Blog Direction Update: Polling, Away! Far, far away.

Well, I’ve finally had a few days to think about what happened last Tuesday. The election in British Columbia represented a huge blow, once more, against the Canadian polling industry. It didn’t matter which company it was – Ipsos, Forum, Angus Reid, EKOS, all of them – they failed to give us an accurate picture of the electorate. Just like in Alberta, and even to an extent just like in Quebec.

Why this happened is one that all of these companies are going to spend the next few months figuring out. You think they would have following the Alberta debacle, but I guess they needed a second kick in the pants to get the message that their current methodologies are not up to the job.

I’m not going to delve into the “why” right now, however. My question is more along the lines of “how” – as in, how can I trust in the numbers these pollsters are putting any longer? How do I defend their accuracy when they’ve shown themselves at least twice to have severely misread the electorate? How do I continue with my projections when I know that the data underlying the whole thing could be faulty?

The answer, for right now anyways, is that I can’t. So I’m going to be shutting down my constant projections and poll updates for now, maybe giving occasional commentary on some major numbers that come out but otherwise I’m not going to bother. Until I see major reforms on the part of these companies, recapping the trends these polls are claiming seems like a rather hollow exercise.

In the meantime, I’ll be focusing more on commentary and the occasional analytical look at a riding, election, and so on. And of course, I’ll be working on historical elections over at Canadian Psephos during the course of the summer.

I may, may also be starting another commentary blog in the near future. This one will be separate from my political commentary here, and will focus more on issues in relation to secularism, religion, and other topics in that vein. We’ll see, though.

But for now, polling updates are done. So if you came here for that, sorry – but keep an eye on ThreeHundredEight.com and Too Close to Call, who both do regular updates.

Read more...

A Look at Bourassa

Bourassa in 2011

Recently, as everyone plugged in should be aware, Bourassa MP Denis Coderre has pretty much stated his intention to resign in order to focus on his run for the mayoralty of Montréal, a position he is in very strong standing to win despite a somewhat shaky start involving protests. That leaves open his seat on the north end of the Island of Montréal, setting up a very interesting race for the coming months ahead between the two big players in Montréal – the Liberals and NDP, both under close-by Montréal MPs. The Bloc, while there, isn't considered as big of a player - for not.

It should be delicious fun, but what awaits them, as well as the voters, in Bourassa? Lets find out…

Riding History



Riding History of Bourassa



Bourassa first came into being in the 1960’s as a portion of the historical riding of Mercier, which covered much of northern Montréal pre-60’s, as well as a small portion of the riding of Laval which stretched across the Rivière-des-Prairies. Bourassa initially took in the communities of Montréal-Nord, Rivière-des-Prairies, Saint-Michel, and parts of Ahuntsic, but was eventually cut down in size until it centered mainly on the growing communities in Montréal-Nord.

The riding’s first MP was Liberal Jacques Trudel, who was elected in 1968’s Trudeaumania wave and subsequently re-elected in 1972 and 1974 without much opposition. Both the Progressive Conservatives and Créditistes (Social Credit in Québec under Réal Caouette) fought for second in Bourassa during the Trudeau era, with the exception of 1980 when the NDP managed a second-place finish during the Liberal’s sweep of Quebec in that election.

Police officer Carlo Rossi succeeded Trudel when he retired in 1979, winning his first election by a wide margin despite the Liberals losing power overall. He won re-election in 1980 by a much larger margin, and was a Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism in Trudeau’s final government.

Now is a good time to mention that Montréal-Nord, which has made up the majority of Bourassa since 1971, is an extremely diverse section of Montréal that is one of the main destinations for allophone (non-franco- or Anglo-phone) immigrants coming into Québec. In 2006, 51% of Montréal-Nord’s residents spoke something other than English or French as a first language, with 40% were francophone and 8% Anglophone. This is the result of a steady pace of growth since the 1950’s.

The vast majority of immigrant voters in Montréal-Nord and other sections of Bourassa have tended to vote Liberal since the very beginning, which goes a long way to showcase why the Liberals do so well here. It also highlights the division that we’ll see coming into the next few elections, which should be pretty evident.

In 1984, Brian Mulroney’s PCs swept the francophone vote in Québec, and nearly swept Rossi – an Italian-Canadian, I might point out – out of office. He hung on with a bare plurality against the PC candidate in 1984, but fell short in 1988 when PC MP Marie Gibeau was elected just barely, 43.3% to 41.5% for Rossi.

In 1993, the Bloc Québécois managed to win the seat despite the presence of its current MP on the ballot, with Osvaldo Nunez winning over Denis Coderre by a razor-thin margin, 41.9% to 41.7%. Coderre easily took the seat in 1997 however, and went on the win with large majorities over Bloc candidates up until 2006, during the Liberal’s collapse in the province following the Sponsorship Scandal revelations, though even then he held an 11-point lead over the Bloc.

