Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Pre-election peaks and doldrums, or, a lesson for Alf (UPDATED)

by Paul Wells on Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:56pm - 0 Comments

I’m mostly going to leave readers to draw their own conclusions about the latest epistle from Liberal Party president Alf Apps. His analyses of the press gallery and of his party’s leader constitute fair comment. But I admit I’m flummoxed that a Liberal official is still poring over polling data from between elections to seek comfort.

Here’s a secret about elections: they don’t happen between elections. Elections are almost always simultaneous with elections. So one thing people who are interested in politics — journalists, presidents of major political parties — should do is pay some attention to the way voter behaviour on election days compares to voters’ predictions of  their own behaviour when elections are distant and hypothetical.

To help, I’ve swiped a chart from the estimable Nanos Research, which shows party-support trends since 2002. (Pause.) Ok, for whatever reason, WordPress doesn’t want to insert the chart in this post, so just click on this link to load your own .pdf: Nanos trend

Now, just about the most reliable trend in the chart is that every time there’s been an election, Conservative support has jumped smartly upward while Liberal support declined as sharply. You see it happen in 2004, when what looked like a Liberal rout of the Conservatives turned into the loss of the Liberal majority. (Memory plays tricks. It was not at all clear, on the day Paul Martin dropped the writ, that his majority was even in danger, and when Jean Lapierre said several days into the campaign that he expected a Liberal minority, it was covered as a big gaffe.) You see it again in 2006, and you see it most spectacularly in 2008. But you also see it in the autumn of 2009, after Michael Ignatieff announced that Stephen Harper’s “time was up” and we seemed to be headed for an election.

As a rule of thumb, the Harper-era Conservative writ-period bounce seems to be about five percentage points or a little more. The Liberal writ-period decline is comparable. Which means if the two parties are tied in voter support on the day a campaign begins, the Liberals should, as a rule of thumb, expect to be 10 points behind when people actually vote. Right now the two parties are not tied.

Of course history isn’t fate. There will be elections where the Conservatives don’t benefit from a 10-point swing during the writ period. But if you’re writing an 18-page memo about polls sometime soon you might want to mention this very robust trend.

UPDATE, Sunday: Many commentators say three data points (2004, 2006, 2008) is a flimsy data set. Quite true. Here are two more. The 13th link from the bottom (“Update on the Federal Political Landscape”) from a list of old Ekos polls shows you an Ekos/Torstar poll from 2002; like Nanos, Ekos gives a longish time series of its party-preference polling. What kind of jumps out is that the two lowest troughs in Liberal support since the late 1990s are the two moments when Canadians actually voted: the 1997 election and the 2000 election. If anything, the combined swing illustrated by Liberal declines and PC/Reform/Alliance gains is more than 10 points.

So that’s five federal elections in a row, 1997 to 2008, where the trend is for the Liberals to bottom out and the (assorted conservative, then Conservative Party) opponent to have better results than recent polls had indicated. Note that this isn’t about “governments” dipping while “oppositions” gain: conservative parties posted writ-period gains against the Liberals without regard to which of them was in power.

I’m told this pattern goes back decades. I’m looking for confirmation.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

    There is no doubt that Harper is a talented and accomplished politician. I happen to thing he is a awful at governance and his accomplishments as PM are virtually noexistent, but his political talents are well documented.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/conservativereporter NB Tory Gal

      you are soooooo wrong…that it is not even worthy to reply…

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        What's been so awful about his governance?

        • Gayle

          The fact he has accomplished nothing?

          Just throwing it out there…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Even if that was true, why would that be so awful, especially for people who kept saying Harper and co. would ruin Canada? At least that would be an accomplishment, no?

            Now, I'm sure his defenders would argue differently, of course. They'd say that the economy is still one of the best among G8, the country is unified — despite predictions of horror on this front from Liberals et al — Harper gets things done at international conferences that matter, he kept his major platform promises, such as cutting the GST, etc. The country is not in shambles. Heck, he even saved us from an unelected coalition. Some might say that's not all bad, you know. Hardly "awful".

            Of course he's far from perfect. But "awful?" Some people seem to hate the guy simply because he threatens their politics.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

            hey Dennis,, no problem take the bone. At this point in time, Stephen Harper has not succeeded in ruining Canada. There I said it.

            That said, the days of endless surpluses are gone, federal provincial relations are in the tank, (as is Harper at many international photo-ops), Canada failed to bring any real international $ to its proposal for maternal health care, international leaders jest at Harper's expense, the Queen would rather speak with Ignatieff than Harper, Harper lied to the Atlantic provinces, lied about Kyoto, lied about fixed terms, lied about income trusts. After lying about Canada's fiscal situation throughout an election, and with the worst economic downturn of this generation facing us, Harper played politics, putting the country into shambles. Heck what more could a citizen want?

          • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

            [Ruining Canada] would be an accomplishment, no?

            I'm glad you've put that on record, Dennis. The Canada-hatred that prevails within the Harperoid base is rarely enunciated so brazenly. Thanks for that.

            … the economy is still one of the best among G8…

            …with Harper coasting on Chrétien/Martin-era fiscal achievements, while bloating our debt load.

            …the country is unified…

            …with Quebec now officially a "nation" (thanks to Harper's motion) and the BQ as strong as ever, with premiers resorting to taking the federal government to court, with the Minister of Finance pursuing a bizarre vendetta against Ontario, and with a Calgary audience wildly applauding Ann Coulter's stated wish to see Alberta become the 51st state.

            …Harper gets things done at international conferences…

            …being principally expert at ensuring that nothing gets done at international conferences, except in Toronto, where he spent over a billion in order to expose the world to a riot-torn Toronto and the crushing of Canadian civil liberties.

          • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

            …he kept his major platform promises…

            …except the truly major ones, like the promise to provide transparent and accountable government—with partisan patronage appointments continuing unabated, with hack senators being ushered into the Upper Chamber, with government continuing to grow ever more bloated, with Harper arrogating unprecedented power to the PMO and sealing it from public scrutiny, with public money being squandered on partisan CPC propaganda. And so on.

            Awful? That's a generous assessment, with which roughly 65% of Canadians appear to agree.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

            Cutting the GST is the only major campaign promise he managed to fulfill.

            He promised to make government more transparent and accountable. Passing a bill that reduces the accountability, even though it's called the Accountability Act, does not make that so.

            He promised to address the imbalance in transfer payments. Getting elected and then saying, "Oh, there's no imbalance" does not qualify as "addressing" the issue at all.

            He promised a national wait times system for Health Care. The fact that, as a nation, we're still waiting for any such type of system doesn't count.

            And tougher crime legislation? Harper himself killed that bill… twice.

          • wilson

            Acountability & Lobby Act; Afghan Mission Extension ( x 2) Manley Report; Softwood Lumber deal; Native Apology; Quebec is a Nation; Universal Childcare; GST reduction; passed Crime agenda; Immigration and Refugee reform; Residential School settlement/commission; Air India Inquiry; Land Claims settlements; Military Decade of Darkness reversed; Nahanni National Park expansion; Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement just to mention one of more than a dozen new international trade agreements; 3rd world maternal/child initiative.

            Tax Free Savings Account

          • Gayle

            Like I said. He accomplished nothing.

            Thanks wilson!

          • Observant

            And now we are witnessing the least like national party leader being bussed across Canada to help "reconnect" the Liberal party and Canadians .. by his own words.

            Does anybody really believe that the least like national party leader can "reconnect" Canadians with the Liberal party?

            Obviously, Iggnatieff does not blame the "disconnect" on his sterling leadership of the Liberal party. He is totally and fully blameless for the dire situation of the Liberal party … after all he was only domiciled in Canada for the last 5 years so how can anybody blame him for the Chretien years?!

            And now we are witnessing the Liberal party proudly presenting Iggnatieff to Canada as the saviour of the Liberal party. I feel sorry for Iggy's non-Canadian wife being dragged around the country on a mission of futility, and I bet she knows that too.

