Saturday, January 21, 2006

Canada Election 2006: Jan. 21 Seat projections (Strategic Counsel / IPSOS / EKOS)

Here is the latest seat projections based on three recent polls that I have aggregated to produce a projection based upon a mega-sample.

Poll 1: IPSOS Jan. 17-19 (2000)
Poll 2: EKOS Jan. 16-19 (3251)
Poll 3: Strategic Counsel Jan. 17,18,19 (1500)
Total sample size: 6751


The seat breakdown goes something like this:

Conservatives: 131
Liberals: 81
NDP: 33
Bloc: 64


  • In Quebec, the Liberals get 5 seats; the Tories gain 6 seats.
  • In Ontario, the battle is neck and neck. The Tories edge out the Liberals for some seats 46-43. The NDP gain 17.
  • In Alberta, the map is painted completely blue.
  • In BC, the Tories have 20 seats, compared to 8 seats for the NDP and Liberals. Personally, I think the Liberals won't get 8 seats. They would be lucky to get 5 seats. When I do my final prediction, I will make some regional tweaks.
  • In the Atlantic, the Tories come out with 11 seats compared to 18 for the Grits. - Bet on Tory minority

Here is your daily crack, provided by EKOS:
"Nationally, the Tories enjoy the support of 37.1 per cent of decided voters compared with 26.9 per cent for Paul Martin's Liberals, 19.5 per cent for the New Democrats of Jack Layton, 11.5 for the Bloc Québécois led by Gilles Duceppe and 4.6 for the Green Party led by Jim Harris. The undecided vote stood at 16 per cent."

In Ontario, home to 106 seats and the Liberals' electoral stronghold since 1993, the Tories are in a statistical dead heat with the governing party.EKOS interviewed 967 people in Ontario and found 35.8 per cent support for the Tories, 33.4 for the Liberals, 24.3 for the NDP, and 6.3 per cent for the Greens.The percentage of undecided was 14.3. The results are considered accurate to within 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
And here is IPSOS:
PC 38% Lib 26% NDP 19% Bloc 11% Green 5%
Strategic Counsel:
  • Conservatives: 38 (+1)
  • Liberals: 28 (same)
  • NDP: 17 (+1)
  • Bloc: 11 (same)
  • Green: 7 (same)
With any luck, I should have seat projections out today once IPSOS, Strategic Counsel, and EKOS release their regional tables. Stay tuned.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Canada Election 2006: Michael Moore breaks Canadian law

It was bound to happen sooner or later - Michael Moore's ritual of Canadian electoral interference. Next time Moore comes to Canada, he should be charged with violating the Canada Elections Act s. 331:

331. No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is

(a) a Canadian citizen; or

(b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

2000, c. 9, s. 331; 2001, c. 27, s. 211.

Michael Moore publicly announced this statement today:

Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right?


These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C'mon, where's your Canadian pride? I mean, if you're going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don't surrender so easily. Can't you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete's sake.

But seriously, I know you're not going to elect a guy who should really be running for governor of Utah. Whew! I knew it! You almost had me there. Very funny. Don't do that again. God, I love you, you crazy cold wonderful neighbors to my north. Don't ever change.

Michael Moore

Could it be any more clear that Moore is inducing people not to vote for Stephen Harper, a guy who should be running for governor of Utah, not the Prime Minister of Canada? As Moore is not a Canadian citizen, he is not entitled by Canadian law to influence this election. For all those free speech types out there, this is seen as a restriction of right. Sure, it may be. But it is the law. And for all those who respect the rule of law should have no problem condemning Moore. After all, the elections laws have so far held up in Court, with the Courts saying that the government has a right to restrict freedom of speech in an election (specifically, the restriction of publishing Atlantic results in the BC time zone before our polls close). As long as this ridiculous law is in place, people like Moore ought to be charged when they come up with Canada.

Otherwise, the law becomes a farce.

Algorithm detects Canadian politicians' spin

Stephen Harper: 73
Jack Layton: 88
Paul Martin: 124

According to a new deception-detecting computer algorithm developed at Queen's University, Paul Martin spins the most of the candidates.

