Your seat projections have arrived (UPDATED)

At this point, everybody is losing

Fascists

Visitors

Commies

Traitors

Ewocs

Hermits

Lispop

151

75

34

48

0

0

DemocraticSpace.com

152

78

34

43

0

0

Ekos

146

69

44

48

0

1

ThreeHundredEight.com

147

80

35

45

0

1

Calgary Grit

150

74

35

48

0

0

ElectionAlmanac.com

144

90

30

44

0

0

AVERAGE

148

78

35

47

0

0

Above is a summary of the latest seat projections from a variety of sources. As can be seen, the consensus has the Fascists (Conservatives) short of the 155 seats needed for a majority, with the Visitors (Liberals — the former Crooks (2004/6) and Not a Leaders (2008)) making only a slight improvement on their dismal showing last time out. The Commies (NDP) and Traitors (Bloc) are down slightly from their 2008 totals, though these projections may not reflect the rise in NDP support the polls have been picking up in recent days.

Oh, and the Ewocs (an acronym, from the immortal Tabatha Southey epithet for the Greens, “Europeans without cigarettes” — though it also has a pleasing furry-critter connotation)? Shut out again.

In sum: at this point everybody is losing.

UPDATE: Refreshed with new numbers from Ekos and ThreeHundredEight.com!




Browse

Your seat projections have arrived (UPDATED)

  1. LOL well at least this one's funny….thank you!

    • Andrew,
      You are a funny man….. did I agree with Emily?…….. but how did you come up with the seat distribution? I think you are just doing this to stir up the hornet's nest. What would Emily say? Oh yeah… OLO.

      • OOOps: LOL

      • I thought exactly the same thing. Did I really just agree with what Emily wrote? I actually double checked the name to see if I was mistaken.

  2. LOL well at least this one's funny….thank you!

  3. Alright, so lets say it plays out something like that. What happens when the fascist table the budget removing per vote subsidies to political parties? We got ourselves a mess!

    • We got something we never got out of harper: possible cooperation.

      • We can only hope. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get some real talk about changing the system… hah.. nevermind I think we'll be waiting a long time for that..

        I wonder how the election would have turned out if the Liberals campaigned hard on the promise of looking into various types of proportional representation. It would be interesting to see the public's reaction… if you can get a reaction out of them at all.

    • Well, my unrealistic hope is that if the Conservatives fail to win a majority they would actually show real leadership and respect the voters by bringing in a budget that would gain the support of the majority of the house.

      If they don't get a majority, its obvious that the majority don't want their budget. If it was wanted in its exact form, people would return a majority Conservative government.

      • yup.

      • I am speechless. At this point in the proceedings, I never expected to read such a calm, rational assessment of the situation…..so used to mudslinging.

        You must be new.

        Are you sure you don't want to say something about how Ignatieff wasn't wearing the correct lapel pin or maybe the how the CBC is controlled by George Soros or that maybe I'm stupid because I only have an arts degree or something about cats?

        • you like cats? that's sketchy, dude.

  4. Alright, so lets say it plays out something like that. What happens when the fascist table the budget removing per vote subsidies to political parties? We got ourselves a mess!

  5. I'd probably put a bit more weight on 308.com than a straight average, myself, but I appreciate the summary, Andrew.

    Now time to make some more popcorn for Adler's show on SUN.

    • What I saw of Adler was inspiring to watch. And by that, I mean I'm posting this from the bathroom.

      • Actually, I've been pretty underwhelmed with both the production quality and the formulaic and predictable content.

        I figured I'd be inspired one way or another but I realize that right now I'm just bored. Maybe there's a hockey game on.

        • I watched Ezra… I had the same impression. The production quality was like a local cable TV show, not a national network.

          And is it me, but listening to one guy pontificate for an hour every day, isn't that going to get old, quick? I mean, is there enough people out there that hate the CBC so much that they'll tune in to listen to one guy, maybe two, talk about how crappy the CBC is?

          • I just watched a bit of Lilley's show, and he's actually got a good voice for television. But I thought SunTV was an HD channel. Why is it all shot in Standard Definition? And how come they don't have a single person on staff who can operate a light meter? And yes, Lilley was targeting the CBC as well.

            I'll give it a bit more time. Nothing jumps out at me as a huge ratings draw yet, but we'll see. If this is a straight political show 24/7 then it'll die a very quick death. They're going to have to do a business/market update (perhaps a half hour or hour) for sure. Perhaps they already have one lined up.

          • Lilley spent five minutes sh*tcanning the CBC… then got a guest on to sh*tcan the CBC together. Ok, fine, whatever. But are they going to make a station out of this? Holy liftin'. Weak sauce.

          • I'm assuming this is just 'first day' stuff and they'll find their groove later this week. Otherwise yeah, us "diehard" SUN viewers will be begging for a return to the eternal reruns of Dave's World.

            EDIT: I'm done being charitable. If this was their 'blow me away' first day, I can't imagine they'll last six months.

          • Look, 'Noob', Real Canadians® LOVE 4:3 Aspect Ratio. It's boxy, but good. Tried n' true. 16:9? Elitist nonsense. Don't let's get started on 1:85:1. What, you like GALAS?

            Hey, even though we ( Real Canadians®) buy HD screens doesn't mean we have to use 'em.

          • Perhaps it was intentional; Adler may have a "No HD" clause in his contract.

          • I watched Ezra… I had the same impression. The production quality was like a local cable TV show, not a national network.

            And is it me, but listening to one guy pontificate for an hour every day, isn't that going to get old, quick? I mean, is there enough people out there that hate the CBC so much that they'll tune in to listen to one guy, maybe two, talk about how crappy the CBC is?

            Sadly, I have to agree with you 100% on this. Production quality is sadly lacking compared to CBC and CTV. Hope they come up with their own version of a national nightly newscast; can't see this format lasting too long. I hate the CBC that much, and even I don't want to spend that much time watching it.

          • What say we give them 1 or 2 billion dollars of public funding for 30 or 40 years rather then condemn them on their first day.

          • Blue, I can shoot better quality video with two bedroom lamps and my Sony HD Handycam. This is Stephane Dion-level video here. This is marketed as an HD channel, but the only HD footage is the SUN logo and the bottom part of the ticker.

            It's not like they decided to shoot the show yesterday, and they've been rushing around trying to pull it together. They've been telegraphing this important new channel for months. These are bugs that should have been worked out long before they went live.

            I'll give them months and months to find a good groove for their content, as that takes some time, but they should have had their video quality down pat the very first moment.

          • Couple of things… I have to admit, I could be way wrong. I'm sure they've focus-grouped this format and have done all that TV-production stuff that I have no clue about, and they've determined that this format is going to be a knockout with a large enough segment of the population to make this profitable. What I know about TV could fill a teacup. I just know my first impression was not good. Second, I'd argue that they're a victim of their own buzz. They talked about this like it was the second coming. I was expecting (and I don't mean this in a bad way) Fox News North. It came across as half-assed. But, hey, I could eat my words, I readily admit.

          • Don't have access to it down here in sunny southern Cal but yeah, come ON people, must agree with my conservative friends (all 6 of them)….it was Day 1 fer gawdsakes.

        • What I learned:
          - bringing on Monte Solberg to talk about how every other media source in Canada is whoring itself out for Ignatieff is in no way ironic or self-unaware
          - all critics of SunTV are simply bitterly jealous of Charles Adler's talent and ability to connect with people
          - Adler asking Solberg how Iggy saying Layton will never be PM paints Iggy as a bad person — literally less than 30 seconds after Solberg himself said without prompting that Layton will never be PM — does not create any sense of cognitive dissonance once you've properly slipped into the SunTV mindset

          • Oh, so they are doing comedy. Shove over John Stewart. Is it only on in Ontario – there's no sign of it here in B.C.

          • Which one was Abbott and which one Costello. Can't tell from your summary.

          • Now reading Frum was on Akins show. God,it's like a neocon love in. This is all very well, but are they going to do tomorrow?

          • Lather, rinse, repeat.

          • Frum's bad thoughts cancel out his good thoughts in my book, but at least he has thoughts.

            The half-hour I could bear to watch was like being at a school play, watching rote and uninspired recitations of things you've already heard a hundred times (or read, for Maclean's forumistas). The parts that weren't outright offensive were just plain weak.

            Canada may not have the "talent" pool necessary to make this thing work.

    • Agreed. For my own judgment: Lispop's numbers seem out of left field; ElectionAlmanac's methods seem ridiculously dubious, at best; and Ekos is included in 308's. So personally, I'd cancel all three of those out and just stick with 308.

      This is the first time I've seen Ewoc/Tabatha Southey's epithet, and it's genius. Thank you for including that, Mr Coyne.

    • am I the only person that can't even turn that channel on for fear of wrecking my tv from anger at the political equivalent of lobotomy patients?

  6. I'd probably put a bit more weight on 308.com than a straight average, myself, but I appreciate the summary, Andrew.

    Now time to make some more popcorn for Adler's show on SUN.

  7. Well, they all certainly DESERVE to lose. So good news.

    • tob ad we can't find a way to assign everyone negative seats!