          • Gayle

            You know wilson. I have reconsidered. It takes a strong, strong man to take a surplus accumulated through the tough decisions made by another man and use it to buy votes through a tax cut.

            A strong, strong man indeed.

            Anyway…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            I will agree with you on the deficit. I'm happy about the tax cut but angry that it was not accompanied by a corresponding drop in government spending. But there is not a single government in the free world that has not run up huge deficits since the global recession. Federal, provincial, whatever…all are suffering.

            But in spite of all of that, no one can argue at this point that the Canadian economy is not the strongest in the G8. I fundamentally believe that if someone is on the hook for the blame if something goes wrong, then they are also entitled to the credit if it doesn't. If the Canadian economy were languishing then you and most of the rest of the macleans.ca rabble rousers would be all over Harper for it. But it isn't. We lead the G8 by a mile, so like it or not Harper deserves the credit for this. And it's even more impressive in the face of the continued devastation of the US economy that Obama is presiding over. I count this as probably his biggest achievement so far.

          • Gayle

            Thanks to those strong banking regulations, which in turn are thanks to Chretien and Martin.

            Harper is taking the credit, but he has not earned it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            BS Gayle. Harper has now been in power for well over 4 years. If that's too long a time to pass the blame onto somebody else (which it is), then it's too long to divert the credit too.

          • Gayle

            Except the recession began in 2008, and the cause was the unregulated banking system.

            Most people credit Canada's banking system for keeping us out of the worst of the recession. Chretien and Martin are responsible for that.

            Those are facts john.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            Exactly. The recession began in 2008, and you want to give the credit for the recovery from said recession to people who were defeated in 2005.

            Didn't anyone ever tell you it's unhealthy to drink that much Kool Aid?

          • BCer in Mtl

            Wasn't it Flaherty who claimed the GST cuts were a stimulus, even though they well preceded the recession?

            Didn't the current government make moves toward easing banking regulations to where they would have been similar to regulations in those jurisdictions that did have banking meltdowns?

            Dumb luck more than anything else.

          • Gayle

            I don't know about dumb luck. I think they realized pretty quick that things down south were collapsing, so they reversed themselves. They just won't admit it because they would also have to admit they were wrong, and Chretien and Martin were right.

          • Gayle

            Let us try this again.

            Fact: the reason Canada escaped the brunt of the recession is because the banks here are well regulated.

            Fact: the reason the banks are well regulated is because of decisions made by Chretien and Martin.

            And yes, I think sound economic planning means that you make decisions now to protect your economy in 10 years. If that were not true, it would be sound economic planning to start saving for retirement when you are 65 years old. Maybe that is how you plan to go, but personally I am making decisions now that I hope will benefit me in 20 years.

          • john g

            I love this argument.

            So Gayle, let me see if my obviously less developed conservative mind can understand…based on this logic, at the onset of the recession, the correct solution for Harper and co. would have been to do absolutely nothing, and just let the super-awesomeness of Chretien/Martin carry us through?

          • Gayle

            Try this one instead. Please find some independent economic analysis that says Harper and Flaherty saved us from the recession. Please note – said analysis cannot attribute Canada's fiscal health to the fact our banking system is highly regulated, nor can it refer to the surplus Harper inherited.

            Good luck.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            So no answer then?

            I'll ask again. At the onset of the recession, was the correct solution for Harper and co. to do absolutely nothing, and just let the super-awesomeness of Chretien/Martin carry us through?

          • Gayle

            Ha ha ha

            Your question implies Harper did something to save us from the recession. What exactly was that? As before, please link to sources that say the banks and the surplus were not major factors.

            Thanks

          • Gayle

            PS. You might forget this, but at the onset of the recession, Harper was still denying it even existed.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            Not forgetting that at all, and you'll get no argument from me that it was pathetic electioneering.

            But that's not the point and you know it. You've made the argument that the banking system regulations introduced by the super-awesome Liberal tag team of Chretien & Martin were solely responsible for our navigation through the recession. You're refusing to answer my question because it illustrates the ridiculousness of your premise.

            One more time…by that argument, would not the correct action for Harper to have taken would be to simply let the banking system regulation get us out of the recession, and not take any other action?

            Or would you like to climb down from this ridiculous position and acknowledge that just maybe, the 2 budgets passed by the Harper government might have played some small, ancillary role in our recovery?

          • Gayle

            First, at no point did I say it was the sole reason. Just a very big reason.

            Second, I have asked you to please tell me what Harper did to save us from the recession. I cannot answer your question until you answer mine.

            So please, for all our edification, tell me what Harper did to protect Canada from the effects of the recession.

            Thanks

          • john g

            Why can't you answer my question Gayle? If you truly believe your own argument then isn't it completely irrelevant what Harper has or hasn't done? The Liberals had already saved us, Harper's just along for the ride taking the credit…right? So whatever he did or didn't do, doesn't actually matter. Right?

          • Gayle

            Why don't you answer mine?

            Oh wait, I know why. Because you cannot point to one single thing Harper did that protected us from the recession.

            So, from your silence I deduce that you think the Harper government did absolutely nothing, which in turn would suggest they were correct to sit back and let the wise policies of their predecessors carry the day. Seems to me you answered your own question.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            Why don't you answer mine?

            Because your hypothesis is that Martin/Chretien saved us, not Harper. Ergo, your question is completely irrelevant to your hypothesis.

          • Gayle

            Ha ha ha.

            Let me take you back, way way back, to how this discussion began It began with this assertion from you:

            "We lead the G8 by a mile, so like it or not Harper deserves the credit for this."

            YOUR hypothesis is that Harper should take credit for our economy during the recession. Your problem is that you cannot say why.

            I, on the other hand, have been able to tell you what Chretien and Martin did.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            Fine. Since you've brought up my hypothesis I will answer in good faith. Let's see if you do the same.

            My answer is: I can't point to one single thing. No one could. Harper has passed 2 budgets that have committed on the order of $500B dollars of government operations. There have been initiatives like HRTC, infrastructure stimulus spending, recreational stimulus spending, etc., as well as whatever is usually in a budget. There are literally thousands upon thousands of commitments in those 2 documents…asking which one of these things was the magic bullet, or (even harder) which money was considered and NOT spent, misses the point. It's not one thing. It's everything collectively. They get the credit because they have been driving the bus for 5 years, and in the last of those 5 years Canada has outperformed the world in its recovery. In my mind, 5 years driving the bus is long enough to claim credit or blame for the success or failures of your government.

            That's it. It's really that simple.

            Now will you answer my question?

            At the onset of the recession, was the correct solution for Harper and co. to do absolutely nothing, and just let the super-awesomeness of Chretien/Martin carry us through?

          • Gayle

            Well it appears even by your own account, they did nothing that impacted the recession, so yes.

          • john g

            Finally.

            So you were a supporter of the 2008 fiscal update then? Other than the contentious item to remove party funding, it basically did exactly what you just recommended. You should have been cheering that document. Did you?

          • Gayle

            I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Maybe you should reread my comment and try again.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            You answered my question with a yes. Meaning you think Harper should have done nothing but let the awesomeness of C&M rule the day.

            That is basically what the fiscal update did in 2008, once Harper agreed to take out political financing reform. Nothing. Did you support that document?

          • Gayle

            No, but that is not relevant. Your question was based on alleged actions taken by Harper that protected us from the recession. Since nothing he did protected us from the recession, including the stimulus budget, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

            But that was a real ice try changing the subject.

          • Gayle

            PS. You might want to look below, where I link to a comment where Flaherty credits our financial system for our economic recovery.

            Not his budgets. Not HRTC, recreational stimulus spending, not any of the other thousands of commitments in his budgets.

            He credits our financial system. Our banks. That are highly regulated.

            So I guess he was absolutely and totally correct when he decided to do nothing to them (though he did actually loosen the regulations, briefly, but then wisely returned to the status quo).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

            The correct solution for Harper and co would have been stimulus spending, as they eventually did even though it took the threat of them losing power to a coalition to actually go through with it.

