterbalancing the Annex.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It must be internal polling explaining the non-competitiveness in N-PS--the NDP hasn't done *that* much worse here in recent elections than in surrounding ridings.

Worth considering that the NDP was actually stronger in much of Eastern Ontario c1980 than 1990--holding Cornwall and Carleton East as well as Ottawa Centre.  (Much like in 2011 federally, the Liberal brand was more resilient in the Ottawa zone than elsewhere in 1990.)

Thanks for this. Clearly you've had a chance to see some poll by poll data from the 1990 election. I think such a thing exists at the library, but not sure if they'd have corresponding maps.

[PeteB]

Could Jim Bradley lose?

I think so.  He's never run in an election where the Liberals were the third place party.

How strong of an incumbent is he?

I've dealt with Jim on some other business matters and my perception was always that he had a huge local stature and wide community support. That is important down in Niagara and, had you asked whether he can lose a few weeks ago, I would have said NO. Now, however, I think that St. Catharines is wide open to both PC and NDP. If the Liberals manage to keep 15-20 seats though (and I know I am in a minority here, even thinking that), I wouldn't be surprised to see Bradley's as one of them.

Further to this discussion, here is Global TV's take today:

St. Catharines [PC-NDP] Liberal incumbent Jim Bradley has held this riding since 1977 and despite four decades of ebbs and flows in the Liberal tide, he’s always managed to return to Queen’s Park. This time, though, the anti-Liberal tide may be too deep, even for Bradley. Both the NDP and the PCs, perhaps sensing that change is about to come to St. Catharines, have each sent their leaders to this riding. Wynne has not dropped in. Tory Sandie Bellows is a slightly better bet than New Democrat Jennie Stevens to end Bradley’s long tenure.

[King of Kensington]

Further to this discussion, here is Global TV's take today:

St. Catharines [PC-NDP] Liberal incumbent Jim Bradley has held this riding since 1977 and despite four decades of ebbs and flows in the Liberal tide, he’s always managed to return to Queen’s Park. This time, though, the anti-Liberal tide may be too deep, even for Bradley. Both the NDP and the PCs, perhaps sensing that change is about to come to St. Catharines, have each sent their leaders to this riding. Wynne has not dropped in. Tory Sandie Bellows is a slightly better bet than New Democrat Jennie Stevens to end Bradley’s long tenure.

Instinctually, I would give the PCs an advantage given that any residual strength Jim Bradley maintains hurts the NDP more.  Though I guess one could counter that with "populism...orange wave...Andrea is the agent of change."

[adma]

Instinctually, I would give the PCs an advantage given that any residual strength Jim Bradley maintains hurts the NDP more.  Though I guess one could counter that with "populism...orange wave...Andrea is the agent of change."

Though it's hard to say, given how a lot of the traditionally strongest Jim Bradley Liberal zones have also been the strongest Tory zones--the two "non-socialist" parties can have a pattern of tag-teaming one another.  (That's especially the case in a seat like London North Centre, where the NDP can win almost as many polls as the Tories even at half the Tory vote, largely because they're "on their own" in their SE riding strongholds.)

[PeteB]

Further to this discussion, here is Global TV's take today:

St. Catharines [PC-NDP] Liberal incumbent Jim Bradley has held this riding since 1977 and despite four decades of ebbs and flows in the Liberal tide, he’s always managed to return to Queen’s Park. This time, though, the anti-Liberal tide may be too deep, even for Bradley. Both the NDP and the PCs, perhaps sensing that change is about to come to St. Catharines, have each sent their leaders to this riding. Wynne has not dropped in. Tory Sandie Bellows is a slightly better bet than New Democrat Jennie Stevens to end Bradley’s long tenure.

Instinctually, I would give the PCs an advantage given that any residual strength Jim Bradley maintains hurts the NDP more.  Though I guess one could counter that with "populism...orange wave...Andrea is the agent of change."

I agree. St. Catharines is fertile ground for the Ford populism and the Liberal voters who stay with Bradley will negatively impact the NDP's chances of overcoming the PC candidate. Bradley's voters tend to be strong local community guys, who would presumably be interested in what the NDP is offering.  Still, I would label this as a genuine 3 way race ( I am still not writing off Bradley either, but only on the slim chance that Wynne kills it in the debate tomorrow).

[King of Kensington]

I think the NDP is banking on the Andrea the "real" populist prevailing over Doug the "fake" populist in every single rust belt-ish seat in the province.

[PeteB]

And, since I keep talking about it, here is a speech that Kathleen Wynne should give (at the debate or elsewhere), and one which I think would keep the Liberals to 15-20 seats, and ensure a minority government:

Suggested "Save the furniture" speech for Kathleen Wynne tomorrow:

The Liberals have been in power for fifteen years and I have been privileged to be your Premier for the past five. During this time we have made great progress in labour rights such as raising the minimum wage, ‎helping the least privileged, improving our environment, and bringing Ontario firmly into a leadership position, both economically and as a great place to live.

