2021 Canadian general election - Election Day and Results

[adma]

Why the Tory swing around Quebec?

Because when it came to post-Orange Crush dynamics, the Conservatives, and not the Liberals, were already positioned as the default alternative in most of the Capitale-Nationale (w/the exception of Louis-Hebert and Quebec)

I imagine it also has to do with ground game. The Capitale-Nationale/Chaudières-Appalaches/Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean belt is where Tories have a pre-existing base, so it would make sense if they put in a lot more effort there than, say, Greater Montreal where apart from a few Anglo suburbs they're lucky to keep their deposit.

I get that the Quebec City area and Chaudières-Appalaches are pretty well-suited to them, but I'll admit that I'm not really sure what Tory strength around Saguenay specifically is based on.

Well, "ground game" was my point when it came to being already established.  Essentially, they just picked up from before they were so rudely interrupted.

As far as the Saguenay goes:  think of it as a lucky circumstance of star candidates and a regional chain-reaction effect.  (And maybe more subliminally, it's more within the Quebec City orbit than it seems)

[mileslunn]

Why the Tory swing around Quebec?

Because when it came to post-Orange Crush dynamics, the Conservatives, and not the Liberals, were already positioned as the default alternative in most of the Capitale-Nationale (w/the exception of Louis-Hebert and Quebec)

I imagine it also has to do with ground game. The Capitale-Nationale/Chaudières-Appalaches/Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean belt is where Tories have a pre-existing base, so it would make sense if they put in a lot more effort there than, say, Greater Montreal where apart from a few Anglo suburbs they're lucky to keep their deposit.

I get that the Quebec City area and Chaudières-Appalaches are pretty well-suited to them, but I'll admit that I'm not really sure what Tory strength around Saguenay specifically is based on.

Saguenay is a bit odd as CAQ didn't breakthrough in this area until 2018, but its I believe older, very white, and quite nationalistic.  Area voted heavily yes in 95 referendum.  I think while more BQ, a lot in area come from right of party rather than left.  It does however have a strong union movement and despite O'Toole making efforts to win over those, Harper was pretty anti-union yet did better here than most of Quebec.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also looks like Tories despite not gaining, did see swings in their favour in parts of country they need to gain, namely Ontario, some parts of Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and even some areas in BC.  By contrast seems strongest swings away from them were Prairies where they could afford to lose lots of votes with few seats.  Interestingly enough in Ontario, race was closer than 2006 when Harper came to power and that election it was a 4.8 point spread between two parties with Liberals ahead while in 2021 it was a 4.3 spread.  Yet in 2006 it was 54 Liberals to 40 Tories out of 106 seats while in 2021 it was 37 to 77 out of 121 seats.  So seems results vote wise similar in Ontario to 2006, but Liberals way more efficient in 2021 than 2006.

Also wonder anybody have turnout numbers by riding.  Just looking at seat difference compared to vote, I cannot help but think turnout was much lower in GTA and urban ridings than rural ones so similar phenomenon to UK 2005 where Labour beat Tories by only 3%, yet got double the seats for this reason.

In Ontario, think of it as ruling-government incumbency, further urban-rural sorting (i.e. "metropolitan" seats in the outer GTA and Greater Ottawa and K-W-type places in SW Ontario being more thoroughly out of reach), the decline of the NDP and so-far lack of CPC seat gains in N Ontario, and the simple fact that there are so many more "Liberal-type" suburban seats now, thanks to population growth and thanks to the Harper-era expansion of Commons, which was supposed to work in *his* favour but didn't.

True but with only a four point spread, only way I could see this happening is if turnout was much higher in rural areas than metro ones and if turnout were equal that would mean Liberals would have bigger popular vote lead.  Its not like rural Ontario Tories are running up the score like they do in Prairies.  They won those ridings but solid margins, but they aren't blowouts like in Prairies.  After all only got over 50% in 6 ridings in the entire province and that is quite a bit less than Liberals.  So that is why curious if turnout higher in rural areas and certainly possible as with pandemic people in cities perhaps more worried thus more reluctant to show up than in rural areas where people seem to be less worried about pandemic.

Again, a big factor might be the most recent redistribution, which not only reflected suburban growth but was meant to give the suburbs more weight--which is how Ontario leapt from 106 to 121 seats, a outsize "redistribution bump" intended to avoid monstrosities like the former Oak Ridges-Markham.  Because when all is said and done, the Cons only had a net drop of 3 seats from '06.

