Federal Election Polls

[punked]

I love that random 181 number for the Tories in the electionalmanac lol

They must of had to go in and change their NDP cap vs. Conservative numbers in their projection. It really illustrates how different this election then all other things we have seen before.

I really do think this is the best projector out of them all. It is the only registering the real numbers.

http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/seatprojections.html

Edited April 22, 2011 by punked

[ToadBrother]

Just my opinion here but I think Harper would rather work with Layton then Ignatieff on a personal level. Layton was the only person in the debates he would look at when they were speaking to him. I have a gut feeling he likes Layton better then the other two on a personal level. This is purely speculation.

I think that's part of it. The other part of it is that the Liberals will view themselves, even if they take a third place to the NDP in this election, as the natural competitor to the Tories. Any kind of arrangement, as we've seen over the last two years, is inherently unstable. I think, strategically and structurally, some sort of an accord (however it's shaped) with the NDP is simply going to be stronger. The only thing that may cool any kind of formal coalition would be the NDP's concern that they might end up like the LibDems (who are really the UK counterpart to the NDP) and fading rather than be strengthened by a formal merger. It's also possible that many Tories will not be happy to share the stage with dreaded socialists. That may make a formal coalition unachievable, but there are other ways to skin the cat that maintain the independence of both parties but still create a working relationship.

[ToadBrother]

In lieu of the NDP surge all seat projections are basically out the window now.

I think we're going to have a hard time making any sense of it at this point. It could be that the surge in support may only gain the NDP a few extra seats, if they can't cement it. It does them no good to have huge percentage gains but have it spread over Hell's half acre. If they can get that support past the critical point where they aren't just Liberal spoilers, and are in fact directly competing with the Tories, then ultimately what they'll do is, at best, flip seat counts with the Liberals, or possibly (though I think it's much less likely) tip things in favor of a slim Tory majority.

[punked]

I think that's part of it. The other part of it is that the Liberals will view themselves, even if they take a third place to the NDP in this election, as the natural competitor to the Tories. Any kind of arrangement, as we've seen over the last two years, is inherently unstable. I think, strategically and structurally, some sort of an accord (however it's shaped) with the NDP is simply going to be stronger. The only thing that may cool any kind of formal coalition would be the NDP's concern that they might end up like the LibDems (who are really the UK counterpart to the NDP) and fading rather than be strengthened by a formal merger. It's also possible that many Tories will not be happy to share the stage with dreaded socialists. That may make a formal coalition unachievable, but there are other ways to skin the cat that maintain the independence of both parties but still create a working relationship.

No the Liberal Dems are actually the Liberal party in the UK. Labour is what the NDP are. The thing is in all developed nations brokerage parties like the LibDems and Liberal party of Canada have died a death to Labour/Conservative parties. Canada is the only country which has a real Liberal middle of the road patronage party left.

[Evening Star]

Going by the party platforms in the last election, I agreed with TB. New Labour = Liberals, Liberal Democrats = NDP. I know that the parties' names and ostensible philosophical/ideological affiliations suggest the reverse.

[punked]

Going by the party platforms in the last election, I agreed with TB. New Labour = Liberals, Liberal Democrats = NDP. I know that the parties' names and ostensible philosophical/ideological affiliations suggest the reverse.

No way the Liberal Democrats lean two ways, they have members in the North that are hardline Cons while members in the south that are super progressive, what keeps them together is their belief there is a middle ground which they can find. This is also the reason why they are a third party they can't win over the left or the right.

[ToadBrother]

Going by the party platforms in the last election, I agreed with TB. New Labour = Liberals, Liberal Democrats = NDP. I know that the parties' names and ostensible philosophical/ideological affiliations suggest the reverse.

The LibDems are a social democratic party. Labour started out that way, but by the time of "NuLabour", it was pretty damned Whiggish.

[punked]

There is a reason Charles Kennedy always said the LibDems "Are neither Left or Right" and there is a Reason they can sit back and rub their hands while the Cons triple things like the cost of education.

[capricorn]

I think we're going to have a hard time making any sense of it at this point. It could be that the surge in support may only gain the NDP a few extra seats, if they can't cement it. It does them no good to have huge percentage gains but have it spread over Hell's half acre.

