Elections Rumour

[Ricki Bobbi]

Because there will be one leader and one platform instead of the mish mash that exists now. The Conservatives were expected to be in a much better position than they are now. Harper himself said he never expected to be so involved on foreign policy all summer.

Summer is when Ottawa hangs the "Gone Fishin'" sign up and MPs go home to their ridings. Most times the government gets a boost simply from not having Parliament in session.

And the race has been a yawner. It certainly hasn't helped the Liberals thus far.

You think polls remain static just because you think the Liberals are supported by all the media?

Who *expected* the Conservatives to be in a better position then they are now?

I never said anything about a Liberal-supporting media. wtf is up with that?

Your are correct that Harper has spent more time on foreign policy than planned during the election.

If you look historically parties that elect a new leader traditionally gain support during the leadership campaign, followed by a little more of that trend in the honeymoon period then support falls off as the new leader shows his or her warts.

So why isn't the Liberal party getting a boost for this campaign and why do you expect things to suddenly turn in their favour when Iggy takes the helm?

I think static polls is better for the Conservatives than the Liberals.

[jdobbin]

Who *expected* the Conservatives to be in a better position then they are now?

I never said anything about a Liberal-supporting media. wtf is up with that?

Your are correct that Harper has spent more time on foreign policy than planned during the election.

If you look historically parties that elect a new leader traditionally gain support during the leadership campaign, followed by a little more of that trend in the honeymoon period then support falls off as the new leader shows his or her warts.

So why isn't the Liberal party getting a boost for this campaign and why do you expect things to suddenly turn in their favour when Iggy takes the helm?

I think static polls is better for the Conservatives than the Liberals.

You said free coverage. "Why do you think the Conservatives should be gaining support during the middle of the Liberal leadership race given all the free media the Liberals (mainly Ignatieff) are getting?" Most of the Liberal leadership has been pushed off the front pages, not that anyone was noticing during the summer anyways. It is the BQ support that has risen in Quebec. I don't expect a new Liberal leader whoever that is will be able to change that anytime soon.

The Conservatives never got a boost during their leadership campaign. It lacked excitement just as this Liberal leadership campaign has. If anything, the Tories were expected to capitalize as many Conservatives commented on as soon as Paul Martin stepped down.

My contention is not that the Liberals are going to win the next election. My contention is that the Tories can't win a majority because Quebec doesn't support either national party in big enough numbers. Have you seen anything in any poll since January that would lead you to believe anything different?

[jdobbin]

The Liberals (and therefore Conservative) success depends completely on what leader gets elected... any of the current choices is likely big time failure for the Liberals, with Ignatieff as the only possible positive candidate.

Rae might be able to take some NDP support, but he'll quickly lose the big corporate vote that the Liberals traditionally get. Alot of money leaves with that, and it's not something the cash strapped Liberals can afford right now when they are being out-fundraised by the conservatives 3:1 in dollars and 5:1 in financial supporters.

This thread was whether the Tories would pull the plug this fall. I think the polls have shown that even a leaderless Liberal party is not enough for the Conservatives to pull a majority government off. BQ support has gone up too much over the summer.

[jdobbin]

But it was still a slow news summer, in Canadian political terms. People are starting to get used to Harper.

The Liberals do have a credibility problem. But this thread was about whether the Tories could pull off an electoral majority this fall. I don't think so.

Foreign policy has dogged the PM from perhaps chipping away at BQ support in Quebec and Liberal support in Ontario.

[geoffrey]

The Liberals (and therefore Conservative) success depends completely on what leader gets elected... any of the current choices is likely big time failure for the Liberals, with Ignatieff as the only possible positive candidate.

Rae might be able to take some NDP support, but he'll quickly lose the big corporate vote that the Liberals traditionally get. Alot of money leaves with that, and it's not something the cash strapped Liberals can afford right now when they are being out-fundraised by the conservatives 3:1 in dollars and 5:1 in financial supporters.

This thread was whether the Tories would pull the plug this fall. I think the polls have shown that even a leaderless Liberal party is not enough for the Conservatives to pull a majority government off. BQ support has gone up too much over the summer.

I'm suggesting that the Liberals are better without a leader. At least now they can claim disarray due to the leadership race. What are they going to claim once Rae or Ignatieff starts talking?

Contrasting Harper with those two... maybe they do have a shot. Neither Ignatieff or Rae is electable in Quebec.

[jdobbin]

I'm suggesting that the Liberals are better without a leader. At least now they can claim disarray due to the leadership race. What are they going to claim once Rae or Ignatieff starts talking?

Contrasting Harper with those two... maybe they do have a shot. Neither Ignatieff or Rae is electable in Quebec.

I have no idea how either are tracking in Quebec? Do you? At the moment, the BQ seems to be holding both parties down.

