Support NeoGAF

[jstripes]

I seriously don't know why their campaign continues to get derailed by stuff like every week since the start of the election campaign.

Because the seeds they've been sowing are finally coming up?

 

[gutter_trash]

their selection process for picking candidates is only mirrored by their Senate appointments

 

[Dr.Acula]

Because the seeds they've been sowing are finally coming up?

I can see the posts on Oct. 19th:

 

[matthewwhatever]

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.

I think it would be more likely that Mulcair would try to introduce something right-wing he didn't campaign on, and the left flank of his own caucus rebels. I wouldn't say it's extraordinarily likely to happen, but considering everything, I could see that before I could see him revealing himself to be a radical lefty.

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.

Huzzah!

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.

Most parties hit bumps in the road after a decade, but it's still bizarre to see it happening. Harper's biggest strength as leader has been keeping his team on message and disciplined. When they've erred, it's been because of excessive partisanship. This campaign, it's just been a lot of stupid mistakes.

I said a few pages ago that I thought maybe it was all part of a two-election strategy -- let this one go, then try and force another one within the year when they're the only party with any money. I couldn't think of why else they'd be doing so badly. Now, though, I'm thinking I may have vastly overestimated them: this may just be an unintentionally bad campaign.

(Though I don't think any of us other than Boogie are part of their target audience, so we may not be the best judges of their campaign's effectiveness.)

I'd bet on a Liberal surge before a CPC surge at this point, personally. /boldpredictions

Welcome to what I've been expecting/hoping for months.

I could see it happening, though -- at this point, the Liberal room for growth may be greater than that of the NDP (notwithstanding what second choice polls are saying). NDP growth would have to come from Liberals who are dissatisfied with how Trudeau is doing, and who are willing to jump ship in the name of stopping Harper. To this point, I don't think that's happened -- obviously, I'm a little biased, but so far I don't sense there's much dissatisfaction from anyone other than Warren Kinsella.

On the other hand, while the Liberals have the potential for some of that too -- Dippers who want Harper gone and think Mulcair has failed -- they also have the possibility of grabbing angry Conservatives who are terrified by the thought of an NDP government. We haven't seen it happen yet to an enormous extent, admittedly (though the Liberals seem to be ahead in most Ontario polls), but if the Conservatives keep running as bad a campaign as they are now, I think some movement is bound to happen.

 

[Stumpokapow]

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.

Not missing anything. The Prime Minister doesn't need to offer their resignation; the GG can dismiss him. It is not customary for this to be done, but it's also not customary in Canada to consider a coalition. There's no reason to think that Harper's current occupation of the PM position entitles him first crack, winner or loser, except that we've generally relied on the magnanimity of losers in the past.

A majority coalition (whether formal or informal and just based on supporting supply business for a limited time) trumps an adversarial minority government in democratic legitimacy, ergo I would expect the Governor General to favour it. Here by expect I mean in a normative sense, as in that's what he ought do.

 

[Tabris]

I keep on cooling down on Mulcair. He's doing a really bad job appealing to the younger crowd. Well I'm not that young but I have young sensibilities.

Currently, here is my ranking of how I prefer the parties & candidates:

1) Green
2) Liberal
3) NDP
4) Anarchy
5) Conservatives

 

[BigJonsson]

Can't wait to see more polls

 

[gutter_trash]

the Conservatives also dropped the ball on the Syrian refugee crisis.

When Provincial Premiers, heck when Mayors are more pro-active than the current Prime Minister, it is telling about his leadership

 

[maharg]

Not missing anything. The Prime Minister doesn't need to offer their resignation; the GG can dismiss him. It is not customary for this to be done, but it's also not customary in Canada to consider a coalition. There's no reason to think that Harper's current occupation of the PM position entitles him first crack, winner or loser, except that we've generally relied on the magnanimity of losers in the past.

A majority coalition (whether formal or informal and just based on supporting supply business for a limited time) trumps an adversarial minority government in democratic legitimacy, ergo I would expect the Governor General to favour it. Here by expect I mean in a normative sense, as in that's what he ought do.

Er... I'd really like to hear more about your basis for this belief that precedent doesn't favour the incumbent having first crack. Not only is this something that has absolutely happened, specifically in Canadian history, it's pretty much embedded in the mechanism of power transfer. For the GG to be the one to dismiss a PM in Canada rather than letting the House do it would be a major constitutional event. For the GG to allow the PM to fall in the house would not.

