Monday, April 13, 2015

Three-way race, but Prentice lagging rivals

A new poll by Forum Research shows Wildrose, the New Democrats, and the Progressive Conservatives locked in an improbable three-way race in Alberta. But the approval ratings of the leaders shows that Jim Prentice is in trouble.

The new projection reflects this three-way battle, with Wildrose narrowly ahead with 30% of the vote (or between 28% and 32%), enough to give them 35 seats (or between 22 and 44). The PCs trail with 28% of the vote (or between 26% and 30%) and 28 seats (or between 19 and 45), while the New Democrats stand at 26% (24% to 28%) and 18 seats (14 to 20).

Interestingly, the polls now point to a minority government. Though both Wildrose and the PCs do hit the majority mark of 44 seats at the very top of their ranges, the odds are far more in favour of either party falling short. The minimum/maximum ranges, however, show that things are close enough that almost any result for either of the two parties is plausible.

The poll by Forum is directly in line with what every other recent poll has shown. The last three polls, all taken in April, show a very tight cluster of results: 30% to 31% for Wildrose, 25% to 27% for the PCs, and 26% to 28% for the NDP. They also all give the Liberals 12%.

So it is a pretty clear picture. And this poll from Forum is a welcome change from its normal procedure, as the survey was taken over three days. Forum usually polls in one evening, as Mainstreet Technologies has been doing in this campaign. A sample drawn over a few days is going to get something a little more representative, as the kind of people at home on a typical Tuesday night might be different from those at home on Wednesday and Thursday (were the Flames playing, for instance?). The poll also has less potential of being skewed by a single day's events.

This survey gave Wildrose 30% against 28% for the NDP and 27% for the Tories. The Liberals trailed with 12% support, while the Alberta Party was at 2%.

Wildrose was ahead in Calgary by a comfortable margin, with 35% to 28% for the PCs and 20% for the NDP, and was ahead outside of the two main urban centres.

In southern Alberta, Wildrose had 40% to 23% apiece for the PCs and NDP. In central Alberta, the margin was narrower at 35% for Wildrose to 30% for the Tories and 22% for the NDP. And in northern Alberta, the race was closest at 33% for Wildrose and 29% for the PCs. The NDP was third with 19%.

The New Democrats had the lead in Edmonton, with 40% to 26% for the Tories and 18% for Wildrose.

The Liberals did best in Calgary with 14%, while the Alberta Party managed 3% in Calgary and southern and northern Alberta.

These regional results are broadly in line with what other polls have shown.

But what makes this poll stand out is that it included approval ratings for the five party leaders. And they look bad for the premier.

With an approval rating of just 22%, Prentice was less popular than his three chief rivals, and only put up a better score than Alberta Party leader Greg Clark. And even there, Prentice was benefiting from Clark's obscurity. If we remove the undecideds, Prentice's 26% approval rating is woefully behind everyone.

But those undecideds are very important. Most Albertans appear to have made up their mind about Prentice (his disapproval rating, at 63%, is horrible). But a large portion have not come to terms with who the other leaders are.

This is most significant for Brian Jean, the Wildrose leader and the leader who is the most unknown of the big four. Fully 47% said they don't have an opinion of him, and among those who do it was split: 29% approval to 24% disapproval. Jean has a lot of potential for growth, but also for decline. It all depends what Albertans make of him when they see more of him.

David Swann of the Liberals has a similar problem, with 44% still unsure of him. His disapproval was slightly higher than his approval rating, at 31% to 25%.

Rachel Notley has a lower unsure score, but at 38% it is still rather high. But the good news for her is that her approval rating is the best in the province at 42%, meaning that she would still have a strong score going into election day even if every undecided went over to the disapproval column. Among decideds, her approval rating is a glittering 67%. This suggests that her party's numbers may not be so shaky.

