Saturday, October 3, 2015

2015 Federal Election Link Round-up, Week 9

Only three more full weeks to go before voting day. Are we starting to see the three-way race became unstuck?

Saturday, October 3, 2014

- My latest regional analysis is of Greater Montreal.

- I was on The House this morning talking about the latest polls and the impact of the debates.

- The Poll Tracker and riding projections have been updated. On a weekend! Now that we're in the final stretch, I will try to update on the weekends when there are enough polls out to warrant an update. I wouldn't update for a single Nanos poll, for example, but today I had three to add.

Friday, October 2, 2015

- The Poll Tracker and riding projections have been updated, and the actual candidates in each riding has been taken into account in these projections.

- This is a great editorial from the National Post in defence of polling. The editorial makes pretty much every point I would make in defence of polling during a campaign, so I give it a very hearty thumbs up.

- Your daily Nanos, which has the Liberals up and the Tories and NDP down compared to their previous independent three-day sample. An Angus Reid Institute poll from yesterday, but since we haven't heard from ARI in a little while it is difficult to see the trend line. But it echoes the Forum poll from yesterday. And a Léger poll this morning, showing the NDP down and some big changes in Quebec. Finally, a Forum riding poll for University–Rosedale showing a close race.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

- Here's my analysis of this morning's polling.

- The Poll Tracker and riding projections have been updated. Note that the riding projections do not take into account the official candidate list yet.

- Your daily Nanos, showing stability for the Liberals and Conservatives and a tiny decline for the NDP since Nanos's previous independent three-day sample. And a Forum poll, showing the Conservatives up, the Liberals down, and the NDP steady. The two polls (looking at when Nanos was last in the field at the same time as Forum) agree on the Conservative uptick, but disagree on whether it is the NDP (Nanos) or the Liberals (Forum) that dropped as a result.

- For those wondering, as the official list of candidates is now finalized I will be going through that list to make sure the projections reflect the actual ballot in each riding. Look for those updated numbers either later today or tomorrow.

- I was on Power and Politics last night talking about Alberta.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

- The Poll Tracker and riding projections have been updated.

- My latest regional focus, this time on Alberta.

- The daily Nanos poll, which is generally showing stability for the Liberals and Conservatives and continuing decline for the New Democrats. That has been the story of the last week. Here are Nanos's results since the beginning of September, looking only at the independent three day samples:

09/08: 26% - 31% - 33%
09/11: 31% - 30% - 32%
09/14: 31% - 30% - 30%
09/17: 29% - 31% - 31%
09/20: 31% - 29% - 29%
09/23: 31% - 31% - 32%
09/26: 32% - 28% - 33%
09/29: 32% - 26% - 32%

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

- The Poll Tracker and riding projections have been updated.

- A busy day yesterday! Here I am on The National talking about the latest polls (starts at 8:55), here's the polling panel with David Coletto and Dimitri Pantazapoulos on Power and Politics, et hier sur Midi info au sujet des sondages et leur importance.

- Stability in your daily Nanos numbers, while Ipsos Reid is showing the same sort of longer term gains for the Tories and losses for the NDP that other polls have been showing.

Monday, September 28, 2015

- My analysis of today's polls. This was before the new Ipsos Reid poll. And the Pollcast episode with David Coletto is up. You can find it here.

- The Poll Tracker and riding projections have been updated.

- The Abacus poll, with the surprisingly large drop for the NDP in Quebec. Stay tuned for the next episode of the Pollcast, as David Coletto of Abacus Data will drop by to talk about his numbers.

- Your daily Nanos, which is showing some definite movement against the New Democrats. It is certainly the most dramatic shift we've seen since the three-way race ensconced itself. Also, some interesting Innovative numbers (see the full website for all the PDFs), and an Abacus poll is forthcoming. Some riding polls from Forum have just been released, looking at two ridings in Edmonton and one in Ottawa.

- On The House this weekend, I talked about Ontario and the latest EKOS poll. I also took my regional look to northern, central, and eastern Ontario.

- In case you were wondering, I'm not going to calculate the weekly averages as they were conflicting with the Poll Tracker and confusing some people.

227 comments:

  1. If this is not an outlier, and the NDP is indeed dropping, it is a self fullfilling prophecy. A vast majority of Canadian want change, and Harpers only chance is to split the NDP/Liberal Vote. If the Liberals are seen as the party most likely to win, the NDP vote will continue to fall, especially in Ontario. There will still be the hardcore NDP voters, so I don't see a majority situation anywhere however.

    I'm predicting a minority government on the 19th and a constituional crisis on the 20th of October.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always thought Harper had a good chance at another win (although it may be a Minority this time). People always write him off, but he would not be running again if he didn't think he could win.

      Delete
    2. Why would there be a constitutional crisis?

      If someone other than Conservatives wins a minority, Harper will resign as Prime Minister and the leader of the largest party will be offered the job.

      If the Conservatives win a minority, Harper remains Prime Minister. He'd present a throne speech at some point (but likely well after October 20), and then (if they're true to their word) the opposition parties would defeat it. This would then cause Harper to resign as Prime Minister and the leader of the next largest party would be asked if he could command the confidence of the House.

      There's a system in place for this. It only gets weird when the opposition does something irregular. And when that happens, it's traditional for the government to use whatever procedural trick it can to maintain power (as Harper did in 2008, and Martin did in 2005).

      Delete
    3. I'm not so sure there would be a crisis no matter how much the Grits/Dippers may want to see Harper go. I say that for two reasons.

      1) I have serious doubts that either would want to be the junior partner in a coalition. Ask any Lib Dem in the UK what that can lead to. I doubt either party would want to risk being marginalized that way.

      2) I wasn't able to watch the debate since I don't get Canadian networks here, but I saw several comments online while it was going on talking about how much Trudeau and Mulcair really don't seem to like each other and how that might suggest they wouldn't/couldn't work together.

      My guess is that the only way the Tories don't form government again is if they don't have the most seats, which is very possible. I really think there will be a minority government by the first place party with few to no questions asked.

      Delete
    4. The constitutional crisis happens if Harper loses on the Throne Speech, but instead of resigning, he asks the GG for another election. Then it becomes unclear what the GG should do.

      Delete
    5. Ira,
      \
      What if Harper does not resign if he fails to win the most seats? Convention would dictate Mr. Harper has the right to meet the House as Russell MacLellan did in Nova Scotia in 1998 after the Liberals and NDP tied in the seat count.

      I agree if it is a minority the ball is in Justin and Thomas' court. There is a strong possibility the Government may not be defeated until the New Year. There is no guarantee the leader with the second largest group of seatas will be asked to form government. When Meighen was asked in 1926, Lord Byng did so as he believed Meighen could command the confidence of the House, this proved illusionary and his ministry lasted only a short while. if the Conservatives intone they will support a Liberal ministry but not a NDP ministry it would be difficult for the Governor General to appoint Mulcair as PM and Justin may well get the call.

      Delete
    6. I agree with Ira.

      To add, I'm baffled why in Canadian political talk - the winner of the seat count is decried as the "election winner". Harper loses unless his government is able to garner the support of the majority of members of parliament.

      The Conservatives don't even have to win a plurality to try to hang on to power. Even if the Conservatives are second in the seat count, Harper can remain PM and present a throne speech hoping the third place party can support him.

      I don't understand why the media is hinting this notion of political instability (*cough* Globe and Mail *cough*) after the election.

      Right now the three plausible outcomes are:

      1. Conservative majority government
      2. NDP government propped up by the Liberals
      3. Liberal government propped up by the NDP

      Delete
    7. If the CPC get the most seats, but not a majority, Harper makes a decision. He either quits or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he gets to try to form a minority government. As and when the House returns, one of two things happens: either his throne speech is passed or it isn't. If it is passed, he's good to stay as PM for a while longer. If it fails, the GG will (likely) invite the leader of the next largest party to see if he can form a gov't, depending on what Harper tells the GG (e.g., Harper could tell the GG that the CPC would support the leader of the third largest party as PM but not the leader of the second largest). Again, that either succeeds or fails. If it fails, we likely have an election (depending on how close in size the three parties are; if they are close, the leader of #3 might get a shot (presuming he hadn't already got a shot)). If it succeeds, we have a PM.

      If Harper doesn't get the most seats, Harper either resigns or doesn't. If he resigns, the leader of the party with the most seats will get a shot at trying to gain the confidence of the house. If he doesn't resign, he gets a shot at running things still (say, for the sake of argument that Mulcair gets wiped down to 50 seats, but hates Trudeau so much he agrees to support Harper even though Harper has fewer seats than Trudeau; I agree it is implausible; I'm talking rules, not plausibility) and when the house is recalled we see if he gets the confidence or not. Likely he would resign though as he has said he would.

