Ontario general election 2018 - Results Thread

[Krago]

One thing I wanted to check was the results for Poll 716 in York-Simcoe - The Pipe and Slipper Home in Keswick ON.

The Pipe and Slipper has an interesting electoral history.  In 2014, it was the only poll won by the Libertarians.  And in 2007, there were 34 electors on the list, all 34 voted, and all 34 votes were cast for PC MPP Julia Munro.  A little bit of North Korea on Lake Simcoe.

According to the Global poll-by-poll results, the votes cast in Poll 716 were:
PC 785, NDP 327, Lib 147, Green 69

A few more ballots cast than in 2014.

[Hatman 🍁]

Oh, good find! I didn't know these were available yet.

Well, I really hate these maps. Did the NDP win my apartment building? Maybe, but we'll never know

My polling station had 1400 votes. Grrr.

[adma]

Is that observation on behalf of Whitby being underwhelming (which I disagree on), or Ajax/Pickering being surprising?

I was under the impression that they were competitive in Whitby (though Whitby still leaned more to the Tories) but not at all competititive in Ajax/Pickering.

Agree in that it was expected to be either a Rod Phillips runaway or at least a Phillips-Dickson race of sorts.  (Maybe impressions skewed by the 2011 federal race, when the NDP basically put up a paper campaign vs the Holland-Alexander epic battle)

[Hatman 🍁]

I don't get it. When I went to my polling station there were several lines, which I assumed were for different polling divisions. But there's no way based on this map that this was the case. That polling station would've just been for just one polling division.

[Oryxslayer]

Yeah Horwath for now is fairly safe. The people getting the boot are her campaign staff who sent Horwath and NDP resources to reach seats rather then shoring up the NDP-leaning ones in the south. The only reason she would get the boot is if the provincial NDP decides that they need someone with a more 'moderate' image at the helm to pull in the left-liberals in the 905. If that happens though, it would be several years in the future, not right post-election.

Alright at this point I'm convinced you have literally no idea what you're talking about. This post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of these election results, the campaign preceding it, Canadian political dynamics, and Ontario political geography entirely. I've noticed this pattern for a while now and I honestly mean this in the least offensive way possible, but please stop writing posts with an authoritative tone in international election threads where you don't actually know anything about the topic at hand. It's embarrassing for you, it's a distraction from other conversations in-thread, and it openly spreads misinformation to anyone who doesn't actually know the facts at hand.

Your post is wrong on so many levels but rather than explain line by line why you're wrong, I want to take this opportunity address the "disease" rather than this "symptom", so to speak -- your approach to participating in international election discussions. You're the Drake of International Elections and it's not working any better for you than it is for him

I'm just going to nicely ignore the personal attacks and instead argue each of my points.

- Horwath is Fairly Safe Horwath just led the NDP to a historic high of seats for the provincial NDP party of Ontario. She just doubled he caucus and now forms the official opposition. However, these statistics are flawed. The NDP vote share was overwhelmingly concentrated in a handful of ridings. Universal swings (which are intrinsically flawed) show that the NDP presently needs to win a far larger share of the vote to form a majority then the PC's or the Libs, who could form a government while losing the popular vote.

- Campaign Staff booted for reach ridings Lets just scan Horwaths twitter for her events. Easily could be better ways to organize her events. On June 4th, a bus tour with fast stops in the south. On the 5th, the tons of central town ridings. On the 6th the GTA. Ignoring the stop in Guelph, these look like quick stops with not enough time on the ground - especially since she fit Brampton, Kitchener, Cambridge, Brantford, and Guelph all into one day. Below this, lets take a look at the more developed stops. Peterborough is good. Stopping in Mississagua however was in the end a waste of time. every stop in inner-city Toronto that ended up as a full day event outside of St. Pauls was a waste of time. Every riding there was safe NDP. Meanwhile, as I have said repeatedly, the nDP ended up leaving 5ish seats on the board in the South: Kitchener South, Kitchener Conestoga, Brantford-Brant, Cambridge, and maybe Chatham-Kent-Leamington or Sarnia-Lambton, though it was hard to see how the PC's lose a incumbent seat. IF we include these two ridings as places that should have been ignored, then Horwath spent time in the wrong places in the south.