These leadership numbers tell us a lot. Prentice and the PCs are definitely in trouble, but only if Jean manages a decent campaign and voters stick with Notley. But there are still a lot of undecided Albertans - if Prentice can convince them that Jean is not up to be premier and that Notley, while likable, is also not up to the job, he can pull it off. But he is starting this campaign from a position of real weakness.

67 comments:

  1. Danielle Smith really did an awful job of reading the political winds...

    As much as she talked about following the lead of Preston Manning, she should have looked at his poll numbers between the 1993 and 1997 elections. Reform was nowhere in the polls during that period, routinely polling at 5-7%. But then they won nearly 20% in the election and became official opposition.

    WR was moribund in the polls, particularly during Prentice's bump from becoming leader. But she should have known that didn't reflect her own party's weakness.

    Regarding Brian Jean, I'm a WR suppoerter, but even I don't really know anything about Brian Jean. And being in Edmonton-Whitemud, I'll probably end up voting NDP to defeat Stephen Mandel (just as I voted NDP in Vancouver to defeat Christy Clark).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure what the moral of your Christy Clark story is... Prentice will pull this from the fire or...?

      Delete
    2. No moral. I vote strategically. I don't support the NDP, and don't want them in power, but I don't think there's a credible risk of that, so I'll use them to defeat incumbents where necessary.

      Delete
    3. Ira,

      So you voted NDP in Vancouver because Christy wasn't sufficiently right-wing ideologically or do you simply hold a personal grudge against Ms. Clark or did you think it was simply time to change government? Could you please explain your logic because I would have thought that a person on the right-centre-right of the political spectrum would be adverse to voting for Carole James one of the more left-leaning NDP leaders of recent memory.

      You're a Wildroser but, you'll vote NDP in Edmonton to effect a change in Government? This makes somewhat more sense to me, but, can you call yourself a "WR supporter" if you don't vote for the party?

      Ryan,

      It's not impossible that Prentice will pull this election out of the fire but, alot of anger and distrust has built up with the Government since, King Ralph left. Some of that resentment came about in the manner that Ralph was deposed. Even in good times the economy has had problems from a dependence on Temporary Foreign Workers and immigration from the rest of Canada for a host of professions and labour in general, an unfavourable comparison to Norway and its Sovereign Wealth Fund (that makes Alberta's heritage fund look like peanuts). The school system is poor (only about 2/3 of Albertan kids graduate secondary school, although supporters justify this number due to Alberta's strong economy) yet, for some reason they continue to fund a separate Catholic system that draws away money and doubles administrative costs. In any case, my point is a litany of problems have built up and not been adequately addressed over the last 30 years from education to healthcare to oil and gas royalties to politics moving from the public realm into the internal party realm thereby, excluding many and weakening democracy.

      The sad truth is not many people enjoy living in Alberta; Winter lasts 8 months and Edmonton and Calgary are not particularly aesthetically pleasing nor do they have the breadth and variety of amenities one would think should exist in Canada two richest cities, the quality of life is poor, people only go to Alberta for the money in the hope they can make enough to leave. Alot of these people have had enough hence the rise of the NDP and they realise much like our friend Ira, that while they may be naturally conservative, the Conservatives have long ago morphed from their philosophical roots into a party whose only job is the retention of power, as a regular citizen if you want anything done increasingly you need to be a PC member.

      The unknown numbers are especially interesting to me. Brian Jean was a M.P. for years, Rachel Notley is the daughter of a fairly famous late NDP leader, this is Dr. Swann's second stint as Liberal leader: In short the unknown numbers reflect a lack of interest in the Alberta political system as opposed to genuinely unknown or new politicians.

      Having said all this Wildrose's biggest challenge will be getting out their vote. They do well in the polls in the "Rest of Alberta" but, my understanding is that their ground game and organization outside a handful of ridings is weak-this is what cost them the 2012 election it will be interesting to see whether they have developed local organizations this time around.

      Delete
    4. Eric,

      Forum's poll has Wildrose above 30% in all the regions yet their poll pegs WR at 30% province-wide. Is there a reason for this discrepancy?

