Going into the last week of a campaign, the buzz on the street is always your most important indicator of the outcome. When you work with the media, candidates and their campaigns will try and spin you a hundred different ways. So you need to hang out with real people who aren’t directly tied to campaigns. A good chunk of my weekend was spent talking to other people, from other parents at our kids’ Saturday afternoon activities to folks in the coffee shop to the nice people next to me in the pew Sunday morning.

The buzz is pretty much unanimous: Another Harper minority, another local win for Tony Martin (NDP). My gut feeling agrees with the latter. As one poster’s better half, a fellow parent, put it to me at the Y: “Tony is a safe bet. At least you know what he will do, which is nothing. Nobody is sure about the other [candidates].”

I’m not so sure it won’t be a Harper majority; the late NDP surge – they’re now in a statistical tie with the Liberals – may allow Tories to come up the middle in ridings where they otherwise weren’t competitive.

So barring some major faux pas this week, I’m predicting a Tony Martin win locally and a slim Tory majority nationally.

In speaking with other voters over the weekend, here’s what I found most interesting: They’re still asking the same questions about each candidate that they were asking when the writ was dropped.

Here are the questions:

- What has Tony Martin (NDP) done for this riding?

- Who is Cameron Ross (Conservative)?

- Why is Paul Bichler (Liberal), who has made Southern Ontario his home for the past few years, now running in the Sault?

- Why vote Luke MacMichael (Green), Cory Mcleod (First Nations Peoples Party) or Mike Taffarel (Marxist-Leninist) when their chances of winning are minute?

Note to individual campaigns: You have only a week left, so don’t waste time shooting the messenger. Answer the question for voters. They’re the ones who will decide your fate on October 14, not annoying Internet pundits like me.

Anyway, here are my predicted numbers for the Sault Ste. Marie riding:

1 – Tony Martin – 17,000
2 – Cameron Ross – 14,000
3 – Paul Bichler – 11,000
4 – Luke McMichael – 1,500
5 – Cory Mcleod – 500
6 – Mike Taffarel – 150

How did I arrive at these numbers? That’s easy. I asked my four-year-old, who is much more current in these matters than her old man.

One question that keeps coming up locally is how does Tony Martin keep winning elections when just under two-thirds of local voters opt for other candidates and the popular perception is that he has not delivered anything to this riding. The short answer is as follows: he’s a political care bear. He shows up at opportune times from his cloudy kingdom to tell you he cares.

But here’s a longer explanation. I agree with Mac Headrick, a local NDP columnist with whom I have the pleasure of writing at SooToday.com. You can check out Mac’s columns here. Mac has repeatedly told supporters of other parties to quit whining about Tony’s wins and take an honest look at how Tony wins them.

Saying Tony comes up the middle because the Sault is an NDP riding just doesn’t work any more. At one time, yes, the Sault was a NDP power base. But the local NDP base strength has been eroding now for some years. Need proof? Look no further than the Sault’s MPP, David Orazietti.

A Tory collapse can account for Orazietti’s 2003 provincial win, in which he defeated NDP incumbent Tony Martin. (This would set the stage for Tony to enter the federal race a year later and narrowly win the seat from Liberal incumbent Carmen Provenzano). A similar Tory collapse helped Orazietti retain his seat for the the Liberals in the 2007 Ontario election, but Orazietti also increased his percentage of popular vote in 2007 while driving that of the NDP down by six percentage points, to 26.4 percent. By way of comparison, Tony pulled in 38.9 percent of the vote during the 2006 federal election – a difference of over 12 percentage points from what the provincial NDP candidate, Jeff Arbus, pulled in the 2007 provincial election. And in the raw vote count, Tony doubled Arbus. Polls show Tony pulling in similar numbers this election.

These are Tony votes, not NDP votes. These are people voting for the local candidate and not the party. So why do they vote Tony?

Numerous polls and studies, from different political parties and non-partisan groups, in different geo-political areas, and independent of each other, more-or-less come up with the same results when determining how people vote. It’s something like this:

- 60% – Does the candidate care about me and the community?
- 30% – Policy
- 10% – Other

Like it or not, this is what comes up time and time again. This is the difference between Tony’s numbers and those brought in by Jeff Arbus. It’s Tony’s reputation as “a nice guy, who cares about his constituents.” It’s the little things Tony has done to make himself visible in this community, and behind-the-scenes, like helping the elderly fill out passport applications. He doesn’t bring in any big money to the riding, other popular local politicians cannot rely upon him, but everyone in the riding has a personal story about Tony personally helping some disadvantaged relative maneuvre through governmental red tape.