[geoffrey]

I have no idea how either are tracking in Quebec? Do you? At the moment, the BQ seems to be holding both parties down.

Do you actually think a pro-Iraq, hardline Federalist like Ignatieff will be electable in Quebec? He's a more Federalist Harperite... promising to raise your taxes. I don't understand how Liberals think he is electable anywhere, let alone Quebec. Harper is much more appealing to your average Quebecois than Ignatieff.

Rae is more of a unknown quantity. The NDP has never done well in Quebec, why would it start now?

[jdobbin]

Do you actually think a pro-Iraq, hardline Federalist like Ignatieff will be electable in Quebec? He's a more Federalist Harperite... promising to raise your taxes. I don't understand how Liberals think he is electable anywhere, let alone Quebec. Harper is much more appealing to your average Quebecois than Ignatieff.

Rae is more of a unknown quantity. The NDP has never done well in Quebec, why would it start now?

Never said that I thought Ignatieff was electable in Quebec. I still don't know who would be the best.

It is sort of like the Conservative leadership convention. A real yawner.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Power to you for actually coming out with a contention.

I guess I disagree with the electoral math needed to win a majority.

The Conservatives only need to pick up 30 seats for a majority nationally. I believe another 5 to 7 in the maritimes is possible. 3 to 5 in Quebec. 13 to 17 in Ontario. One each in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and between 4 and 6 in BC. Take the halfway point on each of those predictions and you have a majority. Take the upper end and you have a stronger majority than Chretien won in 1997.

*If* you absolutely believe the Conservatives can only win a majority with big gains in Quebec, then you are fair in assuming they can't win a majority. I just don't think the big gains in Quebec are necessary.

My contention is not that the Liberals are going to win the next election. My contention is that the Tories can't win a majority because Quebec doesn't support either national party in big enough numbers. Have you seen anything in any poll since January that would lead you to believe anything different?

[geoffrey]

Personally, I can't see the CPC picking up anything more in Ontario in the near future.

[jdobbin]

Power to you for actually coming out with a contention.

I guess I disagree with the electoral math needed to win a majority.

The Conservatives only need to pick up 30 seats for a majority nationally. I believe another 5 to 7 in the maritimes is possible. 3 to 5 in Quebec. 13 to 17 in Ontario. One each in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and between 4 and 6 in BC. Take the halfway point on each of those predictions and you have a majority. Take the upper end and you have a stronger majority than Chretien won in 1997.

*If* you absolutely believe the Conservatives can only win a majority with big gains in Quebec, then you are fair in assuming they can't win a majority. I just don't think the big gains in Quebec are necessary.

I could do without the snide comment.

My response to this thread was based on the premise that an election was coming this fall. I just don't see it happening with 38% of the vote when it is so heavily concentrated in areas the Conservatives have already won.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Personally, I can't see the CPC picking up anything more in Ontario in the near future.

Fair enough, but the most recent SES Research and Decima polls both put the Conservatives level of support higher than it was in the last election. Not enough for a dougle-digit increase in their seats won in Ontario, but they would at least pick up some.

[August1991]

The Conservatives only need to pick up 30 seats for a majority nationally. I believe another 5 to 7 in the maritimes is possible. 3 to 5 in Quebec. 13 to 17 in Ontario. One each in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and between 4 and 6 in BC. Take the halfway point on each of those predictions and you have a majority. Take the upper end and you have a stronger majority than Chretien won in 1997.

If the Tories were to get a majority, it would be something along those lines. Polls indicate the Tories are doing well in the Maritimes and in Quebec around Quebec City. They will gain in the Maritimes and hold their own in Quebec.

I still think that this all conjecture based on summer polls affecting some swing voters, particularly in Quebec and Ontario.

Excepting 1988, federal elections are not decided on foreign policy issues. I don't think the next election will be any different.

At the same time, I don't think Harper believes an election this year would be helpful in winning a majority. The longer he governs, the better he looks and the more likely people will return him to 24 Sussex. As a minimum, the Tories should produce another budget, start to deal with the so-called "fiscal imbalance" and present a wait times policy to the provinces. The Tories have to present an environmental policy this fall.

All of this will shift the public agenda away from foreign policy. Moreover, with time, Harper's foreign policy pronouncements will help him on domestic policies because it bolsters his credibility. He doesn't nuance or twist. His positions are based on good, defendable, long-term principles.

The quotes in the OP in this thread were evidence of Harper playing politics. The Bloc will back the lumber deal and the Liberals will back the Afghan mission. It is good politics for Harper to raise these issues.

----

Incidentally, does anyone know when the Edmonton troops return from Afghanistan? Is it the Quebec region troops who will replace them?

[jdobbin]

Excepting 1988, federal elections are not decided on foreign policy issues. I don't think the next election will be any different.

----

Incidentally, does anyone know when the Edmonton troops return from Afghanistan? Is it the Quebec region troops who will replace them?

