Politics from a New Brunswick perspective

Unelectable Mitt redux

2012-01-31T09:47:00.003-04:00

On the morn of the Florida primary, if the polls are to be believed, Mitt Romney will win convincingly and therefore likely wrap up the nomination. In and of itself, Florida might not be enought to seal the deal but it is followed by a February which has only a handful of contests all of which Romney is well positioned to win. By the time Super Tuesday rolls around, there won't be enough air left for others to be in fighting form.

But just in case Floridians focused on electability are reading this blog before they vote (hahaha), I want to restress my view that Mitt Romney is the least electable Republican in the field.

While it is true that polls now show Romney in a dead head with Obama nationally and these same polls Newt Gingrich far, far behind him. It misses an important point.

Newt has already had all of his dirty laundry aired repeatedly by Mitt Romney and his super PAC. All of the damage that will be done to Gingirch has been done.

If Romney is the nominee, the Obama campaign will destroy him with his own words. He has taken the opposite position on virtually every issue. A smart Obama campaign would target the deep south with ads showing Romney in his own words saying he favours abortion rights and opposes the record of Ronald Reagan. This would so depress grassroots conservative turnout that the south would be competitive for the first time in a generation. Add to that that Obama's operation massively increase Black turnout in the south in 2008 and that the enthusiasm of those voters has not diminished, unlike other demographics that fueled Obama's 2008.

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, may or may not be competitive nationally, but his win in the South Carolina proved that he has the ability to excite the Republican base and get them to come out to vote.

Rick Santorum, as hard as it is for me to say, is probably the most electable of the bunch. While his awkwardness in New Hampshire that caused him to blow his post-Iowa momentum gives me pause, the fact is that he did manage to win a Democratic-leaning swing state in 2 of 3 attempts. A state that resembles demographically a number of other swing states in the so-called rust belt. And he would obviously be very well positioned to sweep the south.

So let's take a look at the electoral map. First, these would be the states which I would argue are locked-in for the respective parties regardless of the Republican nominee.

Here Obama carries 196 electoral votes on the west coast and the northeast, while the Republican wins in Appalachia (+ Arkansas and Louisiana which behaved like the Appalachian states in 2008 by giving Obama less votes than they'd given John Kerry), as well as the strong Republican states in the plains.

If the Obama campaign is smart, and they destroy Romney's credibility among social conservatives, these voters will stay home or vote for a third party candidate. That would cripple the Republicans in the south. Even if we give Mitt the benefit of the doubt and say he could carry Arizona, Colorado and Nevada (due to higher Mormon turnout), Iowa (due to his strong organization and enthusiasm built there during the caucus), Michigan (due to his roots there) and New Hampshire. It would still be a blow out:

While it is conceivable that Mitt might be able to salvage things in Alabama and Texas (and maybe Mississippi but I doubt it), those wins would be offset but just-as-likely loses in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire.

Now Newt could ensure enthusiasm in the conservative heartland but would likely lose all swing states. Nonetheless, this leaves him far better positioned than Mitt. Under this scenario Newt would lose the presidency by just 30 electoral votes, compared to 111 for Mitt.

The last map I'll show you is definitely a best case scenario for Rick Santorum. I am not saying this is the likely outcome were he to win the nomination. It does show however, that he has a much clearer path to victory than these other knuckleheads.

This shows Santorum crushing Obama 338 to 200, which would be the worst Democratic defeat since 1988. That probably wouldn't happen. But even if Santorum lost Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin from the above map, he'd still win by a margin of 299 to 239. He could then also lose either Ohio or his home state of Pennsylvania and pull out a win. Or lose them both and hold Virginia.

If Republicans in Florida want to continue to buy into the completely insane groupthink that Mitt Romney's middle name is Electability, then we'll be hearing a lot of this over at Obama HQ in Chicago.

First in the South liveblog

2012-01-21T20:11:00.007-04:00

8:11 p.m. Atlantic - NBC has called South Carolina for Gingrich; other networks holding off. Gingrich leads Romney by 9 points in exit polls.

8:12 - CNN is talking about how Romney may be better off in Florida because it is a more diverse state. They seem to forget that independents can vote in South Carolina, while the Florida primary is closed - only Republicans can vote there. Therefore, while Florida may be more "diverse", is Republican primary electorate may not be.

8:29 - In my mind, Santorum's campaign is dead. I predicted that this would happen if he wasted time in New Hampshire as he did. CNN's John King is reporting though that Santorum's campaign has a crazy plan to run through Florida, hope for Newt Gingrich to win there and force Romney out of the race. In this universe they think that the establishment might turn to Santorum to try to stop Newt. While the establishment may be desperate to stop Newt, I suspect they would be more likely to try to get a Christie/Daniels/Bush to get in rather than back unelectable Santorum.

8:51 - Did anyone else think that Santorum's exclusive interview on CNN about how he would stay in even after finishing third in South Carolina sounded a lot like Huntsman's exclusive interview on CNN about how he would stay in even after finishing third in New Hampshire? I guess Santorum will drop out in 6 days. Who will he endorse?

9:38 - Interesting that Newt's win is so decisive that Mitt is as close to Paul in 4th as he is to Newt in first.

First In The Nation liveblog

2012-01-10T20:32:00.007-04:00

8:33 p.m. Atlantic - Sorry for the delay in getting started. My sincere apology to my one reader (Hi Mom!). Very early returns show Romney heading toward high-30s, which would be a big win. Exit polls show a near three-way tie between Romney-Paul-Huntsman with Huntsman in the back, he needed to win indies to place second in my opinion, so it could be disappointing for him as the expectations game in the past 48-hours seemed to be that he'd place second or a very strong third.

8:40 - Nate Silver says that the early results are from areas Romney won in 2008, so he isn't likely to stay in the mid-high 30s.

9:00 - The instant all of the polls close, CNN calls it for Romney. Not a surprise. Tonight was about who places second between Paul-Huntsman, who places fourth between Gingrich-Santorum and how big Romney's margin is.

9:11 - Interesting tidbits from exit polls: Huntsman wins big among Democrats cross-voting in the primary but they make up only 4% of the electorate. Romney wins Republicans by a huge margin as well. Independents are split between the three major candidates, but Paul wins. Romney wins among tea party supporters which to me seems like kind of a big deal.

9:21 - Huntsman personally comes out to talk to CNN to say he's staying in the race even if he finishes third. Worried that the chatter was going to quickly turn to him having to drop out?

9:29 - Mitt giving victory speech. Paul second, Huntsman third. Tight race between Gingrich and Santorum for fourth but not worth staying up for. Good night!

My Perry-Huntsman conspiracy theory

2012-01-05T12:00:00.001-04:00

Rick Perry surprised a lot of people with his decision to stay in the presidential race after the Iowa caucus, including his own staff. Nate Silver says that this is because he either a) is doing it for deeply personal reasons; or b) has been shown a strategic path to come back and win.

Let me expand upon a third theory that I hinted at on Twitter yesterday:

Mary Kaye Huntsman and Anita Perry have been friends for years, having met when their husbands were both Republican governors. Since their husbands have both become presidential candidates, their friendship has grown and they talk almost daily.

If Jon Huntsman does well in New Hampshire, he may be well positioned to do well in South Carolina. If Jon Huntsman does poorly in New Hampshire, he will have to drop out of the race. Should the former happen, Rick Perry could drop out of the race after New Hampshire but before South Carolina to endorse the surging Huntsman, arguing he too is a solidly conservative guy focused on jobs with a conservative record as governor. If Huntsman drops out, he could endorse Perry lending credibility to his campaign as well as Huntsman's suprisingly credible South Carolina organization.

Sound crazy? Both women have shown that they are among their husbands' most trusted and influential political advisors. If Perry's campaign in South Carolina is largely focused on tearing down Romney, Santorum and Gingrich and making the argument that you need a governor who has a conservative record, he could be doing it not only for himself but as a proxy for Huntsman.

Gaming out New Hampshire

2012-01-04T15:51:00.005-04:00

Last night, as the Iowa caucus results were trickling in, I posted my predictions for the New Hampshire primary. I posted two because of one important variable: Buddy Roemer. The former Louisiana governor has been excluded from all debates so far but recently scored 3% in a poll of New Hampshire and will be in the upcoming debates if he can grow that to 5% in one of the slew of polls that are likely to come. If he were to get into the debate, I suspect he would pick up a handful of votes in the primary, likely at the expense of Jon Huntsman.

So here is my prediction explained:

Romney: 32%

This is the exact share of the vote he got in New Hampshire in 2008. He also scored a repeat of his 2008 result in Iowa (25% both yesterday and four years ago). I think that the net effect of yesterday's Iowa result (Romney winning just barely over a surging Santorum) will have little effect on Romney's standing in New Hampshire, no bump but no anti-bump either. I do think though that the Newt Gingrich/New Hampshire Union Leader tag team against Mitt will have an effect and likely will see him dragged down from the mid-40s he's been seeing in polls there recently.

Huntsman: 20%*

The respected political observer Nate Silver opined that the best Iowa result for Huntsman was what we saw last night. Huntsman currently averages 10% in New Hampshire polls and can likely expect to enjoy a mini-Santorum effect for having worked the hardest in New Hampshire, especially with votes being shaken lose from Romney by the Newt/UL assault.

Gingrich: 17%

Newt is going to tear down Mitt Romney and be re-endorsed "every damn day" by the Union Leader. He should be able to parlay this, along with a fourth place double-digit showing in Iowa after having been written off, into a strong position in New Hampshire.

Paul: 17%

Paul currently averages 19% in polls of New Hampshire. A win in Iowa may have allowed room for growth but I suspect he keeps to his core support of 15-20%.

Santorum: 13%

Santorum has barely registered in most New Hampshire polls, but I suspect he will get a surge here similar to what Mike Huckabee got in 2008 under similar circumstances.

Perry and Bachmann: less than 1% between them

While I expected Perry to drop out and Bachmann to continue, the opposite happened today. Regardless, both of their names remain on the New Hampshire primary ballot and both of them will get less than 1%

Roemer: ~0% or 6%*

Buddy isn't likely to play here very much unless he gets the exposure of a debate. If he does, I forecast he gets 6% mostly at the expense of Huntsman.

Iowa live blog

2012-01-03T21:00:00.023-04:00

9 p.m. Atlantic - CNN says entrance poll shows Paul/Romney/Santorum in top 3, other 4 clearly back. Drudge often posts the actual numbers which I'll be watching for. Since 2000 Florida mishap, media is much more careful in showing and using the raw data from entrance/exit polls.

9:06 - best site for results tonight? The Des Moines Register of course.

9:09 - The Fix says more moderates and independents caucusing this year. Likely a good sign for Ron Paul, who I predicted on Dec. 6 would win with 25% of the vote.

9:14 - CNN has the exit poll up. No top line #s but you can figure them out using math. Will do that and post them.

9:17 - CNN beat me to it - here are the top lines: Paul 24, Romney 24, Santorum 18, Gingrich 15, Perry 11, Bachmann 7, Huntsman 1. This is the first wave of early arrivers, an updated entrance poll will follow. NOTE early arrivals entrance poll in 2008 had Romney ahead, he lost by 9 points. This could be a very bad sign for him if that trend carries through to this year. Entrance poll this year shows Romney winning big (2 to 1) among seniors who are likely to show up early.

9:23 - Ben Smith makes a great point: in 2012 caucusers locked into their voting sites will be able to get these entrance poll results on their smartphones. How will that influence the results? Ben theorizes that it helps Santorum as it proves he's the leader among social conservatives. It may also help Romney if traditional Republicans want to stop Paul and see Romney is the only one in a position to do so. Also Gingrich in a clear 4th and within striking distance of Santorum - some of his former supporters might come back. So, in a nutshell, I have no idea.

9:36 - First results starting to trickle in. In other news, entrance polls say Paul is leading Santorum among evangelicals (!) Paul went hard on his anti-abortion views in Iowa (his Ames straw poll speech was almost exclusively on this topic). If these numbers prove true, that REALLY paid off for Paul.

9:47 - Final entrance poll shows Santorum stronger, Newt weaker, everyone else about the same. Final results will be very important for Newt. If he is 4th (as seems likely) and closer to third than fifth, I think he can credibly portray himself as the comeback kid. If he is closer to 5th, it is harder. If Mitt is only a point or two back of third, he goes to NH where Union Leader has endorsed him. The Union Leader doesn't endorse once, they turn their frontpage into a daily endorsement. They would play up the Newt "comeback" big. Perry in fifth would be dead and a strong candidate for dropping out. Lots of bad blood between Perry and Romney, Perry and Paul and lately Perry and Santorum. Might he endorse Newt, giving him a second boost?

10:08 - Entrance polls show Paul with narrow lead, but Twitter chatter from journos suggest actual results suggest he will not place as well. Could be his super keen voters were more likely to agree to talk to entrance poll canvassers?

10:17 - can't understate enough how Newt's percentage matters. If he is above 15% he is a contender in NH. If he gets above 15% and gets endorsement from Perry and/or Bachmann, I'd call him co-favourite.

11:01 - Gingrich stuck at 13%, 10 points back of third and only 3 ahead of Perry. Even with Union Leader help, that's hard to spin into "comeback."

11:08 - It would help Newt if Perry slipped into single digits before reporters start filing their stories for the night. Leads like "A three-way tie for first, with only Newt Gingrich also breaking double digits..." would be helpful to his "comeback" argument.

11:42 - Newts high hopes slipping fast, Perry vote growing - could end up a 2-way tie for fourth.

12:07 - Even though college town Ames hasn't reported, Paul is 4 points back and unlikely to win. He's speaking to his crowd, says only he and Romney can run a national campaign. Now giving an impassioned libertarian spiel.

12:33 - Newt has said he will wage war against Newt for months to come. David Gergen says on CNN it sounds like Newt's mission is to destroy Mitt and let whoever else win the nomination. Sounded that was to me too. CNN also has Newt's full page ad for tomorrow's N.H. Union Leader calling Mitt a "timid Massachusetts liberal" and listing his sins. Should be interesting. But the question is if Mitt fights back, do they both lose? The old expression is that you throw mud by taking the ground from under you. Who benefits of Mitt and Newt destroy each other? A surging Santorum? A strong-based Paul? Or a his-time-to-surge Huntsman who has campaigned in N.H. like Santorum did in Iowa? Perhaps Huntsman's message is Rick Santorum proved working hard still matters in Iowa, will N.H. prove it still matters here?

12:37 - Bachmann speaking, sounds like she'll drop out.

12:41 - I guess I misread, she says she is going on.

12:59 - Perry returning to Texas, to "reassess" campaign. He'll have dropped out by supper time tomorrow.

1:06 - Ari Fleischer thinks Newt's attack/concession speech wasn't classy. I've got to take up for Newt. Mitt Romney is the least consistent, biggest flip-flopping guy to ever run for president and he destroyed Newt's campaign with ads calling Newt a flip-flopper. C'mon, Newt's earned the right to spit a few nails.

1:24 - Santorum is giving a very powerful speech. If he can get the right clips out through earned media he'll be in good shape.

1:25 - I'm going to sign off, but in case you missed them, here are my N.H. predictions. I'll post tomorrow an explanation of my thinking. Scenario 1 with Buddy Roemer, and scenario 2 without him.

U.S. primary watching guide

2011-12-29T20:22:00.004-04:00

This coming Tuesday the first votes will be cast in the contest to be the Republican nominee for president of the United States. The Iowa caucus will be held at nearly 2000 delegate selection sites across the mid-western state. The Iowa caucus is technically non-binding, so the first votes that count will follow the next Tuesday in New Hampshire.

The Iowa contest looks to between 2008 runner-up Mitt Romney and libertarian Ron Paul, with a surging Rick Santorum possibly being in play as well.

I made a prediction back on Dec. 6 of what I thought the Iowa caucus would turn out to be:

Paul 25
Perry 24
Romney 18
Gingrich 17
Santorum 12
Bachmann 4

At the time, this was rather bold. Ron Paul had not yet led in any poll and Newt Gingrich was heavily favoured to win both by polls, media, and pundits. I had made the following assumptions:

Ron Paul's steady climb up the polls in Iowa, heavy advertising and strong organization would pay off;
Newt Gingrich's lack of money, organization, political consistency and marital fidelity coupled with his history of lobbying would cause him to peak early and fall hard;
Romney would have a hard time growing his support past 15-20%;
and that a candidate from the Bachmann/Perry/Santorum crowd would be able to line up much of the social conservative support behind them.

I erred in thinking Rick Perry and his money would do this rather than Rick Santorum and his hard work. I stand by my above prediction with one adjustment: I wish to switch the names Perry and Santorum.

So if this comes to pass, what happens in New Hampshire?

Under my original prediction, it would likely have been a dog fight between Romney and Huntsman for survival.

Perry has no traction in New Hampshire and would have taken his momentum straight to South Carolina (which votes third). While Newt Gingrich, had he stayed atop of the polls, likely could have carried his momentum and won New Hampshire. Santorum falls somewhere in the middle between these extremes.

Santorum is unlikely to win in New Hampshire but as an unknown with momentum running against Mitt Romney (whose support is very soft), Jon Huntsman (who despite going all-in there hasn't be able to break 13% in any poll) and Ron Paul (who is a non-starter for about two-thirds of Republican primary voters) it could be very tempting.

If Santorum does place ahead of Romney in Iowa, he'll have a tough choice: either go to New Hampshire and roll the dice with high upside, or go to South Carolina with a week alone to run hard to build a lead. If Santorum places strongly but behind Romney, then he would be smart to go straight to S.C. and forget N.H.; if he places ahead of Romney the calculus is harder.

Another possible theory might be if the placement in Iowa is Paul-Santorum-Romney, Romney's standing in New Hampshire would likely be considerably reduced. Were Santorum to skip New Hampshire and leave Paul to take advantage of all of the Iowa momentum there, Paul might win New Hampshire as well. That would likely kill Romney leaving Santorum as the last man standing against Paul in South Carolina, which would likely mean an easy win for the former Pennsylvania senator. Though such an iteration might not be so simple; Huntsman could take disaffected Romney voters and place strongly enough in New Hampshire to become a contender and/or a wounded Romney could hang-in for likely wins in February caucus states (+ the Michigan primary where he is a favourite son) with the hopes of a super Tuesday (March 6) rebound.

It will be an interesting few weeks. I'll live blog the Iowa results and fallout on Tuesday and put out a New Hampshire prediction either Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

As for where to watch, I'll give you three recommendations. If you are looking for a national broadcaster it would be a hard choice between CNN and Fox News. While CNN has a pretty good election team, they've fallen a long way from the days of Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw and they no longer have anyone with the presence of Aaron Brown or the charm of Larry King. Fox on the other hand, while a bit tainted with bias, will have the best connected Republican commentators owing to their status as the GOPs network of record. When it comes to New Hampshire, if you can get WMUR, it is a no-brainer (other network affiliates from Boston may work too if you like the local touch).

I'm not going to try something as convoluted as TTTT from 2008, but if you'd like to take a shot at the vote totals for Iowa as I have above, the comments section and bragging rights await!

My final prediction for the record:

Paul 25
~~Perry~~Santorum 24
Romney 18
Gingrich 17
~~Santorum~~Perry 12
Bachmann 4

Romney and electability

2011-09-19T14:41:00.002-03:00

The conventional wisdom that Mitt Romney is the most electable of the Republican presidential candidates makes absolutely no sense to me. I am not even sure that he is relatively more electable than Rick Perry - as is widely accepted - or even Michele Bachmann - as is almost universally accepted.

The single biggest barrier to electability in my view is inauthenticity, inconsistency and self-contradiction. I am not sure that in the history of the world, there has been a candidate for any office with more examples of this unelectable behaviour than Mitt Romney.

Many would argue that John Kerry lost the 2004 election thanks to the playing and replaying of his infamous quote "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Ad makers could have a field day with the many similar or worse examples of Mitt Romney quotes. Imagine ads playing footage of Romney saying the following things side-by-side:

Romney then	Romney now
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country... Many, many years ago I had a dear close family relative - that was very close to me - who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and our family have been committed to the belief." - 1994 "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." - 2002	"I am pro-life; that's the truth." - 2007
"Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan/Bush." - 1994	"I take my inspiration from Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush." - 2008

Those are just two of my favourites. There are others on gay rights, individually-mandated health care, affirmative action, states rights, gun rights, etc, etc.

The idea that this guy has a snowball's chance in hell in a general election is the greatest political joke ever told.

How Canada can (and likely will) block reform of the "British" monarchy

2011-06-28T15:11:00.000-03:00

In 1931, the British monarchy evolved into something less specific. Rather than a single monarchy throughout the British Empire, from 1931 on a single monarch has worn several separate crowns - one for each realm (or soverign country) over which the monarch is sovereign. Under the same statute, the realms must all share the same monarch and any changes to the succession must be approved by all of the realms' parliaments.

This is where it gets tricky. Prior to 1982, Canada's parliament could have consented to a change in succession by a simple majority vote in both houses. However, under section 42 of the Canada Act 1982 (i.e. the Constitution), changes "in relation to the office of the [monarch]" can only be made with the unanimous consent of all provinces.

Notwithstanding one-off amendments that only affect a single province, since the adoption of the constitution in 1982 it has only been successfully amended once. And that was under the relatively easy formula which demands the consent of 7 provinces representing 50% of the population. And even that was way back in 1983. It has never been successfully amended using this unanimous formula despite two high profile attempts.

If we look to the lessons of Meech and Charlottetown, it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to get any amendment that requires the broad provincial consent of the 7-50 forumla adopted, let alone through the unanimous one. As I wrote in my earlier post on Senate and constitutional reform:

I suspect (though I'm not sure) that the federal and provincial first ministers and attorneys general looked to the American constitution when they came up with the amendment formula. The US constitution requires 3/4s of states to approve, while ours requires 2/3s of provinces. But ours is more difficult to attain. Why? There are 50 states, but only 10 provinces. That means that it only takes four provinces to stall constitutional reform in Canada, while it would take 13 states to do the same in the USA. It is pretty easy to get 4 premiers, who ordinarily can count on a rubberstamp from their legislatures where they likely hold a majority, to agree to a set of demands. It is much harder to get 13 governors, with legislatures who won't automatically agree with them, to do the same.

The result is ridiculous exercises like the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord: provinces band together and get all kinds of quasi-related or completely unrelated demands tagged on to the actual issue at hand in exchange for their support.

Comedic-historian Will Ferguson summed it up best when he described Meech as (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "Provinces: gimme, gimme, gimme" and Charlottetown as "Provinces, women's groups and Aborignal groups: gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme."

Thus, while the British press often write about (and even sue to implement) the idea of (and MPs and Lords try to legislate the) amending the succession either to allow for Catholics to sit on the throne, or to allow an elder daughter to succeed rather than her younger brother, they seem to forget one thing: Canada must agree.

And it doesn't look likely that Canada ever will.

Indeed, even Edward VIII's abdication back in 1936 would be impossible in present day Canada. A constitutional amendment would have to pass 12 legislative bodies (the Commons, Senate and 10 provincial legislatures) before a British King or Queen could step down. So the idea of the Crown skipping Charles for William is just as unlikely.

Yet another reason why I think we need to change the amending provisions. As I wrote in that same post:

The first constitutional amendment we need is one that would prohibit constitutional amendments that aren't addressing one specific issue. That would allow us to have intelligent debate and discussion on constitutional change without adding in everything but the kitchen sink.

Yes I know, never gunna happen. I continue to dream.

How to fix the Senate

2011-06-15T16:01:00.000-03:00

Today, word is leaking out about the Stephen Harper's first Senate reform plans that have a hope of passing.

I am a strong proponent of Senate reform, however I disagree with the prime minister's approach.

Stephen Harper's piecemeal approach to Senate reform completely ignores its real problems and would only serve to give democratic legitimacy to a broken body while risking national unity in the process.

One must remember why Canada got a Senate in the first place. As part of the bargain of Confederation, the Senate was made to temper the possibility of wild swings in voter preference from a fickle electorate and to allow smaller regions to have a place where their concerns would have weight.

If Canadians like the monarchy because it differentiates us from our American friends, why wouldn't they like an unbroken Senate? I think they would.

So what is *really* broken with the Senate? Its membership, and more specifically how its members are chosen, and is distribution of seats across the country.

Harper's proposals would try to tackle the membership question in an uneven way (some provinces could choose not to hold elections for Senators) while ignoring the seat distribution question. That's a problem.

Back to the history lesson...

Nationbuilders tend to be either very naïve or (to be more generous) very opptomistic.

The Amercians never foresaw that their grand plan to choose the federal executive through an electoral college would fail in their own lifetimes. The electoral college was meant to have state legislators chose a panel of elders who would in turn select presidents who are above politics and make their chief rivals vice-president a heartbeat away from the presidency. Within 10-15 years, the process was overtaken by partisanship and had to be amended. A few years after that, the whole electoral college process was made a rubberstamp.

At the same time it didn't seem to occur to our own Fathers of Confederation that a body of "sober" statesmen and scholars appointed by the prime minister would quickly evolve to a body of prime ministers' friends and supporters.

However, their idea was pretty good on principle. We have an elected and representative House of Commons. But some times voters do get buyer remorse and in a system with few checks on the executive power, a distinct second legislative body could be helpful. But an elected Senate wouldn't be distinct, it would be a clone of the other place. And thus a waste of money.

If only we had some kind of proven means to neutrally select and recognize preeminent Canadians. If we did, maybe we could get them to be Senators?

Wait! We do! There is the Order of Canada.

There are 165 companions of the Order of Canada and 105 Senators (later I will suggest this should be 120). From among these we could likely put together a geographically representative Senate filled with the sorts of folk that it was always meant to be filled with. If 105 (or 120) Senators couldn't be drawn from among them for reasons of geography or willingness, one could always turn to the officers (2nd tier) members. The companions could elect the Senators in the same way heritary peers did when they were largely phased out in Britain. This would remove political interference and cronyism from Senator selection while still allowing for a body of sober second thought.

Now onto the Senate's composition. The idea was to have regions with equal power in the Senate. At first, this was adhered to. Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes each got 24 seats. When PEI joined, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick became the only provinces in history to lose Senate seats as their numbers were reduced by 2 each to give PEI their 4.

Later, Senate seats were added haphazardly without regard to regions. This broke the regional representation model of the Senate.

This model should be restored in the following fashion:

Maritimes (24) + Newfoundland (6) should make a new 24-member Atlantic region;

The Ontario region (24) and the Quebec region (24) would remain unchanged;

The West (24) + Yukon (1) + NWT (1) + Nunavut (1) should be split into a Prairie region of 24-members and a Pacific and Arctic region of 24-members.

This is how the results could break out by Senate seats by province:
Ontario and Quebec - 24 each

British Columbia - 21*

Alberta - 10

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland - 7 each

PEI - 3

Yukon, NWT and Nunavut - 1* each
* - the constitution should make an allowance for each of the territories to get 3 seats should they become provinces, to be offset by BC gradually going to 15 seats.

This all sounds pretty easy right? If it were, I suspect Stephen Harper would take an approach like this. But it isn't. The problem? The constitutional amendment mechanism.

I suspect (though I'm not sure) that the federal and provincial first ministers and attorneys general looked to the American constitution when they came up with the amendment formula. The US constitution requires 3/4s of states to approve, while ours requires 2/3s of provinces. But ours is more difficult to attain. Why? There are 50 states, but only 10 provinces. That means that it only takes four provinces to stall constitutional reform in Canada, while it would take 13 states to do the same in the USA. It is pretty easy to get 4 premiers, who ordinarily can count on a rubberstamp from their legislatures where they likely hold a majority, to agree to a set of demands. It is much harder to get 13 governors, with legislatures who won't automatically agree with them, to do the same.

The result is ridiculous exercises like the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord: provinces band together and get all kinds of quasi-related or completely unrelated demands tagged on to the actual issue at hand in exchange for their support.

Comedic-historian Will Ferguson summed it up best when he described Meech as (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "Provinces: gimme, gimme, gimme" and Charlottetown as "Provinces, women's groups and Aborignal groups: gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme."

The first constitutional amendment we need is one that would prohibit constitutional amendments that aren't addressing one specific issue. That would allow us to have intelligent debate and discussion on constitutional change without adding in everything but the kitchen sink.

Then we should have a sensible discussion about a second constituional change to fix the Senate.

Yes, I know that this will never happen. One can dream.

Would the real ACOA minister please stand up?

2011-05-19T20:45:00.005-03:00

The media has widely reported that Bernard Valcourt has been named ACOA minister. However, that is not so. He has been named a minister of state only; which means he is not a full minister, but a junior minister supporting a more senior minister.

The Order-in-Council designating him a minister of state is now online. It clarifies that he is indeed not the minister of ACOA but "a Minister of State ... to assist ... the Minister for the purposes of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act in the carrying out of that Minister’s responsibilities."

