The Calgary Herald has been tracking opinion through one of its online forums:

Of the 17 people who firmed up how they’re going to vote in the last week of the campaign, 41 per cent picked the Greens, 24 per cent are headed to the NDP, and 18 per cent plan to back the Conservatives. The Greens are also the top choice for 34 voters who haven’t yet made up their minds. Stephane Dion’s Liberals, however, trail all parties among the survey’s decided and undecided voters.

That poll, of course is anything but scientific and representative, but it’s quite interesting all the same. It may, however, reveal traces of a very general trend. Then again, it’s not really news that Liberals finish dead last in Alberta, particularly in Calgary.

I love the issues, I love the debates. But really I love Elections By the Numbersâ„¢.

So here’s my prediction:

• Tories: 117 seats
• Liberals: 98 seats
• NDP: 39 seats
• Bloc: 52 seats
• Independents: 2 seats
• Greens: 0 seats

Depuis hier DemocraticSPACE prévoit sept Bloquistes sur 7 pour le “nord du Québec”. Surprenant. Même Lebel de Roberval, le dernier qui semblait solide, prend le bord.

J’ai pas l’impression que Jean-Pierre Blackburn ne va pouvoir s’en remettre lui non-plus, même avec sa promesse de 1 000 jobs et plus dans une prison futur à Larouche, même avec un beau gymnase tout neuf et tout aussi futur pour le Cégep de Jonquière, annoncé en grande pompe, hier en mettant de côté les “partenaires” péquistes et syndicales. Chantale est encore à une majorité absolue de plus de 50%, bien au delà de la marge d’erreur.

Trop de tout au local, je crois. Et pas assez de ce qui compte au nationale! On dirait que c’est la campagne fédérale du Parti Conservateur, qui les avaient porté au pouvoir il y a deux ans et qui est en train de les renvoyer à la maison. Que d’erreurs du point de vue du Saguenay et du Québec. C’est ce que les analystes disent dans la région depuis quelques jours. Entendu à la piscine du Cégep par un non spécialiste en science politique:”ça me fait de la peine pour monsieur Blackburn que je respecte, mais son chef ne l’a vraiment pas”.

Look at these numbers:

Nationally, however, the party appears to have stopped its week-long slide and come to rest with between 33 and 35 per cent support from decided voters – a shade below the 36 per cent of the vote it won in 2006, allowing it to form a minority government.

What does all this really mean? Very little, to tell the truth. First of all, polls are never accurate. To achieve any real representative accuracy or significance, polling companies would have to poll at least 3,500 people for each poll, rather than only 1,200, 1,000 or 800-900. Given the sample sizes in Canadian polls, all of them are for the birds.

Second, there is the issue of Canada’s undemocratic and antiquated first-past-the-post system – i.e., the winner takes all, as they say. Even if the polling numbers are accurate, which they are not, and we assume that the Tories will get, say, 34%, they can still form a majority government. All they have to do is win by at least one vote in 155 ridings, and the majority is in place. Or to put it in more drastic terms, if they obtained as little as 10% of the votes in 155 ridings, and 10% happens to be the highest count for any of the candidates in the ridings, they would also win a majority.

Always keep in mind what happened in the provincial election in Alberta this March: with only 22% of the electorate supporting them, the Alberta Tories formed a majority government, holding 72 of 83 seats (!).

Finally, the above numbers may not be all that accurate, as I said:

University of B.C. political scientist Fred Cutler, a voting specialist, warned that polling numbers early in a campaign can be suspect and that the decline in support is probably exaggerated.

It is for this reason that it will be a long time before any of the mainstream parties will ever agree to change to a system of proportional representation. As they surely see it: Why fix it if it ain’t broke?

