Question for Liberals isn’t should we merge, it’s should we exist

An Ipsospoll released over the weekend claiming a majority of Liberal and NDP supporters (voters, not necessarily activists) favour merging the parties has re-ignited the debate about whether or not a merger of the parties makes sense. Well, at least online, as I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve met offline that support the idea. And at least among Liberals on Twitter, because NDPers are too busy being the official opposition and leading the polls at the moment.

Sixty-four per cent of Liberal supporters and 57 per cent of NDP voters said they "strongly" or "somewhat" support their parties merging into a single party.

Needless to say, I’m skeptical of these numbers (I’m just not hearing it on the ground) andI’ve long been sceptical of the very idea of a merger. Besides the parties being rather different (remember, the PCs and Alliance were formerly the same party), the math doesn’t work either. While proponents say a “united left” would defeat Harper, those Ipsos numbers show 36% of Liberals and 43% of NDPers don’t support merging. Some would stay, but a significant chunk of those 36% of Liberals would go Conservative. Look at where Liberal votes in Ontario went last year as Liberal support collapsed and the NDP surged: much of it went Conservative. And as for the 43% of NDPers, many would stay, but some would look for a more purist left-wing option And let’s not forget, in B.C., for example, many NDP voters went Reform/Alliance for years. Point being, it’s not 1+1=2. Anything could happen, but a merger would be messy and is no stop-Harper silver bullet.

Enough about math, though. I think there are deeper issues that the merger discussion serves to underline, and that are highlighted by other findings from this Ipsos poll:

Overall, a majority of Canadians "agree" either strongly (19 per cent) or somewhat (38 per cent) that they consider the Liberal Party to be a "party of the past, not a party of the future," according to the poll.Among Liberal supporters, 21 per cent believe their own party is a party of the past.--Canadians as a whole seem divided on whether a new Liberal leader will make a difference: one half (52 per cent) agree that regardless of who the party chooses as its next leader, they have "pretty much written off the Liberals."

Among Liberal partisans that support looking at a merger, motivations range from believing it’s the only way to stop Harper to feeling it’s the best short-cut back to relevance. I disagree with the first and find the second emblematic of everything that’s wrong with our party (short-cuts to power instead of hard work rebuilding). But amongst voters (this poll is if people that have voted for the party in the past) I think the support for merging is driven by another factor: the Liberal Party of Canada has become completely irrelevant to them, and so they don’t particularly care if it merges or fades into oblivion.

If the Liberals were still relevant, these numbers would be different. If voters had a sense of what the party stands for, if we were effective at opposing the government’s agenda, offering alternative policies that spoke to both the challenges of the country and their everyday lives, and if we were seen as a credible alternative government, then people would see the value in keeping us around, and maybe even voting for us one day.

Instead, as I argued recently, we’ve become an increasingly unheard voice in the wildernessabsent from the national debate, as the NDP on the left and the Conservatives on the right polarize and simplify the debate. 

And it’s not a recent phenomenon. Our inability to connect in a relevant way to Canadians has been growing for years.

So there’s two ways to look at these numbers: either we throw our hands up and get swallowed by the NDP in the hopes that will stop defeat Harper (a rather short-term vision, frankly) or we take these numbers as an affirmation of what needs to be done.

Polls are a snapshot of today. Leadership isn’t about taking a poll, guessing where the parade is going and jumping in front of it. Leadership is about having a vision that you believe in, popular or not, and rallying the people to your cause.

The question I’d ask Liberals to consider isn’t to merge or not to merge, it’s to exist or not to exist. Think beyond the short-term, beyond the next election or the current Conservative leader. Do we think a polarized political arena of left vs. right is what’s best for Canada? Or do we believe there needs to be a third voice, one not wedded to ideology, one that can offer practical, pragmatic solutions for our country and for its people, taking good ideas wherever they come from?

If it’s the former then sure, why not merge. Although, frankly, I’d rather we just fade away (the free market solution). But if it’s the latter, and I believe it is, then we must redouble our efforts. Because there is a desire out there for such a party. In fact, the Liberals were once such a party. And with hard work, we can be again.

And while some may be ready to give up, I’m not.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Things can change, and campaigns matter

I've made the point a few time recently that, while the polls aren't favourable for the Liberals at the moment, things can change. That's not to say that things will change. No one can predict the future with any accuracy. But a poll today is a snapshot, and isn't necessarily indicative of what an election six or seven weeks from now could show.

For example, take a look at this chart. It shows the Liberals with a 15 point lead over the Conservatives, 41-26. That's a healthy lead, and potential majority territory.

When was this Nanos/SES poll taken, you ask? December 9, 2005, near the beginning of the 2005/06 election that would see the Conservatives end up forming a minority government. The popular vote would end up Conservatives 36, Liberals 30.

Dive into the leadership numbers and you'll see that, while Stephen Harper wasn't as far back as Michael Ignatieff is today, Paul Martin still had a healthy lead despite the swirling sponsorship drama. Canadians weren't sold yet on Stephen Harper.

So what's the point? The point is, as we see, things can change, and campaigns matter. Things happened on the campaign trail in 2005/06 that couldn't have been predicted going in. The leaders campaigned, things happened, and opinions were formed. The same will happen during the next election.

And while there are differences between 05/06 and today, there are interesting parallels. An opposition leader who has struggled, and not connected with Canadians. A government with an accumulation of scandal that hasn't hurt it too badly -- yet. And an electorate that has largely yet to tune in to the political debate.

So while we shouldn't dismiss polls, we shouldn't live and die by them either. A poll today can't tell us how people will feel in May. Campaigns matter, and the next one will be worth watching. There's a reason we play the full nine innings. No one knows today what the future will bring.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Breaking the pattern. Or not.

Another poll out there showing an unfavourable situation for the Liberal Party, and for Michael Ignatieff, generating the usual reaction on all sides. Other recent polls have been equally unfavourable, others slightly less so. Still, some undeniable patterns have emerged, and they’re worth considering briefly.