Along this line, I've been wondering about the new-found NDP supporters who were previously Liberal supporters. With the substantial surge of the NDP in the polls, could this cause a number of them to reflect as to whether they really want the NDP to have commensurate power over decision making in Ottawa? With ten days left in the campaign, there's ample time for them to change their mind. In such eventuality, where would that vote go? Would it go back to the Liberals or get split among the Liberals and Conservatives, or would they simply stand firm with the NDP? I suppose the underpinning question is whether there's still volatility within the electorate, even with those who have to date voiced a preference to the pollsters.

[nittanylionstorm07]

I think that's part of it. The other part of it is that the Liberals will view themselves, even if they take a third place to the NDP in this election, as the natural competitor to the Tories. Any kind of arrangement, as we've seen over the last two years, is inherently unstable. I think, strategically and structurally, some sort of an accord (however it's shaped) with the NDP is simply going to be stronger. The only thing that may cool any kind of formal coalition would be the NDP's concern that they might end up like the LibDems (who are really the UK counterpart to the NDP) and fading rather than be strengthened by a formal merger. It's also possible that many Tories will not be happy to share the stage with dreaded socialists. That may make a formal coalition unachievable, but there are other ways to skin the cat that maintain the independence of both parties but still create a working relationship.

The Lib Dems and NDP are only similar because they are both third parties currently. They do not have similar views. NDP is more similar to Labour.

[ToadBrother]

Along this line, I've been wondering about the new-found NDP supporters who were previously Liberal supporters. With the substantial surge of the NDP in the polls, could this cause a number of them to reflect as to whether they really want the NDP to have commensurate power over decision making in Ottawa? With ten days left in the campaign, there's ample time for them to change their mind. In such eventuality, where would that vote go? Would it go back to the Liberals or get split among the Liberals and Conservatives, or would they simply stand firm with the NDP? I suppose the underpinning question is whether there's still volatility within the electorate, even with those who have to date voiced a preference to the pollsters.

It's too early to tell at this point. Political junkies like almost everyone here can breathlessly post over this, but I think the surge in the NDP support suggests that there is a combination of volatility and strategic voting going on. How that ultimately plays out is still pretty opaque to me. Even the cause of it is hard to nail down.

In Quebec we have something of an explanation in that the NDP MP, Thomas Mulcair, is a popular guy, and by all accounts a helluva lot of work has been put into building a proper party organization in Quebec (take note, all you Green supporters, this is how you get voters to put your candidates into Ottawa, not by whining and snivelling about how no one takes you seriously). I think there may be Bloc fatigue in Quebec, as well as a high likelihood that the Liberals are going to be turfed so maybe the Quebec voter is thinking "Separatists in Ottawa or Separatists in the National Assembly, but not both."

But elsewhere, I'm not so sure. I think we may be looking at one of those psychological breaking points in an electorate, such as when the Progressive Conservatives were all but wiped out in 1993. As I said in another post, people like voting for winners, and the more winning a party seems, the more people will vote for it, particularly those who might be even slightly ideologically predisposed. Of course, such an event always has a major loser, and the Liberals seem lined up to be that loser.

[capricorn]

Political junkies like almost everyone here can breathlessly post over this, but I think the surge in the NDP support suggests that there is a combination of volatility and strategic voting going on.

One journalist said it this way.

Ten days ago, conventional wisdom had it that the campaign was all but over, and nothing different would come of it. Today, new scenarios are created every hour or two. The safest bet is that there may be a turn or two left as voters start to think more seriously about the choice they will make on May 2. Until then, the fluctuations in the polls are the sound of people thinking out loud, not deciding.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/bruce-anderson/anti-harper-voters-may-be-reassessing-leaders-as-campaign-nears-end/article1995614/?from=sec368

As I said in another post, people like voting for winners, and the more winning a party seems, the more people will vote for it, particularly those who might be even slightly ideologically predisposed. Of course, such an event always has a major loser, and the Liberals seem lined up to be that loser.

I previously thought a decimation of the Liberal party is in the cards. Upon reflexion a fair number of Liberal supporters have such a hate on for Harper that they will simply not budge. In large measure, this grudge is based on the fact that it was Harper who dethroned their mighty Liberals. IMO for this reason the Liberals will manage to pick up some 60 odd seats.