'06 Con seats which are (or their equivalents are) no longer Con:  St. Catharines, Halton, Burlington, Milton, Cambridge, Kitchener-Conestoga, Whitby-Oshawa, Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Ottawa West-Nepean, Ottawa-Orleans, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.  Present Con seats which weren't Con in '06:  Huron-Bruce, Brantford-Brant, Thornhill, Kenora--and I suppose King-Vaughan as the spawn of former Liberal seats.  And added seats in the Barrie and Quinte areas, and I have to figure what else there might be...

Even then still double seats with only 4 point difference points to huge voter efficiency.  My guess is lower turnout in Liberal ridings than Conservative ones as only other way this happens is if votes evenly spread out like PEI or if Tories were running up margins in ridings they won and on balance Tory wins weren't exactly that much larger than Liberal ones were.  Both had strongholds and more mixed.

I am thinking it was more like UK 2005 where Labour only beat Tories by 3 points but got double seats and big reason was turnout was higher in Tory ridings than Labour.  Due to re-alignment that is no longer an issue in UK as Tories now winning many of those former Labour strongholds with low turnouts and Labour doing better in more middle class urban areas.

The Tories still arent anywhere near as efficient as Labour were in the Blair years. Keep in mind Boris won the PV by a larger margin than Blair did in 2001 yet his majority is more similar to Blair 2005 than Blair 2001

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Why the Tory swing around Quebec?

Because when it came to post-Orange Crush dynamics, the Conservatives, and not the Liberals, were already positioned as the default alternative in most of the Capitale-Nationale (w/the exception of Louis-Hebert and Quebec)

I imagine it also has to do with ground game. The Capitale-Nationale/Chaudières-Appalaches/Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean belt is where Tories have a pre-existing base, so it would make sense if they put in a lot more effort there than, say, Greater Montreal where apart from a few Anglo suburbs they're lucky to keep their deposit.

I get that the Quebec City area and Chaudières-Appalaches are pretty well-suited to them, but I'll admit that I'm not really sure what Tory strength around Saguenay specifically is based on.

Well, "ground game" was my point when it came to being already established.  Essentially, they just picked up from before they were so rudely interrupted.

As far as the Saguenay goes:  think of it as a lucky circumstance of star candidates and a regional chain-reaction effect.  (And maybe more subliminally, it's more within the Quebec City orbit than it seems)

Richard Martel seems to have a strong personal vote, but the Saguenay/LSJ region also had two Harper-era ministers in Denis Lebel and Jean-Pierre Blackburn, and I think that probably has downstream effects.

Because Conservatives win few seats in Quebec, the ones who do win tend to get good jobs and profile. Let's not forget, Maxime Bernier was the Minister of Foreign Affairs at one point - a job he was criminally unfit for, but Harper needed Quebecers in cabinet. Quebec Tories get a lot of attention and resources, and by extension, this builds ground game and party ID around their sphere of influence. This in addition to Quebec City's right-wing radio culture gives the CPC an unusual level of strength in this part of Quebec - at least, that's my theory.

At the provincial level, the Quebec City/Chaudières-Appalaches region is pretty right wing, but Saguenay/LSJ, not so much. The heartland of the CAQ vote really seems to be in the eastern townships, so I think Harper-era ground game is the crucial factor for the Conservative strength in the Lévis-Québec-Saguenay corridor

[mileslunn]

Why the Tory swing around Quebec?

Because when it came to post-Orange Crush dynamics, the Conservatives, and not the Liberals, were already positioned as the default alternative in most of the Capitale-Nationale (w/the exception of Louis-Hebert and Quebec)

I imagine it also has to do with ground game. The Capitale-Nationale/Chaudières-Appalaches/Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean belt is where Tories have a pre-existing base, so it would make sense if they put in a lot more effort there than, say, Greater Montreal where apart from a few Anglo suburbs they're lucky to keep their deposit.

I get that the Quebec City area and Chaudières-Appalaches are pretty well-suited to them, but I'll admit that I'm not really sure what Tory strength around Saguenay specifically is based on.

Well, "ground game" was my point when it came to being already established.  Essentially, they just picked up from before they were so rudely interrupted.