- Moderate Image and Left-Liberals I have said before and many people have also said that the NDP and the Tories would love to see the Libs die and a two party system rise. If that happens, the NDP would have to move closer to the center - this is just basic political science. Now, who remained in the Liberal camp this election? The Liberals best results - outside of the hard left Toronto City, were in the 905 and Ottawa. These areas have high family incomes and can best be described as "too left for PC, too wealthy for the NDP." This hurt the NDP. The Tories won their majority on the back of 40%+ pluralities (and 50%+ majorities in a few ridings) in the GTA thanks to the Lib/NDP vote split. If the NDP wants to build itself as the new united-left party for Ontario, they need to do what every party before them has done and appeal to the 905.

Now there are a number of problems with this assumption. It assumes that the Libs, who have a number of structural advantages, die rather then recover during their soul-searching in opposition. Similarly, if Horwath simply presides over an NDP wave, then she should have her majority. The Canadian electorate has proven many times (NB in the 90s, ON 1990-1995 as obvious examples) that they can swing very wildly if given a reason too. However, if the NDP ends up in some form  forming a united-left with the by slowly absorbing or uniting with the Libs (unlikely given the previous stated structural advantages for Libs) then this new party wants to win close elections, not just waves. So, Horwath might be removed in this scenario, to make way for someone who keeps the 'change for the better' policies, but puts a moderate face on it.

And a bonus argument since you noted my comments throughout the thread:

- "Libs blunting the NDP" Pretty simple, you can go to my Twitter and see the maps I created that neatly demonstrated how the NDP/LIB split was horrible for the NDP and worked nicely for the libs in most circumstances. In most of those southern ridings I mentioned earlier, the NDP should have been able to pick more votes off the libs if they wanted to win. Meanwhile, in a good few of the seats the Libs ended up holding, plus the handful they barely lost - like Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Eglinton-Lawrence, the NDP were a ways back. It appears clear, especially with the 'exit poll' data posted earlier that something moved voters back to the Libs in key ridings.

[EPG]

A triumph for Doug Ford personally and the PCs - even though Ontario almost always votes against mid-term federal incumbents, he won very well and held off a strong challenger in the NDP. Ford has a mandate to lead that is very hard to challenge. Both NDP and Liberals seriously under-performed. One collapsed, the other failed to exploit that collapse to form an alternative government, by a larger margin than expected. It looks like desire to change policy outweighed desire to just change the head of government.

Generally it seems the prospects for progressive coalitions are pretty poor at the moment compared to a few years ago, and they weren't even very good then. Wynne was probably as far as you can go in that direction in North America or perhaps even Europe. It looks like passion among the young has been outweighed by compassion fatigue among the middle-aged and old who've been living through the crisis. The coalitions split. It looks like immigration isn't even necessary for this to happen, as any old source of resentment will suffice.

Although one shouldn't automatically transpose learnings between jurisdictions, there can't be zero relevant transposition between Ontario and nearby areas of the United States that will elect representatives in late 2018 under the shadow of Trump.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Anyone have a blank, MS Paint-editable template of Ontario's provincial ridings?

[136or142]

A triumph for Doug Ford personally and the PCs - even though Ontario almost always votes against mid-term federal incumbents, he won very well and held off a strong challenger in the NDP. Ford has a mandate to lead that is very hard to challenge. Both NDP and Liberals seriously under-performed. One collapsed, the other failed to exploit that collapse to form an alternative government, by a larger margin than expected. It looks like desire to change policy outweighed desire to just change the head of government.

