🇨🇦 2024 Canadian by-elections

[adma]

50 polls: 53.7 Con, 23.8 Lib, 12.2 NDP, 4.9 PPC, 2.3 Green, 1.5 Centrist (and 1% apiece for an indy and the United Party, and .2% and 6 votes for the Rhinos)

[adma]

65 polls: 54.0 Con, 23.5 Lib, 11.6 NDP, 4.9 PPC 2.2 Green, and I'll skip mentioning Centrist from here on in because it's beginning to herd w/the indy & United. (And only 4.53% registered electors thus far.)

[adma]

90 polls: 54.6, 23.4, 11.3, 4.8, 2.2.

And CBC's called it.

[adma]

125 polls: 55.3, 23.0, 11.1, 4.6, 2.1.  When you think the Cons can't get any higher, they keep getting higher.  (And Centrist and the indy are now very close together.)

[adma]

150 polls: 55.5, 22.6, 11.2, 4.8, 2.3.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Totally unsurprising. Nobody asked for my take, but here it is:

Conservatives: Pretty good result, all things considered. 50% was kind of the benchmark, and with about half the polls reporting, Jivani's sitting at 55% - which is also what 338Canada currently has the riding as. Better yet, he seems to be climbing up. After so many byelections where the CPC totally underperformed, this is in line with the polls, the same polls that have the CPC in a comfortable majority. Yeah, I'm happy with that. A good performance in an Ontario riding is also good, even though this riding isn't that reflective of most of the GTA.

Liberals: 23% right now. Again, pretty much in line with the polling and overall trends. Seems like the Liberal GOTV machine is still humming along, there just aren't as many Liberal voters to turn out as there used to be. But they could still run surprisingly competitive in the suburbs.

NDP: 11% right now, which is not good. I know the NDP tends to underperform in byelections, but again it's all about that GOTV machine. The Elmwood-Transcona byelection will be more important for the NDP. The message we're getting from Durham though is that the Liberal vote isn't going NDP, which is bad news for the latter.

I'll also mention the PPC because I really didn't think they'd be hovering around 5% with half the polls reporting, which is basically what they did in 2021 (5.5%). All while Jivani is currently 9 points up from where O'Toole finished (as leader, no less), and inching close to 10.

Important caveat: Almost nobody is voting. It's basically a school council election. 12.58% of eligible voters have voted so far, and we've already counted 68% of the vote, which would put us at a turnout of 18.4%. It's hard to take much away when over 4/5 of the eligible electorate doesn't bother to turn up.

[adma]

175 polls: 55.3, 22.8, 11.0, 4.8, 2.4.

[adma]

Maybe it was advance polls starting to factor in, but at 190 polls we've hit the 20% turnout threshold--and otherwise, 56.8, 22.1, 10.7, 4.7, 2.2, and the indy pushed ahead of the Centrist candidate.  (The Conservative bump also suggests an advance-poll effect.)

[adma]

210 polls: 56.9, 22.5, 10.5, 4.5, 2.2.  Wonder whether the NDP will dip below the 10% threshold...

[adma]

214 polls: the Cons higher than ever at 57.4, 22.2, 10.5, 4.5, 2.2, and nearly 1/4 turnout so far.

[adma]

222 polls: 57.2, 22.6, 10.4, 4.5, 2.2.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Conservative   Jamil Jivani   18,610   57.4 %
Liberal   Robert Rock   7,285   22.5 %
NDP-New Democratic Party   Chris Borgia   3,363   10.4 %
People's Party - PPC   Patricia Conlin   1,435   4.4 %
Green Party   Kevin MacKenzie   698   2.2 %
Independent   Pranay Gunti   374   1.2 %
Centrist   Khalid Qureshi   336   1.0 %
United Party of Canada (UP)   Grant Abraham   238   0.7 %
Parti Rhinocéros Party   Adam Smith   62   0.2 %

Total number of valid votes:       32,401   
Polls Reporting:  225 of 225 (100 %)

Voter Turnout:  32,401 of 116,259 registered electors (27.87 %) -- does not include electors who registered on election day.

So, Liberals make a last minute amazing comeback. Just goes to show you shouldn't comment until all the polls come in.

