• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lumber said:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

image.jpg


I have no authority to make this claim, but IMO, what we're seeing here is a reflection of strategic voting intentions starting to take shape. Those on the left who want change, but were split between NDP and LPC, are finally making a decision (or changing their decision) and leaning toward Liberal.

I think if the Liberals want to keep this momentum, they need some really inspiring capaign ads. They don't need anti-conservative attack ads; the left-wing already doesn't like harper, and red-tories won't believe the ads. Anti-Mulcair ads might help, but IMO they're not as effective real inspiring ads, and the NDP are doing a fine enough job on their own.

Until either the Liberals or the Conservatives jump ahead and out of teh error of margin, i think it is premature to think anyone is gaining momentum.  Yesterday it was eth CPC ahead, today it's the LPC.  Let's see what the weekend brings.
 
Remius said:
Until either the Liberals or the Conservatives jump ahead and out of teh error of margin, i think it is premature to think anyone is gaining momentum.  Yesterday it was eth CPC ahead, today it's the LPC.  Let's see what the weekend brings.

Fair. I guess my major point was that the left-wing fence sitters are starting to make a choice and their landing in the Liberal's back yard. That beign said, maybe no one party is getting momementum, but the NDP drop is sure going to push both the CPC and LPC up.
 
Remius said:
Until either the Liberals or the Conservatives jump ahead and out of teh error of margin, i think it is premature to think anyone is gaining momentum. 
True.  Most of the polls I'm looking at, though, show the NDP losing momentum.
 
milnews.ca said:
True.  Most of the polls I'm looking at, though, show the NDP losing momentum.

Yes, they are definitly on the downturn.  Well out of any margin of error and fairly consistant throughout most polls.  The LPC is benefitting yes, but will it benefit enough?  I don't know how many more votes they can steal. 
 
Lumber said:
Fair. I guess my major point was that the left-wing fence sitters are starting to make a choice and their landing in the Liberal's back yard. That beign said, maybe no one aprty is getting momemntum, but the NDP drop is sure going to push both the CPC and LPC up.


;D  Fat Finger Friday's.

Sorry for the derailment, but could not resist, having fat fingers myself when posting in haste. 
 
George Wallace said:
;D  Fat Finger Friday's.

Sorry for the derailment, but could not resist, having fat fingers myself when posting in haste.

I get fat fingers every day lol.  My worst transgressions seem to be  "teh" instead of "the"
 
Lumber said:
Fair. I guess my major point was that the left-wing fence sitters are starting to make a choice and their landing in the Liberal's back yard. That beign said, maybe no one party is getting momementum, but the NDP drop is sure going to push both the CPC and LPC up.

I agree that the left wing fence sitters are probably starting to make a choice, but the way I see it, it's not likely to result in much or any gain in the CPC support.  Look at the Anatomy of 2ndChoice slide at http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20151001%20Ballot%20TrackingE.pdf.

Liberals are most likely to choose NDP as a second choice.  NDP is most likely to choose Liberal as a second choice.  It's interesting to note that the CPC supporters are most likely to choose "none" as a second choice.
 
That's because there isn't a real second choice party wise for those of us who might want to vote CPC.  The OPFOR on the other hand can hop all they like on the left side of the game.
 
jollyjacktar said:
That's because there isn't a real second choice party wise for those of us who might want to vote CPC.  The OPFOR on the other hand can hop all they like on the left side of the game.

You calling me OPFOR?  :Jedi:
 
If the left shoe fits...  :slapfight:

Oh the irony in that I'm left handed.
 
The end of the beginning ...

I was thinking about the recent (May 2015) UK election. There is lots of good data on the Wikipedia page but the big story, in my opinion, wasn't the inaccurate polls or, even, the unfavourable treatment that the first past the post voting system meted out to, especially, UKIP and the Liberal-Democrats. Rather, I think the real, big story is captured in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/node/21650781
the-economist-logo.gif

From behind lace curtains
A "silent majority" helps the Tories to pull off their usual surprise

May 8th 2015

“I HAVE a haunting feeling that there is a silent majority sitting behind its lace curtains, waiting to come out and vote Tory.” These were not the eve-of-election words of some fearful Labour spin-doctor on Ed Miliband’s team, but of Labour cabinet minister Barbara Castle—on the eve of the 1970 general election.