Generally it seems the prospects for progressive coalitions are pretty poor at the moment compared to a few years ago, and they weren't even very good then. Wynne was probably as far as you can go in that direction in North America or perhaps even Europe. It looks like passion among the young has been outweighed by compassion fatigue among the middle-aged and old who've been living through the crisis. The coalitions split. It looks like immigration isn't even necessary for this to happen, as any old source of resentment will suffice.

Although one shouldn't automatically transpose learnings between jurisdictions, there can't be zero relevant transposition between Ontario and nearby areas of the United States that will elect representatives in late 2018 under the shadow of Trump.

A mandate to do what though?  Ford won by promising that he would cut the deficit, increase spending and cut taxes all through 'finding efficiencies.'  He said that not a single job would be cut.

Of course, this is why I wrote above that hacks like Kelly McParland will try to convince people that Ford isn't a disaster.  I have no doubt there will be all sorts of commentary within short order along the lines of "Everybody who voted knew all along that Ford couldn't balance the budget merely through finding efficiencies. The people of Ontario really voted for Ford and the P.Cs because they wanted a change in the direction of the government, not because they really believed this silly white lie."

[EPG]

A triumph for Doug Ford personally and the PCs - even though Ontario almost always votes against mid-term federal incumbents, he won very well and held off a strong challenger in the NDP. Ford has a mandate to lead that is very hard to challenge. Both NDP and Liberals seriously under-performed. One collapsed, the other failed to exploit that collapse to form an alternative government, by a larger margin than expected. It looks like desire to change policy outweighed desire to just change the head of government.

Generally it seems the prospects for progressive coalitions are pretty poor at the moment compared to a few years ago, and they weren't even very good then. Wynne was probably as far as you can go in that direction in North America or perhaps even Europe. It looks like passion among the young has been outweighed by compassion fatigue among the middle-aged and old who've been living through the crisis. The coalitions split. It looks like immigration isn't even necessary for this to happen, as any old source of resentment will suffice.

Although one shouldn't automatically transpose learnings between jurisdictions, there can't be zero relevant transposition between Ontario and nearby areas of the United States that will elect representatives in late 2018 under the shadow of Trump.

A mandate to do what though?  Ford won by promising that he would cut the deficit, increase spending and cut taxes all through 'finding efficiencies.'  He said that not a single job would be cut.

Of course, this is why I wrote above that hacks like Kelly McParland will try to convince people that Ford isn't a disaster.  I have no doubt there will be all sorts of commentary within short order along the lines of "Everybody who voted knew all along that Ford couldn't balance the budget merely through finding efficiencies. The people of Ontario really voted for Ford and the P.Cs because they wanted a change in the direction of the government, not because they really believed this silly white lie."

A mandate to personally lead the PCs rather than be replaced by a more reliable person, I suppose. I tend to believe mandates for specific policy promises are very hard to validate, compared to personal mandates, and mostly policies are judged in retrospect. But yes, at a certain point, we have to credit voters with not believing stupid political promises. What I mean is that, I don't think anyone will stop voting PCs if they cut a single job or fail to cut the deficit. They might do so if there are big spending cuts. Their prerogative. I certainly don't believe it, but nobody seems to disagree that Wynne -> PC is a bigger change than Wynne -> NDP.

[136or142]

A triumph for Doug Ford personally and the PCs - even though Ontario almost always votes against mid-term federal incumbents, he won very well and held off a strong challenger in the NDP. Ford has a mandate to lead that is very hard to challenge. Both NDP and Liberals seriously under-performed. One collapsed, the other failed to exploit that collapse to form an alternative government, by a larger margin than expected. It looks like desire to change policy outweighed desire to just change the head of government.

Generally it seems the prospects for progressive coalitions are pretty poor at the moment compared to a few years ago, and they weren't even very good then. Wynne was probably as far as you can go in that direction in North America or perhaps even Europe. It looks like passion among the young has been outweighed by compassion fatigue among the middle-aged and old who've been living through the crisis. The coalitions split. It looks like immigration isn't even necessary for this to happen, as any old source of resentment will suffice.