      Delete
    8. Big Jay, the assumption is that Harper wasn't lying to Peter Mansbridge when he said he'd step down as PM if the CPC didn't win the most seats.



      I think the 1970s of the UK is a better comparison than the Lib-Con Coalition. Feb 1974 Labour won a slim minority (301 to 297, 318 needed for majority); Oct 1974 Labour won a slim majority (319 to 277, 318 needed for majority); in 1977 due to by-election losses, Labour lost their majority and came to a vote of no confidence. An official governing pact was established with the Liberals (13 seats) to support selected legislation in return for propping up the party. The Lib-Lab Pact lasted 16 months (expiry)

      Both the LPC and NPD favour electoral reform. Maybe they could work together for sufficiently long to change the rules for the next round of elections.

      Delete
    9. It's entirely clear what the GG should do if Harper's throne speech is defeated and then asks for another election.

      He should refuse. Unless something happens between this vote and the throne speech that would lead the GG to believe that the election result would be meaningfully different, in which case he could grant the request.

      It would depend how much time passes between the election and the throne speech. I don't know how much discretion the Prime Minister has there.

      Delete
    10. Big Jay:

      There are at least five options by my reckoning:

      1. Conservative majority government
      2. NDP government propped up by the Liberals
      3. Liberal government propped up by the NDP
      4. Conservative government supported by the Liberals
      5. Conservative government supported by the NDP.

      In addition we assume Mulcair will stay as leader. If the NDP flops, and it is increasingly likely they will, Support for another four years with Mulcair at the helm may be replaced with internecine rivalry. The NDP is already badly split between old stock traditional Trotskyites and newer stock Cheerie Blairistas. Or Harper may step aside the interregnum for either party may allow a government of any stripe to govern as a minority for some time.

      Delete
    11. Ira,

      The Crown should only appoint another PM if the parliament is viable. If the parties are unwilling to work with one another, another election will most likely be necessary.

      The Government has a good deal of discretion in planning for the Opening of Parliament. Parliament has already sat in 2015, legally the House need not be recalled until August 2016. However, such a long time frame between election and Throne Speech would be unusual and all parties would likely want Parliament to resume much sooner. Having said that a Throne speech in late November or early December followed by a short session and a break for Christmas seems the most likely outcome.

      Delete
    12. @FCP: "legally the House need not be recalled until August 2016"

      Incorrect; the Constitution is clear that 12 months cannot pass before the house sits again; it last sat on June 19th, so it would have to restart by June 19th, 2016.

      Further, it is not up to the GG to decide if Parliament is viable or not. That is up to Parliament to decide. The Crown would most definitely give at least one, and possibly both of the 2nd and 3rd place parties a shot at gaining confidence before requiring another election.

      Delete
    13. @FCP,

      Yes, but the Liberals or NDP propping up the Tories is toxic for their base and their electoral prospects in the next election.

      Delete
    14. Paul.

      You are correct on the first point incorrect on the second. I direct you to the Lascelles Principles which are explicit when the Crown may grant a dissolution. The crown not Parliament appoint the PM and so it up to the Crown to decide who and when to appoint!

      Delete
    15. Correct on the first point, incorrect on the second. The crown not Parliament authorises a dissolution and so it is the Crown who ultimately determine if a Parliament is viable. In all likelihood such a determination will be made after votes in the Commons have been cast and possibly after more than one prime minister but it is for the Crown and Crown alone to dissolve Parliament and hence determine its viability.

      Delete
    16. I agree that the Crown makes the formal decision. I disagree that this is meaningful in practice here. Prior precedent is pretty clear that
      (1) The current PM gets first kick at the can, regardless whether or not he has the greatest number of seats.
      (2) The current PM would almost certainly relinquish that opportunity if he didn't have the greatest number of seats and Harper has confirmed that this is his position.
      (3) After the current PM, the person who leads the party with the greatest number of seats then gets a kick at the can (presuming that is different from Case 1).
      (4) Case (3) usually fails when the current PM is the leader of the party with the greatest number of seats (and thus (1) and (3) are identical) but cannot gain the confidence of the house. In such a case, precedent has the Crown giving the second largest party leader the opportunity to try. The fact that the leader of the largest party may cry foul is irrelevant. The second largest will get a kick at the can.
      (5) The Crown is above politics and ensures that by only following the formalities; Parliament will determine whether or not it is viable based on confidence votes (plural, not singular).

      Delete
    17. On your fifth point I agree generally, but, the Crown will also not sit idly while a revolving door of prime ministers tire themselves out. Therefore, while your third point is the usual practice, there may be other options or the circumstances may be such that your third point no longer is a viable option; For instance: Mr. Trudeau has stated he will not work with Mr. Mulcair. Is there any point then in asking Mulcair to form a government if the NDP is the second party and Liberals the third especially if upon meeting with the outgoing PM Mr. Harper indicates they will oppose a NDP Throne Speech? Probably not.

      Delete
    18. "Is there any point then in asking Mulcair to form a government"

      Yes, because to do otherwise is to sully the Crown with politics. Further, you presume that the CPC would be part of the discussion. I don't think there would be a discussion, just as there was no discussion in 1985 in Ontario. The Liberals and NDP created their coalition agreement and told the LG that Miller couldn't form a gov't, but it didn't matter. Miller was still given his shot.

      Delete
  2. I would have prefered that you kept the poll tracker here, rather than at CBC,I have great trouble loading up the CBC site, on 2 different browses. They churn over forever, but don't bring up the simple diagrams which is all I want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On both Chrome and IE I get the exact same problem as you. I have not been able to see the poll tracker on my PC since it migrated to CBC. Sadly I resort to using my phone because I am a 308 junkie!

      Delete
    2. But I'm sure the CBC in dropping Eric a few doubloons for the poll tracker... I think that's (the loading issues which I share) a small price to play to ensure that Eric gets compensated (and by extension can continue to do it).

      Delete
    3. The thing I miss is the vote ranges for High, Low, Min,and Max. The CBC tracker only shows those for seats, not for votes.

      Delete
    4. CBC is constantly crying for more money, but with the budget they already have, it should be child's play to fix this simple problem. I emphasize, all I want to see are the 3 % numbers; these could be presented without even loading up the program.

      Delete
  3. I'm sad to lose the weekly averages.

    Dumb people are dumb. You can't help that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eric - question for you. Why is the Nanos poll given so much more weight than other polls?

    With the two released today Nanos is only slightly fresher than Abacus (Sept 25-27 as opposed to Sept 24-27), but the Abacus sample size is about three times as large.

    I've noticed this before when you had a very large and very recent Forum poll weighted less than the daily Nanos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Track record is another weighting factor.

      Delete
    2. I can understand Forum not weighting as well because they often seem to be all over the place, but Abacus seems to be a solid outfit.

      Just seems to me that there might be too many eggs placed in the Nanos basket to the exclusion of everyone else.

      I also think you're stale dating the polls too quickly. Your current formula is probably ideal for your final projections on election day morning, but I think right now we shouldn't be forgetting about the poll that may have been issued 4-5 days ago from a solid polling firm just because they're not churning out daily numbers.

      Don't read this as too much criticism. I'm a big fan (and addict) of your work. But I guess we could all have a few minor adjustments and tweaks of our personal liking! :)

      Delete
    3. Does Nanos have a more accurate track record for poll numbers than Abacus in federal elections?

      Delete
    4. Do you have a Polling Firm Track Record that we can see?

      Delete
    5. Craig Buntin - Yes. Nanos was the most accurate pollster in the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections.

      Angus Reid surpassed them in 2011, but I think that might have been unique to that election. AR tends to rate the CPC fairly highly, and 2011 featured a late CPC swing. AR's accuracy might have been luck.

      Delete
    6. Angus Reid usually tends to give the NDP the most generous numbers from what I have observed, so it's hard to say.

      And it's hard to know whether Nanos will be the most accurate this year since they weren't in 2011.

      We won't know until Election Night how these different pollsters fare.

      Delete
  5. With the aggregate numbers published today (eigth week), my model gives:

    127 CPC (-6)
    107 NDP (-7)
    100 LPC (+10)
    3 BQ (+3)
    1 GPC (even)

    By region, it gives:

    Atlantic
    22 LPC (+2)
    6 NDP (-1)
    4 CPC (-1)

    Quebec
    54 NDP (-6)
    14 LPC (+2)
    7 CPC (+1)
    3 BQ (+3)

    Ontario
    55 CPC (even)
    45 LPC (+2)
    21 NDP (-2)

    Prairies
    13 CPC (-3)
    9 NDP (+3)
    6 LPC (even)

    Alberta
    28 CPC (-3)
    4 LPC (+3)
    2 NDP (even)

    British Columbia
    19 CPC (even)
    14 NDP (-1)
    8 LPC (+1)
    1 GPC (even)

    Territories (even)
    1 CPC
    1 NDP
    1 LPC

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have a general question for discussion as well as one for Eric.