20150509_BLP514.jpg


Then, all the pre-election polls pointed to a handsome victory for the incumbent Labour government, led by Harold Wilson. But, as Ms Castle rightly suspected, the actual result was a handsome victory for Edward Heath’s Conservative Party. Now, again, the polls have badly underestimated the Tory vote. Every pre-election poll registered pretty much a dead heat between the Tories and Labour, and thus a hung parliament. The actual result is a majority (albeit a slender one) for David Cameron’s Tories. Something similar happened in 1992. The incumbent Tories, led by John Major, were widely expected to lose—and by a good margin, according to the exit poll. But in fact Mr Major won a majority of 21 seats, with 14m votes, the largest number ever cast for any party in British political history.

As Ian Fleming’s fictional villain Auric Goldfinger tells James Bond: “They have a saying in Chicago: ‘Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.’” Indeed, it seems the Tories’ stealth victories will now have to be taken much more seriously by pollsters and pundits, and particularly by the Tories’ opponents. 

The “silent majority”, a term coined by Richard Nixon to mobilise his electoral base before winning the 1968 American presidential election, seems to operate in Britain in favour of caution and small-C conservatism. These are the values that Mr Cameron emphasised at this election, as Mr Major did in 1992. The target audience of these messages does not go to political meetings, write letters to newspapers, blog or tweet, which makes their sentiments harder to register. Polling organisations have found it almost impossible to count them over the course of many decades, even if after the 1992 debacle pollsters altered their techniques to try to pick up more of these “shy Tories”, as they are sometimes called.

There will be more re-examination of those polling techniques now. Meanwhile, the Tories’ opponents must conduct their own post-mortems. Tony Blair, the leader of the Labour Party between 1994 and 2007, was one of the few who never underestimated the silent majority, and he won three thumping election victories by trimming towards it. Mr Miliband, fatally, chose to disregard it. Their differing approaches will now be at the heart of the internal debate that will consume the Labour party as it picks a leader to succeed Mr Miliband.

I wonder if we also have a 'silent majority" behind lace curtains here in Canada. I suspect we do.

"What issue, " I ask myself, "will bring that silent majority out from behind its lace curtains to vote?"

The Globe and Mail's editorial board worries, too, about issues. It opines, in this editorial which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, that too many people are focused on the trivial issue of niqabs while other, more important issues are ignored:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-niqab-is-a-distraction-voters-should-focus-on-real-issues/article26626437/
gam-masthead.png

The niqab is a distraction. Voters should focus on real issues

The Globe and Mail

Last updated Friday, Oct. 02, 2015

This test of endurance known as the 2015 election campaign has presented Canadians with plenty of serious issues to consider. The economy, for starters. How does a country that benefited from an oil boom maintain jobs and growth when the price of crude oil plummets for an extended period?

There are also big fiscal choices: Does Canada need budgets in surplus, or is it wiser to run small deficits and spend more on infrastructure now, when interest rates are at record lows?

How about the environment? Should Ottawa have a national plan to substantially reduce carbon emissions, or should it leave the field largely to the provinces?

Or foreign policy: Should Canada be bombing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or should we be focusing on training local troops and delivering humanitarian aid? And what is the right number of Syrian refugees to accept?

For the first seven weeks of the 11-week campaign, voters and candidates mostly focused on these and other pertinent issues. But with the Oct. 19 vote now just weeks away, this election is at risk of being overtaken by a single emotional issue that has no tangible bearing on the lives and well-being of Canadians. We’re talking about the niqab.

The Conservative Party and its leader Stephen Harper want the niqab banned at citizenship ceremonies. The Bloc Québécois, desperate for votes, demand the same. Both parties falsely accuse Muslim women who wear the face coverings of “hiding their identities.” Mr. Harper’s focus on this issue has begun to open up a little daylight between his party and the Liberals and New Democrats, and he’s pushing it harder than ever.

Many believe that a veiled female face goes against Canadian values. In a free society, they are entitled to that belief. But Canada’s religious freedoms mean a woman can wear a niqab in public. This is a non-issue that has no impact whatsoever on the vast majority of the population, yet it risks turning into a deciding factor in the election.

