Final quick hitters & observations post-election

Winner: Me. They weren't dead on, but they were pretty darn close. To be honest, if the Liberals had of taken care of business in their stronghold of Ontario, I think my predictions would have been even closer. In the end, that's the difference between being the guy who gets a couple of pats on the back for his effort and being famous amongst his peers. lol

Anyway, here are the comparisons:

My national predictions (Seats, % Votes)
CPC 136 (35.7), Lib 87 (27.8), BQ 49 (10.8), NDP 34 (19.9) , Ind 2 (0.9), Grn 0 (4.8)

Actual '08 election results (Seats, % Votes)
CPC 143 (37.63), Lib 76 (26.24), BQ 50 (9.97), NDP 37 (18.20), Ind 2 (0.65) Grn 0 (6.88)

Winner: Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Over these next few weeks and months, I'm certain Harper's leadership (and coming up short on a majority) will be cannon fodder for the press. However, unlike some pundits and Ottawa experts, I see another minority as a gift from heaven for the Tory leader. Why? Well, there are several reasons. Firstly, Harper has the full backing of his own caucus and party, unlike the Liberals who will certainly be re-entering unstable times with another leadership race. If Harper is smart (which I'm pretty sure he is), he will do what most Prime Minister's do in this situation. Pull up a chair and be a spectator to what will almost certainly be internal Liberal infighting. I mean, the negative "anonymous sources" in the Globe and Mail mid-election were pretty much evidence of that. Secondly, for someone who wants to change the country to a more conservative ethos via incrementalism, he has positioned himself perfectly. If you don't think so, just look at Pierre Trudeau's journey through governing. The man changed the face of this country while both losing to a weak leader and forming a minority during unsettling times. So there is hope yet for Harper and his mission. And finally, by not forming a large majority, he avoids doing what many of his conservative predecessors did. That being, coming in quickly and abruptly on a blue wave, scaring the political establishment, and then subsequently being shown the door as a result. So yes folks, there are advantages to being in a minority government after all.

Loser: Green party leader Elizabeth May. Not only did she do herself a disservice by running in Central Nova against political heavyweight Peter MacKay, she weakened her party's vision (and other candidates chances in the election) by getting too caught up in her local battle. Plus, it didn't help when she confused her own party supporters by calling for them to throw their support behind Dion in order to stop Harper. In the end, she ended up coming across as the leader of an interest group who could care less about the party she was running under and more about settling scores. It's hard to believe she wants to come back for more punishment in Central Nova, especially when she knows the Liberals will run a candidate.

Loser: NDP leader Jack Layton. Don't get me wrong, the dipper leader is well liked and universally trusted. Unfortunately, this just won't cut it for Jacko. Why? Well, at the same time last week, Mr. Layton was convincing Canadians that he was not only ready to replace the Liberals as Official Opposition, he was ready to be Prime Minister. Now that the big gains failed to materialize, I'm sure many Canadians will question his sincerity on such things, unless you're a die hard NDP supporter who drinks the orange Koolaid and doesn't consider missing official opposition status by more seats then you won altogether a failed mission.

Anyway, if the Liberals are smart, they will take full advantage of Layton's inability to sell himself as Official Opposition leader and, in turn, reclaim some of that territory on the left.

Loser: Liberal leader Stephane Dion. What more can be said then has already been said? Honestly, for a guy who wore an albatross around his neck for 3 months by trying to sell his Green Shift plan, he didn't do all that bad. And for that, people will probably question Harper's ability to win more then his opponents obvious political shortcomings.

Anyway, if there is one thing that Dion should be commended for, it's that he ran a respectful, policy oriented campaign under tough circumstances. I'm sure the next Liberal leader will find out very quickly that it's no picnic running against the Tory machine on a good day. A leader, if history repeats itself, will likely be an anglophone from outside Quebec. Which is probably not a good thing considering they just regained a pulse in Quebec while suffering their worst electoral defeat in Ontario in quite sometime.

Oh well, back to the drawing board for the Grits I suppose.

Winners: Gilles Duceppe and Danny Williams. The two regions (other then Alberta) where the Tories seat count declined. Let's just say, Duceppe's ability to beat back the conservatives from making addtional gains on his Bloc turf was the TSN turning point of this election. Had he not, Harper would certainly be governing from a clear majority this morning.

Losers: A disengaged and apathetic electorate. I don't often agree with Paul Zed on much of anything, but he put it perfectly last night about the disinterest in this election: "people are just electioned out." Well said, Paul.

For the record, NB turnout was above the national average of 2006 this time around. On the flip side, voter fatigue seems to be the worst in Newfoundland and Labrador. No surprise here since they had Danny-boy running around telling them who they could vote for.

Projection post mortem

Over the past few weeks, I engaged in one of my favourite pastimes - predictions. To aid me, I developed a bit of an aid in the form a projection model. Here I try to evaluate how it did and what its strengths and weaknesses were.

First, its biggest flaw is that it is almost wholly dependant on outside factors. It is a poll-driven machine and, if the polls are not accurate, then it is not accurate.

Here is how the polling worked out vs. the actual result (both contrasted against the 2006 results):

	CPC		Lib		BQ		NDP		Grn
	Poll Avg	Actual	Poll Avg	Actual	Poll Avg	Actual	Poll Avg	Actual	Poll Avg	Actual
Atl	-9.2%	-4.9%	-2.0%	-4.5%	-	-	+3.8%	+3.4%	+7.2%	+3.7%
QC	-4.4%	-2.9%	-0.1%	+3.0%	-0.8%	-4.0%	+3.9%	+4.7%	+1.8%	-0.5%
ON	-0.7%	+4.1%	-5.1%	-6.1%	-	-	+1.3%	-1.2%	+4.9%	+3.3%
Pra	-0.6%	+5.4%	-6.4%	-7.2%	-	-	+3.4%	+0.1%	+5.0%	+2.7%
AB	-7.1%	-0.4%	+3.5%	-3.9%	-	-	+2.9%	+1.0%	+1.8%	+2.3%
BC	+1.5%	+7.1%	-5.6%	-8.3%	-	-	-2.7%	-2.5%	+7.5%	+4.1%
Natl*	-1.9%	+1.3%	-3.6%	-4.0%	-	-	+1.6%	+0.7%	+4.7%	+2.3%

*National numbers excluding the BQ were used to project the 3 northern seats

As you can see, the pollsters were a bit off (or at least my average of their polls was). No pollster got it exactly right, though Angus-Reid came very close in both national and regional numbers.

Using the actual regional results, my model gives the following:
CPC 145
Lib 77
BQ 48
NDP 35
Ind 3

Using only Angus-Reid's poll, my model gives the following:
CPC 141
Lib 76
BQ 49
NDP 39
Oth 3

So, I think I am relatively pleased with the model, even with the slightly off polling results, I seem to have done better than most prognosticators for a change.

Here is a list of the gross error for all the predictions listed on Calgary Grit's round-up and myself:

1. Ekos Predictions (18)


2. Calgary Grit's model (23.6)
3. Barry Kay Seat Projections (24)
4. Andrew Coyne (26)
5. nbpolitico (28)
6. UBC Stock Market (30)
7. David Akin (30)


8. Kady O'Malley (35)
9. Democratic Space (36)
10. Election Prediction Project (38)
11. Scott Reid (40)
12. Andrew Steele (44)

If I had had a crystal ball or a better gut, using the real results would have projected a gross error of 8, while using the best poll (Angus-Reid) would have given an error of 6 - obviously showing that the model needs a bit of work!!

But of course I am forgetting my blogging colleague NBT. Who needs fancy projection models when you've got him? His gross error: 22, good enough for second place! As the prominently displayed link on my other site says, a better prognosticator than I!

Projection history: Final :: Eighth :: Seventh :: Sixth :: Fifth :: Fourth :: Third :: Second :: First :: Methodology

Live blog (sort of)

(all times Atlantic, will go live at 11 when west coast polls close)

9:17 - So much for my model in the Atlantic. As I had feared, Atlantic polls were not localized enough to be of much use. A *huge* CPC drop in Newfoundland and Labrador poisoned the sample. Tories could gain as many as four seats in NB, two in PEI and hold their own or gain one in NS.

9:52 - Huge upset in Miramichi where Charlie Hubbard is defeated handily. Saint John and Moncton are too close to call and my gut would have had them fall to the Tories before Miramichi. Go figure.

10:48 - Tory vote seems to be up in Ontario considerably over the polls, if this holds things could be a lot different than most folks predicted.

10:59 - Current vote totals have the CPC up 9% over the Libs in Ontario, leading in places like Ottawa Centre... if this holds it would be almost certainly a majority government. But it is pretty early.

11:16 - It continues to look good for the Conservatives - I think that CTV might want to retract calling Florida for Dion a Harper minority.

11:38 - Despite a steep Liberal drop in Ontario, Gerard Kennedy is pulling ahead in his race. He could be the only Liberal gain in that province.

11:59 - Kennedy declared the winner by CBC, ahead by nearly 2000 votes. If there is a Liberal leadership race which is largely a rematch of the last one, expect a major Kennedy speaking point to be that he ran against an incumbent and picked up the only Liberal gain in Ontario while Ignatieff, Rae and Hall Findlay all ran in ultra safe Liberal strongholds.

12:10 - Peter Kent pulls ahead in Thornhill? Would be very interesting if that holds.

12:15 - Who is this independent James Ford in Edmonton--Sherwood Park? He keeps edging in and out of the lead.

Ridings to watch

Here are nbpolitico's ridings to watch for the 2008 federal election. Polls are closed in the Atlantic and I am watching the returns. I'll follow the Election Act and not let you in on the secrets, but in the mean time, here are the seats that my projections showed within 5 points or "the ridings to watch" (parties listed in the order the projection model shows them placing):

1. St. John's East: NDP vs. Lib
2. Central Nova: NDP vs. Grn
3. Dartmouth--Cole Harbour: Lib vs. NDP
4. Honoré-Mercier: CPC vs. BQ
5. LaSalle--Émard: BQ vs. Lib
6. Outremont: Lib vs. NDP
7. Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques: Ind vs. BQ vs. Lib
8. Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing: NDP vs. Lib
9. Beaches--East York: NDP vs. Lib
10. Brampton West: Lib vs. CPC
11. Brant: CPC vs. Lib
12. Etobicoke--Lakeshore: Lib vs. CPC
13. Guelph: CPC vs. Lib
14. Kenora: Lib vs. NDP vs. CPC
15. London West: CPC vs. Lib
16. Mississauga South: CPC vs. Lib
17. Mississauga--Erindale: Lib vs. CPC
18. Newmarket--Aurora: CPC vs. Lib
19. Oak Ridges--Markham: Lib vs. CPC
20. Oakville: CPC vs. Lib
21. Oshawa: CPC vs. NDP
22. Ottawa South: Lib vs. CPC
23. Sudbury: Lib vs. NDP
24. Thunder Bay--Rainy River: NDP vs. Lib
25. Welland: NDP vs. Lib vs. CPC
26. Churchill: NDP vs. Lib
27. Saint-Boniface: CPC vs. Lib
28. Winnipeg South Centre: Lib vs. CPC
29. Palliser: CPC vs. NDP
30. Regina--Qu'Appelle: CPC vs. NDP
31. Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar: NDP vs. CPC
32. Edmonton--Strathcona: NDP vs. CPC
33. Burnaby--Douglas: NDP vs. CPC
34. Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca: Lib vs. CPC vs. NDP
35. Newton--North Delta: Lib vs. CPC vs. NDP
36. North Vancouver: CPC vs. Lib
37. Richmond: CPC vs. Lib
38. Vancouver Island North: NDP vs. CPC
39. Vancouver Kingsway: Lib vs. NDP
40. Vancouver Quadra: Lib vs. CPC
41. Nunavut: Lib vs. CPC

Enjoy!

Final projection

After a little break for Thanksgiving weekend, here is the final update based on 7 new polls.

Angus Reid - Oct 8-10 (0.71 weight)
EKOS - Oct 10-12 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Oct 7-9 (0.57 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 10-12 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Oct 10-11 [ON, QC only] (0.93 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 9-12 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)
Segma - Oct 5-9 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.43 weight)


National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 129 (+5, -4), Lib 85 (-18, +3), BQ 50 (-1, +1), NDP 41 (+12, n/c), Ind 3 (+2, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, n/c)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 22 (+2, n/c), NDP 6 (+3, n/c), CPC 3 (-6, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, n/c)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 50 (-1, +1), Lib 12 (+1, n/c), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, -1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 47 (+7, +1), Lib 41 (-13, n/c), NDP 18 (+6, -1)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 21 (+1, n/c), NDP 5 (+2, n/c), Lib 2 (-3, n/c)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 27 (-1, -1), NDP 1 (+1, +1)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 20 (+3, -4), NDP 10 (n/c, +1), Lib 6 (-3, +3)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

The final projection echoes the buzz that the NDP will pick up a seat in Alberta and the conventional wisdom that Elizabeth May will lose in Central Nova - however it shows both of these things happening by less than a percentage point. In other words, it says these things with no certainty whatsoever.

We also show a Conservatve collapse in Atlantic Canada offset by gains in Ontario and British Columbia, allowing them to essentially break even, while the NDP grows at the expense of Liberal totals.

I've posted a chart of which seats are projected for each party and the whole projection system for your interest and in the interests of accountability.

No matter who for, don't forget to vote tomorrow. I hope you enjoyed these projection and the musings of NBT and I over the past few weeks. Thanks for stopping by.

Today's chart:


NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

NBT's 2008 Election Projections

National results (Seats, % Votes)
CPC 136 (35.7), Lib 87 (27.8), BQ 49 (10.8), NDP 34 (19.9) , Ind 2 (0.9), Grn 0 (4.8)

Atlantic Canada (Seats, % Votes)
Lib 22 (35.9) , CPC 6 (29.7), NDP 3 (18.3), Ind 1 (0.9), Grn 0 (5.6)

Quebec (Seats, % Votes)
BQ 49 (41.0), Lib 15 (27.5) , CPC 10 (21.1) , Ind 1 (1.2) , NDP 0 (13.6)

Ontario (Seats, % Votes)
CPC 49 (36.9) , Lib 40 (32.3), NDP 17 (19.5) Grn 0 (5.4)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (Seats, % Votes)
CPC 25 (42.3), NDP 2 (21.5), Lib 1 (22.3) Grn 0 (4.1)

Alberta (Seats, % Votes)
CPC 28 (54.4), Lib 0 (20.5), NDP 0 (18.7) Grn 0 (3.9)

British Columbia (Seats, % Votes)
CPC 18 (41.8), NDP 11 (17.2), Lib 7 (28.8) Grn (6.7)

North (Seats, % Votes)
Lib 2 (38.5), NDP 1 (30.9) CPC 0 (21.6)

A few quick speculations...

There was much chatter around Jack Layton and whether or not he and his NDP party would replace the Liberals as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Several polls for much of the campaign showed that Layton was one of the most popular party leaders in Canada ahead of Dion, May and Duceppe. Nonetheless, he will not be successful in translating this into electoral success, much like Broadbent in '88, since I believe the Liberals will reap most of the benefits from an impending Tory majority. In other words, a fair size chunk of last minute, undecided voters will jump over to the Liberals in order to stop Harper.

You could say that New Democrat Thomas Mulclair's by-election win in Outremont was anything but routine, but one thing that may surprise the dippers once again on this one is how short lived his victory will end up. Liberals regain their stronghold tonight and put an end to the NDP's dreams of forming a modest caucus in La belle province.

Liberals make it a clean sweep of Atlantic Canadian islands (Newfoundland, Cape Breton Island and Prince Edward Island). First time this has happened since confederation.

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick keep the status quo, with the exception of electing Bill Casey as an independent and electing one more Tory to the Atlantic NB caucus. Oh yeah, and another thing, for those that thought Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough (now Central Nova) would be close, you are wrong. Peter in a cakewalk (1000+ vote margin).

Aside from Central Nova, here are 15 ridings to keep your eye on tonight. Anyway, for all those that dropped by Paint the Political Picture, nbpolitico and I can't say how much we appreciate all your comments, opinions and discussion.

Oh, and one last thing, I second this statement by Tim Powers: "... if you do one thing today, make it out to vote. I am just walking over to do it myself now. There is much at stake in this election. There are clear choices. Get some skin in the game and vote.A big congratulations to everyone from every party who put their name on the ballot. It is a courageous and commendable thing to do. Most of us have no clue about the sacrifices you have made to try to serve Canada. Good on you all. Politics matters and you have made the effort to make a difference." That said, have a great election night folks!!

Morer

Not only are Gerry and I close in policy thought, it would seem that we have the same predictions and gut feelings as well. So if we're wrong, we'll still end up being right.

Don't expect voter turnout to break any records after tonight's count comes in. As I see it, it will most likely decline from the improved 2006 levels. Probably around sixty per cent or so...maybe even lower. I mean, honestly, when there's that many people out there who aren't motivated by any of the current political leaders, it's bound to happen.

Eighth projection

For today's update. We are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 6-7 (0.79 weight)
EKOS - Oct 7-9 (1.00 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 7-9 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 6-9 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 133 (+9, n/c), Lib 82 (-21, -1), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 41 (+12, +2), Ind 3 (+2, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, -1)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 22 (+2, n/c), NDP 6 (+3, +1), CPC 3 (-6, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, -1)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 12 (+1, -1), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 1 (+1, +1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 46 (+6, n/c), Lib 41 (-13, n/c), NDP 19 (+7, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 21 (+1, +2), NDP 5 (+2, +1), Lib 2 (-3, -1)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 24 (+7, +1), NDP 9 (-1, -1), Lib 3 (-6, +1)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

The race remains stable, the widely covered CTV Atlantic interview with Dion last night may cause some final day shifts however.

Elizabeth May has fallen back in today's update, Central Nova shows as: 37.5% NDP, 36.8% Grn.

Tom Mulcair has pulled ahead in Outrement, the model shows that result as: 33.4% NDP, 33.0% Lib.

Today's chart:


I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Seventh projection

For today's update. We are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 6-7 (0.93 weight)
EKOS - Oct 6-8 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.14 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 6-8 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 5-8 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 133 (+9, +3), Lib 83 (-20, -1), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 39 (+10, -3), Ind 3 (+2, n/c), Grn 1 (+1, +1)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 22 (+2, n/c), NDP 5 (+2, -1), CPC 3 (-6, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c), Grn 1 (+1, +1)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, n/c), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, n/c)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 46 (+6, n/c), Lib 41 (-13, n/c), NDP 19 (+7, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 21 (+1, +2), NDP 4 (+1, -1), Lib 3 (-2, -1)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 24 (+7, +1), NDP 10 (n/c, -1), Lib 2 (-7, n/c)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

This poll suggests things are beginning to stabilize, with no change in Quebec (for the second day), no change in Ontario and no change or more than 1 seat per party in any other region.

Elizabeth May pulls back into the lead in this update, despite our slightly-revised, slightly-less-favourable formula for her circumstances. The model shows May at 36.7% and the NDP at 35.9%. Due to the Conservative collapse in Atlantic Canada in recent polls, it shows MacKay at 26.7%.

Today for the first time, a crude graphic to show you were the projections have moved since we started a week ago:


I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

In Quotes: The conflicting arguments of Jim Flaherty and the Tories

Jim Flaherty on Corporate Welfare: "I don't believe in corporate welfare or in propping up failing companies," he said, rejecting any sort of direct industrial aid or investment as a response to mill closures in New Brunswick.

[Source: The Telegraph Journal, December 13th, 2007]

Ah, but that was then, this is now: "Conservative Leader Stephen Harper pledged $400-million for the hard-hit aerospace and auto sectors today as he unveiled his relatively meagre campaign platform and tried to dispel the impression that he's done little to respond to fresh economic gloom and market turmoil."

[Source: The Toronto Globe & Mail, October 7, 2008]

Jim Flaherty on Bailing out Banks: "We are not looking at a rescue package for banks," he told reporters. "We are not looking at creating any additional risk for taxpayers."

[Source: The Toronto Globe & Mail, October 9, 2008]

Excuse me, if I don't hold my breath, Mr. Flaherty.

Update

Is it me, or is McKenna starting to sound a lot like another Paul Martiin Jr. Maybe he thinks he can sweep to power on the exact same policy agenda as Martin, the only difference being he will be popular with his party. Now, if only Dion will get out of the way. lol

Update II

Not to worry, it's not a bailout: "the plan was one of the many tools available to government help credit conditions, and shows the Canadian government is acting in advance instead of waiting for a crisis to hit the Canadian financial system."

Can't say I didn't warn ya.

Sixth projection

There is a slight revision to the projection method starting today and going forward. In ridings were a party is not fielding a candidate; rather than ignore the polling fluctuations for the non-contesting party, they will be distributed in the same way that party's 2006 votes were distributed.

For instance, in Central Nova, the Liberals are not running and have endorsed the Greens. To create a baseline for the projection, I distributed 60% of the Liberal vote to the Greens and the remaining 40% proportionally among the Conservatives and New Democrats. Today's polling average shows the Liberals down 3.5% in Atlantic Canada from their 2006 result, so I shave 60% of 3.5% off of the Greens and the balance proportionally off of the other two parties. I will use this method for the other 3 ridings where a party has opted to endorse another candidate today and in future projections.

With that business out of the way, on to today's update. We are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 6-7 (1.00 weight)
EKOS - Oct 5-7 (0.93 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.36 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 5-7 [ON, QC, Atl only] (0.93 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 4-7 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.86 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 130 (+6, -6), Lib 84 (-19, +3), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 42 (+13, +4), Ind 3 (+2, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, -1)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 22 (+2, +4), NDP 6 (+3, +2), CPC 3 (-6, -5), Ind 1 (+1, n/c), Grn 0 (n/c, -1)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, n/c), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, n/c)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 46 (+6, +2), Lib 41 (-13, -2), NDP 19 (+7, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 19 (-1, -3), NDP 5 (+2, +2), Lib 4 (-1, +1)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+6, n/c), NDP 11 (+1, n/c), Lib 2 (-7, n/c)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

Polls show a huge Liberal resurgence in Atlantic Canada, particularly in the Nanos poll which shows them at 50%! Not sure if this is real or a rogue poll combined with a series of polls with high margins of error. We'll see in the coming days.

Polling has otherwise stablized, with the Conservatives moving up from their low yesterday in Ontario and no change at all in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia or the North.

Thanks to our revised formula, and strong numbers for the NDP in the Atlantic, the Greens are now shown to be losing Central Nova by 2.7% to the NDP with Peter MacKay finishing a distant third.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Day 32: Quick hitters are back baby!

Loser: Moi. For stating the "reverse coattail" strategy had no chance for success. Not only did it work in stabilizing Dion's base support, it has now put him in a position where he can bring some of the marginal ridings along for the ride on his own coattails. Yes, I realize there will be a lot of folks out there who will say it had nothing to do with the Liberal strategy and all to do with Harper's own self-inflicted wounds; even so, you still can't discount the fact that the Liberals strategy worked in keeping them around to fight another day.

Policy loser: Conservative platform. Not only is it late coming, there are way to many pictures (some forty in all of Harper photo ops). Anyway, let Macleans' editor Andrew Coyne explain (since I am lock, stock and barrel in agreement): "Much of it is old news, having been unveiled already in the course of the campaign (or indeed announced in previous budgets). Some of it is wildly wrong — adding yet another regional development agency, pouring yet more subsidies into the auto and aerospace sinkholes..." Read more.

Winner: Conservative Peter Mackay for having his mom come out in the paper as a "Raging Granny" and anti-war advocate. There's no question this will help position him as a Tory who was brought up by someone with considerable empathy and understanding. And for someone in a defense portfolio who needs to court Liberals in that riding to win, it's not a bad thing and doesn't hurt. Plus, when your leader is struggling with his own "empathy deficit" at a national level (L. Ian coined the phrase), you need to pull out all the stops. Keep your eyes on nbpolitico's daily polling in Central Nova, this one is definitely going to be close.

Funny, I see Harper is now playing the mom card.

Winner: Obviously Liberal leader Stephane Dion for getting up off the mat and somehow making this thing interesting. Remember, many big name conservatives in 2003 didn't step up to plate and run because they thought Harper would get waxed by juggernaut Paul Martin. Well, could the same thing happen in 2008? Let me tell you, if it does, you can all but kiss a possible Frank McKenna prime ministerial run goodbye as he doesn't have the years to wait it out since he is already in his late 60s. Anyway, what else can be said other than minority governments definitely bite for aspiring leaders.

















Winners: Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe and NL Premier Danny Williams. I don't agree with their tactics (that is for sure), but as in love and war, in politics all is fair game and it would seem their very aggressive and negative ABC campaigns are getting through to the electorate in both of their perspective provinces. And with Harper needing to breakthrough big time in Quebec, he can't be pleased with this. Let's hope, for his sake, it doesn't come down to those lost NL seats and the one squandered in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.

Losers: CRA pollsters for issuing an obvious rogue poll (and then trying to hide that fact). With federal Liberal support increasing dramatically in every poll over the last week (see Harris/Decima, Nanos, Strategic Counsel's perception numbers), they come out bragging in the Telegraph Journal (who co-sponsored the poll btw) about how their data projects conservatives to pick up seats in New Brunswick. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this scenario pan out just as much as the next Tory, but it's a little hackish to believe that it is so, esdpecially when there is so much data to suggest otherwise. I mean honestly, anyone that would put a great deal of weight on just one week of polling with a week left of critical campaigning, is a little naive to say the least. Time to go to a rolling nightly or a weekly one, CRA. Either that, or stay out of the game when elections come around.

Fifth projection (or yesterday's numbers, today)

Due to technical difficulties, I didn't get yesterday's update posted. Here it is this morning, with another to follow this evening with today's polls. For this projection, I used the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 2-3 (0.64 weight)
EKOS - Oct 4-6 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.43 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 4-6 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Sep 28-29 [ON, QC only] (0.07 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 3-6 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 136 (+12, -3), Lib 81 (-22, +6), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 38 (+9, -3), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 3 (+2, n/c)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 18 (-2, +1), CPC 8 (-1, n/c), NDP 4 (+1, -1), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, n/c), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, n/c)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 44 (+4, -4), Lib 43 (-11, +4), NDP 19 (+7, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 22 (+2, -1), Lib 3 (-2, +1), NDP 3 (n/c, n/c)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+6, +2), NDP 11 (+1, -2), Lib 2 (-7, n/c)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 2 (n/c, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

The Conservatives have slipped again, losing 4 seats to Liberals in Ontario bringing that province essentially to a draw. Their losses were however somewhat offset by gains in BC.

The race in Outremont, Quebec remains close, though, for the first time, it hasn't changed hands in a projection. This edition shows the Liberals increasing their lead from 0.3% to 0.37%.

All three new polls in this projection show the Conservatives either tied (1) or behind (2) in Ontario, they retain a 1 seat lead in this projection but that is largely due to their strength in older polling. If the trend continues, the Conservatives are almost certain to lose their Ontario lead in the projection tonight. However, they formed a government with a 14 seat deficit in Ontario last time, unless the bottom really falls out, it seems likely they'll still have some (marginal) gains in Ontario, though the trend would show them still finishing second, just a stronger second than last time.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

A question for readers (repeated)

There is a slight glitch right now for the projection model in those four ridings where a party is not contesting and endorsing another candidate. The base number for those ridings had the non-contesting party at 0, as they should be, but when the polling data is entered, that number moves, sometimes into negative territory.

*new* No one has answered this, so I wanted to show how it would affect the results, the three options are as follows, with the results as of this projection in brackets:

1. Disregard the number for the non-contesting party (Central Nova: Grn 36%, NDP 36%, CPC 34%, Lib -5%) [what I have been doing];
2. Distribute the gain or loss in the same proportion as I did with the 2006 votes (NDP 34%, CPC 33%, Grn 33%); or
3. Distribute the gain or loss to the candidate the non-contesting party has endorsed? (Central Nova: NDP 35%, CPC 34%, Grn 31%)

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

In tough times, great leaders, including Harper, need to be challenged

Full disclosure: I skipped the Canadian English debate on Thursday night to catch the US Vice-Presidential debate (although, I'm sure I wasn't the only one). Anyway, the debate went along quite smoothly IMO for what was billed as a possible shootout by the mainstream media. As well, I thought both veep candidates showed well enough to claim victory at the end of the day. But aside from that, what struck me as most interesting was Joe Biden's response to the moderator's question regarding what the role of the vice president would be? He said:

With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. Let me tell you what Barack asked me to do. I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues. I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice.

And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. That is sort of my reputation, as you know. I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs.

It's interesting that Senator Biden said that "he wouldn't be afraid to tell him [Barack] if he disagreed." Why? Because that's exactly the kind of veep Obama said he was looking for before the caucus season even started back in December. His exact words were:

I want somebody who can be an outstanding president, should something happen to me. I want somebody who’s got integrity and I want somebody who has independence. I want somebody who will tell me when they disagree with me. [...] I don’t like having a lot of ‘yes’ people around me who are just telling me what I want to hear all the time.

I agree wholeheartedly as all great leaders need someone who has the independence and strength to push them out of their comfort zone from time-to-time. That said, with a few pollsters indicating that the Tory numbers are on the decline both nationally and in Quebec/Ontario, has the Prime Minister done himself a disservice by surrounding himself with "yes people", not to mention the fact that he has limited a talented caucus to mere talking points at a time when the country requires him to be challenged? I don't know about you, but I see this as a major problem for him moving forward. Or maybe I'm mistaken, and he does have someone close to him with the gonads to set him straight on both policy and strategy. Anybody willing to give it a shot on just who that particular person may be?

Quick hint: it's not Spector, Brodie, Kinsella or Flannagan. That is for sure.

Fourth projection

For today's update, we are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 2-3 (0.79 weight)
EKOS - Oct 3-5 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.57 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 3-5 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Sep 28-29 [ON, QC only] (0.21 weight)
Harris-Decima -Oct 2-5 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 139 (+15, -10), Lib 75 (-28, +5), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 41 (+12, +5), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 3 (+2, n/c)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 17 (-3, n/c), CPC 8 (-1, -1), NDP 5 (+2, +1), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, +1), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, -1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 48 (+8, -9), Lib 39 (-15, +7), NDP 19 (+7, +2)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+3, n/c), NDP 3 (n/c, n/c), Lib 2 (-3, n/c)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 21 (+4, +1), NDP 13 (+3, +3), Lib 2 (-7, -4)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 1 (n/c, +1), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c), CPC 0 (n/c, -1)

A few remarks...

The Conservatives have, after enjoying a few strong days of polling, slipped back essentially to where they stood in my first projection 4 days ago (that projection showed 142-72-49-42-3-0), far from majority territory.

The race in Outremont, Quebec is one of the closest and volatile in this election according to the model. It has changed hands in every single projection so far. Presently, it shows as going Liberal by 0.3%.

In Ontario, both Nanos and Harris-Decima (two of our three new polls), show the Conservatives slipping into second place which has hurt their totals there. The NDP have also surged to 19 seats, thanks to a projected-near-sweep of Northern Ontario.

Despite a resurgance yesterday, the Liberals have slipped back to just two seats in British Columbia.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

A question for readers (repeated)

There is a slight glitch right now for the projection model in those four ridings where a party is not contesting and endorsing another candidate. The base number for those ridings had the non-contesting party at 0, as they should be, but when the polling data is entered, that number moves, sometimes into negative territory.

Should I:

1. Disregard the number for the non-contesting party (what I have been doing);
2. Distribute the gain or loss in the same proportion as I did with the 2006 votes; or
3. Distribute the gain or loss to the candidate the non-contesting party has endorsed?

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Third projection

For today's update, we are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Oct 2-3 (1.00 weight)
EKOS - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.79 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (0.79 weight)
Nanos Research - Oct 1-3 [ON, QC, Atl only] (0.93 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Sep 28-29 [ON, QC only] (0.43 weight)
Harris-Decima -Sep 30-Oct 3 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.86 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 149 (+25, -3), Lib 70 (-33, +3), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 36 (+7, n/c), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 3 (+2, n/c)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 17 (-3, n/c), CPC 9 (n/c, n/c), NDP 4 (+1, n/c), Grn 1 (+1, n/c), Ind 1 (+1, n/c)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 12 (+1, -1), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 1 (+1, +1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 57 (+17, -1), Lib 32 (-22, +1), NDP 17 (+5, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+3, +1), NDP 3 (n/c, n/c), Lib 2 (-3, -1)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, n/c)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 20 (+3, -3), NDP 10 (n/c, -1), Lib 6 (-3, +4)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 1 (+1, n/c), Lib 1 (-1, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

In the Atlantic, after a few days of roller-coaster, the numbers seem to have stablized. Elizabeth May stays ahead in Central Nova, though by a more narrow margin; May is now 2.08% ahead of MacKay.

In Quebec, this projection shows Mulcair pulling back into the lead for the NDP Outremont by only 0.99%.

The Liberals have surged back to nearly their 2006 results in BC after flirting with a wipeout in the first few projections.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

A question for readers

There is a slight glitch right now for the projection model in those four ridings where a party is not contesting and endorsing another candidate. The base number for those ridings had the non-contesting party at 0, as they should be, but when the polling data is entered, that number moves, sometimes into negative territory.

Should I:

1. Disregard the number for the non-contesting party (what I have been doing);
2. Distribute the gain or loss in the same proportion as I did with the 2006 votes; or
3. Distribute the gain or loss to the candidate the non-contesting party has endorsed?

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Second projection

For today's update, we are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Sep 24-25 (0.07 weight)
EKOS - Sep 30-Oct 2 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 30-Oct 2 (1.00 weight)
Nanos Research - Sep 30-Oct 2 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Sep 28-29 [ON, QC only] (0.64 weight)
Harris-Decima -Sep 29-Oct 2 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 152 (+28, +10), Lib 67 (-36, -5), BQ 49 (-2, n/c), NDP 36 (+7, -6), Grn 1 (+1, +1), Ind 3 (+2, n/c)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
Lib 17 (-3, -5), CPC 9 (n/c, +6), NDP 4 (+1, -2), Grn 1 (+1, +1), Ind 1 (+1, n/c)

Quebec (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
BQ 49 (-2, n/c), Lib 13 (+2, +1), CPC 11 (+1, n/c), Ind 2 (+1, n/c), NDP 0 (n/c, -1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 58 (+18, n/c), Lib 31 (-23, n/c), NDP 17 (+5, n/c)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 22 (+2, n/c), Lib 3 (-2, n/c), NDP 3 (n/c, n/c)

Alberta (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 28 (n/c, +1), NDP 0 (n/c, -1)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 23 (+6, +3), NDP 11 (+1, -2), Lib 2 (-7, -1)

North (change vs. 2006, change vs. last projection)
CPC 1 (+1, n/c), Lib 1 (-1, n/c), NDP 1 (n/c, n/c)

A few remarks...

In Alberta, the Tories re-solidify their stranglehold, robbing the NDP of the seat that was projected there last time.

In the Atlantic, the Conservatives make up the ground they had lost in the last projection but Elizabeth May pulls ahead in Central Nova winning by just under 3 points over MacKay with the NDP placing a close third.

In Quebec, this projection shows the NDP losing their toe-hold, with Mulcair losing Outremont by only 0.72%.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Image politics strikes again. And it ain't pretty folks.

Many history buffs may remember the '74 photo of Bob Stanfield fumbling the football on an airport tarmac during a campaign stopover which, to the Tory leader's dismay, served to depict him as clumsy and inept. Well, the wrath of embarrassing image politics strikes again my friends as this photo of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion trying (I think?) to shoot the puck or ball into the net is disastrous to say the least. Is it as bad as the Stanfield photo? Probably not, but in the case of Stanfield, we must all remember that he caught all the passes thrown to him on that particular day before dropping the big one on camera (leading him to be punked by the media). Judging from the photo below, not sure one can say the same about Steph's athletic prowess away from the camera lens? H/T Dan Cook.

Although, in his defense, he probably sealed up the political geek vote with his suspect shooting technique. A technique I haven't witnessed since my mom joined me and my friends out in the driveway for a few quick wristers eons ago. Can you say train wreck?

















Update: Toronto Star Quiz "Which party best represents your views in this election?"

Apparently, besides the Tories, the Dippers are the best party to represent my political views in this election, go figure. Take the "party quiz" and let me know how it goes?

Update II: It doesn't get any better in video, folks. H/T Le Politico.

Big debate bump coming for NDP?

The Ipsos-Reid poll out today says the following:

Overall, the effect of this debate on voters’ intentions is mild. Nearly two in ten (15%) English-speaking Canadians who watched the debate say that they have changed their mind about who to vote for on October 14th as a result of viewing the debate.

Among those who changed their vote, 37% say they would now vote NDP, 26% say they would now Liberal, 25% say they would now vote Green, and 9% say they would now vote Conservative.

That means the NDP could get a bounce of up to 5.6%, the Liberals up to 3.9%, the Greens up to 3.8% and the Conservatives up to 1.4%. I say "up to" because each parties gains would be coming at the expense of others.

Ipsos polls tend to be more favourable to the Conservatives than most, so this looks to be quite good for the opposition parties. One presumes though that the NDP and Green votes are coming mostly at the expense of the Liberals so it remains to be seen how much of a net bounce they would get out of this.

As a result, depending on how this breaks out, it is conceivable, and even likely, we will see the NDP and Greens gain votes at the expense of the Liberals and, to a lesser extent, the Conservatives. Worth paying close attention to the first polls that have begin dates of Oct 4, likely out by Monday.

First projection

Ok friends, Romans and countrymen, the long awaited projection is here.

I explained the methodology for obtaining base numbers yesterday.

Before getting into the projection, I'll explain the methodology for including polls:

• Only one poll per polling company will be used at any time;
• A poll must break down into at least one of following regions to be used: Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic (NB, NS, PE, NL), SK/MB, AB, BC - these are the regions I project off of;
• Polls will only be used for those regions from the bullet above into which they break, national numbers are used to project the three northern seats;
• For our purposes, the date of the poll is the average of all days in a sample (i.e. a poll conducted from Sep 29-Oct 1 has a date of Sep 30, a poll conducted from Sep 28-Oct 1 has a date of Sep 29.5)
• The newest poll(s) is/are given full weight, all other polls are rated relatively with only polls taken within 6.5 days of the newest poll being considered (i.e. if the newest poll has an average date of Sep 30, it is given full weight; a poll with a date of Sep 23 would be given no weight and a poll with a date of Sep 23.5 would be given a weight of 0.5/7)

So for today's projection, we are using the following polls:

Angus Reid - Sep 24-25 (0.21 weight)
EKOS - Sep 29-Oct 1 (1.00 weight)
Ipsos-Reid - Sep 23-25 (0.14 weight)
Nanos Research - Sep 29-Oct 1 [ON, QC, Atl only] (1.00 weight)
Strategic Counsel - Sep 28-29 [ON, QC only] (0.79 weight)
Harris-Decima -Sep 28-Oct1 [ON, QC, Atl, BC only] (0.93 weight)

National results (change vs. 2006)
CPC 142 (+18), Lib 72 (-31), BQ 49 (-2), NDP 42 (+13), Ind 3 (+2)

Atlantic (change vs. 2006)
Lib 22 (+2), NDP 6 (+3), CPC 3 (-6), Ind 1 (+1)

Quebec (change vs. 2006)
BQ 49 (-2), Lib 12 (-1), CPC 11 (+1), Ind 2 (+1), NDP 1 (+1)

Ontario (change vs. 2006)
CPC 58 (+18), Lib 31 (-23), NDP 17 (+5)

Saskatchewan and Manitoba (change vs. 2006)
CPC 22 (+2), Lib 3 (-2), NDP 3 (n/c)

Alberta (change vs. 2006)
CPC 27 (-1), NDP 1 (+1)

British Columbia (change vs. 2006)
CPC 20 (+3), NDP 13 (+3), Lib 3 (-6)

North (change vs. 2006)
CPC 1 (+1), Lib 1 (-1), NDP 1 (n/c)

A few remarks...

The Alberta results stand out, however, the polling average shows the Conservatives down 10% in Alberta with the Greens and NDP each up about 5. If that were to actually happen on election day, it would be conceivable for at least one urban seat to flip. In this projection, it shows the NDP picking up Edmonton--Strathcona by a margin of 38 to 32.

There are two indpendents showing up in Quebec, one is obviously Andre Arthur. The other is incumbent MP Louise Thibault, formerly of the Bloc, in Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques. This riding shows the best (or worst) vote split ever... Ind 23%, CPC 22%, BQ 18%, NDP 18%, Lib 16%, Grn 4%.

A very interesting race in Central Nova where the projection shows the NDP winning and Peter Mackay placing third. Is this realistic? I'm not sure. This may be a good argument for tweaking the formula. What do you folks think? Current results project NDP 36%, Grn 35%, CPC 29%.

I'll continue to update daily until October 14. I welcome your suggestions if you think any aspect of the formula needs to be adjusted.

NOTE: These projections do not reflect the wishes, nor predictions, of the author. They are based on simple math using the criteria outlined here and here.

Layton to Dion: You're not ready for prime time

I mentioned to a few people that last night's English debate reminded me a lot of the one in 2000. Anyway, without boring you with detailed minutia, here are my three quick reasons why: 1.) the second place party leader, Stock Day in 2000 and Dion in 2008, did not perform well enough to convince voters that they were ready for prime time b) the last place leader in the HoC upon dissolution, Joe Clark in 2000 and Layton in 2008, performed well enough to take votes away from their counterparts on their side of the political spectrum, thus ensuring vote splitting and c) The incumbents, Jean Chretien in 2000 and Harper in 2008, both knew they would be under attack all night, so they did their best to ward off all comers by playing defense, thus preventing the Opposition from scoring huge points. H/T WK

Oh, and one other thing, both debates had "a moment" as they say in spinner circles. In 2000, it was the moment when Stockwell Day held up a magic-markered placard saying "No 2-tier health care" and in 2008 the moment was this:




For a debate analogy much better then mine [see CTV Video Player "Political blogger Kinsella on the debate"]. I like the way Warren compares Harper to a hockey goalie. Brilliant.

Best post-debate line: Conservative pundit Gerry Nicholls: "Everybody at the table kept trying to convince Harper he was a conservative; he kept reassuring them that he wasn't.

Debate live blog

10:02 - Stephen Harper and Elizabeth May look quite unfortunate in HD. Layton has many short white hairs on the top of his head that you don't see in standard definition. Dion and Duceppe look about the same.

10:04 - Dion answered the first question relatively clearly, points to him. Harper takes a rough shot at Dion saying he "panicked" by launching a policy on a debate, doesn't answer the question for himself.

10:07 - Dion is given a chance to respond to Harper, starts of strong but then repeats verbatim, with the same tone, his lines from before. Clearly they had been memorized, not sure if the average viewer would pick up on that and view it negatively or not.

10:09 - "Either you don't care, or you're incompotent," Layton to Harper. Harper says it is true that $50b went to big business in tax cuts, but it was a $200b tax cut package with three-quarters going to "families, small businesses", etc.

10:12 - Dion rails agains Flaherty's criticism of Ontario, gets excited and the quality of his English suffers.

10:13 - May gets in a Central Nova riding shout out (Trenton).

10:19 - Cool camera angle. Harper centered with back to camera looking on to Layton and Duceppe both offset. Good for Harper I think, he looks commanding with two apprentices looking on.

10:21 - Dion mocks Layton for saying he opposes a carbon tax when he looks to Sweden as a model which has a carbon tax. Layton rebuts saying they are meeting Kyoto because of a cap-and-trade system like the one the NDP proposes. Dion dismisses him condecendingly.

10:23 - Harper/Duceppe big time showdown on the ultra sexy topic of reimbursable tax credits.

10:28 - Quick switch over to U.S. veep debate...

10:30 - Palin seems to be doing fairly strong. Back to Canada.... whoa, climate change quesion. "We know that it's real," says Palin. "Somthing to be said about man's activities, but also the cyclical changes of our planet..." Now back to Canada for real.

10:31 - ... and right into the deficit question.

10:32 - Shockingly, all leaders say they wouldn't not run a deficit. I can't believe it. This will be the headline tomorrow, who could have predicted it!?!? Layton makes a cute jab about how Tommy Douglas never ran a deficit and, as for Bob Rae, "I guess he's with [the Liberals] now."

10:42 - Layton gets same angle as 10:19 vs. Harper and May, not quite as cool looking though as it is not perfectly centered.

10:43 - Harper explains his climate change plan that sounds pretty strong, although I assume it is not. May rebuts him relatively effectively.

10:45 - Then Duceppe does and Layton. Dion takes a pass on rebuttng Harper to further explain Green Shift, does so quite effectively.

10:47 - Healthcare, availability of doctors, as the feds have no real ability to change this, back over to U.S. Palin mocking Obama on foreign policy, sounds silly but does so effectively.

10:53 - Back to Canada. Things are pretty rowdy. Looks like Layton must have accused Harper of being against medicare.

10:55 - May aledges that NAFTA could allow Americans to bring private medicine to Canada, saying Harper's job as head of CTF was to destroy medicare. For the former point, wouldn't that have happened by now? The latter, somewhat fair but a bit of a stretch.

11:03 - Paikin: "Are Conservatives barbarians?" Oooo-kaaaayy.....

11:04 - "It's not the choice of politicians who will be helped by the government," says Dion. Ummm... so we have politicians why?

11:08 - Paikin: "I'm trying to make sure that Biden and Palin don't take our audience here..." that reminds me... *push recall* "... most important election ... since 1932," says Biden. Good to know.

11:12 - Palin still seems to be holding her own. Switching back to Canada.

11:17 - Layton takes an effective shot on Harper, pointing out his crime legislation would have passed a year ago if he hadn't prorogued parliament.

11:23 - Dion accuses Layton of destroying Kelowna Accord by "joining a coalition" with Harper to bring down the government. Layton very strongly puts Dion down by indicating how many times Dion has voted with the Harper government and says "if you can't even be leader of the opposition, what are you doing running for prime minister?" Ouch.

11:26 - Duceppe takes a shot at Layton, compliments the Liberals (backhandedly). Has he taken a shot at Dion? It is clear that Duceppe sees Harper as his principal opponent, but it is almost as though Layton is his secondary one?

11:28 - Checking in with the Americans, I believe they wrap up at 11:30.

11:29 - Palin's closing includes a shot at the mainstream media, says she likes taking the tough questions without the media filter.

11:32 - Biden's closing talks about his roots "like most of you".

11:33 - Back to Canada. CIDA is politicized? Interesting, I am not sure if what May says is true or not. Anyone in a position to speak without spin?

11:37 - Duceppe says "I know I won't be prime minister, and I know three of you won't be prime minister." I.e. a Harper win is a foregone conclusion.

11:38 - May says the first thing she would do would be change the electoral system to proportional representation. Okay, so worst case scenario, there would be an election in what? Six months? So the first thing you do is change the electoral system? Couldn't that wait until, I don't know, you'd accomplished something worth going to the polls on?

11:42 - Dion says he is courageous.

11:43 - May says a lack of income splitting robs $5 billion from married couples, says for someone who is a defender of marriage it doesn't make sense.

11:49 - May makes a good call out for populism.

11:53 - Layton does a good job listing just about every Liberal election promise that was broken right back to the Clear Grits platform in 1856.

11:58 - Paikin makes another Biden-Palin joke as we close, he is lucky it is over.

WRAP UP:

Not a bad debate, everyone had their good moments. In terms of the expectations game, I think Dion won. In terms of deliverable results, I think May won as she was articulate and didn't come off as a "crazy enviro-nut" and will be able to actually get the votes (high single digits) that polls suggest she will. In terms of an actual winner from a debate-in-a-vacuum view? Probably a draw.

Note: Due to technical difficulties, though this was written live, it was posted at the conclusion of the debate.

Projections coming tomorrow

Revision 1 - Oct. 8, 2008

I have completed the projection model and tested it - it's working!

I hope you'll enjoy the results (which I'll update through the election).

Here is the formula, this can be tweaked if it proves way out in left field but so far it seems to work in the testing.

First, I take the 2006 results and apply the following filters as necessary:

• For first time incumbents:
  • if they held the seat for their own party: no adjustment
  • if they picked up an open seat from another party: +2% from the former party
  • if they defeated an incumbent and are having a rematch: +2.5% from the former incumbent
  • if they defeated an incumbent and are running against a new opponent: +5% from the former party
• For non-incumbent races:
  • if there was one principal opponent: -2.5% from incumbent's party to opponent
  • if there were two principal opponents: -4% from incumbent's party with +2% to each opponent
• The Danny Williams factor:
  • In Newfoundland and Labrador: -10% from CPC to principal opponent
  • In Nova Scotia, in CPC held ridings: -5% from CPC to principal opponent
• Floor crossers:
  • If running for another party: 15% of their former party's share moves with them to their new party
  • If running as an independent: 50% of their former party's share goes with them
• By-elections*:
  • if all of the principal candidates run again: weighted at 75%
  • if the incumbent runs again: weighted at 50%
  • if the incumbent doesn't reoffer: weighted at 25%
  • *I weighted vote totals, which tend to be lower in by-elections, not the percentages of votes
• Other factors:
  • Party doesn't offer, endorses other candidate**: 60% to endorsee, balance distributed proportionately to other candidates; REV1 same formula applied to poll adjustments
  • Leader factor: 10% adjustment in favour of leader / against party whose leader ran in riding in 2006
  • **Liberals endorse May; Conservatives endorse Arthur; Greens endorse Dion, Wilfert

Without adding in polls (i.e. we re-ran the 2006 with different candidates), these adjustments would have made the 2006 results come out as follows:

Conservative: 123 (-1)
Liberal: 100 (-3)
Bloc Québécois: 51 (n/c)
New Democratic: 32 (+3)
Green: 0 (n/c)
Independents: 2 (+1)

The first projection will come tomorrow.

Le débat

Before delving into my thoughts, I have to admit that I fell asleep for part of the debate so I may have missed something of substance (staying up 'til midnight is hard for old foggies).

One of the biggest take-aways I had from this was one of being impressed with Jack Layton. His French, which in previous debates seemed "okay", I would now rate as "pretty good". He also looked somewhat "prime-ministerial" which is huge for Layton who had previously always came off as more of a game show host.

The next biggest thing I noticed was that Stéphane Dion missed the boat on countering the "not a leader" meme. Dion knew his files and was articulate but he was the only one that was repeatedly singled out by the moderator for talking out of turn and his submission to this made him look weak. There was also a moment (only partially in the shot) where he made his infamous shrug. I imagine the Tories are currently offering a series of first-borns in exchange for the footage from the camera that might have captured this in full.

Elizabeth May's French was not strong but her performance was steady. An important thing for her was when she made reference to that fact that the Green Party wants to lower income taxes. For me and probably most of the readers of this blog, that isn't a surprise. For many Canadians it would be. The Greens are viewed as left-wing, and left-wing is supposed to mean "tax raiser". I suspect a lot of people who are just tuning in have a new found curiosity about the Greens and that is why allowing the Greens into the debate could be a game changer.

Harper and Duceppe didn't really do anything that I found noteworthy, which would mean they performed as I expected.

What did you think?

Bloc Quebecois: A terrible return on investment

With the French debate on my mind this morning, I found these scribblings regarding the Bloc by Tim Power, a proud Newfoundlander, quite interesting to say the least:

It was only a few months ago that Gilles Duceppe had announced he was leaving the BQ to try to lead the PQ. That journey lasted no more than a day. Also, the BQ - like the PQ - have for all intents and purposes put sovereignty on the back burner. With 18 years in Ottawa, and many healthy federal pensions built up for their MPs, the Bloc have only managed to pass four pieces of legislation. It is not for me or Rob to tell Quebeckers what to do, but if I were a Quebecker I'd have to give some long hard thought about what my voting investment in the Bloc is doing for my province.

I come from a place where nationalism is alive and well. We have a premier who has marshaled its forces to great effect. But even with Newfoundland and Labrador's growing wealth and sense of self-confidence, will you find anyone serious who seriously advocates a break from the federation or would be prepared to support a federal party that apparently lives for the federation's death? While the Premier may have taken the controversial view that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should not vote for one federal party, he has made it abundantly clear he wants the Canada-Newfoundland relationship to work.

At heart I am both a Canadian and a Newfoundland nationalist - they are congruent. We have had similar struggles to the people of Quebec and with Quebec. I respect and admire Quebeckers, but I am still stuck to understand the longevity of the Bloc.

Wow, four pieces of legislation in eighteen years (and fully sponsored by taxpayers to boot). The only other politician I know that could possibly meet (or surpass) that rate of unproductive absenteeism is MRD Liberal candidate Brian Murphy. A guy who missed over 43 votes in the House of Commons in just a few short years. To be honest, a record like that is something that voters in Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe should give some serious thought to when considering what their own voting investment in Murphy is doing for their riding.

A few things on Ken Dryden's speech in Fredericton

Though I wasn't as lucky as Rob to catch Mr. Dryden's "Mr. Nice Guy" speech live in the Restigouche Room at the Beaverbrook, I did catch it on CBC Newsworld this morning. And even though it was a little wordy, I found it to be very eloquently delivered. However, I can't say the same for the content contained within the speech as there was a little too much fluff in there for my liking. In it, Dryden attempted to paint Harper as a "not so nice" leader and listed a host of wasteful, statist Liberal programs that were cut as the reasoning behind his theory. He even went on to conclude (warning not verbatim) that from my experience "'not so nice guy's win" but "nice guy's win as well." I can only take that to mean that Dion is the nice guy deserved of victory that he is referring in that line.

Anyway, from someone who knows a little bit about playing sports for losing teams with a "nice guy" at the helm and winning teams with a "not so nice guy" as coach, I have to admit, if anything, Dryden's "Nice Guy" speech put into perspective why Dion's undisciplined, nice guy approach to politics is losing and Harper's tough, disciplined approach is winning.

Let's just say, nobody ever accused Trudeau, Mulroney or Chretien of being nice guys. Actually the former was decribes by his peers as "always combative, sometimes absurdly so" and the latter, Chretien, can be remembered for reducing the tough and rigid Carolyn Bennett to tears when she dared to cross him in front of caucus members at a cabinet meeting. Did Chretien hate her? Absolutely not. But he realized, as did other successful Prime Ministers, that to manage the egos within your own party, you had to be tough. Let's face it, anybody that I talk to who knows anything about federal politics, knows this isn't a business for "nice fellows". I think even Warren Kinsella would conquer with that, since he was the one that said Bob Rae would have never lived to see his 61st birthday if he had of tried to pull a stunt like this on his former boss. As the saying goes, "nice guys finish last."

Hail Mary?

As an avid Joe Biden supporter, it is a bit awkward for me to wade in on a plagiarism issue but, here goes...

One of two things happened today:
1.) the Liberals fluked out and made the connection between the Howard speech and the Harper speech; or
2.) the Liberals released something that they had been sitting on for some time and had been waiting for a strategic moment to release.

I would be the first person to tell you that this is a non-issue, a non-story and really warrants no more than a casual side-bar reference in the newspaper.

Few politicians write their own speeches in whole, some but not many work on original drafts written by staff, most simply rehearse and read speeches written entirely by others. Any politician who would fault Stephen Harper for reading from a prepared text ought to reinforce the windows in their glass house first.

Leaving that aside, the media loves this sort of non-story (issues are hard too cover and too boring to sell papers) so suddenly, it is a story.

I think that, going back to my earlier two options, this is #2. The timing would seem otherwise way too coincidental. If the Liberals know what they are doing (this remains to be seen) then they have played this out really well.

It looks this way to me:
- they have found a story that puts Stephen Harper's previous support of the Iraq War in the news;
- they have released it the day before the first leaders' debate, knowing that certainly Gilles Duceppe and likely Elizabeth May and Jack Layton will not be able to resist pouncing on it;
- they had it released not by the leader, but by a high-profile surrogate-candidate.

If they are smart and this is actually part of a plan, Dion will stay way above the fold on this. In the debate, three leaders will look petty droning on about childish plagiarism allegations, the prime minister will be forced to defend his previous support of the Iraq invasion and Dion will be able to remain above the fray. For the first time in this campaign, he might even look like a leader.

This could have been a brilliant Hail Mary pass. I will watch the execution with considerable curiosity.

Day 24: The end of two full days of pre-debate carpet bombing

Losers: This just in: a couple of Toronto area Liberal MPs have joined the Council of Canadians in warning our nation of the dangers of a re-mandated Harper government.

I'm kidding, of course. But after the recent display, yesterday and today, from Iggy and Rae, I wouldn't blame anyone for wondering what in the world is the Liberal party coming to. What with Rae arguing about a war we never participated in, and a plagiarized speech, as a key foreign policy plank (or at least that's what we were led to believe he was delivering) and Iggy, sounding like the president of the Toronto Stock Exchange, boring us into submission over the fact he's always right whenever he's not wrong, is frankly enough to even make Buzz Hardgrove twinge. And where's Stephane Dion when all this policy is being made on the fly? I know, I know!! Somewhere locked up in a basement in Gatineau anxiously awaiting another chance to sell the Green Shift. Yes, my friends, this is definitely not your father's Liberal party of Canada.

Loser: Canadian English debate watchers. I'm pretty sure yours truly isn't the only one torn between watching the English debate on Thursday and this doozy.

Loser: A lazy, understaffed (and underpaid) Opposition speech writers writer who copy and pasted. Glad to see the culprit did the right thing and owned up to his obvious mistake.

Policy flop: Atlantic Liberals for feeding us more of those old, statist regional development policies. Two that really made me quiver: "...more weeks of employment insurance for the seasonally unemployed" and "renewed funding to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency."

Winner: Tina Fey. I think it's safe to say that because of her bang-on performance on Saturday Night Live this past weekend, we will likely be witness to one of the largest non-political viewing audiences ever for a Vice-Presidential debate. Strike that, I'll go out on a limb here and say the largest.

Local losers: People looking for an honest debate in Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe. You would think it should be possible to have a picnic of honest discussion around the issues before a single ant arrives, or cloud to dim the day. Unfortunately, for voters in MRD, those ants arrived earlier than anticipated (and they're looking to ruin it for everyone else with lies and ad hominems). Word of advice, don't be fooled by the title of the Youtube video, it should read "divide and conquer [politics] along ethnic and linguistic lines" [H/T spinks]. Go watch:




That pesky Beausejour ant!! lol Anyway, is it me, or are the New Brunswick Liberal candidates, particularly Brian Murphy, getting worried about their election chances on the 14th of October? I mean honestly, what other explanation is there for such a barrage of unfounded brutal attacks right after the unfavourable poll numbers were released nationally last week and over the weekend? Oh well, the next time they get worried, Brian and Dominic can always call Mr. Zed to get reassurance that the national scene doesn't really matter in our neck of the woods, especially when they're the ones not doing well on it. lol