We finally have our first election poll for Saskatchewan (no longer just “the west”). I’m not generally one to go by individual poll results, so take these with a grain of salt. However, since they are all we have, lets look at them a little closer. The poll, conducted by News Talk 650/Angus Reid, questioned 800 voters from across the province. The results (+/- 3.5%, 19 out 20 times):

Conservatives: 40%
NDP: 35%
Liberals: 17%
Greens: 7%
Undecided: 28%

Interestingly, in opposite fashion to the national trends of the past week, Dion’s approval ratings are extremely low in the province, even lower than Elizabeth May. Stephen Harper is thought to make the best PM of the bunch, with Jack Layton having the highest approal rating. In 2006 the split was 49/25, the Liberal 2006 total was not reported but was higher than the current 17%.

A little speculation, again with a huge grain of salt. The NDP are serious challengers in 3 ridings, Palliser, Regina-Qu’Appelle and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. In 2006, the Conservatives enjoyed  leads of 6.5%/9%/10% over the New Democrats in SRB, R-Q, and Palliser. Assuming that these provincial trends breakdown evenly amongst these ridings it suggests that Nettie Wiebe in SRB has a decent chance of overcoming her 1,919 vote deficeit from 2006. It also means that Janice Bernier might be closer than expected for the New Democrats in Regina Qu’Appelle and that Liberal support may collapse enough to give Don Mitchell a chance in a relatively tight three-way race in Palliser.

Additionally, these numbers suggest that in most of the ridings with a major urban portion (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Saskatoon-Humboldt, Blackstrap, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, and Prince Albert), where the NDP finished second or a close third, that the New Democrat campaigns could enjoy significant gains on the Tory incumbents while pulling away from the Liberals.

For the Liberals, I don’t think this means Goodale is in trouble in Wascana, as his closest competitor is a Conservative candidate and King Ralph has consistently bucked provincial trends. A poll conducted by the Regina-Leader Post in Wascana, conducted between Oct 3 and 7th and interviewing 801 voters (3.4%, 19 out 20 times), gives the following breakdown of decided voters:

Goodale (Lib): 51.4
Hunter (Con): 34.3
Moore (NDP): 11.1
Wooldridge (GP): 3.2

If these number hold true, it would suggest that my analyses of Wascana and Ralph bucking the provincial trends (yet again) were not far off the mark. Some further analyses by Murray Mandryk. However, in DMCR it could mean that despite having a strong organizer like Orchard running, the Liberals may not have enough to overcome Conservative incumbent Rob Clarke, with some support swinging to the NDP instead

Anyhow, as a politics addict I couldn’t resist a little speculation on a one-off poll. So take it with a grain of salt, disagree if you want, I am always open to different interpretations of the numbers.

_________

cross-posted on my blog.

As the Conservative ship is listing badly and taking on water, few will shed a tear other than the tears of frustration we’re now seeing on the anxious faces of the party faithful. Captain Harper, navigating between sea-monsters–on one side, the so-con Scylla, on the other, the latte-sipping, artsy-fartsy, vaguely treasonous Charybdis–has finally fetched up on the shoals of the economy.

His was a missed opportunity of historic proportions. Under our antique and undemocratic electoral system, the Cons only had to corral 40% or so of the votes of those who bothered to turn up at the polls (maybe a quarter of the electorate), to rule unimpeded for four ghastly years. The goal wouldn’t be easy to achieve, but it was hardly out of reach.

“Strong” (read autocratic) leadership, therefore, almost inevitably became a key issue. There are always people who seek the vicarious thrill of sadopolitics–jailing 14-year-olds, sending troops off to fight foreign wars, poking culture in the eye, sticking it to the CBC, dissing the “liberal” media, bullying and firing bureaucrats, and crushing anyone else who gets in the way. For the Conservatives there is no shortage of targets, as we have seen: it’s been high noon for nearly two years.

And then four things happened.

First, the handlers decided to let the Conservative basement kids loose. The results were some serious gaffes that could have derailed the campaign. The machine was soon back on track, and by itself this difficult start could have been overcome, but it left questions in many people’s minds. Nevertheless, the polls, if not the pollsters,* were looking pretty good, especially in swing ridings (now renamed “battleground riding’s” as our psychological deep integration with the US continues).