I really would not hold my breath for the GG to forcefully dismiss a PM in Canada.

 

[mo60]

Most parties hit bumps in the road after a decade, but it's still bizarre to see it happening. Harper's biggest strength as leader has been keeping his team on message and disciplined. When they've erred, it's been because of excessive partisanship. This campaign, it's just been a lot of stupid mistakes.
I said a few pages ago that I thought maybe it was all part of a two-election strategy -- let this one go, then try and force another one within the year when they're the only party with any money. I couldn't think of why else they'd be doing so badly. Now, though, I'm thinking I may have vastly overestimated them: this may just be an unintentionally bad campaign.(Though I don't think any of us other than Boogie are part of their target audience, so we may not be the best judges of their campaign's effectiveness.)

I think the length of the campaign has something to do with the amount of mistakes they have been making in the last month or so. The amount of stress the conservative campaign is under to make sure they don't lose this important election is also probably stressing them out a bit and resulting in mistakes. I also do think they are just being a bit lazy to an extent especially with candidate vetting which adds on to the amount of mistakes they have been making in the last month or so. Social media is also helping to blow up the mistakes the CPC makes which also hurts them a bit. I seriously wonder if they will be able to recover from their mistakes eventually, but I doubt that will happen.

 

[Rocky85]

Tim Uppals in my riding and he doesnt stand a chance against the Liberal(whos pretty loved on the city council). Harper is gonna lose his poster boy.

 

[mo60]

Tim Uppals in my riding and he doesnt stand a chance against the Liberal(whos pretty loved on the city council). Harper is gonna lose his poster boy.

I wish the independent candidate in my edmonton riding had a chance to keep his seat but according to 308 he only has around 20% support in that riding compared to the CPC candidate.That independent candidate is currently running third in my riding behind the conservatives and NDP according to 308.Will probably vote for the NDP candidate in my riding to beat the conservatives.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Er... I'd really like to hear more about your basis for this belief that precedent doesn't favour the incumbent having first crack. Not only is this something that has absolutely happened, specifically in Canadian history, it's pretty much embedded in the mechanism of power transfer. For the GG to be the one to dismiss a PM in Canada rather than letting the House do it would be a major constitutional event. For the GG to allow the PM to fall in the house would not.

I really would not hold my breath for the GG to forcefully dismiss a PM in Canada.

If the argument is that precedent is what binds us, then coalitions are not (yet) legitimate in Canada. Borden's unity government ran as such in the election. We have thus never seen a formal coalition in parliament.

But we know that the GG has reserve power to dismiss a PM and we know that in all parliamentary democracies, coalitions can exist (because parties themselves are an artifice); and we know that a majority coalition in any form by definition has more legitimacy than a minority party.

Here's a thought experiment that should illustrate this: Imagine that in the election, Harper wins only one seat, his own, but refuses to resign as PM, not showing the magnanimity and deference we expect him to display. You would have us endure a national theatre rather than have the GG use a power he has. Now, we occasionally are forced into theatre, like when a crack smoking racist mayor dive bombs one of his fellow city council members and can't be removed, but in the event that we have the power to stop it, we should use it. The thought experiment works because there's no real difference in legitimacy between Harper trying to govern with only one seat and Harper trying to govern with 120-150, provided there's a majority coalition against him in either case.

I would be extremely disappointed if we were forced unnecessarily to sit through a farce throne speech in the event that Harper wins a plurality and the NDP and Liberals can come to terms on a majority coalition. Note that I feel the latter is not especially likely based on their current posturing, so I'm not saying anything about the plausibility, but if we're considering it, then yes, I think the GG should dismiss the current PM. Also, again, I'm speaking in the ought, I have no particular read on David Johnston's thoughts on the issues to be able to say what he would do. I'm surprised Jean acted the way she did during the prorogation crisis. *shrugs*

Many Canadians seem to have an adverse disposition to the exercise of crown reserve powers, perhaps because the Monarchy is a joke and we like Democracy. It's a pity then that we don't elect the Governor General in some kangaroo election so that s/he can use her/his legal powers without people worrying if it's the end of freedom in the country.

 

[maharg]

...

