Canadian Election 2019

[adma]

Unless there's a last-minute stop-Scheer swing from the NDP/Greens to the Libs, that is...

[jaichind]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1184528998669389824

Is this not a sign that Trudeau is in trouble ?  Meaning if he is running away with it then Obama would not be doing this (or perhaps asked to do this).

[Walmart_shopper]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1184528998669389824

Is this not a sign that Trudeau is in trouble ?  Meaning if he is running away with it then Obama would not be doing this (or perhaps asked to do this).

Of course not. There is virtually no downside to Obama's endorsement. He is quite popular in Canada and so there is no risk to it. It may not do much, but if it moves a few NDP voters to the Grits in marginal ridings then it works. Most likely the Obama tweet isn't a sign of anything. Obama wanted to voice his support and the Liberal campaign welcomed it as something that couldn't hurt.

[Walmart_shopper]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1184528998669389824

Honestly, this is such bullish-t to me. What the hell does Barack Obama know about Indigenous issues and the horrendous way Trudeau has used these communities as props? There are other progressive options in the race.

He doesn't. But he probably likes Justin and had a personal friendship. And that's sometimes all it takes.

I guess I just hoped Obama was above being a brash sycophant.

It's almost as though global political leadership is about relationships and sometimes pragmatic cooperation in the pursuit of shared goals.

[Walmart_shopper]

In 1997 the Liberals just barely eked out a majority by five seats...but they didn’t just win Ontario that year. They won 101 out of 103 seats in Ontario due to the conservative vote being split down the middle between the PCs and the Reform Party.. I expect the Liberals to get a plurality off seats in Ontario and to likely end up with more seats than the Tories in a minority parliament, but if anyone tunings the Liberals will win all but one or two seats in Ontario like they did in 1997, all I can say is, you’ve gotta be nuts

But they don't have to. The Libs will do significantly better in Quebec than they did in '97, making a clean sweep of Ontario unnecessary to hold a majoriry.

[lilTommy]

So, I have not been following this election that much beyond the newspapers. This is especially shocking considering how much effort I poured into keeping on top of Quebec and Ontario's elections. Anyway, my question to all the Canadians is: how likely is govt gridlock post-election similar to what happened in Spain? If polls and history is to be trusted, the Libs will more likely than not be positioned to form the next govt, but not without some NDP/Bloc cooperation. In such a situation, Trudeau will no doubt try to stand firm to the history of Canadian minority govts, but Singh seems to want more from the Liberal government than just "not the Tories." So what's the chance we end up with a prolonged coalition vs minority standoff?

I think it depends on which party the LPC can work with, in terms of enough seats to form a "working" majority:
- NDP win more then the BQ; If the Liberals can get by on a minority with the NDP, they may prefer this option. But the NDP has some hard asks that the LPC might not be really excited about, one being MMP PR and the NDPs opposition to TMX. More history here with the two working together, as the NDP says it will not support the CPC which is also historically true.
- BQ wins more seats then the NDP; BQ says they will work with anyone if it works for Quebec, but the BQ always is a tough sell as a "partner" due to their whole raison d'etre being breaking up the country. Having said that, the BQ also is oppose to TMX.

- The LPC needs more then one partner; I don't think we have seen this yet, came close in 2006 (I think) when the three LPC-NDP-BQ started to work to form a minority. The LPC does not want this especially since both the NDP/BQ oppose TMX and this could kill it (yay!)
- long shot - grand coalition. You see this in Europe, and when the LPC was much weaker they did support some Harper budgets. In this climate the LPC and CPC make a big show of being rivals, and have been very negative towards each other, but on things like TMX, taxation, trade, they could work together... but neither would really like the political look of it.

[lilTommy]

In 1997 the Liberals just barely eked out a majority by five seats...but they didn’t just win Ontario that year. They won 101 out of 103 seats in Ontario due to the conservative vote being split down the middle between the PCs and the Reform Party.. I expect the Liberals to get a plurality off seats in Ontario and to likely end up with more seats than the Tories in a minority parliament, but if anyone tunings the Liberals will win all but one or two seats in Ontario like they did in 1997, all I can say is, you’ve gotta be nuts

But they don't have to. The Libs will do significantly better in Quebec than they did in '97, making a clean sweep of Ontario unnecessary to hold a majoriry.

The LPC will also do better in Atlantic Canada, no one thinks (even me) that the NDP can pull 30% in NS again this time.