            The best solution would have been stimulus spending with a point — concentrated on better post-secondary institutions and research facilities, or on fixing needed aging infrastructure (as opposed to cutting trails through the woods for a snowmobile club)

          • s_c_f

            Fact: the reason Canada escaped the brunt of the recession is because the banks here are well regulated.

            Wrong.

            Fact: the reason Canada escaped the brunt of the recession is because of the GST tax cut stimulus at the exact moment the recession started.

          • Gayle

            Not even Flaherty agrees with that one. He also says it is the banking system.
            http://www.economist.com/node/16060113

            Jim Flaherty, the finance minister, attributes Canada’s strong performance to its “boring” financial system. Prodded by tight regulation, the banks were much more conservative in their lending than their American counterparts. Those that did dabble in subprime loans were able to withdraw quickly. This prudence kept a lid on house prices while those in America were soaring, but it paid off when the bust hit.

            For the other component of the country’s resilience—resurgent appetites for its exports of oil, gas, and minerals—Canadians have to thank policymakers in Beijing more than those in Ottawa.

            The government of Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, might have expected to receive more praise for the economy’s robust performance. If it has not, that may be partly because it insisted that the recession was imported from the outside world. Much of the country’s resilience stems from policies—such as bank regulation and sound public finances—which predate Mr Harper. The Bank of Canada can share some of the credit too.

          • Poker Face

            I'll bite on this:

            Name the decisions, policies, regulatory changes, and statutory amendments that Martin and Chretien made to the banking sector.

            If your methodology holds up here, Mulroney/Turner/Trudeau are getting the credit.

          • Gayle

            No.

            I will tell you about some of the decisions they made, for that was the only thing I referred to.

            That decision was to maintain tight regulations on the banking industry, even though people like Stephen Harper were arguing these regulations should be lifted. Martin continued with the tough regulations, and also refused to allow the banks to merge.

            Our banking industry has long been well regulated, however in the early 2000's there were attempts by the banks to merge, and calls for less regulation so they could compete in the global economy (Harper was one of the people who said that). Martin said no – and thank god he did.

            That really was not hard.

          • Observant

            Unfortunately for you, Iggnatieff doesn't have the economic chops to convince Canadians that he can do any better, let alone explain economic issues …. after all, he's only a Harvard professor specializing in British history and dabbles in human rights, Bush-style.

            Thank God that we have PM Harper, a leader educated in economics … and a proven Canadian leader and patriot …. while Iggy was writing books and creating TV programs for the BBC, until he left for the USA to become a "we Americans" patriot gushing his fealty for America on TV .. "it's your country as much as it is mine" (and thus renouncing his Canadian heritage) …. and "I love the American Constitution" … thus making him a republican. Wonder if one of his "hidden agendas" is to take Canada out of the "monarchy" and make it a Liberal Republic … together with a bower of olive leaves about his head.

          • Gayle

            Harper – a man willing to take credit for the tough decisions and strong actions taken by others. An economist who did not see the recession coming even when every other economist did.

            Yup. We sure are lucky.

          • Poker Face

            Name the decisions. Links to CanLII showing the dates of amendment would be appreciated.

          • Gayle

            Ummm what?

            I was unaware that decisions were in CanLii. At no point did I suggest the government passed legislation or regulations. Poor reading skills will not serve you well in law school.

            Maybe you are too young to remember this, but in 1992 the LPC inherited a huge deficit. Within a few years, after making some very tough decisions, that deficit was cut, and a new age of surplus budgets was born.

            At the same time, as I pointed out above, the government resisted pressure to lessen the regulations on the banking industry.

          • Brad Sallows

            >Fact: the reason the banks are well regulated is because of decisions made by Chretien and Martin.

            The question is whether those were decisions to "do" something significant, or to "not do" something significant. If the answer is the latter, it means the kudos for Canada's banking system falls to earlier governments. It doesn't take a great man to abstain from fouling something which already works well.

            The majority of Canada's fiscal improvement comes from falling interest rates and rapidly rising revenues. Governments since 1987 contributed by restraining spending, but the lion's share was more money in, and less debt charges out.

          • Gayle

            They were decisions made in the face of loosening regulations in the US and Europe, and in the face of harsh criticism from Stephen Harper, who felt such regulation was not necessary.

            So, yes, his decision to maintain tight regulations is significant, because clearly had the conservatives under Harper been in power those regulations would not have been maintained.

            There is also the little fact of the slaying of the deficit, and the creation of a surplus. This was no small feat.

            In any event, for more reading on the subject:
            http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm…
            http://www.piac.ca/financial/consumers_benefit_th…

          • Brad Sallows

            "Fact: the reason the banks are well regulated is because of decisions made by Chretien and Martin."

            If all they did is maintain tight regulations (ie. change little or nothing), then the fact our banks are well-regulated is not because of their decisions. I decided not to end the world today – such a momentous decision.

            Regarding the "slaying" of the deficit, avoid the advocacy think tanks and op-eds and go straight to the source: the Department of Finance's own figures. Revenues, spending, operating balances, debt charges, accumulated deficit – all there in black and white; easy to see the trends; easier still to plug into a spreadsheet and measure the changes in interest rates and revenue growth and the corresponding effect on the debt. Chretien and Martin stood on invisible shoulders.

          • Gayle

            You did not read the links, did you.

            Martin also passed bank regulations.

            In any event, a decision not to bow to pressure, a decision not to follow the lead of the US and Europe, a decision not to allow the expansions requested by the banks, are, in fact, decisions – and not the decisions Harper would have made were he Prime Minister at the time.

            But perhaps I should have written "the reason banks are STILL well regulated…"

            That, however, does not change the fact that Martin also passed regulations.

            But this has been a real super fun diversion from the fact that Harper had nothing to do with Canada coming out of the recession as well as we did.

            As for the rest, I see your little angle. You want me to avoid what the experts have to say and buy what you are selling instead.

            Interesting, but no.

          • Brad Sallows

            I can see where relying on the spin of others makes more sense than looking at the raw data yourself.

          • Gayle

            "The most rampant example of Liberal state corporatism lies in industrial policy. Despite the federal government's notional commitment to continental markets and the globalization of industry, much of Canada's industrial policy is aimed at the maintenance of traditional, nationally based industries. In broad areas such as communications, transportation, banking and agriculture, federal policy is designed to enhance the position of monopolistic or oligopolistic enterprises. Such an approach deprives Canadian consumers of the central benefit of a market economy — consumer choice through vigorous competition. In fact, consumers actually prop up some of our biggest corporations, providing hundreds of millions of dollars annually in subsidies, grants, guarantees and non-repayable loans. These policies generally manifest themselves under the guise of "industrial policy" — loans to Bombardier, de facto protection of Air Canada's quasi-monopoly of our air industry and the failure to adapt bank regulation to the needs and challenges of a financial sector that is less and less national, and more and more global." (Stephen Harper Op-Ed, National Post, Feb 8 2002)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

            Wow [mouth gaping open in reverential awe]! It actually looks pretty impressive when baled into a huge paratactic bolus!

            Let’s take a minute to metabolise the Napoleonic grandeur on offer here, people. Harper apologised to some folks, expanded a national park, got free trade with Panama (yes, Panama! Can Grenada be far behind?), and passed some flaccid, ineffectual, show-and-tell bills.

            Well, I'm convinced: Gladstone, Disraeli, Kennedy, Attlee, Pearson—eat your hearts out. Stevie's the Man. The Man…!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            The day the softwood lumber resolution is hailed as a victory is the day "winning" loses all meaning.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

            wow
            paratactic bolus

            had to look up both words
            well done!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            Gayle…..the sludge from the gulf oil spill has leaked onto this comment board.

          • Gayle

            Well there's a shock.

            Unable to deal with the actual argument, hollinm resorts to a personal attack.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

      Stewart_Smith…….you sir are smoking something that is not legal. Open your eyes and put the rose coloured glasses down. This comment is one of the most asinine you have made on these posts and there have been many.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    But if you’re writing an 18-page memo about polls sometime soon you might want to mention this very robust trend.