2011 Election



Bourassa Comparison: 2006 to 2011



Coderre ran into a bit of trouble in the past federal election, winning with a healthy 3,000 votes (or about 8%) over NDP candidate Julie Demers, though that was down severely from the 9,000-vote lead he managed in 2008 over the Bloc’s candidate. Coderre’s support was also limited to much of the immigrant base in the riding, with Demers’ won polls matching up almost perfectly with the Bloc’s 2006 comeback among the riding’s francophone communities (to the left), while also making some slight inroads among the immigrant voters in Bourassa.

Essentially, the farther away you got from Montréal-Nord’s core, away from the allophone communities and into the francophone areas, the more the NDP won. This is evident by the NDP polls that almost dominate in the portions of Sault-au-Récollet and Rivière-des-Prairies that Bourassa takes in.

Finally, Bourassa is covered by the provincial ridings of Bourassa-Sauvé and LaFontaine, both Liberal bastions, as well as a tiny portion on the southern tip by Crémazie, which is a relatively strong PQ riding.

By-Election Outlook

We unfortunately don’t know the date when it will be called, but Stephen Harper has a funny habit of trolling the Opposition parties by waiting until the six-month deadline to call ridings where he has little chance of winning. So, we’ll probably see it sometime by late autumn, though calling it over the summer may also suit Harper by burying it under news of good weather, a cabinet shuffle, and a possible Ontario election. It doesn’t really matter to him because the chances of the Conservatives winning here are extremely low, so, whatever.

What will matter is the state of the Liberals and New Democrats by the time the by-election is called. Bourassa, while friendly to the Liberals because of its large allophone communities, is by no means a lock. A large, motivated francophone bloc can steal the riding away from the Liberals, which I suspect will be the basis of strategy for both the Bloc and the NDP.

Essentially, if the Liberals retain their strong appeal among both their traditional base among allophones as well as expand it among francophones with Trudeau, it’s a sure Liberal riding. If they can only retain their 2011 base, then the picture is more muddled, but a vote split among the NDP and Bloc among francophones will likely keep Bourassa red. If Trudeau doesn’t pan out though, and Mulcair’s appeal to unite francophones behind the NDP works, then the Liberals better watch out.

Of course, a lot will depend on the candidates. Some names have been floated around for the Liberals, including former Honoré-Mercier MP Pablo Rodriguez, while some people mentioned Brian Topp as a candidate for the NDP (very, very unlikely, and very bad, choice). Daniel Paillé, the leader of the Bloc, has ruled himself out as a candidate, so who knows who they’ll put forward. All I know is that each party needs to nominate a candidate that will keep their bases interested, otherwise they’re handicapping themselves from the start.

It is early yet, but Liberals should be prepared for a possible fight on their hands. Take nothing for granted, folks. I’ll keep an eye and update anyone on developments in the future.

Read more...

Interactive! - What happened in BC

Teddy here with an interesting experiment, an interactive blog post, where you, the reader, are encouraged to participate.

How this will work is I will start with a short post detailing my own theory as to what happened in BC. Readers will weigh in, in the comments section, and at a certain time (in this case, about 4pm eastern) I will take what I think are the best comments, or, the comments I can best reply to, and edit them into the post to analyze and reply to them. I will then continue tracking the comments until the evening, editing them in where needed.

So here is my theory as to what happened in BC:

Quebec
Everyone had an understanding that the PQ was turning people off due to some of it's policies and campaign strategy. The party wanted to ban Anglos from running for municipal office in Anglophone municipalities, for example. The PQ was seen as running as a hard-sovereigntist campaign, at a time when sovereignty was not popular. People voted against the PQ.

Alberta
Wildrose was expected to win, but nearly all the "undecided" voters broke towards the PC Party? Why? Wildrose was a new and untested force. People worried about what they would do and how well they could govern. There were concerns they might cut into social programs and sell Alberta's wealth to US. People voted against Wildrose.

So how does this help us understand BC?

A look at the Ipsos exit poll tells us. In particular, page 9 of 65. Of the 1400 people sampled, 280 voted for the BC Liberals because they were against somebody, while 222 voted for the NDP because they were against somebody. The split between the two is 5% and if you reverse the split, you get an NDP majority government.

In short. People voted against the NDP.

The question as to why people voted against the NDP, as opposed to against the Liberals is something that can be left open to interpretation; and this is where I invite you to comment. Why did people tun against the NDP? Why did the Liberal scandals and problems not encourage more people to vote against them? How can we find this trend - IE voting against a party - in future polls?

Interactive section:




Calivancouver said
"(The BC Liberals Party is) an awkward coalition of Liberal and Conservative activists, and their reason for being is precisely to stop the NDP"

I think this has a big point. "Normally", though the research I've done, the right-of-centre party manages to take 60% of the seats, while the NDP takes the other 40%. Based on 85 seats, this would be a split of 51 to 34, very close to the final result. I will detail this below.



BenKenobi said
"It's all about the conservatives. (too high support and the NDP wins)"
"Most of the seats the Liberals picked up were in the hinterland
"conservatives not yet ready for prime time and Christy Clark figuring out where her base was, small "c" voters"

I think this also is/can be a big part of it. The NDP only really won when the right wing vote has been split. I will examine this, along with the above comment, below.



John T said
"I believe the turning point in the campaign was the decision by Adrian Dix to oppose the Kinder-Morgan pipeline."
"(Interior voters thought that) the NDP would block every proposal, leading to a reduction in jobs."
"(This said that) Adrian Dix communicated that he was against jobs and the economy if environmental activists were opposed to any project."

I think that may have bad something to do with it. As BenKenobi pointed out, most of the gains were in the interior. The maps show that, the entire Interior, between the coast and the kootneys, is now solid red. I think that this did play a role.



Kyle H said
"Dix's campaign focused solely on trying to comfort people that the NDP were not wild-eyed socialists - thereby putting that idea forefront into the minds of voters." 
"When the debate came, she showed herself to be the best up there, and Dix nearly fell flat on his face."
"Dix was doomed, we just didn't see it because we focused on the polls said so intently."
"(in) Surrey - there was barely a Conservative presence there in 2009 or 2013, only NDPers. The BCLs took votes directly from them."

I think the NDP's strategy of saying "we are not crazy" but making people remember they are crazy may have something to do with it.
I actually think the Debate may have been the turning point. This reminds me of 2011 Federally, where everyone said the debate was meaningless, with no real winner, but in hindsight it became obvious and clearly that Iggy bombed big-time and Layton cleaned up.
What I really think explains everything is that front-page 24 news ad the Liberals bought. I think the poll in the ad actually could well explain why the Liberals won.



This is the history of elections in BC since the formation of the NDP.

The table is set up so each era is separate.

During the Social Credit era, you can easily see and compare what happened. For most of this time, the BC Liberals were not a right-wing party. For part of it (the part where it had 0 seats in particular) it was lead by David Anderson, who was in the Chretien Cabinet. Anderson was known as "the" green member of Cabinet - remember that Stephane Dion was in the Chretien Cabinet. The BC Liberals of this era were not a right-wing party and did not draw away right-wing votes. Note the only NDP victory in this era was the only election where the Tories took more than 5% of the vote.

Next was the early BC Liberal era. This starts with an NDP government, due to the split of the vote on the right. First a 33%-24% split, then a 42%-9% split. This era ends when the NDP is curbstomped in 2001. This also marks the end of Social Credit / Reform / Unity as a real electoral presence.

The latter BC Liberal era had the Greens present. The Greens, despite having some significant left-wing policies, have always stole votes from both sides of the spectrum. These are eco-capitalists. The European term is Green-Liberals, where, in the European sense, Green is associated with the left, Labour, and Socialism. Thus one could truly and literally think of the Green Party of BC as the BC NDP-Liberals, or perhaps, the Liberal-NDP BC Party.

I've also taken all the election results during this period (12) and found the seat share for the NDP, and their main right-of-centre opponent. I've averaged all 12, and, averaged the 6 'middle' elections, removing the 3 best and worst NDP results. The end results however are just about the same. A 60-40 split against the NDP.

So history is important. If still in doubt, check out the popular vote numbers, and tell me how many times the NDP has been above 44%, and how many times the SoCreds/Liberals have been below 44%.

Read more...

UPDATED: Why is Duffy Still a Conservative Senator?

Poor Mike Duffy. The former CTV broadcaster known for his jovial presence has had a real hard time managing his profile ever since he joined Harper's Conservative Senate. The star fundraiser known for exactly nothing outside of being loud and kind of annoying on TV - I like to consider him the Kim Kardashian of Conservative politics - has had the reputation of a blowhard for a long time, including royally pissing off Stéphane Dion at one point for his Fox News-esque "fair and balanced" interviews. I suppose that is what gets him accolades from sycophantic Conservatives eager for that little touch of star power to show up in their ridings.

But now, with the current controversy, he's becoming known as a blowhard and an arrogant fraudster. He essentially defrauded the Canadian taxpayers of tens of thousands of dollars because he made the conscience decision to falsely claim his primary residence on PEI. How do I know he did this on purpose? Its pretty damn obvious, what with the refusal to work with auditors, and then the follow-up controversy we're dealing with now, whereby Duffy asked the Conservatives to reimburse him for his stolen money so he could pay off the authorities. He got that money, by the way, from PMO Chief of Staff Nigel Wright, meaning that it is almost 100% certain that it was approved by Stephen Harper himself, how could it not be?

Here's what I don't get, however - why would the Conservatives stick by this fool to such a degree that he has started to drag down the entire Party with him? Why would they not ask Duffy to leave, or force him out of, the Conservative Senate caucus? Marjory LeBreton has stuck by Duffy so much you'd think he was the one actually in the Senate Leader's position and she was just a loyal soldier.