I think the 1997 comparison is that the LPC will drop from a Majority to a minority (or super close to it)

[lilTommy]

Nanos has the NDP ahead of the CPC in Quebec, sitting third now; 15.5% vs 15.2%
LPC - 34.7%, BQ - 24.5%


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EKOS
CPC: 31.8% (+0.1)
LPC: 31.2% (+0.7)
NDP: 18.4% (+5.3)
GPC: 6.8% (-6)
BQ: 6.4% (+1)
PPC: 3.4% (-1.3)

EKOS / October 15, 2019 / n=1904 / MOE 2.3% / Telephone/IVR
(% chg w Oct 10)

REGIONALS
BC -> CPC 29%, NDP 27%, LPC 24%, GPC 13%, PPC 4%
AB -> CPC 66%, LPC 19%, NDP 8%, GPC 3%, PPC 3%
SK/MB -> CPC 49%, NDP 22%, LPC 16%, GPC 6%, PPC 5%
ON -> LPC 40%, CPC 30%, NDP 21%, GPC 7%
QC -> BQ 29%, LPC 28%, CPC 18%, NDP 12%, GPC 6%, PPC 4%
AT -> LPC 44%, NDP 19%, CPC 18%, PPC 10%, GPC 6%

[Krago]

An EKOS poll that shows lower levels of Green support than any other pollster?  Is that allowed?

[Krago]

One thing I don't understand is why the Liberals didn't use their majority to push through ranked ballot legislation when they had the chance.  It would have set them up for almost perpetual majority governments.

And I REALLY don't understand why the Ontario Liberals didn't do it too.

[jaichind]

One thing I don't understand is why the Liberals didn't use their majority to push through ranked ballot legislation when they had the chance.  It would have set them up for almost perpetual majority governments.

And I REALLY don't understand why the Ontario Liberals didn't do it too.

But would that not allow the NDP to survive on the long run.  I would think LPC would prioritize having no viable rivals on the Left as much as winning the next or any election.  Losing to CPC would still mean next election LPC can still come back. Leaving NDP around means there is always a risk that NDP would displace LPC as the main party of the Left and wipe out LPC completely.   

[King of Kensington]

I thought EKOS didn't lump Manitoba and Saskatchewan together.

[EastAnglianLefty]

One thing I don't understand is why the Liberals didn't use their majority to push through ranked ballot legislation when they had the chance.  It would have set them up for almost perpetual majority governments.

And I REALLY don't understand why the Ontario Liberals didn't do it too.

But would that not allow the NDP to survive on the long run.  I would think LPC would prioritize having no viable rivals on the Left as much as winning the next or any election.  Losing to CPC would still mean next election LPC can still come back. Leaving NDP around means there is always a risk that NDP would displace LPC as the main party of the Left and wipe out LPC completely.   

The NDP came back from the 1993 federal election - long-term, the Liberals can't kill them, because there is a block of voters who are never going to be entirely happy with the Liberals because Liberal policy is going to be primarily targeted at voters well to their right.

Equally, it's hard to see the Liberals ever getting wiped out, and ranked majority voting would dull the impact of elections like 2011, as they'd hold up better in seats where the NDP can't win.

However, this time round it'd probably primarily hurt the Liberals in Liberal/NDP seats, because Tory voters seem to prefer Singh to Trudeau.

[DC Al Fine]

One thing I don't understand is why the Liberals didn't use their majority to push through ranked ballot legislation when they had the chance.  It would have set them up for almost perpetual majority governments.

And I REALLY don't understand why the Ontario Liberals didn't do it too.

The consensus coming out of consultations was that Canadians preferred some sort of PR system. Changing the vote system to favour your party, against what the people wanted, would be an extremely risky proposition, like calling a snap election early in one's mandate.

That especially goes for Ontario. "Premier 12% Approval Rating changes electoral system to favour her party" ain't a great headline.

[Krago]

One thing I don't understand is why the Liberals didn't use their majority to push through ranked ballot legislation when they had the chance.  It would have set them up for almost perpetual majority governments.

And I REALLY don't understand why the Ontario Liberals didn't do it too.

The consensus coming out of consultations was that Canadians preferred some sort of PR system. Changing the vote system to favour your party, against what the people wanted, would be an extremely risky proposition, like calling a snap election early in one's mandate.

That especially goes for Ontario. "Premier 12% Approval Rating changes electoral system to favour her party" ain't a great headline.

True, but the worst part of the headline is "Premier 12% Approval Rating".