As far as the Saguenay goes:  think of it as a lucky circumstance of star candidates and a regional chain-reaction effect.  (And maybe more subliminally, it's more within the Quebec City orbit than it seems)

Richard Martel seems to have a strong personal vote, but the Saguenay/LSJ region also had two Harper-era ministers in Denis Lebel and Jean-Pierre Blackburn, and I think that probably has downstream effects.

Because Conservatives win few seats in Quebec, the ones who do win tend to get good jobs and profile. Let's not forget, Maxime Bernier was the Minister of Foreign Affairs at one point - a job he was criminally unfit for, but Harper needed Quebecers in cabinet. Quebec Tories get a lot of attention and resources, and by extension, this builds ground game and party ID around their sphere of influence. This in addition to Quebec City's right-wing radio culture gives the CPC an unusual level of strength in this part of Quebec - at least, that's my theory.

At the provincial level, the Quebec City/Chaudières-Appalaches region is pretty right wing, but Saguenay/LSJ, not so much. The heartland of the CAQ vote really seems to be in the eastern townships, so I think Harper-era ground game is the crucial factor for the Conservative strength in the Lévis-Québec-Saguenay corridor

And you see that in votes too.  Tories got over 50% in 6 ridings in Quebec, same number as Ontario and three times as many as in BC so shows where strong, they do well, but weak in much of rest of province.  Off course in Ontario PPC stronger especially in rural ridings so I suspect Tories would have gotten over 50% in closer to 20 ridings if PPC didn't exist whereas in Quebec probably only 8 as likely would have in Beauce and Richmond-Arthabaska (both fell just shy so even if not all PPC went CPC, enough would have to put them over the top).  On other hand Tories only got over 30% in 11 ridings in Quebec and above 25% in 14 ridings so that has advantages and disadvantages.  Advantage is Tories will win seats there even if they do really bad in province as a whole.  Disadvantage is not a lot of close ones they can pick up and need a massive swing to pick up a whole bunch whereas in Ontario a small swing allows them to pick up a whole whack of seats whereas in Quebec a 5% increase wouldn't make a big difference.

Could also as you mention be hedging bets as Quebecers always want influence in government so where Tories competitive some do just to ensure they have a voice in government if they win.

[DistingFlyer]

A validated count for Nunavut is up at last; still no update on completion of the Trois-Rivieres recount, or anything at all on Davenport or Brome.

[adma]

Richard Martel seems to have a strong personal vote, but the Saguenay/LSJ region also had two Harper-era ministers in Denis Lebel and Jean-Pierre Blackburn, and I think that probably has downstream effects.

Yet both of those were "circumstantial" as well--the former through a byelection much like Martel, the latter a Mulroney-era retread who was the beneficiary of strategic supertargeting as part of the '06 Harper Quebec breakthrough...

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Could also as you mention be hedging bets as Quebecers always want influence in government so where Tories competitive some do just to ensure they have a voice in government if they win.

Yes, I suspect many of the Tory voters in the Capitale-Nationale sphere of influence would have voted Bloc if they lived elsewhere in the province - although the key difference with Saguenay being that the Capitale-Nationale was pretty split on sovereignty (and Beauce voted "no" fairly comfortably), while Saguenay was the strongest region for the "yes" vote. This is probably a big part of why anti-Liberal voters in the Quebec City area gravitate to the Tories and not the Bloc.

[DC Al Fine]

Could also as you mention be hedging bets as Quebecers always want influence in government so where Tories competitive some do just to ensure they have a voice in government if they win.

Yes, I suspect many of the Tory voters in the Capitale-Nationale sphere of influence would have voted Bloc if they lived elsewhere in the province - although the key difference with Saguenay being that the Capitale-Nationale was pretty split on sovereignty (and Beauce voted "no" fairly comfortably), while Saguenay was the strongest region for the "yes" vote. This is probably a big part of why anti-Liberal voters in the Quebec City area gravitate to the Tories and not the Bloc.

Still, the Tories do tend to do better than their provincial average in the Lac St. Jean region, even when they don't have a star candidate. It's not enough to win most of the time, but it's enough to male me wonder why. The area doesn't exactly scream Toryism.

[DistingFlyer]

Trois-Rivieres recount completed: Bloc still holds it, now by 83 votes.