I would be extremely disappointed if we were forced unnecessarily to sit through a farce throne speech in the event that Harper wins a plurality and the NDP and Liberals can come to terms on a majority coalition. Note that I feel the latter is not especially likely based on their current posturing, so I'm not saying anything about the plausibility, but if we're considering it, then yes, I think the GG should dismiss the current PM. Also, again, I'm speaking in the ought, I have no particular read on David Johnston's thoughts on the issues to be able to say what he would do. I'm surprised Jean acted the way she did during the prorogation crisis. *shrugs*

Many Canadians seem to have an adverse disposition to the exercise of crown reserve powers, perhaps because the Monarchy is a joke and we like Democracy. It's a pity then that we don't elect the Governor General in some kangaroo election so that s/he can use her/his legal powers without people worrying if it's the end of freedom in the country.

Where you and I differ is that from my perspective, the entire artifice of parliament is 'theatre'. It is theatre with consequences, but it is theatre none the less. I am not saying this to diminish it, though. Quite the contrary, the replacement of bloody coups with ridiculous and well-meaning theatre was one of the greatest things the British and/or French ever invented.

Allowing Harper to face the house in some bizarro flame-out where he's won one (or even none, in case you want to make your hypothetical even more dramatic but just as valid) would be worth it because it would reinforce the rather theatrical notion that the power to govern derives from the consent of the governed. Only the house can grant or deny the consent of the people, the GG can not. It is entirely right for the GG to defer to the people's representatives even on a foregone conclusion, and the GG taking it upon themselves to do so is tantamount to saying the people's representatives cannot manage themselves anymore.

And I'm perfectly happy with the GG both existing and being so constrained, personally. Reserve powers being held in true reserve, for an actual emergency, is perfectly fine with me. I'd rather they never get used, but I'm ok with them existing in case the other artifices of government have crumbled even farther than they have now.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Michaëlle Jean's behaviour during the prorogation crisis was pretty baffling.

If anything it seems that the precedent is that the GG simply does whatever the PM says.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I keep on cooling down on Mulcair. He's doing a really bad job appealing to the younger crowd. Well I'm not that young but I have young sensibilities.

Currently, here is my ranking of how I prefer the parties & candidates:

1) Green
2) Liberal
3) NDP
4) Anarchy
5) Conservatives

I'm curious what NDP policies are putting you off. What ones from other parties are more appealing?

IMO we haven't heard a lot of policies that have a great deal of relevance for youth. I haven't heard much at all about education for example (which kinda makes sense given that it's a provincial issue). The opposition parties aren't too far off each other when it comes to policies young people would be interested in. The opposition parties are all dramatically more interested in protecting the environment than the Conservatives, with all vowing to not approve the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Public transit funding has been strongly supported by actually all the parties, with the Liberals promising the most amount of money. Liberals are promising weed legalization... is that the big one?

 

[subrock]

along those lines, I'm surprised none of the major parties has come out against the telecom industry. Seems like a pretty easy win to promise to crack down on collusion and price fixing.

 

[CitizenVectron]

New Nanos poll: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elec...erals-enter-two-way-race-nanos-poll-1.2552109

NDP - 33 (+2.3)
LPC - 31 (+0.6)
CPC - 26 (-2.3)

Unlike the normal Nanos poll, this one was done over 3 days (long weekend), and from now on they will be doing a new poll each night (with a 3-day rolling average). 1,200 person sample size over 3 days. 400 new each night, and they remove the oldest day each day. So a lot better than their old polls with month-old data.

I think we're going to start seeing a lot more polls now that the election is in full gear after the long weekend.

 

[Tabris]

I'm curious what NDP policies are putting you off. What ones from other parties are more appealing?

IMO we haven't heard a lot of policies that have a great deal of relevance for youth. I haven't heard much at all about education for example (which kinda makes sense given that it's a provincial issue). The opposition parties aren't too far off each other when it comes to policies young people would be interested in. The opposition parties are all dramatically more interested in protecting the environment than the Conservatives, with all vowing to not approve the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Public transit funding has been strongly supported by actually all the parties, with the Liberals promising the most amount of money. Liberals are promising weed legalization... is that the big one?