Voters don't care a lot for the 'inside baseball' stuff, as much as we pundits might like to think.  Despite the Fair Vote folks claiming that huge majorities of Canadians favour Proportional Representation, those numbers seem to evaporate whenever a plebiscite is held.

Ranked ballots would have kept the 'electoral reform' promise without bringing in the transformative effects of PR.  Voters would still keep their local MP/MPP, and no one would get elected without majority(-ish) support of the voters.  The NDP and Greens might howl, but the Liberals would get the benefit of strategic voting without having to force people to vote against their first choice.  

And it could have the added effect of splitting the Tories into further factions.  A new SoCon party could run unabashedly against abortion and gay rights, with the assumption that their supporters would give the Conservatives their second ranking.  How well would the PPC be doing now under ranked ballots, if their voters knew they could oppose immigration without helping to re-elect Trudeau?

Frankly, I see far more upside to the Liberals if they had just plunged right through the line.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

https://twitter.com/quito_maggi/status/1184924872251772931

[Oryxslayer]

One thing I don't understand is why the Liberals didn't use their majority to push through ranked ballot legislation when they had the chance.  It would have set them up for almost perpetual majority governments.

And I REALLY don't understand why the Ontario Liberals didn't do it too.

The consensus coming out of consultations was that Canadians preferred some sort of PR system. Changing the vote system to favour your party, against what the people wanted, would be an extremely risky proposition, like calling a snap election early in one's mandate.

That especially goes for Ontario. "Premier 12% Approval Rating changes electoral system to favour her party" ain't a great headline.

True, but the worst part of the headline is "Premier 12% Approval Rating".

Voters don't care a lot for the 'inside baseball' stuff, as much as we pundits might like to think.  Despite the Fair Vote folks claiming that huge majorities of Canadians favour Proportional Representation, those numbers seem to evaporate whenever a plebiscite is held.

Ranked ballots would have kept the 'electoral reform' promise without bringing in the transformative effects of PR.  Voters would still keep their local MP/MPP, and no one would get elected without majority(-ish) support of the voters.  The NDP and Greens might howl, but the Liberals would get the benefit of strategic voting without having to force people to vote against their first choice.  

And it could have the added effect of splitting the Tories into further factions.  A new SoCon party could run unabashedly against abortion and gay rights, with the assumption that their supporters would give the Conservatives their second ranking.  How well would the PPC be doing now under ranked ballots, if their voters knew they could oppose immigration without helping to re-elect Trudeau?

Frankly, I see far more upside to the Liberals if they had just plunged right through the line.

Changing electoral laws without a referendum always appears authoritarian or single-minded, and is never a good move in a healthy democracy. Every opposition can not only run on accusing you of their usual points, and run against your 18% popularity, they can also now run to restore the  traditional system. Keeping things functioning as they are now is also a powerful motivator (when everything is fine mind you) - remember that BC has had several electoral referendums, including one under the current popular NDP govt, and FPTP has always prevailed. If the Ontario Lib's put it to a referendum, they would lose because  of said 12% approval. Voters  may not vote based on positive approval, but they certainly do based on negative ratings. In weak ones where party corruption is expected to maintain stability, then changing electoral laws is just part of your daily dose  of political preservation from the incumbent regime.

 Also remember that this stuff always takes a good time to implement and see effects. Unless this is truly a weak democracy that changes right before an election to preserve the incumbent party, the new rules wouldn't go into effect for a few years, not in 2017/18/19. So you are just handing your opponents ammunition, with no upside. In a similar vein, party splits and joins would also not occur immediately. The only way to avoid the downsides of said transition period would once again be handing the question to the people, and who knows what they may decide.

[vileplume]

One thing I don't understand is why the Liberals didn't use their majority to push through ranked ballot legislation when they had the chance.  It would have set them up for almost perpetual majority governments.

And I REALLY don't understand why the Ontario Liberals didn't do it too.

The consensus coming out of consultations was that Canadians preferred some sort of PR system. Changing the vote system to favour your party, against what the people wanted, would be an extremely risky proposition, like calling a snap election early in one's mandate.

That especially goes for Ontario. "Premier 12% Approval Rating changes electoral system to favour her party" ain't a great headline.

True, but the worst part of the headline is "Premier 12% Approval Rating".

Voters don't care a lot for the 'inside baseball' stuff, as much as we pundits might like to think.  Despite the Fair Vote folks claiming that huge majorities of Canadians favour Proportional Representation, those numbers seem to evaporate whenever a plebiscite is held.