    Excellent point by Paul, and I'll add that if you're writing an 18-page memo about polls you probably shouldn't compare today's polls to historical polling data which has not been adjusted to factor out DK/Refuse data.

    Apps did this on page 5 of his memo, in an attempt to argue that the Liberals aren't currently at historical lows. But if his data is adjusted to exclude the DK/Refuse data, we see that the Liberals have actually been polling below their pre-2006 historic lows. Which kind of makes Apps's sunny optimism seem less credible.

    It's also odd that Apps wrote that Dion was the Liberal Leader in January 2006 and April 2006. The error is kind of shocking, when you think about it. Martin was the leader in January 2006, and Bill Graham was the interim leader in April 2006.

    Shouldn't the president of the Liberal Party be expected to know who led his own party four years ago?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

      You are right… time for a change! Tomorrow I will sign up with the Liberals… the next day I am putting your name in for the Presidential pond.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

        Stewart_Smith…..Apps has hurt his own credibility, Ignatieff's and the Liberal party with this diatribe.

        He and the party will pay for it big time. The parliamentary press gallery does not like their authority challenged. Watch for more negative columns on the Russian Count.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

    My money's on a slim (under 160 seats) Harper majority.

    But Apps is absolutely correct that Ignatieff can still win the next election.

    Campaigns matter.

    • Poker Face

      Yes, and the sinews of war are infinite money. From my perspective, Ignatieff would have to run a gaffe-free (and noticeable) campaign, while the Tories do the exact opposite.

      If this link is any indication, I'd be betting the house on another CPC government.
      http://www.punditsguide.ca/finances/?pane=1

      • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

        Say something pops up in mid-2011 that hobbles the Tories. Don't know what — maybe we head for a double-dip recession.

        Say that Harper commits a gaffe as big as the one at the end of the 2004 campaign.

        Picture a parliament of 130 Tories, 100 Liberals, 35 Dippers, and 42 Bloquistes, along with an independent MP somewhere out there.

        That's a 41st Parliament that could easily produce a Prime Minister Michael Ignatieff.

        It isn't so likely, but it totally could happen.

    • Observant

      Ibbitson in the G&M comments:
      Advisers say he is being coached on his delivery, and they believe he is improving. So sending the leader out on the road for a summer is also an exercise in helping him communicate better.The Liberals are betting the store on this six-week tour, which began Monday. In Peterborough, when Mr. Ignatieff had the fire in his belly, we remembered why the Liberal Party was so mesmerized by the possibilities of his leadership. At other stops, though, it felt more like a performance, the professor mimicking a preacher. The Liberals have five more weeks to turn Michael Ignatieff into a politician people trust.

      Dion couldn't communicate with Canadians for obvious reasons, and now Ignatieff is being "coached" on how to "communicate" better and "turn.. into a politician people trust"?! Iggy's been a Liberal MP for 4 years now, and he still has to learn how to be an acceptable politician??

      Does anybody believe a magical transformation can be achieved in a 6 week bust tour criss-crossing Canada? Will Iggy suddenly emerge as the Liberal's great white hope who will trash Harper in a Fall election?

      Or is it more likely that Harper and his attack ads will slapchop Iggy and then shamwow Liberals … and boost Conservative support to 40% … while Iggy sucks down the Liberals to 20% in the final voting polls?

      Looks like Iggy is following in Dion's footsteps … NOT a leader ..!!!!

  • Mulletaur

    Alf Apps is to Liberal strategy what Angelo Persichilli is to political journalism.

    • BCer in Mtl

      L. Ian Macdonald surely can challenge Persichilli

      • Mulletaur

        I don't know about that : Macdonald does actually get it right from time to time, Persichilli is very consistent, always and without exception missing the point.

  • Joffré

    No, you see, the foundations for an LPC victory are falling into place:
    -The LPC is near the CPC in the polls
    -People distrust the government
    -The Liberal leader benefits from low expectations of his performance
    -The Liberal leader is seasoned (nearly two years on the job!)

    All those conditions haven't been combined for the Liberal party since the 2008 election. Victory is certain.

    • Curt

      Better check your geographical distribution of present Liberal seats to find where they have room to grow.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    The most consistent numbers are the ones where the CPC is in the 32-36% range – while the Lib / NDP total stays around 47%. Add in the Greens and you go over 55%. Either way – any sort of pre-election agreement to maximize the effects of these three parties has potential to result in a super majority.
    Downside for Mr. Ignatieff – while the other parties would be amenable to a Liberal being PM in a coalition arrangement – it wouldn't be him – he is toxic!

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/rodcros rodcros

      Gawd, Wabbit: Toxic Michael is so last Thursday!

      That was before he brought the house down in Peterborough. And the guys on the bus have started reporting in, and they like it there and they like Michael. Read Matthew Pearson in The Citizen today.

      Apps is right in one regard: if the opinion makers have the narrative wrong, it won't stand up to sustained scrutiny. The Michael Ignatieff I interviewed on the bus this week is no priggish elitist. I definitely wanted to have a beer with the guy, and he wasn't a bit bothered by my off-the-wall questions. He just took his time and carefully answered them.

      What's more, the youth, energy, and technological expertise on that bus definitely impressed me.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

        Zsuzsanna? Is that you?

        • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/rodcros rodcros

          No, actually this is.
          http://rodcroskery.wordpress.com

          • Emily

            Good questions, interesting answers, nice lady.

            Thank you.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        That's funny because not everyone sees this "new Iggy" on the bus tour. Some people are still seeing the same old Iggy.

        • Gayle

          It's Ezra Levant. That's like saying Dennis F still doesn't like him.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            He posted Iggy's comments verbatim. Care to address any of it, or simply attack the messenger?

            For the record, I don't dislike Ignatieff. And, unlike the media, I still like to give people every chance to succeed, especially those who put themselves on the line for the big jobs.

          • Jan

            You are a saint, Dennis, you really are.

          • wilson

            Canadians don't have to like him, they have to trust him. Believe that he would be a competent leader.
            How many world leaders call themselves 'naughty'.
            Can you point out one position Iffy has taken that he has not reversed?

          • Gayle

            Who cares. Ezra Levant does not try to be anything but a conservative shill. Who cares if he thinks Ignatieff is not suited for the job as PM. That is kind of like saying Harper does not think Ignatieff should be PM.

            Or, to put it in a way you might understand a little better, it is like linking to a liberal blogger as evidence some people think Ignatieff should win the election.

      • Wascally Wabbit

        Really? The guys (and gal!) on the bus are there for one reason – THEY actually ARE boosters! If you hadn't got the message yet – the only REAL Liberal newspaper publisher – Torstar (with the exception of their columnist Susan Delacourt who seems to be trying to point fingers at Bob Rae for anything that comes out – presumably with Torstar Editorial Board blessing – from colleagues Travers, Hebert and Olive – that indicates that wiser minds than hers are finding a parachute to provide Mr. Ignatieff with a soft landing) – has decided to help solve the conumdrum that Canada and especially the Centre/ Left faces – a Liberal party led by a leader who a) cannot muster more than mid-20s in the polls (and they gave Stephan Dion the bums rush for that) b) turned his back on the grassroots c) Gave Stephen Harper 9 more months and counting to demolish democracy in this nation and d) welded shut the only short term option there is to get rid of Harper – an agreement / coalition with other opposition parties by in effect saying – come to my Big Red Tent – or else!
        Both Dumb AND VERY Arrogant in my book!

        • Wascally Wabbit

          Oops – bad copy editing above! Could you delete the one above please Mr. Wells.
          Really? Many of the guys (and gal!) on the bus actually ARE boosters! If you hadn't got the message yet – the only REAL Liberal newspaper publisher – Torstar (with the exception of their columnist Susan Delacourt who seems to be trying to point fingers at Bob Rae at the moment) via Ms. Delacourt's colleagues Travers, Hebert and Olive – have posted recent columns or blogs that indicate that wiser minds than hers are finding a parachute to provide Mr. Ignatieff with a soft landing) – Torstar and others have decided to help solve the conundrum that Canada and especially the Centre/ Left faces – a Liberal party led by a leader who a) cannot muster more than mid-20s in the polls (and they gave Stephan Dion the bums rush for that) b) turned his back on the grassroots c) Gave Stephen Harper 9 more months and counting to demolish democracy in this nation and d) welded shut the only short term option there is to get rid of Harper – an agreement / coalition with other opposition parties by in effect saying – come to my Big Red Tent – or else!
          Both Dumb AND VERY Arrogant in my book!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

      And yet the process of opening that box up kills the cat….or was it dead before the box was opened. You'll never know.