Here are the couple of big ones for me with the Liberals:

1) I prefer their voter reform platform over NDPs. This is the biggest one. I want this to avoid the current situation in the future. Whether Liberals give us 4 good or bad years, they'll set up a voting system that will allow us to get a better pick reflective of Canada.
2) Marijuana Legalization is a nice bonus
3) Honestly, leadership charisma. Mulcair has been looking weak lately, especially the debate. He looks more at home in the house though.
4) I don't care about either of their family platforms personally. I feel both parties have been weak on explaining where they will be getting money for some of those initiatives, but NDP even more so. I want them to clearly define how they are going to tax the rich more and I don't see that outlined at all by the NDP.

 

[maharg]

Here are the couple of big ones for me with the Liberals:

1) I prefer their voter reform platform over NDPs. This is the biggest one. I want this to avoid the current situation in the future. Whether Liberals give us 4 good or bad years, they'll set up a voting system that will allow us to get a better pick reflective of Canada.

What? It's the NDP that have promised to enact electoral reform. The Liberals have only promised to 'study' it further.

 

[subrock]

Liberals want to legalize and regulate pot, whereas the NDP want to decriminalize it. I actually think I'd prefer the latter, since it will leave accessibility about the same, and remove the stupid risk that a cop is going to bust you for it. Legalization is more likely to mean higher prices, and will very likely close many small dispensaries.

 

[Tabris]

What? It's the NDP that have promised to enact electoral reform. The Liberals have only promised to 'study' it further.

Here are changes promised from their official platform:

As outlined in Liberal MP David McGuinty’s Bill C-544, we will appoint an Advertising Commissioner to assist the Auditor General in providing oversight on government advertising.

Proposed messages will be reviewed by the Advertising Commissioner to ensure they are non-partisan and related to actual government requirements.

When the federal government passed fixed election date legislation, it left a loophole that allows unlimited spending in the period leading up the official writ period.

We will review electoral spending limits, and also ensure that political party spending between elections is subject to limits.

We will provide Elections Canada with the resources it needs to investigate voter fraud and suppression, illegal financing, and other matters that threaten the integrity of our electoral process. We will also remove the muzzle the Conservatives have placed on the Chief Electoral Officer, and ensure they, and Elections Canada, have the tools and mandate to encourage more Canadians to vote.

We will restore the independence of the Commissioner of Elections Canada so that they are freely able to prosecute electoral violations, and are accountable to Parliament and not the government of the day. We will also ensure that Elections Canada has the capacity to provide Canadians who want to volunteer in our democratic process with the necessary tools and information to do so.

They are also the only ones who talked about possibly doing mandated voting which I support as long as they bring online voting into the realm.

We will repeal the anti-democratic elements in the Conservative Fair Elections Act and scrap the Citizen Voting Act, which were designed to make it more difficult for Canadians to vote, and make it easier for election lawbreakers to evade punishment.

We will restore the voter identification card as an acceptable form of identification. We will also increase penalties so that there are real deterrents for deliberately breaking our election laws.

Many Canadians are not on the voters list when they turn 18; that needs to change. We will work with interested provinces and territories, and support Elections Canada, to register young Canadians as a part of their high school curriculum.

This would include Elections Canada staying in contact with them if they change addresses after graduation. We will support this registration as part of a civic ceremony in high schools, celebrating our right and responsibility to vote.

Finally, we will support Elections Canada in proactively registering Canadians from groups that historically have lower voter turnout, such as students.

Here is the "study" part you mentioned. They do promise change within 18 months:

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that electoral reform measures – such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting – are fully and fairly studied and considered.

This will be carried out by a special all-party parliamentary committee, which will bring recommendations to Parliament on the way forward, to allow for action before the succeeding federal election. Within 18 months of forming government, we will bring forward legislation to enact electoral reform.

 

[Azih]

And that 'change' could be anything even Australian style AV which is just as bad as FPTP.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Aww, man, I missed the debate about history and the constitution.

In any case...Stump, no offense, but you're completely wrong about this:

Here's a thought experiment that should illustrate this: Imagine that in the election, Harper wins only one seat, his own, but refuses to resign as PM, not showing the magnanimity and deference we expect him to display. You would have us endure a national theatre rather than have the GG use a power he has. Now, we occasionally are forced into theatre, like when a crack smoking racist mayor dive bombs one of his fellow city council members and can't be removed, but in the event that we have the power to stop it, we should use it. The thought experiment works because there's no real difference in legitimacy between Harper trying to govern with only one seat and Harper trying to govern with 120-150, provided there's a majority coalition against him in either case.