    For discussion: If the NDP finishes third, what does that mean for Mulcair's future as party leader, especially if the current decline continues, especially if Abacus is anywhere close in Quebec?

    For Eric: If those regional numbers from Abacus are correct, what would the seat counts in Quebec look like based on that poll alone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For your first question, depending on what third is, I think Mulcair stays. If he's completely out of the race, let's say under 80 seats, not sure, otherwise, I don't think the NDP has much to gain by changing leader at this point.

      As for your second question, my model shows:

      41 NDP
      17 LPC
      13 CPC
      7 BQ

      Delete
    2. I actually see now that I left out part of what I intended to include in my first question, but you addressed it, Thierry. I don't think he's gone if the party gets, say, 100 seats, but if they drop too far, I think he has to have some trouble. If they keep slipping in Quebec, that could happen.

      Thanks for your response on the seats too. I suspected there would be a pretty significant change. I find it interesting as well, that while the Ipsos-Reid numbers haven't gone quite so far, they show the same trends in Quebec.

      Delete
    3. I don't see Mulcair hanging around much longer if the NDP is reduced to third place. It would be his choice and not the party. Since its hard to see anybody else in the NDP caucus performing stronger than Mulcair.

      Mulcair does not seem like a guy who wants to play second fiddle to Trudeau in a minority government.

      Besides it's hard to go from enjoying the perks of Stornaway for 3-4 years to being the leader of the third party.

      Delete
    4. Big Jay,

      When I visited Stornoway, it looked run-down, to be charitable.

      Delete
    5. Big Jay,

      I agree and judging by Mr. Mulcair's expanding waistline it appears he enjoyed at least some of the perks a good deal. The poor chef must have been run off his feet!

      Your second paragraph hits the nail on the head. He is unlikely to become Finance Minister under a Trudeau government and so would likely end up as a senior minister albeit one with limited authority; Minister of Industry, Revenue, Environment or the dreaded Minister of Foreign Affairs or Defence which are often used to remove potential rivals from the country. I think the best Mulcair could hope for is President of the Treasury Board, the junior finance portfolio.

      Delete
    6. "I think the best Mulcair could hope for is President of the Treasury Board, the junior finance portfolio."

      Err, not a chance. Mulcair would either be given something quite substantive or there would be no functioning Liberal minority (at least, not one with NDP support; I doubt the Cons would support Trudeau, but you never know (my bet would be that the Cons would sooner support Mulcair than Trudeau, and that this might yet happen)).

      Delete
    7. @Paul I'm puzzled by this. The Ontario liberals were propped by the NDP for no specific positions in cabinet. Why do you consider this completely out of the picture at the national level?

      Delete
    8. President of the Treasury Board is a very substantive portfolio. Currently Tony Clement sits on the priorities and planning committee of cabinet often seen as the inner cabinet and chairs the Treasury Board, the committee that authorises spending.

      Mulcair has backed himself into a corner-he has promised to defeat the Government without negotiating any role for the NDP in a future government, it is perhaps one of the worst strategic blunders of recent times, right up there with Kim Campbell's; "elections are no time to discuss important issues".

      This partly explains why I believe if the NDP finishes third pressure will be on Mulcair to resign as NDP leader.

      Delete
    9. "Why do you consider this completely out of the picture at the national level?"

      Because I don't believe Mulcair is as stupid as Bob Rae was. And yes, that quite literally is my reason. Bob Rae was a demonstrable idiot for failing to negotiate anything in exchange for his support. (His subsequent fiasco of a majority government in Ontario would seem to confirm the notion that he was not really that good at politics ....)

      (It is possible I'm wrong, and Mulcair is that silly, but I seriously doubt it; he's been in cabinet before in Quebec and by all appearances is a competent negotiator.)

      Delete
    10. Rae? you are forgetting Horwath did the same thing when she supported the McGuinty minority in exchange for no specific posts.

      p.s. Don't get me started on Rae.

      Delete
    11. In fairness, Horvath was facing the Liberals who were just a couple of seats short of a majority. Miller was significantly shorter, and Peterson would have had a harder time if Rae had been a better politician and made stronger demands. Had Rae been a smarter man, he would have been willing to negotiate positions and policies with Miller, rather than supporting Peterson for essentially nothing other than the privilege of ending 42 years of PC rule (which was arguably centrist).

      Delete
    12. @FCP: Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau are backed into a corner on this subject. Frankly, I suspect if there is a weak minority situation, what is most likely to occur is for the NDP and Liberals to agree to set up a commission to recommend a change to the voting system with an election to be held immediately after that. Prior to that, it would be caretaker government in some sense.

      As for Treasury, in a weak minority, that role would be considered far too junior for support by any rational politician. Clement has power not because of being in charge of Treasury but because of his seniority.

      Delete
    13. Paul, I think you're misremembering on two counts:
      (1) Rae did negotiate a lot with Peterson. He got a specific program, which was a compromise between the Liberal and NDP programs. The agreement did not include a division of cabinet seats, but it did include substantial policy concessions.
      (2) The NDP team started negotiating with both the Liberals and the PCs. Because the NDP platform was much closer to the Liberals than to the PCs, it surprised nobody that they reached a deal with Peterson rather than Miller, but there were talks both ways.

      Delete
  7. I hope we get some Ipsos, Angus, & Leger (and maybe CROP) polling this week (I assume Ekos will be Thur or Fri). Be nice to hear from the occasional (but not usual) suspects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was polled by Leger this week so something should be out soon.

      Delete
  8. I'm curious to see if Peter will keep posting the Nanos numbers every day now that the Liberals are no longer leading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be like that, same for Peter if he does that to you. Its not very reasoned analysis....

      Delete
    2. Who is Peter?

      And as for the Nanos lead, no one has kept it for very long so far. They've been switching back & forth.

      Delete
    3. Granted. It's not like he was predicting the election based on it.

      Delete
    4. Ira,

      With this latest development, I'm starting to have trouble reading it! LOL.

      Delete
    5. Of course Peter will stop posting. He is a Liberal partisan so, it's unlikely he'll post bad Liberal news.

      Delete
  9. I don't usually look at cross-tabs, but as a strategic voter in Edmonton-Centre, I was quite interested in that Forum poll.

    As someone more experienced in reading these things, is it odd that the "last federal vote" share is totally out of whack with the election results? The conservative share is close, but the NDP/Liberal split is messed up. Last-vote-NDP polling share is 17.3%, took 25.4% last election. Liberal is closer, but still off...25.8% of the poll vs 22% of the last election, "other parties" is also overweight at 3% vs 0.8% last election.

    Does this suggest bad memories, an unrepresentative sample, something else? Is it corrected for? I don't think it would be the result of the riding redistribution, since the central, NDP-heavy, polls stayed in the riding (we mostly dumped CPC-heavy polls in the west).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neil,

      It could be as your last paragraph suggests or it may be the result of changed riding boundaries. Edmonton-Centre lost its western edge to Edmonton-West I believe.

      Delete
    2. I think Edmonton Centre will be one of the victims this year of the dreaded "vote-split". The lack of one clear alternative will likely cause the Cons to come up the middle.

      The Rachel Notley NDP win was both good & bad for non-Conservative voters. It showed that Conservative holds on Alberta can sometimes be broken, but it also may have complicated the Federal voting patterns. Until Notely won Alberta, the Mulcair NDP had terrible numbers. It was the Trudeau Liberals who had been making the by-election gains there. When Notley won Alberta, the NDP under Mulcair got a big bump, but that is now subsiding, plus the National NDP numbers are dropping as the Liberals go up.

      So I think progressive voters in Edmonton Centre (and probably in several other ridings) are confused over whether to vote Liberal or NDP.

      In Calgary Centre it looks like most progressive voters are supporting Liberal Kent Hehr, but it's possible he could lose by a few points to Conservative Joan Crockatt depending on how the vote splits, too.

      Delete
    3. I will be surprised if the Liberals win a seat in Alberta-I agree Kent Hehr is the Grits best bet.

      Delete
  10. These pollsters who were completely wrong for some provincial elections such as in Alberta and New Brunswick last year, why should we consider them this time around?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean the 2014 New Brunswick and 2015 Alberta elections?

      The polls did a decent job in gauging support during those two campaigns. The only issue in Alberta was that the Wildrose was overtracked at the expense of the PCs.

      The polling mishaps of Alberta 2012 and BC 2013 are long gone.

      Delete
    2. Because all numbers have some merit and are weighted according to historical track record, so firms that are consistently off are weighted lower.

      Polling isn't perfect, but it gives us an idea of what's happening in the country.