What the polls, particularly the leadership figures, show largely is the power of multi-million dollar ad buys. Advertising can work, particularly when the buy is massive and you’re the only ones doing the talking. Thanks to their massive fundraising advantage over the other parties, but particularly the Liberals who, years later, still haven’t adjusted to the no longer new fundraising regime, the Conservatives enjoy the ability to negatively define their opponents with an advertising blitz, knowing their opponents don’t have the ability to effectively counter-punch.

Leadership numbers can be over-hyped, but they shouldn’t be dismissed. They’re not everything – the NDP likes to trumpet Jack Layton’s high leadership numbers, but they’re not giving much air to NDP support numbers: Jack raises the brand, but only so far. Leadership numbers can be a drag on party support numbers though, and we’re definitely seeing that. We may elect 308 MPs but in Canadian politics, leaders matter.

Now, we can bemoan the situation. We can call for intra-election spending caps. Campaign finance reform. We can release attack ads attacking attack ads. It does nothing to change the reality: the ad advantage this fundraising gap enables allows the Conservatives to go into any election campaign with a built-in advantage, and forces their opponents to always have to play from behind. And whining ain’t gonna change anything. People are tuned-out from politics, they are influenced by ads, and that’s that. (Though we should really figure out how to raise money one of these days)

We saw the pattern before with Stephane Dion, and we’re seeing it again with Michael Ignatieff. Going into an election handicapped is a burden, but it’s not an insurmountable one. Between elections, the Conservative money advantage is formidable. But the spending caps of the campaign period are a leveler and more people tune in to see what’s what, if only briefly.

So while they tune in with a pre-conceived negative notion of the opposition leader that needs to be overcome, one of two things will happen. Either what they see from the leader will reinforce the negative preconceptions forged by advertising, or it will shatter their preconceptions and lead to a re-evaluation by voters.

It can go either way. With Dion, while he improved as the campaign went on, his poor skills as a retail politician on the trail played into the negative narrative the Conservatives had planted with their pre-writ ads, and the perception was cemented in the minds of Canadians. When the next campaign begins, it will be up to Michael Ignatieff what story is written. Lowered expectations are great, and the public’s expectations of him couldn’t be much lower, but they’re only great if you can beat them.

It can go either way. But it’s important to emphasize it CAN go either way. So I don’t worry that much about every poll, although of course I am disappointed we’re not doing better. But I think we’re doing the right things on the opposition front, we’re making the right moves on the policy front, and we’re doing the right things on the organizational front. And I believe Michael Igntieff will prove to be a formidable campaigner, and he’ll surprise some people.

Once we’re into a campaign, we’ll either break the pattern, or we won’t. Until then, talk is cheap.

Well, for the governing party, at least.

(Photo source)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Casting call for a stop Ford movement: which also-ran sucks slightly less?

The latest Nanos poll of the Toronto Mayoral race showing a 24-point lead for right-wing candidate Rob Ford has certainly made waves far outside of the elite centre of the universe.

Rob Ford: 34.4 per cent

George Smitherman: 16.0 per cent

Joe Pantalone 12.6 per cent

Rocco Rossi: 7.2 per cent

Sarah Thomson: 4.6 per cent

Undecided: 25.0 per cent

(Phone survey of 1,021 likely voters Sept. 14-16. MOE +/- 3.1 per cent)

The break-out PDF from Nanos is very interesting reading. While Ford has an impressive 50 per cent of the vote in his homebase of Etobicoke, he's no suburban phenomenon. In fact, he leads the field in every region in the city, including a five-point lead on Smitherman in the Toronto core. He leads with both men and women. In every age category. With home owners and renters. It's an impressive and very through domination by Ford.

Rob Silver has a column that offers some very credible explanations for the Ford phenomenon, which I largely agree with. I'd add to the list Miller-backlash, and one more: the utter failure of George Smitherman, Joe Pantalone, Rocco Rossi and Sarah Thomson to wage professional, credible, organized campaigns that speak to the concerns and needs of the electorate.

This is backed-up by what, for me, was the most interesting part of the Nanos poll: the break-down by party support.

Ford has 52.2 per cent of Conservative voters, that's not surprising. Interestingly, despite Rossi and Smitherman's awkward lurches to the right, Joe Pantalone (the Jack Layton-endorsed Miller deputy) is second in Conservative support at 12.5 per cent, followed by Smitherman at 7.1 and Rossi at 6.7 per cent. So yeah, that tactic paid-off well. NDP voters are split between Ford and Pantalone (but this sample is very small).

The Liberal supporter numbers are interesting. Smitherman has a bare lead over Ford amongst Liberal supporters, 27.6 per cent to 26.2 per cent. That's embarrassing for a high-profile former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister. Also embarrassing is Rossi, briefly federal Liberal executive director, at just 7.3 per cent. And a whopping 24.3 per cent of Liberals are still undecided.

That undecided tally mirrors the over undecided total of 25.0 per cent. With a 24 point lead, this is Ford's election to lose. For him to not be elected mayor would require a campaign implosion, and probably a shrinking of the field. And most of those undecideds would have to break one-way, coalescing behind a stop-Ford movement that shows no signs of forming. One has to ask which of the similarly unimpressive candidates it could form behind? How could one candidate credibly say to another "you should drop out because I suck slightly less than you?"

I think many of those undecideds are like me: certainly not going to vote for Ford, but disappointed by all of the other candidates and still hoping, increasingly in vain, that one of the other candidates will do something to impress me. And no, tunnels, money-back guarantees and boccie-balls aren't going to do it.

In the end, barring a game-changer, people like me will either stay home on election day, or hold our noses and vote for the marginally less incompetent alternative. And that's how a guy who drove while intoxicated, lied about a drunken fight at a Leafs game, and has made off-colour remarks about Asians, homosexuals and city cyclists becomes Mayor of Toronto.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Like sands through the hourglass, these are the polls of our lives

A poll just dropped from Angus Reid that I’m sure will get the blogsphere buzzing today. There’s the usual horse-race numbers that are bad for the Liberals and their leader, nothing new there. That’s a drama for another day. No, what’s interesting is they also polled how a potential Liberal/NDP merger would fare.