Developers define spin as “text or speech where the apparent meaning is not the true belief of the person saying or writing it”.

The program analyzes text for the diminished use of personal pronouns, among other things.

New Scientist has the details on this breaking news.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Canada Election 2006: Jan. 20 EKOS poll

Friday, January 20; - The fight for Ontario begins:
"A new tracking survey by EKOS Research Associations done yesterday for the Star and La Presse found the Tories at 37.4 per cent support nationally, the Liberals at 27.3 per cent, the NDP at 20.8 per cent, the Bloc Québécois at 10.1 per cent and the Green party at 3.9. There were 835 people surveyed yesterday, and the poll's margin of error is 3.4 percentage points."

Martin fumbles Canada's Supreme Court

In the midst of a stunning display of stupidity.... Just when I thought I saw the depths of 'Martin's' stupidity.....I was shocked yet again.

The new issue? The courts.

Topic of dicussion? Political appointments.

Sorry Martin, but you don't have the 'best' track record when it comes to any kind of appointments...

Cronyism is a word which has splattered Martin's "division of powers" policy (if you can call it that) since the first day he stepped into office. The roots go deep for Martin; considering his predecessor (Cretien) his struggle is of no suprise (he learned from the best).

Even some Law professors decry Supreme Court appointments--made by Liberal governments--as being politically (or at least ideologically) motivated.

'[Martin] accused Harper of planning to stack the courts with socially conservative judges if he wins. He said this is of particular concern to women, given that there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court[....Martin said:]"Given his comments, would Stephen Harper restrict his search to candidates who share his political views? Who agree that[...]judges are too socially activist?"'

Well goodness, I sure hope so!!!!

So, is Martin saying that he wants to appoint "socially active" judges?

It is funny that Martin is being contradictory: "I don't want judges who are going to force a socially conservative agenda" (i.e. be 'socially active' in a 'socially conservative way'). BUT simultaneously: "I don't want Stephen Harper to seek to rid the court of 'socially activist' judges......"

If Martin is confident that the decisions made by the court recently will stand the test of time, then he should not be concerned with Harper. Harper wants to rid the court of 'social activism' and make the appointment process more transparent and based on merit. Harper wants to take the power of Supreme Court appointment out of his hands and place it in a more public and democratic system (something Martin was unable to do--as evidenced by the laughability of his 'experimental' appointment system).

If Martin thinks the latest Supreme Court decisions are proper (in a modern liberal democracy, such as our own), then Harper's changes will only fortify those decisions! What a guy....

Lest we forget that it was the Conservative members on the 'vetting' committee (giving 'recommendations' for Supreme Court appointment candidates) who said that the opaqueness of the system hindered them from being able to render a recommendation.

Lest we forget that it is a part of the Conservative platform to reform the Senate (and other federally appointed bodies) to increase the openness and accountability in the appointment process--i.e. to avoid 'stacking the deck'.

Rather than try to scare the public into thinking that Harper will act too much like a Liberal (i.e. cronyism and political appointments), Martin should make sure that Harper does what he is promising to do: make the government accountable.

Once again it seems that Martin's accusations are completely unfounded.

But the most disturbing thing is not that Martin is continually being caught in contradictions, lies and nonsense in his campaign, but that he thinks Canadians are stupid enough to believe him.

.....What a guy.....

Written by Blair
Still thriving off those subversive Liberal attack ads.

Allegations of sabotage

Global has picked up the Liberal possible-defamation story:
"Vellacott calls the allegations of the 'worst order,' but to be expected from a Liberal campaign in its 'dying days.'

And it is typical of the Liberal campaign on a national basis.

'This is the kind of dirty tricks they are up to,' he said. 'They will try to malign people’s good character, people’s good name and reputation all to the end of winning an electoral seat. And I don’t play that way.'

The 'scurrilous' behaviour must be responded to, he added. 'I anticipate to be in public life for some years down the road and I will not allow this kind of defamatory stuff (to) happen in my name and in my reputation, for the sake of our campaign team, for the sake of staff members, for the sake of my precious wife, my two married children, and my two young boys,' Vellacott said. 'I will not tolerate that kind of stuff.'