At the same time, though, the strategists decided to make Harper kindler and gentler, all blue sweater-vest and proud father. This was, as Citizen columnist Randall Denley pointed out at the time, a serious blunder. Nobody was fooled. His core constituency, in fact, didn’t want a kind, sweet man in charge. And his opponents were not taken in by the palpable insincerity of the new election-ad Stephen.

On the hustings, the real Harper has seemed even more tightly controlled than usual, almost paralyzed. His performance in the leaders debates was extraordinarily poor: he sat there, often speaking in an emotionless monotone, while his strategists hoped the other leaders would overplay their hands–which to some extent, of course, they did. But he suffered for it.

Debates don’t usually decide electoral matters, of course. But crises, on the other hand, test political leaders to the core. There is simply nowhere to hide. Faced with a cataclysmic economic meltdown, Canadians wanted clear, decisive answers, and they also needed a sense of connection.

But Harper failed spectacularly to connect with the public, musing aloud instead about buying up stock bargains. Yes, as he said defensively, keeping one’s head in a crisis in important; but at times like this, people want heart as well. He hasn’t done all that well with the head part, as it happens. But it’s the man’s utter lack of empathy, I think, that has sealed his party’s fate.

One can feel the ground shifting. The Globe and Mail, decrying his lack of leadership on the economy last week, today published a cartoon mocking his aloofness. The Ottawa Citizen went further: its cartoon portrays him as a child begging at the door. His supporters are resigned to another minority government at best–don’t be fooled by the brave rhetoric. They’re flailing mightily, but they know the awful truth.

Margaret Wente gave him a tongue-lashing this morning that would have brought a rhino to its knees. There’s an almost incredulous chorus of shock and disapppointment, and much grumbling and second-guessing, as the man behind the curtain is finally revealed. Even the conservative Economist now refers to his poor leadership on the environment and his “inner oilman.”

The polls indicate another minority government–possibly even a Liberal one. Harper has managed an impossible feat–making Stéphane Dion look good in comparison. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory–because another Conservative minority government is as much a defeat for Harper as a Liberal win–he has dashed the hopes of his party and his constituency. How much longer will he lead it?
_______
* Pollster silliness continues unabated. The CBC suggests that his decline in the polls has ceased, because the latest poll indicates a one-percent increase over the last one. The margin of error is 2.7%!

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.

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.

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

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!

Finalement, nous voici arrivé à l’heure du premier débat pour nos cinq candidats dans Vaudreuil-Soulange. Ce face à face aura lieu au centre communautaire de Hudson et sera modéré par deux journalistes du Hudson Gazette, Jim Duff et Matthew Brett. Je ne sais si les questions du public seront permises mais il est évident qu’il serait intéressant de connaître la stratégie des différents candidats en relation avec ce qui se passe au États-Unis et aux dommages collatéraux qui suivront. Ne me parlez pas d’aide aux jeunes ménages pour une plus grande accession à une maison. Cette attitude se traduit par un accès privilégié vers l’endettement. Ainsi, j’aurai la possibilité de filmer l’intervention et de probablement mettre les moments plus savoureux ici même sur ce blogue au courant de la semaine prochaine.

***************************

Avant de vous laisser pour le weekend, j’aimerais vous diriger vers un site très intéressant (cliquez ici). En effet, c’est un site qui regarde les possibilités de voter pour le parti Vert. Afin de vérifier s’il cela est possible, ils font la démonstration de l’état des choses dans toutes les circonscriptions du Canada basé sur tout le sondage effectué pour le comte de la circonscription. Ce regroupement indépendant fait l’analyse suivante : si dans votre comté, un candidat est assuré de la victoire, pourquoi ne pas voter selon vos convictions, car de toute façon, un vote contraire aura probablement peu d’impact sur le résultat final.