Led by Michael Ignatieff, it found the electoral result with a merger would be pretty much the status-quo, hampered, says the pollster, by Ignatieff’s personal unpopularity:

However, led by Bob Rae it’s a different result, with a dead-heat and a shot at government, depending on the regional break-downs:

Apparently, says the pollster, Bob’s popularity in Ontario would be a difference-maker:

The prospect of a centre-left merger—similar to the one that allowed the Conservative Party to challenge and ultimately break the Liberal hegemony—is not greeted with the same enthusiasm by voters when the leader is revealed.

Ignatieff would not provide the new party with a shot at victory. Rae's popularity in Ontario, and to a lesser extent in British Columbia, would turn the next election into a tight contest.

I was slightly amused as I read this, and not just because of their comments about Rae’s popularity in Ontario, which certainly turns the popular meme on its head. No, I was amused because I was reminded of another Angus Reid poll of hypothetical leaders, this one during the last aborted Liberal leadership race.

From December of 2008, with Ignatieff as leader here were Angus Reid’s numbers (changes from the then current numbers in brackets):

Conservatives: 38% (-4)

Liberals: 33% (+11)

NDP: 13% (-5)

Bloc: 10% (-)

Green: 6% (-1)

And Angus Reid from December 2008 with Rae as leader:

Conservatives: 41% (-1)

Liberals: 26% (+4)

NDP: 15% (-3)

Bloc: 10% (-1)

Green: 6% (-1)

The point being, a hypothetical poll and a $1 will buy you a can of Fresca. And the X factor, of course, is the multi-million dollar demonization campaign the Conservatives unleashed on Ignatieff, and you can be sure one is sitting in a drawer on Bob.

Finally, back to the merger numbers, according to Angus Reid the LiberalDippers would fare best under Jack Layton (that sound you hear is a collective shriek of delight from the Blogging Dippers:

But Layton would immensely help the new party with good numbers in Ontario and a remarkable showing in Quebec, pushing the Bloc to second place for the first time in years.

Of course, I should caution those numbers don't factor in the thousands of Liberals who would be unable to vote, due to their heads having exploded.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Surprisingly, there's still room to define Ignatieff

Perhaps wanting to make nice with the Conservatives after releasing horse-race numbers that aren’t overly positive for the ruling party, Harris-Decima released party leader impression numbers yesterday and, while they show sharp declines in popularity for Stephen Harper, Allan Gregg’s lede is that Michael Ignatieff isn’t capitalizing and is still the most unpopular of the Big Three.

First, the numbers. Stephen Harper scored a 44% favourable (down 7 from November) and a 48% unfavourable (up 7). Michael Ignatieff’s numbers were little changed from November, with 30% favourable and 48% unfavourable. No change numbers were provided for the other leaders, but Jack Layton had the best net score with 47% favourable vs 37% unfavourable. Elizabeth May scored 32% positive vs 28% negative.

They broke down the numbers for the big two by a number of demographics, as well as party supporters, which provided some interesting numbers, although not super surprising. For example, Harper’s base would appear secure with a 86% favourability from Conservative supporters. Ignatieff managed 56% favourable from Liberal supporters.

Interestingly, for a guy who is painted by his opponents as a fairly conservative fellow, Ignatieff’s best approval from other party supporters came from NDP supporters, who gave him a 32% favourable (vs 49% unfavourable). Greens really don’t like him, but there does seem to be more openness to him on the left than on the right, which is somewhat counter-intuitive to the narrative.

Anyway, you can dig through the PDF for more tidbits and data. Certainty, while I find Gregg’s choice of emphasis a little amusing I don’t disagree that Ignatieff hasn’t (yet) capitalized personally on prorogation, nor have the Liberals. These numbers aren’t surprising though; it’s too early for any of the work happening since Ignatieff’s prorogation presser to have paid the sorts of dividends that would show in such a poll. And nothing else has happened since November to move his numbers.

Growth Potential

The point I did want to make though is about growth potential, or more accurately the room still left to define and set impressions of the leaders, namely Ignatieff. Add up the numbers and you find 92% of Canadians have some sort of impression, good or bad, of Harper. He’s a known quantity. But just 78% of Canadians have an impression of Ignatieff. That means 22% have no impression of him at all.

We need to move that 48% unfavourable number, and I think we can if we do what we need to do (and there are signs we’re starting to, fingers crossed). But the fact that 22% is still greenfield also says there is still an opportunity to define Ignatieff with a good chunk of the population that hasn’t formed an opinion one way or another, despite the massive and expensive Conservative negative ad onslaught.

And that’s an opportunity.

(Photo: Radey Barrack)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The drip drip of negative perception

An examination of the rise and fall of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1993 to 2006 would show that, despite what the polling numbers may have shown, it wasn’t as if the party suddenly and surprisingly dropped off a cliff in 2004 when the tsunami that was the sponsorship scandal shook the party. While adscam was certainly the straw that broke the back of the party, it wouldn’t have done it alone.

It was a steady drip drip that had built up in the public consciousness over the entirety of the Liberal tenure in government that led to the public beginning to move away from the party in 2004, and finally backing away entirely in 2005/06. There were many unpopular decisions and scandals, both real and imagined, that hit the Liberals over those 13 or so years. I won’t go through and catalog the list. And while each one was seemingly weathered with little to no lasting hit in popular support, each did register in the public consciousness, a festering concern or disappointment that, while not enough to change voter support, did shape their view of the party, building with each additional incident.

Despite growing displeasure over various Liberal decisions and actions, support held for some time for a number of reasons: each incident in isolation wasn’t enough to change minds, the government was doing many other good things people liked, and there was no compelling alternative to move support to if people were so inclined, whether it was the divided right or a weak Stockwell Day in 2000.