[mileslunn]

Anybody know how long it usually takes before Elections Canada post poll by poll results?  I am guessing sometime in November.  Would like to make some county and municipal maps like I have in past.

[Benjamin Frank]

These are the number of narrow defeats for each party.  I counted a narrow defeat as any riding lost by around 12.5%.  I chose 12.5% for my cutoff, after initially having it at 10%, because I kept wanting to find more close riding losses for the N.D.P but many of the ridings they lost were somewhere between 10-12.5%, so I decided to make it 12.5%

I have it at 'around' 12.5% because there were a handful of ridings that were lost by just more than 12.5% that I thought should be included because the trend in the region seemed to be in that direction. For instance, I counted Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing as a narrow defeat for the Conservatives even though they lost it by 12.7% to the N.D.P because the trend in Northern Ontario seems to be towards the Conservatives, as has already been mentioned in this thread.  Of course, this is somewhat academic as there should be riding redistribution before the next election.

P.Cs: in addition to winning 119 ridings, had narrow defeats in another 61 ridings.  So, on that basis they could form a reasonably comfortable majority government, but, as has also already been mentioned here, it's hard to see the Conservatives winning some of these ridings without having to position themselves in a way that would cost them others.

Liberals: in addition to winning 160 ridings (but at least one less M.P), had narrow defeats another 33 ridings. Obviously this means they are in the best position to form a majority government, but while the Conservative problem is ideological, the Liberals problem seems to be more regional.  While a good number of the ridings are urban/suburban, there are also a number of more rural ridings, and 10 of the ridings are in Quebec versus the B.Q.

NDP: in addition to winning 25 ridings, had narrow defeats in another 35 ridings.  As I said though, 14 or 15 of those ridings were losses by between 10% and around 12.5%.  I believe 17 of the ridings were in Ontario, which shouldn't be a surprise given that they only won 5 of the 121 Ontario ridings.

B.Q: In addition to winning 32 ridings, narrowly lost another 12 ridings, 11 to the Liberals and Chicoutimi-Le Fjord to the Conservatives.

Green: In addition to winning 2 ridings, narrowly lost their Nanaimo-Ladysmith riding to the N.D.P.

20 ridings were 3 way races
1.Beauport-Limoilou
2.Trois Rivieres
3.Hamilton East-Stoney Creek
4.Hamilton Mountain
5.London North Centre
6.London West
7.Niagara Centre
8.Nickel Belt
9.Sudbury
10.Thunder Bay-Rainy River
11.Timmins-James Bay
12.Windsor-Tecumseh
13.Edmonton Centre
14.Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam
15.Nanaimo-Ladysmith
16.Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge
17.Port Moody-Coquitlam
18.Vancouver-Granville
19.West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country
20.Yukon

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

https://twitter.com/withfilesfrom/status/1446842137929306112?s=20

A look at the PPC strength by Election Day poll in southern Manitoba (according to the article, this is preliminary data from Elections Canada, does anyone know if preliminary poll data is available somewhere to download for all ridings?)

Anyways, the PPC did best in Mennonite communities, which are more anti-vax than other surrounding communities.

[Benjamin Frank]

https://twitter.com/withfilesfrom/status/1446842137929306112?s=20
A look at the PPC strength by Election Day poll in southern Manitoba (according to the article, this is preliminary data from Elections Canada, does anyone know if preliminary poll data is available somewhere to download for all ridings?)

Anyways, the PPC did best in Mennonite communities, which are more anti-vax than other surrounding communities.

I agree with the broader point on this, that the PPC received a great deal of support from Covidiots, but as a matter of record, Maxime Bernier received 18.2% of the vote in his Beauce riding.

Obviously that is a unique case as he is both the party leader and a longtime former M.P for the riding, so it can't be said with nearly anywhere the same degree of certainty that his votes in Beauce came from Covidiots.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

https://twitter.com/withfilesfrom/status/1446842137929306112?s=20
A look at the PPC strength by Election Day poll in southern Manitoba (according to the article, this is preliminary data from Elections Canada, does anyone know if preliminary poll data is available somewhere to download for all ridings?)

Anyways, the PPC did best in Mennonite communities, which are more anti-vax than other surrounding communities.

I agree with the broader point on this, that the PPC received a great deal of support from Covidiots, but as a matter of record, Maxime Bernier received 18.2% of the vote in his Beauce riding.