      Thanks,

      Delete
    5. I think you missed the 18% for WR in Edmonton.

      Delete
    6. Yes I did but, Greater Edmonton accounts for only 1/3 of Alberta's population at best. I didn't think 1/3 of the population would have such an impact-what I failed to remember is the 3 rural regions in total only account for about 32% of Alberta's population.

      Delete
    7. Pete - I voted NDP in BC for 3 reasons:

      1. The Liberals needed to know their handling of the HST was unacceptable.
      2. You get better local representation when your local representative isn't the Premier.
      3. I really liked the NDP candidate, David Eby.

      I'm a right-winger, and I don't vote Liberal (because I'm an Albertan), so previously I'd always voted for fringe parties in BC. I often voted Libertarian in federal elections, as well.

      I didn't think Adrian Dix had any chance of winning the election, so I wasn't worried about accidentally electing an NDP government.

      In Alberta now, Rachel Notley has a better chance of winning the eletion than Dix did in BC, but I still don't think she can. I'd like to see WR win the election, but to do that they need to win more seats than the PCs. If I can help with that be defeating a PC MLA, I'll do that.

      If there were a realistic chance that WR would win my riding, I'd vote WR. But WR isn't going to win Edmonton-Whitemud.

      It's also important to keep in mind that the marginal impact of one vote is effectively zero. How one person votes isn't going to matter.

      Delete
    8. FCPete, Regarding yoru assessment of Alberta... It's worth recalling that Peter Lougheed, who would now occupy the left fringe of the Progressive Conservative Party, often remarked (when Premier) that "government should be run like a business", which is the most perfectly distilled definition of Fascism. Much of what you describe flows from that philosophy.

      Delete
    9. That's getting to be the neo-right talking point par excellence---that there's no point in voting. Sure is a self-serving notion considering that the neo-right is becoming more and more dependent on its base and therefore needs to suppress turnout to effectively amplify what is actually a minority. The other, more nuanced version is "politicians are all the same", parenthetically that there's no point in voting---although it does have the side benefit of (attempting to) equalizing the absolutely terrible Conservatives with every other party. Fact is they're definitely NOT all the same, and Harper's by far the worst.

      How about this: every vote counts, every single one, and the bigger the turnout, the less chance a democratic minority will translate into a
      parliamentary majority that proclaims itself master of all.

      Delete
    10. We must first take any polls with a grain of salt, and continue with the salt as new polls are published closer to the big day. True Believers don't need polls. Next to them are those targeted because of their potential to vote strategically; next to them are those who might be either encouraged or discouraged to vote at all; and finally those who have no intention of voting but like to read polls for entertainment.

      Everyone who's interested in getting some kind of relevant representation needs to understand that the publishers of polls and the designers of polling questions are biased to some degree---it's therefore a good thing to have lots of competing polls because polls too outside the pack will be discounted, assuming the bigger the pack, the less bias is likely to affect the results.

      Fact is, polling will never be totally redeemed for the conspicuously inaccurate results in the last string of elections, and only partially to the degree that subsequent attempts will be born out by the actual results.

      As to strategic voting, I think the fact that turnout has been getting pretty low, times the palpable dissatisfaction among voters, suggests that voters are probably more likely to vote strategically than ever before; they crave some sign that they can affect the outcome, if not representative fidelity.

      Delete
    11. Pete - I was just poking the bear.

      The BC NDP is more blue than its federal counterpart. Ira isn't alone in his preferences. There's a populism thread that runs between both, and while it's a minority viewpoint, it's relevant.

      Delete
    12. Chirumenga,

      Go F%^& yourself! How dare you insinuate I am a fascist! You sir are the worst kind of person-someone who prejudges another based on insufficient facts: Heck, you're probably not simply prejudice but, racist as well, I feel that is a safe assumption based on your own logic of insinuating others are fascist.