In a press release issued late Thursday Axworthy called the comments deplorable and offered his heartfelt apologies to Vellacott.

He also pointed to the heavy traffic around his campaign office and said it is possible that a 'mischief maker' entered the office and used one of its phones."

How can we trust an MP who can't even protect his office to protect the public's trust in office? Sheesh.

Liberal speechwriter discredits polls

Paul Martin's speechwriter, Scott Feschuk discredits all recent polls. Some would say he is living in a dream world. Others would point to the fact that he is in Paul Martin's 'circle of fantasy' as an explanation for his disconnection with reality.
"Two: About the polls. Some say we're a fair bit behind. Others say we're not far behind at all. The point is: aren't the polls supposed to be, you know, kinda the same? On account of how they're based on numbers and math and all that? I'm just saying.

Semi-relevant anecdote: A decade ago, back when I worked at The Globe, I spent a night at a polling firm in Toronto. I sat in a room where I could listen in on any of the 36 lines as people answered political poll questions. Over the course of two hours, I lost much of my faith in the 'science' of public opinion research. I heard people at home who were barely listening to the questions as their kids screamed in the background. I heard employees of the polling firm who correctly pronounced maybe half the names in the survey. And I heard a huge number of potential repondents hang up and refuse to participate at all. And I remember saying to my host for the evening: 'Governments actually base their decisions on the results of THIS process??!' He flashed me his Rolex, which I took to mean: 'Apparently so.'

This is not to impugn the integrity or the methodology of today's polling firms. But they were wrong by a lot last time. And someone is going to be wrong by a lot this time. And there's only so many times you can fail before people start to question your reputation."

Canada Election 2006: Liberals libel Conservative candidate!

This just in. The story I doubt the mainstream media will pick up (but should):
Tuesday night on Shaw Cable, a caller phoned in falsely accusing front-runner Conservative incumbent MP Maurice Vellacott of sexually assaulting his church secretary at North Park Church. The technicians who have no 7 second delay cut the call off. Vellacott responded quickly by looking directly into the camera, stating to the technicians that he needed to get the name and phone number of that caller for defamation proceedings.

After the cable show ended, Vellacott was handed the requested phone number by Shaw Cable producer Gracie Field. Upon arrival back at his campaign office he was told that a person had reported in and was 100% confident that it was the voice of George Laliberte. The caller maliciously and falsely accused Vellacott of being “removed from North Park Church because you were charged with sexual assault” on his church secretary. Laliberte is a friend of Chris Axworthy’s and apparently owes Axworthy some favours. When the ... number provided by the Shaw Cable staff member was dialed, it was found to be Chris Axworthy’s campaign office phone number.

Note that
Vellacott has never been accused by any woman of sexual assault and was never a Pastor at North Park Church or ever in attendance there.
UPDATE: Nealenews is picking this is LifeSite.

POST-UPDATE: Andrew Coyne has more on this.

Election 2006: Jan. 19 SES poll

A new SES Research/CPAC poll has just come out. The details are here.

Conservatives: 37.0
Liberals: 30.7
NDP: 16.6
Bloc: 10.7

Points of interest in the poll:
  • Tories lead in the Atlantic by 10
  • Cons are holding steady across Canada.
  • The last Liberal bastion is Ontario...where they trail the Tories by a point.
  • Harper leads the Best PM category by 6 points. Martin trails.

Is Brison in trouble?

Don Martin on the campaign trail:
"On unrelated biz, we should note Calgary MP Lee Richardson's contribution to the growing odds of a Conservative tsunami causing some unexpected casualties. He went down to Nova Scotia last week with a $10,000 cheque from his buds to help the Conservative rival defeat turncoat Liberal Scott Brison. By sheer coincidence, the best blog election prediction site ( moved that riding from a safe Liberal seat into the too close to call category the same week. With Brison ailing and Belinda Stronach in trouble and Victoria's Keith Martin a life or death struggle, being a Liberal might mean wishing you could say you're Tory again in just nine more days. Gotta go. The plane's leaving."

