• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian General Election (OT) - #elxn42: October 19, 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.

NYR

Member
Harper seems totally desperate with his ads and going to Ford this week, some real Hail Mary type shit. I think he is done. Bring on the change.
 

Stet

Banned
What the hell does this even mean?

The election was the Conservatives' to lose. They were an incumbent with a strong majority and they led the polls. At this point, they could win the government with a weak minority, but they'll have lost the campaign because they completely bombed their strategy.
 

Kifimbo

Member
The election was the Conservatives' to lose. They were an incumbent with a strong majority and they led the polls. At this point, they could win the government with a weak minority, but they'll have lost the campaign because they completely bombed their strategy.

That's some fine historical revisionism. Let's start with the fact that the Conservatives led the polls for about one month in the last two and a half year.

eyUuJdF.jpg


And we all know how easy it is to win another election after 10 years in power.
 

Stet

Banned
That's some fine historical revisionism. Let's start with the fact that the Conservatives led the polls for about one month in the last two and a half year.

eyUuJdF.jpg


And we all know how easy it is to win another election after 10 years in power.

That chart cuts out the entire election campaign...............
 
Harper seems totally desperate with his ads and going to Ford this week, some real Hail Mary type shit. I think he is done. Bring on the change.

remain sceptical until after the election is over

we don't know how many people will actually go an vote against Harper this Monday and how many will sit back and decide this is in the bag

plus we don't know if there will be a bunch of CPC supporters who may come out of their shell and go out and save their "hero"
 

Stet

Banned
From September 14 to around September 24, it's still a statistical tie between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I'm not sure why, but it feels like you're desperate to gotcha me on something here. The Conservatives squandered an incumbency and a lead. That's losing the campaign.
 

ItIsOkBro

Member
Huh. So Brett Butt -- the guy behind Corner Gas, who I'd assumed would be at least a small-c conservative based on what little of his comedy I've seen -- just posted this:



I don't know which party he's backing, but...I have to say, it's stirring up some patriotic emotions in me.

I genuinely hope enough people feel the same way man.

Edit: I liked Corner Gas.
 

Mailbox

Member
So, what percent of the population do you guys think is gonna actually vote?

Last election had a horrid turnout and we know that this election already has more than 15% turnout through advanced polling (i don't remember the exact percentage).
 

Ledhead

Member
So, what percent of the population do you guys think is gonna actually vote?

Last election had a horrid turnout and we know that this election already has more than 15% turnout through advanced polling (i don't remember the exact percentage).

I'm hoping for a high turnout. If this election doesn't generate one, I can't imagine what circumstances would
 

Kifimbo

Member
I'm not sure why, but it feels like you're desperate to gotcha me on something here. The Conservatives squandered an incumbency and a lead. That's losing the campaign.

I just disagree the CPC squandered anything. The two charts above show the Conservatives hovering around 30% for the last 2-3 years. It's still where they are today. That's about as stable as you can get. The real story of this election is the Liberals recapturing the lead they had for 18 months at the expense of the NDP which had the momentum at the start of this campaign.

EDIT: With the Jays game Monday, the turnout might take a hit.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
I just disagree the CPC squandered anything. The two charts above show the Conservatives hovering around 30% for the last 2-3 years. It's still where they are today. That's about as stable as you can get. The real story of this election is the Liberals recapturing the lead they had for 18 months at the expense of the NDP which had the momentum at the start of this campaign.

The CPC definitely blew the niqab thing too early. If they started that this week, they most probably would have won.
 

mo60

Member
So, what percent of the population do you guys think is gonna actually vote?

Last election had a horrid turnout and we know that this election already has more than 15% turnout through advanced polling (i don't remember the exact percentage).

I bet you 65%-70% of eligible voters will vote this election.
 

maharg

idspispopd
I just disagree the CPC squandered anything. The two charts above show the Conservatives hovering around 30% for the last 2-3 years. It's still where they are today. That's about as stable as you can get. The real story of this election is the Liberals recapturing the lead they had for 18 months at the expense of the NDP which had the momentum at the start of this campaign.

EDIT: With the Jays game Monday, the turnout might take a hit.

Yep, it's the NDP who had something to squander this election for sure. Definitely not the CPC.

My bet on turnout is 60% yet again.
 