  • Emily

    This whole episode is as dumb as a sack of hammers, to quote another Liberal.

    From the bus trip to the ridiculous image it's promoting of Iggy to the 'data'.

  • Observant

    Liberals are in a deep defensive panic mode, and Iggy's Bust Tour is just a rear guard action in a desperate and futile attempt to staunch the declining Liberal political significance. Come the next election, Harper will be easily able to boost Conservative party polling by 5% .. while Iggy will suck down Liberal party support by 5+%.

    Harper will be asking Canadians to elect a majority Conservative gov't in the next election, so that Canada has a strong and stable gov't to combat the looming economic challenges attacking Canada from global forces invading our nation.

    Canadians will have to choose between a majority Harper Conservative gov't … or a Lib-Dip-Sep coalition gov't attempting to steer Canada's economy and led by Harvard history professor Dr. Iggnatieff and Finance Minister JackoLayton …{{{shudder}}}

    Choose, Canada … Harper or Iggnatieff … order or chaos … Conservatives or Coalition Troika Junta …!!!!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

      Someone must have struck a nerve with you to conjure coalition fearmongering again.

      • albertaclipper

        With the world economy as jittery as it is, a strong Conservative majority as opposed to a coalition with three separate ideologies trying to run this country, fighting amongst themselves, I'm thinking that the major countries in the world would rather see the Conservatives running the show here. You install a pizza party in as government here in Canada and you can add a C to PIGS.

        • Gayle

          Why in the world would you think other countries would prefer a Conservative government? Haven't you been following Harper's international coverage?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Yeah. He got pretty good coverage for his achievements at the G8/G20, didn't he? Nobody blames him for the violence except his political enemies.

          • Gayle

            Irrelevant.

            The question is why would other world leaders prefer a Harper government. If your answer is that Harper cannot be blamed for the G8 violence, then I think you better go back and try again.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            It's more than that Gayle.

            With the exception of the couple of ill-advised partisan shots Harper has taken at the opposition at a few international events, he has been an excellent performer on the world stage, and I believe he is genuinely respected by his peers. See here for an example (although it's dated a little bit).

          • Gayle

            It is more than a bit dated.

            But that does not answer the question – why would world leaders (not some people being asked by a Canadian pollster who they admire), prefer Harper?

            His has done nothing but obstruct any meaningful progress on climate change.

            The greatest thing Canada has done was regulate the banking industry, which resulted in our country avoiding the brunt of the economic collapse. But that was not done by Harper, who apparently wanted to deregulate the banking industry. That was done by Chretien and Martin.

            So again I ask – why would world leaders prefer a Harper majority in Canada?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

            Well it was you that pointed out international press coverage. Where do you think these people are getting their opinions of Harper, from their overseas National Post subscriptions? You'll note in that poll that Harper's lowest popularity score was in Canada.

          • Gayle

            Sigh.

            So no answer then?

          • BCer in Mtl

            I don't see how you can claim from that poll respect from his peers, this is just a poll taken of residents:

            "Methodology: Online interviews with 400 adults in each of these countries: Britain, China, India, Israel, Italy, Russia, Turkey, and the United States; and 1,005 adults in Canada, conducted from Oct. 22 to Nov. 1, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent for Canada, and 4 per cent for all other countries."

          • NorthernPoV

            "He got pretty good coverage for his achievements at the G8/G20, didn't he"
            spin control:
            like all of these lousy G8/G20 boondoggles
            it was ignored in the international press, including America
            virtually no front page coverage
            - appropriate as there was no news except a "hockey riot" followed by a "cop riot"

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Yes, the usual suspects want to focus on the violence. Lord forbid Harper get any credit for a very well run set of conferences.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

            Not surprising that you'd prefer to focus on process rather than results. What exactly did Canada get for it's $ billion plus investment and the suspension of civil liberties in downtown Toronto?

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        Why in the world isn't the coalition a real possibility? They tried to sneak one in the last time. Why wouldn't they do it again? Heck, Iggy even admitted recently it could happen, and many in his party, including Bob Rae and Jean Chretien, no less, have been agitating for one.

        Funny how the same people who keep telling us that an unelected coalition would have been the best thing for us, kind of like electoral broccoli, are the same people who tell us it's completely off the table in any upcoming election. You expect us to swallow that, pardon the pun?

        • Observant

          Hey, DennisF …. Expect the Iggy Summer Bust Tour to be aborted and he abdicates the Liberal throne "for the good of the Liberal party". The Liberals anticipating a snap Fall election will install BobRae as their next leader … as a matter of natural succession … and then either the Opposition vote no confidence in September or October precipitating an election … or Harper will simply pull the plug on his gov't and ask Canadians for a majority Conservative gov't vote of confidence.

          If Harper gets his majority gov't, we will have electoral peace for 4 years, guaranteed … but if it's another minority gov't of say 150 seats, the BobRae Liberals and JackoLayton Dippers will most certainly attempt to cobble together another Troika Coalition Junta with the Duceppe separatists and a vote of no confidence at the earliest opportunity.

          Canadian politics will get really unstable for the Opposition parties this Fall … and it's gonna be interesting times.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

          I didn't say the coalition wasn't a possibility. In fact, I'm pretty sure I modified that noun pretty clearly – "fearmongering". That's what I take issue with.

          A Liberal-NDP coalition would not mean the end of the world. Reasonable people can disagree on how things should be run in a country, and it's about time partisans accepted that. A Liberal government, or Coalition, or anything-other-than-Conservatives-in-power does not, in and of itself, qualify as being a "junta". And frankly, the reference is laughable, given the ability of any one party to stick to its ideals.

          And as for "global forces invading our nation", keep your eyes on the A section of your papers, because I"m pretty sure Conservatives are just as keen to encourage foreign investment in Canada as any other party. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the Conservatives who put forward (and passed, oddly enough) legislation to sell off AECL, reduce the teeth on EAs (so that more foreign companies could begin building, faster), and to privatize at least part of Canada Post.

          • Observant

            A "Liberal-NDP coalition" is in truth a "Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal" axis of evil … and this coalition junta dependent on Quebec separatist support would forcefully divide the country. The West and Ontario outside of Toronto would rebel and reject that authority. Quebec separatist would love it, and the Maritimers would cry at the loss of their golden goose. Such a coalition junta gov't would collapse in the face of active rebellion.. proclaiming that the "Toronto traitors" and the Quebec separatists are in cahoots to destroy Canada .. believe it.

            Yes … I would be part of any rebellion against a covertly-created devious coalition junta gov't … and those in our midst who would support such an evil creation would have to come out in the open to support such an illicit gov't shored up by Quebec separatists. I bet nobody will show their faces for the shame and in fear..!!!

          • Jan

            Thinking of taking up arms, are you Observant?

          • Observant

            Yes … arms if necessary, but not necessarily arms …!!!

          • Dave

            I've been to Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa, and haven't seen much sign of evil.

            Apart from Satan smoking up outside the public library in Westmount that one time.

          • http://www.zombo.com Out There

            A "Liberal-NDP coalition" is in truth a "Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal" axis of evil

            proclaiming that the "Toronto traitors" and the Quebec separatists are in cahoots to destroy Canada

            I know that, in some parts of the country, hating Toronto is the social norm – but this is a bit much. We're not that bad, honest.

            Also – there are people in the West who vote Liberal (though there aren't that many of them, and they probably tend to keep quiet because they have neighbours who talk like you). When your rebellion starts, are you going to deport these people to Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal?

