BigJonsson
Member
Lol
-
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
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
Lol
What's more reliable for riding to riding polls, 308 or Too Close to Call?
On 308, the Liberals have a decent lead right now in my riding. On Too Close to Call, the Conservatives have a comfortable lead in my riding.
With this and his Arrested Development quote in the House of Commons, Mulcair has quite the arsenal of witty quotes
AFAIK, Too Close to Call is a more basic regional swing model than 308. I would look to 308 more, personally, but I don't think there's a really concrete answer to this. Also, obviously, neither of them are polls.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Are you in Ottawa West-Nepean as well? I haven't seen a single NDP sign anywhere; have they sent anyone out yet? Just a sea of red with small pockets of blue here or there.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
RE: I'm in a conservative incumbent riding, all I want to do is beat the conservatives, who should I vote for?
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where only the Liberals were competitive as a challenge: 36
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where only the NDP were competitive as a challenge: 35
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where both NDP and Liberals were competitive as a challenge: 8
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where there was no competition: 87
I define "competitive" as ~>50% of the winner's vote total, ballparked.
There doesn't really seem to be any pattern in what someone ought to do. The party that got second to the Conservatives varies from riding to riding, and the patterns seem to differ significantly by province. Moreover, as you can see, the Conservatives have more utterly safe ridings than competitive ridings. Finally, there aren't many ridings where the Conservatives won but if the NDP/Liberal vote distribution had been slightly differently, the Conservatives would have lost.
Obviously you can't 1:1 map these ridings into 2015 because of the expansion to 338, but still I'd be seriously skeptical of anyone claiming there's an obvious strategic choice to follow nationally.
My guess would be the most effective low information strategy for someone hell-bent to kick out the Conservatives:
- If you live in a riding with a non-Conservative incumbent, vote for the incumbent
- If you live in a riding with a Conservative incumbent, look up who got second last time and vote for them
- If you live in a riding with a Conservative incumbent and both other parties basically tied for second last time, look at the last few regional polls before election day and vote for the party polling highest
This doesn't take into account star candidates or any riding level changes since 2011 but I think if you're intimately knowledgeable about your riding you probably don't need someone else to give you a strategy.
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where only the Liberals were competitive as a challenge: 36
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where only the NDP were competitive as a challenge: 35
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where both NDP and Liberals were competitive as a challenge: 8
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where there was no competition: 87
I define "competitive" as ~>50% of the winner's vote total, ballparked.
There doesn't really seem to be any pattern in what someone ought to do. The party that got second to the Conservatives varies from riding to riding, and the patterns seem to differ significantly by province. Moreover, as you can see, the Conservatives have more utterly safe ridings than competitive ridings. Finally, there aren't many ridings where the Conservatives won but if the NDP/Liberal vote distribution had been slightly differently, the Conservatives would have lost.
Obviously you can't 1:1 map these ridings into 2015 because of the expansion to 338, but still I'd be seriously skeptical of anyone claiming there's an obvious strategic choice to follow nationally.
My guess would be the most effective low information strategy for someone hell-bent to kick out the Conservatives:
- If you live in a riding with a non-Conservative incumbent, vote for the incumbent
- If you live in a riding with a Conservative incumbent, look up who got second last time and vote for them
- If you live in a riding with a Conservative incumbent and both other parties basically tied for second last time, look at the last few regional polls before election day and vote for the party polling highest
This doesn't take into account star candidates or any riding level changes since 2011 but I think if you're intimately knowledgeable about your riding you probably don't need someone else to give you a strategy.
GuessMyUserName
Member
Visiting my dad in Burlington for the week with the rib fest in town... I know I shouldn't be surprised by all the Conservative signs here but man there's just so manyyyy. Though to be fair, we're on the most conservative end of the city.
Some Liberal here and there too, but I don't think I've seen a single NDP.
Some Liberal here and there too, but I don't think I've seen a single NDP.
Are you just discounting the polls that break down by riding?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Huh?
All your discussion above is about incumbency and historical votes. Are you factoring at all how the candidates in your riding specifically are polling?
http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html (as an example. there are other polling sites if you like)
If all you want to do is vote anti-conservative, wouldn't the best strategy to be to vote for the non-conservative candidate in your riding polling the highest a couple of days before the election?
Edit - Okay, I guess I didn't quite get that you weren't asking the question yourself... Wasn't initially clear that you were talking in general.
LMAO! What is with CPC candidates and immature/delinquent behaviour? Don't they vet these people?
matthewwhatever
Member
I guess the CPC vetting process didn't include questions like "Have you ever been caught peeing in someone's mug on national television?" or "Have you ever made rude or lewd phone calls under an assumed name, and then uploaded them to YouTube?"
I am! And I don't even know who's running for the NDP out here. They've never done particularly well, though, so there probably won't be many signs even after the city allows them on public property.