  8. Well, they all certainly DESERVE to lose. So good news.

  9. Two factors the polls aren't factoring in:

    1) Likliness to vote/voter intensity

    2) Where the "undecideds" will go.

    Which is why these polls, regardless of what they're saying now, aren't worth much.

    My call:

    CPC 163 seats

    Based on the undecideds not wanting to change an economically successful horse midstream, and

    voter intensity/liklihood significantly favours the CPC.

    It'll be interesting to see as we get closer to the actual vote whether the polling companies with try to factor these in, in order to gain credibility.

    My second call:

    watch the polls move decidedly in the CPC's favour within 36 hours of the vote (perhaps a day or two sooner).

    • You're assuming that the undecideds will fall for the "economically successful" deception pushed by the Cons.

    • This is what I want to happen. Hope you're right!

  10. Two factors the polls aren't factoring in:

    1) Likliness to vote/voter intensity

    2) Where the "undecideds" will go.

    Which is why these polls, regardless of what they're saying now, aren't worth much.

    My call:

    CPC 163 seats

    Based on the undecideds not wanting to change an economically successful horse midstream, and

    voter intensity/liklihood significantly favours the CPC.

    It'll be interesting to see as we get closer to the actual vote whether the polling companies with try to factor these in, in order to gain credibility.

    My second call:

    watch the polls move decidedly in the CPC's favour within 36 hours of the vote (perhaps a day or two sooner).

  11. Also recall last election about two or three weeks out, many polls (including Nanos) had the race almost neck and neck. Nanos was particularly aggregious with his sudded spread over the last weekend.

    • Wasn't the Dion 'mis-understood question' fiasco during that last few days? That really shifted things right before the vote, if I remember correctly.

      In any event, you can go back to the 2006 election where the Liberals ended 'up' unexpectedly on Election night, and I'm sure a thousand other examples throughout history. It's polling, it's not an absolute science.

      • Nope. It's just that statistical analysis has a well-known liberal bias.

        • Well, let's just make sure we're here on election night to see how it all turns out.

        • How so? Okay, I'm going to poke a stick in the badger hole here because I'm 'in a mood.' Is it because Evangelicals don't do polls? Or, is it because the CPC doesn't know how Der Meister Stephen wants them to answer? Or is it because Corp Bots haven't been programmed for polls? LOL
          Just poking.

          Since Polls are pretty basic Q&A, they can have any bias the Pollster wants to put on them. Are you suggesting that pollsters are all Liberals?

          • Exactly. It's not just statistics either. Group theory and linear algebra are in on it to. All those linear transformations! A matrix is a the product of vector and a transpose vector. Same-dimension matrix multiplication is an abomination unto the Lord.

    • and the last poll prior to the Progressive Conservatives defeat (circa Brian Mulroney) had them in majority territory before they were denied official party status 2 days later.

  12. Also recall last election about two or three weeks out, many polls (including Nanos) had the race almost neck and neck. Nanos was particularly aggregious with his sudded spread over the last weekend.

  13. We got something we never got out of harper: possible cooperation.

  14. Which Hermit is it? Helena? Hilarious!

    • If you click through, the Ekos model has that one Hermit in Quebec, so presumably André Arthur.

      • Thank you!

  15. Which Hermit is it? Helena? Hilarious!

  16. What I saw of Adler was inspiring to watch. And by that, I mean I'm posting this from the bathroom.

  17. Wasn't the Dion 'mis-understood question' fiasco during that last few days? That really shifted things right before the vote, if I remember correctly.

    In any event, you can go back to the 2006 election where the Liberals ended 'up' unexpectedly on Election night, and I'm sure a thousand other examples throughout history. It's polling, it's not an absolute science.

  18. Andrew,

    BTW, you took an old Ekos poll.

    Ekos has the CPC with a 12.5 point lead.

    Large sample (2400).

  19. Andrew,

    BTW, you took an old Ekos poll.

    Ekos has the CPC with a 12.5 point lead.

    Large sample (2400).

    • I don't see a more recent seat projection from Ekos yet. Do you have a link handy?

      • Chet is right. The Ekos lead was still around 7.5 points when that seat projection was done. Probably closer to the others now.

        Pundits Guide somehow got her hands on an Environics poll that has CPC with a 15 point lead (39-24-22). Not sure who commissions the environics polls? But it sure seems like several polls now (Leger, Angus-Reid, Environics, EKOS) are confirming a Liberal drop and an NDP surge. Pretty sure the Liberal internal polling is telling them the same thing; the calls to Martin and Chretien seem more like desperation than inspiration. Wonder if Nanos will start moving to confirm this as well.

        • A couple of polls have the Libs under 25 now? Wow.

          This may be the year of a complete Liberal implosion (of the Kim Cambell variety).

        • In Québec bringing Chrétien in = reminding people of Adscam. Bad idea. A lot of people in Québec have sworn they would never vote Liberal again. Which is silly, as teams change, but what ca you do.

  20. Actually, I've been pretty underwhelmed with both the production quality and the formulaic and predictable content.

    I figured I'd be inspired one way or another but I realize that right now I'm just bored. Maybe there's a hockey game on.

  21. If everyone is losing, isn't that democracy? No, it's not.
    The obvious question then becomes, how do we make it so everyone is #winning?

  22. If everyone is losing, isn't that democracy? No, it's not.
    The obvious question then becomes, how do we make it so everyone is #winning?

    • Tiger blood.

      • Don't involve the Tamil Tigers in this election, please?

        • I would have preferred:
          "Please, don't lets involve the Tamil Tigers in this election, eh?"

          • Got one running in my riding. Yay Gavan Paramsothy. Or "Ragavan", when he was supporting the Tigers.

    • Goddesses?

      • Hahaha

  23. Well, my unrealistic hope is that if the Conservatives fail to win a majority they would actually show real leadership and respect the voters by bringing in a budget that would gain the support of the majority of the house.

    If they don't get a majority, its obvious that the majority don't want their budget. If it was wanted in its exact form, people would return a majority Conservative government.

  24. I watched Ezra… I had the same impression. The production quality was like a local cable TV show, not a national network.

    And is it me, but listening to one guy pontificate for an hour every day, isn't that going to get old, quick? I mean, is there enough people out there that hate the CBC so much that they'll tune in to listen to one guy, maybe two, talk about how crappy the CBC is?

  25. Tiger blood.

  26. We can only hope. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get some real talk about changing the system… hah.. nevermind I think we'll be waiting a long time for that..

    I wonder how the election would have turned out if the Liberals campaigned hard on the promise of looking into various types of proportional representation. It would be interesting to see the public's reaction… if you can get a reaction out of them at all.

  27. Don't involve the Tamil Tigers in this election, please?

  28. If you click through, the Ekos model has that one Hermit in Quebec, so presumably André Arthur.

  29. I just watched a bit of Lilley's show, and he's actually got a good voice for television. But I thought SunTV was an HD channel. Why is it all shot in Standard Definition? And how come they don't have a single person on staff who can operate a light meter? And yes, Lilley was targeting the CBC as well.

    I'll give it a bit more time. Nothing jumps out at me as a huge ratings draw yet, but we'll see. If this is a straight political show 24/7 then it'll die a very quick death. They're going to have to do a business/market update (perhaps a half hour or hour) for sure. Perhaps they already have one lined up.

  30. Agreed. For my own judgment: Lispop's numbers seem out of left field; ElectionAlmanac's methods seem ridiculously dubious, at best; and Ekos is included in 308's. So personally, I'd cancel all three of those out and just stick with 308.

    This is the first time I've seen Ewoc/Tabatha Southey's epithet, and it's genius. Thank you for including that, Mr Coyne.

  31. I don't see a more recent seat projection from Ekos yet. Do you have a link handy?

  32. Lilley spent five minutes sh*tcanning the CBC… then got a guest on to sh*tcan the CBC together. Ok, fine, whatever. But are they going to make a station out of this? Holy liftin'. Weak sauce.

  33. I would have preferred:
    "Please, don't lets involve the Tamil Tigers in this election, eh?"

  34. I'm assuming this is just 'first day' stuff and they'll find their groove later this week. Otherwise yeah, us "diehard" SUN viewers will be begging for a return to the eternal reruns of Dave's World.

    EDIT: I'm done being charitable. If this was their 'blow me away' first day, I can't imagine they'll last six months.

  35. What I learned:
    - bringing on Monte Solberg to talk about how every other media source in Canada is whoring itself out for Ignatieff is in no way ironic or self-unaware
    - all critics of SunTV are simply bitterly jealous of Charles Adler's talent and ability to connect with people
    - Adler asking Solberg how Iggy saying Layton will never be PM paints Iggy as a bad person — literally less than 30 seconds after Solberg himself said without prompting that Layton will never be PM — does not create any sense of cognitive dissonance once you've properly slipped into the SunTV mindset

  36. Thank you!

  37. I have been reading Morton's "The Kingdom of Canada" which clearly lays out the fact of Quebec being the eldest body politic in Canada (save the aboriginals). Thinking about the BQ in terms of this historical continuity, I am lead to speculate about their strategy. To me it is a long game, though the 30 to 40 years it will take is a relatively short period of time, that boils down to this: drain the centre of federal political influence/currency. In light of the past 3 minorities and the projected 4th, it seems to be working. A majority might be unachievable without Quebec. Ontario looses if Quebec sits out. The West doesn't have the depth (yet, and not for some time to come) to carry the show. Atlantic Canada has always been a facet of the centre-continuum.

    BQ thinking has, and this seems no great revelation, switched from "I want to go." to "If you won't let us go, then I'll make you kick us out." With the centre drained, the country becomes progressively under- to ungovernable to the point that Ontario has to agree to letting Quebec go in a vain attempt to getting the centre to function again.

    This scenario is far from fait accomplit. But if it does come about, it won't result in the emancipation of a nation, Quebec, for they will scuttling themselves/ourselves. We where Canadiens before Quebecois.

  38. I have been reading Morton's "The Kingdom of Canada" which clearly lays out the fact of Quebec being the eldest body politic in Canada (save the aboriginals). Thinking about the BQ in terms of this historical continuity, I am lead to speculate about their strategy. To me it is a long game, though the 30 to 40 years it will take is a relatively short period of time, that boils down to this: drain the centre of federal political influence/currency. In light of the past 3 minorities and the projected 4th, it seems to be working. A majority might be unachievable without Quebec. Ontario looses if Quebec sits out. The West doesn't have the depth (yet, and not for some time to come) to carry the show. Atlantic Canada has always been a facet of the centre-continuum.

    BQ thinking has, and this seems no great revelation, switched from "I want to go." to "If you won't let us go, then I'll make you kick us out." With the centre drained, the country becomes progressively under- to ungovernable to the point that Ontario has to agree to letting Quebec go in a vain attempt to getting the centre to function again.

    This scenario is far from fait accomplit. But if it does come about, it won't result in the emancipation of a nation, Quebec, for they will scuttling themselves/ourselves. We where Canadiens before Quebecois.

    • Except those pesky Québécois keep getting in the way.

      As much as I don't like it, the recent rise of Jack Layton in the province is due in part to people saying they are tired of the old lines and want to hear something new.

      The problem won't ever go away completely so we just have to keep working at keeping the country together.

      • It isn't the Quebecois, it is the Pequiste that have seized control of the Class A shares of confederation.

        No. Sorry to say. What you are talking about is attempting to bail faster and harder without first shutting the scuttle valves on a vessel. Eventually, you won't be able to keep up. A country is like Canada (and I know of no other country like it) is a continual investment of political capital (I think of it, in it's corporate character, as more of an insurance company than a country). The Bloc has found a way to start to drain that political capital, built up over at least 13 generations. Canada will linger on… as a wreck on the sands has a life after it's floundering.

    • You're seriously suggesting they can keep a conspiracy like that quiet for over a generation?

      • If I can figure it out, do you really think they are making any effort to hide it?

    • Champlain was in Nova Scotia before Quebec. Port Royal.

      • As he founded the settlement of Quebec, he could hardly have elected to go there first when it didn't yet exist. Besides, Champlain is Canada. It was his vision.

    • I'm sorry, ColdStanding, but I had to give you a thumbs down – because of your 'Rex Murphy' circuitous logic and prose style, your casting of Quebec nationalists as the enemy, and your lugubrious dismissal of Canadian possibility.

      • I doubt I'll ever recover from the heartbreak of your thumbs down.

        Wait, I'm all better.

  39. Oh, so they are doing comedy. Shove over John Stewart. Is it only on in Ontario – there's no sign of it here in B.C.

  40. Chet is right. The Ekos lead was still around 7.5 points when that seat projection was done. Probably closer to the others now.

    Pundits Guide somehow got her hands on an Environics poll that has CPC with a 15 point lead (39-24-22). Not sure who commissions the environics polls? But it sure seems like several polls now (Leger, Angus-Reid, Environics, EKOS) are confirming a Liberal drop and an NDP surge. Pretty sure the Liberal internal polling is telling them the same thing; the calls to Martin and Chretien seem more like desperation than inspiration. Wonder if Nanos will start moving to confirm this as well.

  41. Except those pesky Québécois keep getting in the way.

    As much as I don't like it, the recent rise of Jack Layton in the province is due in part to people saying they are tired of the old lines and want to hear something new.

    The problem won't ever go away completely so we just have to keep working at keeping the country together.

    • Thanks, yes, forgot about them. I've added them to the chart.

  42. Look, 'Noob', Real Canadians® LOVE 4:3 Aspect Ratio. It's boxy, but good. Tried n' true. 16:9? Elitist nonsense. Don't let's get started on 1:85:1. What, you like GALAS?

    Hey, even though we ( Real Canadians®) buy HD screens doesn't mean we have to use 'em.

  43. Well, I think this will all change when the Toronto Star issues their endorsement….

    The suspense – it's killing me.

    • The Globe and Mail, on the other hand is worth watching. They have a knack for picking the eventual winner (8/10 since 1979).

      1979: Clark
      1980: Clark
      1984: Mulroney
      1988: Mulroney
      1993: Chretien
      1997: Charest
      2000: Chretien (so Paul Martin could succeed him)
      2004: Martin
      2006: Harper
      2008: Harper

  44. Which one was Abbott and which one Costello. Can't tell from your summary.

  45. Well, I think this will all change when the Toronto Star issues their endorsement….

    The suspense – it's killing me.

  46. Goddesses?

  47. You're seriously suggesting they can keep a conspiracy like that quiet for over a generation?

  48. I think the best result for Canadians would be to clear the slate. If they are perceived to have lost (defined within their reasonable objectives: Harper to get a majority, Ignatieff to significantly increase seats, Layton to increase seats and win in Quebec, Duceppe to hold on to what he has), their parties will turf them and that is good for all of us. Each party seriously, hopefully chastened. (And seeing religicons come out of the closet in a Conservative leadership race, and which candidates pander to them, can only be a good thing.)

    The fact is Canada is at a unique turning point in our history that we've only really faced perhaps 3 times. We're in transition to something quite the same but also quite different. What is difficult to say, but it is largely demographics. It's why we are having such split decisions and dysfunction in Parliament, as we did in the 1850s-1860s, in the post WWI years and the late 1950s-mid1960s. Only some are really talking about it in these terms though Conservative research and actions show that they are at least more aware of it and shaping tactics by it.

    • We killed them all off…smothered them, every one.

      So don't look for any saviours…we're fresh out.

    • I often take a break from reality and dream about running as an independent in my riding. My campaign would be called "The $20,000 Tour." I'd have a bunch of t-shirt with all the cities I intend to visit on the campaign trail to hand them out to the public as I do presentation. I'd travel and sleep in my car, from town to town picking random places to have discussions with the citizens. The message I'd have for them:

      What I think doesn't matter. Don't ask me where I stand because it just doesn't matter. Everytime we have an election you vote for a candidate that promises to stand up for you but you know it just ain't true. You know that in parliament only the opinion of the party matters, opinions decided by members far away from you and with only the next election in mind.

      In parliament my opinion won't matter, I'm going to vote according to your opinion. I'm going to use every means at my disposal to inform you about every vote taken in parliament and survey this riding on every matter to determine where you want to vote.

      Of course, not every vote is going to turn the result in your favour but at least the vote I make is going to represent what you want, not what the parties want. Your voice will finally matter.

      And then I snap out of it.

    • "We're in transition to something quite the same but also quite different. What is difficult to say, but it is largely demographics. It's why we are having such split decisions and dysfunction in Parliament"

      Huh? You haven't noticed the transition? Was there a provincial/separarist party involved in federal politics before?

      If so, when???

      • Which provincial/separarist (sic) party? The Quebec one or the Alberta one?

        • The Catch-22 Campaign sends you a thank-you note.

          And remember: feel free to instigate the Harper hate without debate.

          Please, donate again!

          • SOME partisan's feeling a wee bit touchy eh?

            I like that middle line- sounds like Johnnie Cochrane.

  49. I think the best result for Canadians would be to clear the slate. If they are perceived to have lost (defined within their reasonable objectives: Harper to get a majority, Ignatieff to significantly increase seats, Layton to increase seats and win in Quebec, Duceppe to hold on to what he has), their parties will turf them and that is good for all of us. Each party seriously, hopefully chastened. (And seeing religicons come out of the closet in a Conservative leadership race, and which candidates pander to them, can only be a good thing.)

    The fact is Canada is at a unique turning point in our history that we've only really faced perhaps 3 times. We're in transition to something quite the same but also quite different. What is difficult to say, but it is largely demographics. It's why we are having such split decisions and dysfunction in Parliament, as we did in the 1850s-1860s, in the post WWI years and the late 1950s-mid1960s. Only some are really talking about it in these terms though Conservative research and actions show that they are at least more aware of it and shaping tactics by it.

    MacDonald's solution was a coalition in the Liberal-Conservative Party. King's solution was a coalition of sorts with the Progressive Party (and as a complete aside doesn't Harper's personality just remind you of Meighen? Certainly more than any other PM). Pearson's solution was an agreement with the NDP.

    Harper actually understood this when he was advocating a coalition in 1997 and pushing for co-opposition agreement with the NDP and Bloc in 2004, but he's burned that bridge for perceived short-term partisan gain.

    I just don't see any of the current crop as the ones who are capable of taking us beyond this morass. Harper prefers fearmongering to anything resembling compromise and has shown contempt for working with the other parties. Ignatieff has real leadership abilities when he chooses not to listen to his advisors too much, but he just doesn't have the political experience to manage what King or MacDonald did. He could be a Pearson – Pearson didn't have the political smarts either but was smart enough to let a strong cabinet and advisors do his thing, so maybe – but Pearson had a personal reach that made up for a lot and Ignatieff has more disdain than high regard across the country. Layton has the political skills to find a working solution and has done that with Martin on very short terms and proposed to do that with Harper and with Dion, but he's not ever going to come close to getting there and is a bit of a spent force.

    Where are our bold statesmen when we need them? Who speaks for Canada and not just their own party?

  50. I watched Ezra… I had the same impression. The production quality was like a local cable TV show, not a national network.

    And is it me, but listening to one guy pontificate for an hour every day, isn't that going to get old, quick? I mean, is there enough people out there that hate the CBC so much that they'll tune in to listen to one guy, maybe two, talk about how crappy the CBC is?

    Sadly, I have to agree with you 100% on this. Production quality is sadly lacking compared to CBC and CTV. Hope they come up with their own version of a national nightly newscast; can't see this format lasting too long. I hate the CBC that much, and even I don't want to spend that much time watching it.

  51. If I can figure it out, do you really think they are making any effort to hide it?

  52. It isn't the Quebecois, it is the Pequiste that have seized control of the Class A shares of confederation.

    No. Sorry to say. What you are talking about is attempting to bail faster and harder without first shutting the scuttle valves on a vessel. Eventually, you won't be able to keep up. A country is like Canada (and I know of no other country like it) is a continual investment of political capital (I think of it, in it's corporate character, as more of an insurance company than a country). The Bloc has found a way to start to drain that political capital, built up over at least 13 generations. Canada will linger on… as a wreck on the sands has a life after it's floundering.

  53. The Globe and Mail, on the other hand is worth watching. They have a knack for picking the eventual winner (8/10 since 1979).

    1979: Clark
    1980: Clark
    1984: Mulroney
    1988: Mulroney
    1993: Chretien
    1997: Charest
    2000: Chretien (so Paul Martin could succeed him)
    2004: Martin
    2006: Harper
    2008: Harper

  54. We killed them all off…smothered them, every one.

    So don't look for any saviours…we're fresh out.

  55. Now reading Frum was on Akins show. God,it's like a neocon love in. This is all very well, but are they going to do tomorrow?

  56. Andrew,
    You are a funny man….. did I agree with Emily?…….. but how did you come up with the seat distribution? I think you are just doing this to stir up the hornet's nest. What would Emily say? Oh yeah… OLO.

  57. Thanks, yes, forgot about them. I've added them to the chart.

  58. Harper only needs 12 additional seats to get a majority government and in the last election he came within 10% of taking 21 Liberal seats. For Stephen Harper, taking those 21 seats from the Liberals is job #1.

    So, if Jack Layton cares about getting rid of Harper, then why is he attacking the Liberals?

    According to Punditsguide.ca, there are only 7 seats where the NDP placed second and was within 10% of beating a Conservative. In 6 of those cases the combined Liberal and NDP vote would have beat the Conservative. In 3 other ridings won by Harper, the NDP was a close 3rd. Let%E2%80%99s assume that the NDP takes enough votes from the Liberals in all 9 of those ridings to create NDP victories.

    But mathematically, if the NDP attack on Liberals is successful enough to win all of those 9 seats, the NDP attack will take a similar number of votes away from Liberals in other ridings. In fact, it will take enough votes from the Liberals in the 21 close Liberal/Conservatives ridings to give them ALL to Harper. This means the NPD attack would have given Harper the 12 net new seats he needs to create the HARPER MAJORITY.

    If Jack Layton cares about getting rid of Harper, then why is he attacking the Liberals?

    Mathematically, the only progressive party that stands a chance at unseating the Conservatives is the Liberal party. People may wish it otherwise, but it%E2%80%99s simple math. The NDP currently has 36 seats. To form a minority government the NDP would need to win a minimum of 79 additional seats. Across the entire country there are 17 seats where the NDP is within 10% of winning. Unfortunately for Jack the math is clear. He will not form a government this election.

    The math for the Liberals is much better. The Liberals currently hold 77 seats. To unseat Harper, the Liberals need to win a minimum of 38 seats. They are within 10% in 39 seats. Obviously, it will not be easy for the Liberals to form a government. But it%E2%80%99s at least mathematically possible.

    The question remains – If Jack Layton cares about getting rid of Harper, why is he attacking the Liberals? Is it possible that Jack Layton cares more about taking down the Liberals than stopping Harper?

    Jacks record suggests that he would rather a Conservative government to a Liberal one. In 2004, he signed a letter to the Governor General in an effort to help make Stephen Harper Prime Minister. In 2005 he voted with the Stephen Harper to force an election. As a result Stephen Harper became Prime Minister, the NDP got 10 more seats and Canada lost:

    1)The Liberal%E2%80%99s $5 billion for childcare
    2)The Liberal%E2%80%99s $5 billion Kelowna Accord
    3)The Liberal%E2%80%99s $2.1 billion for students

    For Canada, this was a bad trade, even if it worked out well for Jack. And then, in October 2009 not a single NDP MP showed up to vote no-confidence in the Conservatives sticking us with Harper for at least another year and a half.

    This petition calls on Jack Layton to focus on stopping Harper rather than hurting the Liberals because he can%E2%80%99t do both at the same time.

    It%E2%80%99s time for Jack to remember, this election is not about how HE can win. It%E2%80%99s about how Canada can win.

  59. Harper only needs 12 additional seats to get a majority government and in the last election he came within 10% of taking 21 Liberal seats. For Stephen Harper, taking those 21 seats from the Liberals is job #1.

    So, if Jack Layton cares about getting rid of Harper, then why is he attacking the Liberals?

    According to Punditsguide.ca, there are only 7 seats where the NDP placed second and was within 10% of beating a Conservative. In 6 of those cases the combined Liberal and NDP vote would have beat the Conservative. In 3 other ridings won by Harper, the NDP was a close 3rd. Let's assume that the NDP takes enough votes from the Liberals in all 9 of those ridings to create NDP victories.

    But mathematically, if the NDP attack on Liberals is successful enough to win all of those 9 seats, the NDP attack will take a similar number of votes away from Liberals in other ridings. In fact, it will take enough votes from the Liberals in the 21 close Liberal/Conservatives ridings to give them ALL to Harper. This means the NPD attack would have given Harper the 12 net new seats he needs to create the HARPER MAJORITY.

    If Jack Layton cares about getting rid of Harper, then why is he attacking the Liberals?

    Mathematically, the only progressive party that stands a chance at unseating the Conservatives is the Liberal party. People may wish it otherwise, but it's simple math. The NDP currently has 36 seats. To form a minority government the NDP would need to win a minimum of 79 additional seats. Across the entire country there are 17 seats where the NDP is within 10% of winning. Unfortunately for Jack the math is clear. He will not form a government this election.

    The math for the Liberals is much better. The Liberals currently hold 77 seats. To unseat Harper, the Liberals need to win a minimum of 38 seats. They are within 10% in 39 seats. Obviously, it will not be easy for the Liberals to form a government. But it's at least mathematically possible.

    The question remains – If Jack Layton cares about getting rid of Harper, why is he attacking the Liberals? Is it possible that Jack Layton cares more about taking down the Liberals than stopping Harper?

    Jacks record suggests that he would rather a Conservative government to a Liberal one. In 2004, he signed a letter to the Governor General in an effort to help make Stephen Harper Prime Minister. In 2005 he voted with the Stephen Harper to force an election. As a result Stephen Harper became Prime Minister, the NDP got 10 more seats and Canada lost:

    1)The Liberal's $5 billion for childcare
    2)The Liberal's $5 billion Kelowna Accord
    3)The Liberal's $2.1 billion for students

    For Canada, this was a bad trade, even if it worked out well for Jack. And then, in October 2009 not a single NDP MP showed up to vote no-confidence in the Conservatives sticking us with Harper for at least another year and a half.

    This petition calls on Jack Layton to focus on stopping Harper rather than hurting the Liberals because he can't do both at the same time.

    It's time for Jack to remember, this election is not about how HE can win. It's about how Canada can win.

  60. Champlain was in Nova Scotia before Quebec. Port Royal.

  61. OOOps: LOL

  62. I'm not sure how precise these seat projectors are. Most polls I see have the Tories at or above their 2008 vote support, and have the Liberals at or below theirs. This would suggest an expanded Tory minority mandate, yet the average of the projectors indicates about the same result as 2008.

    Nevertheless, and as per Tory intentions, I think the ballot box question is developing as one about the desire for a Conservative majority. The only thing is, it's still unclear if Canadians are yet ready to give them one. They have two more weeks to think about it, with the parties trying to nudge or whack them in the desired direction.

    • The reason for the seat projections going down despite national polls about the same or better for the CPC is the regional breakdown. For the most part, they are stronger where they were already dominant like in Alberta and the prairies and weaker pretty much everywhere else. Most importantly, they are down or the gap greatly shrunk in the three biggest provinces.

      • One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to national Canadian polling is the over-dependence on regional breakdowns. Only a couple of Quebec polling firms do decent samples for that province. Otherwise, most polls take a small slice of national polls and create regional numbers with huge margins of errors that encompass almost any shift in support.

        I've seen Nanos polls with ten points swings in Ontario overnight. I've seen some polls showing a tie in Ontario, while others showing a big Tory lead. I've seen BC numbers showing the Tories dipping, while others showing the Tories soaring. And it's all because of margins of errors that virtually make the numbers meaningless. Yet the media obsess over the regional breakdowns as though they were the Bible. It's quite amazing to me.

        • True.

    • One of the few polls predicting a smaller margin of victory was Ekos (and just today that changed – they predict a 12 point Tory win). Take them out of the prediction rig-a-ma-role and you have a modest increase for the Tories, roughly commensurate with the 10-12 point margin most polls are predicting.

      That said, I suspect that most polls are thrown off (recently that means underestimating Tory support, but in past elections, it may have underestimated Liberal support) by two key factors:
      1. Among decided voters, the Tories do very well. In the latest Leger poll, for instance, the Tories are at 45% among decided voters (which make up 58% of the sample – probably a good guess as to voter turnout).
      2. Pollsters weight young people based on their percentage of the census population, not based on their historical rates of turnout.

      For instance, lets take the Ekos prediction for the 2008 election, and the difference from the actual results:
      CPC: 34.8% (-2.8)
      LPC: 26.4% (+0.2)
      NDP: 19.4% (+1.2)
      Green: 9.6% (+2.8)
      BQ: 9.8% (-0.2)
      Aggregate error: 7.2

      Now lets take the same results and just look at the 80.3% of people that were absolutely certain of their choice (I suspect a tighter screen would get even more accurate results):
      CPC: 37.7% (-0.1)
      LPC: 29% (+2.8)
      NDP: 19.2% (+1)
      Green: 8.5% (+1.7)
      BQ: 10.2% (+0.2)
      Aggregate error: 5.8

      • Which begs the question: Why wouldn't the polling firms take these factors into account?

        • 1. There is no one accepted way to screen voters based on their likelihood of voting
          2. Big differences of intensity of support are a recent development
          3. Because the buyers of public polls are mostly newspapers or channels looking for horserace coverage, not accuracy.

          • Interesting. In the end, pollsters try to get results that are close to actual election results, which is why they always seem to move magically during the final stages of a campaign. lol. Not in the recent Toronto mayoral race, of course. I guess in that instance they were still hoping for a miracle. lol

  63. As he founded the settlement of Quebec, he could hardly have elected to go there first when it didn't yet exist. Besides, Champlain is Canada. It was his vision.

  64. I'm not sure how precise these seat projectors are. Most polls I see have the Tories at or above their 2008 vote support, and have the Liberals at or below theirs. This would suggest an expanded Tory minority mandate, yet the average of the projectors indicates about the same result as 2008.

    Nevertheless, and as per Tory intentions, I think the ballot box question is developing as one about the desire for a Conservative majority. The only thing is, it's still unclear if Canadians are yet ready to give them one. They have two more weeks to think about it, with the parties trying to nudge or whack them in the desired direction.

  65. yup.

  66. tob ad we can't find a way to assign everyone negative seats!

  67. Nope. It's just that statistical analysis has a well-known liberal bias.

  68. The reason for the seat projections going down despite national polls about the same or better for the CPC is the regional breakdown. For the most part, they are stronger where they were already dominant like in Alberta and the prairies and weaker pretty much everywhere else. Most importantly, they are down or the gap greatly shrunk in the three biggest provinces.

  69. What say we give them 1 or 2 billion dollars of public funding for 30 or 40 years rather then condemn them on their first day.

  70. I often take a break from reality and dream about running as an independent in my riding. My campaign would be called "The $20,000 Tour." I'd have a bunch of t-shirt with all the cities I intend to visit on the campaign trail to hand them out to the public as I do presentation. I'd travel and sleep in my car, from town to town picking random places to have discussions with the citizens. The message I'd have for them:

    What I think doesn't matter. Don't ask me where I stand because it just doesn't matter. Everytime we have an election you vote for a candidate that promises to stand up for you but you know it just ain't true. You know that in parliament only the opinion of the party matters, opinions decided by members far away from you and with only the next election in mind.

    In parliament my opinion won't matter, I'm going to vote according to your opinion. I'm going to use every means at my disposal to inform you about every vote taken in parliament and survey this riding on every matter to determine where you want to vote.

    Of course, not every vote is going to turn the result in your favour but at least the vote I make is going to represent what you want, not what the parties want. Your voice will finally matter.

    And then I snap out of it.

  71. One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to national Canadian polling is the over-dependence on regional breakdowns. Only a couple of Quebec polling firms do decent samples for that province. Otherwise, most polls take a small slice of national polls and create regional numbers with huge margins of errors that encompass almost any shift in support.

    I've seen Nanos polls with ten points swings in Ontario overnight. I've seen some polls showing a tie in Ontario, while others showing a big Tory lead. I've seen BC numbers showing the Tories dipping, while others showing the Tories soaring. And it's all because of margins of errors that virtually make the numbers meaningless. Yet the media obsess over the regional breakdowns as though they were the Bible. It's quite amazing to me.

  72. Hahaha

  73. This familiar Liberal argument is getting really grating – oh, we love the NDP, just so long as it is completely irrelevant. Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, your argument suggests the NDP should have packed it in back in the 60s. Indeed, that would be true – if the Liberals were actually a progressive party in practice. What is the reality?

    -the Liberals balanced the budget in the 1990s by significantly reducing transfers to the provinces (making their current attacks on Harper especially rich)
    -the Liberals slashed corporate and income taxes all through the 2000s
    -Ignatieff has voted with the Tories on much of their crime agenda
    -committed Canada to a shooting war in Afghanistan
    -when the Liberals finally got around to implementing their childcare program (13 years after its first incarnation in the Liberal red book), it was woefully inadequate. You may also note that Ignatieff is not proposing such a program.

    If you really are a granola-munching lefty (and not a robot programmed by Keith Davies), you would realize that the tiny differences between the Tories and Liberals are inconsequential (and in many respects* Harper is to the left of Chretien). Maybe the NDP won't win this time, but for the past 3 elections they've been getting closer. This time around, they have momentum, and they have a much more popular leader. So you can "strategically vote" (which is idiotic, since your vote is unlikely to change any outcome on its own) for a party that will govern much like the Tories, or you can vote for a party that reflects your actual desires.

    *eg.
    -multi-billion dollar stimulus
    -cut the regressive GST over the progressive income tax
    -announced a withdrawal date from Afghanistan (before the Liberals too)
    -eliminated income trusts
    -has consistently increased spending on social programs, despite a large deficit

    • Thank you.

      • Seconded.

    • Wouldn't it be soemthing if Jacvk became the leade of the official opposition and Canada put the Liberal Party in the penalty box? – WOW – BUT – upon further thought maybe just maybe this would be the best possible thing that could happen to my former party. Maybe the party needs to go through a experience like this so that it could renew itslef and this time actually allow it's grassroots and caucus to re-evaluate what modern day Liberlaism is .. becuase let's be honest now folks it has lost touch with it's Liberal values and philosophy – in a way Harper and jack may be doing the Liberals a serious favour to allow it to become an actual liberal party and one now run by the elite group of ol boys that it has been for so long.

    • The NDP consistently govern like Liberals when elected so who's snowing who? There hsan't been an NDP government elected that hasn't turned it's back on its leftist platform in order to shore up power. It is easy to make promises when you haven't a chance in hell in governing. Layton is the shallow opportunist that brought down the Liberal government after getting significant concessions out of them, proving he was more interested in getting power than a progressive agenda happening. It was more important to him to try and pick up seats than help the downtrodden and families he likes to pontificate about. There would have been an election a year down the road anyway. Why not let the Kelowna Accord pass? Now First Nations issues are virtually off the table in this election which is a national shame and where a lot sytemic poverty lies. Remember when poverty was an NDP issue? Indeed, Layton sounds more Liberal this time out than last time. If the centre left really cared about the Canadian public then they would merge as the right wing did to throw this government out. But Layton would rather talk about corporate taxes than contempt and corruption. The NDP could improve their chance 500% in terms of support and they still wouldn't form a government.

  74. This familiar Liberal argument is getting really grating – oh, we love the NDP, just so long as it is completely irrelevant. Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, your argument suggests the NDP should have packed it in back in the 60s. Indeed, that would be true – if the Liberals were actually a progressive party in practice. What is the reality?

    -the Liberals balanced the budget in the 1990s by significantly reducing transfers to the provinces (making their current attacks on Harper especially rich)
    -the Liberals slashed corporate and income taxes all through the 2000s
    -Ignatieff has voted with the Tories on much of their crime agenda
    -committed Canada to a shooting war in Afghanistan
    -when the Liberals finally got around to implementing their childcare program (13 years after its first incarnation in the Liberal red book), it was woefully inadequate. You may also note that Ignatieff is not proposing such a program.

    If you really are a granola-munching lefty (and not a robot programmed by Keith Davies), you would realize that the tiny differences between the Tories and Liberals are inconsequential (and in many respects* Harper is to the left of Chretien). Maybe the NDP won't win this time, but for the past 3 elections they've been getting closer. This time around, they have momentum, and they have a much more popular leader. So you can "strategically vote" (which is idiotic, since your vote is unlikely to change any outcome on its own) for a party that will govern much like the Tories, or you can vote for a party that reflects your actual desires.

    *eg.
    -multi-billion dollar stimulus
    -cut the regressive GST over the progressive income tax
    -announced a withdrawal date from Afghanistan (before the Liberals too)
    -eliminated income trusts
    -has consistently increased spending on social programs, despite a large deficit

  75. Lather, rinse, repeat.

  76. I think the projections above are forgetting about the probability that the NDP vote will be just high enough to push a lot of seats to the Conservatives especially in Ontario and some in NS and NFLD. I don`t think it will benefit the Tories this time as much as the PC-Reform split benefited the Liberals in `93 and `97, however, if there is no better reason to vote Liberal, then a lot of folks will just vote NDP. and the result could be a Conservative majority with a lot of seats with combined LIb-NDP votes higher than Tories.

    How about 160 Conservative and the 2nd, 3rd. and 4th place parties in the 45 to 55 range.

    • Most of those projections consider that possibility. If the NDP gains come at the expense of the Liberals, we would see falling Liberal support in the polls – something that the various projections would pick up. However, NDP gains have come largely at the expense of the Bloc Quebecois (the NDP may actually be doing worse in the ROC). We haven't seen significant movement in the Tory-Liberal gap, with the exception of Ekos (which moved from being an outlier, to one of the many firms projecting a 10-12 point gap, similar to that between Harper and Dion).

      • At the chance of appearing overly concerned by some here, I will say that I hope you are right and that increased NDP support does not reflect in an increased seat count to about the same level as the Libs.I would prefer that we were a strong two-party country, and I am not happy about the possibility of the NDP getting anywhere close to a hint of power, even Stornoway.
        Whatever is happening within the Liberal Party lately, they do not seem to have the confidence of the voter who would naturally swing to an opposition Party, so they instead park their vote ( often a narrow single issue vote ) to the NDP, or Green or Bloc.
        Iggy may have a good last 2 weeks and the Libs may get the same seats as 2008, but they may also falter in ROC which would result in gains by both NDP and Conservative.

        • "Whatever is happening within the Liberal Party lately, they do not seem to have the confidence of the voter who would naturally swing to an opposition Party"

          Perhaps because the Liberals have switched from being right to being left of centre. That's the problem with the Liberals: they don't know any longer who they are. All they know is that they want to be in power, and this time being in the left would give them the best chances, or so they figure,

          while the voter thinks: "Well, if Ignatieff is carrying the NDP platform, then why not vote for Jack and let Jack carry his own platform over to the House.

          Smart voters, wouldn't you say?

    • Cuts both ways. As the NDP rises, red Ontario seats go blue — but blue BC seats go orange.

    • I disagree. Most of the change seems to be coming at Bloc expense, which seems a good thing. As for the liberals, they have tried to take the 'middle ground' between the CONservatives and the NDP. IMHO it's actually the place they _should_ be, neither 'fascist' nor 'communist.' They could make a good party for those who disagree with the conservative agenda for whatever reason and are afraid the NDP will spend us into a huge deficit. Under different circumstances, I might be tempted to vote Liberal but, my riding is _very_ NDP and I'd rather see them take the seat then split the vote.
      My biggest beef with the Conservatives is their "Conservative social values;" ie; Evangelical Christian beliefs figure prominently in their platform. I'm not Christian and I certainly do not agree with the principals of
      "Christian and Missionary Alliance Church" which would require 'me and mine' to 'turn or burn.' I also think Harper knew exactly the damage he would do to Canada when he appointed a fellow Evangelical Christian, Gary Goodyear to be the Science and Technology Minister. As an Evangelical, he does not believe in Evolution, thinks abortion and Stem Cell research are against God's Will and believes Homosexuality is "the basest of sins." Mr Goodyear is busily cutting funding to everything that does not agree with his religious views to the detriment of the scientific and research community in Canada. That is something I really object to.

  77. I think the projections above are forgetting about the probability that the NDP vote will be just high enough to push a lot of seats to the Conservatives especially in Ontario and some in NS and NFLD. I don`t think it will benefit the Tories this time as much as the PC-Reform split benefited the Liberals in `93 and `97, however, if there is no better reason to vote Liberal, then a lot of folks will just vote NDP. and the result could be a Conservative majority with a lot of seats with combined LIb-NDP votes higher than Tories.

    How about 160 Conservative and the 2nd, 3rd. and 4th place parties in the 45 to 55 range.

  78. Thank you.

  79. One of the few polls predicting a smaller margin of victory was Ekos (and just today that changed – they predict a 12 point Tory win). Take them out of the prediction rig-a-ma-role and you have a modest increase for the Tories, roughly commensurate with the 10-12 point margin most polls are predicting.

    That said, I suspect that most polls are thrown off (recently that means underestimating Tory support, but in past elections, it may have underestimated Liberal support) by two key factors:
    1. Among decided voters, the Tories do very well. In the latest Leger poll, for instance, the Tories are at 45% among decided voters (which make up 58% of the sample – probably a good guess as to voter turnout).
    2. Pollsters weight young people based on their percentage of the census population, not based on their historical rates of turnout.

    For instance, lets take the Ekos prediction for the 2008 election, and the difference from the actual results:
    CPC: 34.8% (-2.8)
    LPC: 26.4% (+0.2)
    NDP: 19.4% (+1.2)
    Green: 9.6% (+2.8)
    BQ: 9.8% (-0.2)
    Aggregate error: 7.2

    Now lets take the same results and just look at the 80.3% of people that were absolutely certain of their choice (I suspect a tighter screen would get even more accurate results):
    CPC: 37.7% (-0.1)
    LPC: 29% (+2.8)
    NDP: 19.2% (+1)
    Green: 8.5% (+1.7)
    BQ: 10.2% (+0.2)
    Aggregate error: 5.8

  80. "We're in transition to something quite the same but also quite different. What is difficult to say, but it is largely demographics. It's why we are having such split decisions and dysfunction in Parliament"

    Huh? You haven't noticed the transition? Was there a provincial/separarist party involved in federal politics before?

    If so, when???

  81. Blue, I can shoot better quality video with two bedroom lamps and my Sony HD Handycam. This is Stephane Dion-level video here. This is marketed as an HD channel, but the only HD footage is the SUN logo and the bottom part of the ticker.

    It's not like they decided to shoot the show yesterday, and they've been rushing around trying to pull it together. They've been telegraphing this important new channel for months. These are bugs that should have been worked out long before they went live.

    I'll give them months and months to find a good groove for their content, as that takes some time, but they should have had their video quality down pat the very first moment.

  82. Perhaps it was intentional; Adler may have a "No HD" clause in his contract.

  83. Frum's bad thoughts cancel out his good thoughts in my book, but at least he has thoughts.

    The half-hour I could bear to watch was like being at a school play, watching rote and uninspired recitations of things you've already heard a hundred times (or read, for Maclean's forumistas). The parts that weren't outright offensive were just plain weak.

    Canada may not have the "talent" pool necessary to make this thing work.

  84. Seconded.

  85. Most of those projections consider that possibility. If the NDP gains come at the expense of the Liberals, we would see falling Liberal support in the polls – something that the various projections would pick up. However, NDP gains have come largely at the expense of the Bloc Quebecois (the NDP may actually be doing worse in the ROC). We haven't seen significant movement in the Tory-Liberal gap, with the exception of Ekos (which moved from being an outlier, to one of the many firms projecting a 10-12 point gap, similar to that between Harper and Dion).

  86. I'm sorry, ColdStanding, but I had to give you a thumbs down – because of your 'Rex Murphy' circuitous logic and prose style, your casting of Quebec nationalists as the enemy, and your lugubrious dismissal of Canadian possibility.

  87. Couple of things… I have to admit, I could be way wrong. I'm sure they've focus-grouped this format and have done all that TV-production stuff that I have no clue about, and they've determined that this format is going to be a knockout with a large enough segment of the population to make this profitable. What I know about TV could fill a teacup. I just know my first impression was not good. Second, I'd argue that they're a victim of their own buzz. They talked about this like it was the second coming. I was expecting (and I don't mean this in a bad way) Fox News North. It came across as half-assed. But, hey, I could eat my words, I readily admit.

  88. Exactly right – you might also have mentioned Judy Wasylycia-Leis and the RCMP, a shameful episode in our recent political history that threw the 2006 election to Harper.

    But don't hold your breath waiting for Jack to advance selflessly Canada's best interest, anymore than he was willing to allow the arm of a cheering fan obscure his face during a hockey broadcast.

  89. Exactly right – you might also have mentioned Judy Wasylycia-Leis and the RCMP, a shameful episode in our recent political history that threw the 2006 election to Harper.

    But don't hold your breath waiting for Jack to advance selflessly Canada's best interest, anymore than he was willing to allow the arm of a cheering fan obscure his face during a hockey broadcast.

  90. Well, let's just make sure we're here on election night to see how it all turns out.

  91. A couple of polls have the Libs under 25 now? Wow.

    This may be the year of a complete Liberal implosion (of the Kim Cambell variety).

  92. Except, sometimes there are tectonic shifts in elections. No one predicted a complete CPC collapse when Kim Campbell ran.

    All your old numbers are based on old elections. Layton's shift is starting to look unprecedented, such that seats that you give the NDP no chance of winning and being solidly "Liberal" now are winnable for Jack.

    Indeed the ideological balance suggests this is the natural order of things. A now united right, versus a party of the left, with the Libs standing for nothing (or as they're trying to position it – everything, which is unsustainable). The only reason the Libs could do it for so long was a fractured right.

    This could be the year of the Liberal implosion and the rise of the NDP.

  93. Except, sometimes there are tectonic shifts in elections. No one predicted a complete CPC collapse when Kim Campbell ran.

    All your old numbers are based on old elections. Layton's shift is starting to look unprecedented, such that seats that you give the NDP no chance of winning and being solidly "Liberal" now are winnable for Jack.

    Indeed the ideological balance suggests this is the natural order of things. A now united right, versus a party of the left, with the Libs standing for nothing (or as they're trying to position it – everything, which is unsustainable). The only reason the Libs could do it for so long was a fractured right.

    This could be the year of the Liberal implosion and the rise of the NDP.

  94. I'd throw in Electionprediction.com as well

    • I would, but they give only partial results, leaving many "too close to call." Screws up the average.

  95. I'd throw in Electionprediction.com as well

  96. At the chance of appearing overly concerned by some here, I will say that I hope you are right and that increased NDP support does not reflect in an increased seat count to about the same level as the Libs.I would prefer that we were a strong two-party country, and I am not happy about the possibility of the NDP getting anywhere close to a hint of power, even Stornoway.
    Whatever is happening within the Liberal Party lately, they do not seem to have the confidence of the voter who would naturally swing to an opposition Party, so they instead park their vote ( often a narrow single issue vote ) to the NDP, or Green or Bloc.
    Iggy may have a good last 2 weeks and the Libs may get the same seats as 2008, but they may also falter in ROC which would result in gains by both NDP and Conservative.

  97. I would, but they give only partial results, leaving many "too close to call." Screws up the average.

  98. It's not very often the NDP can claim to save Canada $12B. Well done, the NDP.

  99. It's not very often the NDP can claim to save Canada $12B. Well done, the NDP.

  100. election prediction is weak because it's 100% subjective-based and doesn't make a full projection until the day before e-day.

    taking an average that includes Ekos is a little misleader too… they're going to base it on only their polls which doesn't account for any systemic bias due to polling methodology, sampling methodology etc. some of the other sites are much stronger because they aggregate polls that help to balance out biases.

    the average with Ekos excluded is 149 for teh Conservatives… much more significant than 146

  101. election prediction is weak because it's 100% subjective-based and doesn't make a full projection until the day before e-day.

    taking an average that includes Ekos is a little misleader too… they're going to base it on only their polls which doesn't account for any systemic bias due to polling methodology, sampling methodology etc. some of the other sites are much stronger because they aggregate polls that help to balance out biases.

    the average with Ekos excluded is 149 for teh Conservatives… much more significant than 146

  102. I am speechless. At this point in the proceedings, I never expected to read such a calm, rational assessment of the situation…..so used to mudslinging.

    You must be new.

    Are you sure you don't want to say something about how Ignatieff wasn't wearing the correct lapel pin or maybe the how the CBC is controlled by George Soros or that maybe I'm stupid because I only have an arts degree or something about cats?

  103. Wow,

    Did anyone else notice the attempt at spin by Nanos today.

    Bad news for the CPC; they're up by ten country wide, and and up by ten in ONTARIO.

    Seat rich Ontario that is.

    And he has the nerve to declare the CPC will NOT get a majority.

    Let's file that one away until election night shall we.

    • I don't know that pollsters much care who wins – they are more interested in being right. They make money by being right. If they are wrong, they are seen as unreliable.

      So to say that this is "nerve" is kind of dumb. They are calling it as their computer models tell them to, plus gut. One factor where growth is not positive is if it is concentrated in those areas where the conservatives already hold lots of seats – if they improve in the Pariries by 5%, what does that get them? Not a thing.

      And you also allege, much earlier, that they do not take into account likelihood to vote and leaning, when in fact they do. They have sophisticated models.

  104. Wow,

    Did anyone else notice the attempt at spin by Nanos today.

    Bad news for the CPC; they're up by ten country wide, and and up by ten in ONTARIO.

    Seat rich Ontario that is.

    And he has the nerve to declare the CPC will NOT get a majority.

    Let's file that one away until election night shall we.

  105. Don't have access to it down here in sunny southern Cal but yeah, come ON people, must agree with my conservative friends (all 6 of them)….it was Day 1 fer gawdsakes.

  106. Which provincial/separarist (sic) party? The Quebec one or the Alberta one?

  107. The Liberal nickname is the only one with no connection to policy or party character. This sort of epitomises the problem with Canadian politics – one of the dominant political parties has no political identity.

    I think this helps explain the Samara report published recently, where ex-MPs complained that most political debate happened in caucus, but was still dwarfed by political decisions that were imposed by the party leaders. I know Samara didn't name the parties, but this seems like the likely consequence of having a Liberal party that seeks to broker political compromises internally, often excluding its own caucus and membership. We'd have a more vibrant democracy if every one of our parties could have a snappy, policy-relevant nickname…

  108. The Liberal nickname is the only one with no connection to policy or party character. This sort of epitomises the problem with Canadian politics – one of the dominant political parties has no political identity.

    I think this helps explain the Samara report published recently, where ex-MPs complained that most political debate happened in caucus, but was still dwarfed by political decisions that were imposed by the party leaders. I know Samara didn't name the parties, but this seems like the likely consequence of having a Liberal party that seeks to broker political compromises internally, often excluding its own caucus and membership. We'd have a more vibrant democracy if every one of our parties could have a snappy, policy-relevant nickname…

  109. I don't know that pollsters much care who wins – they are more interested in being right. They make money by being right. If they are wrong, they are seen as unreliable.

    So to say that this is "nerve" is kind of dumb. They are calling it as their computer models tell them to, plus gut. One factor where growth is not positive is if it is concentrated in those areas where the conservatives already hold lots of seats – if they improve in the Pariries by 5%, what does that get them? Not a thing.

    And you also allege, much earlier, that they do not take into account likelihood to vote and leaning, when in fact they do. They have sophisticated models.

  110. The Catch-22 Campaign sends you a thank-you note.

    And remember: feel free to instigate the Harper hate without debate.

    Please, donate again!

  111. Which begs the question: Why wouldn't the polling firms take these factors into account?

  112. No. Those of us who think majority govs. are boring are winning.

  113. No. Those of us who think majority govs. are boring are winning.

  114. Of all the pollsters, NANOS is usually the most reliable. He often comes in within 1 or 2% of tha actual results.

    CPC strenght is concentrated. That was Nik's main point. Having a 60% rating in Alberta is not as good for the CPC as having a 43% rating in Ontario….but that 60% is still included in the average.

    • On a more micro level, the same logic applies in parts of Ontario vs. the GTA where they want/need to make a breakthrough. 43% in Ontario is good for the Conservatives, but only pushes them towards a majority if all the gain isn't in places where they're already winning.

      • Very good point, although I would err on the side of the Tories winning where they have to. They've got the best campaign organization, and the most extensive micro-targeting data which will give them a more efficient vote within any given province. They may be ensuring a dull race nationally, but they have long fostered close relationships with the local press, and are effectively brandishing local issues (eg. Churchill Falls, selling F-35's as aerospace jobs in Quebec, etc). The Liberals, in contrast, are fighting a national campaign, hoping that a broad tide will sweep out the Tories.

  115. Of all the pollsters, NANOS is usually the most reliable. He often comes in within 1 or 2% of tha actual results.

    CPC strenght is concentrated. That was Nik's main point. Having a 60% rating in Alberta is not as good for the CPC as having a 43% rating in Ontario….but that 60% is still included in the average.

  116. On a more micro level, the same logic applies in parts of Ontario vs. the GTA where they want/need to make a breakthrough. 43% in Ontario is good for the Conservatives, but only pushes them towards a majority if all the gain isn't in places where they're already winning.

  117. Hot Off The Press : the latest EKOS with a much larger and focused sample = http://www.ekospolitics.com/ = suffice it to say it looks like the real fight will be between the NDP and the Lib's for who will be the official oppostion and Harper very and I mean very close to majority territory

  118. Hot Off The Press : the latest EKOS with a much larger and focused sample = http://www.ekospolitics.com/ = suffice it to say it looks like the real fight will be between the NDP and the Lib's for who will be the official oppostion and Harper very and I mean very close to majority territory

  119. I don't think it is just based on being right so that they are seen as credible. That would be very virtuous of them, but I think perhaps there are "incentives' for pollsters to frame questions and scenarios to produce certain results, because pollsters and politicians both know the other effect of polls which can be to influence ie: jumping on the bandwagon or voting against someone who is getting too popular etc.

  120. I doubt I'll ever recover from the heartbreak of your thumbs down.

    Wait, I'm all better.

  121. SOME partisan's feeling a wee bit touchy eh?

    I like that middle line- sounds like Johnnie Cochrane.

  122. How so? Okay, I'm going to poke a stick in the badger hole here because I'm 'in a mood.' Is it because Evangelicals don't do polls? Or, is it because the CPC doesn't know how Der Meister Stephen wants them to answer? Or is it because Corp Bots haven't been programmed for polls? LOL
    Just poking.

    Since Polls are pretty basic Q&A, they can have any bias the Pollster wants to put on them. Are you suggesting that pollsters are all Liberals?

  123. "Whatever is happening within the Liberal Party lately, they do not seem to have the confidence of the voter who would naturally swing to an opposition Party"

    Perhaps because the Liberals have switched from being right to being left of centre. That's the problem with the Liberals: they don't know any longer who they are. All they know is that they want to be in power, and this time being in the left would give them the best chances, or so they figure,

    while the voter thinks: "Well, if Ignatieff is carrying the NDP platform, then why not vote for Jack and let Jack carry his own platform over to the House.

    Smart voters, wouldn't you say?

  124. Exactly. It's not just statistics either. Group theory and linear algebra are in on it to. All those linear transformations! A matrix is a the product of vector and a transpose vector. Same-dimension matrix multiplication is an abomination unto the Lord.

  125. Very good point!

    That's why headlines for promoting the poll results do matter.

    Polling results can be used for pushing as well as for pulling.

    Voters should be aware.

  126. Very good point!

    That's why headlines for promoting the poll results do matter.

    Polling results can be used for pushing as well as for pulling.

    Voters should be aware.

  127. 1. There is no one accepted way to screen voters based on their likelihood of voting
    2. Big differences of intensity of support are a recent development
    3. Because the buyers of public polls are mostly newspapers or channels looking for horserace coverage, not accuracy.

  128. Interesting. In the end, pollsters try to get results that are close to actual election results, which is why they always seem to move magically during the final stages of a campaign. lol. Not in the recent Toronto mayoral race, of course. I guess in that instance they were still hoping for a miracle. lol

  129. you like cats? that's sketchy, dude.

  130. Wouldn't it be soemthing if Jacvk became the leade of the official opposition and Canada put the Liberal Party in the penalty box? – WOW – BUT – upon further thought maybe just maybe this would be the best possible thing that could happen to my former party. Maybe the party needs to go through a experience like this so that it could renew itslef and this time actually allow it's grassroots and caucus to re-evaluate what modern day Liberlaism is .. becuase let's be honest now folks it has lost touch with it's Liberal values and philosophy – in a way Harper and jack may be doing the Liberals a serious favour to allow it to become an actual liberal party and one now run by the elite group of ol boys that it has been for so long.

  131. Cuts both ways. As the NDP rises, red Ontario seats go blue — but blue BC seats go orange.

  132. Got one running in my riding. Yay Gavan Paramsothy. Or "Ragavan", when he was supporting the Tigers.

  133. You're assuming that the undecideds will fall for the "economically successful" deception pushed by the Cons.

  134. "In sum: at this point everybody is losing."

    Best executive summary of this election that I've seen. Thanks for that.

  135. "In sum: at this point everybody is losing."

    Best executive summary of this election that I've seen. Thanks for that.

  136. I disagree. Most of the change seems to be coming at Bloc expense, which seems a good thing. As for the liberals, they have tried to take the 'middle ground' between the CONservatives and the NDP. IMHO it's actually the place they _should_ be, neither 'fascist' nor 'communist.' They could make a good party for those who disagree with the conservative agenda for whatever reason and are afraid the NDP will spend us into a huge deficit. Under different circumstances, I might be tempted to vote Liberal but, my riding is _very_ NDP and I'd rather see them take the seat then split the vote.
    My biggest beef with the Conservatives is their "Conservative social values;" ie; Evangelical Christian beliefs figure prominently in their platform. I'm not Christian and I certainly do not agree with the principals of
    "Christian and Missionary Alliance Church" which would require 'me and mine' to 'turn or burn.' I also think Harper knew exactly the damage he would do to Canada when he appointed a fellow Evangelical Christian, Gary Goodyear to be the Science and Technology Minister. As an Evangelical, he does not believe in Evolution, thinks abortion and Stem Cell research are against God's Will and believes Homosexuality is "the basest of sins." Mr Goodyear is busily cutting funding to everything that does not agree with his religious views to the detriment of the scientific and research community in Canada. That is something I really object to.

  137. Very good point, although I would err on the side of the Tories winning where they have to. They've got the best campaign organization, and the most extensive micro-targeting data which will give them a more efficient vote within any given province. They may be ensuring a dull race nationally, but they have long fostered close relationships with the local press, and are effectively brandishing local issues (eg. Churchill Falls, selling F-35's as aerospace jobs in Quebec, etc). The Liberals, in contrast, are fighting a national campaign, hoping that a broad tide will sweep out the Tories.

  138. The NDP consistently govern like Liberals when elected so who's snowing who? There hsan't been an NDP government elected that hasn't turned it's back on its leftist platform in order to shore up power. It is easy to make promises when you haven't a chance in hell in governing. Layton is the shallow opportunist that brought down the Liberal government after getting significant concessions out of them, proving he was more interested in getting power than a progressive agenda happening. It was more important to him to try and pick up seats than help the downtrodden and families he likes to pontificate about. There would have been an election a year down the road anyway. Why not let the Kelowna Accord pass? Now First Nations issues are virtually off the table in this election which is a national shame and where a lot sytemic poverty lies. Remember when poverty was an NDP issue? Indeed, Layton sounds more Liberal this time out than last time. If the centre left really cared about the Canadian public then they would merge as the right wing did to throw this government out. But Layton would rather talk about corporate taxes than contempt and corruption. The NDP could improve their chance 500% in terms of support and they still wouldn't form a government.

  139. I thought exactly the same thing. Did I really just agree with what Emily wrote? I actually double checked the name to see if I was mistaken.

  140. The biggest losers are the taxpayers of canada. We're going to end up with the same bickering mob, but hey, at least we'll get rid of Ignatieff…which I think is what he wanted in any event.

    He misses his home in Provence.

  141. The biggest losers are the taxpayers of canada. We're going to end up with the same bickering mob, but hey, at least we'll get rid of Ignatieff…which I think is what he wanted in any event.

    He misses his home in Provence.

  142. It's good we can laugh now, I foresee a lot of crying May 3.

  143. It's good we can laugh now, I foresee a lot of crying May 3.

  144. As I mentioned elsewhere, if these projections hold and Parliament has the same seat distribution as before, all the party leaders should resign.

  145. As I mentioned elsewhere, if these projections hold and Parliament has the same seat distribution as before, all the party leaders should resign.

  146. "Mathematically, the only progressive party that stands a chance at unseating the Conservatives is the Liberal party."

    A progressive party doesn't choose a leader whose chief claim-to-fame is being for the Iraq war. I would sooner vote for Judy Miller or Dick Cheney.

  147. "Mathematically, the only progressive party that stands a chance at unseating the Conservatives is the Liberal party."

    A progressive party doesn't choose a leader whose chief claim-to-fame is being for the Iraq war. I would sooner vote for Judy Miller or Dick Cheney.

  148. DemocraticSPACE has updated today. Conservatives down 4 to 148, NDP up 4 to 39

  149. DemocraticSPACE has updated today. Conservatives down 4 to 148, NDP up 4 to 39

  150. am I the only person that can't even turn that channel on for fear of wrecking my tv from anger at the political equivalent of lobotomy patients?

  151. and the last poll prior to the Progressive Conservatives defeat (circa Brian Mulroney) had them in majority territory before they were denied official party status 2 days later.

  152. This is what I want to happen. Hope you're right!

  153. So no one is predicting a win for Miss May? Pity.

  154. So no one is predicting a win for Miss May? Pity.

  155. Is it possible that Jack Layton cares more about taking down the Liberals than stopping Harper?

    Exactly.

Sign in to comment.