Ranked ballots would have kept the 'electoral reform' promise without bringing in the transformative effects of PR.  Voters would still keep their local MP/MPP, and no one would get elected without majority(-ish) support of the voters.  The NDP and Greens might howl, but the Liberals would get the benefit of strategic voting without having to force people to vote against their first choice.  

And it could have the added effect of splitting the Tories into further factions.  A new SoCon party could run unabashedly against abortion and gay rights, with the assumption that their supporters would give the Conservatives their second ranking.  How well would the PPC be doing now under ranked ballots, if their voters knew they could oppose immigration without helping to re-elect Trudeau?

Frankly, I see far more upside to the Liberals if they had just plunged right through the line.

Don't the Liberals have a right flank (the blue liberals, whom are extremely prominent in some of the wealthier parts of Canada) that would almost certainly peel off under this scenario?

Whatever the (fair) electoral system you devise you will always get governments of both the left and of the right over the years. Changing the electoral system will only allow for the wide range of views that exist in society to each have their own political party and basically not force people with very different views to share a 'broad church' political party (a good thing IMO). If you think proportional representation will lead to permanent left rule (or right rule for that matter) then you are utterly delusional and clearly have no idea how people vote or how democracy works.

[mileslunn]

https://twitter.com/quito_maggi/status/1184924872251772931

I actually believe this might very well happen.  Devastating result for Tories and almost certainly will force Scheer's resignation and big changes in the party, but I think a combination of things are happening to cause this.  Tories are strong in Prairies but weak elsewhere.  Atlantic Canada is a Progressive Conservative and Scheer still seems too Reform like to win there.  Scheer's French is very weak so losses in Quebec, although BQ gains will temper Liberal support there.  Ontario hates Ford and so desire to not have a second Conservative government will mean a very poor showing there.  In BC, environment is a huge issue and while any are fiscally conservative, Tories weak stance on the environment hurts them there.  Still with strong splits will probably gain in the last one.

I fear though national divisions will get worse as Alberta and Saskatchewan will feel even more alienated from the rest of Canada and that will be a challenge Trudeau will have to deal with which won't be easy.

[T'Chenka]

https://twitter.com/quito_maggi/status/1184924872251772931

I actually believe this might very well happen.  Devastating result for Tories and almost certainly will force Scheer's resignation and big changes in the party, but I think a combination of things are happening to cause this.  Tories are strong in Prairies but weak elsewhere.  Atlantic Canada is a Progressive Conservative and Scheer still seems too Reform like to win there.  Scheer's French is very weak so losses in Quebec, although BQ gains will temper Liberal support there.  Ontario hates Ford and so desire to not have a second Conservative government will mean a very poor showing there.  In BC, environment is a huge issue and while any are fiscally conservative, Tories weak stance on the environment hurts them there.  Still with strong splits will probably gain in the last one.

I fear though national divisions will get worse as Alberta and Saskatchewan will feel even more alienated from the rest of Canada and that will be a challenge Trudeau will have to deal with which won't be easy.

Perhaps the NDP will perform very well, Conservatives sputter out and Trudeau gets a minority with the NDP supporting them at a high cost. This could potentially speed up green initiatives out west to get the energy sector prepared for the future and show prairies voters that green energy, green jobs and green economy aren't just left wing pipe dreams. This would be HUGE in terms of Canada going green and in terms of shortening the divide between the provinces.

Not even close to a sure thing, but it's possible.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The only way I can see the NDP doing well is if the Liberals underperform. Almost all the close NDP seats (certainly outside the Prairies) are Liberal/NDP marginals. It's a little difficult to see the NDP taking most of those without the Liberals also suffering in Liberal/Tory marginals.

[Walmart_shopper]

https://twitter.com/quito_maggi/status/1184924872251772931

I actually believe this might very well happen.  Devastating result for Tories and almost certainly will force Scheer's resignation and big changes in the party, but I think a combination of things are happening to cause this.  Tories are strong in Prairies but weak elsewhere.  Atlantic Canada is a Progressive Conservative and Scheer still seems too Reform like to win there.  Scheer's French is very weak so losses in Quebec, although BQ gains will temper Liberal support there.  Ontario hates Ford and so desire to not have a second Conservative government will mean a very poor showing there.  In BC, environment is a huge issue and while any are fiscally conservative, Tories weak stance on the environment hurts them there.  Still with strong splits will probably gain in the last one.

I fear though national divisions will get worse as Alberta and Saskatchewan will feel even more alienated from the rest of Canada and that will be a challenge Trudeau will have to deal with which won't be easy.

