newsonaut
Turning inner space into outer space
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Blue Tide overwhelms Orange Crush
In the end, my prediction for yesterday’s vote in Kamloops Thompson Cariboo — based on the trend of the past three elections — was fairly close.
I figured both the Conservatives and the NDP would build, about equally, on past support. As it turns out, they did both build — although the Conservatives were much more successful than the NDP.
I also predicted support for the Liberals would continue to fall and that the Greens would overtake them. The Liberals did indeed drop, but so did the Greens. Still, they managed to finish ahead of the Liberals by .1 per cent.
What does this mean for the next election? Unless there is some major scandal for the Conservatives, or the NDP performs exceptionally well as the Official Opposition, the Tories have a lock on this riding.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Monday, May 2, 2011
It's going down to the wire
The election in Kamloops could be a lot closer than many of us thought.
The latest projection from threehundredeight.com shows the Conservatives winning, but not by much. With all the latest polls in, the Tories are expected to take 42.7 per cent and the NDP 41.1 per cent. That’s a difference of only 1.6 per cent.
I’m still inclined to predict that Cathy McLeod will hang in there and win, but there could be enough movement toward Michael Crawford to make it a real nail-biter.
In any case, with the numbers this close, you’ve got more incentive than ever to get out and vote.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Friday, April 29, 2011
Blog predicts Tories will hold onto Kamloops
A blog called ThreeHundredEight.com has election outcome projections not only for Canada as a whole, but for every riding in the country — including Kamloops Thompson Cariboo. I’m not sure where they get their data from, because I’m not aware of any polling done here.
In any case, they predict the Conservatives will take Kamloops once again, with 44 per cent of the vote. That would be down slightly from 2008 when the Tories received 46.15 per cent. The NDP is projected to take 37.6 per cent — up a bit from 35.88 in 2008.
This jives with my own prediction based on trends in the last three elections. Support for the NDP is on the comeback in Kamloops, but not enough to win.
ThreeHundredEight.com goes on to predict a modest increase in support for the Liberals to 10.5 per cent from 9.84 per cent. They say the Greens will drop to seven per cent from 8.11 per cent. I’m more inclined to forecast that the Greens will continue to build on their support and surpass the Liberals. But it could be that the drop in support for the Conservatives reflects a shift to the Grits.
Meanwhile, the Campaign Trends — based on what people are searching for on Google — continues to show a huge spike in interest in NDP Leader Jack Layton.
ThreeHundredEight.com projects that the NDP will pick up a large number of new seats at the expense of the Liberals and Bloc Québécois, but not enough to pass the Liberals. And there won’t be enough seats between the NDP and the Liberals to form a coalition that can defeat the Tories.
Update: Saturday’s figures for Kamloops Thompson Cariboo show the Tories down from 44 per cent to 43.8 per cent and the NDP up from 37.6 per cent to 38.7. Interesting. The NDP appears to have momentum, but it doesn’t appear to be quite enough to win.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Pendulum politics favour a hard left
If you can stand yet another theory about the NDP surge in federal election polls, here’s a new one I came up with: polarization.
Back in the old days — before the Reform Party, before Harperites hijacked the Conservatives — there were two main parties vying for our affection: the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives. Both were big-tent parties, staking out as much of the middle ground as possible, co-opting each other’s ideas if they figured it would get them votes.
This system worked fine for the Liberals, but not so fine for the Progressive Conservatives. So Stephen Harper dropped the “Progressive” and pushed the party to the right, figuring that if he presented Canadians with a clear alternative, there would be a better chance of winning.
To a certain extent, the strategy has worked. You can’t argue with two election wins, even if they did lead to minority governments. In the process, though, Canadians have become used to the idea of being governed by a party with a strong ideological bent. Leaning hard to the right has not produced any of the calamities we might have once feared.
So . . . why not give a hard lean to the left a try? That’s what I figure may be going through voters’ minds, at least at a subconscious level. It’s like the swinging of a pendulum.
Canada could wind up like Britain, where the two main parties are the Conservatives and Labour (the rough equivalent of our NDP). The Liberals are stuck in the middle without enough votes to form a government, but enough to play kingmaker if one of the main parties is unable to muster a majority.
What started out as a boring repeat of the last election may turn out to be one of the biggest political shifts in Canadian history.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Saturday, April 23, 2011
What the data predicts for the election in Kamloops
Chartle is a cool visualization tool I couldn’t resist.
I fed in data for the past three elections when the Conservative party has been led by Stephen Harper — 2004, 2006 and 2008. The chart below displays percentage support in Kamloops Thompson Cariboo for the four parties that ran in all three elections:
As you can see, the percentage of votes for the Conservatives, the NDP and the Greens has been building over the past three elections, while support for the Liberals has collapsed.
If these trends continue, I predict two significant outcomes. First, the NDP will continue to make gains at the expense of the Liberals, but not enough to beat the Conservatives. Second, the Greens will overtake the Liberals and establish themselves as the third party in this riding.
These forecasts are backed by recent national polls showing a surge for the NDP, more or less steady support for the Conservatives and a slump for the Liberals.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Likable Layton leads NDP surge
The polls seem to be all over the map in this election, but one of the more astonishing results shows Jack Layton and the NDP jostling with the Bloc Québécois for first place in Quebec.
His charm offensive in Canada’s French-speaking province began a couple of weeks ago when he appeared on a TV talk show called Tout le monde en parle (Everyone’s talking about it). The street French he learned as a lad growing up in Montreal, coupled with a likable personality that makes him popular everywhere in Canada, led to an instant surge in popularity for the NDP in Quebec.