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

The Globe and Mail: Michael Ignatieff watch

The Globe and Mail: Will the Conservatives school Ignatieff?:
"Liberal polling shows Mr. Ignatieff is running ahead of Conservative businessman John Capobianco, but his lead is within the margin of error, said a Liberal source who agreed to speak only on background. He described the race as 'neck and neck.'"

Canada Election 2006: My analysis with 5 days to go

The election is only days away. Martin seems to be doing his usual self-destructing with Buzz Hargrove. Layton is...well...AWOL. And Harper seems to be reacting too much to the media speculation on a variety of topics.

Harper needs to stop this dance the media is engaging him in, and re-announce his policies. He needs to remind people of his 5 priorities. Each day on, he needs to hammer crime, corruption, accountability, and tax promises.
  • Harper must refuse to engage himself on issues like same-sex marriage.
  • He must challenge Martin on the notwithstanding clause.
  • Harper must voters that a vote for him is a vote against the GST.
  • He must remind people of his $1200 child allowance.
  • Harper must hammer mandatory minimum sentences.
  • This is the time to recap the campaign: to remind voters why they are voting for him, as opposed for voting for the Liberals.
Conservatives need to stay on message; that means Harper needs to redirect creative reporter questions in a variety of topics into his thesis. He must make his answers fit his themes. If not, he will appear disorganized.

As SES pollster Nik Nanos said on Mike Duffy's show on CTV today: "Less emphasis by the conservatives on their platform likely takes some of the wind out of the Tory sails."

As a result, people will ask themselves, "why am I voting for Harper again?" They need something to hang on to. Something to bring with them to the ballot box. Going 'positive' means being given something concrete - something evidential.

The reason the Conservatives need something "concrete" is to combat fear. The typical fear people have is fear of the unknown. Fear of the mysterious.

Undecided voters break for the incumbant because they are comfortable with the status quo; they aren't afraid of what they are familiar with. Conservatives need something to replace this fear of the unknown. They need solid evidence to combat fears at the ballot box. Harper needs to re-announce his policy and hammer them home.

They have brought him this far. And they can take him over the top on Monday.

Canada Election 2006: Foreign press reviews Canadian election

The Miama Herald compares Harper to Bush:
The Conservative Party, which supports policies similar to the Bush administration's, appeared unstoppable Wednesday as it surged in the polls only five days before Canadians elect a new government.
But Harper has largely kept his ultraconservative views to himself, and his handlers have successfully portrayed him as a moderate who will work for the middle class.

has 'frequently asked questions' about the election and predicts a Tory majority:
Who might win?

Opinion polls taken at the time the election was called suggested the Liberal Party was likely to return to office, although still as a minority government.

However, the Conservative Party has steadily gained momentum and support, and a recent opinion poll by the Strategic Counsel placed it 13 percentage points ahead of the Liberals.

If the surveys are correct, the CPC could head the government for the first time in more than 10 years, with a stable majority.

USA Today interviews a University of Toronto professor, Stephen Clarkson, who may or may not be behind those anti-American Liberal ads. In fact, his quote is uncanny in its similarity to those Liberal attack ads, suggesting a Harper win will put a smile on Bush's face:

Harper's platform is viewed as more in tandem with that of the Bush administration, which has found little support among ordinary Canadians or Martin's administration. Canadians have largely praised the embattled Martin for standing up to the White House on such issues as missile defense, Iraq and lumber tariffs.

"The White House, they'll be delighted," Clarkson predicted, should Harper win.

The negative ads this time around have backfired as Harper keeps hammering on several Liberal Party corruption scandals and calling for change, a mantra that many Canadians have taken up. He's kept his ultraconservative views to himself and his handlers have successfully portrayed him as a moderate who will work for the middle class of Ontario, the country's most populous province and a Liberal Party stronghold.

The Huffington Post, produces this original mantra: for the love of God, don't vote for the Cons! Vote for Gore!!! er...I mean Martin:

Canadian progressives, please don't make the same mistake we did in 2000. Vote with your head, not your heart. The NDP can't win, and an ethically challenged, moderately progressive party is a better choice than a socially conservative party embraced in the halls of business and by members of evangelical megachurches.

I know the choice is not appealing, but to me, it is clear. Vote Liberal, and keep Martin around.

HARPER KILLS KITTENS: The United Kingdom's Guardian says that this election campaign is different. Canadians aren't being bullied around anymore. They fully understand that Harper will kill kittens if elected:

The Conservatives surged during the 2004 campaign as well, but the Liberals were able to frighten Canadians about what the rightwingers would do in power. That scare tactic doesn't appear to be working this time.

The Liberal advertisements link Mr Harper to rightwing groups in the United States, and say he will cosy up to the US president, George W Bush, who is despised by many Canadians. This time around, the Liberal attack ads have prompted parodies, including a fake internet campaign that says Mr Harper kills kittens. (According to a front-page profile in the Globe and Mail on Saturday, he was so distraught when his own cat was struck by a car and killed that his staff sent him a condolence card.)
The Liberals are frantically campaigning, and are hoping Mr Harper and the Conservatives have peaked too soon. If Canadians fear the Conservatives might win a majority rather then a minority, they may change their minds about how they will vote. But, after almost 13 years of Liberal rule, Canadians appear ready to give Mr Harper the chance he has been waiting for.

Time Magazine: Who you calling a Bush lover? Sounds like a grown up version of the children's game, "not it!":
There have been times in habitually left-leaning Canada when the suggestion that a politician took money from U.S. conservatives would have been enough to seal victory for the other guy. So when strategists for the ruling Liberal Party unveiled 12 schlock-horror ads last week, three of which linked Harper to "right-wingers in the U.S." (read: the Bush Administration), they may have thought they had pulled off a political masterstroke. Never mind that the charges are at best misleading. This is election time in Canada, and truth gets as much respect as a mouse cornered by a hungry cat.

Even Prime Minister Paul Martin descended into the muck last week, all but branding his opponent an alien from outer space, or at least Texas. "The farthest of the U.S. far right--that's what [he] means when he says it's time for a change in Canada," Martin told supporters in Toronto. "Well, let me tell you something ... That's not the kind of change that Canadians want. America is our neighbor. It is not our nation."

But Canada may not be quite what it used to be. Polls indicate that despite the anti-U.S. attacks, Conservatives are likely to be the big winners in the Jan. 23 federal vote.

Globe and Mail hides 'rogue poll'

Buried on A7...the shocking 18 point Tory lead. Nowhere to be found on the front page.

The Globe and Mail: Allan Gregg discusses the Tory surge in the polls

The Globe and Mail: Allan Gregg discusses the Tory surge in the polls:
"Allan Gregg, managing partner of The Strategic Counsel, will be on-line Wednesday at 2 p.m. EST to take your questions on the latest trends in the Jan. 23 election campaign according to the extensive daily polling his company is doing for The Globe and CTV News."

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Globe and Mail/Strategic Counsel/CTV: Conservatives take 18-point lead, poll shows

I guess Warren Kinsella may be a very wrong man. He said this on his blog 12 days ago:
"every Canadian who is not comatose understands that Harper can't form a majority government, even if he wants to, and he does. Paul Martin's top-notch handling of the Quebec file means federalism is hooped in la belle province for the forseeable future. The numbers for a majority aren't there. Folks know that."
Hooped? Try revived. What a difference 12 days makes:

[Nationally:] Here are the parties' diverging paths revealed by The Strategic Counsel's tracking poll, conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail (change, in percentage points, from the Jan. 12, 14-15 poll in brackets):

  • Conservatives: 42 per cent (+2)
  • Liberals: 24 per cent (-3)
  • NDP: 17 per cent (+1)
  • Bloc Quebecois: 12 per cent (+1)
  • Greens: 5 per cent (-1)

In Quebec, the Liberals appear to be heading towards collapse as the federalist vote consolidates with the Tories (change, in percentage points, from the Jan. 12, 14-15 poll in brackets):

  • Bloc Quebecois: 47 per cent (+2)
  • Conservatives: 31 per cent (+4)
  • Liberals: 12 per cent (-5)
  • NDP: 7 per cent (-1)
  • Greens: 3 per cent (unchanged)

The collapse is occurring both in Montreal, a traditional Liberal stronghold, and outside the province's largest city.