Obviously that is a unique case as he is both the party leader and a longtime former M.P for the riding, so it can't be said with nearly anywhere the same degree of certainty that his votes in Beauce came from Covidiots.

For sure, but in the Mennonite communities the PPC won the polls - some with near 60% of the vote. I would agree that the anti-vax to PPC correlation was probably weakest in Beauce.

[Benjamin Frank]

I missed a riding in my previous post, this is the final breakdown of narrow losses, which, as I posted previously is any riding lost by less than 12.5% with a handful of exceptions of ridings lost between 12.5-13% based on the seeming trends.  As I also posted above this is probably academic given that there will likely be riding redistribution prior to the next election, but, for instance, for the NDP, I included two ridings they lost by slightly more than 12.5%

1.Saskatoon-University lost by 12.6%  Maybe if the NDP didn't keep running Claire Card there they'd do better, though she seems like a nice enough person to me.

2.Kenora lost by 12.7%.  In the previous post I said that Northern Ontario seems to be trending Conservative, but since things are probably still enough in flux that they could go either way, I decided to include that as well. Also, to be honest, if I didn't include it the NDP would be at 59 total winnable ridings, and I wanted a nice round number.

I have an accounting diploma, so I made sure all the totals balanced:

Narrow losses:
Conservatives: 61
Liberal: 33
NDP: 35
B.Q: 12
Green: 1
Total: 142
Less 3 way races: 20
Total 122 ridings of 338
or 216/338 ridings were not competitive.

Competitive ridings in each province/territory or region:
Atlantic: 13/32
Quebec: 25/78
Ontario: 52/121
Manitoba: 2/14
Saskatchewan: 3/14
Alberta: 5/34
British Columbia: 19/42
Territories: 3/3
Total 122/338

Range
Liberals (including Spadina-Fort York)
Atlantic: 15-28
Quebec: 23-45
Ontario: 42-89
Manitoba: 4-6
Saskatchewan: 0-0
Alberta: 0-3
British Columbia: 6-19
Territories: 0-3
Total: 90-193

Conservatives
Atlantic: 4-15
Quebec: 9-13
Ontario: 24-71
Manitoba: 5-7
Saskatchewan: 11-14
Alberta: 28-33
British Columbia: 10-26
Territories: 0-1
Total 91-180 (Also a nice round number!)

NDP
Atlantic: 0-2
Quebec: 1-3
Ontario: 3-22
Manitoba: 3-3
Saskatchewan: 0-3
Alberta: 1-4
British Columbia: 6-20
Territories: 0-3
Total: 14-60

Green
Ontario: 0-1
British Columbia: 1-2
Total 1-3

B.Q
Quebec: 20-44

Now here comes the accounting
Safe ridings for each party
Liberal: 90
Conservative: 91
NDP: 14
Green: 1
B.Q: 20
Total: 216

And, total winnable ridings for each party
Liberal: 193
Conservative: 180
NDP: 60
Green: 3
B.Q: 44
Total: 480

480 = 338 ridings + 122 competitive ridings + 20 three way race ridings.

If anybody is interested, I could redo this with a hard 10% gap as the maximum to be considered a 'close riding.'

[adma]

1.Saskatoon-University lost by 12.6%  Maybe if the NDP didn't keep running Claire Card there they'd do better, though she seems like a nice enough person to me.

Given that it's federal Saskatchewan these days, I'll assume the reverse, i.e. she's still a net asset.  (And it also fits into that "Mel Swart" NDP tradition of "viable perennial candidates" trying over and over until they actually win--which they actually can.)

Speaking of the NDP and its longer-term woes, another thing that's dawned on me is how, in Toronto, it's come to virtually disappear as a *municipal* factor outside of the core--up through the 80s, it was capable of viable runs for Council in Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc, but ever since the shock of the provincial Bob Rae regime, the viable "progressives" that run out there have tended to be Liberal or "non-affiliated", or else one form or another of pre-1990 retread.  And with that, the kind of infrastructural network that once would have buoyed such runs for higher office has died off or atrophied.  (Meanwhile, the "downtown caucus" has tended to get *more* NDP-dominant.)

[Geoffrey Howe]

https://twitter.com/withfilesfrom/status/1446842137929306112?s=20
A look at the PPC strength by Election Day poll in southern Manitoba (according to the article, this is preliminary data from Elections Canada, does anyone know if preliminary poll data is available somewhere to download for all ridings?)

Anyways, the PPC did best in Mennonite communities, which are more anti-vax than other surrounding communities.

The swing in some of these polls must be extraordinary. The Tories had an excellent showing last time round in these parts, often with the Christian Heritage Party in second.

E.g. Portage-Lisgar poll 186

CPC - 172 (94%)
CHP - 6 (3%)
PPC - 3 (2%)
NDP - 1 (>1%)

Even in 2019 the PPC often outpolled the Liberals.
 

[mileslunn]

I missed a riding in my previous post, this is the final breakdown of narrow losses, which, as I posted previously is any riding lost by less than 12.5% with a handful of exceptions of ridings lost between 12.5-13% based on the seeming trends.  As I also posted above this is probably academic given that there will likely be riding redistribution prior to the next election, but, for instance, for the NDP, I included two ridings they lost by slightly more than 12.5%

1.Saskatoon-University lost by 12.6%  Maybe if the NDP didn't keep running Claire Card there they'd do better, though she seems like a nice enough person to me.

2.Kenora lost by 12.7%.  In the previous post I said that Northern Ontario seems to be trending Conservative, but since things are probably still enough in flux that they could go either way, I decided to include that as well. Also, to be honest, if I didn't include it the NDP would be at 59 total winnable ridings, and I wanted a nice round number.

I have an accounting diploma, so I made sure all the totals balanced:

Narrow losses:
Conservatives: 61
Liberal: 33
NDP: 35
B.Q: 12
Green: 1
Total: 142
Less 3 way races: 20
Total 122 ridings of 338
or 216/338 ridings were not competitive.

Competitive ridings in each province/territory or region:
Atlantic: 13/32
Quebec: 25/78
Ontario: 52/121
Manitoba: 2/14
Saskatchewan: 3/14
Alberta: 5/34
British Columbia: 19/42
Territories: 3/3
Total 122/338

Range
Liberals (including Spadina-Fort York)
Atlantic: 15-28
Quebec: 23-45
Ontario: 42-89
Manitoba: 4-6
Saskatchewan: 0-0
Alberta: 0-3
British Columbia: 6-19
Territories: 0-3
Total: 90-193

Conservatives
Atlantic: 4-15
Quebec: 9-13
Ontario: 24-71
Manitoba: 5-7
Saskatchewan: 11-14
Alberta: 28-33
British Columbia: 10-26
Territories: 0-1
Total 91-180 (Also a nice round number!)

NDP
Atlantic: 0-2
Quebec: 1-3
Ontario: 3-22
Manitoba: 3-3
Saskatchewan: 0-3
Alberta: 1-4
British Columbia: 6-20
Territories: 0-3
Total: 14-60

Green
Ontario: 0-1
British Columbia: 1-2
Total 1-3

B.Q
Quebec: 20-44

Now here comes the accounting
Safe ridings for each party
Liberal: 90
Conservative: 91
NDP: 14
Green: 1
B.Q: 20
Total: 216

And, total winnable ridings for each party
Liberal: 193
Conservative: 180
NDP: 60
Green: 3
B.Q: 44
Total: 480

480 = 338 ridings + 122 competitive ridings + 20 three way race ridings.

If anybody is interested, I could redo this with a hard 10% gap as the maximum to be considered a 'close riding.'

This shows why Liberals lost popular vote but won election as it looks like most of the close ridings broke their way as in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, and BC all cases show Liberals much closer to high end than low end.  By contrast exact opposite for Tories.  That tells me Liberals if they mess up can fall quite a bit while Tories with a more focused and better campaign could gain a lot.

Also goes to Toronto Star article that Liberals were very targeted in approach and they really put a lot into close ridings thus why they won most rather than focusing on overall race like Tories did. 

And you can see it in votes.  Liberals only won Ontario by 4.3% so not a lot of votes yet got more than double the seats Tories did.  Even if every PPC vote went CPC, they still would have won majority of seats in Ontario despite fact CPC + PPC got more votes than Liberals.  Same in BC where Liberals came in third in votes but first in seats.  Atlantic Canada interesting as that was perhaps the one region where Tories were pleased with the results yet this seems to suggest on gains they came in on low end and could have made it even more competitive.