Or, pour Vaudreuil-Soulange, selon ce site, le risque que Michael Fortier passe le fil d’arrivé en premier reste encore possible, à deux semaines des élections. Ainsi, il est encore recommandé de voter de façon stratégique afin d’empêcher Michael Fortier de gagner la circonscription de Vaudreuil-Soulange. Le problème avec la situation potentiellement favorable pour Meili Faille est que certaine personne seraient tentée de laisser tomber, pensant que la victoire Bloquiste est acquise. C’est totalement faux. Une baisse de garde donnerait un avantage à Michael Fortier, qui récolte les votes de citoyens aux allégeances Libérale qui sont tentés par l’apparence de pouvoir et par la perte de confiance envers un Stephane Dion non-convaincant. Il est surprenant de voir, selon les derniers résultats, que madame Brigitte Legault prend place juste avant Michael Fortier. Je constate donc que le vote anglophone traditionnellement Libéral de la région ne se divise pas tant que ça. J’ai peine à croire que Fortier sera capable de remonter cette pente.

(more…)

As someone whose interests and research intersects politics and space, I must admit that I am a sucker for maps. Especially pretty ones! So I thought I would highlight this one that the Toronto Star recently published showing how every single polling station voted last time in the Greater Toronto Area. Click on it to download the full size version (but be warned: it is 5.3mb).

A few basic things to note:

1. The Liberal red in the map is virtually synonymous with the urbanized parts of the GTA (i.e. the Conservative blue areas on the urban fringe are primarily undeveloped areas, not yet consumed by the GTA’s onward expansion).

2. The most heavily urbanized areas at the core of Toronto vote NDP (except for the downtown Toronto Centre riding, which votes Liberal). The only other area where the NDP does well is in Oshawa, but since the Oshawa riding takes in a good chunk of the urban fringe, it typically goes Conservative.

3. The Conservatives do have a stronghold in the affluent areas in the Don Valley West riding (indeed this is the only seat they have a chance of winning). Otherwise, there are only isolated pockets of Conservative support in Etobicoke and North York.

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar (SRB) is the best chance for a pick-up by the New Democrats in Saskatchewan.

The incumbent, Carol Skelton, who enjoyed a good deal of personal popularity (and was at pains to associate herself with the Conservative brand in any of her communications) is not running again. In her place, the Conservatives nominated Kelly Block, one of the higher-ups of the ruling Saskatchewan Party (i.e. Conservative Party), former rural town mayor, and a member of several health boards. She was nominated this past summer by the party.

Nettie Wiebe was re-nominated in January 2007 to represent the New Democratic Party for a second time, she ran and lost to Skelton in 2006. A farmer, professor, and activist, Nettie has been hard at work in the riding for the past 3.5 years building both the NDP brand and her name. In particular, her and her team gave much focus to the rural portion of the riding over the past 1.5 years leading up to the election.

Roy Bluehorn was the last minute nominee for the Liberal Party and is a young aboriginal policy analyst with ties to the urban portion of the riding. There are also candidates running under the Green, Christian Hertiage Party (vote against immorality!), and the Libertarian Party.

The battle in this election will be between Nettie Wiebe and Kelly Block, with both camps running high resource campaigns. The lack of an incumbent this time around would seem to give the name recognition to Nettie Wiebe over Kelly Block.

A quick look at the 2006 results broken down between the urban and rural portion of the riding gives an idea of where the main contenders stand heading towards October 14th:

	Rural	Saskatoon
Total Voters	11446	36752
Vote Total	7961	21392
Turnout	69.6	58.2
	-
	Total Votes
	Rural	Saskatoon
Green	153	585
C.H.	41	217
Lib	528	3048
Con	5140	8191
NDP	2125	9287
	-
	% Vote
	Rural	Saskatoon
Green	1.9	2.7
C.H.	0.5	1.0
Lib	6.6	14.2
Con	64.6	38.3
NDP	26.7	43.4

(more…)

Today, a poll from CROP-Le Droit-Gesca was released in the Ottawa-Gatineau newspaper Le Droit. It covered the local election in Gatineau. The results:

Richard Nadeau РBloc Qu̩b̩cois Р32% (-7 from 2006 election)
Denis Tass̩ РConservatives Р22% (+5)
Fran̤oise Boivin РNew Democrats Р21% (+11)
Michel Simard – Liberals – 20% (-11)

These polling numbers are interesting, and there is a lot to learn from for Hull-Aylmer. The Bloc support is still relatively solid and its decrease is more or less proportional to the Bloc’s national numbers. It is worth noting, however, that Nadeau is the incumbent. In a disputed riding, being the incumbent is difficult for Bloc MPs because of their role as an opposition party. In Hull-Aylmer, Raphaël Déry is not the incumbent and so there isn’t any sort of grudge in terms of what the Bloc has or hasn’t done for Hull-Aylmer.