Although one shouldn't automatically transpose learnings between jurisdictions, there can't be zero relevant transposition between Ontario and nearby areas of the United States that will elect representatives in late 2018 under the shadow of Trump.

A mandate to do what though?  Ford won by promising that he would cut the deficit, increase spending and cut taxes all through 'finding efficiencies.'  He said that not a single job would be cut.

Of course, this is why I wrote above that hacks like Kelly McParland will try to convince people that Ford isn't a disaster.  I have no doubt there will be all sorts of commentary within short order along the lines of "Everybody who voted knew all along that Ford couldn't balance the budget merely through finding efficiencies. The people of Ontario really voted for Ford and the P.Cs because they wanted a change in the direction of the government, not because they really believed this silly white lie."

A mandate to personally lead the PCs rather than be replaced by a more reliable person, I suppose. I tend to believe mandates for specific policy promises are very hard to validate, compared to personal mandates, and mostly policies are judged in retrospect. But yes, at a certain point, we have to credit voters with not believing stupid political promises. What I mean is that, I don't think anyone will stop voting PCs if they cut a single job or fail to cut the deficit. They might do so if there are big spending cuts. Their prerogative. I certainly don't believe it, but nobody seems to disagree that Wynne -> PC is a bigger change than Wynne -> NDP.

I think there was a willful blindness among the Ontario electorate to believe Ford's obviously false promise. 

[King of Kensington]

The Liberals best results - outside of the hard left Toronto City, were in the 905 and Ottawa. These areas have high family incomes and can best be described as "too left for PC, too wealthy for the NDP." This hurt the NDP. The Tories won their majority on the back of 40%+ pluralities (and 50%+ majorities in a few ridings) in the GTA thanks to the Lib/NDP vote split. If the NDP wants to build itself as the new united-left party for Ontario, they need to do what every party before them has done and appeal to the 905.

Not sure what you mean here - if the PCs got 50%+ of the vote in those ridings how could they have won them "thanks to the Lib/NDP vote split?

If there was any strategic voting going on in the 905 - it sure didn't work.  

Mississauga Centre is a great example of a roughly 40-25-25 split (or more specifically PCs 40.9%, NDP 27.6%, Liberals 25.4%) - and it was pretty hard for voters to figure out how to "stop the PCs."  Yeah it went Liberal in the past - but it's pretty hard to beat the Conservatives if they're over 40%. The NDP vote surged and the Liberal vote sank.  Still, if the NDP becomes a contender for government this is the kind of seat they can win in.

Vaughan-Woodbridge is an example where the anti-Conservative vote did more or less unite - the NDP only rose modestly to 14.5%.  However the PC vote surged and won an outright majority (50.5%), so the Liberals (32%) just got crushed and they certainly can't blame NDP voters for "refusing" to vote strategically for this loss.  This was an epic failure for uniform swing projections and the media.  If the NDP becomes a serious contender for government and the Liberals remain stuck in third this should remain a safe PC seat.

[King of Kensington]

York Region was for the PCs what inner Toronto was for the NDP.

[DL]

FYI when party leaders make pit stops in a series of ridings the day before Election Day it’s not about reaching individual voters in those ridings. It’s about creating nice images to appear on the news that night and to give a last minute pep talk to volunteers. If Horwath makes a 10-minute stop in Davenport (for example) it’s purposely kept very short because you want the volunteers focused on door knocking and not distracted for too long by having the leader visit the campaign office. The leader does not go door to door at all and I doubt is any of those whistle stops make any difference whatsoever to the outcome in those individual ridings.

So the fact that Horwath made a 10 minute stop in Davenport and didnt make a 10 minute stop in Scarborough Centre is totally irrelevant rto the outcome

[King of Kensington]

How much of a "boost" did people who look like future OLP leadership candidates get compared to the "generic" Liberal vote?  Whether winners like Coteau and Hunter or losers like Del Duca and Naqvi.