            One of the problems that this country faces is that the electorate is so polarized. For every person like you who believes that a Liberal/NDP coalition, if it ever came to pass, would be the Most Horrible Thing ever, there is at least one person who finds the idea of a Harper majority too horrible to contemplate.

          • Observant

            Every Liberal voter out West would be disgusted and repulsed by a coalition junta power grab … spearheaded by Toronto Iggnatief, Toronto Layton and Montreal Duceppe … and would summarily renounce and denounce the Liberal party for having entered into such an unholy alliance … believe it.

          • Poker Face

            Actually Ottawa pretty well splits itself between libs and cons (if polls are any indication)
            Vancouver is more like it.

      • hollinm

        LynnTo……trust me the coalition is going to be the dominant issue in the next election. Its not fearmongering because it was actually attempted by a coalition of the losers. Canadians outside of Quebec will have to decide do they want a leader who has done a good job or a human rights professor, talk show host running the country. They will continue with the guy who has led the country for the past 4 years.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/DZulu Dave Z.

          It's a sad reflection on our politics when being a human rights professor is somehow considered a demeaning profession. There are several reasonable arguments as to why Ignatieff might be unfit to lead the country, but that he taught at Harvard is certainly not one of them.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

            A coalition wont be the main issue in the next election, people dont vote on that issue….but what will influence some significant number is how each side handles that question. Evasiveness and trying to be too clever by the Liberals will get them into trouble. The Conservatoves can overplay the issue. Most Canadians dont care about it as a main issue until the elction is over…..then, as always it will be about "legitimacy", and that is something that is difficult to pre judge. Like art, you know it when you see it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            VinceClortho………..many Canadians were shocked at the attempted coalition of fools in 2008. It did not seem right that a coalition of losers would try to defeat the government a mere 6 weeks after a national election.

            The polls reflected that concern. So Harper legitimately raised the alarm bells about what the opposition parties were doing. Harper will continuously remind Canadians during the next campaign that the opposition denied wanting to form a coalition during the last campaign and low and behold there is evidence that Jack and Gilles had been plotting a coalition even before the election.

            So Harper will remind Canadians that anything other than a majority Conservative government will result in continuous political instability and we need one party managing the country in these uncertain times rather than two/three parties with competing interests.

            This will be a powerful argument with a vast majority of Canadians who live outside of Quebec and they instinctively will know that if we want a majority government we will need to offset the votes for the Bloc in the rest of Canada.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/E_B_ E_B_

            I was more shocked by the games Harper chose to play so soon after an election, when he still didn't have a majority. I don't remember anything in the campaign about destroying the political opposition.

            I was more shocked that politicians, who should have known better, suggested that the defeat of a minority government was equivalent to Treason.

            I was depressed to see the number of people that bought in to this claptrap. It was a sad day for democracy, the way this played out.

            It is also sad that this stupidity still has legs.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            E_B_ You are being disingenous. I agree that the proposal to eliminate the party financing should have been debated and not put in the update. Having said that Harper agreed to remove the offending legislation but the coalition of fools say this an excuse to remove Harper and install themselves as the government.

            However, there was something wrong when the governing party received a larger mandate (12 seats short of a majority) just six weeks before and had not had an opportunity to present a budget. The economic update was not a budget.

            We all know now that Layton and Duceppe had been planning the coalition even before the 2008 was called. Dion being the weak leader he was got fished into the mess because he was weak.

            Coalitions are legitimate when one party receiveing the largest number of votes combines with a party who receives a less number of votes but combined have a majority of the seats. Thats what happened in Britain.

            .

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            E_B_ hollinm continued….
            To suggest that all the losers in an election can simply ban together and defeat the government under the prevailing circumstances in 2008 is just simply not how a coalition is suppose to be formed. Adding the Bloc in who wants to break up the country was an affront to Canadians in the rest of Canada.

            So you can complain but Jean/Harper did the country a favour and if the opposition tries it again then there will be a similar cry by the public.

            If the Libs want to form a coalition then they better win more seats than the Conservatives. That is the only way the public will buy into the coalition idea.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/E_B_ E_B_

            Hollinm,

            I don't believe I am being disingenuous, and I fundamentally disagree with you. I was also unaware that there were rules that state "How a coalition is suppose to be formed." Could you send me a link to those rules?

            I really don't want to get in to an argument about the 'coalition' of 2008. In a democracy, the government rules so long as it has confidence. If it does not have confidence the government falls. At that point, one of two things is supposed to happen: an election is called, or the opposition is afforded an opportunity to try to set up a government. It is as simple as that, and does not involve an act of treason.

            What happened in 2008 made a mockery of our democratic institution; members of our government trying to convince the people that treason was being committed. Outrageous.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/RunningGag RunningGag

            What happened in 2008 made a mockery of our democratic institution; members of our government trying to convince the people that treason was being committed. Outrageous.

            Exactly.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            Dave Z…….it is not the problem that he was a humans right professor and you know it. The fact is he spent 34 years out of the country and then suddenly arrives on the scene and expects to become PM. Talk about wanting to start at the top.

            If Ignatieff had come back and done his time and worked hard for the party and the country few would criticize his absence. However, that did not happen. He ran for leader right after he came back, got defeated and then worked to undermine and defeat Dion.

            Having been appointed to the leaders job he demonstrated he did not have the leadership ability to lead his own party and Canadians watching him over the last 18 mos. have said they do not like his leadership abilities and therefore reject him for the job of PM.

            He has proven time and again he is not a politician. He has been a human rights professor, author and a talk show host. He knows nothing about economics and hence very seldom says anything to address the economic issues facing the country.

          • Observant

            When newly-minted Liberal leader Iggy was questioned by the media about the just tabled gov't Budget, Iggy retorted "I would need a doctorate in economics to understand it!!" … which reveals his academic mindset … he is a Harvard history professor and book writer/reader, and that's about it. He is not competent to lead the Liberal party nor Canada. He's a pathetic interloper with a sordid past political record and personal life. He is a lapsed Canadian attempting to be a born again Canadian.. and is being politely rejected by Canadians in polling on leadership.

            Iggy has returned to Canada and is devoid of any political promise other than being dressed in Liberal drag .. and expecting that's enough to vault him to being PM of Canada. He expects Canadians to bask in the afterglow of his great achievements outside of Canada and reward him after only residing in Canada for 5 years of the last 40 years of his life. He has contributed NOTHING to the Canadian body politic, but aspires to be PM of Canada as his birthright and with the support of certain Bay Street/UCC Liberal chums.

            Iggnatieff is a joke being perpetrated on Canadians, and still the Liberal faithful promote him as a superior politician and leader .. all because he has a big 'L' on his forehead. If Iggy lasts beyond August on his silly tour intended only to rally the Liberal grassroots faithful for an election, I shall be surprised at the utter desperation and stupidity of the Liberal party.

            To put it bluntly, Michael Iggnatieff is NOT worthy to be PM of Canada, by any measure. Withdraw, sir !!!

          • Jan

            I can only assume by the size of the knot you've tied yourself into, you don't believe a word your saying. It's obvious you see Iggy as a threat to Harper.

        • http://www.zombo.com Out There

          trust me the coalition is going to be the dominant issue in the next election

          I expect that the Conservatives will try to make a coalition the dominant issue, since undoubtedly they will raise the spectre of a "coalition with the separatists" at every conceivable opportunity. This will ensure that the Conservatives won't have to actually offer up a platform or anything like that.

          • Observant

            The Libbies, Dippies and Seps have defined themselves through their blatant attempt to seize power through their ill-fated coalition troika junta …. and come the next election, they will have to wear that infamy as Canadians judge them for what they are … power grubbing opportunists of the worst kind …!!!!

  • orval

    The problem with "national" polls such as this is that they are contaminated with "cross Canada" numbers for the Bloc Quebecois. Knowing that the BQ would "win" 10% nationally is meaningless.

    Polls have to be divided into 2 separate polls, RoC and Quebec only, to be believe-able. I think only Strategic Counsel does this?