For many, sponsorship was the proverbial last straw that served to put all those other more minor scandals and other problems they’d had with the Liberals over the years into a linking narrative, triggering a change in voter support. But even with a united right, it wasn’t enough in 2004 to move government to the Conservatives. It wasn’t until 2005/06 when that increasing displeasure with the Liberals, sealed as mentioned by sponsorship, was combined with a Conservative platform that gave people a place to feel comfortable parking their votes – tax relief, a relatively moderate policy platform – that the public finally fully left the Liberals and elected a new government.

The lessons to be learned? It’s not any one single incident, but a drip dip of actions and events that shape a perception and a narrative, that will move public opinion. And they won’t move en masse until they have somewhere compelling to move to.

Why the history lesson?

I took this extended trip down memory lane because I see many interesting parallels to today’s political situation.

Looking at the past four to five years, there have been a myriad of hits the Conservatives have taken, from listeriosis to isoptopes and cancer is sexy all the way through to detainee torture and prorogation, with many more of varying sizes and import. By and large, up to the current backlash over prorogation, each past incident hasn’t generally caused a lasting decline in Conservative support.

That’s because each incident, on its own, wasn’t enough to trigger a meaningful change in voter intention, given the other things the government was doing that people agreed with, and given the alternatives on the market. But each incident did serve to help move and shape public perception of the Conservative Party in the public consciousness. It builds a narrative.

Looking at prorogation initially, in isolation, I didn’t see it as a major game-changer. However, a spate of recent polls, including most recently from Ekos, The Strategic Counsel and Angus Reid, would seem to be proving me wrong, all showing sharp declines in Conservative support.

It appears that, for many Canadians, the prorogation affair may be that proverbial straw that causes their scales to turn against the Conservatives. It’s not just prorogation itself, but prorogation builds on top of the narrative caused by all those other little incidents and scandals over the last few years that Harper largely got away with at the time. Prorogation serves to solidify the negative impression that all those other incidents had created in the minds of many Canadians and has led many of them to the point where they are ready to change their votes. The government’s negatives begin to outweigh the positives.

Of course, that galvanizing event that finally moves public opinion is only half the equation. As we’ve seen, if they’re going to move to somewhere en masse, they need to have somewhere to go to. That’s borne out by those same polling numbers. Yes, the gap between the Conservatives and the Liberals has closed substantially, from as much as 10 to 15 points to, in two cases, a statistical tie. But the gap was largely closed by a collapse of the Conservative vote. Liberal support has gotten a small uptick, but not much of one, still languishing around the 30 per cent level which, until last fall’s freefall, was the historical bottom of Liberal support for the last five or so years.

It brings me back to my steady message of these last few weeks: if the Liberals are to capitalize on this opportunity that prorogation has given them, public anger with the Conservatives will only take them so far. The public didn’t finally turn on the Liberals in 2005/06 until the Conservatives gave them a strong alternative leader with a compelling, measured moderate policy agenda that they could relate to. They’re not going to leave the Conservatives in lasting and meaningful numbers until we do the same.

Lest I sound too pessimistic, I do have optimism on that front. Michael Ignatieff’s campus tour is going very well, and getting good reviews. I think the “back to work” strategy on January 25th of public policy forums is a good one with the potential to put meat on the bones, but they must include real ideas and proposals, not just platitudes, and make it accessible to those outside the capital, even if only by Web cast. I’ll be watching for that. And, of course, the Thinker’s Conference in March. I’m also hearing that the party is undertaking a process that will lead to the generation of real ideas for democratic reform. It may not come as soon as many would like, but it does appear to be on the radar.

In the end, it will be a major challenge to both sustain the displeasure that prorogation has generated in the Conservatives, as well as convert that displeasure into positive support. Things can change quickly in politics; I think the last three weeks are clear evidence of that. Whether this will be 2004 or 2005/06 will only be known with time.

Either way though, it’s safe to say the drip-drip of scandal has worn heavily on the once formidable Conservative brand, with prorogation causing a heavy hit. For maybe the first time in four years, people are at least ready to consider change.

The only question is, are we ready to give it to them?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Look beyond the polls

Two polls out this morning that will no doubt give some comfort to the anti-perogie forces, but both should be taken with a grain of salt and should only be considered a conformation that while there is opportunity around the Conservative decision to shut down parliament and take a two-month vacation, converting on that opportunity is both challenging and uncertain.

The first poll is from Angus Reid and the Toronto Star and surveyed specifically on the decision to prorogue parliament, and it found a majority (53 per cent) opposed the decision, either strongly or moderately. Just 19 per cent agreed with the decision, while 28 per cent were unsure. Support was highest in Manitoba/Saskatchewan at 31 per cent, and opposition was highest in Atlantic Canada at 61 per cent and Ontario at 59 per cent. Along party lines, naturally opposition supporters were opposed, but so were 35 per cent of Conservative supporters (46 per cent of them agreed).

Asked if they believed the government that the decision to prorogue was just about gearing-up for the next stage of the economic plan, or the opposition that it was about hiding from the Afghan detainee abuse scandal, 23 per cent believed the government, 38 per cent sided with the opposition, and 39 per cent didn’t know who to believe. The party line numbers are predictable.

So, Angus Reid tells us Canadians disagree with the decision to prorogue (and that most aren't really paying that close attention either). That’s all well and good, but in isolation it means little. The real question is, what impact, if any, will this disagreement have on their voting intention? Just because I disagree with something doesn’t mean it will change my vote.

That’s where the latest poll from Ekos and the CBC comes in to play. Here’s the latest Ekos numbers on voter intention:

Conservatives: 33.1 (-2.8)
Liberals: 27.8 (+1.1)
NDP: 16.0 (-1.0)
Green: 13.4 (+2.2)
Bloc Quebecois*: 9.8 (+0.6)
Undecided: 14.7

So, an outside the margin decline for the Conservatives, a small within the margin gain for the Liberals, a slight drop for the NDP and an unusual increase for the Greens. What does it all mean? Who knows for sure, but here’s my take:

Since not much else has been happening lately, it’s safe to say based on the Conservative dip that the prorogue story is putting a crimp in their numbers. And it’s also safe to say the opposition parties have yet to benefit much at all from the public disapproval of the Conservative decision.