I'll remind you on the foreign policy question at some point. The last several elections in the U.S. have been affected by foreign policy, primarily war. You think Canada isn't at war?

Edmonton and Shilo troops have been returning in stages as they train replacements from Pettawawa.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Good post. Completely agreed on all fronts. The Conservatives are getting themselves ready for an election if they lose a vote and are forced into an election before their preferred timeline.

All things considered they will go in the spring. Expect the budget to be not your typical "election budget" - i.e. full of goodies and giveaways. Rather it will further definte the Conservatives vision of how Canada should be governed and let the people decide.

At the same time, I don't think Harper believes an election this year would be helpful in winning a majority. The longer he governs, the better he looks and the more likely people will return him to 24 Sussex. As a minimum, the Tories should produce another budget, start to deal with the so-called "fiscal imbalance" and present a wait times policy to the provinces. The Tories have to present an environmental policy this fall.

All of this will shift the public agenda away from foreign policy. Moreover, with time, Harper's foreign policy pronouncements will help him on domestic policies because it bolsters his credibility. He doesn't nuance or twist. His positions are based on good, defendable, long-term principles.

[August1991]

I'll remind you on the foreign policy question at some point. The last several elections in the U.S. have been affected by foreign policy, primarily war. You think Canada isn't at war?

I may regret the reminder!

Among the several (many?) differences between US and Canadian federal elections is the importance of foreign policy, not just war. But even in the US, foreign policy is less important than you imply. Tip O'Neill was right: All politics is local politics.

[jdobbin]

Among the several (many?) differences between US and Canadian federal elections is the importance of foreign policy, not just war. But even in the US, foreign policy is less important than you imply. Tip O'Neill was right: All politics is local politics.

If Canada has to continue to liberate areas that they liberated months earlier, it won't exactly be something that can be ignored locally.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What? Of the last five U.S. presidential elections in only one was foreign policy a major issue in the election.

1988 - Bush wins as the American people strive to give Reagan a third term. Iran-Contra was an issue but only enough to give Dukakis two sttes.

1992 - "It's the economy stupid." That meant the domestic economy.

1996 - Billy Boy wins again.

2000 - Florida? Dimpled chads?

2004 - The one and only election of the five where foreign policy played a major role.

I'll remind you on the foreign policy question at some point. The last several elections in the U.S. have been affected by foreign policy, primarily war. You think Canada isn't at war?

[jdobbin]

What? Of the last five U.S. presidential elections in only one was foreign policy a major issue in the election.

1988 - Bush wins as the American people strive to give Reagan a third term. Iran-Contra was an issue but only enough to give Dukakis two sttes.

1992 - "It's the economy stupid." That meant the domestic economy.

1996 - Billy Boy wins again.

2000 - Florida? Dimpled chads?

2004 - The one and only election of the five where foreign policy played a major role.

I'm referring to both recent elections and further back than 1988. I am thinking of 2002, 2004 and now 2006 but also 1980 when Reagan was able to pummel Carter on Iran. I coud back further but you get the idea.

Canada has had fewer foreign engagements where we've been involved with for prolonged periods in the last 50 years. Certainly fewer that were actually shooting wars.

I don't think an election can be fought without it being mentioned, do you?

[Ricki Bobbi]

So which of the last *several* elections were you referring to?

You do realize that Reagan pummelled Carter on a multitiude of issues and the lanslide loss proves it.

If you don't want snide remarks don't put snide questions in your posts. quid pro quo

I'm referring to both recent elections and further back than 1988. I am thinking of 2002, 2004 and now 2006 but also 1980 when Reagan was able to pummel Carter on Iran. I coud back further but you get the idea.

Canada has had fewer foreign engagements where we've been involved with for prolonged periods in the last 50 years. Certainly fewer that were actually shooting wars.

I don't think an election can be fought without it being mentioned, do you?

[jdobbin]

So which of the last *several* elections were you referring to?

You do realize that Reagan pummelled Carter on a multitiude of issues and the lanslide loss proves it.

If you don't want snide remarks don't put snide questions in your posts. quid pro quo

Carter had many things go against him but the hostages in Iran was one of the number 1 issues.

I already mentioned several elections. In times when the U.S. has been at war, foreign policy was very much a major factor. It certainly wasn't a factor in 2000 when Bush won but two years later, it was one of the things that the Congressional battles were fought on. Nixon ran on foreign policy. Johnson stepped down on foreign policy. Many of the mid-term elections were fought with one of the major issues being foreign policy.

It has not been an issue in Canada for decades. In fact, it was almost *never* mentioned by any of the parties during the last election. I don't think Afghanistan was mentioned at all in a major policy speech, do you?