      Delete
    3. Mapleson:

      When did Ekos officially go bad? EKOS used to account for about 70% of the weighting now CBC has EKOS weighting at much less than 25%.


      I personally don't trust the IVR guys much as there is such a filter on the 3% of the population that will actually answer a robo-call.

      Delete
    4. The Poll Tracker weighting is primarily based on Age and MOE (with the 2/3 cap and the polling firm historical accuracy as adjustments). As such, the daily releases by Nanos guarantees that has a the highest possible weighting. Plus, there seems to be an issue with sometimes double counting overlapping Nanos polls. At 9 days old, EKOS will only have 2% of it's maximum value.

      Delete
  11. Eric,

    Did you adjust Saskatoon West based on the riding poll that was completed? I am curious as to why Saskatoon West saw liberal support jump from 9 percent to 16 without any meaningful gains in other urban Saskatchewan ridings for the liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  12. it looks like LPC with majority

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you figure? The LPC has the least efficient vote distribution (by a lot). Nothing in the polling data or Éric's projections would lead you to that conclusion.

      Delete
    2. You need new glasses. Based on Eric's model, the maximum seat count for the LPC is 138 (that is, 32 shy of a majority). I would therefore assume that you have a rich imagination.

      Delete
    3. Ummm, no it dosen't at this point. I'll grant there are a couple of weeks for things to change but the LPC faces significant regional challenges to form a majority. They no longer have a very efficient vote.

      Delete
    4. The Liberals have a much more "efficient" vote in 2015 than they did in 2011, but they can't win a Majority unless they make a breakthrough in Quebec.

      Delete
    5. Lord Gary,

      Well... 138 with the current polling support. I assume TheBenyamin1 is projecting higher support come election day. Although really at this point I doubt anyone can claim a majority, we're looking at a minority government for sure the only question being for whom.

      Delete
    6. No one is getting a majority this time round, umless the ABH vote goes massively for one party. LPC has inefficient vote, CPC has no growth potential and NDP won't make it for other reasons.

      A coalition of some sort will topple Harper if he wins the most seats. New PM in October is guaranteed.

      Delete
    7. That is a bizarre claim. I'd be fine with a Liberal win but I know it's not happening. If I was betting, it would be a Conservative minority. The only question is on how strong or weak. If it's weak, we're getting a new government soon or heading back to the polls.

      Delete
    8. No, Jimmy it's not.

      Leaving aside that Parliament doesn't ahve to even meet in October... you're basing that on the assumption that both the Liberals and the NDP will be willing to risk sending the people back to the polls on the throne speech. Given that neither will likely have a nickel to their name, and another election would be incredably unpopular you're basically saying that both will risk political extinction on the GG not granting Harper's inevitable request for another election.

      Not gonna happen.

      Delete
    9. Political extinction? First they can get back channel assurances about what the GG would do, and second a quick second election would be far from the "perish from the earth" apocalyptic scenario you depict. Let's keep the discussion grounded on facts shall we?

      Delete
    10. @JF: "you're basing that on the assumption that both the Liberals and the NDP will be willing to risk sending the people back to the polls on the throne speech. "

      Err, why would toppling Harper on a Throne speech result in an election? The history is extremely clear on this matter: just because one party gets the most seats doesn't mean they get to form the government; it only means that they get to try. If they fail at their first kick at the can, the GG would simply talk to the head of the number 2 party and give him a shot.

      The GG would absolutely not grant Harper a request of an election prior to giving the second party a chance and the precedence for that is both unambiguous and multitudinous.

      Delete
    11. Keep in mind, the Max number on the projection is the result if the polls miss by the most they have in recent elections. The Min and Max values were added after the polling misses on Alberta 2012 and BC 2013.

      So unless you're predicting the polls will be as wrong as they were then, there's no point even considering the Min and Max values.

      High and Low mark the extremes of the likely outcomes.

      Delete
    12. If, by some strange circumstance, the Conservatives managed to have their throne speech not be defeated, then they'd be able to prorogue (as they did in 2008), but the throne speech has to come first.

      If the opposition defeats the throne speech, Harper is done.

      Delete
    13. Paul,

      Generally I agree that defeat on the Throne speech probably would not result in an election there is a possibility it would especially, if the opposition parties were unwilling to work with one another.

      Delete
    14. Paul,

      I don't think the convention totally unambiguous. Lord Byng did grant a dissolution to Arthur Meighen in 1926 instead of asking Mackenzie King to cobble together a government for a second time. Malcolm Fraser was asked to form a government in 1975 on condition he ask for a double dissolution! frankly the near certainty in your writing is misplaced. The Crown is well within its prerogative to issue a dissolution and although at the moment it looks unlikely, the context may change once the results are in.

      Delete
    15. @FCP: Byng grated dissolution because MK had already had a kick at the can and failed and explicitly wanted an election.

      Delete
  13. For more than a week, no matter what computer or browser I use, Poll Tracker never updates - I just get those little arrows going around in circles indefinitely. I guess I'll have to add up each riding in the riding projections to see what your overall projections are. :(

    ReplyDelete
  14. So I've set-up a rough model to compare First-Past-The-Post and Instant-Runoff-Voting using the Nanos second choice matrix and the Poll Track seat predictions.

    CPC -29 (128 to 99)
    LPC +15 (110 to 125)
    NDP +15 (98 to 113)
    BQ -1 (1 to 0)
    GP 0 (1 to 1)

    Change by Province - BC 9; SK 1; MB 1; ON 12; QC 4; NB 3;

    LPC Gains - BC 2; SK 0; MB 1; ON 11; QC 0; NB 1;

    NDP Gains - BC 7; SK 1; MB 0; ON 1; QC 4; NB 2; (Note 1 QC gained from BQ)

    It'd be interesting to see how "second choice" varies regionally.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The CPC is gaining seats with the niqab and C-24 pandering, mostly at the expense of the NDP.

    Interesting that a half dozen niqabs at citizenship ceremonies and maybe another half dozen citizenship revocations produce a bunch more seats for the CPC.

    We did see a similar increase in CPC support when two lone wolves did their thing last fall.

    Jihadisteria looks like a winning strategy for the CPC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Half dozen? More like two out of nearly 700,000. Appealing to ignorance, fear and bigotry has been a winning electoral strategy in the United States for quite some time. I would hope Canadians are better than that, but more and more I am realizing that we are absolutely no different and no longer qualified to comment on our supposed superiority over American voters. I am dismayed at what a pathetic people we are truly turning out to be.

      Delete
    2. @Nick Would you be as upset if people wanted to wear KKK garb to a citizenship ceremony or in public or at work? Surely you wouldn't want to see people wearing a niqab fired and so I presume you would defend those wearing KKK outfits also. Or SS gear, if you prefer. Or lingerie.

      Do you have any clothing standards whatsoever?

      Delete
    3. When you look at the polls, the niqab issue hasn't made that much of a difference for the CPC overall. The CPC are still statistically tied with the Libs. Even with this divisive tactic, the CPC still cannot get near majority territory, because they have no growth. Jihadisteria will not give the CPC a majority.

      Best case scenario for Harper is a minority and without a majority, Harper is finished.

      Delete
    4. Dog whistle politics at its best or worst depending on how you look at it. You can certainly discern the hand of the Aussie strategist...question is would many Canadian voters fall in line like the Brits or the Aussies did in their elections. So far, the answer, regrettably, seems yes.

      Delete
    5. You guys don't get it. The Niqab is not some great symbol of freedom and equal rights-it's a misogynistic garment with zero religious affiliation brought to Canada to perpetuate cultural mistreatment of women! Asking people to reveal their face while in the courtroom or at a citizenship ceremony or for a driver's licence should be a small price to pay for receiving citizenship-Why would anyone not be willing to pay that small sacrifice?

      You fellows should go to Saudi Arabia and see how accommodating they are to Western values! You may be surprised.

      Delete
    6. @Jimmy: The niqab issue is a relatively minor issue in much of English Canada, largely because it is far less prevalent, though it is increasing. In Quebec, the issue is huge, and will swing voters. This is where understanding that Canada is not having an election, it is having 338 simultaneous elections, matters.

      Delete
    7. The niqab is actually quite common in Edmonton. I see several each day.

      I'm sensitive to the personal freedom argument. If you want to wear a niqab, you should get to wear a niqab, but it isn't some super rare thing that no one ever sees.

      With Quebec about to pass a law (with unanimous support in the National Assembly) requiring that people show their faces to provide or receive any public services, this niqab issue is going to move some seats in Quebec.

      It's probably the only growth potential the Bloc has.

      Delete
    8. @jimmythedeke. Eric's CBC projection at 118-155.

      It would go to majority territory if the EKOS poll stays the same as it was when it was last released.

      With 17 days left the polls are really close to putting in the same position as we were in 2011.