      Writing a public funded religious school system is diverting money from the public system and elevating costs is not fascist it's liberal-the fact you don't understand the difference between the two speaks to your own knowledge (or obvious lack thereof) and conservative, dare I say, extreme rightwing opinions!

      Have some manners, Chirumenga! Please don't bully others.

      Delete
    13. Ira,

      Some would say you get better local representation when your representatives lives in the riding! Christy owns a place in Vancouver-Fairview not Point-Grey!

      It's funny to me that you like Eby, I've met the guy a couple times and he turned me right-off, also his background with the BC Civil Liberties Association I found for lack of a better term "distasteful". In fact I find the BCCLA has a very mixed bag and history.
      So, (I'm being presumptuous here) the attributes that appealed to you were negatives for me.

      As for Dix, I'm a little confused or maybe you were in fact prescient, why you thought he had less chance of becoming premier than Ms. Notley today. Dix had a 10 point lead! In truth only about 8 ridings ever decide Government in B.C., such as your former abode Vancouver-Point Grey.

      It is unlikely WR will win Edmonton-Whitemud based on present information (polls) however, if the wave gets much bigger they may have a fighting chance-when Albertans change government they usually clean house pretty thoroughly and Albertans often have a penchant to be on the "winning side".

      Anyway, I think you're right Notley has a very small chance to become premier, if the NDP can pick up steam in Cowtown it's possible but, I just don't think they'll ever make much headway in rural Alberta.

      Delete
    14. FCPete, Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I agree with much of what you said in describing Alberta - particularly Calgary, where I come from. I'm not as vehement about it as you - I think there are redeeming features to Alberta - culturally, etc. that you don't seem to, but it is mostly a question of degree. I wasn't in any way saying you're a Fascist, I was saying that, frankly, the attitude expressed by Lougheed that government should be run like a business is, first, precisely the definition of Fascism (as in Mussolini, I'm not talking about the, now more common, broad use of the term for anything right wing). Fascism was described in its heyday by supporters and proponents, as the "corporate model" for society, and its policies were intended to support corporate and state power while diminishing individual and collective [e.g. union, etc.] rights and freedoms. Lougheed didn't, obviously, run Alberta the way Mussolini ran Italy, but his desire to run it like a business was a question of degree different. Businesses are not democratic, they are not interested in externalities, i.e. the effects and consequences of their actions that have no immediate bearing on their profits, they are not about creating pleasant landscapes or cultural institutions, or any of the features which you see lacking in Alberta. That lack is a direct outcome of the corporate model favoured by Lougheed and his successors (who have been more vigorous in their attempt to implement it). Again, my comment was in no way about you, it was about the origins of the scene you described.

      Delete
  2. I notice you don't include the surveys from 1Question, is that because they don't include a margin of error?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are the polls from 1ABVote, a group advocating for progressive parties to work together. I don't include polls from interest groups, just as I don't include internal polls from parties.

      Delete
  3. You forgot one poll which put the NDP in the lead with 29%. And there's also a new one which puts them in the lead with 32%!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See response to comment above you.

      Delete
  4. why does 27% for the Tories equal 58 seats, while 26% for the NDP equals 26 seats? There seems to be a pattern of low seat total predictions for the NDP on this site, regardless of what they may poll at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the NDP's vote is concentrated in Edmonton. At the low end for the PCs of 26% provincially, that gives them 28% in Calgary, 23% in Edmonton, and 27% in the rest of Alberta.

      For the NDP's high end of 28%, that gives them 20% in Calgary, 45% in Edmonton, and 22% in the rest of Alberta.

      The NDP's vote is concentrated in Edmonton, so they do not win as many seats as the PCs (or Wildrose) in the rest of the province, as the vote for those parties is more uniform.

      If the NDP makes gains outside of Edmonton, they will make gains in the seat projection.

      Delete
    2. Vote inefficiency, the Alberta NDP support is concentrated in Edmonton and while they are posting good results in the rest of Alberta the right wing parties have more support in those regions. Now if they can bring up those other regions things will start to change.