As in Atlantic Canada or Quebec? Yeah, the Maritimes and Newfoundland, especially, are going to be a graveyard for the Conservatives. I'm guessing they'll be lucky to get a half-dozen seats east of Ottawa. The Liberals will own Atlantic Canada (with the odd NDPer here and there), and Quebec will continue to be mostly orange (with the Liberals picking up Montreal, and maybe parts of the Outaouais if things go well for them).
I am! And I don't even know who's running for the NDP out here. They've never done particularly well, though, so there probably won't be many signs even after the city allows them on public property.
As in Atlantic Canada or Quebec? Yeah, the Maritimes and Newfoundland, especially, are going to be a graveyard for the Conservatives. I'm guessing they'll be lucky to get a half-dozen seats east of Ottawa. The Liberals will own Atlantic Canada (with the odd NDPer here and there), and Quebec will continue to be mostly orange (with the Liberals picking up Montreal, and maybe parts of the Outaouais if things go well for them).
Atlantic Canada.
So far from talking to people most are leaning towards the NDP. Granted there may be some who do go with Liberals simply because they always voted for them. When alive my grandparents were like that, no matter what they always voted the same.
TheRealTalker
Banned
Conservatives
every week they do something... I can't understand those hardcore supporters who love them
every week they do something... I can't understand those hardcore supporters who love them
These. Are. Not. Polls.
They are aggregations of regional polling subsamples (where the regions are, roughly, BC, Alberta, Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada -- usually no breakdown for the territories) with swings applied to the riding based on the regional swing. It's a data model based on, in some cases, polling subsamples that *already* have margins of error around 10%, and that's when applied to the whole region.
Not more than 5 or 6 ridings have been individually polled in this election, afaik. By the time it's election day it's possible ten or so might have been polled.
Why can't every riding be polled? They could just do it over the phone... It can't cost that much money, can it?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
There essentially aren't riding level polls in Canada, hence my surprise at your comment.
308's methodology is a regional proportional swing (i.e. "Party X polled at 22% in your province last time, and is polling 25% in your province this time, so we can assume that they'll have a proportionate increase in each riding"). Then he adds an incumbent dummy and a star candidate dummy. That methodology is about the best you can do given the very limited data we have, of course, this isn't a knock on them. But it's also not particularly precise.
My response was responding to a conversation where we were told "The NDP as the wind at their backs", and so anyone who wants to defeat the Conservatives should vote NDP. That's definitely not a foregone conclusion. You beat a party by defeating party incumbents (here I'm using incumbent not just to mean an incumbent MP, but a party's incumbency in a riding). The best way to beat a conservative incumbent is going to depend on where you are. In a lot of places it's going to be NDP. In a lot of places it's going to be
What is the major polling story since 2011 in Canada? The CPC is down a little bit, the NDP are up a little bit, and the Liberals are way up. Most of the Liberal gains have been in Quebec and Ontario; most of the NDP gains have been in Ontario and BC
How is this going to manifest on a riding per riding level? Well, it's pretty unlikely that in a riding that was CPC 50 NDP 40 Lib 10 in 2011 is going to go to the Liberals, even despite their recovery. Likewise, if a riding in 2011 was CPC 40 Lib 35 NDP 25, it's highly unlikely that it's going to go NDP; if the Liberals were competitive at their national nadir, they will almost certainly be competitive after a sustained national recovery. It's true that there might be some per-riding reason to depart from this logic. Maybe you're in a riding where the Liberals were a distant third in 2011, but the NDP candidate gets caught punching babies and the Liberal candidate is a star, and prior to 2011 the Liberals were always competitive. But if you have that much knowledge about your riding, you don't really need strategic advice. If we're talking a national strategy, using the 2011 results as your prior to chose between LPC and NDP seems reasonable to me.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
There are 338 ridings...to get any statistically significant number for all the ridings you'd need to poll tens of thousands of people, and yes that would be expensive AF.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Halifax-area will be NDP. There are very strong local candidates for NDP and a LOT of students in the city. Liberal is usually very strong in Cape Breton. For the rest of the provinces it's a lot of rural farmers and small towns so expect mostly conservative with pockets of Liberal around cities.
Edit: I forgot that the EI changes the conservatives made pissed off a lot of people. That might affect things in small towns which tend to have very seasonal employment from tourism or fishing.
Well, I learned something today.
matthewwhatever
Member
Yep. Just look at how well pollsters do when they try to poll for by-elections. Somewhat different circumstances, obviously, since those tend to favour non-incumbents, plus turnout is often abysmal, but they show how hard it is to conduct meaningful polling at that level. Pollsters are off by 10, 20, even 30 or 40 points.