[Flyersfan232]

best tory results since 1917

[Flyersfan232]

best tory results since 1917

that was during war time during peace time it was 56%

[DL]

Getting over 10% is important since it qualifies a candidate to get half of all election expenses rebated by Elections Canada...it will be interesting to see how much each party actually spent in this byelection.

The Tories likely spent the maximum allowed by law during the writ period which is about $100,000, plus I'll bet the Tories also spent a vast sum before the byelection was called when they could spend as much as they wanted.

The Liberals likely spent a decent amount - maybe $60k to $70k

I'd wager that the NDP spent very, very little here - like maybe $5,000 (meaning that getting over 10% might save them $2,500).

FWIW back in 2013 there was a federal byelection in Durham when O'Toole was first elected. That time the NDP made a fully funded effort and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the seat - they managed to come in second with 26% but still wayyyyy behind the Tory. Moral of the story is unless you are rolling in dough, its a waste of money to spend the maximum just to lose by a slightly smaller margin

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Getting over 10% is important since it qualifies a candidate to get half of all election expenses rebated by Elections Canada...it will be interesting to see how much each party actually spent in this byelection.

The Tories likely spent the maximum allowed by law during the writ period which is about $100,000, plus I'll bet the Tories also spent a vast sum before the byelection was called when they could spend as much as they wanted.

The Liberals likely spent a decent amount - maybe $60k to $70k

I'd wager that the NDP spent very, very little here - like maybe $5,000 (meaning that getting over 10% might save them $2,500).

FWIW back in 2013 there was a federal byelection in Durham when O'Toole was first elected. That time the NDP made a fully funded effort and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the seat - they managed to come in second with 26% but still wayyyyy behind the Tory. Moral of the story is unless you are rolling in dough, its a waste of money to spend the maximum just to lose by a slightly smaller margin

That may be so, but this is the seventh byelection in the current parliament, and in every single one of them, the NDP has lost vote share from 2021. It's understandable, sure, the NDP relies more on low-propensity voters who might not turn out in a byelection, they have less money to spend, and none of the seven byelections have been held in realistic NDP targets. But the higher end of polling currently has the NDP in a statistical tie with the Liberals. If they want to leapfrog the LPC, which they should absolutely be aiming for, they need to show something. Because if I'm an ABC voter whose main priority is stopping Poilievre, these last few byelections have given me zero reason to think that the NDP are a viable option.

[Hatman 🍁]

best tory results since 1917

Wrong. Best result since 1984 (59%). The riding had a different name though (Durham-Northumberland)

[Hatman 🍁]

Swings:

Cons: +11.0%
Lib: -7.4%
NDP: -7.1%
PPC: -1.1%
Grn: +2.2% (did not run in 2021)

Cons HOLD (Avg. swing: +9.2%)

[DL]

Because if I'm an ABC voter whose main priority is stopping Poilievre, these last few byelections have given me zero reason to think that the NDP are a viable option.

I have news for you - NO ONE is going to stop Poilievre. The Tories will win the next election its a 100% certainty unless a meteor hits the earth. It won't matter of you vote Liberal or vote NDP or vote Green or vote Rhino (do they still exist) - the Tories will win. The only issue in the next election will be the balance of power between Liberals and NDP on the opposition benches.

The whole strategic voting argument only makes sense IF you live in a marginal seat and IF there is any doubt whatsoever as to who will win the election. The current situation is reminding me of the 1984 election - at the start of that campaign people thought the NDP was doomed (for a variety of reasons) - but once it became clear that the Tories under Mulroney were going to win in a landslide, people in ridings where the NDP had incumbents running or were clearly competitive "came home" to the NDP since it was clear that the Liberals were 100% certain to lose no matter what. 

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Because if I'm an ABC voter whose main priority is stopping Poilievre, these last few byelections have given me zero reason to think that the NDP are a viable option.

I have news for you - NO ONE is going to stop Poilievre. The Tories will win the next election its a 100% certainty unless a meteor hits the earth. It won't matter of you vote Liberal or vote NDP or vote Green or vote Rhino (do they still exist) - the Tories will win. The only issue in the next election will be the balance of power between Liberals and NDP on the opposition benches.

The whole strategic voting argument only makes sense IF you live in a marginal seat and IF there is any doubt whatsoever as to who will win the election. The current situation is reminding me of the 1984 election - at the start of that campaign people thought the NDP was doomed (for a variety of reasons) - but once it became clear that the Tories under Mulroney were going to win in a landslide, people in ridings where the NDP had incumbents running or were clearly competitive "came home" to the NDP since it was clear that the Liberals were 100% certain to lose no matter what. 