Does he really bring it that much money for the Conservatives through fundraising? Or have the Conservatives invested themselves so much into trying to reverse Duffy's collapsing reputation that they can't back out now? They're taking so much egg on the face because of this guy, I just don't get it.

UPDATE:

Apparently, Duffy no longer is part of the Conservative caucus. Excellent, but why he should remain a Senator at all is still a question that needs answering.

Read more...

Detailed BC Election 2013 Results - Yes, polls got it wrong, again.

In case you were asleep last night and just found out, the BC Liberals under Premier Christy Clark completely blew away the challenge from Adrian Dix's NDP. Not only did the Liberals defy most expectations and come to win, they actually managed to increase their seat count and take over about half a dozen previously safe NDP ridings. This was not a possibility foreseen by anyone, and if they tell you different they are lying.

There are going to be many questions asked by this election result, the most important of them to me being how we can trust pollsters to give us accurate numbers anymore. But more on that later.

The other question will simply be, well, how? How did Clark pull off this feat that, as Bryan Beguet mentioned to me last night, she only had a 14% chance of managing?

But first...

The Results

BC Liberal Party: 723,113 votes (-28.5K) - 44.4% (-1.4%) - 50 seats (+1 seat)
New Democratic: 643,069 votes (-48.5K) - 39.5% (-2.7%) - 33 seats (-2 seats)
Green Party: 130,245 votes (-4,145) - 8.0% (-0.2%) - 1 seat (+1 seat)
BC Conservative: 77,770 votes (+43.3K) - 4.8% (+2.7%)
Others: ~27,000 votes (-1,000) - 3.3% (+1.6%) - 1 seat (Huntington)
Total: ~1.60-million (-~400,000)

You can't get much clearer of a win than that. The Liberals decimated their opposition, losing only a faction of their vote compared to the NDP dropping almost 50,000 voters and the Greens about 4,000. The Conservatives, who jumped up 43,000 votes, clearly have a tremendous impact on the race, but it also means that, assuming most of those voters are former BC Liberals, that the NDP may have bled voters to the incumbents. Either that, or we assume their turnout dropped significantly while the Liberal's gained new voters. Those are your only two options, as the math cannot add up any other way.

Lets go quickly through the regions, and we'll see what happened. Remember however that these numbers are preliminary, and the percentages may change by very slight amounts in the future.

First, the North:

Northern BC - Election 2013
BC Liberal Party: 50.2% (+1.4%) - 5 seats (=)
New Democratic: 33.9% (-4.9%) - 3 seats (=)
BC Conservative: 8.1% (+6.2%)
Green Party: 2.7% (-4.0%)
Others: 5.1% (+1.2%)

The Liberals held on pretty strongly in the North, losing no incumbents but gaining no seats. This despite the Conservatives jumping up a good sum, though most of that is due to Kurt Peats' candidacy in Peace River South. The NDP lost voters, and nearly lost a relatively safe seat in Skeena.

My projection had shown the Liberals winning about 40% to the NDP's 43%, based on much of the regional polling done here. I had also expected the Independent candidate Arthur Hadland to have a much better showing in Peace River North than he did.

Interior BC - Election 2013
BC Liberal Party: 48.4% (+4.0%) - 13 seats (+2 seats)
New Democratic: 36.3% (-2.6%) - 3 seats (-2 seats)
BC Conservative: 6.9% (+0.1%)
Green Party: 4.3% (-4.4%)
Others: 4.2% (+3.0%)

The result in the Interior was a bit unsurprising, given that the Liberals had some strong momentum in the region. Yet, once again, this kind of blowout was unexpected. The Liberals gained roughly 4% in terms of support, as well as two seats - Fraser-Nicola and Cariboo North - with the NDP dropping from their 2009 numbers, as did the Greens who lost roughly 4%. The Conservatives stayed almost exactly stable, gaining the tiniest amount, even though this should have been their best region. And if they were stable, guess where the extra Liberal support came from...

My projection had given the Liberals roughly 43% to the NDP's 42%, with the Conservatives at 8%. Luckily, I had Cariboo North as a possible pick-up for the Liberals and Fraser-Nicola was closer than expected, so I didn't do too badly here with my seat calls.

The Lower Mainland, given the disparity of results within the region, requires I break it down, going from east to west.

Fraser Valley - Election 2013
BC Liberal Party: 50.1% (-3.4%) - 9 seats (+1 seat)
New Democratic: 30.9% (-4.2%) - 0 seats (-1 seat)
BC Conservative: 7.7% (+4.3%)
Green Party: 6.5% (-0.6%)
Others: 4.9% (+4.0%)

The Liberals swept all nine ridings in the Fraser Valley, taking away the only incumbent the NDP had from 2009 - Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows - as well as Chilliwack-Hope, which they won in a by-election. The Liberals also beat out their former colleague, John Van Dongen, in Abbotsford South by a good sum, as well as relegating BC Conservative leader John Cummins in Langley to a terrible third-place finish.

I had expected the NDP to do much better than the 31% they managed, possibly getting to around 40% and making play of some of the more margin seats such as Langley. The Conservatives, I thought, would also manage to get around 12% - yeah, not so. The Liberals crushed everyone here.

Surrey - Election 2013
BC Liberal Party: 48.4% (+2.6%) - 5 seats (+1 seat)
New Democratic: 41.5% (-5.6%) - 3 seats (-1 seat)
BC Conservative: 5.6% (+5.0%)
Green Party: 3.2% (-3.1%)
Others: 1.3% (+0.9%)

Here is another example of the NDP likely losing voters to the Liberals, rather than simple turnout depression. The preliminary numbers I have show the Liberals with 75,000 voters, compared to 68,000 in 2009 - the NDP dropped almost 6,000 in the meantime. This despite an increase in the Conservative's vote, and a drop in the Green's. I also don't think anyone expected numbers like these. The one pick-up was BCL Peter Fassbender winning over incumbent NDPer Jagrup Brar in Surrey-Fleetwood.

My projection had given the NDP almost 53% support in Surrey, to the Liberal's 35%. This was a big miss on my and the pollster's part.

Richmond-Delta - Election 2013
BC Liberal Party: 47.5% (-4.7%) - 3 seats (+1 seat)
New Democratic: 27.5% (-2.4%) - 0 seats (-1 seat)
BC Conservative: 5.9% (+4.1%)
Green Party: 5.4% (=)
Others: 13.7% (+2.9%) - 1 seat (=)

Richmond-Delta featured only one close race, that being Delta North where the NDP lost a previously safe seat to the Liberals. Despite that, both major parties decreased while the Conservatives and "Others" (mostly Independent Vicki Huntington, who kept her seat) jumped up, and the Greens were stable. It just didn't translate into much support for any of the smaller parties.

This is one of the regions where I did relatively OK, as I expected the incumbent Liberals and Huntington to hold on to their seats with relative ease. However, I obviously missed Delta North - I think everyone did. The Liberals didn't run a star candidate in Scott Hamilton (and in fact had issues before with their previous star candidate, Sukh Dhaliwal), and this was by all accounts a safe NDP seat. What happened on the ground there?

Vancouver Suburbs - Election 2013
BC Liberal Party: 45.4% (-2.4%) - 8 seats (=)
New Democratic: 42.3% (+0.6%) - 6 seats (=)
Green Party: 7.3% (-0.6%)
BC Conservative: 2.5% (+1.3%)
Others: 2.6% (+1.2%)

The suburbs around Vancouver didn't see too much change, though both the Liberals and the NDP lost seats to each other. The Liberals lost Burnaby-Lougheed to the NDP's Jane Shin, while the Liberals picked up Coquitlam-Maillardville with Steve Kim. The Liberals also won Port Moody-Coquitlam back from the NDP, who won it in a by-election previously.

My projection had expected the Liberals to lose big in the eastern suburbs, losing all of their seats except maybe Coquitlam-Burke Mountain, which was a Too Close To Call race. Clearly that did not happen. The Liberals also held on to all of their northern suburb seats, which I had said would happen with the exception of North Vancouver-Lonsdale, which I said leaned NDP.

Vancouver - Election 2013
New Democratic: 45.9% (+0.8%) - 7 seats (+2 seats)
BC Liberal Party: 43.1% (-2.6%) - 4 seats (-2 seats)
Green Party: 8.7% (-0.4%)
BC Conservative: 1.0% (+1.0%)
Others: 1.4% (+0.4%)

The Liberals lost within the City of Vancouver itself, losing two incumbents - Margaret MacDiarmid in Vancouver-Fraserview, and Premier Christy Clark in Vancouver-Point Grey. George Heyman and David Eby won those races for the NDP respectively. However, the NDP failed to win other low-hanging fruit, such as Vancouver-Fraserview or Vancouver-Langara, to former of which I really expected to go NDP. Despite this, the numbers overall barely changed, and Conservatives made zero impact anywhere - they didn't even hold the difference in Clark's race, with their candidate only winning 350ish votes (there was an over 700-vote gap).

Vancouver Island - Election 2013
New Democratic: 43.9% (-6.1%) - 11 seats (+1 seat)
BC Liberal Party: 34.2% (-4.4%) - 2 seats (-2 seats)
Green Party: 17.2% (+6.8%) - 1 seat (+1 seat)
BC Conservative: 4.0% (+3.7%)
Others: 0.7% (-0.1%)

Obviously the big change on Vancouver Island was the increase of the Greens, who came out to win Oak Bay-Gordon Head with 40% of the vote. In fact, the Greens won almost 27% in Greater Victoria itself, just behind the Liberals, who also lost Saanich North & the Islands to the NDP in a tight three-way race with the Greens. Outside of Victoria, however, the Liberals held on to their incumbent seats in Comox Valley and Parksville-Qualicum with little difficulty, while almost taking Cowichan Valley from the NDP. The Conservatives also managed a somewhat impressive number outside of Victoria, about 7%, mostly thanks to the popular local candidate in Parksville-Qualicum.

Amazingly, except for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (an incorrect call I expected), my projections did pretty well in Vancouver Island, calling every riding correctly with the ranges included.

So, with the results out of the way, what is there to say?

The polls got it wrong. Why they did so will be something I need to toss over in my head for a few more days. Was it a shy-Liberal effect? Did expectations of an overwhelming NDP win lower their turnout? Did we get undecideds completely wrong? All questions to be answered in time.

What I can speculate on is why Clark won, and that is, essentially, the fact that her opponents were second-rate at best. For all of Clark's shortcomings, she was a known quantity that people began to appreciate when thrown into direct comparison with Adrian Dix, the mousey policy wonk who proposed tax increases and could apparently kick a dog and still win the election. Clark was clearly the more impressive and experienced leader, a fact really shown by the April 29 debate, while her opponents were fumbling amateurs (Dix and Cummins) or just irrelevant (Sterk). The authors of Clark's victory was as much them as it was herself and her charisma.

There is also much to say about negative campaigning, and the fact that you need to respond to it forcefully. Dix pulled defeat from the jaws of victory because he allowed Clark and the BC Liberals to define him as a flip-flopping, tax-increasing, backroom boy behind the NDP's previous fiasco governments in the 1990's. Dix, admirably trying to take the high road, doomed himself by not responding forcefully to such ads. He pulled a Dion and Ignatieff, except on a much worse scale given that neither of them were expected to win government.

In the end, I don't think this is confirmation of the BC Liberal's governing agenda, as much as it was a rejection of Adrian Dix and John Cummins. Voters, both the right-leaning voters and the centrists that moved from the NDP to the Liberals (they clearly exist), were convinced that they were worse than the Devil they knew.
\
That is saying a lot, considering how much they dislike Clark.

The future of my projections, frankly, are in doubt. Not because I got it wrong. In fact, had I known the previous numbers I gave above, my model would've come out with 51 Liberals to 33 NDP and an Independent. That's pretty damn accurate. The pollsters, and the data they gave us, were clearly incorrect. Sadly those are the only numbers I have to go on, so where do I really go from there? Until my confidence in their numbers is restored, how can I put out any projections and say this is (relatively) accurate? How can anyone?

As I said before, questions to be answered in time.

Read more...

Most surprising election ever

Teddy here to look at the results of the BC election, the most surprising election ever.

Why do I call it that? A few reasons. Lets first compare it to other shocking results.

Diefenbaker, 1957. His win was a shock to many, but back in the 50's the polling industry did not have the same stranglehold on 'who will win' as they do today. Many did expect another federal Liberal victory, but the idea they could lose was not as alien as it otherwise may have been. Certainly the most shocking federal election, and in the top 3 ever in Canadian history, it has been displaced.

Quebec, 2012. Nobody expected the Liberals to nearly win the election, coming within a few seats of doing so. Why this one is not as unexpected as others is the back and forth of the polls throughout the election, showing varying results depending on when the poll was taken. In the end, however, the results did not match any of the polls.

Alberta, 2012. This is one that stuck in everybody's mind. Wildrose had a lead in all the polls from the drop of the writ to the election. The explanations for why they lost were eventually settled on "Albertans were not ready for such a new force"

BC, 2013. Every poll since the summer of 2011 had told us the same thing. Every single poll. The NDP was going to win. The BC NDP is not some untested force, they have been in government before, and, their economic policies are well known to all. Despite that, the party lead, every, last, poll. Nobody - at least nobody that I spoke to - thought there was any way they could lose. Even my own post asking if the Liberals can win http://blunt-objects.blogspot.ca/2013/05/can-bc-liberals-win.html was mocked by a reader who said "CAN the liberals win, Yes and Satan could have a baby with Snooki" something that I did not bother to respond to because of the chances he was right.

So lets take a look at what happened. First of all we should note the BC Liberals did lose some seats. Remember a week ago when Clark tried to make an advance vote and wrote two names on her ballot? Both those people have lost their seats. In fact, Liberal results in the city of Vancouver retreated. They also lost a seat in Burnaby, and two in the Victoria area. The Liberals made up for this by adding seats in every other region of the province. The party has managed to make a clean sweep of the central interior, controlling every interior riding outside of the kootenays.

RESULTS

With nearly all polls in, the results are as follows.