Yeah, the EI changes will have an impact. Those farmers and fishermen are pretty pissed off at the Conservatives, and between Peter Mackay abandoning ship and Bill Casey joining the Liberals, it's not going to be pretty from a CPC perspective.
Some ridings have changed quite a bit, so I would implore people to dive deeper than just looking at who won last time on Wikipedia, but to look at who would have won and by what margins taking into account the riding changes. Potentially a previously safe seat may now be in play. Some wikipedia entries have this but not all. All of the data is available at Elections Canada's website here. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/trans2013&document=index&lang=e
I generally agree with the above strategy but I'd add an additional point.
Due to the large number of safe Conservative seats, all opposition parties could do better and this could still result in an even split and a minority Conservative government. The only election outcome that will with total certainty result in a non-Conservative government would be one where an opposition party has the most amount of seats. With this in mind I'd add the additional point:
* If there is an opposition party that is clearly expected to win the most amount of seats, and you are in a riding where multiple opposition parties are competitive, but the Conservative Party is unlikely to win, vote for the leading opposition party.
gutter_trash
Banned
yup, the redraws change some ridings quite a bit.
Ahuntisic gets Cartierville (portion of St-Laurent) mashed into as Ahuntsic-Cartieville which tips the scale complete out of the Bloc's reach and into Liberal hands. (formely Bloc with an NDP floor crosser, now leans more towards Liberal due to Cartierville still competitive for NDP)
Brossard and LaPrairie gets split apart. LaPrairie goes on its own while Brossard gobbles up St-Lambet into Brossard-St-Lambert.
LaPrairie = safe NDP
Brossard = leans Liberal, competitive NDP
The Ville-Marie downtown core leaves Westmount and now joins Nun's Island. Ville-Marie-Le Sud-Ouest-Île-des-Soeurs. (now safe NDP riding)
Westmount merges with NDG as Westmount-NDG. (leaning Liberal, competitive NDP)
Ahuntisic gets Cartierville (portion of St-Laurent) mashed into as Ahuntsic-Cartieville which tips the scale complete out of the Bloc's reach and into Liberal hands. (formely Bloc with an NDP floor crosser, now leans more towards Liberal due to Cartierville still competitive for NDP)
Brossard and LaPrairie gets split apart. LaPrairie goes on its own while Brossard gobbles up St-Lambet into Brossard-St-Lambert.
LaPrairie = safe NDP
Brossard = leans Liberal, competitive NDP
The Ville-Marie downtown core leaves Westmount and now joins Nun's Island. Ville-Marie-Le Sud-Ouest-Île-des-Soeurs. (now safe NDP riding)
Westmount merges with NDG as Westmount-NDG. (leaning Liberal, competitive NDP)
gutter_trash
Banned
hahahaha
Kinda funny, glad to see they just kicked buddy out once news released.
If only someone could put these up.
Kinda funny, glad to see they just kicked buddy out once news released.
Oh my.
Kinda funny, glad to see they just kicked buddy out once news released.
Hahahaha, I saw this hours ago but somehow didn't notice "for a strong and steady stream". So good
matthewwhatever
Member
Two interesting news tidbits.
First, from his interview this evening with Peter Mansbridge:
Also, the CPC just unveiled a new ad that ends with an old woman saying, "Stephen Harper isnt perfect, but when it comes to the economy -- we can depend on him."
If they're trying to humanize him and make him seem vulnerable, that's an interesting tactic. I can't see it working, but you never know.
First, from his interview this evening with Peter Mansbridge:
Also, the CPC just unveiled a new ad that ends with an old woman saying, "Stephen Harper isnt perfect, but when it comes to the economy -- we can depend on him."
If they're trying to humanize him and make him seem vulnerable, that's an interesting tactic. I can't see it working, but you never know.
Has anyone ever tried to do this?
When Harper made the big fuss about how the Dion/Layton/Duceppe "Coalition of the Losers" was invalid a big part of his justification was that his party had the most amount of seats. If he tried to govern without a plurality of seats he'd be a massive hypocrite. It would tarnish his legacy and it would be a shocking maneuver. I would have to imagine such a government would be very short lived, and would be deeply unpopular with Canadians, but on the other hand Harper somehow managed to pull off that "proroguing parliament" stunt to kill the Dion coalition so who knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Byng_Affair
The difference, mind, is that there's really no one Harper could expect to support him for even a handful of extra seats, barring some kind of caucus divide in the Liberal party where some of them think it might be worth it to prevent an NDP government. I don't think the party as a whole would go that way, though.
BigJonsson
Member
New Nanos poll had the cpc at 26,ndp 33,liberal 31
Encouraging. But the campaign is kicking into high gear this week. Next Monday will be the interesting poll.
gutter_trash
Banned
that's a surprise coming from Nanos.