If you support the ban, ask yourself: Have you ever been to a citizenship ceremony? Do you actively follow who is being sworn in as Canadian citizens every week? Had you ever given this a moment’s thought before the Tories and the BQ made it an issue?

Of course not. The niqab is a distraction – a culture war fabricated to take voters’ minds off the real and complex issues in this election. Don’t fall for it. Wearing a veil is one thing – wearing a blindfold is another altogether.


I am reminded that Lynton Crosby, the so called "Wizard of Oz" who was instrumental in prime Minister Cameron's surprising (shocking?) last minute victory is also working for Prime Minister Harper. In an interview with The Telegraph, Mr Crosby said, "It wasn't just Ed Miliband's Labour Party that revealed itself as out of touch and remote from the people who are the backbone of Britain ... it was a failure from the Westminster centric 'Eddie the expert' and 'Clarrie the commentator' who were tested and found wanting ... [and] Politics is not entertainment ... that’s a mistake of people who are acute followers of politics as commentators or people from within the Westminster village. For the voters it’s not entertainment, it’s a serious issue, it’s a serious thing that means a great deal to their lives. It is their future.”

We're approaching the last two weeks of the campaign which include the Thanksgiving long weekend. Advance polls are open Fri, Sat, Sun and Mon, 9 to 12 Oct. It is time for Canadians to decide.

Will they decide on "bread and butter" issues, or will "societal value" issues, like the niqab or security matters, like stripping the citizenship from convicted terrorists, matter more?

How do the three main parties compare on "bread and butter" issues? Which one promises to leave more in or take more from voters' pay cheques? How about social and security issues? Does the niqab matter "behind the lace curtain?" And, finally, who is behind that lace curtain, what age groups and how much to they vote?

I will be watching the ads closely to see how Mr Crosby and the CPC, and the Liberal and NDP's (mainly US/Democratic Party) advisors address the issues that seem to me to matter to that silent majority behind Canada's "lace curtains."
 
In this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Maclean's Magazine, Paul Wells, not really a friend of the Conservatives, suggests that Prime Minister Harper and the CPC (and the "Wizard of Oz") are winning the campaign, if not the election ... yet:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/paul-wells-as-far-as-i-can-tell-stephen-harper-is-winning/
logo_macleans.jpg

‘As far as I can tell, Stephen Harper is winning’
The Conservatives are gaining ground in the polls faster than the Liberals. And the NDP slump is serious.

Paul Wells

October 2, 2015

Hi. Remember that great joke I had a few weeks ago about the two hikers chased by a bear, and the one guy starts lacing up running shoes, and the other guy says you can’t outrun a bear, and the first guy says, “I just need to outrun you?” That joke? And how Stephen Harper was the bear, and the hikers were Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair?

Yeah. Turns out that joke doesn’t work if the bear eats the slow guy and then runs down the one in sneakers.

In English: Perhaps Stephen Harper is winning this campaign. No, strike the “perhaps.” As far as I can tell, Stephen Harper is winning this campaign.

Now, winning a campaign isn’t necessarily the same as winning an election, but, if recent trends hold, it won’t even be necessary to make that distinction.

Here are the trends: The NDP has lost support over the past month. The Liberals have gained support, but not much. And the Conservatives have gained more.

Here are the results, from the polling aggregation website ThreeHundredEight.com. The website’s owner, Éric Grenier, has kept a running average of public polls for each week of the campaign. After the first week, the NDP stood at 35 per cent. By Week 4, it was at 34 per cent, then fell to 29 per cent at the end of Week 8. The Liberals have risen at glacier pace from 27 per cent after Week 1 to 31 per cent after Week 8. Plainly, Justin Trudeau brought his sneakers for this hike.

Ah, but the bear. The Conservatives spent the first half of the campaign losing support, falling from 30 per cent to 27 per cent by Week 5. But then they reversed course, rising to 31 per cent by Week 8, a straight tie with the Liberals and a statistical tie with the NDP. What’s the fuss?