ItIsOkBro

Member
So, what percent of the population do you guys think is gonna actually vote?

Last election had a horrid turnout and we know that this election already has more than 15% turnout through advanced polling (i don't remember the exact percentage).

I'm feeling the voting spirit everywhere. Guessing 73%.
 

mo60

Member
Yep, it's the NDP who had something to squander this election for sure. Definitely not the CPC.

My bet on turnout is 60% yet again.

I think both the CPC and NDP squandered this election. The CPC squandered it because even though their support was mostly constant in the last two months they weren't really in the position to ever win this election for sure especially if one of their opponent's parties actually was a few percent ahead of the CPC if they stayed constant in terms of support in this election.

I guess someone wants the conservatives to get a majority again also.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/10/...-will-again-be-prime-minister-with-a-majority
 

Tiktaalik

Member
So has anyone actually seen the email from Gagnier to Transcanada? Because...wow, I take back anything I even said about the optics being bad. It's a civics lesson. It's about as scandalous as a high school class that teaches you how government functions. Anyone saying it's evidence of "business interests" having a backdoor to the Liberal Party is, quite frankly, an idiot.

At the risk of derailing the thread on this issue again I want to point out the problematic part of this letter and why some voters might be troubled. This letter may well be totally benign, but I do think it can be interpreted in a negative way depending on your reading of it. This is why it's unsurprising to see Gagnier forced to resign and the media start to focus on this issue.

We can basically ignore everything in the letter except these last paragraphs:

An energy strategy for Canada is on the radar and we need a spear carrier for those in the industry who are part of the solution going forward rather than refusing to grasp the implications of a changing global reality.

The last point is critical as Federal leadership and a discussion with Premiers will take place early. This is where we can play and help them get things right.

There's a few interpretations of this depending on what "we" means and who the "spear carrier" is.

Gagnier could simply be saying that TransCanada will need to be aggressive in deploying their registered lobbyists at the right time. Ok. There's nothing wrong with lobbying the government in general. A bit weird that he feels he needs to talk with his partners about this during a campaign but ok.

Alternatively, he could be saying, "The Liberals are going to win this thing and you guys will need someone that knows this new government to help organize you guys. I'm your man. I can help you."

This second interpretation is troubling because Gagnier seems to be saying that he is interested in actively helping them in the future, but his close work with the Liberal party creates a potential conflict of interest. If a registered lobbyist for example worked in on a political campaign at this high of a level, they'd be barred from lobbying the government for 5 years.

This article goes into some detail on lobbying rules and quotes some guidance from the commissioner of lobbying on this issue:
"Lobbyists who perform these political activities should recognize that undertaking such activities will mean that they cannot lobby that individual once elected, nor his or her staff," Shepherd says.

In the case of lobbyists who work on regional or national campaigns, she says they should not lobby the party leader or the leader's staff or any other public office holder who may reasonably feel a sense of obligation as a result of the lobbyist's campaign involvement.

Of course Gagnier is not a registered lobbyist so I have no idea what this means for him. It may be nothing at all, or maybe he could be potentially fined for unregistered lobbying. I'm not going to dig into this issue further, but I do know that the optics and timing of this will unsettle some voters even if Gagnier technically broke no laws.

So how is this different from Brad Lavigne on the NDP, who was also a lobbyist associated with the oil industry? Well in that case:
* Lavigne had resigned from his job before the campaign started.
* There is no evidence that Lavigne is in contact with his prior employer.

In contrast Gagnier is seemingly still closely associated with his employers while working on the campaign. That is a clear distinction.

Trudeau did the right thing by kicking Gagnier from the campaign. The Liberals have made a lot of promises that they're a different party and they're going to have high standards of ethics and accountability. I want to believe they have changed, but until they prove that with their actions in government I think they need to be kept on a short leash with a minority mandate.

Not everyone is going to feel strongly about this issue, but there is a segment of the population that doesn't like to see coziness between government and business that won't like this. Maybe this is an "everyone does it" situation for insiders in Ottawa and cynical political followers, but not for average Canadians. This is a negative for the Liberal campaign for this to suddenly appear and unsurprisingly given their position in the polls the NDP have latched onto it with a new campaign ad. Given the time left in the campaign and the nicheness of this issue I don't think this'll have that big of an effect. There is just no time left in this campaign to really talk about this issue all that much.
 