These numbers largely echo what I’ve been saying since this began: even if people are annoyed at the Conservatives, the Liberals haven’t done the necessary spadework to be able to convert that dissatisfaction into support. We’re still languishing below 30 per cent, and only got a small bump. That’s because while there is anger with the Conservatives, they’re not enamored enough with the alternatives to make the jump. If the Liberals were a more credible alternative, you’d see a larger Conservative decline and a higher Liberal increase. But just because someone dislikes one choice doesn't mean they automatically like another.

Instead, you see a relatively small but still significant Conservative decrease, as those that are really dissatisfied park their support temporarily with the Greens, a traditional holding-basin for the temporarily annoyed, or with the undecided.

If the opposition parties, in particular the Liberals, don’t do anything to begin converting those dissatisfied former Conservative supporters into Liberal supporters by giving them a reason not just to be mad at the Conservatives but to support the Liberals, then over the next few weeks and months that support will slowly trickle back into the Conservative support column, and we’ll be back where we started.

That has been the clear pattern for several years now. They know what they need to do to break it. If they will or not remains to be seen.

UPDATE: For more on the polls see Scott and Scott, as well as Impolitical.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal/NDP coalition viable without the BQ and Dion?

There were two major factors that made last December’s opposition coalition a tough sell and, ultimately, likely doomed it to failure: the presence of the Bloc Quebecois if only on the tertiary, and the unpopularity of Stephane Dion. The fact we’d just had an election that had increased Conservative seat count didn’t help any either. But what if Dion and the BQ weren’t in the equation – does a coalition become more viable?

Some numbers today from pollster Angus Reid suggest that, while it would still be an uphill battle to sell it, under the right circumstances a Liberal/NDP coalition may not be as toxic as originally thought by some, including, well, me.

Asked if they’d support formal power-sharing coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, 42 per cent said yes and 47 per cent said no, with 11 per cent undecided. Those 11 per cent would be critical, and much would demand on the circumstances at the time: electoral result, issues of the day, and so forth. Some 64 per cent of Liberals would support a coalition, and 70 per cent of NDPers. Interestingly, a majority of Green supporters, 51 per cent, would be opposed.


Angus Reid also polled other questions under a “unite the left” theme. While support was highest for the coalition option, they also polled running joint candidates to avoid vote-splitting and a party merger. Here it’s the Liberal and NDP supporter numbers that are really most relevant, as they didn’t ask if the options would change voter intention.

On an agreement between the Liberals and NDP not to run candidates against each other where it would split the vote, 55 per cent of Liberals and 51 per cent of NDPers were supportive.


And on a full-blown merger between the Liberals and NDP, 50 per cent of both Liberals and NDPers would be supportive.

Frankly, I don’t consider the latter two likely enough scenarios to discuss at length. Even if agreements could be reached around non-competes in swing ridings, the per-vote subsidy, which both opposition parties ironically fought hard to keep, is a major disincentive to not running strong with 308 candidates on the ballot.

As for an out-right merger, there’s not the historical unity on the left there is on the right. I doubt the far-left would be willing to be shut-out or would be placated as easily by a LPC/NDP as the far-right has by the Conservatives. There would be much more likelihood of a left-wing splinter party emerging and, while the remaining moderates would still be a force, there would be some bleeding on the centre-right to the Cons. And besides, I don’t think the lefties would let the NDP go without a dogfight.

Back to the coalition question, while it appears the battle wouldn’t be as uphill as I’d previously thought, I still think it’s highly unlikely. For starters, I think both parties would need to signal openness to the possibility before an election. You can do it after, but to try to arrange one after an election when you went into it saying no makes the sales battle all the much harder. It could be overcome, but it wouldn’t be a good start.

Declaring openness to a coalition before an election though is highly unlikely, at least for the Liberals. The NDP would probably be fine with it. That’s because the possibility of a coalition going into an election will bleed Liberal votes to the NDP. The Liberals run to win, and part of that strategy is always going to be “we’re the only party that can stop Harper and form a government” which means solidifying the anti-Harper vote in the Liberal column. Openness to a coalition gives license to NDP swing voters to avoid going Liberal to stop Harper, ie. voting strategically. I know that’s cynical, but this is politics.

So, in the next election I expect every party will run hard to win, and then the chips will fall where they may. I think a far more likely option than a coalition, other than a Conservative government of some variety, would be a Liberal minority with a governing agreement short of a formal coalition. That would mean no joint government caucus, no joint cabinet, but a Liberal government with NDP support for a given period based on a set of agreed-to legislative priorities.

Whether the NDP would accept that scenario instead of a formal power-sharing coalition would depend on how well each party does in the next election. The NDP would likely of course want the formal coalition; their chances of getting it would be dependent on their bargaining power, determined by their support. Neither party would want to be seen by Canadians as putting personal ambition ahead of a progressive government. And such governing agreements have a strong history in the Canadian system, and so would be seen as credible by the public.

But anyways, looking at those Angus Reid horse race numbers, that’s still a bridge far, far away.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Are the Conservatives push-polling?

Are the Conservatives doing some push-polling? In the Ottawa area it appears they might be, as someone claiming to conducting a poll on behalf of Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, was asking poll questions far more designed to influence public opinion than to measure it.

Unfortunately, one of the calls went to a CBC producer:

So, there's this phone, see? And this phone just so happened to belong to a CBC producer in Ottawa. And last night, just as it was born to do, it RANG!

On the other end was an actual non-recorded human voice -- male -- conducting a poll on behalf of her local Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre.

Curious, she participated in the poll, which was clearly trying to gauge her interest in an election now and who she'd support -- while ever-so-subtly reminding her about the home renovation tax credit and federal infrastructure money to build the Strandherd Bridge in her riding, brought to her by the Harper government.

The pollster was very quick and unscientific didn't ask her name, age or occupation, she said.