      One question I want to ask of Alberta posters, if PC's fall apart all together how do you think the support splits between WR and NDP?

      Living in Ontario I always assume that there are as many conservative voters as there are progressive voters and that the majority of voters are not alined one way of the other. So do you think conservative power in the province (federally and provincial) is more a cultural and regional issue and less ideological one?

      I've had the pleasure of meeting many people from Alberta who are just as left leaning or more so then myself any many who are not.

      Delete
    3. I think it's cultural. Alberta favours productivity and usefulness. Competence always ranks above compassion. And people who come to Alberta from away tend to adopt these local values - that's why the politics have been so immutable for so long, despite that massive population gain from migration.

      Delete
    4. "Alberta favours productivity and usefulness"? What on Earth does that mean? And what do other parties/regions favour? I think this is simply a personal belief being applied to politics that is not reflective of reality. Although it certainly has featured in a great deal of right-wing election literature and standard dogma.

      Delete
    5. I recently moved to Edmonton. The city, to my eyes, is remarkably utilitarian. There's little effort put in to making the city anything other than a place for productive people to live. There are few amenities. The roads are cleared enough to accommodate working vehicles, but no further. The conversations I overhear on the train all deal either with the mechanics of working (how to do things better - I've never heard someone complain about their boss) or the mechanics of home ownership (how to increase furnace efficiency, the economics of disconnecting natural gas service seasonally, etc.) No one discusses anything frivolous in public.

      It's kind of a weird place, and to be honest, I don't really like it. Culturally, I seem to suit Vancouver better (though I prefer Alberta's politics).

      Delete
    6. Welcome to the world of First Past the Vote / Ranked Ballot (in one seat ridings). Where you get votes matters as much as how many you get.

      If the NDP comes first on votes but third on seats that will be quite the failure of FPTP.

      Delete
    7. Thank you Ira but what you just stated was Ideological (and a bit of propaganda) not cultural, but I do appreciate the input.

      Anyone else?

      Delete
    8. Ryan - I would argue that's a strength of FPTP. FPTP isn't trying to find the group that has the broadest support overall. It's trying to find the individual candidate in each riding that has the broadest support. And it does that.

      When FPTP and PR get different results, it's not because one of them has failed. They're not trying to do the same thing.

      Delete
    9. What did you mean by "Cultural", then? I'm appealing to Alberta's provincial culture. What are you talking about?

      Delete
    10. Neither myself nor Ira are Albertans, but my guess would be it splits about 60:40 between the Wildrose and NDP, all things being equal. The NDP can draw from other parties though.

      Delete
    11. The appreciation of productivity and usefulness are not the sole domain of Albertans or right wing culture, nor any kind unique defining trait.

      Perhaps you might explain why those traits are somehow linked between Alberta and conservative parties and not progressive parties.

      When I say cultural I mean is there some nebulous feeling that conservatives somehow bring them into the Canadian tapestry in a way that left wing parties don't. Or this there some unique Albertan trait lacking in the rest of Canada that's only expressed by Conservatives.

      Because I just haven't experienced Albertans being any less or more unique than anyone else in Canada, The oil patch and the Calgary stampede don't count as unique.

      Delete
    12. DCMOJY,

      As someone who lived in Alberta for many years (thankfully I got out!) the majority of PC votes will go WR. If we assume the Tories are at 30% today and their vote totally collapsed I would estimate; 10% will continue to vote PC, 15% will go WR and the remaining 5% split betweeen NDP, Liberals and Alberta party and Green. The one caveat I would make is if the NDP looks able to form government I think they'd get a boost-many people like the idea of having a cabinet minister or Government M.L.A. as their representative, this is especially true in Alberta where having a Government M.L.A. has been crucial to get funding and goodies to their communities for decades and is "a way of life". Just to explain a little; one reason the Alberta PCs keep electing centre even centre-left leaders (they've done that 3 times in a row now!) is because many people (who are not traditional conservatives) realize a parallel civil service and policy process exists through the governing (PC) party. I think people would be surprised how many Alberta Aboriginal leaders are PC party members. Many if not most of these Aboriginal leaders have more in common ideologically with the Liberals or NDP, Greens or Alberta party but, they know if they want to get things done they need to be in a position of influence-that means going to PC conventions, making friends and showing influence. In return these Aboriginal groups do deals with the Government and the PCs get a good photo-op. It's not dirty politics-it's savvy business!