So, who is that minister? Well, as I can find no Order-in-Council terminating Keith Ashfield's appointment to that job, it is either still Ashfield or PCO hasn't yet updated it's database with all of the OICs from yesterday.

Inquiring minds want to know.

UPDATE: Confirmed, from watching CPAC's video-on-demand recording of the swearing-in, that Keith Ashfield remains the real ACOA minister, with Valcourt assisting him.

Hosted by kiwi6.com music upload.
Download mp3 - Upload music.

What if...

2011-05-05T13:20:00.009-03:00

As usual, the lobby groups are crying foul over the election results. These groups favour perpetual minority government by requiring a party to get over 50% of the vote to win a majority government. Under our current system, a party that wins a clear pluarilty can form a majority government. No party has won more than 50% of the vote in Canada since Brian Mulroney in 1984 and then it was just barely.

I was asked on Twitter the other day to take a look at what the election results might have looked like under a different electoral system. I've done this before for provincial elections.

It is impossible to give a perfect picture of what might have been for several reasons. First, is there are nearly an infinite number of possible versions of proportional representation that Canada might choose were it to move in that direction. Second, voters might not cast their ballots in the same way if there were a different electoral system presented to them, especially as they would have a ballot specifically for a party seperate from local candidates in almost all iterations.

There are four main types of proportional representation systems that are worth exploring. For reasons of pure logistics, I can only explore three of them.

Mixed Member Proportional

MMP seems to be the most popular model in Canada, in that it has been chosen by electoral reform groups in three provinces (Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) to be put to a referendum. In Ontario and PEI, voters rejected electoral reform, while in New Brunswick a referendum was never held on the proposal.

In an MMP system, there are two tiers of legislators. The first tier continues to be elected from single member districts as they are today. A second tier are selected for multi-member regions (or the jurisdiction as a whole) based on the popular vote for each party (various types of PR can be used to elect this second tier); the second tier legislators are not selected based on the popular votes however, but are used to proportionalize the overall results to bring legislators from both tiers into as close a possible match to the popular vote. For instance, in the 1993 federal election, most of the second tier seats would have gone to the PCs who won 16% of the vote but less than 1% of the seats. An explainer of the Ontario-version of MMP can be found here.

MMP is used to elect the German federal parliament, the New Zealand federal parliament and the devolved assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the UK.

For the purposes of my analysis, I will assume that each province gets 25% more members assigned to a province-wide region. This would increase the size of the House of Commons from a 308 member both to a 388 member body. For comparison purposes in the table I present below, I have scaled these results down to a 308 member House of Commons.

Single Transferable Vote

STV is the other proportional representation system given serious consideration in Canada. It has been put to a referendum unsuccessfully in British Comlumbia on two separate occassions. Interestingly, BC voters actually voted in favour of STV in 2005, but the referendum was only to be successful if it received the support of 60% of voters. In a do-over in 2009, support for STV declined from 58% to 39%.

In an STV system, ridings are fused together to larger multi-member districts. Parties may, and ususally do, run as many candidates as there are seats in each district. Voters cast a preferential ballot, ranking all of the candidates of all parties in order. Voters could rank all of the candidates for their prefered party first, or they could mix and match. Candidates are elected when they reach the quota for the riding, which in most cases is 1/(n+1) where n is the number of seats up for election. For instance, in a 7-member riding, candidates would win when they get 1/8th of the vote. When a candidate is elected, his or her second preferences votes are distributed to the other candidates. If no candidate is elected in a given counting round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his or her votes are distrbuted to the next preferences. An explainer on BC-STV can be found here.

Ireland and Malta are the only countries to use STV for their national legislative elections, though Australia and India also use it to choose the upper house (i.e. Senate-type body).

Unfortunately, as this system is so radically different than our current system, I cannot think of a proper way to extrapolate the election results onto this system so it will not be included in my analysis.

Party-list proportional representation

This is the purest form of PR; it is a simple matter of people voting for a party, and that party gets the percentage of seats that it got in votes. There are closed-list and open-list models; in the former the party puts forward its list of candidates and if they get 20 seats, the top 20 people on the list get elected. It is this model that was proposed to elect the regional (second tier) MLAs in New Brunswick under the MMP proposal here. The latter gives voters two ballots, where they vote for their party of choice and also to rank the individual candidates (like in STV). Under this model, if a party won 20 seats, the top 20 candidates as ranked by voters would be elected.

Israel is the most well known country to use this system, and it doesn't really make a lot of sense on a national level for a country as diverse as Canada. It could also be applied at the provincial or sub-provincial level. It also usually includes a threshold (commonly 2 or 5%) to screen out "fringe parties."

I will run a provincial and national list PR results using both 2% and 5% thresholds for my analysis.

Additional Member Method

This system is very similar to the MMP system, except that rather than a fixed number of seats permanently enlarging the parliament, as many extra seats as necessary are added to proportionalize the result of the single member constituencies. In some elections, where the results came out proportional anyway, there would be no need to add extra seats. In extreme elections - think BC in 2001, New Brunswick in 1987, etc, many extra seats would need to be added to proportionalize the results.

I ran an analysis of the potential impacts of AMM if the extra seats were added at a provincial or national basis. As adding the seats at a provincial basis can distort the provinces' relative share of seats in parliament, I doubt this system would work in Canada. Therefore, I'll only show the national model below. As with MMP, I've scaled the results to a 308 member House of Commons for comparison purposes.

***

Additionally, I was asked to examine the possible impact of the "alternate vote." This system, also known as preferntial voting or instant runoff voting, has been used in Australia since 1918 and is the subject of a referendum today in the UK. AV is not a proportional representation system, it is an evolution of our current first-past-the-post system. In AV, people rank the candidates in their single member constituencies rather than simply marking an X for their prefered candidate. Candidates aren't elected until they get 50% + 1 of the vote, ending vote spliting. The UK electoral commission has a video to explain the difference between FPTP and AV.

Using the best data I could find on voters' second choices (which turned out to be this Leger poll), I ran the ridings through until we got majority winners in each riding. There are a number of huge caveats with this - particularly that there are no second perferences for people voting for minor parties and independents, causing all of those votes to become spolied when their first choice dropped out of the balloting. Another big problem is that I couldn't seperate Quebec's second choices from the rest of Canada, meaning second preference choices of and for the BQ are a bit distorted.

However, this should give us a rough picture of how the result would have been with AV and whether or not vote splitting was responsible for the election of a Conservative majority.

***

Anyway, without further ado, here are the results of the various electoral systems according to my analysis.

Seat comparison

	Actual Results	MMP	NPR2	NPR5	PPR2	PPR5	AMM	AV
Conservatives	167	139	123	128	125	127	144	145
New Democrats	102	101	95	99	95	98	88	123
Liberals	34	50	59	61	59	61	50	38
Bloquistes	4	13	19	20	18	18	16	1
Greens	1	5	12	0	11	4	10	1

Proportionality comparison (share of votes vs. share of seats)

		Seat Share
	Vote Share	Actual Results	MMP	NPR2	NPR5	PPR2	PPR5	AMM	AV
Conservatives	39.6	54.2	45.1	39.9	41.6	40.6	41.2	46.8	47.1
New Democrats	30.7	33.1	32.8	30.8	32.1	30.8	31.8	28.6	39.9
Liberals	18.8	11.0	16.2	19.2	19.8	19.2	19.8	16.2	12.3
Bloquistes	6.1	1.3	4.2	6.2	6.5	5.8	5.8	5.2	0.3
Greens	3.9	0.3	1.6	3.9	0	3.6	1.3	3.2	0.3

For all of the data, and most of the calculations used, click here. Some of the calculations were done manually so they are entered directly, while most are the result of spreadsheet-driven calculations.

I'm curious to hear your reactions.

What a night

2011-05-03T17:34:00.003-03:00

Last night was the most remarkable Canadian election since at least 1993, possibly since the dawn of television.

Here is my round up of thoughts....

Winners and losers all face challenges

The big winners are obviously the NDP, the Greens and the Conservatives (and I would argue in that order).

But all 5 parties face major challenges going forward.

The Conservatives will no longer be able to use the minority situation as an excuse to their base when justifying not pursing some policies that might not be politically palatable. They will have to walk a difficult balancing act in order to hold their electoral coalition together without risking losing their majority in 2015.

The NDP has a caucus with 60 MPs from Quebec, the vast majority of whom are inexperienced. The party has an opportunity to cement itself as the Canada's new second party, but will have to avoid the pitfalls that brought down Mario Dumont's ADQ after their 2007 breakthrough. Moreover, the NDP will need to be careful to not alienate Quebecers, who gave them their status as the official opposition, with a party that has long been dominated by Ontario operatives. Some of that possible resentment has already started to appear on Twitter.

The Greens get their first MP and Elizabeth May is owed congratulations for succeeding at her risky gambit of going all in on her local campaign. However, the Greens stand to lose half of their vote subsidy (having lost half of their national popular vote). Though, if the Conservatives cancel or phase out the subsidy that may be moot. In any event this cash loss will be offset by May being able to use her Hill office budget to employ the brightest lights of the Green Party, and her platform as an MP to get lots of free media.

Now, on to the Liberals and Bloc. Their challenges are more obvious, and more stark. The Liberals face the risk of following their UK forebears into perpetual third party status. The Bloc has only 4 MPs and limited financial resources. Will either be able to rebound from these low water marks?

What does this all mean for New Brunswick?

The Liberals have been reduced to 1 seat for the first time since 1984. And they placed third in 7 of the 10 ridings. The NDP won a remarkable share of the vote and came close to picking up seats in Moncton and Saint John. Is this a good omen for Dominic Cardy and the provincial NDP? Or is it solely a federal phenomenon? If the latter, is it a one time thing or is the NDP poised to make gains here in 2015 as they look to solidify their status as one of the country's two major parties?

And with Harper's new majority holding only 6 seats in Quebec, will unilingual ministers Keith Ashfield and Rob Moore be pushed aside to make room for needed francophones in the cabinet? Bernard Valcourt and Robert Goguen are likely already making that pitch!

What's next for the NDP?

The NDP seems to have lots of potential growth potential. It's birthplace and former stronghold of Saskatchewan eluded them for the 4th straight election (my prediction quite foolishly thought they could rebound to 10 seats there last night's scenario) and were held to only 2 seats in Manitoba. This is highly unusual territory for the NDP and those areas should be worked hard over the next four years if they wish to expand/secure their position.

Federal election prediction - New Brunswick

2011-04-29T14:23:00.002-03:00

If you looked at my prediction from last night, you may have noticed my New Brunswick prediciton - 6 CPC, 2 Lib and 2 NDP. I was expecting some reaction to that but maybe my blog isn't as widely read as I'd like to think!

In any event, I will break that out into three categories: easy holds, close holds and seats changing hands.

Easy Holds

The ridings of Tobique-Mactaquac, Fundy-Royal and New Brunswick Southwest are among the safest Conservative seats east of Alberta. They would only change hands if there was a big anti-Conservative sweep. And there doesn't really seem to be one.

The riding of Beauséjour should be just as strong for the Liberals. Acadie-Bathurst for the NDP is a no brainer.

And Miramichi, though some view it as a close race, will be solidly in the blue column Monday night.

Close Holds

I think that Fredericton will stay with Keith Ashfield for a second term but with a surprisingly strong showing by the NDP. I see the NDP placing a close third or even second. Ashfield will be held to the low 40s in terms of percentage of the popular vote.

Brian Murphy will expand on his narrow win in Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe from 2008, but just a bit.

Changing Hands

Jean-Claude D'Amour's three elections have been somewhat flukey. He won Madawaska-Restigouche in 2004 because francophone New Brunswickers weren't ready to accept Harper's new "Reform-Conservative Party". He barely survived in 2006, despite the fact that his Conservative opponent hadn't been on a ballot in 19 years nor really heard from in that time. D'Amours built some strength back up in 2008 but he'll certainly note be able to fend off the force that is Bernard Valcourt.

And I save my boldest prediction for last. There is only reason that Jack Layton went to Saint John this week that I can fathom; their internal polls showed something that is counterintuitive. Rob Moir's record of building the NDP up from nothing in the uber-conservative stronghold of Fundy-Royal coupled with the NDP's strong showing in Saint John in last fall's provincial election (despite not really paying any attention to the Port City) bode well in theory. Layton's visit suggests that there is emperical evidence (in internal NDP polls) to suggest this seat could flip orange.

Federal election prediction

2011-04-28T22:03:00.012-03:00

I can never resist; here is my federal election prediction.

Not a lot of science here... I ran my gut instincts on the provincial popular votes through UBC's election forecaster and made a few adjustments (mainly in Quebec) to be more in sync with what I believe can be possible considering get-out-the-vote operations, etc.

Here's what I came up with:

CPC	121
NDP	91
LPC	68
BQ	27
Ind	1

I'm not sure what these results would mean in terms of government. The Conservatives would be very small were they to continue in office and would need the support of either the NDP or the Liberals to pass things through the house; the Bloc would not have enough votes to prop up a government.

The Liberals would be left in quite a pickle. Were they to prop up the Tories they would give the NDP the opportunity to reassert that they're the only alternative to the Conservatives and boost their chances at eliminating the Liberals as the principal centre-left party. Were they to join an NDP-led coalition, or just sign a confidence agreement to put the NDP into office solo, they would be giving the NDP the opportunity to have a record in office and remove for eternity the argument that only the Conservatives and Liberals can form a government.

May we indeed live in interesting times.

For those interested, here is my somewhat wacky province-by-province breakdown.

A cautionary tale for the NDP

2011-04-27T09:00:00.003-03:00

Not too far from here, not too long ago, there was an election. The campaign had raged for months between two party leaders who weren't well loved by either their party or the people. An underdog yelled from the treetops that there was a third option, and no one heard. Or at least, they acted as though they didn't.

And then, when the distance to the election was being measured in days instead of weeks, something incredible happened. That third option surged in the polls. At first he was rivaling the liberal option for second. Then he pulled ahead just a little bit. And in the final days he actually started to tie the conservative frontrunner and even lead him.

The final results were 38.3% for the conservative frontrunner to 36.5% for that implausible third option. The liberal trailed distantly at 19.1%.

We're of course talking about the race for governor of Maine. The conservative Republican is now-governor Paul LePage. The third option was independent Eliot Cutler. And the liberal Democrat was Libby Mitchell.

And one might argue that this isn't such a cautionary tale for the NDP; were they to do as well as this it would be an incredible trimuph. But here's the rub: Cutler won the votes on election day. But he placed third in advanced polling before people realized he was a viable option, handing the election to LePage.

Here in Canada, the NDP surge first started being talked about last Thursday, the day before advanced polling began - and the day before the Easter long weekend. Many people cast their ballots on Good Friday. Would the average voter have even heard about the NDP surge at that point? And had they heard it, would they have thought it a rogue poll that only pertained to Quebec anyway? Today, we're seeing more polls putting the NDP firmly in second place nationally and gaining. But how many anti-Harper voters cast ballots for the Liberals this past weekend thinking they were the only viable alternative? With a record 2 million Canadians voting in those polls, how much damage will that have done to the NDP's high hopes?

Here is Eliot Cutler's take:

Marie had read about my plans for reforming health care in Maine and wanted to know more. She quickly told me that she already had voted; because she didn't say that she had voted for me, I was certain that she hadn't.

After we had talked for three or four minutes, she suddenly looked up at me, stricken.

"Oh dear," she blurted out, "I think I made a mistake!"

"Don't fret," I reassured her. "You can make up for it by persuading two of your friends inside to vote for me!"

Marie ran up to me three times during lunch to report her conquests, which ended up numbering six. But despite her efforts I lost the Maine gubernatorial election.

An Independent starting with zero name recognition in a five-person race, I finished a close second, losing 38% to 37% but winning nearly twice the votes cast for the Democrat.

According to our internal polls, I had the support of only 15% of Maine voters when early voting was about to start in mid-September. By mid-October, after Marie already had voted, I was still in the low 20s. In the end, more than 207,000 voters marked their ballots for me, and perhaps several thousand more would have had they not voted early.

The cautionary tale is this: the NDP may have peaked too late, for 15% of people have already cast their vote.

Un gouvernment NPD?

2011-04-25T13:48:00.003-03:00

Much like the shocking majority victory for the PQ back in the 1976 provincial election, crazy things are happening electorally in Quebec.

Should the current NDP numbers hold, some are predicting that the NDP could win 30 seats... in Quebec alone.

A few years ago, in a post I wrote about the underacheivements of NDP, I noted that since 1979, the NDP had won 74 different ridings in general elections. Since then, they've won a few more. Throw in 30 from Quebec and you could theoretically see over 100 seats for the Dippers.

That sounds crazy, and it probably won't happen, but crazier things have happened. No one saw the NDP winning 19 seats in Nova Scotia in 1998, and no one saw them forming a government in Ontario in 1990. No one saw the BQ winning 54 seats in Quebec in 1993, or the Tories falling to 2 nationally in that same election.

So what does this all mean for New Brunswick? I was surprised to note that Jack Layton made an appearance in Saint John today.

The NDP got only 16% of the vote there in each of the past two elections. And their high water mark was 19% in 2004. However, Rob Moir grew the vote in neighbouring Fundy-Royal from 16 to 21 and finally to 24% and second place in 2008. He is now running in Saint John. Moreover, 2 of the 3 provincial ridings to ever elect NDP members are in the Port City. Does Layton think that his surge in Quebec will spill across the country and could then translate into winning these sorts of ridings that have never before been on their radar?

If so, Fredericton is probably another possibility. The Liberals didn't nominate a candidate until 10 days into the writ and his signs (and other activities) were very slow in going up as a result. The NDP broke 20% here in 2006, and has often done the same in provincial elections in Fredericton-area ridings.

All this seems to suggest the NDP is on the cusp of a major breakthrough. But one must remember that the NDP could just as easily be the victim of what is called "inefficient vote." This is what happened to the PCs in the 1993, 1997 and 2000 elections. The NDP could suffer from this phenomenon especially in Quebec.

If the NDP were to win 25% of the vote in every single riding in the country, they would walk away with somewhere between 0 and a handful of seats. Apply this to Quebec and the same logic holds. They need to raise their national vote to higher levels, or ensure that their vote is concentrated in specific seats that they win.

In 1997 for instance, we saw some great examples of efficient vs. inefficient vote. Working down the scale we see the BQ getting 4.1 seats for every percentage point of the national popular vote, Reform got 3.1, the NDP got 1.9, and the PCs got only 1.1. In fact, though the PCs had nearly twice the popular votes of the NDP, they actually won 1 seat less.

So, an NDP government still seems impossible. But winning 80-100 seats seemed impossible a week ago.

Neither may happen, but it is certainly something that bears watching.

UPDATE: 308dotcom has more on the possibilities of inefficient NDP votes in Quebec.

Ummm... okay

2011-04-21T20:31:00.005-03:00

I guess it shows when Paul Zed isn't your chief of staff anymore...

Someone call Elsie quick!

UPDATE:

Alright, it looks like the Liberals have "fixed" this mistake by changing it to "St. John." As much as I found it funny when they erred in calling it "St. John's," that's a common and excusable mistake. But it is something worse to still get it wrong when intentionally "fixing" it. Good work folks.

Keep May out

2011-03-30T10:15:00.001-03:00

Back in 2008, I made the case for Elizabeth May to be included in the debate. This election, I hold a different view.

In 2008, the Greens had a good case to make. They were the modern day answer to Reform and the Bloc in 1993; parties that had not won seats in a general election but polled far ahead of other "fringe" parties and had a good chance of winning seats. They were included in the debates and went on to both win more than 50 seats. How much the debates influenced their electoral showing is, well, a matter for debate, but it is obvious that it helped these parties (particularly Reform) get on to more voters' radars.

In 2011, the Greens no longer can make that case. While neither of the scenarios I envisioned for the Greens after being in the debates in 2008 came to pass, the fact is that their thesis was disproven. The whole argument for the Greens to be in the debates was that they were building up impressive amounts of support with little money and public exposure. The debates would undo the bottleneck they faced allowing them to raise funds and earn votes.

It didn't happen. Their vote increased incrementally as it had for the past several elections. They had no electoral breakthrough, and really didn't do any better than they likely would have without the debate.

The more leaders you have in the leaders' debate, the less of a debate it becomes and what you get is a shouting match. I'm all for including up-and-comers to give them the chance to breakthrough. But when they get that chance and fail, let's not crowd the stage with also rans.

Harper's easy path to majority

2011-03-23T10:41:00.001-03:00

So we're looking at a federal election on May 2 or 9. And at first blush, it looks like Stephen Harper has a pretty easy path to a majority government. As Calgary Grit noted, the current polls suggest an 85% chance of a majority government. (Though he also notes that polls at this point are fairly meaningless as the last three parties ejected from office have led in polls when the writ dropped.)

But let's just assume for a moment that things keep chugging along fairly well for Harper and the Conservatives. After all, the growing number of "scandals" haven't seemed to have stuck and their budget was textbook in its use of microtargetting the sorts of people the Conservatives need to pick up as voters.

As it stands today, the Conservatives are only 11 seats short of a majority. And it isn't unreasonable to imagine that they could hold all or most of the seats they already have. Some like to talk about losses in Quebec, but the last election would seem to be a low-water-mark for them in that province considering all of the anger over arts cuts in 2008.

So let's lake a look at the top 20 pickup opportunities for the Conservatives.

Atlantic Canada

There are a number of pick-up opportunities in Atlantic Canada for the Tories. Newfoundland is an obvious target after they were shut out there in 2008 and now that Danny Williams is gone. And after widening their grip on New Brunswick to 6 seats in 2008, there is plenty of opportunity for them to grow here as well.

St. John's East and St. John's South-Mount Pearl

Both of these seats have been traditionally in the blue column. They went against the Tories in 1993 and 2008 but those seem to be historical anomalies. With Danny Williams gone both of these should be easy targets for the Tories - though Jack Harris may be a bit harder to beat than your average opposition member in St. John's.

Avalon

Fabian Manning very nearly got re-elected here even when Danny Williams was running his ABC campaign. Manning is musing about resigning his Senate seat to run again which would suggest this seat is a target.

Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe

Daniel Allain very nearly defeated Brian Murphy in 2008. Murphy was thought by many to be untouchable so with that x-factor wiped away and the growing rumours that none other than Bernard Lord will be the Conservative candidate, things are looking pretty blue in Moncton.

Madawaska-Restigouche

Jean-Claude D'Amours barely won here in 2006 against former Hatfield minister Jean-Pierre Ouellet. While he did better in 2008, it is hard to imagine him being triumphant again if the rumours about a comeback for Bernard Valcourt are true.

Ontario

Kingston and the Islands

This seat, surrounded on all sides by blue, has been held by narrower and narrower margins by Liberal speaker Peter Milliken. With Milliken retiring it seems to be a sure bet to go Tory.

Simcoe—Grey

Helena Guergis' seat will presumably come back to the Tories, but one never knows how the vote might split if she runs as an independent.

Guelph

The Liberals have been holding this seat by smaller and smaller margins thanks to a very strong Green base here - it was there closest seat to a win in 2008 despite Elizabeth May running unopposed by the Liberals in Central Nova. That coupled with a strong NDP prescence would suggest that a Tory win over a three-way vote split on the left is inevitable eventually.

Welland, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, and Thunder Bay—Superior North

These northern and/or rural Ontario seats all went to the NDP by relatively small margins in 2008. They are heavily targeted by the Conservatives and they'll win some if not all of these.

Brampton—Springdale, Brampton West, and Ajax—Pickering

These 905 area code seats all went to the Liberals by relatively small margins in 2008. They are heavily targeted by the Conservatives and they'll win some if not all of these.

Western and Northern Canada

Western Arctic

The NDP barely helded this seat in 2008 and the Conservatives have been heavily targeting Northern Canada generally and this seat specifically.

Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca

Keith Martin has managed to just barely hold on to this seat since switching to the Liberals in 2004. With his retirement it seems a no brainer for the Tories to pick it up.

Edmonton—Strathcona

Can the NDP hold a seat in Edmonton for two elections in a row? I don't think it likely.

Burnaby—Douglas

The Conservatives (and the Canadian Alliance before them) have almost won this seat every election going back to 2000. With Bill Siksay's retirement they may have the edge they need.

Vancouver South

This seat was close enough for an automatic recount in 2008, and will likely be closely targeted again.

Sarah Palin's AlaskaArizona

2011-03-09T16:13:00.003-04:00

Politico's Ben Smith reports today that were Sarah Palin to run for president, she would base her campaign in the Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale.

The reason:

One lesson of Palin's sometimes-difficult time in the spotlight has been that Alaska is an extremely difficult base for national politics. From a distant political culture to a daunting time difference, Palin hasn't been terribly well served by the fact that her state is little-known to reporters in the lower 48, and that email inquiries arrive at 3:00 a.m. needing answers by 5:00 a.m.

There is a more specific rational for the Phoenix area: there are only 6 year-round detinations in the Lower 48 from Anchorage:

Chicago (home base of the Obama campaign)

Minneaplois (home base of the Pawlenty campaign)

Salt Lake City (where both Huntsman and Romney dominate)

Portland and Seattle (which lie in the Pacific time zone, an extra hour from most of the media)

and Phoenix.

Seems like a pretty logicial and well-thought-out place. Couple that with the fact that Palin daughter Bristol has settled in the area and it makes one wonder if Sarah Palin may be more serious about running for president than the conventional wisdom suggests.

Flaws of proportional representation redux

2010-09-28T11:21:00.007-03:00

"This electoral system is so distorted!" many NDPers, Greens and other proponents of proportional representation likely screamed as the results solidified the evening of September 27. Fair Vote Canada was one of these groups, and they demanded New Brunswick forthwith implement the New Brunswick Mixed-Member Proportional (NB MMP) system advocated by the Commission on Legislative Democracy.

But if we had NB MMP in place, we might well have heard others screaming the same thing.

In 1947, Winston Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." You might easily substitute in our specific type of democracy, first-past-the-post.

I re-ran the 2006 election results through the NB MMP model a while back, and explained why I didn't think PR proponents would care much for the result.

Running the 2010 results through NB MMP and comparing it to 2006, raises even more problems.

Here is what the results would have looked like if you apply the 2010 election results through the model using the same assumptions I used in my 2006 analysis.

		2010 actual results		Projected NB MMP seats
		Seats	% vote	Riding	Regional	Total
PC		42	48.9	27	2	29
	North	9	46.9	6	1	7
	Central	13	53.0	8	0	8
	Southwest	13	51.7	8	0	8
	Southeast	7	44.2	5	1	6
Lib		13	34.4	9	10	19
	North	5	38.6	3	2	5
	Central	1	29.9	1	3	4
	Southwest	1	29.6	1	3	4
	Southeast	6	39.1	4	2	6
NDP		0	10.4	0	5	5
	North	0	12.1	0	2	2
	Central	0	7.7	0	1	1
	Southwest	0	11.9	0	1	1
	Southeast	0	9.6	0	1	1
Green		0	4.5	0	3	3
	North	0	1.6	0	0	0
	Central	0	5.2	0	1	1
	Southwest	0	4.8	0	1	1
	Southeast	0	6.8	0	1	1

Here you do actually largely achieve what PR proponents want - a seat share for each party relatively close to their vote share. But it also shows for all the distortions this particular brand of PR eliminates, it creates many of its own.

This is the second election we've run through NB MMP where a party that gets less than 50% of the vote still wins a majority government, something that PR proponents view as the most cardinal sin of first-past-the-post.

Also troubling for PR types is that under NB MMP, the NDP didn't win any seats with 5.1% of the vote in 2006, but the Greens won 3 seats with 4.5% in 2010. Talk about a distortion! And another distortion is that while the NDP polled 130% more votes than the Greens, they would only have gotten 67% more seats.

No electoral system is without flaw. And NB MMP certainly has its fair share.

I think that Chris Baker may have had the most succinct analysis of PR here.

UPDATE:

My earlier analysis ignored the fact that under the NB MMP model, parties that get less than 5% of the province-wide vote are not eligible for seats. Therefore, the Green Party would not have won any seats under NB MMP if they got the same share of the vote as they did last night.

Here is a revised projection of the results under NB MMP:

		2010 actual results		Projected NB MMP seats
		Seats	% vote	Riding	Regional	Total
PC		42	48.9	27	2	29
	North	9	46.9	6	1	7
	Central	13	53.0	8	0	8
	Southwest	13	51.7	8	0	8
	Southeast	7	44.2	5	1	6
Lib		13	34.4	9	11	20
	North	5	38.6	3	2	5
	Central	1	29.9	1	4	5
	Southwest	1	29.6	1	3	4
	Southeast	6	39.1	4	2	6
NDP		0	10.4	0	7	7
	North	0	12.1	0	2	2
	Central	0	7.7	0	1	1
	Southwest	0	11.9	0	2	2
	Southeast	0	9.6	0	2	2

Under this model, the Greens lose their Central seat to the Liberals and their other 2 seats to the NDP. This to me presents even greater problems. The Greens, while breaking 5% in two regions of the province and nearly hitting 5% province-wide are shut out.

A question has been asked, even though NB MMP is imperfect, is it better than the status quo? I would argue it is not. To move to NB MMP you give up a large degree of local representation and create two classes of MLAs. In exchange, you are supposed to get more parties represented and prevent parties who don't receive a majority of the vote from winning a majority government. This delivers partially on one point and not at all on the other.

Results

2010-09-27T23:31:00.004-03:00

Well that was quite something. I think that all signs pointed to a Conservative win, and while I thought they would win a modest majority, I did see the potential for 38 seats.

My sincere congratulations to Mr. Alward and the Conservative campaign who exceeded that with 42 seats (pending at least one recount).

The Tories won all but 3 of the 15 ridings to watch, but also won 7 ridings that I had thought to be Liberal victories. Here is a map with the Tory wins that I didn't forsee highlighted. Of these, considering the big sweep, none are a major surprise. I'll single a few out for comment.

Grand Falls-Drummond-Saint-André (+6)

Campbellton-Restigouche Centre (+20) - I really missed the ball here as this race wasn't even close to close

Miramichi Bay-Neguac (+5)

Quispamsis (+16) - this is a bell-weather and I started to get buyers remorse this afternoon when I realized that, but a 16 point margin is quite something, especially when an opinion poll had given Schryer a 9 point victory just a few weeks ago

Saint John East (+5) - this result was almost the exact same as 1999 - PC winning with less than 40% due to high NDP vote, I didn't expect the NDP to be able to score anywhere near the 24% they got here and the 28% they got in Saint John Harbour

Saint John Harbour (9 votes) - this is the first ever PC victory in this riding and with a final result of 30.7-30.5-27.6, this was quite a nail-biter all night

This map is also eerily similar to 1999, with the popular vote victory by Alward also similar (+14.5 vs +15.7 in 1999). Here are the maps side-by-side.

Final prediction

2010-09-25T10:14:00.005-03:00

Here is a list of all of the ridings, organized by my level of confidence. I offer a profile for the 15 ridings to watch. I had promised to limit myself to 10 ridings to watch, but I couldn't get myself below 12. I rounded it up to 15 for fun.

I am absolutely, 100% confident of the outcome

Albert (PC)
Caraquet (Lib)
Carleton (PC)
Hampton-Kings (PC)
Kings East (PC)
New Maryland-Sunbury West (PC)
Nigadoo-Chaleur (Lib)
Oromocto (PC)
Shediac-Cap-Pelé (Lib)
Woodstock (PC)

TOTAL: PC 7, Lib 3.

I am 99% sure of the outcome

Centre-Péninsule-Saint-Saveur (Lib)
Fundy-River Valley (PC)
Grand Falls-Drummond-St. André (Lib)
Kent (Lib)
Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou (PC)
Memramcook-Lakeville-Dieppe (Lib)
Saint John Harbour (Lib)

TOTAL: Lib 5, PC 2;
RUNNING TOTAL: PC 9, Lib 8.

I am confident

Dieppe Centre-Lewisville (Lib)
Edmundston-St. Basile (PC)
Fredericton-Nashwaaksis (PC)
Moncton North (Lib)
Restigouche-la-Vallée (PC)
Riverview (PC)
Rogersville-Kouchibouguac (Lib)
Rothesay (PC)
Saint John East (Lib)
Saint John Portland (PC)
Saint John-Fundy (PC)
Southwest Miramichi (PC)
York (PC)

TOTAL: PC 9, Lib 4;
RUNNING TOTAL: PC 18, Lib 12... these numbers I would say are the minimums for both parties and all of the numbers above I think you can take to the bank... an electorate can be unpredictable so I am less certain below.

In my mind I feel confident, but I am somehow uneasy

Campbellton-Restigouche Centre (Lib)
Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak (PC)
Grand Lake-Gagetown (PC)
Madawaska-les-Lacs (PC)
Miramichi Bay-Neguac (Lib)
Miramichi-Bay du Vin (Lib)
Moncton East (Lib)
Petitcodiac (PC)
Quispamsis (Lib)
York North (PC)

TOTAL: PC 5, Lib 5;
RUNNING TOTAL: PC 23, Lib 17

Toss ups - "nbpolitico's fifteen ridings to watch"

These 15 ridings will be the ones to decide the election and are the ones to watch on election night.

Bathurst
This riding has never gone Conservative since its creation in 1967. Prior to that it was part of the multi-member Gloucester riding which only went Conservative once. Notwithstanding that long Liberal history, it has been one of the closest seats in the province for the past two elections. This election will be the third. In 2003, 2006 and again in 2010 it will be a race between Liberal Brian Kenny and Conservative Nancy McKay. Will Kenny's position as a minister in the government help him? Will McKay's two consecutive losses hurt her? What will be the effect of the NDP which will probably poll between 10 and 20 per cent? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

Charlotte-Campobello
An opinion poll in the riding of Grand Lake-Gagetown showed People's Alliance leader Kris Austin capturing 23% of the vote. It is not hard to imagine PANB candidate John Craig achieving a similar result. The question is, will that vote come from the Conservatives or the Liberals or from both? Or is his support high enough for him to win himself? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans PC

Charlotte-the Isles
This is traditionally a Liberal stronghold. The old riding of Charlotte Centre (which makes up most of this riding) was Sheldon Lee's fiefdom from 1978 until it merged with mainland parts of Charlotte-Fundy to make the new riding of Charlotte in 1995. Lee held Charlotte until he retired in 2003. The riding stayed in Liberal hands in 2003, and again under its current name in 2006 when it absorbed the island of Grand Manan into its boundaries. The Liberals won the seat fairly comfortably in 2006. The Tories, however, enjoy a 19 point lead in southern and central New Brunswick in the most recent poll. Other polls straight back to the beginning of the campaign show them with a double digit lead in those regions. And that lead is likely amplified in rural ridings, especially those with a large number of NB Power employees (Point Lepreau is in this riding). Will the long tradition of voting Liberal save this riding from a Tory surge? Will the NB Power issue hurt the Liberals here as it appears to be in neighbouring Fundy-River Valley? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

Dalhousie-Restigouche East
Generally a reliable Liberal seat, it went Conservative in 1999 and part of what is now this riding also went Conservative in 1974. In 2006, Liberal Donald Arseneault won by an astounding 3,500 votes. Since the last election, two of Dalhousie's three major employers have closed and the last will close within a few months. Since this spring, Donald Arseneault has been deputy premier and in that role has served as the Liberal's principal attack dog against the Conservatives. Will Donald Arseneault's senior role in the cabinet help him? Will his role as an attack dog hurt him? Will voters blame the economic collapse of the riding on Arseneault? And are any negatives enough to wipe out a 3,500 vote margin? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

Fredericton-Lincoln
This was a new riding in 2006, taking large parts of the relatively new riding of Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak (created in 1995) and New Maryland. It is hard to judge its history. Greg Byrne returned to politics after a 7 year absence by running here in 2006 and winning convincingly. In that election, the NDP leader Allison Brewer also ran here taking over 1,000 votes. Over the past year Byrne has served as both finance minister and government house leader making him the face of the government on a large swath of issues. Will the NDP hold its vote or grow it? If the NDP vote slips will it go to Byrne or Conservative Craig Leonard? Will Byrne's role as face of the government on many difficult files hurt him? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

Fredericton-Silverwood
Of the Fredericton ridings, this is probably the safest for the Liberals. It has the weakest Conservative candidate and it is the most urban. The riding has changed a lot over the years and the continued growth of Fredericton has caused it to split several times. It lost almost half of itself to Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak (now Fredericton-Lincoln) in 1995 and another smaller chunk in 2006 to Fredericton-Lincoln. It was the only Fredericton proper seat to vote Conservative in 2003, but thanks to a high NDP vote, the Conservatives won with only 41% of the vote that year. Will the NDP return to its previous tradition of getting in the high teens or low twenties or even higher? If so, does that NDP vote come at the expense of the Liberals or the Conservatives? Will a relatively weak Conservative candidate thwart the Tory tide that is surrounding the riding? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

Kent South
This riding has been among the best for the Tories in terms of francophone seats not in Madawaska county. It went blue in 1974 (its first election) and 1982. It was held by outgoing premier Camille Thériault (just barely) in 1999, and then returned to Tory hands in a 2001 by-election where it has remained ever since. But with polls showing the Liberals doing very well in a) southeastern New Brunswick, and b) among francophones, this could be the best chance the Liberals have had in quite sometime to snatch it back. Is it possible for Claude Williams to be beaten even with the above factors on the Liberals' side? Is the Liberal lead in the southeast really as big as the polls suggest? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans PC

Miramichi Centre
This riding has gone Conservative twice before - in 1999 when the Tories swept the Miramichi region and in 1982. In 1991, the riding was a three-way split between the Liberals (who won), the Conservatives and the populist-right wing Confederation of Regions party. The Telegraph-Journal polled this riding and showed a result within the margin of error of PC 46 to Liberal 43. Will the downturn of the Miramichi economy hurt Liberal John Foran? Will his history working for the popular MP Tilly Gordon help Conservative Robert Trevors? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans PC

Moncton Crescent
This riding was created out of the Tory stronghold of Petitcodiac in 1995 and has been has been strong every cycle for Conservative John Betts since he ran in 1999. The strong showing for the Liberals in Greater Moncton shows this seat going handily for the Liberals based on the uniform swing however, and the Liberals are running a stronger candidate than last time around. Does the big Tory drop in Greater Moncton impact the anglophone ridings to Moncton's West or just he francophone ridings to its east? Will the Liberal investments in Atlantic Baptist University translate into votes for the Grits? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans PC

Moncton West
From its creation in 1974 to the Liberal sweep of 1987, this riding was in Conservative hands and in 1978 and 1982 the race wasn't even close. It was recaptured by the Tories in their sweep of 1999. They held the seat in 2003 and 2006, but by margins of less than 500 votes. Since the last election, Conservative Joan MacAlpine-Stiles crossed the floor to the Liberals, but she isn't re-offering. The two principal candidates are both big local names: Liberal Anne-Marie Picone Ford is co-owner of Ford's Apothecary and anyone that has ever listened to the radio in Moncton has heard her voice its ads. Conservative Sue Stultz is better known as "the turkey lady" having run for many years a major turkey drive for needy families. Will MacAlpine-Stiles' party switching hurt or help the Liberals? Will two well known women nullify the effects of the provincial campaign in this riding? And if so, is that good for the Liberals - down in the province-wide polls, or good for the Tories - behind the Liberals in the Moncton region? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

Nepisiguit
This has traditionally been a Liberal riding, having only gone for the Conservatives in the sweep of 1999. However, the Liberals won it by only 400 votes in 2006. The NDP are strong here, having received one of their best ever results in 1999 when Gilles Halley got 28% of the vote. The battle in this riding is likely principally between the NDP and the Liberals but the Conservatives could easily sneak up the middle in such a race. Will the NDP's Pierre Cyr be able to meet or exceed Halley's 28%? Will a strong NDP vote come at the expense of the Liberals or the Conservatives? Does Liberal Cheryl Lavoie's last minute addition to cabinet help her or hurt her? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

Tantramar
Tantramar has behaved almost like an American congressional district in its history. It re-elects incumbents but when an incumbent retires it is a close race. The NDP won the riding in 1982 by just 450 votes upon the retirement of Conservative Lloyd Falkins. Marilyn Trenholme won big majorities in 1987, 1991 and 1995 but after she retired Conservative Peter Mesheau won by only 39 votes in a 1997 by-election. Mesheau was re-elected by huge margins in 1999 and 2003. Conservative Mike Olscamp broke the trend somewhat when he won his first term by over 1,000 votes. However, I've heard from a number of sources that both the Liberal and NDP campaigns are much stronger this time around. Will history be on Mike Olscamp's side and the incumbency give him a huge boost? Will the riding return to its NDP tradition when it got over 30% of the vote in 1978, 1982, 1987 and 1997, and finished second in 1999? Does the large Liberal lead in southeastern New Brunswick extend into this riding? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans PC

Tracadie-Sheila
The NDP have put on a big push in this riding held by the Conservatives since 1994. Conservative Claude Landry seeks a second term, while the Liberals hope to regain a riding they held from its creation in 1974 until Landry's former boss won it in a 1994 by-election. NDP leader Roger Duguay's decision to run here raised a lot of eyebrows, he had previously run in Caraquet, Centre-Péninsule and Miramichi Bay-Neguac - all of which would be considered better prospects for the NDP. Notwithstanding long odds, Duguay has a number of political professionals working full-time to help win the riding, he has spent almost all of his time there and polls show the NDP riding high in northern and francophone New Brunswick. Will the NDP be able to make a breakthrough here? Will Claude Landry be able to continue to maintain the strong support former Conservative MLA Elvy Robichaud enjoyed here? Will the Liberals be able to sneak up the middle in what is largely a Conservative-NDP battle? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans NDP

Saint John Lancaster
This riding was created out of parts of Saint John West (a Conservative stronghold) and Saint John Harbour (a Liberal stronghold). It went Liberal in 1995, 2003 and 2006, while it went Conservative in 1999. Abel LeBlanc is very popular in the poorer, harbour parts of the riding, while the Conservatives enjoy more support in the middle class residential neighbourhoods of the west side. Will the Conservative surge in southern New Brunswick reach into the city of Saint John? Has Abel LeBlanc's salt-of-the-earth approach outstayed its welcome? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

Victoria-Tobique
This riding was traditionally a Conservative stronghold. Then in 1987, the Liberals won every seat in the province. The Tories expected to regain the seat in 1991 but were foiled by a vote-split with the Confederation of Regions Party who took 1,580 votes to the Conservatives' 1,664. In 1995, they tried again and lost by only 7 votes while COR took 600. After that, Liberal Larry Kennedy had become well entrenched and against poor Conservative candidates Kennedy won by more comfortable margins in 1999 and 2003. In 2004, the Conservative government's health plan promised to close both hospitals in the riding, which led Kennedy to win the highest share of the vote of any Liberal in the province. The Conservatives have been doing very well in rural, anglophone New Brunswick according to polling and anecdotal evidence. And David Alward is from a nearby riding with shared media coverage. Will voters have forgotten the hospital issue? Will the riding return to its traditional conservative orientation? And even if it does, will Kennedy's long tenure allow him to hold on anyway? These are not easy questions to answer, so that makes this a riding to watch. Leans Liberal

FINAL PREDICTION: PC 28, Lib 26, NDP 1.

Analysis:
After massive blowouts in elections from 1982 through 1999, this looks like it will be the third consecutive close election, returning New Brunswick to its traditional electoral orientation. That said, the Conservatives certainly have the edge with 50% more safe seats than the Liberals and with 28 seats in the final prediction. With no polling in the past week, it is hard to say whether the trend of the election getting closer has continued, or if the Tory lead has expanded back to 10+ points.

Were the Tories to sweep the "ridings to watch" the result would be PC 38, Liberal 17.

If the Liberals have retaken the lead and were to sweep the "ridings to watch" the result would be Liberal 32, PC 23. That is almost exactly the same as the current standings but it would be a very different legislature with the Liberals losing 7 of the seats they currently hold, including three cabinet ministers.

The NDP is in play in somewhere between 2 and 4 ridings (Tracadie-Sheila, Nepisiguit, Bathurst and Tantramar) according to my analysis. They may also be in play in Saint John Harbour, Saint John East and Fredericton-Silverwood, though my analysis says no.

The People's Alliance is in play in probably two ridings - Grand Lake-Gagetown and Charlotte-Campobello. They should also finish respectably (over 10 per cent) in York North and Southwest Miramichi. Under my analysis they have only one (long) shot at a seat and that is in Charlotte-Campobello.

I do not see the Greens in play anywhere, but I expect to see them get respectable (high single-digit to low double-digit) showings in Fredericton-Nashwaaksis, Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak, Petitcodiac, Tantramar and possibly Charlotte-Campobello.

A divided New Brunswick: What a Liberal win would look like

While the odds favour a Conservative victory, a Liberal win is not out of the realm of possibility. But the result would make for a very unusual map. The Conservatives will win the majority of the geography of New Brunswick concentrated in the central, western and southern parts of the province.

The Liberal path to victory is one where they use their lead in southeastern New Brunswick to do a near sweep of that region and hold all or most of their seats in northern New Brunswick to counterbalance the sure gains for the Conservatives in the larger anglophone regions in and around Saint John, Fredericton and Miramichi.

The map to your right is not the most likely scenario for a Liberal win, but it is not impossible to imagine this map which shows the most extreme version of what a divided province yielding a Liberal win would look like. In this scenario, the Liberals are held solely to seats on the Northumberland and Chaleur coasts with a few seats in Greater Saint John, Fredericton and Victoria County.

And before I leave, here is some fun with numbers. I've taken a number of somewhat absurd "surge" scenarios for various parties of varying degrees of unlikelihood to get these possible results:

Liberal vote completely collapses:
PC 44, Liberal 11

Liberal vote collapses to minor parties:
PC 37, NDP 7, Lib 6, PANB 4, Ind 1

Tory vote completely collapses:
Liberal 44, PC 11

Tory vote collapses to minor parties:
Lib 39, PC 8, NDP 5, PANB 3

Tory vote collapses to minor parties, but in English New Brunswick it goes only to Greens and PANB:
Lib 37, PC 8, NDP 4, Green 3, PANB 3

NDP surge at expense of both major parties:
PC 23, Lib 22, NDP 10

NDP surge at expense of PCs:
Lib 39, PC 12, NDP 4

NDP surge at expense of Liberals:
PC 38, NDP 11, Lib 6

Green surge at expense of both parties:
PC 27, Lib 23, Green 4, NDP 1

PANB surge at expense of both parties:
PC 25, Lib 24, PANB 4, NDP 1, Ind 1

Assuming that this analysis is correct, then the NDP have made a fairly major strategic error. Had they focused their campaign on Liberal voters (i.e. this is the change you can trust, a rational, progressive alternative to these two conservative parties) as opposed to a focus on disconnected and disillusioned voters from both parties they would be in a position to do much better.

A "new" poll

2010-09-24T10:11:00.009-03:00

Eric at 308dotcom has managed to get CRA to release to him the combined results of their last 3 days in the field (from their surveys for both the TJ and AN/RC/CBC). This includes a regional breakdown.

Here are the numbers as they compare to 2006 and the past two polls with regional breakdowns.

North

	2006	CRA/TJ poll (Aug. 26 - Sep. 1)	CRA/AN/RC/CBC poll (Sep. 15-18)	CRA combined sample (Sep. 16-19)
PC	44	44	41	40
Lib	50	44	41	44
NDP	5	10	10	11

South

	2006	CRA/TJ poll (Aug. 26 - Sep. 1)	CRA/AN/RC/CBC poll (Sep. 15-18)	CRA combined sample (Sep. 16-19)
PC	47	43	49	49
Lib	47	39	31	30
NDP	6	11	10	10

Moncton

	2006	CRA/TJ poll (Aug. 26 - Sep. 1)	CRA/AN/RC/CBC poll (Sep. 15-18)	CRA combined sample (Sep. 16-19)
PC	53	43	35	34
Lib	44	44	42	44
NDP	3	8	16	15

This seems to show the Liberals taking the lead in the north and solidifying their lead in Moncton, with them losing a marginal amount of ground in a stabilizing race in south and central New Brunswick. If you were to assume a uniform swing in the Moncton region, the only PC seats would be Petitcodiac, Riverview and Albert.

In fact, just for fun, here is the result of a uniform swing in each region based on this poll and what the final results would be:

The uniform swing gives us PC 28, Lib 25, NDP 2. Of these, the swing suggests that 17 PC seats (shown in dark blue) are very safe (would be won by more than 1000 votes), 10 Liberal seats (shown in dark red) are very safe and 1 NDP seat is very safe (Miramichi Bay-Neguac). Now the uniform swing has a lot of drawbacks, most notably it is completely blind to local factors. It predicts, for instance, the NDP will get 0 votes in Tracadie-Sheila because they didn't run a candidate there last time. However, it is an interesting experiment nonetheless.

Please note that this is not my prediction, that will follow. However, looking at data in ways like this contributes to my prediction making process.

Even more new data

2010-09-22T08:03:00.001-03:00

We have the final two CRA/TJ riding polls in the Liberal-held ridings of Miramichi Centre and Fundy-River Valley. At present, both of these ridings are down in the leans PC column, let's see if the data suggests they should be elsewhere.

Miramichi Centre: PC 46, Lib 43, NDP 6, PANB 3, Green 2 (Sept. 17-18)

Reader feedback I had been receiving suggested that this riding was going to be a Tory blow out. This new data shows that the race is well within the margin of error of +/- 4.6 percentage points. I am moving it to toss up (from leans PC).

Fundy-River Valley: PC 53, Lib 36, NDP 5, Green 3, PANB 3 (Sept. 17-18)

With a Tory lead of more than three times the margin of error, this riding belongs in the safe PC column (moving from leans PC).

We also have had a new provincial-wide poll by Abacus Data released yesterday. It shows the race as PC 35, Lib 32, NDP 9, Green 5, PANB 2 with undecided sitting at 17% and a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points. Among just decided voters, it is PC 42, Lib 38, NDP 11, Green 6, PANB 2 with a margin of error of +/- 4.0 percentage points. Unfortunately, this poll does not have regional data so it is impossible to tell whether the Tory lead in Fredericton/Saint John and surrounding areas is falling, the Liberal lead in Greater Moncton is widening or if the Liberals are pulling ahead in the north. I will have to rely on your feedback from the ground to help gauge that.

There are a few other changes that I will make, however:

Moncton East: from toss up to leans Liberal

Based on the consistent wide margin for the Liberals in Greater Moncton, this seat should have been moved to leans Liberal some time ago.

Moncton West: from leans PC to toss up

Based on the consistent wide margin for the Liberals in Greater Moncton, this seat should move.

Nepisiguit: from leans NDP to toss up

Based on overwhelming consensus from reader feedback, I am moving this from to the toss up column.

Please keep your comments coming. A final projection on Saturday or Sunday will take the same format as in 2006, I'll eliminate toss ups and hold myself to 10 "leaning" seats which will be the ridings to watch.

Current projection: the Tories have the edge in a tight race, but the Tories have a base nearly twice as solid as the Liberals

Conservatives: 26 (17 safe + 9 lean)
Liberals: 21 (9 safe + 12 lean)
NDP: 1 (0 safe + 1 lean)
Toss up: 7

A wealth of new data

2010-09-20T15:14:00.003-03:00

There is a whole lot of new data to chew on today. The latest CRA/TJ daily tracking poll, a new CRA poll from Acadie-Nouvelle/Radio-Canada/CBC, two new ridng polls by CRA/TJ, and several other CRA/TJ riding polls since our last update.

We've now seen 8 of the promised 10 riding polls, with Miramichi Centre to come tomorrow and another mystery riding some time after that.

Before I get into the polling results, I will briefly explain why I prefer to use "decided+leaning" voters whenever possible, as opposed to just decided voters. Most pollsters ask two vote intentions questions when they are polling elections. First, they ask who people intend to support. Then they ask those who claim to be undecided if they are leaning toward a particular party. This is done because for a variety of reasons, people may have their mind made up but they don't want to say so. The result is a clearer picture of the true results, and a truer picture of the number of undecideds. For some reason, CRA has always ignored this practice and instead asks only the first question resulting in undecided numbers always in the the 35+ range. This election season they have often relesed the answers to the first question, and the answers to the combined first and second question. When available, I will always use the latter.

An article that explains this phenomenon in detail (as it relates to polling party identification in the United States) can be found in here. Other benefits of asking the second (leaners) question include eliminating phenomena like the UK's "Shy Tory Factor" (when voters have decided to vote for a party that is not fashionable but don't want to admit it) and "Flora Syndrome" (when voters aren't going to vote for a party/candidate that is fashionable but want to say they are anyway).

With that behind us, let's recap the riding polls and see what impact they have on our projections.

Grand Lake-Gagetown: Lib 34, PC 34, PANB 23, Green 2*, NDP 1* (Sept. 8-9)

Current projection: Leans PC. No need to revise this one. While the poll shows a tie, it also showed that when asked for their second choice, the Liberals placed third. Another gut analysis to this one is that it will be hard for PANB to get out their vote, so their number will likely slip on election day (a common phenomenon for minor parties) and my expectation is their vote would split in the PCs' favour.

Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak: PC 41, Lib 37, Green 11, NDP 10 (Sept. 9-10)

Current projection: Toss up. No need to revise this one. While the polls shows a PC edge, with the Green and NDP vote high, there is room for it to collapse likely in the Liberals' favour. That would likely even the race up making it too close to call.

Caraquet: Lib 57, PC 31, NDP 8, Green 3 (Sept. 10-11)

Current projection: Safe Liberal. No need to revise this one (for obvious reasons).

Restigouche-la-Vallée: PC 53, Lib 40, NDP 5, Green 2 (Sept. 11-13)

Current projection: Toss up. While the Restigouche West portion of this riding has a history of strongly favouring incumbents (this was the Tories' best seat in the Liberal sweep of 1987, and one of the Liberals' best in the PC landslide of 1999), this is a significant lead for the PCs and it seems quite obvious that this one should go into at least the leans PC column.

Quispamsis: Lib 47, PC 38, NDP 5*, Green 3* (Sept. 13-14)

Current projection: Toss up. This is a fairly signifcant lead for the Liberals, but it is in single digits with a poll with a relatively large margin of error. It moves to leans Liberal but could easily slip back to toss up in the future.

Saint John Harbour: Lib 39, PC 24, NDP 24, Green 5*, Ind 2* (Sept. 12-14)

Current projection: Safe Liberal. While a result of 39% should be very disappointing for the Liberals, on a three-way split it isn't bad. And with them 15 points ahead of both of their competitors this remains in the safe column.

Moncton North: Lib 45, PC 34, NDP 12, Green 8, PANB 2 (Sept. 15-16)

Current projection: Leans PC. This poll result a surprise to me, having just moved Moncton North into the leans PC column. I will move it to leans Liberal though it is on the cusp of safe Liberal.

Dieppe Centre-Lewisville: Lib 45, PC 36, NDP 11, Green 8 (Sept. 15-16)

Current projection: Safe Liberal. As this is in the single digits of a poll with a relatively large margin of error, I will shift it to leans Liberal.

* results with an asterisk are for minor parties which include only decided voters as the decided+leaning numbers for smaller parties those ridings was not included in the Telegraph-Journal's reporting.

With respect to the provice-wide polls at our disposal, I have chosen to ignore the CRA/TJ tracking poll. It has a sample of 700 people from Sept. 12-18. The CRA/AN/RC/CBC poll is by the sample pollster (therefore using the same or similar methodology), has a larger sample of 1055, was done over a shorter period and was just as recent. This poll also (unlike the tracker) has regional breakdowns. It breaks into the same three regions (North, South and Moncton and area), as the first day of the CRA/TJ tracking poll when they had a bigger sample and provided regional breakdowns.

The result of today's poll is PC 34%, Lib 29%, NDP 9%, Green 5%, PANB 0% with 17% truly undecided and 6% refusing to say or not intending to vote. With the latter categories factored out the result is PC 44%, Lib 38%, NDP 12%, Green 6%, PANB 0%.

For analysis let's first take a look, by region, at that the 2006 results, the results of the CRA/TJ poll and the results of the CRA/AN/RC/CBC poll. To compare apples to apples, I will be using the decided and leaning voters (per above) with the undecideds and non-voters factored out. To your right is the table from today's Acadie-Nouvelle showing regional results with the undecideds and non-voters included.

North

	2006	CRA/TJ poll (Aug. 26 - Sep. 1)	CRA/AN/RC/CBC poll (Sep. 15-18)
PC	44	44	41
Lib	50	44	41
NDP	5	10	10

South

	2006	CRA/TJ poll (Aug. 26 - Sep. 1)	CRA/AN/RC/CBC poll (Sep. 15-18)
PC	47	43	49
Lib	47	39	31
NDP	6	11	10

Moncton

	2006	CRA/TJ poll (Aug. 26 - Sep. 1)	CRA/AN/RC/CBC poll (Sep. 15-18)
PC	53	43	35
Lib	44	44	42
NDP	3	8	16

The most interesting result of these numbers is in the Greater Moncton region where the Liberal support has held since the last poll, while the PC support has dropped significantly in favour of the NDP. My instincts suggest that this means that among francophones in this region, the anti-Liberal vote is shifting to the NDP from the PCs. However, as the NDP is not focussing on the region and has little political infrastucture here they won't be able to turn out that vote so some of it will shift back to the PCs and some of those voters will just not go to the polls. In this region, the PCs are down 8 points from their standing just a few weeks ago and 18 points from the last election.