I think both the CPC and NDP squandered this election. The CPC squandered it because even though their support was mostly constant in the last two months they weren't really in the position to ever win this election for sure especially if one of their opponent's parties actually was a few percent ahead of the CPC if they stayed constant in terms of support in this election.

I guess someone wants the conservatives to get a majority again also.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/10/...-will-again-be-prime-minister-with-a-majority

:/

He tells us about Harper's tactics to cut and destroy everything but then goes on to say we are the best at other things

things that are also getting cut later down the line


message

Harper screwed us up but the things that Canada worked hard to achieve will take longer to break down by Harper then the with the previous terms he used up.

Vote for him so that we can destroy and cut our sectors and social status even more...

I mean I know he is bad but he hasn't fully destroyed us yet... Give him a chance
to destroy what is left
 

kess

Member
it would've been more beautiful if the CPC hit zero

the one thing I took away from this election is that Harper may be bad but his lackeys are either idiots are just as bad

the whole party is vile to the core.....hopefully they'll never be significant in Canada again

Speaking as an American, I would be despondent about how your campaign finance oversight has been eroded and how a working statistics system has been flushed down the drain. You'll find the culture that follows such things harder to expunge, sadly.
 
Speaking as an American, I would be despondent about how your campaign finance oversight has been eroded and how a working statistics system has been flushed down the drain. You'll find the culture that follows such things harder to expunge, sadly.

indeed this election kind of proves it

Canada has changed under Harper's rule and it seems people of his mindset started sprouting, rooting themselves deep into our views and how we see things

hopefully by abolishing the pass the post system we can never see a minority party get into power ever again
 
I just disagree the CPC squandered anything. The two charts above show the Conservatives hovering around 30% for the last 2-3 years. It's still where they are today. That's about as stable as you can get. The real story of this election is the Liberals recapturing the lead they had for 18 months at the expense of the NDP which had the momentum at the start of this campaign.

I think the stories are:
- the CPC ran a campaign that made no attempt whatsoever at reaching beyond their base, and I guess it worked? They didn't really grow, but it also seems like they didn't lose any voters outside of that brief lull where it seemed like they might finish third in the vote count.
- the Liberals seem to have overcome a slump in the polls that threatened to derail them -- and potentially kill them off for good -- and are now in a position where they may come close to doubling their vote total from the last election and getting at least three times as many seats.
- the NDP blew a pretty significant advantage thanks an oddly listless campaign. Even if you don't buy Forum's claim that the NDP were at 40 early on -- and you shouldn't, because Forum is a joke -- they were clearly in the lead, and if you look at the early part of this thread there was a sense of triumphalism. I saw one description of it as the most boring campaign flameout ever, and that seems pretty accurate: there was no one moment (outside of maybe the F-35 stuff) that sank them, but they got totally outmanoeuvred and often seemed like they hadn't adequately prepared for the campaign at all.

So how is this different from Brad Lavigne on the NDP, who was also a lobbyist associated with the oil industry? Well in that case:
* Lavigne had resigned from his job before the campaign started.
* There is no evidence that Lavigne is in contact with his prior employer.

Facts can be so inconvenient sometimes.

And since we've already established from the rest of your post that there's no reason to give parties the benefit of the doubt on these things, I don't see why the NDP should be immune from wondering what, exactly, Lavigne was promising his Hill & Knowlton clients while at the same time acting as senior advisor to a man who, up until a month and a half ago, looked like he had a good shot at becoming PM.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Does anyone follow the Sauder School (UBC) Election Market? I can't say I wholly understand it, but apparently it's got a better track record than pretty much any pollster in the country. Right now, for the vote share it's predicting:

LPC 39
CPC 33
NDP 18
GPC 4
BQ 4

With the seats breaking down on similar lines.

That's kind of contradictory. Actual popular vote numbers like that would probably produce a majority, but the plurality/majority markets clearly favour a minority.
 

Azzanadra

Member
Best case scenario for the tories is a minority government that'd fall in probably 18~ months.

Yeah, it seems that the other four leaders will LITERALLY not support Harper at all. Has this sort of situation ever happened before in Canada?

...Part of me wants to see the Cons win the minority just to see the craziness that will ensure afterwards.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Facts can be so inconvenient sometimes.