      Delete
  5. Seeing the PCs lose their majority for breaking the fixed election law and calling the election would be about as satisfying as seeing Danielle Smith lose her nomination race for crossing the floor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fixed-election dates are inappropriate for our Westminster parliamentary system. This isn't really a partisan question---although it's true the right favours fixed-election dates because they still hold a grudge about Chretien snapping Day's ineptitude, and swore they'd make sure that'd never happen again. Fact is an Opposition that's unprepared to assume leadership, regardless its position on the political spectrum, is and should be vulnerable to a snap election. Remember that life deals out situations that also require snap decisions, and any party which can't handle either deserves to be humiliated. The right's notion that politicians shouldn't play politics with parliamentary confidence is ridiculous---that's what we pay them to do. The right's democratic argument is spurious and its grudge childish. Voters should welcome any opportunity to respond to what their politicians are up to---including snap elections. Anyways, fixed-election date law is so full of holes it must be abrogated regularly. The Westminster system is designed to pass legislation when its required, not when somebody's scheduled it for---remember, unforeseen events always happen which require timely response.

      Furthermore, fixed election dates foster secretive, agenda-enslaved governments, and lazy Oppositions, both spending our money to polish their respective plums---which may not be what we actually need. Fixed-election dates weaken government responsiveness, but the weakening government part is what the right's really after---all the democracy rhetoric is just that.

      Punishing Prentice for calling an election---a most democratic thing to do in the circumstance (see?)---is plain stupid.

      Delete
    2. He should have repealed the fixed election date law first.

      I agree that fixed election dates are a bad idea. But Alberta has a law - a law Prentice could have repealed. It appears Jim Prentice doesn't care about the democratic legitimacy of what he does.

      Delete
    3. Great post, I fully agree an all but the last point.

      Tories like the thump their chests when it comes to law and order. So braking an election law, as misguided and constitutionally void as that law is, is just proof of their general hypocrisy.

      Delete
    4. The left is also in favour of fixed election dates when it suits them, I don't recall the BCNDP putting up a filibuster when Gordo intorduced fixed election dates in 2001/2002, ditto for opposition parties federally when Harper intorduced them. At that time the opposition held a majority in the House!

      The fact of the matter is; one that is routinely ignored, Canada has always had fixed election dates because Parliament and Legislative Assemblies can sit no longer than five years.

      Don't count me out just yet,

      The Tories did not break the election law nor violate any constitutional convention principle etc...S.(1) of the law and provincial counterparts states: nothing in the act changes the role or powers of the GG or LG. Therefore, so long as the premier of PM gives advice asking for a dissolution that act is legitimate, constitutional and legal.

      What was unconstitutional was Mr. Layton and Topp asking the GG to make them Government with M. Dion without so much as a vote in the House of Commons to defeat the Government-they sent a letter stating they had a majority in the House, that may have been true but, without a vote to topple the Government and prove that they did have the numbers they were asking Her Excellency to ignore the principles of responsible government and the constitution and perform nothing less than a bloodless coup.

      Delete
    5. WOW... I'm note sure where to start with your absurdity Dunbar.

      First the Tories did brake the law in Alberta when calling a early elections, it's just a law that's not enforceable or even constitutionality valid as you pointed out. However if you are going to make up arbitrary election date law that everyone knows is void then have the decency to stick with them.