      There are a lot of people that would not want PM Trudeau in power after winning 50 less seats than the CPC. May as well push Harper to a majority if for no better reason than to stop the campaign ads.

      Mulcair and Trudeau made a major mistake in the one clear thing of their Campaign--- not going to work with a CPC minority.

      How can the NDP put Trudeau in as PM as they have branded him as an unethical cheater, getting paid for a charity speech when the people of Canada were already paying him as a MP?


      Delete
    9. @Paul A.S. Ward you pretty much just embodied everything I was just talking about. Thank you.

      Delete
    10. So Carbonear Pete, you want Canada to hold itself to the same level as Saudi Arabia? A country with an abysmal human rights record and where women can't do something as fundamental as drive on their own? This is the benchmark for which you want to hold Canada? Perhaps if you have so many issues about the basic rights and freedoms that exist in Canada and are upheld by the courts, you would find a more fitting and fulfilling life if you left Canada and moved to Saudi Arabia instead?

      And really, people need to stop believing chain messages that get passed along on Facebook. The drivers license photo is totally and completely untrue. Let me guess - you posted the disclaimer to your wall to protect your privacy, too? I guess all this does is prove my point about how gullible Canadians really are and how disappointed I am by all of this. We pretended to be better, but really we're not.

      Delete
    11. @Formerly Cabonear Pete

      The "you should go to and see how..." is simply a deflection. Come on now. I could care less how Saudi lacks accommodation as I am a proud Canadian. And I am (was) proud that Canada is accommodating. By not being accommodating we simply become more like the very country where you think we should move to. Just because Saudi isn't accommodating doesn't mean we can stoop to that level and say "well if they could do it".

      I don't like what's going on in Russia/Ukraine right now. So should we ban Vodka and Russian Easter eggs? And if I don't should I be deported to Russia to see how accommodating they are to Western values? Come on. use a stronger argument than this deflection.

      So now back to the points on this thread. The first is that it doesn't have religious affiliation (mainly because it was never even in the Quran). While that is completely true, who are we to all of a sudden become religious police. Who are we to say what is part of the Muslim religion and what is not. And need I remind everyone that half of the religious beliefs of Christianity also does not exist in the Bible. Should we start banning what Christians may do or wear unless it explicitly states that they need to do this in the bible?

      Mormons, Jewish, Sikh, Hindus all have clothing customs some in their holy books and some not. Do we create a list to determine which have been written in the holy books (allows at citizenship) and those not written in the books (banned from citizenship). Well there goes the Jewish Kippah!

      Why dose the niqab have a special rule that bans it from citizenship when not one other religious clothing has this type of treatment? That is what you don't seem to get.

      By the way, a niqab must be removed to get a drivers license. By the way, a judge has discretion on whether a niqab must be removed or not depending on each court case. By the way, the niqab must be moved just before the citizenship ceremony for security purposes and than she can feel free put it right back on during the symbolic portion (the oath). And finally by the way...the oath is not even mandatory!!! Nobody needs to actually attend the ceremony to be a Canadian citizen. it's just symbolism and nothing more. A feel good moment for new immigrants. So again what is the problem with the niqab???

      Delete
    12. @Paul A.S. Ward

      Comparing the niqab to KKK and SS gear is trivial at best. First off, one wears a niqab for religious purposes even if some disagree with this view.

      The KKK and SS are not religious at all and therefore not covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedom. In fact that is covered by another set of laws. They are called Hate Laws.

      As for lingerie. well you got me there. But quite frankly if someone wants to wear lingerie at the citizenship ceremony, why in hell should we stop them?

      The vast majority of Canadians will never step foot in a citizenship ceremony and will never see what people wear or how they act. It will basically effect almost nobody on a day to day basis. And yet this seems to be one of the defining issue of the election.

      Delete
    13. I would compare the wearing of a niqab by some Muslims to the wearing of a kirpan by Sikhs. It is integral to how that individual practices their religion and does not negatively impact anyone else, and so should be accommodated.

      As far as revealing the face to testify in court, this is a matter of balancing the rights of the accused and witness.

      What is the concern about Citizenship Ceremonies? That someone will sneak in and swear to be Canadian?

      Delete
    14. I don't see why any garment should get special permission because it's "religious".

      But then, I oppose the tax free status of religious organizations.

      Delete
    15. Look at the seat projection ranges, Jimmy. The Conservatives have more upside risk than downside risk, and way more upside risk than any other party.

      Delete
    16. I don't believe the Niqab is a religious garment, I believe it is cultural-like the kilt.

      Delete
    17. No Nick,

      I want you to go to Saudi Arabia and witness how they treat women and girls then, ask yourself if that is how we wish women to be treated in Canada? it is my belief the niqab perpetuates and strengthens the inequality found in the Saudi Kingdom.

      Unknown,

      I'm not proposing we ban the Niqab. I simply agree with the Government that some formal ceremonies and state interactions require the removal of the veil for various reasons including the ascertaining of identity.

      Maybe tomorrow you guys should tell your girlfriends, mothers, daughters, sisters and nieces what to wear and see what type of response you get?

      Fundamentally the niqab is a cultural not religious garment, there is some indications it originated in Byzantium. What biblical references there are to the veil come long before the invention of Islam.

      Delete
    18. What any individual feels about the niqab is irrelevant. Faith and spirituality is between an individual and those beliefs. Not between them and anyone else.

      I do find the parallels between the "niqab debate" and the various kirpan and turban outcries in the 90s - particularly with the RCMP - rather interesting. While in the 90s those crying about turbans and kirpans were rightfully told to shut up, we now have a Prime Minister using an issue that affected all of two people out of nearly 700,000 appealing to bigotry as a means to win an re-election. Islamaphobia and the bigotry that goes with it is rife and socially acceptable. That is utterly disgusting.

      And as disgusting as this all is, there is absolutely nothing Stephen Harper or anyone else can do to stop those two women from wearing their niqab during a citizenship ceremony. Even if he goes nuclear with Section 33, the provision will eventually expire.

      Delete
    19. It is really common courtesy in this country to remove the veil at certain times not too mention common sense. If some Muslim women are too modest to show their face that is too bad, asking them to remove their veil does not impede their religious practice and therefore, I think it a reasonable request for the benefits of citizenship and the privilege of voting. Respect is a two way street.

      Delete
    20. No Nick,

      I want Canadians to see that abysmal record.

      Delete
    21. "The KKK and SS are not religious at all"

      Incorrect; the KKK have as much claim to being religious as do those who wear the niqab, if not more-so. Likewise, a study of the history of the third reich will show that they very much viewed themselves in religious terms.

      So now, how about we put the niqab under hate laws too?

      For that matter, since when does "personal choice" amount to a sufficient argument? A person may personally choose to be a slave, but it is still unenforceable in Canada. A person may choose to be eaten by a cannibal but it is not allowed in Canada (please look up the German case for evidence that this has occurred). Simply because a person wants to choose something is insufficient for our society to say: well OK then; I guess we've got to allow it.

      Delete
    22. @Nick "@Paul A.S. Ward you pretty much just embodied everything I was just talking about. Thank you."

      And yet you failed to answer my question. Now please explain why the Niqab is different from the equally, if not more, religious KKK outfit. Or feel free to say you're OK with the KKK outfit. I'm easy either way. I'm simply looking for consistency.

      Delete
    23. Carbonear Pete, if you want to tell women what they can and cannot wear, I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia yourself. You strike me as the kind of individual who would get off on that sort of thing, but granted limited interaction on a polling website during the head of a campaign is probably limiting in the information it reveals.

      As for what someone wears, I could care less what anyone wears to a citizenship ceremony. If someone wants to wear a KKK Grand Wizard hat or an SS uniform, so be it. You probably won't make a whole lot of friends at the reception afterward, though.

      What I will add, however, is that drawing parallels between a woman wearing a niqab and the Ku Klux Klan is precisely the kind of divide-and-conquer mentality that the Conservatives have started to employ after bringing Lynton Crosby into the fold. What better way to further appeal to one's ignorance and fear by equating women of faith with burning crosses in Prince George?

      Delete
    24. When yuou swear an oath one uncovers their face, it is common courtesy and an ancient tradition. Most everyone agrees it is a reasonable request it's only radical Corbynistas like yourself who make it an issue.

      Delete
    25. "What I will add, however, is that drawing parallels between a woman wearing a niqab and the Ku Klux Klan is precisely the kind of divide-and-conquer mentality that the Conservatives"

      You may not like it as an argument, but it is a point of principal. I appreciate the fact that you do state that you don't care what people wear and leave it to social approval to deal with. This is, in some measure, my position, though not entirely. In particular, the fact that a person chooses to do something that harms themselves and no others is not considered a sufficient reason to allow the person to do that thing. Example, what happens if a person wishes to become a slave? Answer, sorry, that is not allowed. Likewise if a person wishes to have one of their limbs removed (and yes, this is a real condition). There comes a time when society decides what standards, if any, it has.