[Oryxslayer]

The Liberals best results - outside of the hard left Toronto City, were in the 905 and Ottawa. These areas have high family incomes and can best be described as "too left for PC, too wealthy for the NDP." This hurt the NDP. The Tories won their majority on the back of 40%+ pluralities (and 50%+ majorities in a few ridings) in the GTA thanks to the Lib/NDP vote split. If the NDP wants to build itself as the new united-left party for Ontario, they need to do what every party before them has done and appeal to the 905.

Not sure what you mean here - if the PCs got 50%+ of the vote in those ridings how could they have won them "thanks to the Lib/NDP vote split?

If there was any strategic voting going on in the 905 - it sure didn't work.  

Mississauga Centre is a great example of a roughly 40-25-25 split (or more specifically PCs 40.9%, NDP 27.6%, Liberals 25.4%) - and it was pretty hard for voters to figure out how to "stop the PCs."  Yeah it went Liberal in the past - but it's pretty hard to beat the Conservatives if they're over 40%. The NDP vote surged and the Liberal vote sank.  Still, if the NDP becomes a contender for government this is the kind of seat they can win in.

Vaughan-Woodbridge is an example where the anti-Conservative vote did more or less unite - the NDP only rose modestly to 14.5%.  However the PC vote surged and won an outright majority (50.5%), so the Liberals (32%) just got crushed and they certainly can't blame NDP voters for "refusing" to vote strategically for this loss.  This was an epic failure for uniform swing projections and the media.  If the NDP becomes a serious contender for government and the Liberals remain stuck in third this should remain a safe PC seat.

What I am saying is that there wasn't any strategic voting. The NDP surged here, but because they were starting from near zero they got almost nothing. Meanwhile, the Libs got some of their best "second places" in the 905. Yeah, in the 50% ridings, mainly found to the north of Toronto, there was no hope of tactical voting if every PC voter stays with the PCs. However, if the NDP actually attempts to reach the median voter in the Toronto suburbs then there is a good chance swing voters might not break as favorably for the PCs. In 2015 after all, Vaughan-Woodbridge gave the Libs+NDP combined around 53.5% in 2015, and it doesn't look like the riding changed all that much in redistricting. So there are clearly swing voters who would vote against the PC if given the proper appeal. Much of Mississagua is a better example like you said, a place where the PC's largely snuck up the middle.

Heres the maps I made earlier that illustrate the phenomenon nicely.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yeah Horwath for now is fairly safe. The people getting the boot are her campaign staff who sent Horwath and NDP resources to reach seats rather then shoring up the NDP-leaning ones in the south. The only reason she would get the boot is if the provincial NDP decides that they need someone with a more 'moderate' image at the helm to pull in the left-liberals in the 905. If that happens though, it would be several years in the future, not right post-election.

Alright at this point I'm convinced you have literally no idea what you're talking about. This post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of these election results, the campaign preceding it, Canadian political dynamics, and Ontario political geography entirely. I've noticed this pattern for a while now and I honestly mean this in the least offensive way possible, but please stop writing posts with an authoritative tone in international election threads where you don't actually know anything about the topic at hand. It's embarrassing for you, it's a distraction from other conversations in-thread, and it openly spreads misinformation to anyone who doesn't actually know the facts at hand.

Your post is wrong on so many levels but rather than explain line by line why you're wrong, I want to take this opportunity address the "disease" rather than this "symptom", so to speak -- your approach to participating in international election discussions. You're the Drake of International Elections and it's not working any better for you than it is for him

I'm just going to nicely ignore the personal attacks and instead argue each of my points.
snip

As one of Baconking's friends I apologize on his behalf for the undeserved harsh attacks on your character, even though he's shown not one bit of guilt for making them, and he's never expressed any remorse for them from what I've seen.
You are an excellent poster, so is Baconking, and it'd be nice if we could all be friends.