The perception may or may not be true in real life, but it’s the popular perception. And like it or not, people vote according to their perception.

The same is true about the popular perception about the Sault’s other local politicians who keep getting re-elected by large margins:

- Orazietti: Cares about the community and its future. Look at the money he brings in.

- Councillor Frank Manzo: Cares about the average taxpayer. Only politician to return people’s phone calls. Will help you even when your own councillor is not getting back to you.

- Mayor John Rowswell: Has the personality of grumpy bear being woken up during hibernation, but he cares about this community and its people and is just trying to move us forward. So people take his side when he feuds with local reporters, city administrators, and other local politicians.

For Liberal candidate Paul Bichler or Conservative candidate Cameron Ross to win, each needs to establish himself, as soon as possible during this last week of campaigning, as the candidate who most cares about the Sault and its people. I have no doubt that this is the case in real life, but it needs to be popular perception. When people don’t know enough about a candidate, they don’t know if that candidate cares or not.

Which is why Tony Martin keeps winning.

As we move forward with the last week of the campaign, for all those of you who fear the political discourse will be degraded by bitter partisanship, I’ve put together this little video to help you through it.

I got a strange phone call this afternoon, from a local number I didn’t recognize. I picked up the phone and said hello, and a nervous woman’s voice said, “Hello, I’m calling on behalf of Michelle Hunter, the Conservative candidate in the riding of Wascana. Can she count on your vote on October 14th?”

I was a little taken aback, especially since I hadn’t heard the question clearly, so I asked the caller to clarify if Michelle was asking if I’d vote for her. The woman confirmed that’s what she said, so I gave my honest answer.

“No. You cannot count on that, because Mrs. Hunter didn’t even show up to an all candidates forum I attended at the UofR, and when I emailed her to ask why, I never got a reply.”
“Oh. I’ll let her know that,” the apparently startled woman responded. *click* – she hung up.

Two minutes later my phone rang again and it appeared to be the same number phoning back. Good, I thought, a little worked up now that the woman hadn’t even asked for my phone number to confirm they could get back in touch with me should Michelle actually want to respond to my question (yeah, right!). And this was what I heard in response to my next, “Hello?”:
“Hello, I’m calling on behalf of Michelle Hunter, the Conservative candidate in the riding of Wascana. Can she count on your vote on October 14th?”

“I just told you that I would not be voting Conservative because Michelle didn’t even respond to my email. And you have a problem with your phone system because you just phoned here.” “Oh, okay, thanks.” *click*

*sigh*

And I wonder if the supreme irony could be that my phone number ended up on their call list because I’d emailed it to the Conservative campaign office asking them to call it with an answer to where I could hear Michelle speak in public. I’ve spoken with the other 3 parties candidates in Wascana, in public, but have yet to hear Michelle speak for herself. Twice, I’ve had different people speak to me on her behalf.

Being an east coaster Newfoundlander originally, my political perspectives were shaped somewhat differently than that which I am accustomed to in the Riding of Skeena- Bulkley Valley. In Newfoundland a radical might be one who considered serious campaigning on the Sabbath. Well in this riding, lets just say the idea of British Columbia laying claim to more relevant political extremes, is not a myth.

The Friday all candidates meeting seemed to show the diversity well in the forefront, as all six candidates struck a claim to their ideological tent that provided varying degrees of comfort to the realities of the day.

The newest candidate in the riding is none other than Mary Etta Goodacre of the fringe Canadian Action Party. Her candidacy is noteworthy by virtue of her family affiliations. Her husband Bill is a current councilor and Mayoral candidate in Smithers for the upcoming November municipal elections. Her ideological bent can be best typlified as being left of left. Her major platform consisting of trying warn the electorate of the 9-11 conspiracy which was ” mastermined by a cabol of the very rich and wealthy” You can see that her platform is less resonant with even the extreme fringes of the riding. Still her spunk and determination to tell her narrative is inspiring for those who believe in the democratic space of our nation.

To the right of her was the Liberal candidate Corriane Morhart a social worker and a firm believer in the “Smithers is hockeyville” movement as she donned the sweater which acted as the shield to our towns claim to the title a few years back. She was probably the least polished of any Liberal Candidate I ever encountered. Along with her attire she used most of her closing remarks to request a moment of silence in memory of the hiway of tears victims. One of the family members in a question, posted pictures of a few of the missing girls on the stage in a further touching moment in their memory.