    Otherwise, what Paul Wells says is true: campaigns matter. Every poll question starts with a lie: "if an election was held today…"

    • Dave

      Funny; I hear a sentence starting with the word "if", and I think, "premise", not "lie".

      • orval

        Paul's point is that on election day many people vote differently than what they say they would vote "if an election were held today". If today is not Election day, whether that untruth is a lie or a premise, what the polled person says is mostly meaningless.

        Enjoyed the nostalgia trip looking at the Ekos slides that our posted linked to. It seems incredible that, less than 7 years ago, during Dec 03 (when Paul Martin became PM), the Liberals were 55.5% nationally, while all "conservative" parties (PC and Alliance) were 23.2%.

        • Dave

          I agree with you completely, except where you confuse a premise with a lie.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/rodcros rodcros

    Believe this if that's what it takes to get through the night, but don't write it down where someone can make you eat it later. Give the bus tour a month. Things may change.

  • Jamie

    While the details of the Apps piece are obviously flawed, the intent is right: push back agressively against the silly media narrative that Ignatieff is doomed.

    Yep, he's doomed just like Stephen Harper was in Opposition. He's doomed just like Jean Chretien was in Opposition. He's doomed just like McGuinty in Ontario and Campbell in BC when they were opposition leaders who LOST election campaigns.

    Elections matter very much, especially if you are an Opposition Leader who has been written off by a lickspittle press corps.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

      I wish I lived in this world of yours where the Parliamentary press corps is Harper lickspittles.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        I wish I lived in Ted's world, too.

        It's easy to find examples of successful politicians who were prematurely written off by the media. It's even easier to find examples of unsuccessful politicians who were written off by the media.

        My guess is that Ignatieff will belong to the latter category.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

      Jamie…..the old days are gone. The Libs are going nowhere in Quebec which was where their major support outside of Ontario was. The GTA is being invaded by the Conservatives and other than a few seats in Vancouver Ignatieff and the Libs are not even on the map in the West. So tell me what will change the prospects for the Libs. A bus tour? I don't think so.
      However, if you like to buy into the narrative that suddenly all those leadership polls showing Ignatieff coming in behind Layton is going to change then have at it.

      • Dave

        I'm pretty sure that Quebec hasn't been the Liberals' major support base outside of Ontario since 1980. That's thirty years and nine elections ago, with the possible exception of the 2000 Liberal eruption into that swath of swing seats that the Harper Party now holds.

  • jay

    Another rule of thumb seems to be that when it looks like Mr. Harper is going to get a majority his numbers drop. It must be frustrating for the angriest white male in Canada to keep hitting a glass ceiling.

    • TSa

      why does race matter? and what has Harper ever done to portray the public or private image of an angry man? if anything he is kind of unemotional…which isn't necessarily a bad quality for a leader in turbulent times such as these…
      you are grasping at straws and parroting a meme that the left wing media has been putting out for quite some time. however, you have little proof to back up your claims.

  • David

    I was of the impression that Mr Wells thought the number on who would make the best PM were more important than party polling numbers and I believe Mr Harper has everyone beat on those numbers. That being said i can not find them online.

  • Halo_Override

    When I opened the page, my eyes leapt down before I had looked at the header. But the moment I read Here’s a secret about elections: they don’t happen between elections. Elections are almost always simultaneous with elections, I knew without doubt it was Paul.

    (Edit: I just imagined those lines delivered in a Derek Zoolander voice. Pure gold. I should stalk Wells on twitter more often.)

  • Gaunilon

    "His analyses of the press gallery and of his party’s leader constitute fair comment. But I admit I’m flummoxed that a Liberal official is still poring over polling data from between elections to seek comfort."

    The thing is, if a journalist publishes an analysis of a political party and its leader, the goal is to present an accurate picture of the way things are (one hopes). But when a party president publishes such an analysis, the goal is to nudge the picture held in the minds of the public towards a favorable view of his party and its leader.

    You can tell what he thinks of his situation by how accurately he tries to portray it: more accuracy means he likes the way it is; less accuracy means he wants it to be something else. In this case I think we can conclude that he's in damage-control mode.

    • Crit_Reasoning

      In this case I think we can conclude that he's in damage-control mode.

      When a party president is trying to argue that his party isn't at its lowest point ever in the polls, and he has to fudge the numbers in order to make his case, I think it's safe to conclude that yes, he's in damage-control mode.

  • Peter

    Polls in BC in particular inflate Liberal support. I think this is in part because of label confusion, even though pollsters presumably always mention leaders' names. Provincial politics in BC, as in Quebec, is the main focus. MPs often tell me there's a lot of confusion during door-knocking about whether the soliciting MP is federal or provincial. People will instinctively tell a pollster "I'm a Liberal" on the coast because they detest the other choice, the NDP. As we know the Liberals are the right-of-centre party in BC, and federally a huge chunk of this bloc (Liberal/Socred) has always voted Conservative federally. There is a similar issue in Quebec — You might easily have the instinctive "I'm a Liberal" answer to a pollster because you support the Liberals provincially — because of policies, because you fear a PQ govt, and the NDP isn't an option. Federally, the game changes and you could choose the NDP, or even the Bloc to defend Quebec's interests without getting the instability and stress of a PQ government.

    I think as a general rule if you are a conservative provincially you will have a very hard time voting Liberal nationally, except perhaps in Atlantic Canada. The opposite is most definitely not the case.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

      The opposite is most definitely not the case.

      Are you sure small "l" liberals in Ontario (pro-gay-marriage, pro-choice, anti-Afghan-war, etc) have ever been tempted to flock to Harper's CPC?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

        The most vociferous of that category are more likely to vote NDP in Ontario. Centrists who voted for McGuinty because he seemed like a boringly competent manager, on the other hand, could certainly vote for Harper for the same reason.

    • Dave

      Federal-Liberal-poll-inflation in BC predates the (re)-emergence of a competitive provincial party by that name by several decades. Name confusion is not the issue.

  • Dot

    I'm waiting for Dean del Mastro's analysis before commenting. I hear he's taken statistics at University.

    • Gayle

      LOL

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

    While I agree that Apps is clutching at straws on this one I believe Well's has overstated the counter case. Just like elections dont happen until there is one, "trends" are true until they aren't. I dont see any permanent condition that makes this collection of obervations a fixture on the scene.

    What I would say is that they are a reflection of badly organized and eroding Liberal Party machine. The extent that the erosion of the Liberal Party infrastructure contines or doesnt reverse itself will drive the effect Wells points out. Howeer, at some point you will reach hard centre, like the PC's in the late 90's. No matter what they continued to get their hard base.

    • Gayle

      My view is that Ignatieff is trying to rebuild this machine. They cannot go out there and openly declare the Liberal Party is broken and we need to fix it. They have to continue to give people a reason to donate and vote, but that does not mean they do not recognize the need for rebuilding.

      I really do not like Ignatieff, but I have to say I respect the fact he is working on the party. He has been out to Edmonton several times, even though the crowds here are very small indeed. To me that says he is acknowledging the need to reach out, even in hostile environments, in order to build a liberal base.

      So he will take flack, but in the long run I think he is doing the right thing.

    • Kaplan

      Completely agree with this observation. Well stated.

  • hosertohoosier

    It does go back a long way. CORA has some Environics polls going back to the 1970's which certainly provide support. I know 1993 works in favour of the theory (for the Reform party, which surged). I strongly suspect 1984 and 1988 would confirm the theory as well, since Mulroney was not polling that well in those elections. 1980 works as well, based on the polls Jeffrey Simpson refers to in Discipline of Power. So there is evidence of this trend going back to at least 1979.

    • Brendan Kane

      1979-Most polls (the few that there were) from before & during the election showed a neck-and-neck race. The last Gallup before voting day had a tie.
      1980-Most of the Gallup polls from late 1979 to the election had the Liberals with around a 20 point lead
      1984-The Tories had a significant lead during1982, a huuuge lead during 1983. After Turner was elected leader the Liberals briefly led. Then the debates happened.
      1988-From the summer of 1987 through 1988 there was for the most part polling parity between the 3 main parties. Right before the writ was dropped, however, the Tories were now a clear 1st & the NDP a clear 3rd. Then after the election was called the the Liberals fell behind the NDP. Then the debates happened.
      1993- From 1990 until Mulroney quit, the Tories were nowhere. Then the NDP started to decline from late 1991 I think. The Tories surged briefly into the lead with "Kimmie" mania. Then the Conservatives declined during the campaign due to Reform & the BQ . The Liberals were in the mid to high 30s until the very end of the campaign when they climbed over 40.