I would be extremely disappointed if we were forced unnecessarily to sit through a farce throne speech in the event that Harper wins a plurality and the NDP and Liberals can come to terms on a majority coalition. Note that I feel the latter is not especially likely based on their current posturing, so I'm not saying anything about the plausibility, but if we're considering it, then yes, I think the GG should dismiss the current PM. Also, again, I'm speaking in the ought, I have no particular read on David Johnston's thoughts on the issues to be able to say what he would do. I'm surprised Jean acted the way she did during the prorogation crisis. *shrugs*

You can't just decide that thought experiment works -- not when history is diametrically opposed to what you're suggesting. Convention dictates that the sitting PM has to resign first, regardless of how many seats they've won. Even Kim Campbell -- who wasn't that far off from your one seat scenario -- had to officially concede on election night. Had she so desired, she could've tried facing the House with a Throne Speech, though considering she wasn't even an MP, the farce of it all would've been unbelievable.

On top of that, you're giving the GG waaaay more powers than the position has. King-Byng established the precedent that the GG can't do anything like what you're suggesting. Dismissing the PM would be to go against 90 years of constitutional convention. That's why you can't just shrug off Jean's response to the prorogation crisis: as annoying and unfortunate as it may have been from a non-Conservative perspective, it's part of our tradition of the GG acting on the advice of the sitting PM. Like Maharg is saying, the GG taking it on him- or herself to dismiss the PM would be a pretty gross overreach of executive powers from an office that probably no longer even has that power to begin with, whatever the constitution may say. Harper would be pretty flagrantly abusing convention if he were to hold on to power, yet somehow it would be the lesser of the two abuses if the GG decided to dismiss him and offer the position to someone else.

I wish the independent candidate in my edmonton riding had a chance to keep his seat but according to 308 he only has around 20% support in that riding compared to the CPC candidate.That independent candidate is currently running third in my riding behind the conservatives and NDP according to 308.Will probably vote for the NDP candidate in my riding to beat the conservatives.

St. Albert-Edmonton? That's too bad -- Brent Rathgeber was one of the few really good, principled Conservative MPs, and he deserves to return to Ottawa. He obviously faces an uphill battle as an independent, but it would still be nice to see him pull it off.

 

[gabbo]

Here are the couple of big ones for me with the Liberals:

1) I prefer their voter reform platform over NDPs. This is the biggest one. I want this to avoid the current situation in the future. Whether Liberals give us 4 good or bad years, they'll set up a voting system that will allow us to get a better pick reflective of Canada.

I don't think this would be top of mind, even if Trudeau is out promoting it non-stop. There will be bigger issues should he pull a come from behind victory, and the other parties (in a minority situation) would demand changes/block it outright

 

[dragonfart28]

This is a milestone ad for the NDP campaign.

In one full minute, it both defines and humanizes Mulcair. It's the ad of a front-runner. It doesn't take on either the Conservatives or the Liberals. It simply sets out to make Canadians more comfortable with the idea of Mulcair as prime minister.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVhPlcy7GDs

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-ndp-mulcair-family-1.3218473

 

[dragonfart28]

Liberals want to legalize and regulate pot, whereas the NDP want to decriminalize it. I actually think I'd prefer the latter, since it will leave accessibility about the same, and remove the stupid risk that a cop is going to bust you for it. Legalization is more likely to mean higher prices, and will very likely close many small dispensaries.

I think legalization is inevitable, but I agree with the incremental approach so we can get properly funded, scientific studies on various types and their effects on health and human behavior in the interim.

 

[CreeperBlocks]

Trudeau's Enhanced EI Plan sounds interesting.

That could help a lot of people around here in Atlantic Canada so very much.

 

[Silexx]

I think legalization is inevitable, but I agree with the incremental approach so we can get properly funded, scientific studies on various types and their effects on health and human behavior in the interim.

Decriminalization is a smoke screen. (no pun intended) There have been tons of studies already and legalizing won't suddenly stop them from taking place. In fact, it may help further more research.

There is no reason why we can't transition into legalization and regulations off the bat while ensuring a responsible approach.

 

[Silexx]

Re: the constitutional debate earlier. This is what a constitutional law professor has to say:

The leaders are essentially saying the GG should dismiss a gov't when s/he *thinks* it *might* not have confidence. Pretty dangerous game.