The Conservatives have shown moderate growth, but in this urban riding it isn’t enough, and we don’t need to worry about them in Hull-Aylmer.

The NDP shows real growth potential, and has improved its position in Gatineau by about the same proportion as the NDP in Quebec as a whole. However, Gatineau is a special case. Boivin used to be a Liberal MP for the riding, and so in addition to gaining votes because of the NDP’s strong performance in the province, she is stealing votes from the Liberals because of her personal history. In Hull-Aylmer, this tells me that growth is possible, but if the NDP follows national trends in Gatineau with a former Liberal MP, Pierre Ducasse can’t hope for that sort of vote-switching in Hull-Aylmer. He has only the boost of the national campaign to draw from.

Lastly, and simply, the Liberals are in free fall. Marcel Proulx will feel the pinch as well.

Cross posted to my blog Sovereignty en Anglais.

There will be a Tory majority. Yes, that’s my prediction. Not based on any polls, although they help to confirm what I already know, but my yardstick is money, because money talks.

People will part with their hard-earned cash and give it to a party only if they believe in what the party stands for.

By contrast, talk is cheap, such as in answering a pollster’s questions. And if you participate in Maclean’s polls, your name will be entered into a prize draw for $500 as an added incentive – however, I doubt that any money is actually ever won. The names of “winners” all look highly generic, like “John Smith, Ottawa”, so there is no proof that anyone has actually been paid the $500.

According to Elections Canada, the three main parties collected the following donations in 2007:

Total amount of contributions ($)    16,983,629.73 (Conservatives)    4,471,903.46 (Liberals)    3,959,451.24 (NDP)

The Conservatives received about four times more than the Liberals, and the Liberals and NDP are clearly within “the margin of error”. The number of donors makes this even clearer:

Total number of contributors    107,492 (Conservatives)    23,442 (Liberals)    23,303 (NDP)

The Liberals and NDP had essentially the same number of donors in 2007, which would confirm the recent poll that shows Liberals and NDP neck-and-neck at 21%, with the NDP having a real chance of forming the Official Opposition.

Also look at this (Q1, 2007):

The Liberal Party has long based its fundraising on large donations from corporations, unions, special interest groups, and a small number of wealthy individuals. The loss of these funding sources has dramatically reduced contributions to the party.

By contrast, political contributions show broad-based support for the Conservative Party, receiving 10 times the donations from 10 times as many contributors as the Liberal Party. Similarly, the NDP received donations from 3 times as many contributors as the Liberals.

And in Q2, 2008:

The Conservative Party continues to dominate political fundraising in the second quarter of 2008, collecting 65% of the total fundraising dollars, more than all other political parties combined. The Conservatives are also the only political party to raise more money from their own efforts than from public subsidies.

The Liberal Party failed to attract as many donors as the New Democratic Party but received more total donations due to higher average individual contributions. The NDP continued its recent fundraising success, attracting donations from more people than the Liberal Party, while the Green Party’s donations remained steady.

Here’s another aspect to consider: Stéphane Dion has been unable to clear his debt from his leadership race, despite numerous fundraising events, including those thrown by his former opponents. If party members felt confident about their leader, they would have thrown their cash, cheques and credit cards at him, but it has not happened. What is more, even the “top tier figureheads” of the Liberal Party have donated zero dollars to their own party, or only small token amounts.

Again, money talks. Follow the money, and you’ll get a better picture of things to come than any poll could ever provide.

