Saturday, October 9, 2010

Once again, Democrats are !#@&ed; but the Liberals' chances are looking up


At the current moment, North American politics is dominated by a large anti-incumbent feeling across the board. Nowhere is this more evident than in the drubbing in the polls that the Democrats are receiving south of the border for the upcoming mid-term elections, where even Barack Obama's old Senate seat is up for grabs.

All told, almost every single major election prediction website south of the border predicts a huge Democratic windfall, predicting that at least 40 congressional seats will flip (the Republicans only need 39 to get control of the house). Nate Silver at 538 is currently predicting a loss nearing 50 seats for the Democrats, definitely turning control of the House of Representatives over to the GOP and installing John "Almost as orange as the NDP" Boehner as Speaker.

The news doesn't stop there. While I noted in my last post that things were not all bad for Democrats in the Senate, it's taking a turn for the worse. For every step forward for the Democrats, they seem to take two steps back.

While Christine O'Donnell handed the Democrats Delaware, West Virginia's Senate special election, in which a popular governor is running, is turning more and more in favour of the GOP candidate, John Raese.

As Barbara Boxer regains her stride in California, Harry Reid is beginning to fall back again, opening up the Senate to Sharron Angle. The fact that I don't even have to go in-depth on how crazy this woman is tells you a lot.

And just because Richard Blumenthal now seems secure in Connecticut, doesn't mean Democrats are performing well in other places, as they continue to battle to an essential stalemate in Illinois.


Meanwhile, north of the border, the main progressive party's chances are looking up. Not only has Ignatieff gained a backbone, taking the fight to the Conservatives and the NDP, but we're also rolling out policy and visibly ticking off the Harper regime to the point where they blame us for everything and anything.

Those factors, plus general discontentment with the government, is leading to a strengthened position for the Liberals in Ottawa. 308.com's Eric Grenier (now an apparent part-time writer at the Globe and Mail) recently did a tally of September's "best and worst case scenarios," where the best poll results for each main party (aside from the Bloc) in each region are put into his predictions, and the best and worst possible results in regards to that month's polling comes out.

For September's case, the Liberals have definitely worked their way up. While in July, the Liberals' best case scenario couldn't even give us a minority government, this time around we're able to form a fairly strong minority in the best of cases. Even the worst case scenario gives the Liberals the same amount of seats.

And while the best case for the Conservatives is a slim majority of 158 seats, their worst-case is another strong Liberal minority government, one that could survive with the support of the NDP alone.

Speaking of the NDP, their best-and-worst cases would either be a strong coalition partner in a not-so-strong coalition (121 for the Cons, 98 for the Libs, 42 for the Dippers - you do the math); or nearly be wiped off the spectrum with 14 remaining seats and 12% of the vote. It's clear where the surge in support for both Liberals and Conservatives is coming from (possibly because they ended up between a rock and a hard place).

So - Democrats are screwed, but Liberals are looking up. It's may not necessarily hold in either case, and most certainly the tides will turn again. Certainly with all the unpopular incumbent premiers right now, most of them Liberal (who took over from unpopular Conservative premiers, fyi), the federal Liberals could face some voter backlash. And as the GOP stumbles along, still the most unpopular political party, Democrats could get some 11th-hour support at the ballot box. But for right now, the trajectory is set.

13 comments:

  1. Really you prediction is based on person who votes for the Bloc believes Quebec in not divisible but Canada is?

    Can you explain the balance sheet, membership, candidate drought of Liberals in 2010?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The second line is pure BS, so I won't even bother.

    But, really, your entire argument is based on the idea that, because Eric holds different ideas than you, he's wrong? Do your own goddamn math, CS, with whatever "unbiased" projection system that you have that isn't from your own, undeveloped hand, and you'll get the same results.

    Or are all the polls lying? The collective bunch is clearly a vast left-wing conspiracy against Conservatives, who regularly attain over 60% of the vote nationally. Pollsters are just too dumb to see it, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Found this tidbit on O'Donnell's O'erspending.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My Lord, Gletscher, where did you find that? I can't believe the GOP allowed her to stay on. That's some serious shit. If this occurred in Canada, most likely she'd end up out back and shot by a relatively domicile Elections Canada who would be more riled than you can imagine. I wonder what those that contributed to her campaign - mostly Tea Partiers - have to say about her spending that money...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Volkov are you denying the massive drop off in donations from 2009 vs 2010 for the Liberals?

    The instant memberships courtesy of the convention and leadership races have not materialized.

    I have checked with the figures at Elections Canada, do you have numbers from somewhere else?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The second line is pure BS, so I won't even bother.

    http://www.punditsguide.ca/finances/?pane=1
    2009 Q1 $1,831,843.33 from 15,599
    2009 Q2 $3,878,113.54 from 19,487

    2010 Q1 $1,467,997.86 from 15,255
    2010 Q2 $1,610,610.10 from 17,137

    You can pretend the second line is "BS" those facts are verifiable at Elections Canada-Pundits Guide.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have no problem with a partisan Liberal-Bloc voter not agreeing with me.

    I am skeptical and REQUIRE real evidence. Polling in Canada is much weaker than in the United states. We don't have the detail, number crunching of data to build similar models. (Another FACT)

    I accept bias can affect "models" garbage in, garbage out. (Programming Rule)

    Other skeptics like tend to agree.