[Hatman 🍁]

The Liberals best results - outside of the hard left Toronto City, were in the 905 and Ottawa. These areas have high family incomes and can best be described as "too left for PC, too wealthy for the NDP." This hurt the NDP. The Tories won their majority on the back of 40%+ pluralities (and 50%+ majorities in a few ridings) in the GTA thanks to the Lib/NDP vote split. If the NDP wants to build itself as the new united-left party for Ontario, they need to do what every party before them has done and appeal to the 905.

Not sure what you mean here - if the PCs got 50%+ of the vote in those ridings how could they have won them "thanks to the Lib/NDP vote split?

If there was any strategic voting going on in the 905 - it sure didn't work.  

Mississauga Centre is a great example of a roughly 40-25-25 split (or more specifically PCs 40.9%, NDP 27.6%, Liberals 25.4%) - and it was pretty hard for voters to figure out how to "stop the PCs."  Yeah it went Liberal in the past - but it's pretty hard to beat the Conservatives if they're over 40%. The NDP vote surged and the Liberal vote sank.  Still, if the NDP becomes a contender for government this is the kind of seat they can win in.

Vaughan-Woodbridge is an example where the anti-Conservative vote did more or less unite - the NDP only rose modestly to 14.5%.  However the PC vote surged and won an outright majority (50.5%), so the Liberals (32%) just got crushed and they certainly can't blame NDP voters for "refusing" to vote strategically for this loss.  This was an epic failure for uniform swing projections and the media.  If the NDP becomes a serious contender for government and the Liberals remain stuck in third this should remain a safe PC seat.

What I am saying is that there wasn't any strategic voting. The NDP surged here, but because they were starting from near zero they got almost nothing. Meanwhile, the Libs got some of their best "second places" in the 905. Yeah, in the 50% ridings, mainly found to the north of Toronto, there was no hope of tactical voting if every PC voter stays with the PCs. However, if the NDP actually attempts to reach the median voter in the Toronto suburbs then there is a good chance swing voters might not break as favorably for the PCs. In 2015 after all, Vaughan-Woodbridge gave the Libs+NDP combined around 53.5% in 2015, and it doesn't look like the riding changed all that much in redistricting. So there are clearly swing voters who would vote against the PC if given the proper appeal. Much of Mississagua is a better example like you said, a place where the PC's largely snuck up the middle.

Heres the maps I made earlier that illustrate the phenomenon nicely.

I think you forgot to colour in Oakville on the Liberal map. They got 36% there.

[Oryxslayer]

It has now been fixed, thank you.

[Foucaulf]

This thread looks like it always needs a few Canadian posters to anchor it, so I'll do my part and see how it goes...

• The problem with terms like "left-liberals" or "progressive coalition" is that they're vague to almost being meaningless. I can see why it's seductive for international observers to take the following interpretation seriously:
  
  https://twitter.com/DougSaunders/status/1004805693826916352
  
  But even if the differences between the OLP and the ONDP are now merely "tribal," such tribal differences are still important demographically and electorally. Especially since the two parties are so ostensibly similar in policy but have varying political bases, the more interesting question is what kind of candidates and local issues the parties can use to move into areas once considered "dead" to the party.
  
  This is why I'm not really impressed by takes that say the ONDP should be "more moderate" or "stick to their principles" or whatever. To show I'm not just being abstract, I was personally annoyed near the end that the NDP platform didn't diversify beyond promising universal pharmacare and dental care. It would have been a no-brainer to make rural broadband a serious part of the platform, in a country where an oligopolistic telecoms industry lacks the incentive to cheapen internet access. A promise from the NDP to add one commuter rail line also wasn't flashy enough when you're competing against one of the Ford Brothers, who already spent years talking about how much he wishes to expand subways and highways if The Elites let him.
  
  
• While the PCPO ran a convincing victory, I don't feel like a new coalition for conservatives is really emerging here. Case in point: Ford's PCs got ~40.6% of the vote this year, but Harper's 2011 Conservatives got 44.4% of the Ontario share!
  