The thing is, these trends have continued through this week, the campaign’s ninth. On Tuesday, Nanos showed the NDP down three more points, to 26 per cent. And on Thursday, two pollsters—Forum, whom I never take seriously, and the Angus Reid Institute, whom I do—both showed the Conservatives pulling well ahead of the others. Angus Reid Institute showed them at 34 per cent, with the others tied at 30 per cent.

The numbers bounce around and vary from pollster to pollster. What’s been most striking about this campaign has been the way three parties have contended realistically for power until now; how close this race has been. But the Conservatives have gained faster than the Liberals, and the NDP slump is serious. Historically, polls have modestly underestimated the Harper Conservative vote and exaggerated other parties’, compared to the final election result. If the Conservatives gain a couple more points, then get a ballot-box bonus of a couple more, it’s not impossible to imagine them winning another majority.

What happened?

First, the Mike Duffy trial took a recess until November. The revelations from the trial about Nigel Wright and Ray Novak’s amazing bubble-like impermeability to news from his colleagues’ offices made August a lousy month for the Conservatives, but then they stopped. For days, Harper took questions on no other subject. In the last three televised debates, there has been essentially no substantive mention of the Duffy trial.

Second, the economy is looking less queasy. The wee first-quarter recession ended with growth, now officially confirmed, in June and July. Encouraging economic news always depresses the “time for a change” vote.

But, of course, I’m saving the most significant events for last. On Sept. 2, Alan Kurdi’s body washed up on a Turkish beach. Thirteen days later, a Federal Court of Appeal panel dismissed the feds’ appeal over veiled citizenship ceremonies. And, 10 days after that, Justin Trudeau reaffirmed his opposition to a Conservative law that provides for citizenship to be revoked for terrorism or other grave crimes. Later that day, the Harper government revoked a convicted terrorist’s Canadian citizenship. That was last week; this week, we learned the government has sought to revoke other convicts’ citizenship, including that of a native-born Canadian who has never seen the land where he has another, inherited citizenship.

On this rockpile of events and fears, the Harper campaign has found purchase for a steady climb. The Prime Minister’s response to little Alan Kurdi’s death—insisting on military engagement against Islamic State as well as refugee resettlement—struck some observers as callous. But, within days after his comments, France joined allied airstrikes against ISIS in Syria and, this month, British Prime Minister David Cameron will ask Parliament for a mandate to do the same. Their rationale matches Harper’s.

On refugees, some commentators were disheartened by Chris Alexander’s insistence on security—which implies the refugees are a threa—in increasing the rate of settlement. But, in Europe, even the most welcoming leaders—Angela Merkel, the European Council’s Donald Tusk—pivoted rapidly from an open-door policy to a far more diligent policing of the Union’s external borders, because the refugees number in the millions. “Recently, I visited refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan, and I heard only one message: ‘We are determined to get to Europe,’ ” Tusk said in Brussels on Sept. 24. “It is clear that the greatest tide of refugees and migrants is yet to come. Therefore, we need to correct the policy of open doors and windows.”

So Harper has support for his positions, including, it is becoming increasingly clear, from voters who will change their vote on the issues he has chosen.

Veiled citizenship ceremonies are an exquisitely slim wedge on which to build a comeback: Since everyone taking the oath must reveal her identity minutes before the oath, and since nothing stops anyone from putting a veil back on minutes later, this is a dispute over how an infinitessimal fraction of the immigrant population should behave during a few minutes of their lives. Critics of Harper’s policy see that as sufficient reason to mock it. Quebec’s National Assembly, unanimously, agrees with Harper’s policy. Denis Coderre, the longtime Liberal MP who is Montreal’s popular mayor, and who could pick any side of this debate that pleases him, agrees with Harper’s policy. A lot of voters outside Quebec seem to agree with Harper’s policy.

Justin Trudeau doesn’t, and finds himself sailing into the wind. Tom Mulcair doesn’t, and it is not clear his campaign can recover. The trends I’ve described could be reversed in the less than three weeks remaining in this campaign. But it’s hard to see what could happen that would be as momentous as the events that set this dynamic into gear. The polls showed an effective tie for weeks. Everyone waited for the tie to break. It has broken in Harper’s favour. His detractors were sure he could not win in 2006 and 2008 and 2011. He is used to the feeling he has now.