In addition two more of the also-rans in the meeting were the Green and Christian Heritage candidates Hondo Aarnot and Rod Taylor respectively. While both are not contenders to the MP prize, their visions were more palatable to the extremes in the theater and riding. Hondo Arenot, in addition to tabling the green agenda made a impassioned plea to the electorate to cast a vote to the Greens as the ” NDP of the 21st century” Taylor a well respected mill worker, is also a candidate for the CHP’s National Leadership. His interaction with the audience was well received even if not convincing. His usage of strong language such as ” demographic winter” in discussing our aging population was very insightful. While many may not vote for either candidate their story left all with food for thought.

From here it leaves the two contenders Conservative Sharon Smith and NDP MP Nathan Cullen. Both presented their and their parties vision for the riding but Cullen offered the most realistic resume for the future as he offered his qualms regarding the Blue Pearl mining project off Hudson Bay Mountain. The project is believed to be fast tracked without proper vetting from all stakeholders. His call on the company to further engage the locals appeared polished and well-engaging to appeal to the broader audience. Smith’s passionate plea for all stakeholders fisherman, experts, communities and Aboriginal groups offered her a outlet to engage to her electorate. Still she seemed to be more concerned in not going to far away from the Harper agenda and it showed in some of her pauses in conversation.

In a nutshell in addition to the audience questioning, which included a lady launching a speech that included ” believing that all third boys should have a vasectomy” the exercise probably changed few minds. Still the all-candidates meeting served its purpose to give all candidates a voice that can be heard. Moreover, it is gratifying that the meeting was held on Friday rather than Sunday for example, as that would of left those like CHP’s Rod Taylor to skip in reverence to the Sabbath. Although , as the campaign heads to the homestretch the electoral winter as approaching many who are wishing for a day of rest. And that perhaps will be a thanksgiving for all.

Le plus récent sondage Harris/Decima (qui devrait se refléter lors de la prochaine mise à jour sur Democratic Space) indique que l’appui réservé aux partis traditionnels a fortement décliné depuis le début de la campagne. En effet :

- L’appui au Parti conservateur a chuté de six points, passant de 41% à 35%

- Celui au Parti libéral a également diminué de quatre points, passant de 26% à 22%

D’un océan à l’autre, cela représente donc une baisse globale de 10% de l’appui habituellement réservé aux partis traditionnels. De tout temps, une diminution du vote conservateur allait de pair avec une augmentation du vote libéral et inversement. Mais cette année, il semble en être tout autrement.

À l’heure actuelle, c’est le NPD et, dans une moindre mesure, le Parti vert qui récoltent les votes des électeurs insatisfaits par les partis traditionnels. Ainsi :

- L’appui au NPD a bondi de six points, passant de 14% à 20%

- Celui au Parti vert a également augmenté de quatre points, passant de 9% à 13%

Au Québec, l’appui au Bloc, qui a vacillé entre 30% et 40% durant la campagne, se situe présentement à 37%; une hausse de 2% en un mois.

Selon Bruce Anderson, président de Harris/Decima, « En ce moment, les conservateurs risquent clairement de perdre l’opportunité de remporter une majorité de sièges, surtout en raison d’une nette diminution de leur support en Ontario. » En effet, l’appui ontarien aux conservateurs est passé de 41% à 34%, tandis que celui aux libéraux a quant à lui stagné à 34%. Les deux partis en sont donc au nez à nez dans la province qui compte le nombre le plus élevé de sièges.

Or, si de l’aveu de Bruce Anderson l’élection d’un gouvernement majoritaire conservateur ne semble plus envisageable, il est cependant ardu de prédire qui formera l’opposition officielle. Avec un écart d’à peine 2% entre les libéraux et les néo-démocrates et une dizaine de jours avant l’élection, la seule certitude est que désormais, tout est possible…

At the beginning of the campaign it looked as though former Liberal MP Marc Godbout had a good chance of retaking the traditional Liberal riding of Ottawa-Orleans. Incumbent Royal Galipeau had taken the riding away from him by a small margin the last time, helped by the fact that the NDP ran a strong candidate who won more than 15% of the vote. This time the NDP has been practically invisible, not announcing a candidate until the very last minute. Godbout should have been able to count on a significant proportion of those votes returning to the Liberal fold. The Greens are running a stronger candidate than the NDP and will probably outpoll them.

But a recent poll (small number polled) indicates that Galipeau has a commanding lead over Godbout. Godbout appears to be relatively competetive among the francophone minority (one-third) but lagging behind Galipeau among the anglophones. I find this surprising. Could it be that Liberal infighting is holding Godbout back? Would they have been wiser to pick an alternate candidate for this campaign,e.g. the former NDP candidate, Mark Leahy

In the United States, and to a lesser degree in Canada, there is a libertarian movement afoot, with some of its proponents tacking hard to extreme positions by calling for the outright abolition of all government. A scenario like that would not see freer people, but total and destructive anarchy.
As is true of all things in life, the truth is found in the middle. Government must be reduced, since it has become too bloated and wasteful in most Western countries, particularly in Canada, but at the same time a healthy balance must be struck between people’s own responsibility for their actions and the areas where government does, and must, have a role to play.

Such a balance, however, will differ from country to country, because such a reform must take into account a country’s history and traditions – after all, where would the average Scandinavian be if his beloved Nanny State were to be taken away from him?
(more…)

Just in case the race in Edmonton-Strathcona wasn’t quite exciting enough for you already, get a load of this new wrinkle: “Tories polling scared” in the “Liberals for Linda” blog.

A local firm called Bannister Research has begun polling in Strathcona. I was called. The questions were:

1. How likely am I to vote
2. Which party am I going to vote for (no list provided)
3. Which candidate in Edmonton Strathcona am I going to vote for (no list provided)
4. What do I think is the most important issue

I don’t think that the NDP or the Liberals are likely to be commissioning any polling. The firm is the very same that in 2004 released a poll on the Mayoralty race that showed former Mayor Bill Smith in the lead.

Of course, Stephen Mandel went on to win, and it was later revealed that the Bannister poll was commissioned by Smith’s campaign. A bit dodgey wouldn’t you say?

This poll could only have been commissioned by the Conservatives. I can only assume that they know that they are in trouble.

It’s a fascinating set of accusations: one, the notion the Tories have commissioned a poll in Edmonton-Strathcona, and two, that they hired a firm that might just be willing to play dirty pool with the numbers.  Whether true or not, I have to say, it’s starting to feel a bit like a bad Hollywood film out here.  And there’s even some theft involved, since Mr. Liberal for Linda nicked my graphic without permission.

Was anybody else in Edmonton-Strathcona polled?

DemocraticSPACE a mis à jour ses données concernant ses prédictions pour les générales du 14 octobre. Les dernières semaines laissaient présager une remontée constante du Bloc Québécois, alors que les appuis au Parti conservateur se consolidaient, du moins à l’extérieur de l’île de Montréal. Les libéraux, quant à eux, ne parviennent juste pas à s’imposer, probablement au profit du Nouveau Parti Démocratique.

Dans Brossard-La Prairie, les chiffres balancés par l’ami Greg laissaient perplexes. Si ce comté, probablement le plus multiethnique à l’extérieur de Montréal, avait une tradition d’appui au fédéralisme depuis longtemps, il était à prévoir que la place acquise en 2006 par Marcel Lussier était un accident de parcours, largement dû aux répercussions catastrophiques du “scandale des commandites” sous le régime des libéraux de Jean Chrétien.

Et aujourd’hui, rien de cet ampleur ne peut aider le BQ à conserver sa place. Sauf peut-être une division du vote.

Et c’est ce qui se produit. Si les premières prévisions nous laissaient présager une chaude lutte entre le Bloc et le Parti libéral, il semble plus clair aujourd’hui que la lutte se fera… pour la seconde place. Les conservateurs, tranquillement mais sûrement, réussissent à s’approcher des libéraux.

Alexandra Mendes souffre un peu de voir son chef, malgré sa meilleure semaine de campagne depuis le déclanchement des élections, mener son parti au plus cuisant échec libéral depuis la débandade de 1984. Ce qui est un peu triste à observer par ailleurs.

Marcel Lussier n’est pas le plus flamboyant des députés bloquistes à Ottawa. Peu d’interventions à la Chambre des Communes, peu visible dans le comté, il bénéficie de la campagne nationale, qui a réussi (encore une fois) à démoniser non seulement le parti de Stephen Harper mais aussi ses collègues de l’opposition. La stratégie d’attaquer tout le monde et de ne pas cibler uniquement un adversaire (quoique c’est moins vrai depuis le débat), bien qu’assez audacieuse pour un parti qui peinait à expliquer sa raison d’être il n’y a pas un mois, a porté fruit.