  If you look at the505's somewhat overkill map of the 2011 election, you can see that the Tories back then also ran up the margins in North York, Mississauga, York/Durham and Chatham and Sarnia too.
  
  Another important note, if you read stuff like Paul Wells's report on the election, is that the Ford campaign was staffed by either ex-Harper people (Teneycke, Byrne) or old hands from the PCPO (Froggatt). These guys may had less time to prepare than in past campaigns, but they knew the model for a victory. (This is also why I dislike talk of Ford being "America's Trump" since he clearly followed orders from the party's electoral strategy.)
  
  Look, Teneycke is an early Harper guy and he was around when Harper made his pledge to cut the GST by 2%; same dude tried the same message with Ford and "Buck-a-beer/10 cents off gas", but when Harper did it the tactic was "conservative" but when Ford did it the tactic is "populist."
  
  
• At the end of the day, Canadian conservatives today have dreams of displacing the Liberals to be "Canada's 21st century natural governing party." I would also say that post-Harper, there is a party consensus to not run boisterously on social issues like abortion or LGBT rights.
  
  The only remaining major debate, I think, is on "leadership style." Should a conservative leader run more in the clinical, evasive style of Harper or the combative but relatable style of the Fords? There is a tradeoff here: being combative but relatable galvanizes the base, but overdo it and both the opposing parties and the media will successfully define the leader early on in the tenure, leading to a doomed candidacy.
  
  At the moment both leadership styles have assembled similar coalitions in Ontario to win a majority of the province's seats in one election, and a victory in Ontario is almost critical to chances of a federal Conservative government. The current Conservative leader, Scheer, is nonetheless more Harper-like than Ford, whose most relatable characteristic is being "doughy." So, if you see hot takes from Canadian Conservatives like this:
  https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1005113965599338496
  Don't take it seriously; this is signaling. In particular, Poilievre during the Harper days was infamous as a right-wing troll, so we know which side he takes on the leadership style debate.
  

[King of Kensington]

I think you forgot to colour in Oakville on the Liberal map. They got 36% there.

Oakville was (I think) the best 905 result for the Liberals and a (relative) weak one for the PCs.  Shades of DVW - affluent riding and clear OLP/PC race, though a little more PC-leaning - or of those Tory-Lib Dem ridings in the UK pre-2015. 

It's funny those browbeating about the "need" for strategic voting for Liberals in Mississauga, Vaughan and Richmond Hill kind of dismissed Oakville as hopelessly lost to the PCs.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

[EPG]

This thread looks like it always needs a few Canadian posters to anchor it, so I'll do my part and see how it goes...

• The problem with terms like "left-liberals" or "progressive coalition" is that they're vague to almost being meaningless. I can see why it's seductive for international observers to take the following interpretation seriously:
  
  https://twitter.com/DougSaunders/status/1004805693826916352
  
  But even if the differences between the OLP and the ONDP are now merely "tribal," such tribal differences are still important demographically and electorally. Especially since the two parties are so ostensibly similar in policy but have varying political bases, the more interesting question is what kind of candidates and local issues the parties can use to move into areas once considered "dead" to the party.

I mean that the OLP is the progressive coalition which has fallen apart, only partly to the ONDP, which evidently is not yet close to being such a coalition. Nonetheless I think it's too special-snowflake and not enough comparative-politics to deny the following: Wynne was more left-wing than Ford will be; former OLP voters fell off to both sides, both proving and splitting a coalition. As for Trudeau/Wynne, it's almost trivial that Ontario will elect a counter-weight against the fed. govt., so no cross-learnings, I see.

[Don Vito Corleone]

The Liberals would probably do well to look outside of the provincial caucus for a leader.  There are a number of federal liberals who could be considered, and what about John Tory?

.........

Why would the Liberals look at John Tory for leader?