      Delete
    26. @FCP: "Respect is a two way street."

      Yes, I think that nicely captures the issue. At what point is someone going to say that it is incredibly offensive to every single Canadian male that it is acceptable for a female to say "I will not show my face to you even to identify myself; it has to be a female only."

      Delete
  16. There is something off in the Nanos numbers. With Regional totals and percentages, it should be possible to back calculate the raw polling numbers. A few examples: for the Praries the sum of the five percentages is 0.6% less than 100%, which is beyond a rounding error. For the Atlantic, with 105 polled, each person represents 0.952%, but the percentages show represent 20.2 CPC, 26.7 NDP, 51.7 LPC, and 6.6 Green.

    If these were regional adjustments, then the numbers for BC, ON, and Quebec should be fine, but they are likewise questionable. For QC, the sum of the 5 parties is 1.3% less than 100%. For BC, each polled is 0.595%, which gives 51.1 CPC, 53.6 NDP, 49.6 LPC, and 13.8 GP. If these are rounded to the nearest whole person, it means the LPC and NDP are showing lower at the expense of the GP.

    Eric, do you get raw numbers from polling firms on only use published regional/federal percentages?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. But as for the unaccounted for numbers, that would certainly be the Others.

      Delete
    2. Yeah people answer "other' aka Marxist Leninist, Christian Heritage etc. , case closed.

      Delete
    3. My basic question would be if you do any data validation or just take everything at face value.

      For example, Forum reported MOE are all over the place compared to sample size 3.1% for 977, 3% for 1557, and 3% for 922. If the weighting of internet polls is based on an assumed MOE, is everyone else estimated with the same procedure?

      Delete
    4. Forum rounds off their MOEs. I calculate my own MOE based on the sample size of decided voters.

      Delete
  17. I wonder if Thomas Mulcair and NDP can claw themselves back and make it into a three-way race.

    It seems that the NDP leader is ramping up his rhetoric on climate change and Harper's position on TPP. This may or play well in Quebec.

    Will be interesting to see how the leaders fare in the French debate this Friday. It is a do-or-die moment for Mulcair.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I see it, Mulcair has made a few fairly critical errors in this campaign:

      (1) He's on the wrong side of the Niqab issue (wrong = wrong as far as the voters are concerned; I'm not going to get into the moral argument) which is not a small issue for Quebec voters, no matter how much people like Mulcair want it to just go away.

      (2) The Wacky Left of the NDP asserted itself (i.e., the Leap Manifesto) as could have been predicted from the Ontario 2014 election. Horvath wasn't prepared to handle it well. I expected better from Mulcair, but by appearances he failed to handle it also, which has hurt him massively with those who were very happy with the idea that Mulcair was presenting a centrist campaign.

      (3) He's failed miserably at showing the inherent contradictions in Trudeau's platform.

      Given these, the NDP decline and commensurate rise in the Liberals has been unsurprising.

      Delete
    2. I agree it is a do or die moment for Mulcair on Friday and perhaps Harper's only chance to win enough Quebec votes to capture a majority, it will also be Duceppe's last chance to avoid BQ annihilation and it may be Trudeau's last chance to sway enough minds for the Liberals to win a minority government. All the leaders have something to play for, it should be interesting.

      Delete
    3. Totally disagree that any "wacky left" harmed Mulcair. People are NDP because they are left. If they want to vote center they have Liberal. However, this election, Trudeau is coming off more progressive than the NDP and Mulcair is coming off as Harper Light. So I think trying to shift to the center (plus the niqab boogyman) is what is costing the NDP. They needed to be progressive as a counterpoint to Harper.

      Delete
    4. @Aleka4: "People are NDP because they are left."

      Not at all. Core NDP support in Canada is high-teens, maybe 20%. The extra 10-20% who have said they liked the NDP over the last while are not at all comfortable with the NDP as a left-wing party; centre-left is fine. The NDP slide will continue, and accelerate as they try to move back to the left in the coming week, combined with the ABH voters breaking for the Liberals.

      Canada doesn't like left-wing or right-wing. Centre-Left and centre-right are fine, but not left or right.

      To argue that the niqab issue is hurting the NDP is to ignore the reality that (a) Trudeau has exactly the same position on the topic as does Mulcair (b) to ignore the fact that Canada's most left-wing province, Quebec, is where the issue matters most.

      Delete
  18. Nanos Sept 30

    LIB 32.2
    CPC 32.1
    NDP 26.3
    The slide continues

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nanos Oct 1

      CPC 32.8
      LIB 31.7
      NDP 26.1

      More slide !

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Sorry folks, really bad day with medical problems

      Nanos Oct 2

      LIB 33.5
      CPC 31.9
      NDP 25.9
      And Mulcair spirals into the ground !!

      Delete
    4. Nanos Oct. 3

      LIB 34.6
      CPC 30.5
      NDP 25.1
      Looks like the NDP have trouble ?

      Delete
    5. Sunday Oct 4 Nanos

      LIB 35.3

      CPC 31.0

      NDP 24.3

      With these numbers I think we can see where the NDP vote is going ?

      Delete
    6. I'd say the ABH voter is breaking for the Liberal. Expect in about a week the NDP to be down around 20%, the Liberals up to 37%; the CPC will creep up to 33%, from those uncomfortable with the idea of a Trudeau-led gov't.

      Delete
  19. Any polling done on the impact of Trudeau's petulant rudeness at the Debates?

    Have women all of the sudden endorsed blood sport politics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You assume enough women (or people in general) are watching the debates to make a difference, and that those women value courtesy over sound policy and sincerity or other emotional factors.

      Delete
    2. As a woman I can say that Trudeau doesn't come across as petulant, he comes across as having conviction and sincerity - and testicular fortitude. the other two come across much less favorably because they seem petty.

      Delete
  20. The weak campaign performances by Mulcair and Trudeau is going to suppress the vote.

    The unwashed masses that were wanting to support Mulcair or Trudeau will not automatically go out to vote for their 2nd choice progressive candidate.

    The MSM will blame it on the fair election act but so far neither Harper alternative has had an inspiring campaign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Fair Elections Act will have something to do with it - particularly Elections Canada no longer being permitted to encourage voting - but I also think that's a good thing.

      If Harper wins as a result, this will seriously undercut any narrative about how angry Canadians are at him.

      I predict a record low voter turnout.

      Delete
    2. "I predict a record low voter turnout."

      I agree, but I don't think it is anything to do with the FEA. I think it will be driven by the fact that all three parties are ignoring >50% of the Canadian population. I look at the CPC and they are relatively OK on the economy, but an absolute mess on taxation (not rates, the credit nonsense), their tough-on-crime nonsense, their prostitution bill, Bill C-51 (which is a total contradiction to their claim of getting rid of the mandatory long-form census because it is intrusive), ....!

      I look at the Liberals and their tax views are reasonable (should have come from the CPC!), but Trudeau is massively influenced by Wynne who has been a disaster economically; I don't for a moment believe he will manage the state finances well (in fact, I have more faith in Mulcair on that topic!), and am seriously upset at how he treats men.

      The NDP is nicely opposed to C-51, seems reasonable on state finances, but has a hopelessly naive view on foreign affairs and defence.

      So what's a voter to do?

      I will vote regardless, but it won't be for any of the big three. The Liberal will likely win in my riding, which also points to the fact that FPTP makes voting largely meaningless from a game-theory perspective at the individual level, for the vast majority of Canadians.

      Delete
  21. After Layton did so well politically in 2011 while knowing full well he was not going to be around for the 2015 it would be prudent to have the physical well being of the candidates fully disclosed.

    Harper looks to over-weight by 50 pounds or so. he is 56 years old.

    Mulcair is overweight by 100 pounds or so. At age 60 in a high stress position what are the odds that he avoids serious medical problems over the next 5 years?

    Trudeau clearly wins the personal health issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harper didn't lose weight for this election. Or at least not as much as he usually does. In previous elections, Harper lost weight (probably about 30 pounds each time) before calling the election.

      This is particularly important for him because he's a tall guy with broad shoulders, and the way he carries extra weight (mostly his belly) makes it really difficult to make him look good in a suit. Losing weight dramatically improves his appearance.

      But he didn't do that this time.

      Delete
    2. That's absurd. First of all neither Harper nor Mulcair are are overweight as you suggest. Secondly, you are proposing that no one who is overweight should be Prime Minister?

      I do believe that Layton was fully aware of his terminal Cancer diagnosis and that gave him the "happy warrior" serenity that people were drawn to. I don't believe he should have been running without disclosing that he knew full well he was not going to be able to do the job for 4 years.