And since we've already established from the rest of your post that there's no reason to give parties the benefit of the doubt on these things, I don't see why the NDP should be immune from wondering what, exactly, Lavigne was promising his Hill & Knowlton clients while at the same time acting as senior advisor to a man who, up until a month and a half ago, looked like he had a good shot at becoming PM.

Mr Lavigne's conduct is not in question here. Bringing him up is a crudely partisan attempt to change the subject.

The NDP have said he quit his job months ago, and the Liberals point out we was technically still registered as a lobbyist. I have no idea what the hell that means. I don't think it's relevant because again, Lavigne is not the one we've caught sending letters to industry.

People were wondering what one could possibly find questionable in Gagnier's letter and I provided an explanation. That's all.
 
How is it irrelevant? You're suggesting the Liberals are clearly involved in a nefarious plot to help the energy industry because their volunteer co-chair wrote a letter to Transcanada explaining how a change of government works. If we're operating under the assumption that all lobbyists are lobbying at all times, why isn't the NDP's senior strategist being called to task for being a paid lobbyist for Shell/Irving Oil/Imperial Oil/etc. at the same time he's been providing advice to Mulcair?

How does this work?

Like I said, I don't totally understand it, but it's based on the wisdom of the markets, and the idea that people are better at prediction outcomes if they have money invested in it/they're more likely to accurately assess the state of things if they stand to gain or lose money on it. Their track record is available on their old site, and it's pretty impressive.

Also, re: seat share, it's possible this outcome actually ends up being kind of fair in terms of seat distribution just because of the way the parties' support is dispersed. It's not usually the case, but this may be the exception to the rule.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for Kenney to take a crack at leadership.

I spoke with two well-connected people this week: one said that Kenney has enough chits and favours that he's guaranteed to win, another said that his chances are wildly overstated and he's probably not going to get it. (Of course, the latter person then spoke of Kellie Leitch as a strong dark horse candidate, so...I'm not sure how much to trust them on that.)
 

diaspora

Member
Like I said, I don't totally understand it, but it's based on the wisdom of the markets, and the idea that people are better at prediction outcomes if they have money invested in it/they're more likely to accurately assess the state of things if they stand to gain or lose money on it. Their track record is available on their old site, and it's pretty impressive.

Also, re: seat share, it's possible this outcome actually ends up being kind of fair in terms of seat distribution just because of the way the parties' support is dispersed. It's not usually the case, but this may be the exception to the rule.



I spoke with two well-connected people this week: one said that Kenney has enough chits and favours that he's guaranteed to win, another said that his chances are wildly overstated and he's probably not going to get it. (Of course, the latter person then spoke of Kellie Leitch as a strong dark horse candidate, so...I'm not sure how much to trust them on that.)

Kenney is guaranteed a strong performance, he's hardly guaranteed a win. Though I suppose it really depends on what the rest of the field looks like. Conservative parties nationally are too busy tripping over each others dicks to actually win elections over the past couple of years (getting BTFO by Wynne and Notley).
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Does anyone follow the Sauder School (UBC) Election Market? I can't say I wholly understand it, but apparently it's got a better track record than pretty much any pollster in the country. Right now, for the vote share it's predicting:

LPC 39
CPC 33
NDP 18
GPC 4
BQ 4

With the seats breaking down on similar lines.
Eeek! NDP. :(
When the Liberal leader suggested Mulcair's promises were "puffs of smoke" Mulcair responded: "You know a lot about that, don't you, Justin," a shot at Trudeau's support for legalizing marijuana.

When Trudeau said Mulcair had announced his climate change plan with "pomp," Mulcair snapped back, "I'll leave the pomp to you, Justin."
LMAO!!! Still gets me. I can't wait to see Mulcair back in the house.

Honestly, I think a tory minority is every bit as likely as liberal when considering the shy-tory factor.
Aren't those taken into account in polls? Or is that just for seat projections?
 

maharg

idspispopd
Some of the polls probably try to account for a shy tory effect, but none of the canadian pollsters disclose what adjustments they make to raw data afaik.

I think the shy tory effect is probably not nearly as consistent as believed, personally. Other parties have had their support understated by polls in canada before. 308 did a blog post about it once. At the very least I think it's probably a broader effect that's poorly named and understood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom