News   Jul 19, 2024
 570     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 2.6K     6 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 867     2 

2014 Ontario Provincial Election

I honestly don't see the libs losing any in Toronto, and I could even see them getting Trinity Spadina. There may be a few switcheroos in the 905, but Toronto will likely stay a Liberal stronghold, they are polling way too high there.
 
I honestly don't see the libs losing any in Toronto, and I could even see them getting Trinity Spadina. There may be a few switcheroos in the 905, but Toronto will likely stay a Liberal stronghold, they are polling way too high there.

If you believe 308, they, the Liberals, will get 12 seats in Toronto, with PC getting 4 and NDP getting 6

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LPZV6229o7k/U4h9YHuZmOI/AAAAAAAATEA/qk4ruC8q7-g/s1600/Regions.png

If you look at Lispop (Laurier), which is a week out of date but soon to be updated, it is;

Liberal 17, PC 0, and NDP 5.

Currently it is; Liberal 16, PC 1, and NDP 5.
 
Would Doug Holyday (PC: Etobicoke—Lakeshore) lose his seat?

That's the presumption--and in fact, I've seen one internal poll that suggests he *might*.

And if that's the case: when all is said and done, he really ran in the E-L byelection more out of duty and favour than out of long-term commitment...
 
That's the presumption--and in fact, I've seen one internal poll that suggests he *might*.

And if that's the case: when all is said and done, he really ran in the E-L byelection more out of duty and favour than out of long-term commitment...

Lack of commitment would suggest that He is giving up on his constituents (i.e. not running), whereas in your scenario, that is not the case.
 
I believe Adma means that he ran on his history in municipal politics and his local popularity from that, not what he actually has to offer as an MPP. "vote for me because I have represented you for decade in another tier of government" vs. "vote for me because I want to do this to help this province". He got elected on name recognition, not policy stances.
 

I am going to sound like a bit of a broken record here but I don't understand why 308 is putting so much weight on Ipsos (who had the worse out of the 4 current pollster in 2011). Even worse they are pretty much given the unproven "likely voter" formula way more weight than the other polls that have a good success record in 2011. I looked back in history and I never saw the "likely voter" formula being used so why give it so much weight? Even the repliers to the Friday post think 308 is giving too much weight on Ipsos and especially the unproven "likely voter" formula. Likely voter survey eliminates responses that aren't 100% loyal to a specific party or claim they will vote for certain. Making a small sample size (which all polls are) even smaller. I think if you are willing to reply to a poll you are still more likely to go and vote on voting day. You don't get bonus points for passion.

Personally I think Ipsos is running a bit of a scam here. Their decided voters poll (PC 36-34 ) and likely voters (PC 41-29) are as opposite as you can get. It seems like Ipsos is playing a double bet, if the PC win in a blowout Ipsos can brag about their new "Likely voter" formula was a success. If it turns out to be a close rase, Ipsos can still claim victory in having their classic "decided voters" formula getting it correctly. I'd much rather give credit to Forum and Abacus the benefit of the doubt as in 2011 Forum just missed the Lib & PC number by one each and Abacus got the winning margin (Libs +3) perfectly. On the other hand Ipsos predicted a Liberal win by +10 missing it by 7 points.

Current top 4 polls (ranked by their 2011 success) ^ raise in previous poll, v lower in previous poll, = equal in previous poll
Forum (May 27) Libs 36v... PC 36^... NDP 20=... Grn 7^
Abacus (May 24) Libs 34^... PC 32^... NDP 25v... Grn 6=
Ekos (May 23) Libs 36v... PC 30=... NDP 20v... Grn 12^
Ipsos (May 29) Libs 34^... PC 36^... NDP 23v... Oth 6^

So, 308 has PC at 38% but not a single poll currently has them over 36%, and they have the Liberals at 32% and there is not a single poll has the under 34%. The only numbers that relate to the current 308 numbers is the Ipsos "likely poll" that has no track record or history to rate their success. I disagree with their conclusion. From my calculations I see it as close as you can get. I will think currently they are tied maybe a slight Liberal lead of 35 to 34 PC with the NDP getting around 22% and Green at 8%. Even though I think the Green's always poll higher than the actually results as people get cold feet when in the voting booth voting for an alternative party.
 
I believe Adma means that he ran on his history in municipal politics and his local popularity from that, not what he actually has to offer as an MPP. "vote for me because I have represented you for decade in another tier of government" vs. "vote for me because I want to do this to help this province". He got elected on name recognition, not policy stances.

Or even more to the point: he ran because he was prodded to do so--he was doing duty and favours to his prodders, even if it was on behalf of a "just cause" (i.e. establishing a PC toehold in the 416 and keeping the Grits in check, etc etc)

After all, re point 1, he *didn't* represent E-L constituents (or at least, hadn't since Megacity rid him of his EtobiMayoralty); and re point 2, it was more like "help the PCs" preceding "help this province".
 
Still concerned as Ipsos does regularly usually under-estimate Conservative votes.

I'm almost entirely sure that the Election will be decided by the debate. There's just so much wrong with each of the teams (barring the Greens), that people don't know who to choose.
 
I am going to sound like a bit of a broken record here but I don't understand why 308 is putting so much weight on Ipsos (who had the worse out of the 4 current pollster in 2011). Even worse they are pretty much given the unproven "likely voter" formula way more weight than the other polls that have a good success record in 2011. I looked back in history and I never saw the "likely voter" formula being used so why give it so much weight? Even the repliers to the Friday post think 308 is giving too much weight on Ipsos and especially the unproven "likely voter" formula. Likely voter survey eliminates responses that aren't 100% loyal to a specific party or claim they will vote for certain. Making a small sample size (which all polls are) even smaller. I think if you are willing to reply to a poll you are still more likely to go and vote on voting day. You don't get bonus points for passion.

Personally I think Ipsos is running a bit of a scam here. Their decided voters poll (PC 36-34 ) and likely voters (PC 41-29) are as opposite as you can get. It seems like Ipsos is playing a double bet, if the PC win in a blowout Ipsos can brag about their new "Likely voter" formula was a success. If it turns out to be a close rase, Ipsos can still claim victory in having their classic "decided voters" formula getting it correctly. I'd much rather give credit to Forum and Abacus the benefit of the doubt as in 2011 Forum just missed the Lib & PC number by one each and Abacus got the winning margin (Libs +3) perfectly. On the other hand Ipsos predicted a Liberal win by +10 missing it by 7 points.

Current top 4 polls (ranked by their 2011 success) ^ raise in previous poll, v lower in previous poll, = equal in previous poll
Forum (May 27) Libs 36v... PC 36^... NDP 20=... Grn 7^
Abacus (May 24) Libs 34^... PC 32^... NDP 25v... Grn 6=
Ekos (May 23) Libs 36v... PC 30=... NDP 20v... Grn 12^
Ipsos (May 29) Libs 34^... PC 36^... NDP 23v... Oth 6^

So, 308 has PC at 38% but not a single poll currently has them over 36%, and they have the Liberals at 32% and there is not a single poll has the under 34%. The only numbers that relate to the current 308 numbers is the Ipsos "likely poll" that has no track record or history to rate their success. I disagree with their conclusion. From my calculations I see it as close as you can get. I will think currently they are tied maybe a slight Liberal lead of 35 to 34 PC with the NDP getting around 22% and Green at 8%. Even though I think the Green's always poll higher than the actually results as people get cold feet when in the voting booth voting for an alternative party.

I have to agree with this, something was just not right with the PCs going from floundering to being within striking distance of a majority. I do think the Liberals have trended downward but I don't know why. It does not make sense to just change your mind this late into the campaign. It's a shame to me honestly. I think the Liberals will only get a minority again or if a PC minority then it's because the polls had the trends wrong from the outset.
 
I have to agree with this, something was just not right with the PCs going from floundering to being within striking distance of a majority. I do think the Liberals have trended downward but I don't know why. It does not make sense to just change your mind this late into the campaign. It's a shame to me honestly. I think the Liberals will only get a minority again or if a PC minority then it's because the polls had the trends wrong from the outset.

The issues are easy to identify in this election.

Very few people support the Liberals due to their record of the past 11 years, however, they are reluctant to support PC since they are too extreme - and the NDP is viewed as non-decisive, by supporting the "corrupt" Liberals these past 3 years and since they do not have a firm platform on the political spectrum.

Depending of people mood on a particular day, they give a different responses in poll.
 
This is probably common knowledge considering who the economist on Hudak's team is, but we're seeing an attempt at exporting tea party values up north for the Common Sense Revolution 2.0. I bet you if he wins a majority, union-stripping measures and even harsher cuts will soon follow.

Hudak turned to American right to craft platform
Adrian Morrow
The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jun. 01 2014, 1:43 PM EDT

Tim Hudak turned to leading lights on the American right – from Tea Party-linked think tanks to anti-tax crusaders – in his effort to craft an unabashedly small government platform.


In the week after Easter, 2012, when the Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader was revamping his agenda following an unexpected election loss to the Liberals the year before, he visited Washington, DC and met with a half-dozen top conservative thinkers.

The Liberals, who on Sunday released an itinerary of the trip, dubbed it a “secret” series of meetings and accused him of basing his policies on the advice of “right-wing radicals.”

In an earlier interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Hudak spoke openly about the visit, describing it as part of a broader process of political soul-searching after the election defeat.

“I used that time to say ‘Ok, what actually do we need to do to turn Ontario around, to make it the best place for job creation and investment? And how can we transform the public service?... Where does my mind and my heart come together on what we need to do?” he said. “I had to figure out what should be in my plan.”

The itinerary, which was previously obtained separately by the Globe, lists meetings with Grover Norquist, famous for getting most Republican legislators to sign a promise not to hike taxes; Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy at the libertarian Cato Institute; and labour expert James Sherk at the Heritage Foundation, a think tank led by a former Tea Party senator. He also dined at the home of David Frum, the Canadian author and former George W. Bush speechwriter, the schedule says, and spent a day at public relations firm Greener and Hook.

Mr. Hudak is also listed as having met a policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. Earlier this year, the Tories hired AEI economist Benjamin Zycher to estimate the number of jobs some of their current platform planks would create. But Mr. Hudak had to distance himself from the economist’s political views after it turned out Mr. Zycher had once accused Princeton of only granting Michelle Obama a degree because of her skin colour, and has questioned the existence of global warming.

Mr. Hudak said the Washington sit-downs were organized by Mr. Frum, whom he counts as an advisor. Around that time, he also made trips to New York City, Alberta and British Columbia to meet with financial and business leaders. And he read extensively, including the writings of former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, who balanced the books by shrinking the size of the state government.


The culmination of this process is his robustly conservative campaign in the June 12 election. He has pledged to eliminate 100,000 public-sector jobs, including teachers; axe tax credits for senior citizens and cancel light rail lines. He is also promising to dramatically cut both corporate and personal income taxes.

Mr. Edwards sees in Mr. Hudak some parallels with the Tea Party, which swept libertarian candidates into office across the U.S. four years ago. While the movement is on the wane now, its small government policies have been adopted by mainstream Republicans.

“There was a wave of very conservative Republican governors, who have been cutting income tax rates and the like,” he said in an interview. “That is kind of a new development, which you could say is a a forerunner for Hudak if he were to be successful.”

Historically, he also likens Mr. Hudak to the late British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who implemented laissez-faire economics in a traditionally big-government jurisdiction.

Mr. Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, contends small government movements succeed in reaction to fiscal irresponsibility, and taking a strong stance pays off.

“Ontario’s been busy bankrupting itself. To say ‘we’re changing things seriously’ … the best thing to do is to be bold about that,” he said. “When people get sufficiently scared and irritated by stupid policies, they’re willing to move in a different direction.”

Mr. Edwards described Mr. Hudak as “intelligent, knowledgable and a good listener,” eager to learn about U.S. economics. Mr. Norquist could not remember meeting the PC Leader, but said he may have presented at ATR’s “Wednesday meeting,” one of Washington’s top conservative organizing sessions.

There are numbers that suggest Ontarians – enough of them to elect a government at least – are ready for Mr. Hudak’s tough pitch.


John Wright at pollster Ipsos Global points to two metrics. For one, the firm’s research shows more than 70 per cent of voters want change – the highest level in 25 years. Second, Tory supporters are the most likely to show up at the polls, with between 60 and 70 per cent saying they have already resolved to back Mr. Hudak.

“The Conservative turnout is very strong but the Liberal and the NDP are anemic,” he said. “Liberals and New Democrats are sitting on their hands.”

Mr. Hudak is also looking to the triumphant 1995 campaign of his mentor, Mike Harris. Unlike Mr. Hudak, of course, Mr. Harris won at a time when the bitter fiscal medicine he proposed was all the rage. Then prime minister Jean Chrétien and Alberta premier Ralph Klein, for instance, were also cutting spending to get their fiscal houses in order. But veterans of that era see similarities.

“We broke with the conventional wisdom then and Tim is doing that now,” said Paul Rhodes, Mr. Harris’s former communications director. “There was a veritable tsunami of opposition to what we were suggesting. There must have been a million column inches written about why this was just wrongheaded and wouldn’t work.”


Even so, there is no denying the gamble that is Mr. Hudak’s strategy. Politicians, after all, usually wait until after elections to deliver fiscal bad news.

“It’s quite remarkable: We’re seeing a tough budget during a campaign,” said University of Moncton economist Donald Savoie. “If Hudak is successful, there’s a message for all politicians, that Canadians may be far readier for this than we assume.”

Follow Adrian Morrow on Twitter: @adrianmorrow

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ican-right-to-craft-platform/article18940070/
 
I'm almost entirely sure that the Election will be decided by the debate. There's just so much wrong with each of the teams (barring the Greens), that people don't know who to choose.

Re: the debate, I imagine the outcome will depend more on who blunders the most. I certainly don't expect any slam dunk performances from this lot. I can't recall an election in recent memory that has featured such a lack of public speaking skills on the part of the leaders. They all seem to struggle not to trip over their own words - and that's when they're speaking English. My French is far from perfect, but hearing the leaders mangle the language is - at best - an uncomfortable experience.

Mr. McGuinty was hardly an inspiring speaker, but he was at least capable of pulling a sentence together without sounding brash and unprepared. And Harris and Rae both had a facility with language that's sorely absent this go around. Hell, even Ford can pull off a coherent enough soundbite when he needs to.
 
Hudak does quite decently if he's kept on the talking points and absolutely nothing else (deflect any questions, keep saying the same things over and over). I have no doubt his handlers will try that approach.

Here's hoping we get a hard hitting moderator who can tear apart all three parties' platforms.
 
Hudak does quite decently if he's kept on the talking points and absolutely nothing else (deflect any questions, keep saying the same things over and over). I have no doubt his handlers will try that approach.

Here's hoping we get a hard hitting moderator who can tear apart all three parties' platforms.

That is not the moderator's job. It is to keep peace and ensure timelines are kept. It is up to the other debaters to tear apart any leader.

It was awfully embarrassing in the US when the moderator stepped in to correct some facts - and they turned out to be wrong.
 

Back
Top