In Montreal, the Liberals sit at just 17 per cent -- a six-point drop from the poll released Monday. The Conservatives are up to 23 per cent, but the Bloc has 52 per cent support.

Outside Montreal, the Liberals are down to seven per cent (they captured 25 per cent of the vote in the 2004 vote). The Conservatives are up to 38 per cent, about four times their vote share in 2004. That puts them within five points of the Bloc.

On the question of momentum, 76 per cent of Quebec respondents said the Tories had the most, while only 12 per cent picked the Bloc. Only three per cent picked the Liberals

That number is the same as the percentage of Liberal supporters in all of Quebec. Talk about living in fantasy.

Canada Election 2006 Jan. 17: Tories take an 18 point lead over the Liberals and Mail/Strategic Counsel/CTV:
"New poll numbers from the Strategic Counsel Tuesday that give the Conservatives 42 per cent support among decided voters -- compared to 24 per cent for the Liberals ..."

Stunning. Simply, stunning. Full regional numbers will be out by CTV in a few hours.

Canada Election 2006: Jan. 17 SES poll

The new 3-day SES Research/CPAC daily tracking poll of 1200 people is out:

Conservatives: 37%
Liberals: 30%
NDP: 18%
Bloc: 10%

And, if you haven't already seen it, the new Decima poll in Quebec, 0f 2,492 voters, is quite the shocker:

Conservatives: 28%
Liberals: 14%
NDP: 9%
Bloc: 45%

Among sovereigntists responding to the poll, 80% said they would vote for the Bloc next Monday, 12% said they would cast a Tory ballot, 3% intended to vote NDP and 2% were planning to vote Liberal.

But one revealing finding was that 49% of sovereigntist respondents who indicated they were not fully decided or could change their mind said they were seriously considering voting Tory or might think seriously about it.

In fact, 24% of sovereigntists in the poll said they would be more likely to vote Conservative if they became convinced the Tories could win a majority.

Stephen Harper's hidden agenda.

Please, please, please.....let this be Stephen Harper's hidden agenda. Let us hope what he told Mansbridge in 2004 applies now.

Election 2004:: Harper commits to modernizing government: "Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would modernize government so that the prime minister doesn't become 'a dictator for four years', he told an hour-long town hall on CBC.

Harper told the audience of selected questioners that he wants to change the fashion in which Supreme Court of Canada justices are chosen, saying he would seek input from the provinces." - What websites they weave

On the Conservative websitee:
"Another innovative twist are the animated, message-laden e-cards you can send, 10 at a time, to undecided or decidedly non-Conservative associates. This reporter picked one out and sent it to himself. Perhaps it was a Star anti-spam firewall that prevented it from arriving, but others will no doubt suspect it was intercepted as part of a big-L conspiracy at a small-L newspaper."

Sounds like a conspiracy indeed. - Liberals scramble to curb losses

There can be no coalition with those who want corporate tax cuts! End of story. - Liberals scramble to curb losses:
"Prime Minister Paul Martin is asking New Democrat voters to form a 'coalition' at the ballot box next week to avert a Conservative government and save Canada's social programs.

'There's got to be a coalition of progressive voters,' Martin said in an interview with CBC TV yesterday."

Conservative juggernaut will crush Canada's ruling Liberals; Martin about to be tossed salad

Telegraph | News | Conservative juggernaut will crush Canada's ruling Liberals, polls predict:
"Amid growing signals of panic in the Liberal ranks, the party has launched a series of crudely anti-American commercials. One stated that victory for the 47-year-old Tory leader, Stephen Harper, would 'bring a smile to George W Bush's face'.

Another described Mr Harper as 'pro-Iraqi war, anti-Kyoto, socially conservative... Bush's new best friend'.

But despite strong anti-Americanism among voters, the adverts have had little effect on the polls. Voters appear far more concerned about domestic issues such as corruption. The Conservatives have already promised not to send troops to Iraq.