Here's the release about that. Finally Nanos goes to daily tracking with a 3 day roll, so they're actually a legitimate pollster again now.
Terra Firma
Banned
Honestly should have had a separate thread about those two candidates. Funny enough to warrant more conversation.
And yeah, NDP has a decent lead with Cons trailing at 26%. Harper also had lowest rating of 25% compared to 30% for Mulcair and 28% for Trudeau.
And yeah, NDP has a decent lead with Cons trailing at 26%. Harper also had lowest rating of 25% compared to 30% for Mulcair and 28% for Trudeau.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Good news but theres still a month and a half to go.
Conservative voters are probably going to vote LPC if this trend keeps up to try to stop the NDP from forming government.
Even though Im voting Liberal, Im hoping NDP can keep their numbers up and win the election. We need PR.
Conservative voters are probably going to vote LPC if this trend keeps up to try to stop the NDP from forming government.
Even though Im voting Liberal, Im hoping NDP can keep their numbers up and win the election. We need PR.
It would be possible but you'd think it would have to be a pretty extraordinary situation. There's actually a pretty recent precedence of a dissatisfied component of a party going rogue and doing their own thing. When Stockwell Day was leader of the Canadian Alliance part of his party split off into the Democratic Representative Caucus and entered into a coalition with the PCs.
The only scenario I can think of at the moment would be if the NDP win but introduce some radical left wing policy into their first budget that wasn't mentioned in the election. I dunno some startling thing that would be reasonably controversial for centrist Canadians. In this scenario I could see the slim possibility of some right leaning component of the Liberals lending their votes to the Conservatives to defeat that budget. This seems pretty unlikely.
Well, I can imagine lots of scenarios where after the throne speech the liberals wouldn't support the NDP, but this is specifically about the idea of Harper using his priority as the first attempt at winning the support of the house to stay PM.
I don't think even a small sliver of the NDP would do it, though. It would be the death of the party.
I don't think even a small sliver of the NDP would do it, though. It would be the death of the party.
The Conservative brand is souring by the day. I don't think they predicted that when they called the early election.
The vote split is the wild card here.
Yeah that particular scenario seems extremely unlikely to me.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
RE: That Harper comment
I'm not really sure what him gathering the most seats has to do with him expecting to lead. This is the same as during the prorogation crisis when he claimed any coalition would be illegitimate because it was a "coalition of losers". That's simply not bound by reality.
The person asked to form government should be the person that the GG believes can most credibly hold the confidence of the house, irrespective of what number of seats they earned. In countries where coalitions are commonplace and there is a more rigorous informateur / formateur process, it is certainly not assumed that the largest party will be a part of the coalition, and they commonly aren't. There is no formal requirement to have the largest party begin a government and collapse it on the speech from the throne or other supply business.
It's a deliberate mischaracterization of how government formation worked designed to delegitimize a perfectly legitimate option.
I'm not really sure what him gathering the most seats has to do with him expecting to lead. This is the same as during the prorogation crisis when he claimed any coalition would be illegitimate because it was a "coalition of losers". That's simply not bound by reality.
The person asked to form government should be the person that the GG believes can most credibly hold the confidence of the house, irrespective of what number of seats they earned. In countries where coalitions are commonplace and there is a more rigorous informateur / formateur process, it is certainly not assumed that the largest party will be a part of the coalition, and they commonly aren't. There is no formal requirement to have the largest party begin a government and collapse it on the speech from the throne or other supply business.
It's a deliberate mischaracterization of how government formation worked designed to delegitimize a perfectly legitimate option.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of relating the two things. Whether Harper's view of it is wrong, it's just highlighting that it's consistent with his prior view.
However, you're still missing a step in the actual process. The GG doesn't go to anyone until the PM has offered their resignation or asked to dissolve the house (without the confidence of the house, as happened in the King-Byng affair). Harper will have first crack, winner or loser, and the GG can't pick someone else until he makes it possible. This is why he was being asked.
Yep. I bet on that to. I could see the liberals being pushed into the low to mid thirties for good until election day eventually. I expect the ndp to stay in the thirties and possibly stay in first place in the polls because I don't think enough people will think justin is ready yet to lead Canada. I expect a few more things to pop up that could continue derail the conservatives campaign and hurt their poll numbers even further. It's not out of the question now that the conservatives could potential end up with sub 100 seats on election day. I don't expect anyone to win a majority government at this point.
I seriously don't know why their campaign continues to get derailed by stuff like every week since the start of the election campaign. I think their campaign is cursed at this point. I'm not sure if they will be able to recover from a terrible august and a terrible start to September by election day. CTV QP yesterday brought up how the conservatives seem to be running a really terrible election campaign right now and how it kinda looks like John Turner's 1984 campaign right now. I'm not surprised they made this comparison.
gutter_trash
Banned
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked