ScottM

Leger falls in line with Nanos, while Forum and Abacus stand together in a stark contrast. The only thing they agree on is that the NDP is in trouble, though Leger takes that to an entirely new level with their Quebec numbers: 28% with the other three parties all within 7%. If that's true, they're in big trouble. After all, over half of their caucus was from Quebec following the 2011 election.

If I may, I'd like to add another dimension to this discussion. Should any of the leaders go, who would be their likely replacements? Brad Wall strikes me as a logical choice for the Conservatives as the most popular premier in the country, but the timing of the upcoming Saskatchewan election might make that a tough scenario. Peter MacKay probably wouldn't be a bad option either, but with his recent retirement from politics, I kind of doubt he'd come back so soon. Maybe Joe Oliver, then? Olivia Chow comes to mind for the NDP with hopes of reminding the electorate of Jack Layton, but her third place finish in the Toronto mayoral election might hurt her chances. It might be a little soon for her to make the jump from provincial politics to federal, but I'd think Rachel Notley could be a strong candidate as well. Anyone who can turn Alberta orange is obviously a skilled politician. Ralph Goodale is the first name that I think of for the Liberals. He seems to be something of a Teflon Don. He dealt with a scandal and survived. His party was decimated in 2011 and he survived. The fact that he's about to turn 66 might hurt him though. Christy Clark is another thought I have. She defied expectaions in the provincial election a couple of years ago, so I can't help but wonder if she might be able to do the same think on a federal level. If the Liberals are looking for a leader, they'd probably be coming off of a brutal election, so that kind of thing couldn't hurt. She might also help them grow outside of the Vancouver area. Of course, that's all assuming that any of those people would even be interested in running for the leadership. I'm just thinking of who I might want to recruit were I in the position of the members of those parties.

I've been less convinced than many that the opposition parties will do anything to get the Conservatives out of power for a couple of reasons. 1) Trudeau and Mulcair seem to truly despise one another and may not be able to work together well. 2) There's the chance of the "junior" partner in a coalition being marginalized, a la the Liberal Democrats in the UK. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if today's polling numbers are accurate, if that would make it even less likely. Assuming the Conservatives finish 7 or 8 points ahead of the second place party, it might not go over so well for the opposition to try to topple them. I'm sure many wouldn't mind, but it would probably seem a bit off to quite a few as well.

Yeah, I miss the percentage ranges as well, but the way I look at it, if it brings in more funds/audience, go for it. I love the work he does, and if it helps him out, I'm all for it.

And that had a lot to do with the timing of the 2000 election. Chretien was scared of a united right that might have toppled him. I think Chretien knew he had to go or risk an electoral disaster in 2004. Harper, on the other hand, whatever scandals he may have, and however many people may be screaming for his head, can still win. If we see another Conservative mandate, Harper doesn't go unless he wants to.

Indeed. I hadn't seen that Angus Reid numbers were out until I checked after reading your post. The Conservatives have opened up a significant lead in Ontario in that poll. I notice that they also have the Bloc back to 2011 levels of support. I think Quebec will really be a mess come the 19th. Anyway, I wonder if we'll see Nanos move in the same direction in a couple of days.

Chretien was just shy of 70. He was also dealing with the Sponsorship Scandal and the Gomery Commission was right around the corner. If those issues hadn't been present, who knows what he might have done.

I gave only the Liberal numbers because they were central to the discussion at hand. But here's the link to not only that map, but individual riding projections all in one. It's updated every day, so things may be a little different from yesterday: http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html The most recent polling was good for the Tories, bad for the Grits, so there may be some noticeable difference. FWIW, here's the polling tracker too: http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html The Conservative high number of seats is up to 159, so the chance of a majority is creeping closer and closer to falling within the 75% range between the high and low estimates. Again, it's only as good as the polling that goes in, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

The Liberals are really the only party the two are widely separated on. The gaps between the numbers on everyone else are within the margins of error for the polls. Forum is at odds with everyone else on Liberal numbers, though, so I think the question is who was a little high, the Tories or the NDP? If it's the Tories, their numbers move closer to the Nanos. If it's the NDP, their slide has continued. That said, I think it worth mentioning that a look at Wikipedia polling articles shows that the governing party has been underestimated by polling averages in the last four campaigns. If I had to make a gut instinct guess, I'd say the NDP is too high, but again, that's a pure guess.

I agree that he'd want to give his replacement about a year. I highly doubt he'd want to be seen as putting his successor in a John Turner/Kim Campbell type of position.

The disclaimer is important there. I like the site that the numbers came from very much, but I agree that it's important to remember that those aren't polling numbers. Those are numbers mathematically generated to make a "best guess" at the outcome. Since Grenier is also operating the CBC poll tracker, I think it's worth pointing out that he has high/low levels for each party that, if I recall correctly, are given a 75% confidence rating, and min/max levels that are, again if I recall correctly, 90% confidence. The thing is, the model can be no more accurate that the polls that are fed into it, and even then no model is perfect, so that has to be taken into account. No poll or model can ever be taken as 100% accurate, so again, I agree that the numbers can't be given as absolute proof of anything. Even if it could be, I'd again point out that the model given shows the Liberals have room for possible seat growth, so I still don't think it proves the point of the original poster of the link.

The model there is the one Eric Grenier has put together for threehundredeight.com. The default numbers there, the "average" gives the Liberals 112 seats nationally and 10 in BC. If you change it to the Liberal high averages, their national total increases to 128 and 14 in BC. A full fourth of the new seats come from that province. They have room for growth, and this is a party that won only two seats there in 2011. Yes, their vote is the least efficient, but in an election in which every seat counts, those four seats that they'd gain with a little more of an uptick could make a huge difference. The thing is though, Quebec almost looks like a crap-shoot in some ways. The Bloc looked primed to be wiped out completely just a few days ago, but they're once again competitive in a few ridings. And who would have thought the Conservatives would have a serious chance to win double-digit seats in the province? As it stands now, they just might do so, and they're moving up in the polls. My guess is that we won't have a real idea about what's going on in Quebec until election night.

Obviously, this is the most wide open election in some time -- probably the most competitive in Canadian history when looking at it as a three-cornered contest. As such, it seems to me that there are possibly very small margins between a party's campaign being considered an unqualified success or a complete disaster. After the 2011 campaign, it was obvious that the Liberals and the Bloc had met with disaster, and it seemed obvious that both would have a leadership change. I've been wondering lately what it would take to see that in each of the top three parties. Since I'm new here, I want to stress that this isn't intended to push debate in one direction or another. It's something I'm honestly curious about. Anyway, here are my guesses: Stephen Harper: As the sitting Prime Minister, my guess is that anything other than returning to government would be considered a failed campaign. Therefore, unless we see a fourth straight Tory government, I'm guessing he might very well resign. Thomas Mulcair: This one is a little harder to me. I definitely think the NDP has to finish third for him to go, but I'm not exactly sure how far back they'd have to finish. I don't think that third place with 100 seats would spell his end, but what if they get down to 70 or 80? Would they have to drop further than that? Justin Trudeau: Win, lose, or draw, I think Trudeau is probably the least likely of the three to resign after this election. The reason is pretty simple: even if the Liberals fall sharply from their current polling numbers, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which they don't drastically improve their seat totals. Therefore, it seems almost unfathomable that he doesn't get a second shot to lead the party even if they somehow fall into a somewhat distant third.

As tightly as the three parties are grouped in BC, it seems to me that a slight move toward any one of them in that province could easily tip the election. Just a couple of points might be enough to swing a several seats. It also occurs to me that the current NDP decline in the polls could quickly become even more devastating for the party than it already is. It looked for a while like BC and Quebec might be the coalition that carried them into government, and those may be the two provinces where they're currently suffering the most. I can't help but think that the current decline they're experiencing in Quebec won't have to go much further before they start hemorrhaging seats there as well.