At the time, pundits were skeptical that it would have any lasting effect, but the polls seem to indicate otherwise.
Check out Campaign Trends, and you’ll see a big uptick in Google searches for the NDP. It’s fallen off, but the NDP is still far ahead of the other parties. Of course, Google searches may have nothing to do with voting preferences. At the very least, though, they indicate strong interest in the NDP.
Searches for the party leaders, including Layton, are not quite so dramatic. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has held the lead for most of the campaign, but Layton went ahead at one point, and continues to nip at Harper’s heels.
So why do so many people like Layton? The fact that he has any personality at all may be part of it. Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff are both intellectuals, who seem ill at ease when mingling with the masses. Layton, on the other hand, seems like a guy you might actually enjoy hanging out with.
Still, one of the problems for the NDP is that a surge in popularity won’t necessarily translate into more seats in Parliament. If the party’s new-found support is spread out too thinly, it could mean a lot of candidates coming closer to winning, but not actually able to claim victory.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Not a peep, not even a tweet, about the election
From an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun comes a reminder that it is absolutely forbidden to publish results of the federal election before polls close in B.C.
You can’t post anything on your blog, you can’t update your Facebook page, you can’t even tweet. If you do, Elections Canada will fine you — possibly to the tune of $1,000.
The idea behind the law is that we in the west might be unduly influenced in how we vote if we know about the results back east. If it looked like the Conservatives were headed for a majority, for example, would some of us change our vote to try to prevent it? This kind of strategic voting is possible, and it likely takes place anyway — even when westerners don’t know what’s happening in the rest of the country.
But so what? It’s our choice.
I agree with the writer, Paula Simons, that the law has become a relic in this age of social media, live blogging and expectations of instant news results. As she points out, Stephen Harper himself spoke out against it a decade ago when, as president of the National Citizens Coalition, he came to the defence of a blogger who was fined under the law.
“These jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control,” he said. “The government’s law is outdated and just plain wrong.”
Now that he’s prime minister, he can change this law. Let’s get busy, Mr. Harper!
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
CFJC makes a muddle of Midday debate
So CFJC has decided not to invite Green candidate Donovan Cavers to take part in its televised debate on April 29. Only candidates who belong to parties that have elected a member of Parliament are allowed, says news director Doug Collins.
By that bizarre logic, they should have phoned up the Bloc Quebecois and urged them to send a representative.
Cavers can take some solace in the fact that the debate on the Midday show takes place on the same day as William and Kate tie the royal knot. With billions of eyes around the world glued to the spectacle, CFJC’s effort will be lucky to make a blip in the ratings.
But seriously, why on Earth would Collins make his decision based on what’s happening nationally? It’s a local show about local candidates. In a recent poll on The Daily News website, Cavers finished ahead of Liberal candidate Murray Todd by 17.2 per cent to 11.8 per cent. Sure, it’s not scientific, but it definitely shows the Greens are a force to be reckoned with in Kamloops.
And how are the Greens, or any other new party, supposed to get a seat in Parliament in the first place? We’ll never get fresh blood if we place artificial barriers to political participation.
It’s especially disturbing in the case of the Greens, because media editorialists (and I’m sure CFJC is among them) are constantly bemoaning the fact that young people are losing interest in politics. The Greens’ emphasis on the environment has attracted the support of many young people, who will only become more cynical when they learn they are being shut out.
Update: Congratulations to Conservative candidate Cathy McLeod for declaring she will not take part in this farce. Michael Crawford of the NDP and Murray Todd of the Liberals should follow suit. Much better for democracy, though, would be an accommodation where all candidates can participate.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Your vote is worth $2
Why vote? Lots of good reasons are trotted out by editorialists every election: it’s your civic duty, you don’t have a right to complain otherwise, the falling rates of participation are scarey.
But in The Daily News profile of Donovan Cavers of the Green Party, the candidate points out what may the most practical reason of all — it’s like donating money to the party of your choice, but paid for by the government.
Under the system of public financing now in place, political parties are given $2 for each vote they receive. Last year $27 million was handed out. The idea is that this levels the playing field to some extent, and helps groups without fundraising machines behind them to pay for their campaigns.
The Green Party received $1.9 million, even though it didn’t win any seats. The leader, Elizabeth May, wasn’t allowed to take part in televised debates, but her party has been able to mount a credible campaign.
So if you’re thinking it’s pointless to vote because your favourite party hasn’t got a chance of winning, think again. When you or a group of friends vote, it’s like money in the bank for your cause.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Why the Tories like to harp on crime
What is this obsession that Stephen Harper and the Tories have with crime? The way they keep hammering away at it, you’d think this was a major issue among Canadians.
The Globe and Mail posed the question last weekend in a think piece by Ian Brown. His conclusion was fuzzy, but it seems to come down to pandering to people’s fears. Crime rates have been falling for several years now. Criminologists are unanimous in agreeing that longer prison terms do nothing to prevent crime. And yet people still fear crime.
Or do they?
If you take a look at the unscientific poll at The Daily News website, you’ll find that crime — as an election issue — is dead last with only 3.5 per cent of votes. That’s out of a total of 536 votes as I write this. Even the environment, which is often considered to be a soft issue when times are tough, edges out crime with 3.9 per cent.
This leads me to conclude that the Conservatives are doing something worse than pandering. When you pander, you play to fears that already exist. What they are doing is trying to create fears. As our population ages, people are more easily scared. Young men who might be criminals seem more frightening.
So what’s worse than pandering? Fear-mongering. It really is disgraceful.
More posts in the Campaign 2011 category