[Hatman 🍁]

The transposed 2015 federal results in Northern Ontario:

Kiiwetinoong - NDP
Kenora-Rainy River - Cons
Thunder Bay-Atikokan - Lib
Thunder Bay-Superior North - Lib
Algoma-Manitoulin - NDP
Sault Ste. Marie - Lib
Mushkegowuk-James Bay - NDP
Timmins - Lib
Timiskaming-Cochrane - Lib
Nickel Belt - Lib
Sudbury - Lib
Nipissing - Lib

[DC Al Fine]

This thread looks like it always needs a few Canadian posters to anchor it, so I'll do my part and see how it goes...

• The problem with terms like "left-liberals" or "progressive coalition" is that they're vague to almost being meaningless. I can see why it's seductive for international observers to take the following interpretation seriously:
  
  https://twitter.com/DougSaunders/status/1004805693826916352
  
  But even if the differences between the OLP and the ONDP are now merely "tribal," such tribal differences are still important demographically and electorally. Especially since the two parties are so ostensibly similar in policy but have varying political bases, the more interesting question is what kind of candidates and local issues the parties can use to move into areas once considered "dead" to the party.
  
  This is why I'm not really impressed by takes that say the ONDP should be "more moderate" or "stick to their principles" or whatever. To show I'm not just being abstract, I was personally annoyed near the end that the NDP platform didn't diversify beyond promising universal pharmacare and dental care. It would have been a no-brainer to make rural broadband a serious part of the platform, in a country where an oligopolistic telecoms industry lacks the incentive to cheapen internet access. A promise from the NDP to add one commuter rail line also wasn't flashy enough when you're competing against one of the Ford Brothers, who already spent years talking about how much he wishes to expand subways and highways if The Elites let him.
  
  
• While the PCPO ran a convincing victory, I don't feel like a new coalition for conservatives is really emerging here. Case in point: Ford's PCs got ~40.6% of the vote this year, but Harper's 2011 Conservatives got 44.4% of the Ontario share!
  
  If you look at the505's somewhat overkill map of the 2011 election, you can see that the Tories back then also ran up the margins in North York, Mississauga, York/Durham and Chatham and Sarnia too.
  
  Another important note, if you read stuff like Paul Wells's report on the election, is that the Ford campaign was staffed by either ex-Harper people (Teneycke, Byrne) or old hands from the PCPO (Froggatt). These guys may had less time to prepare than in past campaigns, but they knew the model for a victory. (This is also why I dislike talk of Ford being "America's Trump" since he clearly followed orders from the party's electoral strategy.)
  
  Look, Teneycke is an early Harper guy and he was around when Harper made his pledge to cut the GST by 2%; same dude tried the same message with Ford and "Buck-a-beer/10 cents off gas", but when Harper did it the tactic was "conservative" but when Ford did it the tactic is "populist."
  
  
• At the end of the day, Canadian conservatives today have dreams of displacing the Liberals to be "Canada's 21st century natural governing party." I would also say that post-Harper, there is a party consensus to not run boisterously on social issues like abortion or LGBT rights.
  
  The only remaining major debate, I think, is on "leadership style." Should a conservative leader run more in the clinical, evasive style of Harper or the combative but relatable style of the Fords? There is a tradeoff here: being combative but relatable galvanizes the base, but overdo it and both the opposing parties and the media will successfully define the leader early on in the tenure, leading to a doomed candidacy.
  
  At the moment both leadership styles have assembled similar coalitions in Ontario to win a majority of the province's seats in one election, and a victory in Ontario is almost critical to chances of a federal Conservative government. The current Conservative leader, Scheer, is nonetheless more Harper-like than Ford, whose most relatable characteristic is being "doughy." So, if you see hot takes from Canadian Conservatives like this:
  https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1005113965599338496
  Don't take it seriously; this is signaling. In particular, Poilievre during the Harper days was infamous as a right-wing troll, so we know which side he takes on the leadership style debate.
  

Ugh that Doug Saunders tweet was cringeworthy. I can't believe you can get a column in a national paper and not know at least the basics of our electoral geography.