[wyly]

I previously thought a decimation of the Liberal party is in the cards. Upon reflexion a fair number of Liberal supporters have such a hate on for Harper that they will simply not budge. In large measure, this grudge is based on the fact that it was Harper who dethroned their mighty Liberals. IMO for this reason the Liberals will manage to pick up some 60 odd seats.

every party has it's die hard supporters, but some less than others...IMO conservatives have the largest number of entrenched voters no amount of scandal will shake their conviction...liberals being more moderate in general will sway either direction depending on reasoning but there will be a base whose loyalty is unshakable.....

[RNG]

One journalist said it this way.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/bruce-anderson/anti-harper-voters-may-be-reassessing-leaders-as-campaign-nears-end/article1995614/?from=sec368

I previously thought a decimation of the Liberal party is in the cards. Upon reflexion a fair number of Liberal supporters have such a hate on for Harper that they will simply not budge. In large measure, this grudge is based on the fact that it was Harper who dethroned their mighty Liberals. IMO for this reason the Liberals will manage to pick up some 60 odd seats.

With their hate on Harper, perhaps with the surge of the poll numbers for the NDP, they will switch to NDP on an 'anyone but Harper" wave.

[capricorn]

With their hate on Harper, perhaps with the surge of the poll numbers for the NDP, they will switch to NDP on an 'anyone but Harper" wave.

That is certainly a possibility RNG. At this stage it may be clear to some but for me it's all very muddy.

[RNG]

That is certainly a possibility RNG. At this stage it may be clear to some but for me it's all very muddy.

If we knew, we'd play oil futures and short stock and get rich and retire to a south pacific island populated by big chested young women, but instead we enjoy crossing mental swords on forums like this.

[capricorn]

every party has it's die hard supporters, but some less than others...IMO conservatives have the largest number of entrenched voters no amount of scandal will shake their conviction...

I'd like to hear you explain why the Liberals won the 2004 election in spite of the Adscam and Shawinigate scandals.

liberals being more moderate in general will sway either direction depending on reasoning but there will be a base whose loyalty is unshakable.....

I'm not sure what you mean by moderate. But I agree somewhere in every party loyalty is cemented and nothing will sway them to go elsewhere. Otherwise, the Liberals would have been wiped out after Adscam. I suppose in your world reasoning had something to do with it.

[capricorn]

If we knew, we'd play oil futures and short stock and get rich and retire to a south pacific island populated by big chested young women,

I know. But we do have SunNews with women in short skirts and low cut dresses baring their arms.

but instead we enjoy crossing mental swords on forums like this.

MLW is one of the best I think. I spend more time here than in any other forum.

[cybercoma]

It seems the advanced polls were jammed today. In some places people were waiting upwards of an hour to cast their votes. One voter coming out, dissatisfied with the wait times, complained on the news that Elections Canada should have known better, "it's a long weekend and people have the weekend off. Of course they're all going to come out and vote now, instead of the 2nd."

This election just got even more interesting. We could see a significant increase in the number of voters due to the holidays.

[RNG]

It seems the advanced polls were jammed today. In some places people were waiting upwards of an hour to cast their votes. One voter coming out, dissatisfied with the wait times, complained on the news that Elections Canada should have known better, "it's a long weekend and people have the weekend off. Of course they're all going to come out and vote now, instead of the 2nd."

This election just got even more interesting. We could see a significant increase in the number of voters due to the holidays.

Perhaps the military and such may need advanced polls, but Joe Average can bloody well rearrange his life to vote on election day. What makes the dudes that think they have the right to do as they wish that important. An election, especially a federal election is imprortant enough that folks should make adjustments.

[wyly]

I'd like to hear you explain why the Liberals won the 2004 election in spite of the Adscam and Shawinigate scandals.

I wouldn't define a minority with only 36% of the vote government as an endorsement ...more the result of FPTP and a greater fear of voting for the conservatives, better the devil you know than the one you don't...

I'm not sure what you mean by moderate. But I agree somewhere in every party loyalty is cemented and nothing will sway them to go elsewhere. Otherwise, the Liberals would have been wiped out after Adscam. I suppose in your world reasoning had something to do with it.

will the conservatives be wiped out after being found in contempt of parliament...

[RNG]

I'd like to hear you explain why the Liberals won the 2004 election in spite of the Adscam and Shawinigate scandals.

Wasn't that the last year of the Alliance Conservative split?

[Smallc]

Wasn't that the last year of the Alliance Conservative split?

There was no split then.

[RNG]

There was no split then.

Very, very, very wrong.

[Smallc]

Very, very, very wrong.

No.

My link

Edited April 23, 2011 by Smallc