BC Liberal - 723,113 - 44.40% - 50 seats
BC NDP - 643,069 - 39.49% - 33 seats
Greens BC - 130,425 - 08.01% - 1 seat
All Others - 131,897 - 08.10% - 1 seat

Compare this to the results LAST TIME
BC Liberal - 751,661 - 45.82% - 49 seats
BC NDP - 691,564 - 42.15% - 35 seats
Greens BC - 134,570 - 8.10% - 0 seats

Christy Clark, despite leading her party to a majority, has lost her own seat and will likely require one of her MLAs to step aside for her to run in the riding. My personal guess is she will take a Richmond riding.


So what does this mean?
For Clark this means she has 4 years in government to make her mark. She now has a chance to move forward in government and to build a team around her that supports her. Considering most expected a loss, fair-weather friends have left, MLAs that don't really want to be in government are out, and those that do not support Clark's policies are, by in large, gone. Those who did remain include those who thought they could run for leader after Clark loses the election, those committed to public service and/or the party, and  those who wanted to back Clark and her ideology. This will make it much easier for Clark to put together a cabinet. It will also make it easy for her to find a riding, as there are likely a few people who expected to be in campaign mode for leader right now, and may not be keen to sit 4 more years in Cabinet; I'm certain some of them will offer their seat to the leader.

For Dix this probably marks the end of the road, at least for the time being. Considering how fast the party turned on Carole James, Dix probably does not stand a chance at remaining for any length of time. I think he knows this too. His party will take a long hard look at what happened and why and will rebuild. The BC NDP will be demoralized for quite a while by this, especially considering the poll lead, and this may flow into Federal politics as well. My personal guess is that by 2019, Dix will be a federal MP, and probably a strong one at that as he seems to know french.

For Weaver it means a simple fact: With Sterk stepping down as Green leader and with Weaver already the deputy leader, it means he will take over as Leader of the party. Weaver will get a spot in the debates, and will likely get as much coverage as, if not more than, Elizabeth May gets.

For Cummins it means he becomes the butt of jokes. The Conservatives, even if they are running at 20% with a full slate, are unlikely to get into the next debate because of this. In fact, given the party took 2% province-wide last time with about 20 candidates, and 5% this time with about 50 candidates, it really means Cummins did nothing at all for the party. I suspect the Conservatives will be torn apart and dead by September, and the threat of a right-wing challenge of the BC Liberals will be put to bed for the next election cycle, if not 2.

For Pollsters it means a lot of printing - that is printing out resumes because I suspect heads will roll. Individual phone questioners probably don't have much to worry about, but their bosses, and especially, their bosses bosses are likely to be gone within a year or two. With 3 big elections as tests and 3 big failures in a row, things will need to change if the industry is to gain it's credibility back. This is something the Government actually would likely back them up on, as governments use polling data to make public policy decisions. We may be in for a change to laws around polling.

For us, predictors and projectionists all over the internet, it means dark days. Politicians will take shots at us, lumping us in with pollsters, and many of us will "quit" or "retire". I myself semi "retired" after the Quebec election. How we react will determine what happens next. My personal feeling is we should, as a group, look at the 3 elections, look at the polls from all 3, and try to find a trend or pattern hidden within the numbers. We should look to see if we, as a group, can look at a poll and say "this poll is wrong". To see if we can look at the numbers being provided and see the signs that something is not right about it. I was arguing on twitter before I ran out of tweets (apparently you can do that) that we as projectionists and predictors need to make our models so strong that they can deal with all the data we have being wrong. This is not something to do. You need to know where and why they are wrong or you make the wrong call. I for example did presume the polls were wrong this election - however I presumed they were wrong in the other direction, that the NDP would do better than estimated. If we as a group are to remain viable, we will need to figure out how to predict the future.

Lastly, what does it mean for Alberta. May seem like an odd question to ask, but I have new insights here. My new job as a recruiter in the engineering field allows me to see things from an interesting prospective. Job offers recently have slowed down to a trickle because all that nice juicy oil Alberta has is stuck there, no way to get it out. With a premier that is more supportive of pipelines than Dix would have been this means a boon to the oil patch. I personally suspect when I head on in to the office today to see a lot of smiling faces. It might take some time for all the new jobs to pan out, but it certainly does mean more jobs in Alberta.


All in all, I really think more than any other, this election will go down as a shocker. People will struggle to explain it for months and years, but we will not truly understand what happened until quite some time after the next BC election. I suspect that this election will become required reading in universities across Canada, warning people about the dangers of betting on a sure thing.

Read more...

What to watch for in the BC Election.

Teddy here. Please note this post will be edited/updated apx every hour until the polls close, so, keep coming back for more!

The 2pm (eastern) entry is as follows:


What should we watch for in the BC Election tonight? Firstly, I'll do "ridings to watch" a bit later, but in general, keep note of the following:

The polls close at 8pm local, 11pm Eastern. (I'll be writing this as 8/11 from here on in).

