— Musings —05.14.2019 06:55 AM
Liberals often quote Nanos. I don’t think they should do that.
Federal Polling:
CPC: 35.4% (+0.9)
LPC: 29.7% (-2.1)
NDP: 15% (-0.9)
GPC: 11.3% (+2.6)
BQ: 4.4% (-0.2)
PPC: 0.9% (-)Nanos Research / May 10th / 1000 Respondents / Telephone / MOE 3.1%
(% Changes compared to May 3rd)#cdnpoli #cpc #lpc #ndp #gpc #ppc
— Polling Canada (@CanadianPolling) May 13, 2019
I think the real story is the surge in the Green Party’s numbers. Practically breathing down the NDP’s neck.
Nice antisympathetic green gain to the red loss. Interesting.
It’s a bit early to be counting the Liberals out. We’ve seen polls be wrong before. Looking at the current seat projections at 338 Canada, there are a lot of seats the Liberals can win because of NDP-Green vote splits and Conservative-PPC vote splits.
A minority for the Liberals is probably as likely as a minority for the Conservatives. Scheer has to seal the deal with Quebec to win big. Forming an alliance with Quebec nationalists has been beyond the Conservatives abilities post 1988.
Harper won a majority with only 5 seats in Quebec. Population shifts have changed the dynamic from the 80s – a party can easily win a majority by doing well in the West and rural/suburban Ontario. Winning Quebec is no longer a prerequisite to winning a majority.
The Liberals are toast in the West outside inner Vancouver, Ralph Goodale’s seat, and a handful of Winnipeg seats (15 seats tops). It’s highly unlikely they’ll repeat their sweep of Atlantic Canada, but they can probably count on 25 seats. Even if they win 60 /75 seats in Quebec (up from the current 40), they are going to need to retain about 70 of their 80 seats in Ontario to hold their majority. Could be a tall order.
“Winning Quebec is no longer a prerequisite to winning a majority.”
I’ve always considered that to be Stephen Harper’s legacy. Before him, conventional wisdom said it was impossible to win without taking Quebec (and Quebec took full advantage of that, of course).
Fred,
More like demographics’ legacy.
“More like demographics’ legacy.”
Somewhat, yes…but he still took less seats in Quebec and more elsewhere. I remember when BC had only two million people…
I agree sometimes the polls are wrong. I think the Liberals number will be closer to 20% on E-day and Conservatives around 40-45%.
AV,
Nope.
All we need to know is that Trudeau is more disliked than Scheer. That is the government-making indicator.
I don’t think these polls mean anything. East coast riding, Liberal or NDP. Water cooler talking about Trudeau. Everyone kind of just assumes he’s toast. The nonchalant way in which everyone just dismisses his prospects is telling. He’s heading for a crushing defeat.
If change is the predominant mood then change – particularly in an FTP system- is what we will get.
The LPC has to make a stay the course argument. They have two potential candidates: the economy and the ‘virtue’ issues (lgbtq green etc etc)
The problem is voters who care about the first think the CPC can do a much better job and those who care about the latter have the greens and nd and bq that are better on message and haven’t got a questionable record/position.
Ditto east coast, ditto with my social circles. Although the ridings I interact with go blue, red, and orange.
It is always amusing that Nanos and Ekos always put the Liberals first in the lists in their reports, even when they are behind the Conservatives.
1,000 people by telephone, so old people with land lines. That probably still actually think the Sun is a real newspaper.
The three ‘mainstream’ parties are done.
A Green New Deal is coming.
I write for that newspaper!
“The three ‘mainstream’ parties are done.
A Green New Deal is coming.”
This is what happens when you use Twitter as your only news source.
Liam,
How the Greens break could hurt either major party. Lefties vs. Libertarian. Both are likely component parts of some Green support.
But if we vote on the change dynamic, unquestionably the CPC is helped the most.
When they knifed JWR and JP, they absolutely lost my vote even if I’m a party member.
I await instruction from the actions of those two people. Hope most of your readers do the same.
“two weeks is a lifetime in politics”. These polls are meaningless right now. Voters have the attention spans of a gnat.
If Climate Action is required to save our planet why wont the Liberals, NDP and Greens merge? Would seem to be the most logical next step. Wouldn’t serious climate action override ego’s and ambition?
The Liberals had a mandate to reform the electrical system so a merger wouldn’t be required, but they passed it up.
” but they passed it up.”
I love it.
Not “they broke their promise” or “they flip-flopped” or even “they lied”. No, they merely “passed it up”. Classic “move along now, nothing to see here…”
No need – “Climate action” is not required.
The general public is way ahead of the politicians on the issue.
Majority of Conservatives favour pollution pricing: poll
Yes, POLLUTION. We always have.
Nothing to do with CO2, which is not a pollutant at all (it’s a necessity of life, in fact).
How cute of abacus to use the term “pollution”. CO2 is not a pollutant.
Meanwhile there’s this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ontario-liberal-mp-october-election-1.5135722
Says CO2 is not a pollutant is a pathetic argument, even for a denialist.
The Liberals aren’t running on the environment because thier policies are weak compared To the NDP and Greeen party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant
NOT a pollutant.
And surely if you have any political IQ you know the power of words and phrases to skew polling results.
The Wikipedia page says, “A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values.”
There is nothing in that definition that excludes a substance that is naturally present in the environment. In fact that page mentions Carbon Dioxide as an example of a fund pollutant.
Would you consider a mountain on pig manure dumped into a stream not pollution because some wide animal manure ends up in a stream in its natural state?
Darwin O’Connor says:
May 16, 2019 at 1:06 pm
“The Wikipedia page says, “
Yeah, never quote Wikipedia if you want people to take you seriously.
Better then using a source that doesn’t support your argument.
We already got climate action. It’s called a carbon tax.
If you want more action on this file you’re welcome to pay my share.
Grits down by only 6, with the Greens carving up the Dippers? After five months during which Liberal disasters dominated the headlines? They’re not dead yet.
I totally agree. It is dangerous to underestimate Trudeau.
It is dangerous to underestimate the Trudeau brand, which is is unrelated to Justin Trudeau.
But don’t forget that Fife will be in overdrive: SNC, Norman, you name it.
MOE of 3.1% (for what that’s worth – see polling done for the AB provincial election) means if I understand it correctly the margin could be double that or non-existent.
Agreed they aren’t dead – I’m not aware of anyone who has said that – but the trend lines are very bad and the mood for change very high. I don’t see how the latter can be reversed and thus neither can the former…
Tod,
They are going to be like busting the Hoover Dam in the campaign. They’ll have enough incoming manila envelopes flying to wall paper the damned PMO and this is somehow supposed to help? Come again? It will be a daily grind down.