      • hosertohoosier

        I think the Tory split sheds some light on the nature of the trend. The Reform/Alliance party experienced a pronounced election announcement boost. The PC's tended to gain during the campaign (Charest in Quebec, Clark after the debates), but this is attributable more to their strong performance. It is hard to say the same about Manning or Day, both of whom ran lousy and often mocked campaigns.

        I think that it has to do with a particular subset of voters that consider themselves to be "not very political" and hence avoid polls. At the same time, these voters hold values that are fairly consistent with small "c" conservative principles, like support for lower taxes or tough-on-crime policies. In Australia, these were John Howard's battlers, in Canada these are the people Harper was talking to with his "on your side" messaging. Generally I suspect these are male, working class voters with some college education. Through the 90's these folks were much more likely to side with the populist Reform party over the patrician Progressive Conservatives.

  • bergkamp

    "I’m told this pattern goes back decades. I’m looking for confirmation."

    When I read this post yesterday, I was thinking that Cons doing better than predicted is phenomenon that happens in other Anglo countries as well and has been occurring for decades. I did quick google search that wasn't very thorough to confirm/refute my belief but did not find anything.

    I remember reading article years ago that said some Cons claim to be Libs/NDP supporters because left wing and how they talk about saving the world is appealing. People don't want to be thought of as not caring for the children, or somesuch, and so claim to be left wing in polls/surveys/talking to friends but they vote Con.

    I would swear the article I read said something like Cons/Repubs will do 3-5% better than expected because some people are afraid to admit their affiliations.

    • Pulsetaker

      "I would swear the article I read said something like Cons/Repubs will do 3-5% better than expected because some people are afraid to admit their affiliations. "

      Except that in last year's US presidential election Obama beat McCain by EXACTLY the margin that all the final polls predicted. There was a lot of speculation that there were all these hidden Republican votes who didn't want to admit to pollsters that they were voting for McCain – but none of that ever materialized. Also, in the 2000 election in the US, all the final polls projected that Bush would win by several points. Gore ended up actually winning the popular vote.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      It's a rather well-documented thing in the US. The fact that the generic congressional support for repubs/dems in the US is tied right now is seen as a very bad omen for the dems.

      In the US, elections are always close, somewhere in the range of 45-55% for each party. Yet traditionally, twice as many have claimed to be dems as repubs. And in 1994, when Repubs won a wide congressional majority, apparently the polls were showing that Repub membership still below Dem membership, but the gap was smaller.

      So it does appear that the phenomenon is alive in the US.

      I suspect it may be because of a few things, one of them being that younger people are less conservative but also vote less. And also that in general, the types of people who are less conservative are also the types of people less likely to vote.

    • Kelvin

      The Pom pollsters have a term for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor

      • Orson Bean

        I've read about this too, and it makes sense to me. Especially in urban Canada, it's seen as fashionable and trendy to be Liberal or "Progressive". I also find as a general rule (there certainly are exceptions), that left-leaning people are far more likely to wear their politics on their sleeves. I noticed this big-time in university. Based on the sentiments of the very vocal people who would put their hands up and drive discussions during lectures, and based on the chatter in the student newspapers, you would have thought that practically everyone was left-wing. Yet when I would have private, candid conversations over beers with my classmates, I would discover that that was not the case.

        • hosertohoosier

          I don't disagree with you that this is a plausible explanation, but I don't think the evidence supports it (I also think that the left-leaning discussions are influenced by instructors who pontificate (or perhaps students assume their professors are all left wing – not a bad assumption).

          If its a shy Tory phenomena (something that is real and impacts things like exit polls), then we should see a ballot box bounce. However, we do not consistently see such a trend in Canadian politics. In the US it is harder to evaluate – the Republicans usually do have an early campaign season bounce, but that is because of the timing of their convention. Moreover, it would probably be accurate to describe the entire year before an election as campaign season.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

        Thank you, Kelvin. It has been bothering me for a couple of days and you have provided some useful info.

        Orson B – I have experienced similar situations. It is amazing how many people have a quiet word with me about their beliefs because they are scared to admit out loud what they think and don't want agro with left wing types who think everyone who disagrees with them is sexist, racist, homophobic …..

  • Brendan Kane

    Regarding the graph on the Nanos site. Remember that Nanos publicly released no national polls prior to April 2004, or between Feb 2006 & Feb 2008. Also the graph does not reflect the fact that he had the Conservatives in the lead in his April 2005 poll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_t…

  • Brendan Kane

    "Which means if the two parties are tied in voter support on the day a campaign begins, the Liberals should, as a rule of thumb, expect to be 10 points behind when people actually vote."

    In 2008 the campaign began on September 7. On that day the Conservatives led by between 3% & 18% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_t…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      That's a fair point. It's also true that, "on the day a campaign begins," many voters have already begun to engage with the prospect of an election and start to pick party preferences. In July of 2008 the Liberals were doing much better than on Sept. 7, and better still than when the election happened. So I should have phrased it more like, "shortly before a campaign begins" or "in the runup to a writ drop."

  • Anon Liberal

    With regards to PW's update: I wonder if a connection can be made to the Quebec provincial level. There too the polls seem to consistently underestimate Liberal Party of Quebec support with surprising results at election times (remember in Quebec the Liberals usually represent the "right" of the political spectrum).

    Analysts in Quebec have speculated this is because people are reluctant to tell pollsters that they are federalists due to the social stigma attached to the label (among francophones). Perhaps people are also reluctant to admit they are conservative?

    • Brendan Kane

      I think what happens in Quebec is strictly turnout. Older people, those with higher income (who tend to be Federalist) vote in a higher % than the young & those with a lower income (who tend to support the PQ)

      • Anon Liberal

        Good point Brendan. Maybe that explains the federal results too. Don't the Harperites have disproportionate support among older (grumpier) Canadians?

    • matt

      I wonder if a similar trend can be seen in "battleground Ontario's" provincial ridings?

  • Amateur Hour

    Another interpretation may be: Each time an election has been held, the pollsters' intra-election results have proven to be consistently inaccurate.

    If indeed intra-election polling is not an accurate trend-line measure, election day results can't be said to be moving towards or away from it.

    Such a view may call into question the certainty of Mr. Well's contention that CPC support spikes and Liberal support ebbs whenever an election is held. It's quite possible that party support levels on voting day are what they are, quite independent of what the pollsters have predicted.

    • TSa

      they may be consistently inaccurate, but they are consistently inaccurate in the same directions (low for CONS, high for LIBS), which is a sort of consistency in itself.

      I'd surmmise that its because LIB supporters are more talk than action (hence the higher assumed support, which doesnt translate well into votes on election day) , while CONS are more action than talk (on election day they will support the CONS, because what are the alternatives?) …this may seem overly simplistic, but often the simple answer is the right one.

  • wilson

    Maybe conservative voters think the same of polsters as they do the long form census, so are under-stated.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

      Ha! very good.

      Seriously though, the hypothesis out of the US was that there was always an under representation of GOP voters (broadly conservative) in the polls in the last few decades. I cant find the studies for the moment. The reasons ranged from, a tendency to not answer their phone, to being less available by phone during the week

      This is of course different from Wells' theory, that there is a conservative bounce in a campaign due to better ability to campaign. I would be willing to buy into a theory of some type of measurenment error re conservative voters, but it would have to be consistent undercounting of the likely cons voter versus an undercount of the swing voter.

      I remember the cons having a good ground game even in the 70's, although I was but a small lad I heard the stories later. If there is a long trend then who am I to argue with the existence of it, lets discuss causes.

From Macleans