Said CBC producer also found the language used by the pollster interesting. He didn't use the word "Liberal," but used Michael Ignatieff's name. But when the pollster referred to the other parties, he did so by party name.

He also asked if she'd support the "Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc coalition" and was unresponsive when she asked him about the current Conservative-NDP interlude/bromance/whatchamacallit in the House of Commons.

"Really no sense of humour with these guys," our producer said.

One wonders if the Conservatives are using their substantial campaign war chest to make misleading push-polling calls across the country. Has anyone else received similar calls?

Push-polling. Once-again, the Conservatives importing the finest Republican tactics. Then again, it could have been worse...

Bush's campaign strategists, including Karl Rove, devised a push poll against John McCain. South Carolina voters were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". They had no interest in the actual percentages in the poll, the goal was to suggest that [McCain had a black child]. This was particularly vicious since McCain was campaining with his adopted [dark skinned] Bangladeshi daughter

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

With no plan, it's better the devil you know

We’ll be reading much about polls, and how they’re not good for the Liberals. And they’re not.

And we’ll be reading much about how opposition leaders always have tough starts (they do), how things can quickly turn around (they can) and how campaigns matter (they do).

While obviously I pay attention to polls, I tell myself not to worry when they’re bad and not to get too confident when they’re good. Polls can concern me, and they do, and I believe they can be overcome, so I don’t worry in that sense.

But I would be a lot more confident if I sensed we had a plan, a strategy, a way to get us to where we need to go. Yes, polls are a snapshot. Yes, opposition leaders have rough starts. Yes, campaigns do matter. Yes, these things can, are and will be turned around. But not without a plan.

What concerns me is not so much the polling numbers as the fact I can’t discern at the moment what our winning strategy is to achieve that turnaround I believe to absolutely be possible.

And we do need a plan, because what we’re doing right now clearly isn’t working.

I don’t need polls to tell me that either. If I, as a Liberal, am unclear on just what the party currently stands for, if I’m unclear on just what our plan is, on what we want to do in government, on what our vision for the country is, then how can we expect Canadians to support us?

When I talk to members of the non-political Canadian majority, they don't follow the scandals that we politicos get all excited about. They don't care about who props-up who, or confidence motions, or the like. They're not Harper fans but they think he's done an adequate job. And they don't know Ignatieff, what he's for, or what the Liberals are all about. Harper's the devil they know.

Our strategy seems to be say nothing, commit to nothing, just attack Harper and wait for him to fall on his face. That pre-supposes, of course, that he will. Even if he does, if you don’t give Canadians a compelling alternative, if you don’t give them a distinct choice, nine times out of 10 they’ll stick with the devil they know.

I don’t know what we stand for. Apparently we’re against having “adult conversations” with Canadians, walking back the mere suggestion pretty dammed quickly. It would be a risky strategy, perhaps, but timidity isn’t going to get us anywhere. No risk, no reward.

No, instead we present a muddled negative vision that you don’t need to be an adult to see through. I used to mock the Conservatives for Harper’s declaration he’ll balance the budget without program spending cuts, tax increases or, now, transfer payments. It’s a non-sensical position that defies the laws of economics. You can’t grow your way out of a structural deficit of this size.

So imagine my annoyance when the Liberals echoed that same promise. We’d better have a good plan to back that up, I thought. I’m led to believe we do, but it’s a secret. Wait for the campaign. So, instead, we’re still bizarrely going around attacking the Conservative position while echoing its gravity-defying promise AND offering no alternative plan.

Never mind adults, junior high kids can see through that. If we’re not going to offer something different, mindless attacks are just that: mindless. It only draws attention to the absence of our own plan.

I’ve written before of my advice for Michael Ignatieff, as did Dan Arnold. George Young adds more good thoughts today.

Bottom line for me though:

* The Liberal Party needs to stand for something, besides wanting to be back in government.
* Fortune favours the daring, and punishes the timid. So find the balls to take some calculated risks.
* Treat Canadians like adults, maybe they’ll return the favour.
* Liberals need to see there’s a plan, that we’re all on this ship rowing somewhere together, and not just in circles.

Right now, I get the sense that we’re just drifting aimlessly, turning our sail to the scandal du jour, waiting for the Harper implosion that may never come.

That’s a course that is as likely to crash our ship on the rocks as anything else.

Will we recognize this and change course, or not?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Going behind the horserace numbers

We had two polls out last week, one from Angus Reid and one from Ekos, both of which showed the Liberals and Conservatives neck-in-neck as we go into the fall session of parliament and a possible election campaign.

I don’t put much import in the polls, other than affirming that Ipsos poll looks to be the 19th time out of 20, that anything is still possible and that, as always, the campaign will be determinative. I would say it’s a positive for the Liberals to be tied coming out of a summer when the opposition always has a hard time attracting national attention, particularly when the government has billions of dollars in stimulus funding to announce, and re-announce. It will be interesting to see where the numbers go now that people are paying attention once again.

Rather than focus totally on national horse race numbers though, I wanted to dive a little deeper and look at some of the other numbers in the two polls that I found interesting.

Regional highlights

When I look at regional numbers, I’m usually most interested in Ontario, Quebec and BC. The first two for strategic reasons, the latter personal.

Ekos has the Liberals restoring a decent lead in Ontario, at LPC 40.4, CPC 33.1, NDP 15.6. The Angus Reid numbers have it a bit tighter, at LPC 40, CPC 37, NDP 14. The Liberals need to be at 40 per cent or higher in Ontario to be competitive nationally. The NDP number is also important, because higher NDP numbers will create favourable vote splits for the Conservatives. The NDP have shown some weakness in Ontario lately, but the Liberals would like to see more daylight between them and the Conservatives.

Ekos also provides some interesting metro numbers, although with slightly higher margins of errors. In Toronto, Ekos has it Liberals 44.8, CPC 35.4, NDP 11.8, GPC 8.1 with a 6.6 MOE. The CPC shows strong strength in the GTA here but what surprised me was the low number for the NDP. That could make things interesting for a few of their incumbents.

In Quebec. Angus Reid has it BQ 35, LPC 31, CPC 18, NDP 10. Ekos calls it BQ 32.3, LPC 30.9, CPC 19.4, NDP 9.8. Again, two sets of similar numbers. Continued CPC weakness in Quebec will cost them seats they’ll need to make up elsewhere just to tread water. The BQ and the Liberals will gain, probably the BQ a little more. The NDP numbers are just above the Green Party in Quebec; if I was Thomas Mulcair I’d be a tad concerned.

Ekos puts Montreal at LPC 32.7, BQ 32.3. CPC 18.2, NDP 9.1 with a 6.5 MOE.

Finally, out in BC, Ekos has it CPC 35.3, NDP 25.5, LPC 24.9, GPC 14.3. At Angus Reid, its CPC 34, NDP 33, LPC 24, GPC 9. There’s been a lot of fluidity in the BC numbers of late. I don’t see the tightness of the Angus Reid number, but I also don’t see the high Green numbers that Ekos has holding. The Greens polled strongly in BC during the last campaign too, but came back down by e-day.

The thing to remember about BC is that the Conservatives largely run the table in rural BC, and compete just with the NDP in coastal BC and a few interior and Island ridings. So large Conservative rural pluralities can create a mini-Alberta effect in the provincial numbers. Liberal strength is largely concentrated in the Lower Mainland and South Island. In Vancouver, Ekos puts it at LPC 32.4, CPC 30.7, NDP 26.5, GPC 10.4 (MOE 10.5). While there’s a few strong CPC ridings in that mix, those numbers are still a little tighter than I’d like.

Doing the demographics

But enough of horserace numbers. What really interests me is when the pollsters make demographic data available. For example, support by gender.

The gender breakdowns from Ekos offer some interesting insights. Amongst men, its CPC 35.8 to LPC 33.1. That’s tighter than I recall it being for awhile, usually the CPC leads strongly with men. Among women, its LPC 32.2 to CPC 29.5. The Liberals have traditionally done very well with female voters; they lost that edge last election to the Conservatives and it was a big factor in the poor results. We look to be getting women back, and that’s a very positive sign. But we need to continue to build our support there with targeted policies and messaging to be competitive for government in the next election.

This is borne out by the Ontario numbers. Here, they show the seven point Liberal lead in Ontario is largely thanks to female voters, who preferred the Liberals 41.1 to 27.9 for the Conservatives. The Liberal lead with men in Ontario is much tighter, 39.8 to 37.6.

Nationally, the older you are the more likely you are to vote Conservative. The Liberals hold the advantage up to age 44, then the Conservatives the rest of the way. Interestingly, while the Conservatives still lead, as people leave middle-age for their golden years, there’s an uptick in Liberal support, which indicates targeting seniors would be advisable.

On the education front, don’t think I’m making any judgement here but the more education you have, according to Ekos you’re more likely to vote Liberal. Those with university degrees are LPC 38.9 to CPC 30.2, but those with high school or college favour the CPC by five to six points.

Beyond the surface

Some of the additional questions that Angus Reid asked help to illustrate a point I like to often make, and that’s that numbers, on the surface, can be deceiving.

For example, Angus Reid reports that 41% oppose toppling the government and 16% moderately oppose it, with just 14% strongly supporting it and 18% moderately supporting it. Regionally, opposition is strongest in Manitoba and Saskatchewan at 61% strongly opposed, and support strongest in Atlantic Canada at 25% strongly support.

So, we can take from those numbers that an election is a bad idea and the perceived culprit will be smacked for it, right?

Well, maybe not.

When asked the change question (it’s time for a new party in government, or it’s not change the CPC should stay), 42% said it was time for change while 34% wanted the CPC to stay. Of course, those 42% will disagree on what the change should be, naturally.

Still, the contradiction between the opposition to election and desire for change is there. What does it mean? I’d argue it means that, while Canadians aren’t keen on the idea of election, that’s not surprising because they never are. But they’ll still go and vote, they’re looking for change, and there is unlikely to be any kind of election backlash, no matter how hard the spinmiesters try.

Anyway, while interesting when a new dynamic unfolding now these polls mean nothing. They’re merely the starting-point, not the destination.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A poll for every season

If you're a Conservative, you'll highlight this poll, out today, to the exclusion of all others:

The Conservatives now command 39% in support among decided voters, compared with 28% for the Liberals, according to the survey, conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National by Ipsos Reid. Since the last Ipsos poll two months ago, the Tories have climbed five percentage points, while the Liberals have slumped seven points.

If you're a Liberal, you'll highlight this poll, also out today, and note how it is in line with every other poll from every other pollster, with the exception of that other one today from Ipsos:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey put the parties in a statistical tie, with 32 per cent support for the Liberals and 31 per cent for the Tories.

The NDP were at 16 per cent, the Greens at 11, and the Bloc Quebecois at nine.

The numbers have barely budged throughout the summer, a period in which voters are typically disengaged.

That same Liberal might also mention that Decima polled 2,000 people from Aug. 13-23 and is considered accurate to within 2.2 percentage points 19 times in 20, while Ipsos polled 1,001 people from Aug. 18-20 and is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

However, if you're smart you'll ignore the constant barrage of media polls as simple white noise and focus instead on what's important: building your organization, electing candidates, fundraising, and ensuring that you're ready to fight the next election, whenever that may be.

Because polls, as they say, are for dancing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative support in Quebec at its lowest since 2005: Leger

A new Quebec-only poll released today by Leger for Le Devoir shows the Conservatives trailing the NDP in Quebec, polling at their lowest levels in the province since 2005. The Liberals are down slightly (within the margin) and are now tied with the BQ in the province.