Les comtés qui servent de baromètre sont-ils en train de basculer vers le Bloc?

On a déjà hâte au 14!

The operatives of the “big tent” parties–the Liberals and Conservatives–have been busy flinging unidentified substances at the Greens and the NDP for harbouring candidates of odd and unsavoury views. The latest one of these to drop is Andrew McKeever, whose misogynist and pro-war comments finally forced his resignation. He’ll never be missed–at least by me.

But these same operatives are strangely silent when some of their own are exposed. Take Liberal candidate for York Centre, Ken Dryden. Please.

Ken wants to seal off Gaza, the largest open-air prison in the world. Here he is, on the record:

“In front of a split audience in the sanctuary of the Beth Emeth synagogue on Wilmington…the ex-hockey guy’s eyes hardened as he advocated no truck or trade with the ‘terrorists’ in the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.

“Then he offered this shocker: ‘Stop all aid that flows into Gaza. While that may seem a harsh measure that will hurt Palestinian civilians… it is the right thing to do at this time.’”

[H/t Alison via PSA]

80% of Gazans rely on humanitarian assistance to survive. The implications of Dryden’s words are very clear. We have heard no howls of outrage by Jason Cherniak as yet. Maxed out, Jason?

Dryden joins Conservative hopeful in Thornhill, Peter Kent, an executive official of an extremist anti-Muslim organization, Canadian Coalition for Democracies. His colleagues there have called for bombing Iran and wiping Islam from the face of the earth. “Muslims,” declares his CCD President, Alastair Gordon, have “small minds” and “no humanity.”

The article in Toronto’s NOW magazine continues:

“One reason the Liberals probably won’t pay a price for the Tories’ dedicated loyalty to the Israeli government is that the Grits hold exactly the same position now. Aside from Michael Ignatieff’s musing – and then step-down – about Israel committing “war crimes” in Lebanon, the Libs’ policy has generally morphed from bipartisan to Israel-positive.

“Sure, Dryden did some hand-wringing at the meeting about how awful it is that Canada is no longer seen as the exponent of diplomacy and the honest broker it once was.

“But as even B’nai Brith exec VP Frank Dimant admits, the parties have no real differences. Dimant points to his friend Irwin Cotler, the Lib MP for Mount Royal and former justice minister, as a case in point.

“‘His positioning on Middle East and Jewish issues in general is very close today to where the Conservative party is,’ says Dimant, described by Embassy Magazine as one of the top foreign policy influencers in Ottawa.

“But this consensus on Israel is a worry, says former ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker, particularly because of international law. “We tend to accept the argument that Israel is a democracy – ‘Who are we to criticize what the Israelis do? [Whatever] the Palestinians do is ipso facto wrong’ – I’m thinking of Hamas. This is not an approach that leads anywhere except to more deadlock.”

“But pushing for a more complex view of the Mideast isn’t for the faint of heart. Steve Scheinberg, a retired Concordia history prof and Canadian Friends of Peace Now activist, laments that his group lacks the resources to lobby politicians for a view counter to mainstream Jewish orgs.

“‘I don’t think the Conservatives are that interested in the Middle East per se,” he says. “What I think they are interested in is winning some Jewish votes and money.’” [Emphases added. --DD]

Vile comments and questionable associations might be seen as mere political pandering, in other words. But I have no reason to think that the personal beliefs of Ken Dryden are not in sync with his public utterances, nor that those of Peter Kent are in opposition to the organization that he helps to lead.

There is a further issue here, however–perhaps the key one–that needs to be spelled out. Do Liberals and Conservatives really think that the significant complement of Jewish voters in York Centre will be swayed by calls for crimes against humanity? Is the Thornhill candidate’s leadership position in an extremist organization expected to appeal to them? Do these voters, en bloc, want to starve a civilian population to death, or throw Islam into the rubbish-bin of history, or bomb Iran?

Isn’t this selling Jewish voters a little short, in fact–indeed, a lot short? Isn’t the implicit assumption that Jewish electors lack humanity and tolerance–anti-Semitic? Come on, Cherniak, get on this. We can’t clean up the darker corners of the establishment parties all by ourselves.