In my opinion it's too soon to say the prime Minister Harper has the much sought after Momentum, but he's on the right track ... the questions remain: what issues will matter to those silent majorities (see above, and I believe there's more than one) and which of them will come out to vote?
 
There is a very long, too long to post here, even by my standards, but very good and interesting biography of Justin Trudeau in the Globe and Mail. Those who support him, those who are still undecided and those who oppose him all ought to read it: it may frighten, enlighten and/or reassure all three groups in some measures (and in no particular order).
 
E.R. Campbell said:
And it looks, in the latest Predictionator from Sun Media's David Akin, as if things have changed in the last week or so:

CPtGSN_WsAEFBGc.jpg:large

And here is the latest Predictionator from David Akin, the Parliamentary Bureau Chief of Sun News:

12113443_1238355682857439_4412586296519296886_o.jpg


The CPC seems, according to Mr Akin, to be gaining at the expense of both the NDP and the LPC.

The magic number for a majority in 338 seat House is 170.
 
But, here in another poll, this one from the Innovative Research group that shows the LPC leading, by a hair:

12088172_1238365152856492_2678233025835440696_n.jpg
 
By a Justin hair.

Gosh, I hope the Liberals don't win. What an embarrassment on the world stage. I would rather have the NDP win as their one and only time as a national government (who would recognize Canada after 4/5 years of NDP rule, and who would re-elect the NDP again?)
 
Rifleman62 said:
By a Justin hair.

Gosh, I hope the Liberals don't win. What an embarrassment on the world stage. I would rather have the NDP win as their one and only time as a national government (who would recognize Canada after 4/5 years of NDP rule, and who would re-elect the NDP again?)

Shhh.....they keep reelecting the Liberals in Ontario...... ::)
 
Interesting ...

See: https://twitter.com/CTV_PowerPlay/status/650065997165019136

CTV's Don Martin, host of Power Play, says, on his Twitter feed: "Last Word: Keep in mind, a majority Canadian Prime Minister is among the most powerful democratic positions in the world."

If I'm reading all the polls well enough then the only party leader with potentially a reasonable chance of winning a majority ~ that chance is only a remote possibility now ~ is the CPC. Do I detect worry amongst the commentatriat?
 
Remius said:
Andrew Coyne, last night on the At Issue panel mused about that exact dilema.  If Mulcair goes at Trudeau too much then it looks like he's fighting for 2nd place.  He suggested that the NDP may have to move back to the left (and be more vocal) on some issues especially in regards to the TPP where they would be the lone dissenter (thus claiming to support farmers, auto workers etc etc).  If they can sell this as being bad for Canada they might get some support back and that support must come from Ontario.

And, just as if he'd read your mind, M Mulcair has, according to an article in the Globe and Mail dropped a "bombshell declaration on Friday [that] promises to make the massive trade agreement a bigger factor in Canada’s 42nd federal election, which is 2 1/2 weeks away. It comes as polls suggest the NDP has dropped to third place in the national race ... The NDP’s hardening of position on a potential TPP deal sets it apart from the Conservatives, who favour a deal, and the Liberals, who have focused most of their criticism on the manner in which the Tories have negotiated the agreement rather than its substance ... Mr. Mulcair has sent a letter to International Trade Minister Ed Fast, the Conservative government’s point man on the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, listing a slew of reasons why he’s distancing himself from the agreement, including the expected pain it will bring to Canadian dairy farmers and smaller auto parts makers."
 
The biggest part of his announcement is that an NDP government would not consider itself bound by the terms of a major Pacific Rim trade deal.

I read somewhere this week that Canada's two largest auto parts company's are on board (unions, of course, no) with the government. Mr Fast in an interview stated he regularly (weekly, I believe) consults with the dairy and auto parts industries.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how a possible 10% increase in milk product imports from the US (to off set the US imports of NZ products) would be "disastrous" for the dairy industry.

Cdns want cheaper dairy and other supply mgt products. Why hold 32 million citizens hostage to 4 or 5 ridings and 12,000 well off dairy farmers.

Phoenix, AZ costs converted to current Cdn $: gallon of milk: $2.60; 18 eggs: $2.40; boneless/skinless chicken breasts same price as the milk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top