      What happened in 2008 was not unconstitutional at all, in any way what so ever. Any assertion to the contrary is born either out of ignorance or stupidity, I'll let you pick which one you'll admit to. Calling is a coup, government takeover, rebellion or insurrection or what even nonsense you think of is utter bull pies.

      The Coalition sent a letter to inform the GG that they had the support of the house majority and that upon the first opportunity they would put forth a motion of non-confidence or even vote on any matters of confidence, because the GG proroguing parliament for no good reason.

      Delete
    6. DCMOJY,

      No the Tories did not break the law-read the Act! The Act is constitutionally valid, nor is it void, it is simply superseded by constitutional precedent and convention regarding the Crown and by the Crown's ability to act using the Royal prerogatives.

      trying to replace the Government without a vote in the House of Commons as Lyton and Dion attempted to do and Brian Topp admits as much in his book "How we almost gave the Tories the boot" was unconstitutional because it does not follow the constitutional conventions of responsible government. Layton was power hungary-the fact you would dispute the inappropriateness of the letter demonstrates your lack of constitutional education and knowledge-it is totally inappropriate for someone other than a government minister to give the Crown advice. Layton and Dion though privy councillors were not ministers at the time and so their letter was inappropriate, unconstitutional and recommended advice that was illegal under the constitution.

      The Governor General was following constitutional law, convention and precedent. The fact of the matter is the opposition parties did not defeat the Government on the first opportunity-The Speech from the Throne! The Government winning that vote demonstrated they did hold the confidence of the House and made the advice Mr. Harper tendered to the GG regarding prorogation constitutional. The coalition attempted coup is a perfect example of the inexperience and power hungriness of the NDP and demonstrates the NDP lacks constitutional knowledge and respect! Harper had every right to prorogue Parliament by advising Her Excellency on the use of the Royal prerogative a honour only the PM may exercise and one that was constitutionally valid through the passage of his Throne speech.

      I suggest you pick up a book by Dr. Andrew Heard "Canadian constitutional conventions: The marriage of law and politics". Since, your understanding of this topic is incomplete.

      Delete
  6. I understand that the low seat yield for the NDP despite their recent high numbers are due to the concentration of their support in Edmonton. However when grossing over your regional data (specifically http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1IvtuU8pxd4/VSvBji-haMI/AAAAAAAAVx4/CmTNAgQdIL0/s1600/Regional%2BProjections.png) I was struck by how inefficient the NDP votes are even in Edmonton, where their seats yield is roughly the same as the PC despite almost twice the vote percentage! Is the NDP's vote simply too concentrated to the core of Edmonton or there's other reasons to explain this?

    Another thing is that I noticed there have been a lot of buzz around Ceci's candidacy for the NDP in Calgary-Fort. Have some sort of star candidate bonus been applied in this riding & elsewhere too or no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is primarily that the NDP's vote is concentrated in the core. My definition of Edmonton for the seat count is rather broad, including a lot of out-lying areas that the NDP would not be considered competitive in.

      I do not have a star bonus for Ceci, as he doesn't fit the usual requirements. At the moment, the only star candidate bonuses being applied are for the floor crosses (this is part of the system to account for floor crossing).

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the answers,

      Considering how inefficient the NDP votes are, how high will they need to go in the polls before they can pull a plurality of the seats count in your projection?

      Delete
    3. Is it realistic for the NDP to win 80% of the vote in 2 seats as 308 currently shows? My guess is that NDP vote is more spread out than a solely proportional swing model would suggest.

      Delete
    4. Russell - it depends on where it comes from, and where the gains happen. Let me assume that for every point the NDP gains, 2/3 come from the Liberals and 1/3 from the PCs. With that as my assumption, the NDP wins a plurality at 35%, assuming that their gains are uniform across the province.

      Delete
    5. I believe in academia logit models are favoured over proportional swings.