      That, however, is a far cry from being overweight and there is no reason to believe either Mr. Mulcair or Mr. Harper could not perform the duties of the job for the next 4 years.

      Delete
    3. Shoshana - It's not hard for Harper to be 50 lb. overweight. He's 6'2". If he were only 30 lb. overweight we probably wouldn't even notice.

      He was visibly heavier in 2010. His weight loss for the 2011 election was dramatic.

      Delete
    4. I agree about Layton. It was unfair to the electorate and it was unfair to his family.

      Delete
  22. Hey Eric, are the regional vote breakdowns posted anywhere? The poll tracker shows the seat projections for the regions but I haven't been able to find the vote breakdown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are on the Poll Tracker, just look at the regional toggle near the poll averages chart.

      Delete
  23. Angus Reid sample size 2000... CPC 34 , Lib 27 and NDP 27

    Really close to the Star/Forum poll...

    Time for the NDP/Liberal campaigns to panic.

    NDP started with over the top attack ads on Trudeau.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep hoping Mulcair gets scared enough to agree to the Consortium debate. Get him and Trudeau and May together on stage and let voters who don't want Harper see what their options are. C'mon Mulcair stop hiding behind Harper.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad you are not running my campaign if you let a set of figures from a single day make you "panic". So far none of the three candidates should be in panic mode just yet. Harper was up, then down then back up. Trudeau was way up, then down, then back up a bit. Mulcair is lately a bit down. No need to go screaming like teenage fans at a a Bieber concert.

      Delete
    3. They have pretty different reasons the Conservatives are up though. Angus Reid has the Conservatives up to 40 in Ontario, which I am guessing is over inflated. Most other pollsters have a close two way race between the Libs and Cons in Ontario.

      Forum has the Conservatives back up to 60 in Alberta and a small jump in Quebec. The Alberta jump wouldn't translate into a huge increase in seats even if it inflates their numbers nationally.

      While the Conservatives are definitely up, these two polls could very well end up being anomalies given how different the regional breakdown is.

      Delete
    4. Vor, while this may be just a game for you, the
      oz-man's CPC contract and all those willing to be led over a political cliff, be mindful of thousands who are actively working to ensure the retirement of Harper's conservatism.

      Carry-on wistfull blogging, Vor. Obviously, it's what you do.

      Thank-you for standing aside while serious people do the heavy lifting. We will rest, tired yet happy, on E-day.

      Delete
    5. Fresh Orange,
      BCVOR is a well known hyper partisan Harper cheerleader. Nothing new there.

      Delete
    6. Unless Harper wins another majority, which is still possible.

      The daily radio announcements started yesterday. We're just seeing the beginning of the Conservative media barrage.

      Delete
    7. Too late for the NDP I think. They should have started to panic two weeks ago when the first data from the decline began.

      Delete
    8. "Too late for the NDP I think."

      My bet is that the NDP will be down to around 20% by this time next week; both the CPC and LPC will benefit from this, though the LPC more. I'm guesstimating the LPC will be around 37% and the CPC around 33% this time next week.

      Delete
    9. @Ira: "Unless Harper wins another majority, which is still possible."

      Possible, but doubtful. (a) Harper pre-2011 was almost a totally different PM than Harper post-2011 and so the ABH movement is quite strong. It hasn't, till now, decided which party to support to defeat Harper, but it now seems to be breaking for the Liberals, so I suspect the NDP to drop to around 20% in the coming week.
      (b) Harper pre-PM was a totally different man than Harper at PM, and so there is a significant chunk of people who liked what Harper proposed in the late '90s are are quite ticked with him doing the opposite after he got his majority. (Pre-majority, it is understood that things couldn't get done, but post-majority, to continue to do boutique tax credits is absurd and annoying, to pick on but one example.)

      Delete
  24. While the NDP has lost votes in QC, it's not (yet) costing them much in seats.

    Voter movement in BC and ON is really small and the seat count looks steady there [continuing gripe that PT does not show tracking on seat counts, especially by region]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NDP is heading toward disaster I think. At their current rate of decline in two weeks the NDP will only win 50 seats and they will fail to garner 25% of the popular vote.

      Delete
    2. @FCP: Humans seem to have an incredible capacity for doing linear extrapolation from current data in spite of all the evidence that linear extrapolation is almost invariably the wrong thing to do ....

      Delete
    3. "Voter movement in BC and ON is really small and the seat count looks steady there"

      I imagine Mulcair's views on the niqab issue are helping him in BC and Ontario, where they hurt him in Quebec.

      Delete
  25. I mentioned before that Harper's own campaign is ho-hum in his record. There is a now a CPC add saying "sure Harper isn't perfect"... wow.

    How's that for a campaign slogan for someone after so many years on the job: vote for me, I'm not bad.

    Were there really no other accomplishments in SH record? I mean, I'm not a fan of his, but I would have thought that a partisan campaign manager could surely dig something to be proud of and ask for your vote because of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ad itself is not badger one targeting voters who care about economic issues. (The hash SH has made of the tax system means it's a lot of nonsense, but the ad itself is quite good.)

      Delete
    2. "The ad itself is not badger one targeting voters who care about economic issues."

      Damned auto-correct.

      The ad itself is not a bad one targeting voters who care about economic issues.

      Delete
    3. Sorry to answer my own question, but the only logical explanation for the "not bad ad" is that all positive Harper-accomplishment ads tested badly at the campaign HQ focus groups. Hmmm...

      Delete
    4. @PolStats: "all positive Harper-accomplishment ads tested badly at the campaign HQ focus groups. Hmmm..."

      Now that left me chuckling. I have visions of: "Vote Harper, because you know you need to be spied on!" and "Vote Harper, because you know the tax system needs to be made more political" ....

      Delete
  26. Why no Angus Reid added to the updates today?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The headline impact would be significant.... Eric will wait a few days to age out the AR impact ...

      Delete
    2. AR wasn't as prompt to release their results.

      Delete
  27. New Leger poll. Libs in lead by 2 points.
    New Nanos Libs lead by nearly 2 points


    ReplyDelete
  28. October 2nd, and polls are fighting each other. Nanos and Leger seem to show a very slow yet distinct movement into the Liberal column while Forum and Angus Reid indicate a clear lead for the Conservatives.

    The big news in ALL the polls is the quick collapse of the NDP vote in Quebec. According to Leger, NDP Francophone support is drifting to the Conservatives while Anglophone is still firmly in the Liberal camp. Both Leger and Nanos, also have the Liberals ahead in Ontario and BC. - polar opposites to Forum and Angus Reid.

    Someone has to be wrong. And some will again be eating crow after this one wraps up 17 days from now.

    Perhaps the polling key to this election needs to be looking at specific ridings to see how the vote is breaking; most importantly in Ontario and BC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Someone has to be wrong."

      Not if you look at the MOE and confidence level.

      Delete
  29. Why the pretense of poll amalgamation?

    The Nanos sample of 2000 Sept 26-30 is weighted at least 4 times the Forum 1500 and the Abacus 3600.and the IR 1300.

    Add the weight of abacus forum and IR ... total sample size 6,400 and it will be less than Nanos poll with total sample size 2000.

    It will be interesting the weight that the AR poll gets. As it has the liberals falling way behind I predict that if and when it gets added to the tracker it will be weighted less than 1/4 of the Nanos weight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why?

      Nanos gets a high rating party because of the pollster's excellent track record.

      Angus Reid similarly gets a high rating because of the pollster's track record.

      Abacus and Ipsos haven't historically been as accurate as Nanos or AR, so they get lower weights.

      AR should be rated about the same as Nanos.

      Delete
    2. Angus Reid is probably overestimating Conservative support and underestimating
      Liberal support in Ontario quite significantly. Forum also has the Conservatives at 60 in Alberta again.

      Given the three polls released in the last day Leger, Innovative and Nanos showing the Liberals slightly ahead I am more inclined to think that the Angus Reid and the Forum polls were probably anomalies due to odd regional numbers. Both outfits are also known for having off numbers on occasion.Unfortunately that is probably going to distort the overall seat prediction model a bit more towards the Conservatives.

      Delete
    3. I think you need to losses the chinstrap on that tin foil hat.

      Delete
    4. Funky regional number are pretty common but the margins of errors at the regional level are normally much higher than the national....its always risky to conclude too much at any time...from any single poll anyway.

      Delete
  30. Further reading of the Leger pool shows a distinct movement of the Quebec Francophone vote to BOTH the Conservatives and the BLOC.

    The only explanation for this movement is the two Parties and their promise to ban Muslim face covering at citizen swearing in ceremonies (seems the Conservatives are upping the anti in this one with a "consideration to ban them from ALL public forums).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, but I suspect that CPC "National Snitch Line" is likely to undo much of the gains they made on the niqab issue. It's one thing to be opposed to wearing a face cover in citizenship ceremonies; it's quite another level to extend that into assuming Canadians want to all become snitches.