You contend that it won't be mentioned this year or next. I've said that even if the Liberals were in power today, it would be an issue that would play against them in a place like Quebec.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I get that, but I don't see why it will be an issue in the next election. I'd like you to explain a little further. To be fair I'll explain why I don't think it will be an issue.

Like ever party in Canada the Conservatives have a ceiling on support they could receive. In a *perfect* scenario for them they might hit 50% of the vote again like they did in 1984, but very unlikely.

The people who oppose Afghanistan are left of centre voters who won't support the party *under any circumstances*. Those are voters the Greens, Liberals and New Democrats are fighting over.

If it becomes an issue in the next election, fine so be it. Just don't expect the Conservatives to be driving the issue. The Conservatives would have the 55% of the public who still support the mission. (your numbers) while the other three can fight over the rest. The Conservatives got 10 seats with a little under 25% of the vote in Janaury. Are you really saying that there is more than 75% opposition to Afghanistan in Quebec?

I know you think Aghanistan plays against them in Quebec. But why? Support? Analysis? Anything other than repeating the same lines over and over and over.

You contend that it won't be mentioned this year or next. I've said that even if the Liberals were in power today, it would be an issue that would play against them in a place like Quebec.

[jdobbin]

Are you really saying that there is more than 75% opposition to Afghanistan in Quebec?

I know you think Aghanistan plays against them in Quebec. But why? Support? Analysis? Anything other than repeating the same lines over and over and over.

The questions on support of the troops and support of the mission keep getting blurred. At the beginning of the summer, a majority of Canadians said this:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60506/20060506/

That had 70% of Quebecers opposed to the mission.

The latest polls said that opposition in Quebec has gone up even more.

Analysis: I think August himself had reams of why Quebec has been more isolationist throughout its history. Even World War 2 was not enough the shake them from opposition to that war although opinion polls were not entirely reliable back then.

So, yes, I think Quebec is more than 70% opposed. Latest polls say it could even be higher than that. That is why August was trying to find out when the next rotation of Quebec-based troops enter the country.

Yes, I think it will be an issue in Quebec.

No, I don't think the Liberals are benefitting from that opposition.

I'm not blowing smoke. This would have been an issue whatever party was in.

Canadians have been very wary of Afghanistan despite how they feel about the troops.

You keep insisting that it will be a backburner issue. A few deaths of soldiers in an election will push off whatever announcement of the day is made by any party. I don't think the "war on terror" argument will work during the election. I don't think it is believed by Canadians although the Tories might make that claim.

I think the domestic agenda could be overshadowed by this.

I believed that was the case in Iraq and I believe it is the case for Afghanistan. The window to restore security in that country is growing smaller and the problems there seem to be growing bigger.

I think the best policy the Tories could have made was to simply follow the plan the Liberals had. The troops would have come out before 2007 and the Conservatives might have been looking at a massive majority.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Now I am really confused.

You just posted this CTV poll (link) that states only 46% of Canadians supported our role in Afghanistan in May.

Earlier you posted this poll (link) that said in August 57% of Canadians supported our role in Afghanistan in August. Does that mean support for the mission is going up?

I think the best policy the Tories could have made was to simply follow the plan the Liberals had. The troops would have come out before 2007 and the Conservatives might have been looking at a massive majority.

Now I know you are focusing way too much on Afghanistan. The Conservatives would not be facing a massive majority minus this one issue. While Harper has done well as PM he hasn't done that well.

[jdobbin]

Now I am really confused.

You just posted this CTV poll (link) that states only 46% of Canadians supported our role in Afghanistan in May.

Earlier you posted this poll (link) that said in August 57% of Canadians supported our role in Afghanistan in August. Does that mean support for the mission is going up?

I think the best policy the Tories could have made was to simply follow the plan the Liberals had. The troops would have come out before 2007 and the Conservatives might have been looking at a massive majority.

Now I know you are focusing way too much on Afghanistan. The Conservatives would not be facing a massive majority minus this one issue. While Harper has done well as PM he hasn't done that well.

You never read the first poll correctly.

"More importantly, Canadians showed resistance to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proposal to commit to extending the mission by two years. Ipsos asked those in favor of having troops in Afghanistan whether they also supported the Prime Minister’s plan to extend their stay. One out of five said no, meaning that only 44% of the total sample approved of the plan."

Support for the troops and support for the deployment are regarded separately.

And the scenario I mention would have been possible as most pollsters have said in these last polls. A majority, a large one, was possible except that there has been a drag due to foreign policy. A snap election with troops coming home could have been a winning formula.

Harper has support so on his domestic agenda thus far. He is below majority government support due primarily to foreign policy issues, mainly Afghanistan.

Read those poll numbers again. They don't say what you think they say.

You keep thinking this is about Liberals re-taking the election or anti-war or anti-Harper.

You keep dismissing Afghanistan as an issue. Polls all summer have indicated that Canadians are withholding majority support primarily because of the war.