2/ This is why "normal practice" of party winning plurality can't be transformed into a real convention:

3/ the principles of responsible gov't don't just dictate how the elected representative behave but the GG as well.

4/ The gov't is still the gov't after dissolution; indeed, until it loses confidence of the legislature. Unless we want to end caretaker

5/ governments, or worse - allow the GG to dismiss governments that haven't actually lost confidence - then incumbent must technically get

6/ first crack, even if 100% of the time when they don't get plurality they choose to pass on it.

Edit: sorry for the double post.

 

[Walpurgis]

I think legalization is inevitable, but I agree with the incremental approach so we can get properly funded, scientific studies on various types and their effects on health and human behavior in the interim.

It needs to be legalised, imo. Alcohol and tobacco are legal and they are worse than marijuana. It is also popular with the Aboriginal community in my city (in my experience). I believe it is part of their ceremonies too so I find it kind of insulting that European alcohol is legal but Aboriginal marijuana is not. If anything, I think tobacco should be slowly made illegal since it's so bad for health.

 

[Tiktaalik]

This is a milestone ad for the NDP campaign.

In one full minute, it both defines and humanizes Mulcair. It's the ad of a front-runner. It doesn't take on either the Conservatives or the Liberals. It simply sets out to make Canadians more comfortable with the idea of Mulcair as prime minister.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVhPlcy7GDs

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-ndp-mulcair-family-1.3218473

This is a great ad. Obviously Mulcair comes across as a grump, and as a result he's always told to force smile, but in this ad it comes across as genuine to me. He looks comfortable and happy.

Man the NDP must be thanking the Conservatives for spending heaps of cash to frame Trudeau as "just not ready" so that they can put out a single positive ad saying "I'm ready" that makes their candidate look great.

 

[gabbo]

This is a great ad. Obviously Mulcair comes across as a grump, and as a result he's always told to force smile, but in this ad it comes across as genuine to me. He looks comfortable and happy.

Man the NDP must be thanking the Conservatives for spending heaps of cash to frame Trudeau as "just not ready" so that they can put out a single positive ad saying "I'm ready" that makes their candidate look great.

It's certainly been a boon for them up to now.

 

[Ledhead]

This is a great ad. Obviously Mulcair comes across as a grump, and as a result he's always told to force smile, but in this ad it comes across as genuine to me. He looks comfortable and happy.

Man the NDP must be thanking the Conservatives for spending heaps of cash to frame Trudeau as "just not ready" so that they can put out a single positive ad saying "I'm ready" that makes their candidate look great.

I'm honestly astounded the Conservatives spent so much of their war chest demonizing Trudeau when it has been quite evident that the NDP were the greater threat. Have they even launched an attack ad on the NDP yet?

 

[Simon Belmont]

I'm honestly astounded the Conservatives spent so much of their war chest demonizing Trudeau when it has been quite evident that the NDP were the greater threat. Have they even launched an attack ad on the NDP yet?

Harper doesn't have the same visceral hate for the NDP.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I'm honestly astounded the Conservatives spent so much of their war chest demonizing Trudeau when it has been quite evident that the NDP were the greater threat. Have they even launched an attack ad on the NDP yet?

There was an article a little while back that suggested that the routes to victory for the two parties don't overlap in a lot of places, and so that's why they seem to be ignoring each other. Due to the NDP's broader national strength, especially in Quebec and BC, they can potentially win by ignoring the 905 area of Toronto, and by picking up other seats in Ontario that the Ontario NDP won but which the federal NDP doesn't have. This is one reason why the NDP have been running such a centrist campaign.

In contrast if the Conservatives are to stay in power they badly need to hold onto their 905 seats, as they're way down in BC and Quebec and aren't going to be making any further inroads in those provinces. Trudeau is strongest in Ontario and in the 905 area, so that's why you see the Conservatives attacking Trudeau so much.

Edit: Found the article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...gh-toronto-area-battleground/article25934922/

 

[gutter_trash]

I'm honestly astounded the Conservatives spent so much of their war chest demonizing Trudeau when it has been quite evident that the NDP were the greater threat. Have they even launched an attack ad on the NDP yet?