      Delete
  31. Who are the four independents at the maximum end of things, and which two of these qualify on the high end?

    ReplyDelete
  32. CTV News

    The three major parties had been in a statistical tie throughout most of September, but the latest nightly tracking finds support for the NDP has fallen to its lowest level since the campaign began. The Liberals and the Conservatives, meanwhile, continue to be neck-and-neck in support.
    The latest numbers show:
    Liberals at 33.5 per cent support
    Conservatives at 31.9 per cent
    NDP at 25.9 per cent

    Leger poll shows CPC in second and 34% of CPC voters might change their mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Expect the NDP to drop another 5% in the coming week, with both LPC and CPC gaining, though I expect the LPC will gain more.

      I'm going to peg the NDP around 20% next weekend, the LPC around 37% and the CPC around 33%. AKA, the old two-party race with the NDP around for the show. (BQ will benefit in QC; Greens will continue to be irrelevant other than in May's riding.)

      Delete
    2. The notable exception is that the NDP having absorbed a lot of the Bloc's Quebec vote means that they have a much larger base vote (even reduced, their size of the Quebec delegation will be formidable). This is a good thing for progressive parties, since the Bloc's holding such a large bloc of generally liberal voters created real problems for cooperation during the first two Harper minorities.

      Delete
    3. You may want to look at the Nanos data from Quebec; the NDP are way down there; while the Liberals are benefiting, so are the BQ; the Niqab issue is significant to a large percentage of QC voters, it seems.

      Delete
  33. The inefficiency of the Liberal vote is rearing its ugly head. Movement of votes from the NDP to the Liberals right now seems to hand seats to the Tories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The angry ABH vote will be more efficient than you think. They are both very angry and very motivated. The vast undecided vote is waiting in the wings to oust Harper. It is coming.

      Delete
    2. It really depends where you are.

      Generally in ON, NDP changing to LPC is bad news for CPC.

      But in BC, LPC changing to NDP is generally bad news for CPC.

      That said, in certain regions of ON and BC, the reverse is the case.

      Urban AB goes both ways. The ABC voter there has to choose carefully.

      Delete
    3. The Liberal vote looks pretty efficient in this election, Ira. They are the only party poised to make major gains from last time in every region of the country.

      Delete
    4. Well... that's actually kind of true. Unfortunately for them it's not quite as efficient as the Tories but in terms of seat count % relative to pop. vote percentage per Eric's aggregator the Liberals (and slightly moreso the Tories) are poised to gain proportionally more seats then their aggregated % of the popular vote (NDP slightly less, and other parties significantly less).

      Delete
    5. @Ira "The inefficiency of the Liberal vote is rearing its ugly head. Movement of votes from the NDP to the Liberals right now seems to hand seats to the Tories."

      The Liberal vote only causes at the current poll percentages. We're two weeks before election day, and the ABH voter seems to be finally beginning to break, and s/he seems to be breaking toward the Liberals. Such voters are unlikely to be playing games of analyzing efficiency or who is best poised to defeat the local CPC candidate, and rather focused on a bigger "looks like Liberals are better than NDP to beat the CPC" type of thinking. The result could well be a collapse of a lot of NDP support. As the Liberal numbers start to rise, I think there will be a commensurate rise in the CPC numbers, oddly enough, as there is something of an anti-Trudeau/not-ready/too clueless/whatever you want to call it movement, that will migrate toward the CPC. (I'd say the CBC gained on the niqab debate, but whatever they gained there, they lost on the "snitch on your neighbour" phone line.)

      tl;dr: I think we are going to see this election devolve into a two-party race in the next two weeks, with the NDP vote reduced to 20%, and both CPC and LPC in the mid-30s with the Liberals likely higher than the CPC.

      Delete
  34. "The... riding projections have been updated, and the actual candidates in each riding has been taken into account in these projections."

    But Bruce Hyer's incumbency in Thunder Bay—Superior North still only nets him 5.6%? I'm forced to raise an eyebrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With the NDP dropping, and the Liberals rising, is it possible that the Liberals could win Thunder Bay—Superior North if there is a split vote for Bruce Hyer?

      Delete
  35. Anyone have the EKOS numbers for this week? TIA!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Todays Nanos has Liberals break out with 4 point lead.

    ReplyDelete
  37. October 3 - two weeks to E-day - If Nanos is correct this one is breaking HARD for the Liberals.

    Even in Eric's ridings poll we see two cabinet ministers, Chris Alexander and finance minister Joe Oliver poise to get the boot as the Liberals return to the GTA with a vengeance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect the ABH voters, who have basically been undecided thus far, are now making the choice for Liberals over NDP. Given that there are still a couple of weeks to go, it wouldn't surprise me if this momentum causes the election to devolve into a two-way race, where I'd give odds on the Liberals over the CPC.

      Delete
    2. Liberals need to attract back some Red Tory votes to beat the CPC. Liberals are doing a better job now of winning back NDP voters that were lost earlier in the year, but to beat the Cons the Libs need some Tories to come over, as well.

      Delete
  38. A note of interest - Globe election forecast's polltracker seat projections have the Cons. , NDP, Libs.1-2-3 [125/112/100]; 308 seat projections are 1-3-2 [125/112/100].

    Perhaps it's just me but I like to think I still believe in the
    (paul) Fairie:)

    Post script: Mon dieu!
    I loved Gilles Duceppe, deeply, in retirement.
    Monsieur Trudeau loves Gilles, passionately, in public.

    ...Nice hair; photogenic; public loving. You win gentlemen-get a room, please.
    (Personally, I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot election poll.)

    Cheers all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair if he wasn't a separatist I'd love Gilles Duceppe... the guy has such a razor sharp wit.

      Delete
    2. 5 straight polls have the Libs expanding their lead on the CPC. Harper is in serious trouble. I expect even more desperate measures than the niqab and anti MJ to come. Likely to see more dirty voter suppression tactics as we get closer.

      Delete
  39. As I mentioned in the very first post. If the NDP or Liberals broke away from the three way tie, it would be the downfall of the other non-conservative party. NDP'ers are not big fans of the Liberals, but they absolutely despise the Conservatives. Expect the Liberal lead to grow. Could this be the start of Trudeaumania 2.0 ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the ABH vote is just beginning to coalesce around the Liberals. It is two weeks before the election perfect timing and the more nasty Harper gets the worse it will be for him. This is Harper's biggest nightmare.

      Delete
    2. I'd be cautious in assuming that the ABH vote can beat Harper. That can only happen if larger numbers of NDP voters coalesce behind the Liberals.

      The Liberals have picked up momentum and have succeeded in winning back NDP support, BUT if the Liberals want to succeed, they need to start taking away CPC support. Remember that CPC support has rebounded. In late August, the CPC was falling into 3rd in some polls because of the Duffy Trial & the desire for change. But from Mid-September to Early October, the Conservatives have seen rebounding numbers as a result of their reactivated base being attracted to Harper's hawkish position on foreign policy & the niqab.

      The key question over the next 2 weeks is not just whether the Liberals can win over the NDP voters, but whether they can shake loose some of the Red Tories who have returned to Harper again.

      Delete
  40. Éric, when you aggregate polls, do you account for the days of the week the polls are in the field? The polling days seem to have a significant impact on which party leads Nanos's rolling polls. All days mentioned are the last day the poll was in the field:

    Sunday NDP, NDP, Con, Con (oldest to newest)
    Monday Holiday, Con, Con, Con
    Tuesday Lib, NDP, Lib, Lib
    Wednesday Lib, Lib, Lib, Con
    Thursday Lib, NDP, Lib, Lib
    Friday Lib, Lib, Lib, Lib
    Saturday Con, Con, Lib, Lib

    The Liberals haven't won ANY polls ending on Sundays or Mondays - but they've won all four ending on Fridays, and three of the four ending on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. The Conservatives have only led one poll that didn't have data from the weekend. Is this an actual effect, or just a fluke of the data?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also decided to check each seven-day span in the Nanos data, from Sept. 6-12 to Sept. 27-Oct. 3, to see whether parties hit consistent highs or lows on certain days of the week. (Each day mentioned below is the last day of the three-day polling period.) I found that:

      - The Conservatives have never had their best polling day fall on a Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. Their worst polling day hasn't fallen on a Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.

      - The Liberals haven't had their best polling performance fall on a Sunday or Monday, but 21 of their 22 worst performances have been on those two days.

      - The NDP data are more mixed: their highs were mostly on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but their lows were most often on Thursdays and Fridays.. The consistent drop for the NDP the last few days has muddied their results somewhat.

      - Wednesdays seem to be the day with the least distortion: only one Liberal high, one Conservative low, and one NDP low happened on that day.

      Delete

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.