    At this point, I have to take a moment and point out some differences I have with the Éric's conclusions about the "safeness" or not of some of those MPs in their ridings, in his post at ThreeHundredEight.com. This is mainly a methodological disagreement, because of my scepticism that previous vote-shares can or should be used to predict the "safeness" of a seat in the absence of other local factors. For one quibble, while the low turnouts last time in Newfoundland & Labrador seats are acknowledged in passing, the next sentence talks about one MP's vote "growing by 37%". In fact, the MP in question lost votes, while the number of non-voters skyrocketed.
    http://www.punditsguide.ca/2010/09/long-gun-registry-vote-after-math/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have debated anything is possible in a campaign vs tea leaves with many Liberals.

    The polls-projections models were wrong about Kim Campbell vs Jean Chretien in 1993.

    I still need proof the organization has turned things around and memberships have grown.

    I don't subscribe to the Jean Chretien logic of a good proof.

    2009 0/4 LPOC in 2010 what will be the excuse if LPOC 0/5 and their % of voters decline in every contest again?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Canadian Sense,

    The "massive drop" in donations is because Q1 and Q2 2009 covered the May Convention and "Iggymania." We've obviously not had those things this year.

    And I've said as such before, maybe not here, but very well so on 308. The fundraising, though, for 2010 is much better than it was in previous years under Dion. In fact, we're more or less in line with Martin's years as leader. Building our fundraising base takes time, and I have no doubts things will drop off over periods of time. Not to mention that we tend to move towards large donors that pay at once, as opposed to the CPC's advantage in small donors who pay over time. But, what you've pointed out is hardly indication of any catastrophic drop. So, pure BS.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As for your supposed "skeptic" look at Eric's projections, I've yet to see where exactly you can point out a flaw. If Eric gave you his entire method of doing things, would you come up with different numbers? Heck, go to RidingbyRiding and take up his projection system, see what you come up with.

    As for "not enough polling in Canada," you're right, there isn't. But so what? We've projected things before and gotten fairly accurate results without a huge dearth of polling. Even rolling averages can produce a somewhat effective result. Eric's averages are weighted at quite an expert level that's comparable to 538 and others. It's not his fault the polling doesn't come out as much as is wanted - but the gut instinct you feel you have for ridings isn't a justifiable alternative either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You agree we don't have the data they do in the US than you are ask me to disprove a theory or a computer model that is based on limited data?

    (That refutes my criticism of Canadian Polling)

    It is NOT my job to prove the computer model or Canadian Polling theory is not junk Science. It is the responsibility of the person(s) who created the model to demonstrate it with replication.

    I included Pundits Guide analysis on "safe seats" via 308.

    My analysis on the political landscape requires you to remove the noise from the media, pollsters and all parties. (Too much garbage, bias)

    Theory vs Actual Events
    Use only previous elections results, with balance sheets Those are facts, not spin. You can't fake people not opening wallets or not joining the ranks or a single event/issue is a game changer.

    In 2009 the facts supported another step forward for CPC in the four contests? Did those four contests support another step backwards for the LPOC? This is NOT complicated.

    You keep calling my opinion BS without refuting the numbers or facts. You can ask Ronald O'Dowd about our exchanges of tea leaves.

    The problem of fundraising and membership are NOT Dion's. It existed before him and he made some small improvements.
    Ignatieff also made progress in 2009. In 2010 the CPC are on track to match 2008 numbers. The Liberals have dropped meaning PROGRESS has been stalled, reversed based on first two quarters.

    I am not a card carrying partisan like you and I can be critical of the CPC. I believe Fantino may win but some long time supporters are unhappy.

    Caledonia was/is a failure.

    You are free to convince me with facts and evidence of a Liberal resurgence. Ronald ODowd has tried for a long time but the Tea leaves theory did NOT hold to scrutiny.

    Eric's model, 308's analysis is not a benchmark I use.

    ReplyDelete
  12. CanadianSense,

    You "refute" Canadian polling, but how can you refute the universe? That is, after all, what you're doing; by saying all data is useless, you just discredited an entire field of study and you basically have no right to work off anything now, unless you wish to be a hypocrite. I've yet to see anything constructive yet, either.

    Besides, I've never claimed there is a "Liberal resurgence." I'm simply saying that the polls report higher Liberal support, 'tis all. That's a fact, the polls do show higher Liberal support. But of course, the entire field is apparently discredited, so...

    Anyways, who said using 308 as a benchmark was a good idea? Certainly not myself. But he does have a projection system, and he is the most up-to-date one other than Canadian Election Watch, which shows similar results (and whose averages change with every poll). This isn't some cockamaney-scheme thought up by Liberals and Blocquistes to somehow discredit the Conservative party, it's bloody polling. And if you hold 538 in such high regard, you should obviously know that Nate Silver is a registered Democrat. Watch out - result distorting bias ahead!

    Also, you seem to gloss over anything I've said. Anything and everything. Why do I bother responding to you?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't hold projection polling as a Science. I believe too many variables can affect the outcome.

    I have said the United States is way ahead in data. In Canada you listed two sites run on voluntary basis with no disclosure of bias or funding?

    It is NOT a reasonable position to compare them. The available data in the US with the large number of polling projection websites Canada is significant.(FACT)

    It would be like comparing the Space Program in the U.S.A. vs North Korea.

    Can you link my "high regard" to ANY american polling projection or Website? I have labeled it "junk science".

    I use polls in opinion pieces on my blog to poke fun and refute analysis from partisans in the camps of lost souls.

    My prediction about the future is based on small swings from ACTUAL electoral events including REAL numbers in the financial state. Results and real numbers matter. (That is the basis on my "reality")

    If the Liberals start raising $ 12-15 million per year from 50,000 members than I will concede an organizational IMPROVEMENT.

    UNTIL than, just SPIN from cheerleaders in the MSM and bloggers who want to suggest a horse race.

    ReplyDelete