The NDP ended up picking up the ''benefits'' from the Conservative ''Just Not Ready'' ads.
Those adds show the Conservatives' Nasty Side which turns off voters but the message ended up sticking because it was so repeated.

Analysts point out that those ads are very Ontario focused because the Liberals are the Conservatives' main threat in Ontario, not the NDP

 

[jstripes]

This is a great ad. Obviously Mulcair comes across as a grump, and as a result he's always told to force smile, but in this ad it comes across as genuine to me. He looks comfortable and happy.

I wonder how many takes it took.

I'm honestly astounded the Conservatives spent so much of their war chest demonizing Trudeau when it has been quite evident that the NDP were the greater threat. Have they even launched an attack ad on the NDP yet?

The Liberals have been their mortal enemy since the beginning of time, so of course they're preoccupied with them. The NDP has always been a simple nuisance to them, and that's about it.

As crafty as they are, they're stuck in their ways, and now that things have changed, they're caught off guard.

 

[CitizenVectron]

It really does look like (if the current pattern continues) that the real race will be between the NDP and LPC, each with their own mutually exclusive base provinces.

It's fascinating that the country is so geographically split in such a tight race. The reason why it's interesting is that there could actually be a fairly low level of vote splitting as a result, as each party could have their own base. Right now it looks like:

BC - NDP
Prairies - CPC
ON - LPC
QC - NDP
Atlantic - LPC

 

[matthewwhatever]

Harper doesn't have the same visceral hate for the NDP.

There's probably some truth to that, but I think that they keep attacking the Liberals because they learned that lesson from 2011: they win their majority when the Liberals are weakened and it's a fight between them and the NDP. Southern Ontario voters abandoned the Liberals en masse at the thought of an NDP government, because they perceived the CPC as being in a better position to stop them. As such, the Conservatives are trying to replicate that -- except it doesn't work to their benefit if the swing voters perceive the Liberals as being in a better position.

It really does look like (if the current pattern continues) that the real race will be between the NDP and LPC, each with their own mutually exclusive base provinces.

It's fascinating that the country is so geographically split in such a tight race. The reason why it's interesting is that there could actually be a fairly low level of vote splitting as a result, as each party could have their own base. Right now it looks like:

BC - NDP
Prairies - CPC
ON - LPC
QC - NDP
Atlantic - LPC

I don't think I've seen anyone else suggest this yet, and it defies conventional wisdom, but now that you mention it, it seems like the most obvious thing in the world. If the Conservative vote really does collapse -- which probably won't happen, but we can dream -- it would be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I think the Liberals would take much of Manitoba (which seems to be happening anyway, according to some polls), Saskatchewan would split between Liberals in Regina/Saskatoon and the NDP in the rest of the province (where, historically, they've been pretty strong), and the NDP taking the BC interior. Alberta would be the only place where the Conservatives retain their majorities, but even there it could go Calgary Liberal, Edmonton NDP, and the CPC gets the scraps.

Totally not happening. Probably not happening. But if the Liberals keep rising in southern Ontario, and the NDP support in BC keeps growing at the expense of the Conservatives...

 

[CitizenVectron]

I don't think I've seen anyone else suggest this yet, and it defies conventional wisdom, but now that you mention it, it seems like the most obvious thing in the world. If the Conservative vote really does collapse -- which probably won't happen, but we can dream -- it would be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I think the Liberals would take much of Manitoba (which seems to be happening anyway, according to some polls), Saskatchewan would split between Liberals in Regina/Saskatoon and the NDP in the rest of the province (where, historically, they've been pretty strong), and the NDP taking the BC interior. Alberta would be the only place where the Conservatives retain their majorities, but even there it could go Calgary Liberal, Edmonton NDP, and the CPC gets the scraps.

Totally not happening. Probably not happening. But if the Liberals keep rising in southern Ontario, and the NDP support in BC keeps growing at the expense of the Conservatives...

As to Saskatchewan, it would take the CPC going down to basically nothing for them to lose their seats. The NDP is likely to take 2-3 seats in SK, and the LPC 1. The NDP might take 3-4 if their numbers are strong, but nothing more. Rural SK is basically the same as AB in terms of political leanings. It's only the cities that lean left.

 

[mo60]

Aww, man, I missed the debate about history and the constitution.


St. Albert-Edmonton? That's too bad -- Brent Rathgeber was one of the few really good, principled Conservative MPs, and he deserves to return to Ottawa. He obviously faces an uphill battle as an independent, but it would still be nice to see him pull it off.