It could make a difference if the Conservatives are held to a minority.

[DL]

If the Tories fall just short of a majority - guess what, they will still have $40 million in the bank while all the other parties will be virtually bankrupted post campaign - meaning that PP would simply declare all votes to be confidence votes and dare the opposition parties to trigger a snap election that none has any money for.

The only possible way that we avoid this would be if the Tories were the largest party but the Liberals plus NDP had a majority between them - for that to happen the election would have to be quite close. Right now the Liberals would likely lose by about a hundred seats - ad I don't see what's going to change that. This government has "DEAD" written all over it - feels like the Liberals in 1984 or the Tories in 1993

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

If the Tories fall just short of a majority - guess what, they will still have $40 million in the bank while all the other parties will be virtually bankrupted post campaign - meaning that PP would simply declare all votes to be confidence votes and dare the opposition parties to trigger a snap election that none has any money for.

The only possible way that we avoid this would be if the Tories were the largest party but the Liberals plus NDP had a majority between them - for that to happen the election would have to be quite close. Right now the Liberals would likely lose by about a hundred seats - ad I don't see what's going to change that. This government has "DEAD" written all over it - feels like the Liberals in 1984 or the Tories in 1993

Of course the financial situation was different, but in 1979 the Liberals campaigned so as to hold the Progressive Conservatives to a minority with the expectation that the Progressive Conservatives, having nobody (or nearly nobody) in the caucus who had been in the previous Progressive Conservative government and given the situation facing Canada at the time would quickly make themselves unpopular and the Liberals would be back in power shortly after.

Of course, that worked out even better than the Liberals could have dreamed given that the Progressive Conservatives fell on their budget that raised gas taxes by 18 cents a gallon.

I'm not a Liberal Party insider by any means, but I have to imagine that even with all the money the Conservatives have in the bank, that many Liberals are similarly expecting Poilievre to quickly also become very unpopular given his simple promises (elect us and Canada will magically immediately get better) and (self serving) contradictions.

Stephen Harper more or less bided his time waiting for a majority government, and even then, he largely hesitated arguing that every day the Liberals weren't in power that Canada became a slightly less liberal country. (I think he was clearly wrong about that.)

About the only things Harper focused on was getting the budget back into balance (not a bad thing to achieve) and pleasing the fossil fuel sector, the defacto owners of the Conservative Party.

Poilievre is clearly going to be much more active, and, if he also hesitates, I think the Conservative Party base will not be nearly as patient with him as they were with Harper.

Of course I'm not saying that Canadians would necessarily negatively judge an activist Conservative government, but I'm sure that many Liberals and Liberal insiders would, hence the value in holding the Conservatives to a minority.

Of course, it would almost certainly take the Bloc Quebecois to agree to bring the Conservatives down, but that would require the Conservatives to have the backing of the separatists as Harper has accused the Liberals (or the 'Liberal/NDP coalition.) even if the Bloc abstain.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I think there clearly is a time when public sentiment gets set in stone so it won't change no matter what happens (this imaginary external event that some Liberals joke about.) I think the polling has been consistent enough for long enough to say that we are here now federally no matter what happens.

I saw this in 2000-2001 in B.C as well (although for some reason the polling slightly underestimated NDP support.)

What does everybody else here think?

[adma]

best tory results since 1917

Wrong. Best result since 1984 (59%). The riding had a different name though (Durham-Northumberland)

For the record, in the first provincial election where provincial + federal boundaries coincided (1999), Erin O'Toole's dad John got 57.07%; so slightly less.  (But he was first elected in Durham East w/61.79% in '93; and that riding's boundaries were fundamentally "equivalent" to the present federal riding, give or take)

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Lisa Raitt (and Don Iveson) are on CBC Power and Politics right now advocating for pre fab housing, which should be obvious given the obvious benefit of standardized assembly line production.

It takes about 3 months to build a house on a lot, it takes about 3 weeks to build a house using pre fab methods. So, it's faster, cheaper and, as they mentioned, produces less GHGs.

Obviously Raitt isn't perfect but she would be a benefit to any party that she might choose to run for.