Barring some major development, it is almost certain now that the Conservatives will win the election on October 14 and form the next government. Whether it is a minority or majority is largely irrelevant, as the Liberals will likely be so preoccupied with getting their own house in order following a second and most certainly more severe defeat that they will have little interest in blocking Conservative intentions in Parliament for the next year at least and thus forcing another election (should it be another minority Conservative government). What the almost certain Conservative victory means is that the dynamic of this campaign has shifted quickly since it began, from one of the Conservatives and the Liberals competing for who forms government to one where the Liberals, NDP, Green Party and Bloc Quebecois are all competing for what the composition of the opposition benches will look like. Such a scenario presents a mortal danger to the Liberals and a golden opportunity to the other opposition parties, especially the NDP.

As long as it looked like the Conservatives could be defeated, the Liberals had a simple yet effective card to play: that they were the only force that could stop another Harper government. Voters who may have been more inclined towards the NDP or Greens yet fearful of more years of Conservative rule could mitigate their decision to opt for the Liberals with the knowledge that their strategic vote was blocking the Conservatives. For NDP or Green voters to go Liberal now in order to stop the Conservatives makes little sense when every poll puts the party at 25% or so and well behind the Tories. The question for anti-Harper voters increasingly becomes not who do you vote for to actually stop Harper but who do you want to oppose Harper in a new Parliament where the Conservatives have won re-election. If the ballot question for anti-Harper voters remains the latter of the two on October 14, the Liberals will possess two major disadvantages. The first is that the Liberal Party’s habit of abstaining on numerous votes during the last year has weakened the party’s credibility as a force that stands up to the Conservatives. The second is that Dion’s tenure as Liberal leader will likely not extend much farther beyond election day, meaning that the Liberals will be ineffective as an opposition to Harper for at least the period in which they search for a new leader. The likelihood that the Liberals will have a new leader by this time next year also throws a wrench in Liberal appeals to staunchly left-wing anti-Harper voters, as such voters can’t be certain that the new Liberal leader will have the same progressive credentials as Dion. Would overtly left-wing voters want to vote for a Dion-led opposition only to end up with an Ignatieff-led opposition in a year’s time?

(more…)

In my previous post – all of two days ago – I noted that Nanos was consistently publishing estimates for Liberal support that were much higher than the other polling firms: more than what could plausibly attributed to sampling error.

But that was two days ago. Since then, Nanos has joined the crowd (click on the graph for a full-sized version):

What’s going on?

From the Master himself:

If Nick’s right – and I don’t know a serious Liberal who doubts his professionalism – then this thing has turned into a scramble for survival. That’s it.

Here’s the poll Warren Kinsella is referring to.

Way up.

Two recent polls had put the Bloc Québécois a few points up at 34% but today Nanos gives the Bloc Québécois 40% support in Quebec, only 2-points down from their 2006 result. The Conservatives are at 23%, the NDP at 18%, and the Liberals at 14%.

The Bloc gain can mostly be credited to Duceppe’s strong appearance on Tout le monde en parle, the recent uproar over the Conservative cuts in culture, and the arrogance of Conservative ads targeting Bloc voters.

Just for fun, here are today’s Sovereignty en Anglais seat projections, amended with this new Quebec result:

Conservatives: 132 seats
Liberals: 94 seats
Bloc Québécois: 49 seats
New Democrats: 32 seats
Independents: 1 seat

And here are the projections for Hull-Aylmer with this new number and using the raw math:

Pierre Ducasse – New Democrats – 20,002 votes
Raphaël Déry – Bloc Québécois – 15,000 votes
Marcel Proulx – Liberals – 11,830 votes
Paul Frechette – Conservatives – 8,680 votes

So, now the fight becomes one between Déry and Ducasse. And since I think it is impossible that the NDP will increase their vote total by 12,000 (every party has its ceiling and its floor), I’d have to say that the Bloc Québécois should not stop working because it is within their grasp.

Cross posted to http://sovereigntyenanglais.blogspot.com