One province though where voter efficiency went opposite was New Brunswick.  Liberals widened lead and won by 9 points yet in seats it was 6 to 4.  There it seems like provincial politics, Liberals won big in Francophone areas, while Tories won Anglophone parts but by much narrower margin. 

Some were blaming PPC, yet if you added every PPC vote to Tories, Liberals still would have won despite a 5 point lead.

[StateBoiler]

I counted a narrow defeat as any riding lost by around 12.5%.  I chose 12.5% for my cutoff, after initially having it at 10%, because I kept wanting to find more close riding losses for the N.D.P but many of the ridings they lost were somewhere between 10-12.5%, so I decided to make it 12.5%

Selection bias.

[Benjamin Frank]

I counted a narrow defeat as any riding lost by around 12.5%.  I chose 12.5% for my cutoff, after initially having it at 10%, because I kept wanting to find more close riding losses for the N.D.P but many of the ridings they lost were somewhere between 10-12.5%, so I decided to make it 12.5%

Selection bias.

Any cutoff point for what is and isn't a narrow defeat is arbitrary.  It's only a half a dozen or so ridings that were greater than 12.5% that I considered to be narrow defeats. 

If you're an American and commenting on a Canadian election, you should be aware that Canadian ridings tend to have far greater swings from election to election than American U.S House districts.  So, whereas a 55-45% U.S House district is barely competitive unless that was the result in a wave year, in Canada that's much more competitive historically.

[adma]

If you're an American and commenting on a Canadian election, you should be aware that Canadian ridings tend to have far greater swings from election to election than American U.S House districts.  So, whereas a 55-45% U.S House district is barely competitive unless that was the result in a wave year, in Canada that's much more competitive historically.

I can't help thinking of the bemusement of a lot of Canadians when they hear of a Mississippi US Senate race being deemed "safe GOP" even at a projected 55-45 margin--but that's all heavily racialized terminal inelasticity making its mark...

[mileslunn]

Most political junkies and those on social media blindly support a party, but amongst average voters, they are a lot more fluid.  Sometime after 2015, Angus-Reid asked people if you voted for a party at least once in last five elections, all the time, or none.  For Tories, 49% never voted Conservative, another 32% did at least once but not all 5 while only 19% did all five times.  That means only 19% are reliable conservative voters while 51% did at least once.  While idea of Tories falling to 19% or getting as high as 51% seems absurd, it does show there are far more swing voters than people realize.  Reason Tories never do as bad as 19% or as high as 51% is people switch for different reasons so anytime something happens, you gain some and you lose some.

[StateBoiler]

I counted a narrow defeat as any riding lost by around 12.5%.  I chose 12.5% for my cutoff, after initially having it at 10%, because I kept wanting to find more close riding losses for the N.D.P but many of the ridings they lost were somewhere between 10-12.5%, so I decided to make it 12.5%

Selection bias.

Any cutoff point for what is and isn't a narrow defeat is arbitrary.  It's only a half a dozen or so ridings that were greater than 12.5% that I considered to be narrow defeats.  

You chose to change your definition of what you considered close to benefit a particular group. Granted, you can do the results for 10%, but if you're wanting to do a mathematical analysis of results, you need to take a cruel unsympathetic point of view and not caring what is outside or inside based on how it makes your results look unless you're specifically being a blind partisan, perhaps even to yourself. Numbers don't have feelings. So you change it from 10% to 12.5% to help the NDP, and then you include extra results right outside that number, so really it's not 12.5%, it's 13%. You lay out in your post the case you want to make and then before you even start diving into the numbers make your case more wishy-washy. Just trying to help you become better.

[StateBoiler]

If you're an American and commenting on a Canadian election, you should be aware that Canadian ridings tend to have far greater swings from election to election than American U.S House districts.  So, whereas a 55-45% U.S House district is barely competitive unless that was the result in a wave year, in Canada that's much more competitive historically.

I can't help thinking of the bemusement of a lot of Canadians when they hear of a Mississippi US Senate race being deemed "safe GOP" even at a projected 55-45 margin--but that's all heavily racialized terminal inelasticity making its mark...

The size of our electorates is much larger, so the number of votes difference between a Canadian Parliament seat being spread by 10 points and a U.S. Senate seat being spread by 10 points is very large.