I agree, but what else could the Conservatives possibly do? They picked the most generic and unoffensive candidate possible--someone youmg amd upbeat and right wing enough to avoid Tory defections while not setting off serious alarm bells among swing voters.

[Oryxslayer]

I think such a big gap in seats, when compared to the MOE popular vote, is Unlikely. There's just too many easy flips for team Blue, even with the Grit stranglehold on Ontario. There's also the NDP right now, in broad strokes are going to be picking up a bunch of lib/NDP seats that they lost in the 2015 wave.

However, the core theme of this election appears to be uncertainty. The Libs and Cons are going to be within the MOE of each other in votes, with the Libs having a more efficient vote spread. Nobody really likes either of them right now, but instead people are voting red to stop blue or vice versa, a fact compounded by their negative campaigns. Behind them though are the three minor parties who are all much more popular than the big two, easing their access to votes. However there are plenty of places on the map where a vote for the minors is realistically half a vote for one of the big two, depending on the circumstances. How the minors affect the big two is anyone's guess - tactical voting may be a thing, or it may not considering how detestable the big two are. So Maggi's prediction, while out there, has probably the same chance of occurring as any other prediction, this is as close to a tossup election as you can get.

[DC Al Fine]

https://twitter.com/quito_maggi/status/1184924872251772931

I actually believe this might very well happen.  Devastating result for Tories and almost certainly will force Scheer's resignation and big changes in the party, but I think a combination of things are happening to cause this.  Tories are strong in Prairies but weak elsewhere.  Atlantic Canada is a Progressive Conservative and Scheer still seems too Reform like to win there.  Scheer's French is very weak so losses in Quebec, although BQ gains will temper Liberal support there.  Ontario hates Ford and so desire to not have a second Conservative government will mean a very poor showing there.  In BC, environment is a huge issue and while any are fiscally conservative, Tories weak stance on the environment hurts them there.  Still with strong splits will probably gain in the last one.

I fear though national divisions will get worse as Alberta and Saskatchewan will feel even more alienated from the rest of Canada and that will be a challenge Trudeau will have to deal with which won't be easy.

I agree, but what else could the Conservatives possibly do? They picked the most generic and unoffensive candidate possible--someone youmg amd upbeat and right wing enough to avoid Tory defections while not setting off serious alarm bells among swing voters.

Good question

First off, let's not count our chickens before they hatch. Maggi's  poll/projection gave the Liberals a 66 seat lead over the Tories on a 1% lead. That's certainly possible under FPTP, but it feels a bit off, especially now that the Bloc has eliminated the possibility of the Liberals running up the score in Quebec. But assuming Maggi is correct...

Scheer's big issue in my opinion isn't his ideological positioning. I agree with your assessment there. There's an annoying genre of Canadian punditry that likes to pretend the Reform Party wasn't a thing and that there's zero risk of tacking left . His big problem is that he's just so darn uninspiring. A new leader (and another four years for Trudeau to make mistakes) might provide an opening on that front.

I think such a big gap in seats, when compared to the MOE popular vote, is Unlikely. There's just too many easy flips for team Blue, even with the Grit stranglehold on Ontario. There's also the NDP right now, in broad strokes are going to be picking up a bunch of lib/NDP seats that they lost in the 2015 wave.

Yeah, I think most seat projections have the big two roughly tied right now in seats. Maybe Maggi's polling has the Tories higher than most pollsters out West and lower everywhere else? That would explain the gap.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I was interested to look at the NDP ceiling and floor, so I took a quick glance at the projections on 338.

There are 18 ridings where the projection gives the NDP a lead above 5% (8 in BC; Saskatoon West; Churchill; 6 in Ontario; Rosemont; St John's East.) I wouldn't say they're all safe, but if they're only getting those then they're doing badly relative to expectations.

There's a further 18 ridings where they're ahead in the projections, but by less than 5%. 7 of those are held seats. And there are 12 ridings where they're behind but within 5%, 7 of which are held seats.

Finally, there are 10 ridings in Quebec where they're they the incumbents but the projection has them out of the running.

In 10 of the marginal ridings (ie a margin within 5%) they're competing against the Tories, in 20 they're competing with the Liberals, in 3 with the Bloc and in 2 with the Greens (5 of them are three-way fights.)

All of which suggests that at present they're still on course for a worse result than 2015; and that for their seat count they benefit much more from the Liberals slipping in the polls than the Conservatives.