Yep it's that riding. I doubt he will pull off a win as an independent in that riding at this point.

Anyway, does anyone notice how this election seems to be following the Alberta Election a bit so far. The incumbent's poll numbers collapse during the election campaign, while the NDP take advantage of the collapse and land in first place in polls and in the case of the Alberta election they won the election while the party the incumbent party tried so hard to get rid of eventually bounces back and forms the official opposition. In this election it looks like the Liberals may end up being that party if the trends in some of the recent polls continues to happen

 

[GSG Flash]

Were the Conservatives ever 3rd place on any poll last election?

 

[CitizenVectron]

Were the Conservatives ever 3rd place on any poll last election?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[mo60]

Were the Conservatives ever 3rd place on any poll last election?

Nope they were always in first in the polls.

 

[Tiktaalik]

As to Saskatchewan, it would take the CPC going down to basically nothing for them to lose their seats. The NDP is likely to take 2-3 seats in SK, and the LPC 1. The NDP might take 3-4 if their numbers are strong, but nothing more. Rural SK is basically the same as AB in terms of political leanings. It's only the cities that lean left.

All of the election ridings have been changed in Sask for this election so in Saskatoon and Regina there are now fully urban ridings, whereas in previous elections all of the ridings were split urban and rural. The previous arrangement was the most absurdly gerrymandered thing ever.

All this means that the Liberals and NDP are certain to pick up several more urban only seats in Sask this election.

 

[CitizenVectron]

All of the election ridings have been changed in Sask for this election so in Saskatoon and Regina there are now fully urban ridings, whereas in previous elections all of the ridings were split urban and rural. The previous arrangement was the most absurdly gerrymandered thing ever.

All this means that the Liberals and NDP are certain to pick up several more urban only seats in Sask this election.

Yes I'm aware of that, I live in Regina. Saskatoon now has 3 urban ridings and Regina has 2, plus 1 urban/rural split. Saskatoon will likely elect 1-2 NDP MPs, and Regina will possible elect 1 (basically dead heat). The Liberals will get Ralph Goodale in Regina, and the other Regina seat will go Conservative unless there is a massive drop in their support in the rural area (which is unlikely). The north also looks to be leaning NDP/Liberal this time around. But that leaves 8 or 9 rural ridings that will go Conservative (they win them by 20-30 points).

 

[matthewwhatever]

Were the Conservatives ever 3rd place on any poll last election?

I don't know when the Conservatives were last in third place. It's been a long time. There may have been some rogue or random polls here and there, but...I don't know, we may be looking back to the '40s? Since the Reform Party took over the PCs they've always been in first or second. I don't think Alexa McDonough ever came close to second during her time as NDP leader, so the Reform Party was second by default during Chretien's reign as PM. There were some polls in the lead-up to the 1988 election that had the NDP ahead, but that was at the expense of the Liberals, so the PCs were still in second. The '70s were all Trudeau vs Stanfield. I think Diefenbaker polled well even after losing to Pearson; he certainly kept the PC Party vital in Western and rural Canada. So...yeah, a third place Conservatives party may have been a possibility in the '40s when the CCF was surging and the Conservatives merged with the Progressive Party in order to woo John Bracken and stay relevant. I don't think there's much precedent for what happens if their vote collapses and there's no other conservative party siphoning off votes.

 

[balohna]

Slightly worried now that Liberals will overtake the NDP, or it will be such a small minority govt from either party that Parliament will dissolve and we'll have another election. The "anyone but Conservatives" strategy is cool and all, but it looks like it can't possibly lead to a majority at this point. Trudeau seems like he's be overly stubborn in an opposition role, especially with a minority government that's just slightly better represented than his party.

 

[CitizenVectron]

If the Liberals win it's likely that the NDP will support them with the condition of a few major policy planks being addressed. My worry is that a Liberal win will allow Trudeau to ignore democratic reform re: MMP voting system adoption. That's why I want an NDP win supported by Liberals.

But trust me, if the Liberals or NDP win, there will be no new election for at least 2-3 years. The reason is that the Liberals and NDP will be out of money by the end of this election while the CPC will still have a bunch, so the 2 front-runners would be unwilling to have another election and risk not being able to campaign.