      Delete
    6. My model gives the NDP a plurality at around 36,25%. For that, the CP would be at 24,25%, the WR at 28,5% and the ALP at 8% (but really, the ALP could be at 15% and it wouldn't affect the NDP, but that would be over 100%, so...). They would have a one seat lead over WR, 36 to 25.

      For argument's sake, for a majority, the NDP would need 38,25% to hit the 44 seat bang on. The CP and WR would sit at 25,25% and 25,5%, with the ALP still at 8% (as pointed earlier, they're not really a factor).

      Delete
    7. Correction: Obviously, a one seat lead 36 to 25 doesn't make sense, it was supposed to be 36 to 35.

      Delete
  7. The NDP does waste a lot of their support racking up massive majorities in ridings like Strathcona or Highlands-Norwood. Expect them to get over 80% in each riding this election.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have lived in Alberta for 30 years. I saw 1986 happen and was blown away. Something is in the air this time. Ira has convinced me to vote NDP in Edmonton-Whitemud even though I am a PC Party member (I can't stand Mandel) and was leaning toward Wildrose. I will hold my nose and vote NDP just to get rid of Mandel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, and who says the NDP don't take votes from the right :)

      Delete
  9. With these new numbers, the aggregate gives me:

    41 WR
    28 PC
    13 NDP
    5 ALP

    ReplyDelete
  10. I notice how conservative parties are getting 55-60% (adding PC and Wildrose) in provincial polls but only 45-50% in federal polls. I think, with the PC's unpopularity, that 10% difference could be convinced to go to another party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The PCs also capture a broader spectrum than the federal Conservatives. At least, I know a decent number of federal Liberals that are on the red side of the PCs.

      Delete
    2. I'm much more motivated to vote in this election than I am in federal elections, because in Alberta at least there's a party I like.

      I vote Conservative federally not because I like them, but because I don't see a better option. Ever since they backed down on their balanced budget in 2008, the CPC has been doing things for reasons of political expediency, and not because they're good ideas.

      Delete
    3. Ryan,

      That is because the federal liberals are a small "c" conservative party that has moved further right under young Trudeau's leadership.

      Delete
  11. Results From My Formula:
    33 Wildrose
    30 NDP
    17 Progressive Conservative
    4 Liberal
    3 Alberta

    Not giving much confidence to it, just testing it out for this election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was for the 1Question Poll, my mistake.

      Delete
  12. And now Eric everybody needs to brace themselves. The Stanley Cup rounds start tonight and will a Canadian team actually win the Cup?? Your thoughts ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think any Canadian team will, but a conference final appearance is certainly possible.

      Delete
    2. Well that Sens-Habs game last bight was a real war !! Though that Stubban penalty may have been a bit over the top though that was a really nasty slash. Plus I think the officials where trying to cool things down a bit ? Still it did energize the Habs ?

      Delete
    3. And now it turns out Stone has a fractured wrist courtesy of that Subban slash !!

      Delete
    4. And all you Senators fans are going to cry and blame Subban when the Habs win the series instead of graciously admitting defeat and recognizing the Canadiens are by far the better team and Price a better goalie than Hammond-waaaaahhhh!

      Delete
    5. It's a good thing that hockey isn't just goalies then. Actually, Nate Silver had some interesting suggestings about getting rid of the loser point. One was that they play 5-minute OT periods each time losing a player (4-on-4, 3-on-3, etc.) until you had just the goalies facing each other.

      Delete
    6. Hey Cap since the Sens defeated the Habs in the regular season 3 games to 1 how can you say the Habs are the better team?? Unless you mean as slashers of course ???

      Delete
    7. Well the Habs finished second in the league in terms of points the Senators finished 13th. Carey price looks to be a shoo-in for the Vezina and what else hmmmm.....Let's see-oh yeah! the Habs are up 2-0 in the division semi-final series!

      Delete
    8. Yeah I'm not happy at all about the results so far. Let's see how Sunday turns out ?

      Delete
  13. Of course I have great hopes for the Senators but I'm afraid you may be right

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.