By 8:10/11:10 we should have some early results in from a smattering of ridings.
By 8:25/11:25 there should be a large enough number of ridings in to examine province-wide trends... but it's too early.
Between 8:35/11:35 and 8:55/11:55 a huge number of polls will report in. This will be the most fun and exciting time to watch.
By 9/12 we should have some solid trends to keep our eye on, and, the election, save a perturbance of about 15%, will be over.

So, what should we keep in mind during this period?

I've done studies of very early reporting in elections. Anything that's out before 8:25/11:25 is worthless to the final result. If it happens to match it, it is simple coincidence. The BC Liberals, as A - The government, B - A rurally strong party, and C - A party that had a peak during the advance polling period; should run ahead of it's final results. That means that in the midst of the big poll glut, we should see them very high compared to the final result. I would not be surprised to see them at 39, despite the fact I'm convinced they'll only take 23. The NDP, however, should have enough to maintain a lead regardless, even if only by a seat, or, even a tie.

The result of this will be that however many seats the BC Liberals have on the board at 8:50/11:50, those numbers will steadily decrease as the night winds down.


5:30 entry

So the internet was out for a while at Teddy's house, but we are back!

There are a few regions that I will be keeping my eye on and for a few reasons. They are as follows:

Greater Victoria.
Polls show the Greens doing well here, the election will determine just how well. The Greens could well be sitting on a third of the vote in the area, and depending on how concentrated that is, they could win their goal of 4 seats. I personally do not see it, but the margin of error for the numbers available certainly says it's possible if all the chips come down where the Greens want them.

Abbotsford-Langley-Chilliwack
In short, the area of the lower mainland that is south of the Fraser, west of the mountains, and east of Surrey. This is the most right-wing area of the province and how the vote splits fall here will determine how successful the BC Conservatives and BC Liberals are. If the BC Conservatives fail to make a dent here, it could well mean that long-term, a right-wing alternative to the Liberals is going to face some serious struggles.

Okanagan
Like the above, this area is supposed to be a strong area for the BC Conservatives, and how well or poorly they do here will determine the viability of such a party. Like Calgary, this is an area where the Conservatives as a "brand" have always been stronger than the conservatives as an idea.

Peace River
These two ridings will be somewhat like the areas above, but, in these areas the NDP could do well. Should the NDP fail to do well, or even retreat, it could mark the start of a trend showing the NDP unable to break in to truly rural areas.


9pm entry

2 hours to go before the election starts. This will be my final update.

So what ridings should we be keeping our eyes on?

Oak Bay-Gordon Head
If the Greens are to win a riding tonight, it will be this one. They've dumped their efforts into winning here, and failure to do so would be quite damaging to the party.

Vancouver-Point Grey
The Premier's seat. I suspect she suffers from Charest Syndrome, that she will not win her seat if her party loses the election, and, I suspect her party will indeed lose the election.

Victoria-Beacon Hill
The Green leader is running here and how well or poorly she does may determine not just her future but that of her party as well.

Cariboo North
Former NDPer Bob Simpson is running here as an Independent. Much has been made of his run and it will be interesting to see if he can hold on to his seat or not.

Vancouver-False Creek
The math alone says the Liberals should be able to win, but Sam Sullivan, former Mayor, is running here for the Liberals. For reasons I don't fully understand, NDPers seem certain they will take the riding.

Nechako Lakes
The Conservatives think they can win here, but I don't see how. Just how well or poorly they do in this riding could determine the future of that party.

Langley
With the leader of the Conservatives running here, it will certainly be a benchmark of that party as to how well or poorly they will do in the long term.

Saanich North and the Islands
This is, roughly, the same seat Liz May holds, and many feel that fact means the local Greens will be able to win here on their own self-set goal of 4 seats. I just don't see it however.

 Boundary-Similkameen
This riding currently houses an Independent who is not running again. Who is running is Micha Popoff, local "colourful candidate". He was running for the Conservatives until they booted him from the party for putting his foot in his mouth. How well he does remains to be seen.

Peace River North
I have this marked as a gain for the Independent, Arthur Hadland. He ran last time and managed a strong second, with the Liberals down in the polls, he could take it.

Chilliwack-Hope
The NDP took this in a by-election, and if they intend to have a truly strong majority, they'll need to hold it this time around.

Abbotsford South
John van Dongen is the current Independent MLA here. He had been a Liberal, and, a Conservative for a while too. Can he hold his seat after making such a fool of himself?

Delta South
Currently held by an Independent, how much of a margin she gets re-elected by will help signal the feelings of voters.

Richmond East
The final riding to watch. In the HST referendum, 14,000 voters said NO, while only 8,000 said YES. In the last election, 10,853 votes were cast for the BC Liberals. The math would have the current BC Liberals sitting at about 7,200 votes. The question is can the NDP/Greens/Conservatives gain from this? They took a combined total of 7,628 votes last time, but with both a Green and a Conservative running, can someone gain the votes needed to beat the Liberals?

Time will tell.



edit
As a reminder, this is my personal projection:

Read more...