A more significant development (though it is more to be expected so not quite as interesting) is the Liberal collapse in "southern New Brunswick". We have polls from three urban/suburban ridings and one rural riding near Fredericton suggesting that the Liberals are holding their own, so this may be more symptomatic of Liberal support collapsing in ridings that the PCs already hold, but it is impossible for the Liberals to gain seats on a 49-31 spread, and very unlikely that they won't lose some seats as well. In this region, the Liberals are down 8 points from their standing just a few weeks ago and 16 points from the last election.

One might assume that these two regions would largely cancel each other out with gains and losses in each being offset by opposite shifts in the other region. To some extent that is true, but the bad news for the Liberals is that that south region is much larger than the Greater Moncton region.

That brings us to northern New Brunswick. Here, the Liberals are down 9 points from 2006, while the PCs are down 3 from 2006. Both are down 3 from the last poll in late August. This continues to bode relatively well for the NDP who need to be taking votes from both parties in order to win seats up there. However, the NDP may now regret not putting a greater focus on the Moncton region where the francophone vote held by the Conservatives under Lord seems to have shifted to the NDP even without their working that demographic.

I would therefore make the following adjustments.

The North (Victoria, Madawaska, Restigouche, Gloucester and Northumberland counties)

Victoria-Tobique - leans Liberal to toss up
At this stage in the game, with a PC lead of 49-31 in our closest proxy for anglophone New Brunswick, it is hard to put a rural anglophone seat in the Liberal column. If this were any other riding it would be down as leans (or even safe) PC, but because it survived the 1999 PC landslide, I think it should remain a toss up for now.

Restigouche-la-Vallée - toss up to leans PC
The reader feedback was pushing me in this direction anyway but, per the poll above, this obviously belongs on the PC side of the ledger.

Dalhousie-Restigouche East - leans Liberal to toss up
I'm receiving persistent reader feedback that this is more of a race than I suspect in my gut. I will tentatively move it into the "toss up" category until I can learn more.

Bathurst - toss up to leans PC
With the Liberal vote well down from the 2006 election, it is likely that this seat witnessing the third battle in a row between Liberal Brian Kenny and PC Nancy McKay is in play. The last two elections in this traditional Liberal stronghold were nail-biters, we should expect this election to be no different.

(This brings the standings in the "north" - as seemingly defined by CRA - to PC 7, Lib 7, NDP 2, toss up 2.)

The South (Kings, Queens, Saint John, Charlotte, York, Sunbury and Carleton counties)

Quispamsis - toss up to leans Liberal
The poll done by CRA for the TJ in this riding shows Mary Schryer with a relatively comfortable lead of 9 points.

Rothesay - leans PC to safe PC
With an 18 point led in the south, it is impossible to imagine this seat falling out of Tory hands in this election cycle.

Saint John Portland - leans PC to safe PC
With an 18 point led in the south, it is impossible to imagine this seat falling out of Tory hands in this election cycle.

Charlotte-the-Isles - safe Liberal to leans Liberal
The promise by the Conservatives to eliminate tolls on the Grand Manan ferry would seem to suggest that they believe they have a chance in this riding, even though for the most part it has been held for the Liberals since 1978. However, with an 18 point lead for the PCs in the south, it is hard to imagine that there are any truly "safe" Liberal seats here.

York - leans PC to safe PC
With an 18 point led in the south, it is impossible to imagine this seat falling out of Tory hands in this election cycle.

York North - leans PC to safe PC
With an 18 point led in the south, it is impossible to imagine this seat falling out of Tory hands in this election cycle.

(This brings the standings in the "south" - as seemingly defined by CRA - to PC 15, Lib 7, toss up 1.)

Greater Moncton (Kent, Westmorland and Albert counties)

Kent South - safe PC to leans PC
While this is traditionally a relatively reliable seat for the Conservatives and Claude Williams has proved his mettle, unless the Liberals are making major inroads into ridings like Riverview, Albert, Petitcodiac and Moncton Crescent this seat needs to be downgraded to explain the 18 point drop for the Tories versus their 2006 result.

Tantramar - leans PC to toss up
While this is has been a reliable seat for the Conservatives since 1999, unless the Liberals are making major inroads into ridings like Riverview, Albert, Petitcodiac and Moncton Crescent this seat needs to be downgraded to explain the 18 point drop for the Tories versus their 2006 result. It has traditionally (1978-1987 and in the 1998 by-election) been a bit of swing district with with all three parties being in contention.

Dieppe Centre-Lewisville safe Liberal to leans Liberal
The CRA/TJ poll in this riding showed the Liberals leading by 9 points. That keeps it in their column, but a single digit lead in a poll with a relatively high margin of error is not "safe."

Moncton North - leans PC to leans Liberal
The CRA/TJ poll in this riding shows the Liberals ahead by double digits. It belongs in the Liberal column.

(This brings the standings in the "Moncton area" - as seemingly defined by CRA - to PC 6, Lib 6, toss up 2.)

Projection summary - with lots of changes below the surface, our top level numbers are unchanged - PC 28 to Lib 20. However, 3 more seats are in the PCs' safe column and 1 less are in the Liberals'.:

Conservatives: 28 (16 safe + 12 lean)
Liberals: 20 (9 safe + 11 lean)
NDP: 2 (0 safe + 2 lean)
Toss up: 5

Two new polls at a critical juncture

2010-09-14T07:54:00.004-03:00

Two very interesting polls out today on a very critical day. I have been frustrated that the Telegraph-Journal hasn't yet put out any more regional data since they began their tracking poll, as regional data is much more helpful to me than province-wide data. However, with their poll today showing an 11-point (49-38) PC lead, it is time for an update. That number is eerily close to the 1999 result (51-37) which led to Bernard Lord sweeping 44 seats. This sets the stage as the leaders head into two days with four critical debates.

At the same time, Acadie-Nouvelle has released a poll from an Ottawa pollster called Abacus Data. It shows a nail-biter of a race with the PC's holding a lead of 34-33. The poll is just of "Francophone New Brunswick," though it excludes Dieppe and includes Miramichi. They used the boundaries of four federal ridings (Madawaska-Restigouche, Acadie-Bathurst, Miramichi and Beauséjour) as a proxy for that subset of the province. That gives us about half of the provincial ridings, with the following 22 ridings being entirely (or almost entirely) within those boundaries:

Madawaska-les-Lacs, Edmundston-St. Basile, Restigouche-la-Vallée, Campbellton-Restigouche Centre, Dalhousie-Restigouche East, Nigadoo-Chaleur, Bathurst, Nepisiguit, Caraquet, Shippagan-Lameque-Miscou, Centre-Peninsule-St-Saveur, Tracadie-Sheila, Miramichi Bay-Neguac, Miramichi Centre, Southwest Miramici, Miramichi-Bay du Vin, Rogersville-Kouchibouguac, Kent, Kent South, Shediac-Cap-Pelé, Tantramar, Memramcook-Lakeville-Dieppe.

What this tells as is that the Conservatives must have a massive lead in the rest of the province if they led by only one point in this portion of New Brunswick.

First, let's compare the 2006 vote in "Francophone New Brunswick" (as defined by the poll) to the poll result. The poll reads as PC 43, Lib 41, NDP 13, Other 4 with a margin of error of +/- 4.8 when the undecideds are removed.

	2006	AN poll
PC	46	43
Lib	49	41
NDP	5	13

That suggests that similar to the CRA/TJ poll, the Liberals are suffering to the NDP's benefit. However, unlike the CRA/TJ poll, this poll suggests that the NDP are riding a bit higher and while taking most of their support from the Liberals, they are also taking votes from the PCs.

At a micro level, the TJ has also polled the ridings of Grand Lake-Gagetown, Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak and 8 other "battlegrounds." The first of those polls is out today, with the second to come tomorrow. Today's poll shows the race in Grand Lake-Gagetown as a tie of 34% each for the Liberal and the Conservative, with People's Alliance leader Kris Austin coming in relatively close at 23%. It also shows the Liberals coming in third among people's second choice consideration. In my view, this supports the current projection of "leans PC" for the riding, as Austin will have the weaker organization of the three and will likely underperform his polling position on election day, with his voters not making it to the polls and breaking off in higher numbers to the Conservative candidate.

Now to dig into the CRA/TJ poll. First, to help me do that, I will add another layer to the Abacus/AN poll. That is, how did the vote turn out in that same region in 1999?

	2006	AN poll	1999
PC	46	43	50
Lib	49	41	41
NDP	5	13	8

This suggests that the Conservatives are doing even better in "Anglophone New Brunswick" than they did in 1999. They are showing as 7 points off of their showing in the north and eastern part of the province, but overall they are only 2 points off of 1999. Therefore things must be looking very good for them in the rest of the province.

Nepisiguit: from toss up to leans NDP
Because the AN poll, I now expect that the NDP will win at least a seat, if not more than one seat in the north. This is for a number of factors: 1) the poll shows the NDP doing significantly better in the northern and eastern regions of the province than they did in 1999; 2) the NDP nearly won several northern seats in 1999; and 3) the NDP is now taking votes away from both the Tories and the Liberals on a net basis which is critical to their path to victory. This seat was the closest for the NDP in 1999 in these parts, and they are running a strong candidate here to whom they've been giving profile. It was also one of the closest seats in the province in both 1999 and 2006. All of this leads me to believe that this is a prime pick up opportunity for them.

Tracadie-Sheila: from leans PC to leans NDP
Again, if the NDP are able to get 13% of the vote across northern and eastern New Brunswick, they are likely polling in the 30s in the Acadie-Bathrust region. They are now taking support from the Tories who show as 3 points off of their 2006 result and 7 points off of the 1999 result. These are the kind of numbers Duguay needs to win.

Miramichi Southwest: from toss up to leans PC
I've received a lot of reader feedback suggesting that this riding should be in the leans PC column. It is a bit of a historical enigma. On paper, it should be a conservative-leaning seat, but it has been generally safe for the Liberals. But with what appears to be a massive surge of PC support in Anglophone New Brunswick it is difficult to see this seat not being within the PC's grasp.

Moncton East: from leans Liberal to toss up
With the PCs seemingly enjoying a 15 or better point lead in southern and western New Brunswick, urban Moncton seats seem likely to be at least in play, if not leaning Conservative.

Moncton North: from toss up to leans PC
With the PCs seemingly enjoying a 15 or better point lead in southern and western New Brunswick, urban Moncton seats seem likely to be at least in play, if not leaning Conservative.

Moncton West: from toss up to leans PC
With the PCs seemingly enjoying a 15 or better point lead in southern and western New Brunswick, urban Moncton seats seem likely to be at least in play, if not leaning Conservative.

Moncton Crescent: from leans PC to safe PC
If the Liberals were to have picked up 5+ seats, this riding might have been in reach. With the current electoral situation, it is not.

Quispamsis: from leans Liberal to toss up
In the close elections of 2003 and 2006, this seat was a nail-biter with the Liberals barely losing in 2003 and the Liberals barely winning in 2006. It seems to be getting a reputation of something of a bell weather and based on these polls it should probably be in the PC column. Thanks to Mary Schryer's high profile, I'll leave it in the toss up pile for now, but if the current trends continue, it will be the next to go blue.

Saint John East: from safe Liberal to leans Liberal
If there is an 11-point PC win on Sept. 27, there will be very few "safe" Liberal seats in English New Brunswick.

Saint John Lancaster: from safe Liberal to leans Liberal
If there is an 11-point PC win on Sept. 27, there will be very few "safe" Liberal seats in English New Brunswick.

Fundy-River Valley: from toss up to leans PC
This seat is traditionally among the Conservative's safest. It went PC when they won only 6 seats in 1995, and survived the Liberal wave in Saint John in 2003 and almost did again in 2006. If there is a Tory wave, this seat can't stay Liberal.

Charlotte-Campobello: from toss up to leans PC
The Liberals' only hope in this riding is that the strong People's Alliance candidate splits the anti-Liberal vote. But if this poll holds, even on a big split it would be difficult for the Liberals to sneak up the middle.

Fredricton-Fort Nashwaak: from leans Liberal to toss up
If the Telegraph-Journal has identified this as one of its "battlegrounds" (likely based on the cumulative sample of its rolling poll which would be up over 2000 now), it is probably close. This one will be subject to revision based on the poll results released tomorrow.

Fredericton-Silverwood: from safe Liberal to leans Liberal
If there is an 11-point PC win on Sept. 27, there will be very few "safe" Liberal seats in English New Brunswick.

Grand Falls-Drummond-St. Andre: from safe Liberal to leans Liberal
I've heard from some quarters that David Alward has a strong presence here from his time as agriculture minister. This riding went big for the Liberals in 2003, but was closer in 2006. Despite being a majority Francophone riding, it wasn't included in Acadie Nouvelle's poll. I don't have enough evidence to suggest that this riding is in play, but I do have enough to suggest that it is worth at least a closer examination.

This election is now very clearly David Alward's to lose. The next two days of debates will be critical for the Liberals. If they can't do some damage to Alward while at the same time boosting themselves, it will be very difficult for them to draw a map to victory.

Also, if in the coming days, if the CRA/TJ poll continues to show numbers like these (it was 5 points yesterday by 7 points on Sunday), there will likely be more slippage of Liberal seats in Anglophone New Brunswick and in urban New Brunswick.

Projection summary - PCs are more likely than not to win a majority government:

Conservatives: 28 (13 safe + 15 lean)
Liberals: 20 (11 safe + 9 lean)
NDP: 2 (0 safe + 2 lean)
Toss up: 5

New CRA/TJ poll looks good for PCs

2010-09-06T08:04:00.004-03:00

A new poll on Friday means some big changes for my predictions. No fewer than 9 seats are affected.

First, the poll analysis...

My biggest pet peeve is when pollsters don't state the margin of error for the sub-samples that they break out.

Here is the meat on the CRA poll, with those margins.

Decided vote (sample of 646)
PC 42%
Lib 41%
NDP 10%
Green 4%
PANB 1%
MOE +/- 3.9%

Decided and leaning vote (sample of 1065)
PC 26%
Lib 25%
NDP 6%
Green 2%
PANB 1%
Won't vote/refused 14%
Undecided 25%
MOE +/- 3.0%

Decided and leaning by region*

"Northern NB" (sample of 367)
PC 26%
Lib 26%
NDP 6%
Green 1%
PANB 0%
Won't vote/refused 13%
Undecided 27%
MOE +/- 5.1%

"Southern NB" (sample of 462)
PC 26%
Lib 24%
NDP 7%
Green 2%
PANB 2%
Won't vote/refused 13%
Undecided 25%
MOE +/- 4.6%

"Moncton and area" (sample of 236)
PC 26%
Lib 25%
NDP 5%
Green 4%
PANB 0%
Won't vote/refused 16%
Undecided 24%
MOE +/- 6.4%

* these regions are not defined by the pollster or the newspaper. For the purposes of this analysis I will assume that the north is approximately Victoria, Madawaska, Restigouche, Gloucester and Northumberland counties, the south is Kings, Queens, Saint John, Charlotte, York, Sunbury and Carleton counties and Greater Moncton is Kent, Westmorland and Albert counties. The number of ridings for each group is equivalent to the relevant proportion of the total sample that CRA has assigned to the regions.

What is probably the most interesting thing about this poll is that the voter preferences are relatively even across the province. I think that many people would have assumed the Liberals and particularly the NDP would be stronger in the north, but that is not the case.

The best way to give these results some context is to compare them by region to the results in 2006, here goes... These tables show the 2006 results and then takes the won't votes and undecideds out of the sample:

North

	2006	CRA/TJ poll
PC	44	44
Lib	50	44
NDP	5	10

South

	2006	CRA/TJ poll
PC	47	43
Lib	47	39
NDP	6	11

Moncton

	2006	CRA/TJ poll
PC	53	43
Lib	44	42
NDP	3	8

Things look very good for the PCs to make gains in the north, with the NDP splitting the vote with the Liberals, and the Tories holding their 2006 vote there. Now, the Liberals won most of their ridings up there by healthy margins, so the split won't allow a big PC wave (unless it worsens), however it should make for an interesting result on the close seats.

In the south (Greater Fredericton and Greater Saint John), the Tories are down from 2006 but within the margin, while the Liberals are down by a statistically significant amount.

In Greater Moncton, the Liberals are holding their 2006 vote, while the Tories are well off of their vote - this was to be expected with Bernard Lord off of the ballot and won't really affect my predictions there.

The result is 9 prediction changes all in the PCs favour.

Madawaska-les-Lacs: from leans PC -> safe PC
This seat would always have been a long shot for the Liberals. Without a huge sweep of the north, this seat is almost certainly out of reach for them so I am moving it to safe PC.

Restigouche-la-Vallée: from leans Liberal -> tossup
The PC candidate is very strong, and is the younger sister of still-popular former MP Bernard Valcourt. All things being equal, I would give Liberal Burt Paulin the slight edge, but with the Liberals down 6 points from their 2006 result, it belongs in the toss up category.

Bathurst: from leans Liberal -> tossup
I have received a lot of emails from readers suggesting that this seat is definitely in play and that Nancy McKay may be able to make the third time the charm. That advice combined with the poll result pushes it into the toss up column.

Tracadie-Sheila: from toss up -> leans PC
Several readers have written to indicate what I also thought to be true - that Roger Duguay has made a big mistake by choosing this riding to run in. If he had run in Miramichi Bay-Neguac and taken votes from the Liberal he would have won. But here even if he takes all of the Liberal votes, he would still be well short of victory. The poll showing that the PC vote is holding to its 2006 levels in the north makes a Duguay victory and a possible Liberal victory (by sneaking up the middle) less and less likely.

Miramichi Centre: from toss up -> leans PC
This was the only seat on the Miramichi to go PC in 1982 (to that time, the best PC result ever). It still remains the most PC-leaning seat in the area.

Saint John-Fundy: from toss up -> leans PC
This should be, on paper, a safe PC seat any time. But the Liberals have won it in 5 of the last 6 elections on vote splits and the strength of Stuart Jamieson's candidacy. Jamieson has retired, but the Liberal to replace was his choice and is a strong candidate. Notwithstanding all of that, if the PCs are to pick up any seats in Greater Saint John, this is almost certainly the first one to fall.

Fredericton-Nashwaaksis: from toss up -> leans PC
In a traditionally Tory city, this is the traditionally strongest seat. Having gone COR in 1991, it clearly is a ("small c") conservative-leaning riding. It was also a bit of a nail biter in 2006 as compared to the other Fredericton-area ridings.

Grand Lake-Gagetown: from toss up -> leans PC
The Liberals barely hung on in this new riding in 2006, after a massive blowout in the old Grand Lake riding in 2003. There best hope here is that PANB leader Kris Austin splits the vote with the Tories, but based on this poll showing the PCs doing relatively better in the south/central regions of the province than last time, ridings like this that lack an incumbent and were close anyway have to be moved to leans PC.

York: from toss up -> leans PC
This is a traditional swing district and it bears watching, but with the Tories up in this region of the province and Urquhart now having the benefit of incumbency, I'll put it in the leans Tory column.

Projection summary - PCs have a slight edge:

Liberals: 23 (15 safe + 8 lean)
Conservatives: 24 (12 safe + 12 lean)
Toss up: 8

The first poll, the first riding update

2010-08-27T07:25:00.000-03:00

Yesterday's CRA poll was good news for the Liberals and no one else. They've recaptured the lead for the first time in a year, and it is outside of the margin of error.

The PCs have slipped. The NDP is flat. And the others aren't even on the radar.

CRA has a nasty habit of showing decided voters alongside an undecided voter number giving you a total of far in excess of 100%. I prefer to see the real numbers so here they are:

I was hoping that this poll might be broken down by region which would be more helpful for me in terms of making a few calls here and there. But based on what there is in this poll, and on your feedback, here are my adjustments.

Campbellton-Restigouche Centre: from leans Liberal -> safe Liberal
I was tempted to label this safe Liberal before because it is simply a rematch of 2006. A poll showing the Liberals ahead suggested the same.

Rogersville-Kouchibouguac: from toss up -> leans Liberal
Reader feedback all suggests that this traditionally Liberal seat is likely to return to the Liberal fold with Rose-May Poirier out of the picture. That coupled with the poll prompted this call.

Dieppe Centre-Lewisville: from leans Liberal -> safe Liberal
Melanson has been nominated almost a year and working very hard. The Liberals nearly snagged this in both 2003 and 2006. The Liberal fortunes in Moncton are likely to be improved with Bernard Lord off of the ballot. The poll shows the Liberals ahead.

Fredericton-Lincoln: from toss up -> leans Liberal
I got a lot of feedback suggesting I was crazy to have this in the toss up column.

Fredericton-Silverwood: from leans Liberal -> safe Liberal
My earlier analysis incorrectly stated that Dominic Cardy was the NDP candidate here. It turns out it is economist Tony Myatt, he of lets eliminate BNB fame. A PC and NDP candidate in the core of the capital city calling for the elimination of civil service jobs? Sounds like Rick Miles doesn't even need to show up.

Projection summary - Liberals have the edge:

Liberals: 25 (15 safe + 10 lean)
Conservatives: 18 (11 safe + 7 lean)
Toss up: 12

A brief look at the ridings

2010-08-07T14:51:00.034-03:00

Back in 2006, I started things out with a "brief" look at the ridings. It seemed like a good way to get started on 2006. So here it goes again for 2010.

The following is my gut reading on each of the 55 ridings. Polls, vibes, and your tips will help me as there are countless adjustments in the weeks ahead.

But, as I've said before, I really think this election will come down to a riding-by-riding, candidate-by-candidate, organization-by-organization, street fight.

Campbellton-Restigouche Centre - currently Liberal

This seat leans Liberal. As Speaker for most of the term, Roy Boudreau hasn't had the profile of a minister or even a backbencher. That said, this has been a traditionally Liberal riding (one of the 10 that stayed Liberal in 1999). The PCs have chosen the same candidate as last time 'round, so that bodes well for Boudreau. Still worth monitoring however.

Current projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to safe Liberal on Aug. 27)

Dalhousie-Restigouche East - currently Liberal

While much has been said about Donald Arseneault's future because of the long series of bad economic news for his riding, I find it hard to imagine he will lose his seat. He got 68% of the vote in 2006 and since then has been a senior cabinet minister, climbing the ladder all of the way to Deputy Premier. That said, the troubles that the riding has seen over the past four years will made it a bit of a rough ride so, for now, it should be kept in the "leans Liberal" column.

Current projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to toss up on Sept. 20 and back to leans Liberal and one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Nigadoo-Chaleur - currently Liberal

Roland Hache was the only non-incumbent Liberal to win in 1999. He survived a challenge from star candidate and Lord chief of staff Hermel Vienneau in 2003. Hache is seeking re-election. Nuff said.

Current projection: Safe Liberal

Bathurst - currently Liberal

Since the departure of Marcelle Mersereau, this seat has been a nail biter every time. Though Nancy McKay is officially non-partisan at the moment (as she winds up her role as COO of the Moncton World Track & Field championships) she has already launched a Facebook page indicating she'll be taking her third run at Brian Kenny. This will probably be close again, but with Kenny's profile as a rising member of the Graham cabinet, he probably has the edge.

Current projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to toss up on Sept. 6, to leans PC on Sept. 20 and back to leans Liberal and one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Nepisiguit - currently Liberal

Cheryl Lavoie won by less than 400 votes in 2006 and this is likely to be one of the NDP's top targets. We'll have to watch things closely in the coming weeks to see which way this goes.

Current projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans NDP on Sept. 14, back to toss up on Sept. 22 and back to leans Liberal and one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Caraquet - currently Liberal

The Liberals have (at the last minute) delivered on their commitment to reopen the Caraquet Hospital. That should eliminate any thought that this riding could be in play.

Current projection: Safe Liberal

Lameque-Shippagan-Miscou - currently Progressive Conservative

While one assumes that PC fortunes will be on the decline in Francophone New Brunswick from 2006 when they had a Francophone leader, Paul Robichaud is untouchable.

Current projection: Safe PC

Centre-Peninsule-Saint-Saveur - currently Liberal

Despite a presumed strong challenge by former MLA Louis-Philippe McGraw last time around, Denis Landry won by nearly 1000 votes. Since then he's been minister of transportation. To my knowledge no minister of transportation from a rural riding has ever lost a re-election bid. And I can't imagine one ever will (with the obvious exception of an election where the whole cabinet is swept away).

Current projection: Safe Liberal

Tracadie-Sheila - currently Progressive Conservative

This will be one of the most interesting ridings to watch. The NDP has gone all-in on this riding. The question is will they take left votes from the Liberals or anti-government votes from the Tories. The NDP leader and his party have directed more of their fire at the PCs than the Grits, which leads one to how they must answer the question. This is likely the only three-way race in the province (with the possible exception of Charlotte-Campobello). Will Landry hold enough of his vote to hang on? Will Duguay pull an upset an restore the the NDP to the legislature for the first time since 2005? Or will the Liberals sneak up the middle in an anti-government vote split and take this seat for the first time since 1994?

Current projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 6, then to leans NDP on Sept. 14 and made one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Miramichi Bay-Neguac - currently Liberal

Carmel Robichaud's departure from cabinet may diminish her chances, but a look at the results in this riding suggest it should be hard for a Liberal to lose. In 2006, Roger Duguay's votes came almost entirely at the expense of the Tories. One presumes he'll have a candidate here this time that will do the same thing (though to a lesser extent). I don't have a good read here so I don't want to be too definitive, but for now I think it is safe to say Robichaud will go back to Fredericton.

Current projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to safe Liberal the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Miramichi-Bay du Vin - currently Liberal

Bill Fraser won a decisive victory in 2006, beating Tanker Malley by nearly 1500 votes. This time around the PCs are targetting this riding hard, including the promise of a permanent MRI for the Miramichi Hospital. Fraser has been an aggressive constituency MLA however and has a great deal of street cred on the hospital thanks to his past as leader of the 'save our hospital' coalition against the former government.

Seat projection: Safe Liberal

Miramichi Centre - currently Liberal

Of all of the seats on the Miramichi, this riding has the most Conservative history. It went PC in 1982, and it very nearly did so again in 1991 when CoR leader Arch Pafford split the vote and the race ended in essentially a three-way tie. This time around Newcastle has taken the brunt of the bad news on the Miramichi. And the PC candidate is Robert Trevors, a city councilor and EA to popular MP Tilly Gordon. It is hard to say which way this will go.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 6, back to toss up on Sept. 22 and back to leans PC and one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Southwest Miramichi - currently Liberal

This riding is, on paper, a conservative stronghold. That said Rick Brewer has been an excellent constituency MLA and managed to get re-elected against popular former CoR MLA Brent Taylor last time around. But I keep coming to back to how, on paper, this really should be a Tory riding.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 14 and to safe PC in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Rogersville-Kouchibouguac - currently vacant

This seat is traditionally Liberal but has been a stronghold for popular PC MLA (and now Senator) Rose-May Poirier. With Poirier off of the ballot, one assumes that it could be poised to return to its Liberal roots. Her former EA is the candidate and it will be a question of whether he can capture his old boss' magic.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans Liberal on Aug. 27 and to safe Liberal in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Kent - currently Liberal

This is a traditionally Liberal seat occupied by the Liberal leader. While it was a close call thanks to boundary changes in 2006, it seems like it should be safe re-election ride for Shawn Graham this time around.

Seat projection: Safe Liberal

Kent South - currently Progressive Conservative

Claude Williams has proved his mettle three times. This seat will stay blue until he moves on.

Seat projection: ~~Safe PC~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 20 and made one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Shediac-Cap-Pele - currently Liberal

Probably the safest Liberal seat in New Brunswick.

Seat projection: Safe Liberal

Tantramar - currently Progressive Conservative

This has been a traditional swing riding when incumbents retire, but newcomer Mike Olscamp managed to capture it handily in 2006. It seems likely to stay in the Tory fold but it bears watching.

Seat projection: ~~Leans PC~~ (changed to toss up on Sept. 20 and back to leans PC and one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Memramcook-Lakeville-Dieppe - currently Liberal

This new (as of 2006) riding may someday rival Shediac as the best Liberal seat in the province. Bernard LeBlanc will sail back into office.

Seat projection: Safe Liberal

Dieppe Centre-Lewisville - currently Progressive Conservative

PC incumbent Cy LeBlanc won by a hair in both 2003 and 2006, and this time around he isn't reoffering. Rumours abound as to why, but regardless a sure Liberal pick up has become an even surer Liberal pick up. It is hard to call an unheld seat so sure this soon so I will leave it in the likely column, but just barely so.

Seat projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to safe Liberal on Aug. 27 and back to leans Liberal on Sept. 20 and back again to safe Liberal in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Moncton East - currently Liberal

The PCs are mounting a strong enough candidate here to keep this in the lean column, but the lack of the Bernard Lord factor should diminish Tory prospects across Moncton, and especially in this riding which Chris Collins managed to capture by a massive margin in the 2007 by-election.

Seat projection: ~~Lean Liberal~~ (changed to toss up on Sept. 14 and back to leans Liberal on Sept. 22 and to safe Liberal in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Moncton West - currently Liberal

Tory-turned-Grit Joan MacAlpine-Stiles is not reoffering, but Anne Marie Ford (well known for voicing the radio ads of Ford's Apothecary which she co-owns) is a formidable candidate. The restoration of the Petitcodiac, her name recognition and the lack of the Bernard Lord factor should make this a lock but, again, the PCs have a very strong candidate in Sue Stultz so we'll have to watch it closely.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 14 and back to toss up on Sept. 22 and then to leans Liberal and one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Moncton North - currently vacant

Marie-Claude Blais gave Mike Murphy a real scare in 2006. Now, he isn't on the ballot and she's been running hard for months (if not years). Can Kevin Robart work his magic? This will be the hottest race in the southeast.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 14 and then to leans Liberal on Sept. 20 and then to safe Liberal in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Moncton Crescent - currently Progressive Conservative

This should be a safe PC seat with popular incumbent John Betts on the ballot. However, the considerable Liberal investments in ABU could play in their favour. A strong Liberal candidate has been found in the name of Russ Mallard, and he could put this seat in play. Time will tell if the Liberals can deliver, but for now Betts has the edge.

Seat projection: ~~Leans PC~~ (changed to safe PC on Sept. 14 and back to leans PC and one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Petitcodiac - currently Liberal

Cabinet minister Wally Stiles won with one of the largest margins in the province last time around - as a Conservative. Three years after crossing the floor, can Stiles bring enough voters over with him to win a fourth term? Helping him is the fact that the PC candidate is from outside of the riding and won't move in (and give up her seat on Riverview council in so doing) unless she is elected. Will that be enough to overcome the Conservative tendencies of the riding? Hard to say. This will be the second best race to watch in the southeast.

Seat projection: ~~Leans PC~~ (changed to safe PC in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Riverview - currently Progressive Conservative

This is a very safe Conservative seat.

Seat proejction: Safe PC

Albert - currently Progressive Conservative

This is a very safe Conservative seat.

Seat proejction: Safe PC

Kings East - currently Progressive Conservative

While the Liberals managed to snag this seat in 2003 on the heels of massive anger at the Lord government over cuts to agriculture, in any normal cycle this seat is out of the Liberals possible grasp.

Seat projection: Safe PC

Hampton-Kings - currently Progressive Conservative

While Kit Hickey's background should allow her to unite much of the NDP vote here with the Liberals, even with those forces combined she would finish well behind Tory stalwart Bev Harrison.

Seat projection: Safe PC

Quispamsis - currently Liberal

Health Minister Mary Schryer has been one of the fastest rising stars in the Liberal caucus. Fresh from election, she joined the cabinet as a junior minister, before being promoted to the third largest department in government (Social Development) and then to mega-ministry Health. Her high profile should allow her to be re-elected but with Quispamsis taking a big jump on property taxes and a big Tory push in suburban Saint John she'll need to work hard.

Seat projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to toss up on Sept. 14 and back to leans Liberal on Sept. 20 and then to safe Liberal in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Saint John-Fundy - currently Liberal

Stuart Jamieson is the only non-Tory to have ever won this riding - and he has done it five times. Gary Keating was hand picked by Jamieson to succeed him and as Liberals go, probably has the next best change to hold the riding for the Grits. Can he do it? This could be a nail-biter.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 6 and then to safe PC in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Rothesay - currently Progressive Conservative

Margaret-Ann Blaney's margin of victory has slipped every election. From a massive 2853 vote margin in 1999, to 679 in 2003, to a razor-thin 91 votes in 2006. This will definitely be a riding to watch. However, for the moment I believe it belongs in the lean Tory category.

Seat projection: ~~Leans PC~~ (changed to safe PC on Sept. 20)

Saint John East - currently Liberal

The only time in recent memory that the Liberals haven't won this seat was in 1999. Then, the Tories had a huge sweep and carried this riding with 36%. How? The NDP had 28%. While the loss of Roly MacIntyre will make this seat a lot harder for the Liberals to win, the NDP will not be able to score anywhere near 28%. And if the Tories can only get 36% here in their best year ever, I would say this would be among the safest Liberal seats in the province.

Seat projection: ~~Safe Liberal~~ (changed to leans Liberal on Sept. 14 and back to safe Liberal in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Saint John Harbour - currently Liberal

Along with Saint John East, Saint John Harbour is definitely among the two most reliably left of centre seats in the province. Without Elizabeth Weir on the ballot for the NDP, this will be a Liberal stronghold for many years to come.

Seat projection: Safe Liberal

Saint John Portland - currently Progressive Conservative

Trevor Holder has won nailbiters in both 2003 and 2006. However, without him having to defend the record of a sitting government he should be in better stead this time out. He doesn't have it in the bag by any means however and will have to work hard to hold on for a fourth term.

Seat projection: ~~Leans PC~~ (changed to safe PC on Sept. 20)

Saint John Lancaster - currently Liberal

Abel LeBlanc has become an institution in this riding. As long as he is on the ballot, the seat is his for the keeping.

Seat projection: ~~Safe Liberal~~ (changed to leans Liberal on Sept. 14 and made one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Fundy-River Valley - currently Liberal

Jack Keir has proved one of the most able rookie MLAs in legislative history. Last year he was recognized by uber-geeks Jacques Poitras and Dan McHardie in several categories for being a strong asset to the Liberals.

All of that said, this is a traditionally Conservative riding (one of six to vote PC in 1995) which Keir won by a hair in 2006. The PCs are touting Dr. Jim Parrott as a star candidate and cabinet material, while Keir may still be licking the wounds of the NB Power debate in a riding that is dominated by hundreds of workers from the NB Power plants of Coleson Cove and Point Lepreau.

Despite Keir's strength, this will be a tough one for the Liberals.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 14 and to safe PC on Sept. 22)

Charlotte-the-Isles - currently Liberal

This seat has gone Liberal in every election since 1978. 'Nuff said.

Seat projection: Safe Liberal (changed to leans Liberal on Sept. 20 and made one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Charlotte-Campobello - currently Progressive Conservative

Tony Huntjens is retiring and this seat is setting up to be a lot like 1995, when Huntjens first ran - at that time for COR.

In 1995 - the Liberals had two strong candidates (both incumbents whose ridings had merged) who fought a divisive battle for the nomination, with the female Liberal winning. In 2010 - the Liberals had two strong candidates (both newcomers) who fought a divisive battle for the nomination, with the female Liberal winning.

In 1995 - a candidate who, on paper, was arguably stronger than the official PC candidate, ran for COR despite the fact that COR was in decline and only won 7% of the provincial vote and zero seats in that election. In 2010 - a candidate who, on paper, is arguably stronger than the official PC candidate, is running for PANB despite the fact that PANB is unproven and will likely win zero seats in the election.

In 1995 - the Liberal captured only 46% of the vote, but won handily as both the PC candidate and COR candidate finished with about 25% each. In 2006 - the Liberal candidate lost by only 282 votes with no right wing split. In 2010 - ???

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 14 and made one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Oromocto - currently Progressive Conservative

Jody Carr's personal fiefdom is not at danger of falling into enemy hands.

Seat projection: Safe Progressive Conservative (actually possibly the safest of all 55)

Grand Lake-Gagetown - currently Liberal

This seat was won by Eugene McGinley by a huge landslide in 2003. In 2006, he barely hung on. Was that due to declining Liberal fortunes in a district with new boundaries, or to the candidacy of Jack Carr riding on the coattails of his popular brother?

Is new Liberal candidate Barry Armstrong, who in the past advocated against the Liberal government's ferry cuts likely to bring in more support for the Liberals or less? Will PANB leader Kris Austin who a few short months ago sought the PC nomination bleed votes away from Tory Ross Wetmore?

This will be a very interesting riding to watch.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 6 and to safe PC in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Fredericton-Nashwaaksis - currently Liberal

While he won it fairly comfortably in 2003, Liberal T. J. Burke won by a narrow margin in 2006. Meanwhile, Tory candidate Troy Lifford was nominated early and is working hard. This will be a race to watch.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 6 and to safe PC in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Fredericton-Ft. Nashwaak - currently Liberal

Despite provincial controversies, Kelly Lamrock seems to have built up a very solid relationship with his constituents. While the Tories will clearly be targeting Fredericton as their best chance for picking up urban seats, Lamrock is likely to be able to hang on.

Seat projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to toss up on Sept. 14 and to safe PC in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Fredericton-Lincoln - currently Liberal

Finance Minister Greg Byrne won by 1000 votes in his return to provincial politics in 2006. And that with a strong third place finish for then NDP leader Allison Brewer. One presumes that much of that NDP support came from campus, and that much if it will now shift to Byrne. That said, Tory candidate Craig Leonard made a strong name for himself in the area as a vocal opponent of reforms to French immersion. He, like Troy Lifford, was nominated early and has been campaigning hard. This will be a tight race.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans Liberal on Aug. 27 and made one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Fredericton-Silverwood - currently Liberal

Rick Miles has shown himself to be a rising star in Liberal ranks. In his first weeks on the job he was elected caucus chair, and later rose to join the cabinet. He has had the good luck of drawing a weak Conservative opponent in far-right, anti-government, parachute candidate Brian Macdonald. Macdonald's style of politics is not likely to fly in a riding dominated by civil servants. A well run NDP campaign, with provincial campaign chair Dominic Cardy running here, could cause some weird things to happen with vote splits, but it seems likely that Miles will earn a second term.

Seat projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to safe Liberal on Aug. 27 and then back to leans Liberal on Sept. 14 and made one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

New Maryland-Sunbury West - currently Progressive Conservative

Jack Carr managed to hold this seat in the 2008 by-election despite the Liberals throwing their whole Fredericton organization behind this race. A rural riding held by a guy whose twin is the popular incumbent next door and whose leader is a rural guy from two ridings over should not have a hard time getting re-elected.

Seat projection: Safe PC

York - currently Progressive Conservative

This riding hasn't returned the same party twice in a row since Les Hull was re-elected for the Tories in 1982. Since then it has gone Liberal in 1987, COR in 1991, Liberal in 1995, PC in 1999, Liberal in 2003 and PC in 2006. Based on history alone, one would probably want to hedge on this one. Couple that with the fact that long-time and popular Harvey mayor Winston Gamblin is the Liberal candidate and you've got a race on your hands.

Seat projection: ~~Toss up~~ (changed to leans PC on Sept. 6 and to safe PC on Sept. 20)

York North - currently Progressive Conservative

Though Kirk MacDonald won handily in 2006 (thanks to his entry to cabinet and a big split among Liberals), this election is likely to be more like 2003 when MacDonald won by only 101 votes. A Liberal candidate who won by acclamation is not likley to suffer from internal strife. That said, this riding does include David Alward's home town of Nackawic and MacDonald is very active in the constituency. For now, I would say that the PCs have a slight edge but it is worth keeping an eye on.

Seat projection: ~~Leans PC~~ (changed to safe PC on Sept. 20)

Woodstock - currently Progressive Conservative

David Alward is in no risk of losing his seat...

Seat projection: Safe PC

Carleton - currently Progressive Conservative

... and neither is Dale Graham.

Seat proejction: Safe PC

Victoria-Tobique - currently Liberal

Larry Kennedy, now the dean of the legislature, is seeking a seventh term. Last time around he had the largest margin of any Liberal in the province. I don't think that he will win that handily this time, but the odds should be in his favour.

Seat projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to toss up on Sept. 20 and back to leans Liberal and one of 15 ridings to watch in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Grand Falls-Drummond-St. André - currently Liberal

Ron Ouellette won this riding handily in both 2003 and 2006. 2010 shouldn't be much different.

Seat projection: ~~Safe Liberal~~ (changed to leans Liberal on Sept. 14 and back to safe Liberal in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Restigouche-la-Vallée - currently Liberal

This new riding saw a battle of two incumbents in 2006. While Burt Paulin lost at that time by about 1000 votes to Percy Mockler, he won the 2009 by-election by about 1000 votes to Mockler's former EA. With Mockler (first elected in 1982) no longer in contention, Paulin is probably pretty safe.

Seat projection: ~~Leans Liberal~~ (changed to toss up on Sept. 6 and to leans PC on Sept. 20 and to safe PC in the final prediction of Sept. 25)

Edmundston-St. Basile - currently Progressive Conservative

Mado Dubé has had no trouble getting re-elected since she first ran in 1999. While some Liberals argue that Alward's relative unpopularity in francophone New Brunswick (as compared to Lord) and the fact that the Liberals have invested obscene amounts of pork here since 2006 should give them a shot, I just don't see it.

Seat projection: Safe PC

Madawaska-les-Lacs - currently Progressive Conservative

Jeannot Volpé's retirement changes everything in this riding which he has held since 1995. The PCs had a star candidate, who lost the nomination to Volpé's former chief of staff who had been unceremoniously dumped by Alward when he took the leadership. That likely means that there is a bit of a PC split here. That probably isn't enough to tilt the riding into Liberal hands, but it is worth watching.

Seat projection: ~~Leans PC~~ (changed to safe PC on Sept. 6)

Original projection summary - this is anyone's race to win:

Liberals: 23 (12 safe + 11 lean)
Conservatives: 18 (11 safe + 7 lean)
Toss up: 14

Aug. 27 projection:

Liberals: 25 (15 safe + 10 lean)
Conservatives: 18 (11 safe + 7 lean)
Toss up: 12

Sep. 6 projection:

Conservatives: 25 (15 safe + 8 lean)
Liberals: 23 (12 safe + 12 lean)
Toss up: 8

Sep. 14 projection:

Conservatives: 28 (13 safe + 15 lean)
Liberals: 20 (11 safe + 9 lean)
New Democrats: 2 (0 safe + 2 lean)
Toss up: 5

Sep. 20 projection:

Conservatives: 28 (16 safe + 12 lean)
Liberals: 20 (9 safe + 11 lean)
New Democrats: 2 (0 safe + 2 lean)
Toss up: 5

Sep. 22 projection:

Conservatives: 26 (17 safe + 9 lean)
Liberals: 21 (9 safe + 12 lean)
NDP: 1 (0 safe + 1 lean)
Toss up: 7

Final (Sep. 25) projection:

Conservatives: 28 (18 safe + 10 lean)
Liberals: 26 (12 safe + 14 lean)
NDP: 1 (0 safe + 1 lean)

Wither the People's Alliance?

2010-06-29T19:18:00.002-03:00

This is the third post in a three-post series on the prospects for New Brunswick's three registered third parties for this fall's provincial election.

The People's Alliance is running as a radically populist party. They will not whip their elected members in any way to support a central party platform, but they are instead a loose alliance of individuals who want to put their constituents before party.

This sounds like a good idea on paper, but it has not proved to work very well in practice both at the federal level and here in New Brunswick.

The Reform Party of Canada ran on a similar platform but it did not take them long to move to a more traditional approach when in parliament. The same happened to the Confederation of Regions here in New Brunswick. In Reform's case, they managed to adapt and thrive (though their populist views eventually vanished when merging to form today's Conservative Party). On the other hand, COR imploded after one term of having elected members.

While this model does not seem to work very well after elections, it does seem to be a good platform on which to run for election. Dissatisfaction with politics as usual (which we are certainly seeing in New Brunswick today) got Reform over 50 seats in 1993 and COR official opposition status in 1991.

While COR is best remembered for being opposed to official bilingualism, this was just one manifestation of a broader view of libertarian/populism. i.e. keep the state out of the people's business and give the people more power over the state.

One presumes that the People's Alliance will do best in ridings where COR did well.

COR won all of almost all of its seats in Greater Fredericton, with two others in anglophone parts of Greater Moncton. It also did relatively well throughout rural southern New Brunswick.

Riding boundaries have changed quite a bit since 1991 (in 1995 and again in 2006) but the following 11 ridings were all or largely represented by COR in 1991:

Albert
Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak
Fredericton-Lincoln*
Fredericton-Nashwaaksis
Grand Lake-Gagetown*
Miramichi Southwest
New Maryland-Sunbury West
Oromocto
Riverview
York
York North

* The old riding of Sunbury makes up significant parts of these two ridings and was represented by COR. The ridings of Queens North (which makes up the rest of Grand Lake-Gagetown) and Frederiton South (which makes up the rest of Fredericton-Lincoln) were won by the Liberals in 1991.

I've colourcoded the ridings based on which party currently represents them. As you can see, both the Liberals and Conservatives are equally at risk.

The highest profile candidates so far are both former Conservative nomination contestants. One is party leader Kris Austin, running in Grand Lake-Gagetown and St. Andrews mayor John Craig in Charlotte-Campobello.

The People's Alliance's hopes rest largely with circumstances outside of their control. Because their ethos is to be against the system, the "system" needs to do something that will spur the disenfranchised to be against the main parties and therefore vote for this party.

Every day that passes since the NB Power debate, the less likely it is for this party to be able to ride the tide of that rage. Moreover, if their voters are most likely to be people that would otherwise vote Conservative, will they actually be able to get votes in an election where the Conservatives have a chance to win? In 1991 the PCs were in shambles and in 1993 they were crushed.

In those elections, voters could choose between a moderate party that was sure to lose and a radical party that was sure to lose. It is very easy to stay pure in those circumstances.

If people who generally prefer less government and small c conservatism have the choice between a more moderate Conservative Party that could win and a populist party that can't, I suspect they are more likely to choose the former.

So barring something dramatic happening between now and September 27, I expect that that People's Alliance will do well enough to scare the mainstream parties in a few ridings, but not likely pick up a seat. I'll set the odds at 20-80.

Wither the Greens?

2010-06-22T17:48:00.003-03:00

The Green Party is very new in New Brunswick. They have not contested a provincial election before.

They have some credibility in that their leader is disaffected Liberal Jack MacDougall who is well known in political circles for being an excellent campaign organizer.

MacDougall served as organizer for the federal Greens in the 2008 election which saw their share of the vote in New Brunswick climb from to 6.2% from 2.4% in 2006. How much of this has to do with MacDougall is impossible to tell but that 4.2 point increase compares favourably to the national climb of 2.3.

Opinion polls do not have the Greens coming in that high, instead ranging between 2 and 3% (of all voters) in a poll with a margin of error of +/- 3.4.

However, while third parties traditionally underperform their polling numbers because of weak organization, it could be said that the Greens may overperform their polling numbers because of strong organization. We'll have to see.

If the Greens did manage to replicate that 6.2% of the vote, they would still not be likely to win any seats. In fact, COR got 7.1% of the vote in 1995 and even with concentrated support and 6 incumbent MLAs on the ballot they couldn't get a seat.

When MacDougall sought the leadership of the Liberal Party in 2002, he won only 8% of delegates. However, he ran very strong in Saint John where he was active in business and community causes in the 1980s. He actually won a plurality of delegates in several Saint John ridings.

Had MacDougall run in a Saint John area riding, say Saint John-Fundy where long-time MacDougall ally Stuart Jamieson is stepping down, he may have had a shot. As it stands, I suspect he will place third (at best) in his chosen riding of Fredericton-Nashwaaksis.

The prospects for the Greens winning a seat are grim. However, if MacDougall gets into the leaders' debate... you never know. There a great many undecided voters and a great many disgruntled voters in this very unpredictable cycle. One never knows what might happen if an unknown leader of an unknown party were to catch on in a debate.

That said, I would give the chances of the Greens winning a seat 5-95.

Whither the NDP?

2010-06-21T09:21:00.000-03:00

The NDP nearly had a breakthrough in francophone New Brunswick in the 1999 election. The double momentum of Yvon Godin's 1997 federal election victory (and to a lesser extent Angela Vautour's in Beauséjour-Petitcodiac), and the decline of the Liberal Party in that election created a tremendous opportunity for them.

Will that opportunity be replicated in 2010 by the party's first Francophone leader running in a riding on the peninsula combined with a Liberal government that, like in 1999, is facing some serious trouble?

Here are the ridings in which the NDP did well in 1999 that fall in or near the boundaries of those two federal ridings:

Nepisiguit 28%
Tantramar 19%
Rogersville-Kouchibouguac 18%
Nigadoo-Chaleur 16%
Centre-Péninsule 14%
Moncton North 14%
Kent South 12%
Riverview 12%
Miramichi Centre 11%

Add to that list two more ridings: Tracadie-Sheila (where party leader Duguay is running) and Miramichi Bay-Neguac (where Duguay ran and got got 26% in 2006).

These are the ridings that the NDP has its best shot of winning. Particularly the Francophone ridings in the northeast and possibly also Moncton North, a traditionally Liberal riding with a strong PC campaign and no Liberal incumbent.

The NDP seems to be going all in on electing their leader, which is probably a fair strategy. The PCs have made two major announcements in Tracadie-Sheila, leading one to believe they are nervous. Equally good hopes could be Nepisiguit, a heavily unionized riding and home base of Yvon Godin, and Rogersville-Kouchibouguac and Moncton North which are open seats. The NDP would be wise to focus on these four.

A weakened Liberal Party and a PC Party with a leader that lacks appeal in Francophone New Brunswick up against a Francophone NDP leader from the peninsula is an ideal scenario for the NDP.

I would give them 50-50 or slightly better odds at the NDP picking up at least one seat. That said, I gave them a seat in my 2006 prediction so I may want to water my wine a bit on those odds.

Certainly something to watch. I'll follow this post up with a post on the prospects for the Greens and the People's Alliance.

Where we stand

2010-06-07T16:02:00.003-03:00

The most recent CRA poll is out and it shows a real horse race.

The way CRA presents its polls is a bit confusing. They give you the margin of error of their whole sample, but then take the undecideds out of the sample when they present their numbers.

Let's break it out in a bit more accurate a way.

Full sample of 807 with a +/- MOE of 3.4 points.

Undecided 36
PC 27
Lib 24
NDP 10
Green 3
Other 1

Or we can look at the numbers as they presented them with a more accureate margin of error.

A partial sample of 64% of 807 (516) yields a MOE of +/- 4.3 points

PC 42
Lib 37
NDP 16
Green 5
Other 1

Looking at it either way, the PCs are just inside or outside of the margin of error (the difference likely due to a combination of rounding error and available number of significant digits).

Therefore it is fair to say with some confidence that the PCs appear to be in the lead. But whether you say that are not, it can be said with all confidence that it is pretty close at the moment.

And in any event, the undecideds are a third larger than the largest party!

CRA is the only outfit that regularly polls New Brunswick politics. We can therefore look at trends over a long period of time. A friend was kind enough to send me a chart of all CRA quarterly polls going back 10 years.

As you can see, the honeymoon enjoyed by the Graham Liberals after the 2006 election was particularly sweet. Though we do not see back as far as Lord's first year in office, his second year compares unfavourably to Graham's. In order for the situation to normalize, the Liberals had to take a deep dive. However, they have likely dove too far for their liking.

Normally in a situation like this you might be able to make a guess on where things were going based on momentum. But for three polls in a row now, both parties are essentially stalled (Libs up 1, PCs down 4 with no movement in last poll). Both have reason to be optimistic. After jumping 11, then falling 4, the Tories have held their ground. The Libs after falling 5 have levelled out and started to tick back up.

But what we do see is that the polls are basically where they were on the eve of the last election (PC 45 - Lib 39).

So one of three things is going to happen. 1) Something dramatic and positive will happen in the short-term to change these numbers in someone's favour; 2) something dramatic and negative will happen during the writ to change the numbers against one's favour; 3) we'll see the same thing as in 2003 and 2006 where local campaigns and local candidates will be the deciding factors.

At this point, I lean towards #3 in my expectations.

Let the trench warfare begin.

He's back...

2010-06-07T12:43:00.001-03:00

I bowed out of this a while ago, but with an election in the offing I won't be able to resist. Stay tuned for my commentary and predictions for New Brunswick's 2010 election.

New Democrats to cruise to victory

2009-06-07T15:11:00.005-03:00

If polls are to believed the NDP will have a convincing win on Tuesday night in Nova Scotia.

My previous post predicted the NDP would be on the cusp of a majority (winning 26 seats in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly gives you a majority if there is an opposition speaker and a minority with a government one) when the votes are counted.

Since there have been two new polls.

A CRA poll showed that in the last two weeks of May, the NDP surged substantially. Numbers from their early May poll and degree of change are in brackets:

NDP 44 (+7 from 37)
Lib 28 (-3 from 31)
PC 26 (-2 from 28)

An Angus Reid poll issued a few days later shows the NDP at an incredible 47, the Liberals at 26 and the PCs at 23.

If the NDP really are at 47%, things would be huge. If we were to assume the NDP was at 70% in the HRM, they would still be running at 35% everywhere else (higher than they ever have before). A more realistic number for the NDP would be 55% in the HRM (compared to 46.5% last time), which would give them nearly 43% in the rest of Nova Scotia.

Therefore, my revised prediction would be as follows:

NDP 36
Lib 10
PC 6

UPDATE:
So the final results were NDP 31, Lib 11, PC 10. Things actually turned out pretty well as I expected, except the Liberals did better in the HRM than I thought at the expense of the NDP and the PCs did better in Cape Breton than I thought at the expense of the Liberals.

The problem with wide appeal

2009-05-25T11:57:00.004-03:00

I was in Nova Scotia last week and was starkly reminded that the only party with support all across the province is the Progressive Conservative Party.

In Cumberland County, you'd have to search a long time to find a Liberal sign. While in the western most parts of the Annapolis Valley, NDP signs were nowhere to be found.

The most recent poll showed the NDP at 37%, the Liberals at 31% and the PCs at 28%. If that PC support is spread relatively evenly across the province (the poll suggests it gets up to 35% in rural, mainland Nova Scotia) they could risk running second in virtually every riding in the province and get a share of seats that is far less than their numbers suggest. With Liberal support concentrated in the Valley/French Shore and Cape Breton, they're likely looking at a near sweep of those regions with 31%.

I am going to make the following seat prediction ~~one week~~two weeks out:

NDP 26
Lib 17
PC 9

Whoops, I was originally thinking voting day was June 2, but it is actually June 9.

New Brunswick blogs and Nova Scotia votes

2009-05-05T13:40:00.004-03:00

It is with some regret that I noticed today that the third of the three New Brunswick blogs I follow has stopped posting. Spink About It and now The Independent have both formally raised white flags, while Countering The Nanny State has been largely silent for months, with the last post early in the New Year.

I have never formally thrown in the towel and do plan to continue to post occasionally on non-political topics and on political topics I can't resist, as I have for the past while. One of those topics is elections, so expect a handful of posts over the next few weeks on the recently called Nova Scotia election.

This should be an interesting one. Barring a game-changer (certainly possible), I would almost certainly expect the NDP to win a plurality of seats. That doesn't make for a lack of excitement, however.

Does the NDP win the most seats, but not a majority? This seems most likely to me and, if so, who comes second? Logic suggests that the PCs should come second, but they only held their plurality last time thanks to favourite son Rodney MacDonald's unusually strong PC showing on Cape Breton Island. Should the Liberals hold their seats elsewhere and reclaim Cape Breton, they could come second.

Another issue is how big of a plurality will the NDP win, if at all? Their support is very heavily concentrated in the HRM, where they already hold virtually all of the seats. If their vote share continues to rise there, they'll get more and more popular votes but their seat total will remain steady. Where is their room to grow? They had some breakthroughs in rural Nova Scotia in 2006 - can they hold these and grow them? Will a likely lowering of PC support on Cape Breton break their way at all or is it all destined for the Liberals?

The other big question is, if the NDP doesn't win a majority, who will form a government? A lot of people misunderstand how our system works. Individual candidates are defeated in elections, not governments. Should the Tories win fewer seats than the NDP, they continue to be the government until they are defeated or resign. If the NDP wins a majority, by tradition the Tory government would resign. However, if the NDP wins a plurality but not a majority, the PCs would have the right to face the House and try to maintain confidence (as W.L.M. King did in 1925), something that could easily be successful either through a coalition government (done as recently as 1999 in Saskatchewan) or a confidence agreement (such as the one between the second and third party in Ontario in 1985) with the Liberals.

All of this makes for an interesting campaign, one I'll watch closely.

See also a post from a while back where I hypothesized the possibility of a Liberal government. The most recent opinion poll showed NDP 36, Lib 31, PC 30 - so anything could happen...

Snob

2009-03-28T13:59:00.002-03:00

How not to seem more in touch with the everyday Canadian:

Mimi, the Ignatieffs' four-month-old Burmese kitten. She recently moved into Stornoway after being personally escorted to Ottawa by Liberal MP Keith Martin, who represents the Vancouver Island riding where Mimi's breeder lives. It was an effort but Dr. Martin found a way - WestJet let him take the kitten on board with him - and delivered her to the Opposition Leader's official residence at 1 a.m. last Thursday.

A purebred kitten will cost you between $300 and $500, + vaccinations + spaying.

Meanwhile...

The Harpers also have cats but of less glamorous breeds - they foster cats through the Ottawa Humane Society's Foster Program.

More thoughts on PR

2009-02-18T14:07:00.040-04:00

The Commission on Legislative Democracy recommended in 2005 that we move to a variety of proportional representation (PR) styled New Brunswick Mixed-Member Proportional (NB MMP). The system would have had 56 MLAs, 36 of which would be elected from traditional single-member first-past-the-post (FPTP) districts and 20, of which would be selected for 4 five-member districts using the additional member method (compared to 55 MLAs presently, all elected to single member ridings).

The multi-member district seats would not be selected based on the share of the votes the party received in those areas, but to compensate for the non-proportionality of the results therein. (Explained in the addtional member article linked above)

For example: Each region would have 9 ridings, each electing one member. Thereafter, the region would have 5 more members selected to represent the whole region. If Party A won 8 of 9 ridings with only 55% of the vote (i.e. they barely won each of eight, and barely lost one) and Party B had received only one seat on 45% of the vote, then Party B would receive all 5 of the regional members to compensate for having won only one traditional seat on 45% of the votes.

In order to presuppose the structure of the ridings, we'll have to overlay the existing 55 ridings into each of the regions suggested by the commission. That means 14 single member ridings will have to be transposed onto 3 of the regions and 13 will have to go into a final region. We'll place the Moncton-area districts into the 13 seat region, because those districts are the most overpopulated in the province.

The Commission recommended the following regions: North, Central, Southwest, Southeast. I will assign our current electoral districts to these regions as follows:

North
Grand Falls-Drummond-St. André, Restigouche-La-Vallée, Edmundston-Saint-Basile, Madawaska-Les-Lacs, Campbellton-Restigouche Centre, Dalhousie-Restigouche East, Nigadoo-Chaleur, Bathurst, Nepisiguit, Caraquet, Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou, Centre-Péninsule-Saint-Sauveur, Tracadie-Sheila, Miramichi Bay-Neguac

Central
Victoria-Tobique, Carleton, Woodstock, York North, Fredericton-Nashwaaksis, Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak, Fredericton-Lincoln, Fredericton-Silverwood, New Maryland-Sunbury West, Oromocto, Grand Lake-Gagetown, Southwest Miramichi, Miramichi Centre, Miramichi-Bay du Vin

Southwest
York, Charlotte-Campobello, Charlotte-The Isles, Fundy-River Valley, Quispamsis, Rothesay, Saint John East, Saint John Harbour, Saint John Portland, Saint John Lancaster, Saint John-Fundy, Hampton-Kings, Kings East, Albert

Southeast
Petitcodiac, Dieppe Centre-Lewisville, Moncton East, Moncton West, Moncton North, Moncton Crescent, Riverview, Memramcook-Lakeville-Dieppe, Tantramar, Shediac-Cap-Pelé, Kent South, Kent, Rogersville-Kouchibouguac

A lot of these regions are less than ideal but this is the unfortunate result that can happen when you have to carve the province up into four equal-sized regions. Presumably when boundaries for ridings would have been redrawn, some would have been combined and others split in a fashion that would try to avoid this.

So now let's try to re-run the 2006 election under NB MMP. In each region, we'll take the actual results from 2006 in terms of seats, then scale that down to 9 ridings, then apply the NB MMP method to each set of regional seats.

		2006 actual results		Projected NB MMP seats
		Seats	% vote	Riding	Regional	Total
PC		26	47.5	16	13	29
	North	5	45.0	3	4	7
	Central	5	46.5	3	4	7
	Southwest	7	46.6	4	3	7
	Southeast	9	55.9	6	2	8
Lib		29	47.1	20	7	27
	North	9	48.7	6	1	7
	Central	9	48.3	6	1	7
	Southwest	7	47.0	5	2	7
	Southeast	4	39.5	3	3	6
NDP		0	5.1	0	0	0
	North	0	6.0	0	0	0
	Central	0	5.2	0	0	0
	Southwest	0	5.6	0	0	0
	Southeast	0	4.7	0	0	0

I am not sure if this is the result that PR proponets would have been looking for. The right-of-centre party, which won a bare plurality of votes (47.5%) would win a majority government, while left-of-centre parties who received 52.2% of the votes would be in the minority. The NDP, despite winning 5.1% of the vote would remain unrepresented in the legislature. The Liberals, despite winning a plurarilty of the vote in 3 of 4 regions, will have split the seats evenly in each of those regions, which seems somewhat unfair.

As I said in a comment to the last post on this, "the problem with the electoral reform debate in Canada (is that e)veryone seems to see it as black and white, when in fact there are countless models to choose from."

Using the model that was proposed by the Commission on Legislative Democracy would not have improved, in my view, the results of the last election. Regions with an odd number of members would likely have worked better, or perhaps the top up could have been done on a province-wide scale which would have allowed the NDP to get seats. Or we could have moved wholly to multi-member ridings (which our province used from pre-confederation to 1974 anyway) using the single transferable vote. Or we could have gone to countless other varieties of options.

As I said, that is the problem with the PR debate. When it is the status quo vs. the nearly infinite number of alternatives, change is quite popular. But when it is the status quo vs. one particular PR model, then these tend to fail (as votes in BC, Ontario and PEI have shown).

I suspect that most members of the NDP support PR in principle. I doubt many would favour the NB MMP model if they knew it would have meant they would still have been shut out of the legislature, and that a conservative government would have been re-elected with a larger majority in the last election.

This is why I've always prefered a gradual electoral reform. Canada was born out of evolution as opposed to revolution and it has served us well. We should do the same with any changes to our electoral system. A move from FPTP to a the preferential vote would be a relatively simple change that wouldn't turn our system on its head, and wouldn't confuse voters, but would answer many of the legitimate grievances of electoral reform proponents. Thereafter, if our objectives haven't been met, we could move further down the road.

Doesn't this seem more reasonable than totally replacing a system that, though imperfect, has served this country for well over a hundred years?

The drawbacks of proportional representation

2009-02-17T09:11:00.002-04:00

Many Canadians have become frustrated, according to polls, with the fact that we had a federal election in 2004, 2006 and 2008 and could well have another in 2009 or 2010. At the same time, many have expressed dismay at the fact that the Green Party got 6.8% of the vote and won zero seats, while the Bloc Québécois got 10% of the vote and 16% of the seats.

Unfortunately, these two frustrations are largely incompatible. Though we might see the Greens win a seat or two with instant runoff voting (a model I support), it would not result in proportionality between votes and seats.

The reason we have had all of these elections is because of minority governments. With a system of proportional representation, the last time we would have seen a majority government at the federal level in Canada would have been 1984 when Brian Mulroney won 50.03% of the vote and before that 1958 when John Diefenbaker won 53.66%. Not even Pierre Trudeau's big sweep of 1968 won a majority of votes - he scored 45.37%.

The situation in Israel today is not dissimilar to that which we saw in Germany in 2005. The votes are spread so widely and the two "major" parties are so small and close to each other in size that the only option for government is a grand coalition of the major parties, which are forced to govern with a narrow set of objectives based on the few policy areas where those parties can agree to compromise.

This is no way to govern a country. We must have either majority governments, coalitions of like-minded parties or minority governments with a commitment from other parties to keep them in office for some time to have stable, effective government. If you ever think we could make all of our problems go away by bringing in PR, I would direct you to look at those countries who already "enjoy" that system of election. Based on the reaction of Canadians to the coalition proposal that came forward late last year, I would think that a system of PR would lead to a massive case of buyers remorse immediately following its first election.

130 teams on frozen pond

2009-01-06T09:24:00.003-04:00

In a few weeks, Plaster Rock, New Brunswick will host players and fans from around the globe for the 8th annual World Pond Hockey Championships.

There will be 130 teams, representing 12 countries and four continents. It is quite an amazing feat for a small milltown struggling with the downturn in the forestry sector.

There are 76 teams from Canada, including 37 from New Brunswick.
There are 43 teams from the USA, including teams from as far away as Arizona, Oregon and Puerto Rico.
There are 6 teams from Europe and three from the Caribbean (including Puerto Rico).
Egypt's team represents Africa and Brazil represents South America.

Be there, or be square. February 19-22, 2009, featuring the Stanley Cup on the 19th.

For more information:
WPHC website
A great 2004 profile from the New York Times

New video from Bush's trip to Iraq

2008-12-15T11:48:00.004-04:00

Senate appointments

2008-12-11T12:46:00.002-04:00

Media reports suggest that the Prime Minister will be making the wise political move, and wise move for the functioning of the Senate, of filling the 18 vacancies that exist in that body. He will however have to battle a perception problem as he has vowed only to fill vacancies with elected Senators.

While still placing a large number of Conservatives in the Senate and filling all vacancies, there is a process where he would appear to respect his pledge to bring democracy to the Senate.

The 18 vacancies cover eight provinces and one territory. Harper could look to the results of the recent federal election in each of those jurisdictions for "advice" from Canadians on how to fill the Senate vacancies.

For instance, in Prince Edward Island, the Liberals hold 3 seats in the Senate and there is one vacancy. The Liberals received 47.7% of the vote and the Conservatives received 36.2%. If you break that out it says that Liberals should have 1.9 seats and the Conservatives 1.4. But because the Liberals already hold 3 seats, then the one vacancy should go to the Conservatives.

If you apply this across the 18 vacancies, the Conservatives would get 10, the NDP would get 7 and the Liberals would get 1.

In 2005, despite the fact that the NDP wants to abolish the Senate and refused to recognize the appointment, Paul Martin appointed a nominal New Democrat to the Senate. Harper could do something similar, appointing Canadians who could be deemed associated with the NDP who favour his Senate reform agenda.

Following this formula Newfoundland and Labrador would get an NDP senator, New Brunswick would get a Conservative and a New Democrat, Nova Scotia would get two New Democrats and a Conservative, PEI would get a Conservative, Quebec would get three Conservatives and a New Democrat, Ontario would get a Conservative and a New Democrat, Yukon would get a Liberal, Saskatchewan would get a Conservative, and British Columbia would get two Conservatives and a New Democrat.

The standings in the Senate would be:
Liberal 59
Conservative 30
NDP 8
PC 3
Ind 5

If the prime minister simply appoints 18 Tories, the standings would be:
Liberal 58
Conservative 38
PC 3
NDP 1
Ind 5

-- marginally better for the Tories but not worth the PR nightmare of going back on the pledge to appoint based on the will of Canadians.

Food for thought for my Conservative friends who may have the ear of the Prime Minister.

A dangerous precedent?

2008-12-03T21:49:00.000-04:00

Martha Hall Findlay looks at the prorogation angle differently than I had ever considered.

If the governor general does allow a prorogation, would it be the end of responsible government in Canada?

The premise of responsible government is that the executive remains in office only so long as it enjoys the support of the responsible house of the legislature. If the governor general allows a prorogation and sets a precedent that a prime minister can seek and receive a prorogation anytime, even when it less than two weeks after a throne speech, with no legislation passed. This would allow any future prime minister to simply prorogue whenever a confidence vote they fear losing is scheduled.

This is a very interesting and fair point. One I'm surprised I've never heard mentioned by one of the countless "experts" who've been on TV the past week.

Coalition cabinet revised

2008-12-01T23:49:00.001-04:00

So we've learned that it will be a cabinet of 25: the prime minister plus 24 ministers.

Thus, I'm revising my list, and also because I left out John McCallum who I think almost certainly would be in the cabinet.

Dion did not say whether or not leadership candidates would be in the cabinet, but I cannot imagine he would put them in. In order to be fair, they should all be given 'equal' portfolios, which is essentially impossible. Both Rae and Ignatieff would be logical choices for foreign minister, but that job is not an ideal one for running a leadership campaign. Finance minister is not a logical choice for either of them. The NDP is purported to be getting a major economic portfolio. Suddenly, there isn't much available for either Rae or Ignatieff and we've not even thought of LeBlanc. So I'd say it is easier for all if the leadership candidates focus on running for leader.

Finally, it is important to note that this coalition is not a done deal; the prime minister may yet request a prorogation (which the governor general may deny) or, if the government falls, an election (which she may grant).

All that in mind, my revised guess. An asterisk denotes a change from my earlier thoughts.

Prime Minister of Canada
Rt. Hon. Stéphane Dion

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Hon. Wayne Easter

Minister of Canadian Heritage
Hon. Marc Garneau

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Hon. Navdeep Bains

Minister of the Environment
Hon. Thomas Mulcair

Minister of Finance
Hon. Scott Brison

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Hon. Jack Harris

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for International Cooperation
Hon. Ralph Goodale

Minister of Health
Hon. Ken Dryden

Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and Minister of Labour
Hon. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Hon. Irwin Cotler

Minister of Industry
Rt. Hon. Jack Layton

Minister of International Trade
Hon. Gerard Kennedy

Minister of Justice
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh*

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Hon. Libby Davies

Leader of the Government in the Senate
Hon. Claudette Tardiff

Minister of National Defence
Hon. John McCallum*

Minister of National Revenue
Hon. Bryon Wilfert

Minister of Natural Resources
Hon. Linda Duncan

Minister of Public Safety
Hon. Marlene Jennings

Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Hon. Mark Holland

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Hon. Denis Coderre

Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Hon. Martha Hall Findlay

President of the Treasury Board
Hon. David McGuinty

Minister of Veterans Affairs
Hon. Brian Murphy*

Coalition cabinet

2008-12-01T16:24:00.001-04:00

I just can't resist a prediction.

Presuming that the government does fall, and the governor-general does call on Stéphane Dion to form a government, and that media reports indicating there will be eighteen Liberals and six New Democrats in the cabinet, and that the Finance Minister will be a Liberal are all correct, here is my prediction for the coalition cabinet:

Prime Minister of Canada
Rt. Hon. Stéphane Dion

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Hon. Wayne Easter

Minister of Canadian Heritage
Hon. Marc Garneau

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Hon. Navdeep Bains

Minister of the Environment
Hon. Thomas Mulcair

Minister of Finance
Hon. Scott Brison

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Hon. Jack Harris

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for International Cooperation
Hon. Ralph Goodale

Minister of Health
Hon. Ken Dryden

Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and Minister of Labour
Hon. Judy Wasylyvia-Leis

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Hon. Irwin Cotler

Minister of Industry
Rt. Hon. Jack Layton

Minister of International Trade
Hon. Gerard Kennedy

Minister of Justice
Hon. Brian Murphy

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Hon. Libby Davies

Leader of the Government in the Senate
Hon. Claudette Tardiff

Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh

Minister of National Revenue
Hon. Bryon Wilfert

Minister of Natural Resources
Hon. Linda Duncan

Minister of Public Safety
Hon. Marlene Jennings

Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Hon. Mark Holland

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Hon. Denis Coderre

Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Hon. Martha Hall Findlay

President of the Treasury Board
Hon. David McGuinty

Coalition making

2008-11-29T12:14:00.001-04:00

As a nerd who specializes his geekdom in areas of political history, I am very interested in the current matters of confidence and coalition in Ottawa.

First I must point out to my friends in the media that in their coverage, they've missed the most recent example of coalition in Canada - the NDP-Liberal coalition in Saskatchewan formed in 1999. Also, I'm surprised they've not referred to the long lasting Liberal-Conservative coalitions in BC from the 30s into the 50s or the Liberal-Progressive coalitions of Manitoba. There is lots of precedent for coalition in Canada at the provincial level. However, there is little precedent for the situation before us today.

The most analagous Canadian example is the King-Byng affair of 1926 but it is still not a very good example. In that case, the incumbent Liberals won less seats than the Conservatives in the 1925 election but neither had a majority, the second largest party - the Liberals - continued in office with the support of the third-party Progressives. When that government was on the verge of falling - it had not actually fallen - Prime Minister King went to the GG and asked for an election. The GG's correct response was that the government had not fallen, the election had been only 9 months earlier, and a larger single party was willing to form a government.

In the situation before us today, the party with the most seats would be defeated and a coalition of two parties who, even taken together, have considerably fewer seats, would propose to govern. That is quite a different situation. Moreover, Harper's last minority began with 124 seats and, in terms of share of seats in the commons, it was the smallest majority ever. The Liberal-NDP coalition minority would beat that record having only 114 seats or 37% of the total.

I've not researched it, but the only comparable example I can think of would be the 1975 dismisal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in Australia. In that case, Whitlam's budget had been defeated in the Senate and the opposition argued that that was an expression of non-confidence, while Whitlam said only the House could weigh in on a matter of confidence. Whitlam refused to resign or call for elections as, in his view, he enjoyed the confidence of parliament due to his support in the lower house. The GG disagreed, fired Whitlam and named the opposition leader as PM. As Whitlam had a majority in the lower house, the new PM's first act was to call for an election.
That doesnt quite map on to the situation before us, but it is the closest example I can think of.

Anyway, all that aside, due to the unprecedented proximity of the potential loss of confidence to the last election, the GG would likely have to give the Liberal-NDP coalition a shot despite its lack of historical precedent either for or against.

On to the make up of the coalition itself, I think that there is a fairly easy way to iron out a coalition agreement without getting bogged down in details.

There should be a cabinet of 30 - 20 of whom are Liberals, including the PM, and 10 of whom are New Democrats. Portfolios should be chosen by the parties in order with the NDP chosing the first portfolio and the Liberals picking the next two and continuing until the 29 non-prime ministerial posts are assigned.

An agreement should be made that ministers would enjoy their regular authority over matters of administration but that decisions of the cabinet would require a formal vote with a 2/3s majority in favour. This would prevent the need for policy matters to be totally hashed out in advance as the government would need some degree of consensus between the two partners going forward.

This sort of agreement would allow the parties to focus on their response to the economic situation, including measures that would allow for the Bloc to support the measure and subsequently the government on and on subsequent matters of confidence without having the agreement fall apart on the details.

Irony

2008-11-24T16:45:00.000-04:00

From Canadian Press:

Paul Martin says Rae Ignatieff rivalry won't divide Liberal party

Former prime minister Paul Martin says he's confident the Liberal party will emerge united despite sparring between its two principal leadership hopefuls.

Martin, whose own acrimonious relationship with former prime minister Jean Chretien eventually drove him from his post as finance minister, says front-runners Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae won't divide the party.

He says the Liberal party has learned its lesson and he's sure that once the new leader is chosen the party will be united.

Memories of past confrontations surfaced last week when Rae boycotted the party's closed-door, all-candidates' forum because chief rival Ignatieff wouldn't agree to lift the veil of secrecy.

That was the first public spat between candidates vying to replace Stephane Dion as leader after a disastrous defeat in last month's election.

It disappointed many in the party, who had hoped to avoid the kind of sniping that characterized the hard-fought campaign in which Dion came up the middle to win as a compromise candidate in the 2006 leadership race.

Neither Rae nor Ignatieff could take a clear majority last time around.

On Monday, Martin said all the candidates were ``outstanding'' but declined to endorse any one of them, saying he will remain a spectator.

New Brunswick's Dominic LeBlanc is also up for the party's top job.

Lest We Forget

2008-11-11T09:53:00.003-04:00

I'll be heading out soon to a local Remembrance Day ceremony, I hope you're doing the same.

A few things to think about:

28% of all eligible Canadians fought in World War I
36% of all eligible Canadians fought in World War II
almost all of these were volunteers
would you put your life on the line to help our neighbour, let alone an idea, to survive?
would you like to live under a Nazi dictatorship?

To all those Canadians and other citizens of the world who risked or gave their lives in these and other wars, including the one they're fighting today, thank you.

Obama wins

2008-11-04T21:11:00.000-04:00

At 9:11 p.m. Atlantic standard time, based on the NBC and ABC calls* in the state of Pennsylvania, I am prepared to call the election for Senator Obama of Illinois.

I do not foresee a scenario where Senator McCain of Arizona can lose xxx and win a majority of electoral votes.

* - CNN and CBS still haven't called it, but I am unconvinced that McCain can win without Pennsylvania.

A bit tight

2008-11-04T21:04:00.000-04:00

A little tighter than I expected in the early results, but time will tell. CBS is calling New Hampshire for Obama which makes a McCain win very difficult. He would have to sweep the remaining seven of my eight swing states and pick up Nevada.

Tomorrow's watching guide tonight!

2008-11-03T20:11:00.001-04:00

Quite interestingly there are four swing states whose polls close early. The results in these states, which close at 8 p.m. Atlantic time, could predict the election. They are:

New Hampshire
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida

With the possible exception of New Hampshire, it is very unlikely that the networks will be able to call any of these states based on exit polls alone.

If Obama wins either North Carolina or Florida, he has almost certainly won the election. If he wins them both, he has won the election, probably in a landslide.

If McCain holds those two southern states and wins one of New Hampshire and Virginia, he has a small chance to win. If he wins all four stay tuned for a long night.

My read of the map shows Obama with 266 electoral votes in the bag, meaning McCain has to win all of the states in play (8 by my reading) to win the election.

Here is my take of the map:

McCain is likely to win some of these states, particularly West Virginia and to a lesser extent Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina. However, he must win them all to win the election.

It is also possible that Obama may win some of the states coloured red but, should he win any of them, he'll likely win all of the swing states as well and be headed to a landslide in the neighbourhood of 400 electoral votes.

It is also possible that McCain may win some of the states coloured blue, i.e. Nevada and Virginia (and if his campaign schedule is to be believed and the polls discarded Iowa). However, if he wins any of those states, I will expect him to have run the table with these and they'll be gravy.

U.S. election prediction

2008-11-02T18:21:00.001-04:00

Back in April, I drew up six potential electoral maps. These were my predictions for the likely, best and worst case scenarios in McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama match ups.

As I mentioned in my post the other day, McCain has badly fumbled the campaign and I forsee the best case scenario coming for Barack Obama.

My April scenario for Obama included him picking up Alaska in the best case, which is not going to happen thanks to Palin being on the ticket. So rather than the 325-213 win I thought would be his best case, I'll make it 322-216.

Obama will hold all Kerry states plus pick up: Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia.

The death of anonymous posting

2008-10-31T21:18:00.000-03:00

I have avoided this for over two years, but today I have turned off anonymous comments. I try to reply to every substantive comment made on this blog but there is no fun in having to respond to nonsense.

Grasping defeat from the jaws of victory

2008-10-28T07:46:00.000-03:00

For much of the political year, I've been indicating why I thought John McCain was going to win the presidential election. I have been accused of being a far-right conservative and a racist for doing so. This has caused me a great deal of pause.

It is unfortunate that so many people caught up by Obama's very impressive rhetorical ability have become unable to see past the hype and imagine that there would be anyone, anywhere who would oppose him for any legitimate reasons.

It is also unfortunate that people would be so caught up in Obamamania that they couldn't see the difference between looking at a political situation impartially and commenting on what one thought would happen, and support for the outcome one predicted.

Obama has many gifts and many flaws, just like any candidate (or any person for that matter). Based on the history of recent U.S. elections, and the country's right-leaning nature, I believed that Obama was unlikely to be elected. I have never seen race as a major issue in the contest because race would only affect voting preferences of significant numbers of people in states the Democrats were unlikely to win anyway.

However, John McCain has done his best to lose this race. As a friend of mine once said in refernece to John Tory's loss to Dalton McGuinty in 2007, he seems to have grasped defeat from the jaws of victory.

Nate Silver's brilliant site fivethirtyeight.com says McCain has a 3.3% chance of victory. I remain convinced that Americans will have a hard time voting for a liberal with a thin record so I would say it is more like a 20% chance, but still not very likely.

McCain's people, all but admitting defeat, are trying to blame the loss on the financial crisis and the weak Republican brand thanks to the Bush years. They forget however that at one time the media was willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, he was branded as a maverick beholden to no party, started the summer with higher favourability ratings than Obama and led in polls as recently as late September. George Bush and Wall Street did not lose this election for McCain, McCain did.

McCain's support of immigration reform could have bought him unprecedented support among Hispanics. Instead, he looks likely to get far less votes there than Bush did in either 2000 or 2004. This is but one example where he made a huge strategic error. This would have locked Nevada and New Mexico into his column and put California into the single digits forcing Obama to spend big money there to keep that Democratic-must-win-state blue. McCain did backtrack on his position during the primary, but after he locked it up, without flip-flopping, he could have easily stated a position that honoured his record and appealed to Hispanics.

On March 4, McCain wrapped up the nomination. On March 5, he should have been in Southern California announcing his immigration and border security platform. With Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mike Huckabee at his side (both supporters of immigration reform, one an independent figure and one popular with the base) he should have said:

"Over the past year, this country has had a profound debate on the question of immigration and border security. I have been in the middle of this debate and I have crossed party lines to try to find a solution. My friends, I was the first to admit during the primary campaign that the proposal put forward by myself and others become unsaleable. It was not what Americans wanted and during the primary, I said if it came back to the Senate I would vote against it because I must reflect the will of the people. What Americans have told me is, though they are compassionate, they also have legitimate concerns about their economic and personal security so long as our borders are not secure. If elected, I will ask the Congress to pass the Comprehensive Immigration and Border Security Reform Act. This law would incorporate the best of our bill from last June but would also ensure that while we treated those people who have come to this country to seek opportunity and the American dream with respect, we would make sure that no one else ever entered this country illegally."

With that, he would have regained credibility among the immigration reform lobby without going back on his statements during the primary.

Then he should have set out to tour around 10 or so Democratic states that he could win under some scenario, including several more visits to California. This would have put the scare into Democrats who were already fretting their long primary.

Some of these activities may have scared the base, and something would have had to have been done to counter-balance that. One of the big mistakes McCain made was that he wasted all kinds of time in the spring trying to make up with the base and then he announced a base-inspiring vice-presidential pick. He should have done one or the other, not both. A big centrist maverick tour of Democratic states could have put him solidly in the lead in polls by the time the Democratic primary wrapped up. He then could have followed it by picking a base vice-presidential candidate, such as Sarah Palin who, I think, if handled differently, could have inspired the base (as she has) without damaging McCain's credibility. But this should have been in June or early July, with the campaign doing a week or two of setting the tone for the vice-presidential pick.

The next big mistake made by the McCain campaign has been their abrasive relationship with the media. The media, which McCain himself used to call his "base", feel betrayed. Moreover, the restrictive, scripted campaign regimen that has been imposed on him has not been to his liking and it has made him grumpy which has help paint a very unhelpful caricature. There is a great web-editorial on ABC News that talks about how far the media has turned against McCain, check it out.

Is McCain going to win? Very unlikely. Could he have won? Very easily. Whose fault is it? The McCain campaign.

McCain's TSN turning point?

2008-10-07T21:16:00.002-03:00

Tonight Barack Obama and John McCain meet for their second debate. After Sarah Palin's better-than-expected debate performance last week, the Republican ticket has started to move back up in the polls.

The format of tonight's debate is a town-hall meeting. McCain is an expert at these, very comfortable and well experienced in them. Obama prefers a more structured/professional format.

If McCain can pull off a good night tonight, he will appear to be more in touch with regular people and could shift the momentum of the race. This could be the TSN turning point folks...

Hot Rod

2008-09-10T14:10:00.005-03:00

Riding projection update

After talking it over with some folks and watching the coverage, I am now convinced that Rodney Weston will be a strong candidate for the Conservatives in Saint John. He has been campaigning quite effectively against the Liberal Green Shift plan, which would impose a carbon tax. Weston's argument is that the choice is between a new refinery and new jobs or a carbon tax and no new jobs.

The CBC the other day did a streeter and the folks they talked to were unanimously against the Liberals. Green Shift may be enough to shift the 4% away from Paul Zed that would give the Tories a win.

I am moving this from a leans Liberal hold to leans Conservative gain.

A new election blog...

2008-09-08T19:37:00.004-03:00

NB taxpayer and I are teaming up for the 40th general election. You can find our musings at New Brunswickers Paint the Political Picture - a bit of a play on our historical name, "The Picture Province".

My first entry is my previously promised Atlantic Ridings to Watch.

And we're off!

2008-09-07T11:06:00.007-03:00

The election has been called and the leaders have been making their first appeals on TV.

Stephen Harper was good both in speech and questions. He has also lost a lot of weight! His campaign would seem to be focussed on the government's record and leadership. No surprise there. The press in both his and Dion's question sessions seemed very focussed on the use of "family man" in Harper's commercials. He had a decent answer, saying he isn't arguing that others aren't family men but his advisors have pointed out that Canadians don't know him as a father, etc and it is worthwhile to inform people of that side of his persona.

Stéphane Dion used a teleprompter for his speech and the result was to show a stark difference between his ability in English when reading a speech and when answering unrehersed questions. I am not sure it would be wise for the Liberals to have him use a teleprompter in the future except when giving speeches where questions will not follow. Dion has boiled his "three pillars: economic prosperity, social justice and sustainability" down to the catchier "richer, fairer and greener Canada". Dion said "I am as nationalistic as Gilles Duceppe" which could come back to haunt him in an attack ad.

Gilles Duceppe had the same appeal as usual (only we will stand up for Quebec!) but the meat was a bit light because of the nationalistic things Harper's government has done ("nation within a nation", UNESCO, etc). Duceppe reminded people of Harper's 2003 support of the Iraq War which may be a wise approach for him to take.

Neither CTV nor CBC cut to Jack Layton has he began his remarks, CBC didn't even acknowledge that he existed while CTV showed him in a side box but did not cut to him. I am not sure why this was, I expect we will soon learn as the NDP complains. I left to write this post and am not sure if they cut to him or if they will cut to Elizabeth May.

Riding Watch

Two high profile Conservative candidates have been announced in New Brunswick. Former cabinet minister and Lord chief of staff Rodney Weston will run in Saint John while Downtown Moncton CEO and former Lord riding assistant Daniel Allain will run in Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. Preliminarily, I am not totally sure what to make of these.

In Saint John, Paul Zed only won by four points (43% to 39%) in 2006, but Weston, while well regarded by the political class in Fredericton and by the media, was defeated in his attempt for re-election in 2003 despite representing a conservative riding. Weston is from rural Saint John County and his old riding (Saint John-Fundy) only includes a small part of the city. I am not sure how well he would play in the city proper and the higher-end suburbs. I'll keep an eye on this but this may actually be to Zed's benefit.

In Moncton, having a fluently bilingual individual with a record of public service inside and outside of politics may be formidable. The difference between Bradshaw in 2004 and Murphy in 2006 was 11% (59% vs. 48%). Allain certainly faces an uphill battle but this is interesting enough for me to move the riding from safe Liberal to leans Liberal.

In the next few days I will do a less detailed round-up of Atlantic ridings.

A brief look at the federal ridings

2008-09-01T19:16:00.011-03:00

Back in August 2006, this site got started with coverage of the provincial election. Things really got rolling with my post, the ironically named, a brief look at the ridings which I continually updated throughout the campaign before making a final prediction.

It is beyond my level of free time, ability and interest to do something similar for all of Canada's 308 ridings. But, though I have gotten somewhat away from commenting on local politics, I just can't resist doing something similar for New Brunswick's 10 federal ridings.

So, here is my non-partisan evaluation of the lay of the land, in alphabetical order:

Acadie—Bathurst - currently NDP

When Yvon Godin upset Doug Young in this riding in 1997 many people, including yours truly, believed it was a one-time fluke. Godin's three successful re-elections (two against heavyweights) has proved me quite wrong. This is an easy call: safe NDP.

Beausejour - currently Liberal

In 1984, Brian Mulroney swept every seat in New Brunswick except for this one. Though I often hear chattering about whether or not Dominic LeBlanc pays enough attention to the little things and the Conservatives have not yet announced their candidate, this should be a safe Liberal seat.

Fredericton - currently Liberal *incumbent retiring

This should be one of the more interesting races in the province. A Liberal seat since 1993, and a solid Conservative seat for 4 decades before that, this is the only open seat in the province, with the retirement of former minister Andy Scott. The Liberals have nominated airport CEO David Innes and the Conservatives have nominated PC MLA and former provincial minister Keith Ashfield. Both candidates are "boring old white guys."

Ashfield represents a provincial riding which lies almost entirely in New Brunswick Southwest, though its largest community (New Maryland) is in this federal riding and Ashfield himself hails from Lincoln. He is a long time party guy (ran unsuccessfully in 1991 before winning in 1999, 2003 and 2006) and knows how things are done. He has been campaigning almost full time since being nominated.

Innes is more of a political neophyte, and has not been able to devote as much time to campaigning as Ashfield has, due to a busy day job.

The outcome of the election could depend on whether left-wing voters vote NDP or stay home (a likely Conservative win) or vote Liberal. Andy Scott survived some tough races in 1997 and 2000 thanks in large part to low NDP votes and a split right-wing vote. The latter will not be a factor in 2006, the former remains a question. The NDP vote in the past four elections has been 21%, 17%, 7% and 13%. If the NDP stays in the 20s, it will be hard, though not impossible, for the Liberals to win.

The NDP does not currently have a candidate, the one they had previously nominated stepped down and endorsed Innes the day he was nominated. Notwithstanding that, I will very tentatively class this as leans Conservative.

Fundy—Royal - currently Conservative

The only thing to dispute about this riding is whether it is the safest Conservative seat in Atlantic Canada or if New Brunswick Southwest is. Safe Conservative.

Madawaska—Restigouche - currently Liberal

This is something of a bellweather - both of its predecessors (Madawaska-Victoria and Restigouche-Chaleur) tended to go with the government. In 2006, the current incarnation missed that, but just by a hair. We'll be seeing a re-match between incumbent Liberal J.C. D'Amours and 1980s-era provinicial minister Jean-Pierre Ouellet.

The popular NDP candidate, Rodolphe Martin, is not running this time. Normally that would be good news for the Liberals but Martin's votes came from blue collar forestry workers who are just as likely (or maybe more likely) to go to Ouellet as they are to D'Amours. I would say this seat leans Conservative.

Miramichi - currently Liberal

This is a fairly safe Liberal seat. Charlie Hubbard had reason to worry earlier in the cycle when the Conservatives had nominated well known and well liked businessman Bill Tozer. Tozer has since stepped down and, barring another remarkable candidate, the seat should stay safely Liberal.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe - currently Liberal

Although former mayor Brian Murphy doesn't have quite the stranglehold his predecessor Claudette Bradshaw had here, it is hard to see this riding being painted any colour other than red on election day. To hedge, the Conservatives have not yet named a candidate, but it likely doesn't matter except in terms of margin. Safe Liberal. Moved to leans Liberal on September 7.

New Brunswick Southwest - currently Conservative

The only thing to dispute about this riding is whether it is the safest Conservative seat in Atlantic Canada or if Fundy—Royal is. Safe Conservative.

Saint John - currently Liberal

Who was the quote, "the reports of my death are greatly exagerated," attributed to? If you said Paul Zed, I wouldn't be surprised. Many pundits wrote Zed off for dead in 2004 and 2006 but he won both times. Margaret-Ann Blaney or Trevor Holder could be game changers but, for now, this seat seems to lean Liberal. Changed to leans Conservative on September 10.

Tobique—Mactaquac - currently Conservative

Though this seat went Conservative by only 336 votes in 2006, it shouldn't be too much trouble for Mike Allen to hold on. This is a solidly "small c" conservative riding, giving the combined forces of the PCs and the Reformers over 60% in both 1997 and 2000. Once wrestled away from the Liberals, it is hard to imagine this seat returning to them any time in the near future. To make matters worse, the Liberals had a candidate nominated for nearly a year but he has since stepped down (this past winter) and no new candidate has been nominated. Safe Conservative.

So the preliminary count is:

Conservative 5 (+2)
3 safe + 2 lean

Liberal 4 (-2)
3 safe + 1 lean

NDP 1 (n/c)
1 safe + 0 lean

UPDATE:
Sept. 7: CPC 5 (3+2), Lib 4 (2+2), NDP 1 (1+0)
Sept. 10: CPC 6 (3+3), Lib 3 (2+1), NDP 1 (1+0)

Am I missing something? Am I out to lunch?

Please set me straight either in the comments or at nbpolitico@gmail.com.

I was right?

2008-08-29T11:52:00.005-03:00

When I went out on a limb on Tuesday and suggested Sarah Palin would make sense as McCain's vp pick, I was expecting to be wrong, as usual.

It seems I was right. Who thought it possible.

I think Palin is a brilliant pick for McCain. As I said on Tuesday:

In addition to the candidates I've named as possibilities for the spot, I'd like to add Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. A lot may depend on the result of today's primary where the state's Lieutenant Governor, and Palin protogé, is running against the incumbent Republican for the right to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. Palin may be reluctant to accept the veep nomination if it means both her and Sean Parnell are running for national office which would mean, in the event they both won, control of the state would be handed back to the corrupt wing of the Alaska Republican Party she has recently defeated for control (UPDATE: This may not be as big of a concern, Palin's attorney general would succeed as governor, though this individual would arguably be more vulnerable than Palin or Parnell and the idea of both running for national office would still be a concern).

Palin is a strong candidate in a lot of ways. She is a reformer who has beaten down the corruption in Alaska which is so severe it would make most of the dirty tricksters in Washington blush. She is an outsider which will help provide credibility to McCain's argument that he would change how things are done. She is a woman who could help McCain make further inroads into the alienated Clinton voter and who has a compelling life story. The religious right would be totally energized by her candidacy and might turn out in similar-to-2004-numbers for a mother of five who is ardently pro-life.

If the Obama campaign or other Democrats want to criticize her for being inexperienced, McCain can say "I've served my country my whole life, first in the Navy, then in the House and then in the Senate. I want to be your president because I have always put my country first and through my experience, I think I can continue to do that as your president. Senator Obama, an outsider without a lot of experience, is criticizing Governor Palin's experience. Her experience is that of having battled corruption her whole time in public life and as serving as chief executive of a state. Senator Obama's experience consists of giving a popular speech in 2002, getting elected to the Senate in a race that was virtually non-contetested and after a year of few notable accomplishments there announcing his candidacy for president."

McCain's people will ask which is better - a change candidate without the experience to lead who needs to pick a Washington insider as his running mate in order to be sure he can govern or a change candidate with decades of service to country who is able to pick a less experienced running-mate, who has more experience (they could argue) than Obama, who can bring a real outsiders perspective to the West Wing.

According to Jonathan Martin, the Obama people are already mocking her lack of experience. But, I think the Obama campaign might want to note an old proverb about glass houses.

First, Sarah Palin is running for vice president, while Obama is running for president. There should be a higher threshold for the latter, but I think that the argument could be made that Palin is nearly as experienced as Obama.

Obama has no experience as a chief executive of any arm of government. Most of Palin's experience is at the executive level. The Obama campaign is mocking that she represented a community of 5-7 thousand people (it grew substantially during her tenure), but Obama's folks should note she led that community, not just represented it, while Obama's experience comes largely from being the non-executive representative of a Senate district with about 60,000 people. When one is discussing the leadership of a country of 300,000,000 people the difference between 6,000 and 60,000 is minute.

So let's do a little bit of a blow-by-blow comparison.

From 1992-1996, Palin was a non-executive member of town council, Obama had no political experience

From 1997-2004, Palin was the chief executive of her town, ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor and served for two years as Ethics Commissioner on the state utility regulator, Obama was a non-executive member of the Illinois Senate and ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of representatives

From 2005-2008, Palin continued as chief executive of her town until becoming governor in December 2006 where she has served since, Obama was a non-executive member of the U.S. Senate and after two years ran essentially full-time for president

Oops, I did it again

2008-08-26T07:51:00.003-03:00

No surprise here folks, I got a prediction wrong. Though I had a good chance to nuance, I instead opted to double-down on my May prediction that there was no way Obama would pick Biden. As I often say at this stage, while wiping the egg away, my predictions are biased in terms of what I think would make the most sense and I have a hard time predicting that someone will make the wrong choice.

As potentially the biggest fan of Joe Biden in the world (or at least in Canada), it pains me to reiterate that I think he was a bone-headed choice for Obama. McCain launched within hours an ad using Biden against Obama. There is lots more roll around to do a series of ads. A candidate with Biden's strengths who didn't run against Obama and wasn't as tied to today's Washington (i.e. Sam Nunn) would have made more sense to me. It would have brought nearly as much to the ticket without doing collateral damage. However, in the end, I think the wisest choice would have been to double-down on change with Kathleen Sebelius.

The Obama campaign thought otherwise, and time will tell whether it works out for them.

In the coming days McCain will make his choice. I'll open myself up for another big fall: I think his floating the idea of Ridge or Lieberman (pro-choicers) is meant to show to the general electorate that he is not close-minded on that question and would not disqualify someone simply on those grounds, and will say so when he makes his announcement. However, in the end he won't actually choose a pro-choice candidate so as to keep the base behind him.

In addition to the candidates I've named as possibilities for the spot, I'd like to add Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. A lot may depend on the result of today's primary where the state's Lieutenant Governor, and Palin protogé, is running against the incumbent Republican for the right to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. Palin may be reluctant to accept the veep nomination if it means both her and Sean Parnell are running for national office which would mean, in the event they both won, control of the state would be handed back to the corrupt wing of the Alaska Republican Party she has recently defeated for control (UPDATE: This may not be as big of a concern, Palin's attorney general would succeed as governor, though this individual would arguably be more vulnerable than Palin or Parnell and the idea of both running for national office would still be a concern).

Palin is a strong candidate in a lot of ways. She is a reformer who has beaten down the corruption in Alaska which is so severe it would make most of the dirty tricksters in Washington blush. She is an outsider which will help provide credibility to McCain's argument that he would change how things are done. She is a woman who could help McCain make further inroads into the alienated Clinton voter and who has a compelling life story. The religious right would be totally energized by her candidacy and might turn out in similar-to-2004-numbers for a mother of five who is ardently pro-life.

If the Obama campaign or other Democrats want to criticize her for being inexperienced, McCain can say "I've served my country my whole life, first in the Navy, then in the House and then in the Senate. I want to be your president because I have always put my country first and through my experience, I think I can continue to do that as your president. Senator Obama, an outsider without a lot of experience, is criticizing Governor Palin's experience. Her experience is that of having battled corruption her whole time in public life and as serving as chief executive of a state. Senator Obama's experience consists of giving a popular speech in 2002, getting elected to the Senate in a race that was virtually non-contetested and after a year of few notable accomplishments there announcing his candidacy for president."

McCain's people will ask which is better - a change candidate without the experience to lead who needs to pick a Washington insider as his running mate in order to be sure he can govern or a change candidate with decades of service to country who is able to pick a less experienced running-mate, who has more experience (they could argue) than Obama, who can bring a real outsiders perspective to the West Wing.

I'll slot her into my list and slightly re-jig it. Rob Portman's star has faded somewhat and I think McCain is more apt to pick some like Palin or South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford - people who can help him take some ownership of the change message through McCain's record on reform / anti-corruption-and-pork-barrelling.

1. Sanford (raised from third)

2. Huntsman (no change)

3. Palin (new addition)

4. Portman (bumped from first)

5. Dole (bumped from fourth)

6. Watts (bumped from fifth)

7. Jindal (bumped from sixth)

VEEP!

2008-08-19T15:09:00.005-03:00

So we're getting really close now. I am still confident on my lists posted ages ago. I posted McCain's veep possibilities back in February and Obama's in May, though I amended them slightly in early July. The only subsequent change is that Edwards should be, for obvious reasons, struck from the Obama list.

It looks like Obama will announce his pick tomorrow morning and McCain will on his birthday on August 29.

My top ranked pick since July 7 (and previously #2 pick), Kathleen Sebelius, has seen her name drop off of the radar but I do think she has a strong shot at being the pick. This thinking was reinforced by this tip I received today:

OBAMA WILL PICK SEBELIUS

Text msg/email announcement at 7 a.m. Eastern, Wednesday.

Event in Wichita, Kansas at 8 a.m. local (9 a.m. Eastern). Wichita is the birthplace of Obama's mother.

Obama and Sebelius will then fly to Virginia for an event at 11:30 a.m. and proceed on a tour of red states that may swing to Obama including Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado.

What About Biden?

Anyone that reads this blog, knows that it is no secret that I am a HUGE fan of Joe Biden. Unfortunately though, despite the hype, I don't think Biden is a likely pick. As I wrote in May:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
I am a big fan of Joe Biden. I think he would have been an excellent presidential candidate this year but his campaign was DOA. Those who argue Biden would make a good VP candidate for Obama cite his many years of experience. He was elected to the Senate in 1972 before turning the required-to-serve-age of 30. He was considered to be almost certainly the Secretary of State had John Kerry won in 2004. He has served as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and currenly serves as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. His plan to bring peace to Iraq has been lauded and was endorsed by a bipartisan super majority of the Senate. Some have even suggested, sort of sarcastically, that Obama needs a racist as a running mate and that Biden fits that bill from his comments about Obama when Biden entered the presidential race.

However, I don't think Biden is the right guy for Obama. Though he needs someone with experience, he needs it in the form of someone who can also be credibly billed as a "Washington outsider". Obama's whole campaign, particularly when postured against McCain, is that McCain has served in the Senate too long and is out of touch with America. Biden has served almost twice as long as McCain, so his candidacy would make no sense.

In any event, exciting political times these next few months. I'll try to ramp my posts back up to cover it.

Obama veep update 2

2008-07-07T18:30:00.003-03:00

NBTaxpayer's pick, and my 4th ranked pick, Jim Webb has withdrawn his name from consideration.

So, to update, here is my current list:

1. Katherine Sebelius (moved up one due to Clark being dropped down)

2. Sam Nunn (moved up one due to Clark being dropped down)

3. Wes Clark (dropped from 1st)

4. Howard Dean (new addition)

5. Lincoln Chafee (no change)

6. John Edwards (no change)

7. Hillary Clinton (no change)

8. Blanche Lincoln (no change)

9. Evan Bayh (no change)

More veepstakes

2008-07-03T19:52:00.000-03:00

Very simple but smart historical-to-present veep possibility comparison.

Obama veep update

2008-07-02T16:53:00.006-03:00

Back in May, I wrote about my thoughts for the Obama veepstakes. The most likely candidate in my view was Wes Clark, who has probably knocked himself down the ladder a bit over the past few days making sensible but politically incorrect statements about John McCain's military service vis-à-vis qualifications for the presidency. Though some argue it may help him.

In my view, it hurts him a bit, but Clark is still a compelling vice-presidential choice for Obama. I would move him down from the number 1 slot to 3rd or 4th (behind Nunn or Webb).

This is however a name I didn't consider before that I should throw in there.

Howard Dean

This sounds very irrational at first glance, but Howard Dean is a lot different than the caricature that has been drawn by the media.

Dean governed Vermont as a moderate and the Progressive Party grew stronger under his tenure due to his weakness on the left. Did you know that was endorsed eight times by the national rifle association? He also said he wanted to be the candidate for "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks". This could be helpful in the Mountain West where gun control is the one thing holding Obama back and in the winnable states in the South (Virginia primarily but also North Carolina, Arkansas, Florida).

He was also a fiscal conservative who insisted on balanced budgets. Anti-pork much in the same vein as McCain.

He is an outsider and reformer which fits Obama's message and has already been vetted by the national media. He and Obama share a 50-state competitiveness goal for the Democratic Party.

Dean could be a real outlier in the veepstakes. Watch for it.

Morons

2008-06-06T08:41:00.002-03:00

I am a little flabbergasted at the short-sightedness of the CBC on potentially dropping the Hockey Night in Canada theme apparently due to an inability to afford it (h/t Kits via Spink About It)

The last time CBC tried to drop an icon because of budgetary concerns there was chaos. No offense Ron, but I think the HNIC theme is even more iconic than you. Watch out CBC, trouble is a comin'.

Barack H. Obama Junior Veepstakes

2008-05-22T20:49:00.000-03:00

As I promised way back on February 20, and delivered for John Sidney McCain III on February 24, here is my take on Barack Obama's likely vice-presidential candidate candidates and the selection process therefore.

As I said in looking at McCain's choices:

It is often said that the vice president serves two purposes: 1) to balance the ticket, 2) DO NO HARM! (to win more votes than he or she would lose).

What does Obama need for balance? Region, age, experience, race and party unity could all come in to play. A lot of parallels have been drawn between Obama's campaign and that of Bill Clinton in 1992. In that case, Clinton largely doubled down on the balance question by presenting another young southern centrist, though one with more federal and foreign experience. Obama might chose another young reformer, to reinforce his message of changing Washington while running against a man who has worked on Capitol Hill since the late 1970s. On the other hand, when running against a well experienced, older war hero, he might opt for a more traditional balance choice in chosing someone older, more experienced who is either a war hero or who has military credentials.

I'll lay out all of the candidates I've been able to find listed, and add some of my own, and give a brief run down on my thoughts. I'll then give you a final ranked list of who I think is most likely.

Without further ado, in alphabetical order:

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Bayh is an attractive candidate having served for eight years as governor of Indiana, a traditionally Republican state which some have argued could be in play under the right circumstances, and as its senator since 1999. After briefly considering his own run for the White House, he endorsed and has been a very strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and thus could bring unity to the ticket. He has served on both the Armed Forces and Intelligence committees in the Senate giving him national security credentials, however he has never served in the military.

On the other hand, Bayh is noted as being not very charismatic and has likely tarnished his creditials in terms of being able to swing Indiana in favour of the top of the ticket after Clinton barely won his state despite demographic favourability and momentum coming out of Pennsylvania.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
I am a big fan of Joe Biden. I think he would have been an excellent presidential candidate this year but his campaign was DOA. Those who argue Biden would make a good VP candidate for Obama cite his many years of experience. He was elected to the Senate in 1972 before turning the required-to-serve-age of 30. He was considered to be almost certainly the Secretary of State had John Kerry won in 2004. He has served as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and currenly serves as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. His plan to bring peace to Iraq has been lauded and was endorsed by a bipartisan super majority of the Senate. Some have even suggested, sort of sarcastically, that Obama needs a racist as a running mate and that Biden fits that bill from his comments about Obama when Biden entered the presidential race.

However, I don't think Biden is the right guy for Obama. Though he needs someone with experience, he needs it in the form of someone who can also be credibly billed as a "Washington outsider". Obama's whole campaign, particularly when postured against McCain, is that McCain has served in the Senate too long and is out of touch with America. Biden has served almost twice as long as McCain, so his candidacy would make no sense.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-NY)
For all of the opposite reasons that Biden doesn't make sense, Bloomberg doesn't make sense either. Obama is going to be painted by the Republicans as an out-of-touch liberal. Bloomberg makes the cariacture complete. Besides, I can't imagine he would be interested in being vice president anyway.

Fmr. Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ)
Bradley makes a lot of sense on paper. He has many years of experience in Washington, yet is viewed as an outsider. His chances however would be somewhat damaged due to his left-wing campaign for president in 2000 in which he abandoned some of his previously moderate positions. The fact that he has endorsed Obama and opposed the establishment candidate Gore in 2000 would make it difficult for him to help unify with the Clinton wing of the party.

However, he would have an outside chance of being nominated as a candidate who meshes with Obama, has an outsider image and has experience.

Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
This name has been floated, as near as I can tell, only because Casey was the senior Pennsylvanian to support Obama. However, he has been in the Senate for barely a year and is pro-life. I can't imagine him being picked.

Fmr. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI)
A former liberal Republican senator from New England who, after being defeated for being a Republican, became independent and endorsed Obama's presidential candidacy could actually be an interesting choice for Obama. One of the biggest challenges that Obama faces will be McCain's ability to attract Rockefeller Republicans who have voted Democratic in recent elections, particularly in states like Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New Jersey which I believe McCain puts in play. Chafee, unlike McCain, is a real liberal Republican and could neutralize that effect. And, indeed, Chafee is a strong liberal (by American standards) like Obama so they would mesh well on policy issues. However, due to his having been a Republican senator until 2006, he would be prevented from being painted as too far left. This could be a real darkhorse choice for Obama.

Ret. Gen. Wes Clark (D-AR)
Notwithstanding his poor showing in the 2004 Democratic primaries, Wes Clark is likely a frontrunner, or at least should be, for the veep slot on the Obama ticket. Clark has oodles of military experience to bring to the ticket without Washington baggage and has been a strong Clinton supporter who could help unify the party. Moreover, a southern White former general goes a long was to neutralize John McCain's military credentials and the fears of southern White traditional Democrats who are reluctant to support Obama.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
This makes so little sense and so much sense all at the same time, that Politico.com actually posted a piece by the same authors arguing both sides of the issue.

I don't think that Clinton would be legitimately interested in this route. And her long standing divisive role in Washington politics takes away from Obama's central message. Obama would be better served to nominate an outsider like Clark who supported Clinton but doesn't have her baggage.

That said however, Obama will face a lot of pressure to offer the slot to Clinton and Clinton, if she truly believes Obama is going to lose either way, would be smart to run with him so as to innoculate herself against claims that she tried to sabotage his campaign and thus enable her to get the nomination in 2012.

Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Back in January, I floated his name for this gig. However, the more I think about it, the less likely I think it is. Daschle was the ultimate insider (Senate majority leader), yet had little play on military and foreign policy issues while in the Senate. He has been a long time Obama supporter and thus cannot unify the party. The Republicans have ample anti-Daschle research done and proved effective from their successful campaign to defeat him in 2004. Not a wise pick.

Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
John Edwards would be a good choice. He appeals to the same rural white voters that Clinton has been beating Obama for, but much more so. In fact, had Edwards not dropped when he did, I wonder if he might be running second now and Clinton third. Edwards proved a very able candidate both in the nomination in 2004 and 2008 and as the vice-presidential candidate in 2004. John Kerry supporters lament the fact that he was not loyal enough after Kerry threw away the 2004 campaign but, afterall, Kerry threw away the 2004 campaign. [Much of this post, including this blurb on Edwards has been in the works for a while. I wrote about Edwards before he endorsed Obama. I think that that endorsement makes Edwards a less likely veep pick because he alienated Clinton supporters by trying to strong-arm her out of the race with his strategically timed endorsement of Obama. He would however remain a very strong choice for the reasons stated here.]

Fmr. VP Al Gore (D-TN)
The fact that this totally unlikely scenario gets any ink makes me laugh. Gore might top a ticket with Obama as veep if there was a brokered convention (which there won't be) but he certainly won't run for a third vice-presidential term. Period.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Barack Obama is against the Iraq War. Chuck Hagel is against the Iraq War. On every single other issue imagable, the liberal Democrat and conservative Republican strongly disagree. This idea has little basis in reality and, like Gore, ink should not be wasted on the proposition. Hagel is a likely pick however for an Obama cabinet were he to win the presidency.

Fmr. Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN)
Lee Hamilton, as former vice-chair of the commission on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, certainly has strong national security credentials. However he is old, frail looking and without charisma. Obama could get as good (or nearly as good) credentials by looking elsewhere.

Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Tim Kaine may be the only person on this list with less-to-equal experience compared to Barack Obama. Kaine has four years as lieutentant governor and about two as governor. Obama has six years as state senator and about three as federal senator. Kaine would certainly reinforce the outsider image presented by Obama but it would also reinforce his image as lacking depth on national security and so forth. Moreover, it would hand the governorship of Democratic-trending Virginia over to the Republican lieutentant governor.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Senator Lincoln is from Arkansas and has strong appeal to rural, southern Whites. She is female and a supporter of Hillary Clinton from the former Clinton home state. These factors make her a possibility, but her lack of foreign policy experience does not help Obama balance the ticket.

Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
No national security experience. No charisma. Villain of the right for having represented the infamous woman who accused Clarence Thomas of being sexist during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. I can't imagine she would be being considered if she weren't a female governor.

Fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)
Nunn mused about running for president himself if a "post-partisan" candidate didn't emerge. Nunn and his co-conspirators (Bloomberg, David Boren, etc) now seem to have settled on Obama as their candidate. This would seem to make Nunn a good fit. Add to this the fact that Nunn has impeccible national security credentials and has been gone from Washington long enough to make him a plausible outsider and he starts to seem a very good fit. Moreover, if Obama is serious about making a play in Georgia and the Carolinas, this is the man to help him.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
The only time I saw this floated was in reference to an odd plan in which Hillary was convinced to drop out in exchange for the Senate leadership and Reid was convinced to give up the Senate leadership in exchange for the vice presidential nomination. That doesn't make a lot of sense. However, Reid is a compelling candidate for other reasons. He is a popular moderate from the Mountain West which Obama wants to put in play. Carrying Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico is key to an Obama victory plan.

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
Richardson on the surface seems a compelling candidate. A former presidential contender himself with virtually unending experience in all things government who has (or had before endorsing Obama) close ties to the Clintons. Another plus, he is the governor of a swing state that Obama probably needs to win and a strong leader among Latinos where Obama needs to do some work. However, Richardson has a lot of baggage including lying for decades about being drafted to MLB and allegations of sexual harrassment.

Fmr. Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN)
Roemer served in Washington for a number of years but was never considered an insider. He has considerable national security experience having been the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the commission on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Roemer would not be necessarily very palatable to Democrats due to his pro-life and general moderate-to-conservative stances on a number of issues.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)
Unlike the other female governor on this list, Sebelius has a real shot at being on Obama's ticket. Sebelius is a rising star in the Democratic Party and has been twice elected governor of Kansas despite being a liberal-to-moderate on issues such as gay marriage, abortion and capital punishment. She would bring strong executive experience to the ticket without diminishing its credential as being "outside the beltway". She also brings advantages to the ticket being a native Ohioan (her father was in fact that governor of that state) and having summered her whole life in Michigan - two large states that Obama needs to carry. Though it would be unlikely she could put Kansas in play, she could be helpful in critical states like Iowa and Missouri. Finally, she is a Catholic and Obama has struggled with that key demographic in the primaries.

The only drawbacks to a Sebelius candidacy would be her lack of foreign policy experience, which the ticket needs, and superficially her awkward last name.

Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH)
Strickland is the governor of a key swing state and was a big Clinton supporter. These are the only real advantages I can see him bringing to the ticket. He has been governor for barely a year and prior to that was in Congress where he didn't have any roles relating to national security.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)
Though Schweitzer is very charismatic and comes from a state carried by Bill Clinton in 1992, he is not a very attractive candidate for vice president. He is a conservative Democrat who would not be embraced by the convention and Montana will not be in play - Clinton only carried it due to high numbers of votes received by Ross Perot at the expense of George H. W. Bush.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)
Though Webb was just elected to the Senate in 2006, he has lots of experience to make him an attractive candidate for Obama. He is a veteran and served in the Reagan administration in senior defence roles before switching from Republican to Democrat in recent years. He is an authentic and popular southerner. However, he does not do a lot for party unity.

Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni (D-VA or PA)
Zinni has no real political experience and Wes Clark could bring as much to the table in a more effective manner.

The likely picks, in order of likelihood in my view:

1. Wes Clark

2. Katherine Sebelius

3. Sam Nunn

4. Jim Webb

5. Lincoln Chafee

6. John Edwards

7. Hillary Clinton

8. Blanche Lincoln

9. Evan Bayh

U.S. politics: Prospects for November

2008-04-25T06:00:00.003-03:00

I have written before that I think Hillary Clinton is a far stronger candidate in the fall than Barack Obama. I have also written before that Obama has already wrapped up the nomination and Clinton's recent win in Pennsylvania doesn't change that.

But, in case I'm wrong, and if the "superdelegates" want to change things, here is the picture I see of how the race could unfold for either of the candidates. I expect that McCain would win in the fall against either Democrat. McCain's ability to appeal to moderate voters puts California and New England in play. I am not saying McCain will win in either (the former state or the latter region) but his ability to put them in play will distract the Democrats from expanding beyond their base from the 2000 and 2004 elections which means, to me, their likely best hope is status quo (a narrow Republican win). A lot of outside observers forget that moderates and conservatives make up the vast majority of the American electorate; unlike in Canada and Europe there is no large base of liberals. A Republican who can draw out large numbers of conservatives can win on that basis alone (see Bush, George W. and Rove, Karl), one that can appeal to moderates and still draw significant conservative support is unstoppable.

Now mind you 2008 is a far different animal than 2000 or 2004 and, certainly, in theory, the Democrats have lots of opportunities to expand. However, my view is that they'll have to leave those opportunities on the table because they'll be too busy defending their own turf from a McCain assault.

Thanks to the handy tool at 270towin.com, I have created six electoral college maps. For each of the two remaining Democratic candidates, I have created a worst-case, best-case and likely-case scenario based on my analysis of the race.

Barack Obama vs. John McCain

This is the race we are likely to see play out. The biggest problem Obama has is that the Democrats' two biggest states (California and New York) may be in play in an Obama vs. McCain race.

Obama has a problem with Hispanic voters. McCain was the principle sponsor of immigration reforms that are very popular with Hispanics. McCain comes from a state that has many Hispanics and he won among them by a 3-to-1 margin in his 2004 Senate race. Hispanics are a key voting bloc in California. Despite conventional wisdom, the Democrats are not unstopable in California. In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush, perhaps the most unpopular Republican in the history of that state, lost by only 12% and 9% respectively. McCain, who can count on some fairly strong Hispanic support and the enthusiastic support of popular governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, would only need to swing 5% of the Democratic vote his way to win. It is not all that likely that McCain could pull this off, but to prevent it Obama will have to spend a lot of time and money in the largest, most expensive state.

In New York, the Democrats tend to win by larger margins, but a recent poll shows that McCain would narrowly defeat both Clinton and Obama. Clinton has a natural base there and could recover more easily from the brusing primary fight to defeat McCain in the fall. Obama, on the other hand, would have a lot of work to do to make up a deficit in the second largest and second most expensive blue state.

Keeping this in mind, I would envision the following as the likely scenario in a McCain vs. Obama fight:

In this scenario Obama actually picks up three states from 2004: Iowa (where he is very popular and McCain is not), Nevada (where McCain's long support of using Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage will hurt him) and Virginia (which is trending Democratic and would be pushed over the top by enthusiasm among Black voters).

However, he is heavily damaged by losing the following: Michigan (McCain is popular and well-known here from strong primary campaigns in 2000 and 2008; Obama has written off this state time and time again in the 2008 primary process), New Hampshire (New Hampshire hearts McCain), New Jersey (this is a Democratic state that always seems to be on the verge of going Republican in recent elections [Kerry by only 7% in '04], McCain's appeal to moderates should push it over the edge), Pennsylvania (Obama has just proved that despite out-campaigning and outspending an opponent he can't seem to win here).

All of the above sounds fairly reasonable, no? The electoral college result in such a scenario: McCain 318 over Obama 220 in a landslide.

Now for the best case scenario for Obama:

In this scenario, Obama holds everything from 2004 and expands into Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. Three of these states I had him win in the likely scenario, under this best case scenario he also wins Colorado (trending Democratic and Obama polls well there), New Mexico (this is a real stretch, but it is a competitive state having gone for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004 and Obama could keep the teeter-totter going), Missouri (always a close race and has gone with the winner in every election since 1904, save one), Ohio (the economy is bad and Obama could manage to tie McCain to Bush). Under this scenario he would also hold Michigan and Pennsylvania (for the same reason he won Ohio), New Hamphire (the Democrats did so well in 2006 they have a strong institutional advantage) and New Jersey (McCain gets tied to Bush and deemed too conservative to attract moderates).

The result would be an Obama landslide similar to that I project for McCain in the likely scenario: 325-213. However, that is the very best case and I think no more likely than the worst case I'll lay out below which would be a total electoral blow out.

Under this scenario, an admittedly worst-case for Obama, the Democrat would win only his home state of Illonois, liberal Vermont and ultra-Democratic Washington, D.C. The electoral vote total would be 511 to 27. Ouch.

This may sound totally unrealistic to you but this is not a totally unheard of result for a Republican candidate. In 1972, the not-to-popular Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern 520 to 17. I've often compared Obama to McGovern as they both have the same base: enthusiastic anti-war youth. I drew out this map and began writing this post before I read this intelligent piece which draws the comparison as well. A similar result was seen in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was re-elected with 525 electoral votes to 13. Indeed, even in 1980, when Reagan (who is similar to McCain in his style and appeal to moderates) beat an incumbent president by an electoral college margin of 489 to 49.

So Obama's best-case scenario is to beat McCain by the same margin that McCain is likely to beat Obama by. His worst case scenario is to be crushed horribly. While I still think Clinton would likely lose to McCain, I'll lay out why I think it would be closer and how she could prevent the crushing defeat that Obama might face and indeed would have a better chance to win.

Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain

Running this race out is like playing fantasy baseball because it is so incredibly unlikely that Clinton can win the nomination. I would say that Barack Obama at this point has at least an 80% chance of winning the nomination and Clinton is probably in the neighbourhood of 10%. Right now, I think if for some reason Obama seemed unpalatable, a compromise candidate at the convention would be as likely as Clinton taking it. (See Thatcher vs. Heseltine for an example of the scorced-earth result Clinton could face by tearing down Obama).

Anyway, Clinton's unliklihood of winning the nomination is quite different from her strength as a general election candidate. Clinton's base in New York keeps that state out of play and she doesn't have a Hispanic problem thus preventing any realistic appeal from McCain to this group. This in and of itself means that, with Clinton as the nominee, the Democrats would not have to waste resources to hold their two biggest states totalling an astonishing 84 electoral votes (31% of the total needed to win the election) between them. Even if we assume that Clinton would trail Obama in fundraising prowess in the general election by as large a margin as she does in the primary (which is unlikely, though Obama could likely still raise more, it wouldn't be as stark a difference) this factor alone erases any monetary discrepency.

In the meantime, Clinton (and her husband, the campaign-surrogate-in-chief who would be much better suited to campaign against a Republican than a fellow Democrat) would be far stronger in the "rust belt" allowing her to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and put Ohio in play for the Democrats. This strength would also put Florida into strong contention, a large state tha Obama has zero hope of winning. Also, Arkansas, which has become a reliable Republican state since the Clintons left office, would be strongly in the Democratic column.

This is the main difference. In an Obama vs. McCain race, McCain plays offense. In a Clinton vs. McCain race, McCain plays defence.

Despite this, I think McCain's overriding strengths would still allow him to win, though by a narrower margin.

The result I predict would be a nail-biter of 275 for McCain to 263 for Clinton (compare with 318 to 220 in McCain vs. Obama).

In this scenario, Clinton would pick up a lot of turf from the Republicans. Adding to the 2004 Democratic totals, she would win: Arkansas (Clinton home state), Missouri (swing state with fond memories of Clinton), Nevada (McCain has a Yucca Monutain problem), New Mexico (ultra-close state where Clinton doesn't have a Hispanic problem), Ohio (fond memories of Clinton) and West Virginia (Clinton appeal to rural white traditional Democratic voters).

McCain would make history, becoming only the second president since 1904 to lose Missouri and win the White House and, I believe, the only Republican to ever win the White House without carrying Ohio. He would do this largely due to his strength among voters who like "mavericks" and Clinton's weakness in that area. On top of 2004 states for the Republicans, McCain would carry: Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

This race would be a tremendous one with close races in Florida (narrowly lost by Clinton), Missouri (narrowly lost by McCain) and Oregon (narrowly lost by McCain).

I can't underline enough how much better a scenario this is for Democrats than with Obama as the nominee. In an Obama-McCain race, I give McCain a 70+% chance of victory. In a Clinton-McCain race, McCain's odds are more like 55% or a bit less.

Now, here's how Clinton could win big:

This map may look familiar to you because it is a lot like the maps we saw in the 1990s under her husband. Indeed, by coincidence, though the map isn't exactly the same, the electoral college result precisely matches the 1996 race between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.

In this race, vs. 2004, Clinton would hold all of the Democratic states but she would also pick up: Arkansas (see above [wins it even in the likely scenario]), Florida (even under the likely scenario, Clinton would come close here), Iowa (neither Clinton or McCain are popular here, but it would swing her way if she was winning big), Kentucky (the Clintons' experience in Arkansas has taught them how to campaign in a state like this), Louisiana (thanks to Katrina, this one would be pretty marginal but she could skid through if she was doing well overall), Missouri (see above), Nevada (see above), New Mexico (see above), Ohio (see above), Tennessee (see Kentucky), Virginia (this state is trending Democratic and though it doesn't favour Clinton as much as Obama, she could win it if she ran strong) and West Virginia (see above).

That sort of outcome should make Democrats' mouths water.

And even in the worst case scenario, it's not that bad...

Ok, it is pretty bad for the Democrats. But compared to Obama's worst case it is ok. She would lose by a large margin of 395 to 143.

Here Clinton would still manage to pick up Arkansas, but McCain would sweep through many of the remaing states. The only thing saving Clinton from the Obama wipeout scenario is her ability to hold California and New York under all scenarios.

The moral of the story? McCain is a very formidable candidate. While Obama has the potential to open new doors for Democrats in states where they've not recently been strong, this is not the election to try such a strategy. It would have been great against Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole or George W. Bush. But Republicans like Reagan and McCain have such a strong appeal to so many people that the only way to beat them is to focus on your own strengths.

A shocking statistic

2008-03-11T21:22:00.006-03:00

We all know that Barack Obama has been picking up more than his fair share of the Black vote in most states but the results of the CNN exit poll in the deep south state of Mississippi give one pause:

Clinton takes 3/4 Whites and Obama takes 9/10 Blacks. A real stark contrast; one that makes me very grateful that (at least I'd like to think) we live in a country where racial tensions pale in comparison.

U.S. politics: So now what?

2008-03-05T07:58:00.005-04:00

Last night gave me two consecutive humiliating losses in the prediction game. After being way out to lunch in Alberta, Hillary Clinton blew the lid off of my projections. She managed to win Rhode Island by a far larger margin than I guessed, won Ohio, won Texas (which I said she might do) and may even win the Texas Caucus - with only a third of the results counted, she trails Obama by 4 points, about the same margin she trailed him by when that number of primary votes had been counted.

Hillary Clinton had a very good night last night. In fact, if she pulls off a win in the Texas caucuses, it may well be the best possible night she could have had. That said though, it is still over for her and she will take her surge last night and use it to really painfully drag out the inevitable.

Right now Obama can rightfully point out that, since Tsunami Tuesday, he has won 12 states and Clinton has won 3. Let's look at what's coming up:

Saturday - Wyoming Caucus
Tuesday - Mississippi Primary
Six Tuesday's later - Pennsylvania Primary

Obama has won a plurality of delegates in every single caucus to date. With the exception of Nevada, he has won them all convincingly. Indeed, if you don't count Nevada or Iowa (which was a three-way race), he has won them all by 20 points or more, in many cases much more. Even if Clinton goes into Wyoming and campaigns hard with a huge surge of momentum, Obama will win by at least 10 points. And she isn't likely to focus too much time there.

Obama repeated his feat last night, which we've seen over and over, of winning almost 90% of the Black vote. Mississippi has the largest proportion of Blacks of any state; he will carry it hugely.

So, after next Tuesday, there will be a six week unfettered slog fest in Pennsylvania during which time Obama will be able to tout a record of 14-3, which is pretty good. Clinton may or may not be able to win Pennsylvania. Let's assume she does, the journey thereafter isn't impossible but still is not an easy one for her:

Indiana (Clinton favoured), North Carolina (Obama favoured), West Virginia (Clinton favoured), Kentucky (Clinton favoured), Oregon (Obama favoured), Montana (toss up), South Dakota (toss up)

It is now mathematically impossible (barring one of the candidates dropping out and allowing the other one to sweep the remaining primaries by huge margins) for either candidate to win enough delegates to clinch the nomination without the support of superdelegates. Regardless of what happens, Obama will go into the convention with an edge among pledged delegates. Therefore Clinton can only win by winning a very large majority of superdelegates. The only way she can do that is to a) run the table, beating Obama in states he is expected to win, thus giving superdelegates the view that Obama was a fad that cannot last; b) for Obama to be engulfed in a huge scandal. Neither of these outcomes seems likely to me.

Moving on to the Republican race. Last night, John McCain accrued enough delegates to convince the media to call him the de facto nominee. Mike Huckabee withdrew from the race and George W. Bush is set to endorse McCain at the White House today. I am not sure what McCain's plan is, but if I were advising him, I would send him out on a big campaign tour. The reason why I have said that John McCain will win the general election easily is that he can put states in play that have not been in play for the Republicans since at least 1988. He may not win many, or even any, of these states, but by campaigning there he will force the Democrats to do so as well, leaving the "swing states" unattended and thus in the Republican column.

McCain should go on a straight talk 50-state tour and visit, if even only briefly, each of the 50 states to hammer home the message that he plans to compete across the board. During this tour, he should focus very strongly on Democratic states that he can win or at least put in a good fight:

The swing states that have gone for Democrats in recent years: New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. States that have been consistently Democratic but the Republicans do well: Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota. And then some strong Democratic states where McCain can play: Connecticut (where he leads in the polls over both Obama and Clinton!), California, Oregon, Maine, Maryland, etc.

This will scare the living daylights out of Democrats and probably lead to an even bloodier Democratic primary where elders supporting each candidate will loudly try to force the opposite one out of the race so that McCain will not go unanswered in those states they have won and need to win.

Regardless, it should be interesting.

This week's predictions

2008-03-02T12:00:00.006-04:00

Monday in Alberta:

Ed Stemach's Progressive Conservatives: 47 (majority)

Kevin Taft's Alberta Liberals: 26

Paul Hinman's Wildrose Alliance: 5

Brian Mason's NDP: 4

Others: 1

Tuesday in America:

Texas: Clinton may win the popular vote in the primary but not necessarily the delegates; Obama will win the most votes and most delegates in the caucus. Confused? It's complicated.

Ohio: Obama will win narrowly.

Rhode Island: Clinton will win by single digits.

Vermont: Obama will win by double digits.

If Clinton manages to win both Ohio and Texas (I doubt she can win Texas outright, but it could be enough of a moral victory for her to move on if she wins the primary), Clinton should beware the Ides of March(ish) as she is sure to lose BIG in both Mississippi and Wyonming on March 11. I am not sure how she holds on for the six week campaign in Pennsylvania if she has lost 14 out of 17 contests in a row, fought one to a draw and won only two (this would assume a win in Ohio and Rhode Island and a win in the Texas primary but loss in the caucus and delegate total). As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, it is all over for Clinton, it is just a matter of when. If she is smart, she will go gracefully and politely after Tuesday, which will still allow her to either a) have a good shot at the nomination in 2012; or b) become Senate Majority Leader, which has always seemed to be her "plan B". If she sticks in much longer, I think she loses both of those fall back options.

John S. McCain the Third Veepstakes

2008-02-24T20:03:00.008-04:00

It is often said that the vice president serves two purposes: 1) to balance the ticket, 2) DO NO HARM! (to win more votes than he or she would lose).

For balancing purposes, McCain needs to do two things: a) choose another conservative who hasn't irked the Republican base as he has - so as to unite the party, b) someone with stronger credentials on the economy.

The Democrats will use, to some success, the infamous 2005 quote where McCain said he didn't know much about the economy. He could use his vice presidential candidate to help fight this.

I will start by, irrespective of the requirements, naming two pet possibilities:

Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL)

Why? Because every Republican ticket since 1952, save one, has had a Nixon, Dole or Bush on it and I am amused by such historical oddities.

Dole would probably satisfy all of the requirements I set out. She is a solid conservative (ACU rating of 96) and, as a former labor secretary, has knowledge of the economy. She is also a classy lady who would warm voters hearts and certainly not lose votes. Her main disadvantage is that she is the same age as McCain and he'll probably want to balance the ticket with age as well. Moreover, she is running for re-election this year (and will be nominated in May) so that could make her an awkward veep candidate, though didn't stop Gore from choosing Lieberman in 2000.

Bush satisfies the conservative and economic qualifiers but, by virtue of his surname would probably cost McCain votes especially in that he would aid the Democrats in painting the Arizonan as Bush III.

Now on to others, (in alphabetical order):

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Brownback is certainly a conservative (ACU rating of 87), and even more especially a social conservative. After abandoning his ill-fated bid for the presidency he endorsed McCain which might be viewed as a plus. However, his support of McCain's immigration reform doesn't make him a very good candidate for bringing in the base. Moreover, he doesn't have much economic experience.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
An early supporter of McCain, Burr is a strong conservative (ACU rating of 92). He is young and has some experience but little focused on the economy. He voted on both sides of the immigration bill but unlike McCain and Brownback was not an unabashed supporter of it.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Though he is certainly a solid conservative (ACU rating of 100!), this former physician has been to the far, hard right on a number of issues which would likely turn off McCain. Moreover, he lacks experience on the economy.

Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL)
Crist's endorsement of McCain on the eve of the Florida primary may have pushed the Arizonan over the top and that win in Florida is what sealed the nomination, thus some favours are certainly owed here! However, Crist doesn't have a strong record as a conservative and Florida is likely to vote Republican with or without him on the ticket.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
A fairly solid conservative (ACU rating of 83), Graham was a strong backer of immigration reform and doesn't have a lot of depth on economic issues. He doesn't balance the ticket.

Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
Huckabee was for a long time considered a favourite for a VP candidate, however, McCain is distrusted by some economic conservatives as is Huckabee. He would not be a good fit for McCain.
Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT)
Huntsman, a Mormon and governor of Utah, bucked many of his fellow members of the LDS church and fellow Utahans by packing John McCain over fellow Mormon Mitt Romney. He has foreign policy experience (a former ambassador) and economic experience (a former deputy U.S. trade representative and a successful governor overseeing a booming economy). He is young and conservative and could be a surprise choice by McCain.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
A former congressman and freshly elected governor, Jindal is a solid conservative (ACU rating of 92) and particularly a strong social conservative. He is only 36 and thus barely eligible for the vice-presidency (one must by 35) but has a remarkable amount of experience for his age. He was in the Louisiana cabinet at 25, ran a
national commission on medicare at 27, was named president of the University of Louisiana at 28 and was appointed as an Assistant Secretary in the federal health department at 30. He has had tremendous success in health care issues and the Democrats will be trying to make that a major issue in the election. Moreover, his multiculturalism could be the Republican answer to Barack Obama. Like Huntsman, he is another darkhorse.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
This fellow seems to be the darling choice of the media. Pawlenty was the strongest and steadiest supporter of McCain through the dark period of 2007 when the latter's campaign seemed to be over. However, he is not a strong conservative and therefore would be a poor choice for ticket balance.

Fmr Rep., Int'l Trade Amb. and White House Budget guy Rob Portman (R-OH)
Portman isn't a household name, but he has lots of experience. He was a congressman for 8 years (getting an ACU rating of 88 in his last year) and served for 2 years as a junior member of the Bush cabinet (first as International Trade Representative [essentially the U.S. trade minister] and then as White House budget director [eseentially a finance minister in a minority government, with less leaway]). He is highly regarded among Washington insiders and is attractive and charismatic. Moreover, Ohio will be a key state (as it was in 2004) and he could help keep it in the Republican column.

Gov. Sonny Purdue (R-GA)
Purdue is only 10 years younger than McCain, has no national profile, no international experience and no tremendous economic record to present. Why he has appeared on some lists as a potential pick escapes me.

Fmr. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (R-PA)
A former congressman from and governor of Pennsylvania, the current Democratic governor of the swing state (which went Democratic by small margins in 2000 and 2004) said Ridge would push the state into the Republican column. Though he is not a solid conservative (he got a 61 rating from the ACU his last year in congress), he is well regarded for his stewardship of the terror file by conservatives and is a key Bush ally. He has supported McCain since day one and seems close to the Senator and delivering Pennsylvania would almost guarantee a victory for the Republicans. (See "UPDATE" below)

Gov. Mike Sanford (R-SC)
A solid conservative (ACU rating of 92) and a compatriot of McCain in the anti-pork spending crusade, Sanford could be a good way to balance the ticket and to please McCain.

Fmr. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN)
Thompson is a solid conservative and an old friend of McCain's from the Senate and from the latter's 2000 presidential run. Had he not run for president, or run and done better, I would imagine him as a frontrunner for the McCain VP nod. However, owing to his disappointing performance when he was running to be at the top of the ticket, I dought he would be tapped to run at the bottom.

Fmr. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK)
Watts, one of view Black Republicans ever elected to national office, is a strong conservative (ACU rating of 96) and was always considered a rising star before he opted to honour his committment to only serve three terms. Still relatively young, he could be a good fit for McCain.

No way Jose: The following names have been mentioned but would never be pick

First, McCain is on the record saying that he doesn't expect that the
party would nominate a pro-choice VP candidate. That rules out the
following who are sometimes mentioned:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)*
Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell (R-NY)
Sen. Olympia Snowne (R-ME)
Fmr. Gov. Christie Todd-Whitman (R-NJ)

Secretary of State Condi Rice (R-CA) may or may not be pro-choice, but her closeness to the Bush administration and unknown performance is true political arena would prevent her from being chosen.

*- Although Romney is now pro-life his previous positions on this and
many other issues would violate the "do no harm" principle

The likely picks, in order of likelihood in my view:

1. Portman

2. Huntsman

3. Sanford

4. Dole

5. Watts

6. Jindal

NOTES: ACU ratings for the most recent year of service have been used; the list contains all names I have been able to find on veep lists + some of my own (Thompson, Dole and Watts).

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post included Tom Ridge as the #4 most likely pick, however I have since learned he is pro-choice and thus not so likely. (h/t Jonathan Martin)

Pre-debate predictions

2008-02-21T16:51:00.002-04:00

March 4th is still aways away and there could be a knock-out punch or two thrown in one of the two Democratic debates to come (including one tonight), but here are my predictions for next week.

Clinton wins Texas and Rhode Island
Obama wins Ohio and Vermont

Clinton drops out.

ALSO: More on that McCain thing, I wrote a pretty bold headline last night after watching this on CNN:

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Folks, we can talk about a lot of things here tonight but with this story breaking, and the accusations against Senator McCain suggesting, intimating, a relationship with this woman going back eight years ...

GOODWIN: Well --

DOBBS: I just don't see how we can go beyond this. I think we've got to focus on this and try to understand this as best we can.

GOODWIN: Also, Lou, if the allegations are correct it's an affair but it also involves she's a lobbyist and according to "The Times" and involves doing favors for her clients. So there's not just a personal life issue. There's a governmental issue, particularly for McCain and the sense of rectitude that he conveys.

DOBBS: The instinct here is to say this is the man's personal life, why deal with it, but in this instance, the suggestions are quite a bit stronger and broader.

HALPERIN: Well, I think there's a couple of things and I think Michael hit two of them very smartly. One is McCain's greatest strength is this public image of rectitude, that he's a man of honor. And this is a potential problem for him in that respect.

And then the other is, not the personal, but the fact that because she is a lobbyist, because she has clients with business before the committee that there's a potential for reporters to look more than "The Times" has into the question of whether her clients ever got special favors from Senator McCain. The story suggests that, talks about it. It's denied in the story but that does present a potential problem for him.

SHEINKOPF: And the campaign gifts or the other gifts that may or may not be illegal of private flights with someone who is not supposed to be there necessarily, how often did it occur, what else did they give him, all of the stuff will start to percolate.

DOBBS: And the journalism involved here coming out as it has before the paper is printed on the Web site, with the suggestion again that this has been in the works for awhile. Is the "New York Times" endorsing Democratic candidates and having done so for decades, is that timing suspect on the part of the journalistic organization in your mind?

SHEINKOPF: Not suspect in that way. Look, these are good reporters at "The New York Times." Some of them are terrific reporters. Jim Reutenberg is a very good reporter, someone I've known probably for most of the last 20, 25 years.

DOBBS: Me too.

SHEINKOPF: He's a good reporter, honorable and did his job.

Having seen the McCain story reported today, can you believe they were reading the same thing as us? Way over the top.

BREAKING NEWS: McCain scandal?

2008-02-20T21:06:00.003-04:00

This NY Times story for tomorrow's print just broke on CNN. I am reading it myself now, but the allegation is McCain is having an affair with a lobbyist, and has been for years, and has done favours for her clients.

This would be the antithesis to McCain's whole political persona and might be the "miracle" Huckabee was looking for. More after I've read...

UPDATE: Much ado about nothing? Hearing Lou Dobbs and friends talk about this at the top of the hour, I thought that this was a huge deal. Reading the article makes it appear it is a regurgation of allegations made back in 2000. No prove of any affair and not really a direct allegation, some allegations about favouritism but nothing over the top. False alarm.

I'll go back to working on my McCain veepstakes piece.

Long time, no write

2008-02-20T18:30:00.002-04:00

Sorry for the delay folks, I have been a bit busy.

A hat tip to NB Taxpayer who won TTTT and is accorded the top link to the right. NBT - if you want that link pointing elsewhere, let me know.

Its been an interesting few weeks. Obama's essentially even showing on Tsunami Tuesday followed by 10 straight wins is making him all but inevitable. I had been holding out some hope for Clinton, but the loss in Wisconsin last night was large and went deep into her core areas of support - some of which she lost and others she "won" by the margin of error.

I would now expect her to lose one of Ohio and Texas (if not both) and drop out shortly after March 4.

This all but guarantees President McCain will be sworn-in in January 2009. Clinton would likely have lost to McCain as well but would have made it more of a race. I have always said, and maintain, that Obama is far more susceptable to attack than John Kerry was in 2004 and will likely be totally obliterated by attacks. I did a quick state-by-state gut projection of a McCain-Obama race last week and the electoral college was 397-141.

McCain's allies will be able to use Obama's own words from "Dreams from My Father" (the non-politically correct book pre-politics Obama wrote in the 90s), the recent statement of his wife that she only became proud of America in this election year, and may other instances where Obama has spoken in an idealistic and not pragmatic way.

Calgary Grit made an apt comparison between the McCain-Obama race and the fictional Vinick-Santos race of The West Wing a while back. But remember, in that alternate reality, Vinick was looking to win all 50 states until his campaign was derailed by an "October surprise".

This fall could turn out similar. Indeed, I would think McCain takes Florida totally out of play and his immigration stand would lock up New Mexico for the Republicans and could even put California in play (though I am not sure if he would win it, the Democrats can't win without California and would be forced to campaign there big time, thus losing ground in countless other states).

States like Maine, New Jersey, etc which have been Democratic locks for several elections would certainly be likely McCain pick ups. Even if McCain lost the economic big three (Michigan, Pennsyvania and Ohio), which I suspect he will, he could still win by a large margin.

My prediction now is that McCain wins the electoral vote by at least 100, likely much more.

I love predicting things, so I will move on to the veepstakes for these two candidates shortly. Let me know your ideas.