Liberal sources have begun briefing journalists about widespread internal dissent. One Liberal told the Toronto Star that Mr Martin, in office since December 2003, would pay the price for a failed campaign.

'He'll be out of here on election night,' he told the paper."

Monday, January 16, 2006

Canada Election 2006 Jan. 16 Seat Projection: IPSOS/Strategic Counsel/EKOS polls

This week's Potent Pew seat projection based on samples from Jan.10-12, 14 are out. It is based on an aggregate sample of 4545 people during that time. They show the following distributions:

Conservatives: 152
Liberals: 69
NDP: 22
Bloc: 65

This is not all far from Strategic Counsel's own projection based on their polling, which shows

Liberals: 74
NDP: 21
Bloc: 60

The Conservatives are right on the bubble of a majority. Here are some interesting tidbits in the Pew's projections:
  • Conservatives take 6 seats in Quebec.
  • Conservatives have 65 seats in Ontario, with 29 seats for the Liberals.
  • Liberals take 17 seats east of Ontario, with 15 of those coming from BC.
  • The NDP only takes 2 seats in BC. I admit that this is lower than what will actually happen. I expect at least 4, at the bare minimum, seats going to the NDP in BC come election night. The provincial numbers for the NDP are really slipping though. As in, three polls show the NDP between 22-25 percent.

Conservative Party - Home stretch

Home stretch:
"Another (completely unscientific) sign that we’ve got momentum heading into this home stretch is that we’ve been getting more honks – lots more – when driving in the buses. Not knowing exactly what to make of all the extra attention, we’re taking it as a sign of support (especially the double honks – BEEP BEEP), which clearly means you’ve seen our TV ads)."

The thing about honks: you never know if they are honking with you, or honking at you. Given the nature of the TV ads, though, I am willing to bet it is support. Unless, of course, the bus drivers are notoriously bad.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Telegraph | News | Canada asks Ignatieff: Are you one of us?

Michael Ignatieff has been feeling the heat all election. First, bypassing the nomination process, angering hundreds of card-carrying Liberals. Now, in a new Telegraph article, he realizes that the way the National Liberal campaign has been run may have an effect on the ballot box. Something he knows is "clearly an issue."

Further, Ignatieff calls Martin "a great leader," while qualifying that he does not have leadership aspirations as his own. While his priority now may be to "win his seat," the way Ignatieff speaks of the leadership question clearly does not preclude him from seeking the Liberal leadership after this election.

On a related note, it almost seems stunning that months ago, Martin won his party's leadership contest with 94% of the vote. Looking back at that time, this assessment by a senior Liberal member looks dated and overly idealistic: "A senior official told The Globe that Martin is expected to deliver a tax-cut budget in the spring of 2006, and then call a budget on it -- a move meant to secure a majority win for the Liberals."

Secure a majority, eh? Martin will be grateful to secure his own seat!

Michael Ignatieff in the Telegraph:

Canada asks Ignatieff: Are you one of us?
By Philip Sherwell in Toronto
(Filed: 15/01/2006)

Michael Ignatieff speaks to voters
Michael Ignatieff seeks backing from voters

Mr Ignatieff had been widely tipped as a future Liberal leader after his surprise entry into the fray. That might explain his willingness to trade his chair in human rights at Harvard University for a backwater in western Toronto, a mixed district of wealthy mansions, poor housing estates and big eastern European communities. But he told the Sunday Telegraph last week that the leadership question had "no place on the table and is in any case very presumptuous as we already have a great leader". His only priority now, he said, was to win his seat. That race has proved more bruising than he might have imagined when a group of Liberal party grandees urged him to run. Liberal support is sliding across the country - they trail the Conservatives by up to 10 per cent - and his intellectual pedigree is haunting as much as helping his campaign.


His party played its own "American card" last week as it tried to stem tumbling public support, releasing a series of advertisements tying Mr Harper to the US. Even with a 9,000 majority to defend, Mr Ignatieff is aware his deeply held opinions combined with the Liberals' national woes could cause him problems at the ballot box. "It's clearly an issue but I guess I won't know how much of one until January 23," he said.

"But these questions are really a stalking horse for something else. People are really asking 'Is he one of us?' "