At the same time we  are aware that we have made some mistakes and become too complacent. Some of those mistakes I have begun to fix and others will continue this work, after I am gone. I accept that people want change and that my party may not form the next government.  But, when faced with a choice, you always have to look‎ at the alternatives, and choose the best option for you, your family, community and the province.

You essentially have two choices‎ before you - one is to give a majority to one of the other two parties and the other is to ensure that there are checks and balances in the next parliament. 

If the PC party gets into power you will face severe cuts to employment and services, the death of compassion and environmental rights and, don't kid yourselves, your life may never be the same. Their leader had the opportunity to prove his worth at the City of Toronto, where the city was a subject of ridicule worldwide, and the promised efficiencies never materialized.‎

If you choose the NDP, you may be making the same mistake that your parents did in 1990 - bringing an inexperienced protest movement into government, where unchecked they can do more harm then good. If they can make a ‎seven billion dollar mistake in their projections now, think how incompetent they may be in power. Sometimes those who mean well don't have the capacity to follow through, and you are really gambling with your wellbeing here. Is the gamble worth it?

What is your alternative then, you ask? Vote for those candidates, whom you feel will fight for you, but do not do it mechanically, or by party affiliation. What I can promise you is that, if we have a strong contingent of Liberal MPPs at Queens' Park, whoever forms government may or may not have our support, but they will always have to reckon with Liberals who will NOT give them a carte blanche‎ to dismantle our values, our prosperity and our compassion. 

I thank you for the privilege of being in charge of this province and ask you to think wisely and make the decision that is right for your future.
‎

[Krago]

Guelph Riding poll by Mainstreet

https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/8630991-greens-lead-in-guelph-poll/

Schreiner (Green) - 31.7%
Mlynarz (NDP) - 28.0%
Ferraro (PC) - 25.3%
Castaldi (Liberal) - 11.9%

[King of Kensington]

Game changer!

https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1000439982430085121

[adma]

Game changer!

https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1000439982430085121

[_]

Game changer!

https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1000439982430085121

But why

[adma]

Thanks for this. Clearly you've had a chance to see some poll by poll data from the 1990 election. I think such a thing exists at the library, but not sure if they'd have corresponding maps.

A lot of the mapping info can be "deduced" from polling station location and the like (luckily, Elections Ontario has always disclosed polling station info in its official returns, unlike Elections Canada).

With its crazyquilt horizon-opening results and 3-ways and high "other" tallies and the simple hitherto-unlikelihood of the NDP taking power in Ontario, I've long referred to the 1990 election as the Sgt Pepper of psephology.

[adma]

Game changer!

https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1000439982430085121

But why

Because otherwise, their campaign's croaking ;-)

[_]

Game changer!

https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1000439982430085121

But why

Because otherwise, their campaign's croaking ;-)

HELLO MY HONEY HELLO MY BABY HELLO MY RAGTIME GAL

[DC Al Fine]

Game changer!

https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1000439982430085121

This will bring back the socons pissed about Allen who also drink vote. Its like eight people but I'm one of them. Woo cheap beer!!!

[PeteB]

Game changer!

https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1000439982430085121

This will bring back the socons pissed about Allen who also drink vote. Its like eight people but I'm one of them. Woo cheap beer!!!

Looking at this seriously (yes, I know it's hard to ), there are two possible conclusions:

1. PC campaign feels that they have to bolster their core support (Buck beer is Ford Nation campaign promise), OR

2. Doug Ford came up with this brainwave on his own and didn't consult anyone.

My money (at least one beercan's worth) is on #2.

[King of Kensington]

Well this is a surprise - if trade unionists like Romano that could certainly help him get re-elected:

https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/surprise-pc-endorsement-shows-union-members-need-to-be-wooed-says-local-2251-prez-934848

[Lotuslander]

Game changer!

https://twitter.com/OntarioPCParty/status/1000439982430085121

Eerily similar to 1986 BC elxn when then Socred leader Bill VanderZalm promised cheaper beer - likely populist appeal to so-called "beer-drinkin/workin' class" vote. Of course, after 1986 BC elxn, said promise never materialized.

One other note re: Ford on *populist* promises - his apparent platform plank to reduce gasoline prices by 10 cents/litre via reduction in provincial taxation thereto. I don't know whether that has gained traction in ON elxn or not, but media here in BC reporting that biggest concern addressed to BC NDP MLA constituency offices is actually price of gasoline.

[PeteB]

Well this is a surprise - if trade unionists like Romano that could certainly help him get re-elected:

https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/surprise-pc-endorsement-shows-union-members-need-to-be-wooed-says-local-2251-prez-934848

To a degree yes, but from the Northern ON point of view, it's just hedging your bets and ensuring that a possible future Minister (as Romano will undoubtedly be if PC wins) understands who is supporting him. NDP is already well represented in the North, so what does Soo have to lose by choosing Romano instead of a rookie NDP MPP?

Just shows that contrary to the current hype, the PC and NDP are pretty "egal" out there in the real world.