The numbers:

Liberals: 35%
BQ: 35%
NDP: 15%
Con: 11%

The translated analysis from Leger:

The slide began in an election campaign last fall to increase this spring, says the analyst Christian Bourque, Léger Marketing. "Two factors have contributed to the fall of the Conservatives in Quebec," notes M. Bourque. The first is an image problem, fueled by several events during the election campaign, including planned cuts in the culture. The second factor is the economic crisis.

"Harper repeated throughout the campaign that everything was fine and that Canada was immune to the crisis.That plays against him now."

And more from Steve, naturelment.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ekos: Lib35, Con30, NDP 15, Grn10, BQ9

It seems like almost ever day lately has brought a new poll. This morning its Ekos reporting continued incremental Liberal gains, and the first hints of how the Lisa Raitt saga could impact voting intentions.

First, the numbers:


On Raitt:

As EKOS was conducting the current poll, the company noticed a rise in Liberal support in the last three days of polling, with the Liberals taking an eight-point advantage. The timing coincides with the release of audiotapes on which Natural Resource Minister Lisa Raitt is overheard calling the isotope crisis "sexy."

While those polled might have been swayed by the Conservative scandal, Graves said the issue likely won't stick by the time voters go to the polls. It has given the Liberals a short-term boost, but that might not translate into long-term gains.

"It probably won't be a lasting ballot-booth issue," he said.

I agree in part, at least outside of Halton where I'm pretty sure it will be an issue. But the entire Raitt affair, from the binder and the tape to the much delayed apology to the wider and more important handing of the isotope file and the Chalk River situation, does speak to the wider incompetence of this Conservative government, and THAT will be a ballot-box issue. It's a stark example, just one of many, of how the Harper Reformatories just don't get it.

Moving on, here's some regionals:

Much of the Liberals' support has come from Ontario and Quebec. In Ontario, which accounts for 106 of 308 federal seats, the Liberals have taken a nearly 11-point lead, gathering 42.6 per cent of support compared to 31.8 per cent for the Conservatives.

In Quebec, Liberals are 20 points ahead, snagging 33.6 per cent of support, compared to the Conservatives, with 13.2 per cent. The Bloc leads the province, with 36.5 per cent.

Hopefully we'll see numbers for the rest of the country soon, but the numbers in Ontario bode well for the Liberals and make it challenging for the Conservatives to maintain government. There simply aren't enough seats for them to make up in the rest of the country they don't already hold. These Ekos numbers by and large confirm the trends that most other polls have been showing in these provinces, and nationally.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals dominant in the 905, 416

More regionals from the Decima poll released earlier today that give credence to the earlier comments of strong Liberal numbers on Ontario:

On a national basis, voter intentions give the Liberals 35 per cent, the Conservatives 31, the NDP 15, the Bloc nine and the Greens eight.

Across Ontario the Liberals lead the Conservatives 42-31. The NDP has 14 per cent and the Greens have 11 per cent. There is a 3.8 per cent margin of error in the provincial numbers.

In Toronto itself and around the curve of eastern curve of Lake Ontario, the Liberal lead is even more pronounced.

In the 416 area code in Toronto itself, the Liberals have the support of 52 per cent of respondents, while the Conservatives and NDP are tied at 19 per cent. The margin of error for this sample is eight per cent.

In the 905 region, the Liberal lead is 50-27, with the NDP at 11 per cent. The margin of error in this data is 7.8 per cent. Before the last election, the Tories led 44-32 here.

That 905 number is massive. It's a substantial reverse of Conservative fortunes, and is a sign a lot of Conservative incumbents should start polishing their resumes. The 905 was Mike Harris country. It's an area filled with the key demographics the Conservatives have been scientifically targeting for years, and making steady progress with. That 905 # is as stunning a rejection of the Harper Conservatives as is the Quebec polling we've seen, and it's as damaging to their re-election chances.

This was also interesting:

Walker said the data from the 416 area code suggests the NDP is tied with the Tories in support.

"With those splits it means the NDP has very little chance of winning more than one or two ridings in 416," he said. "The NDP has absolutely no incentive to go to an election right now."

That would be shocking as well. Would Jack be left standing alone in Danforth? Interesting times ahead, mes amis.

But back to the 905, with these numbers I'm reminded of the provincial results and this demographic data. These sorts of demographic shifts around urbanization and its impact on voting patters merit watching over time. Another area to watch is Kaploops and Kelowna in BC, and how urbanization impacts their voting patterns.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Nanos: attack ads not hurting Liberals

I'm out the door to catch the train for a brief trip to Ottawa, but before I go here's some recently released polling from Nanos that polled specifically on the effectiveness of the Conservative attack ads, and indicates they haven't been particularly effective:

Properly crafted and validated by the political target, negative ads can be a powerful political tool.

Research by Nanos on the impact of the recent Conservative ads attacking Michael Ignatieff indicates that in the short term they have not had a significant impact. A majority of Canadians consider the ads ineffective and believe that they reflect poorly on the Conservatives.

Of note, the ads have had a marginally negative impact on the impression of Michael Ignatieff primarily among committed Conservative and NDP voters. However, the attack ads have had less of an impact in Atlantic Canada and in battleground Quebec.

Factoring the latest ballot numbers and the last six waves of Nanos tracking since the last election, the Conservative attack ads have not arrested the incremental trend which currently favours the Liberals. The conclusion is that the ads have had no discernable short term impact in favour of the Conservatives. The long term negative impact on Ignatieff remains uncertain and merits further tracking over time. This may well be the first salvo in a narrative the Conservatives are hoping to explore.

Yet more validation that these Conservative ads have been a misfire. I do agree that the impact bears watching in the long-term.


That doesn't mean, however, that the LPC doesn't need to respond more forcefully. I do think a limited ad buy, focusing on our issues (such as the economy) is necessary. We need to look at the long-game. I also note the regionals show these ads were most effective in Ontario. This province has been volatile, and we need a strong lead here to be competitive in the next election.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Describe Stephen Harper? Secretive, arrogant, out of touch

A few polls out today that others will I'm sure offer plenty of analysis of, one from Ekos and one from Angus Reid. Both show tight races, but solid Liberal prospects.

The Angus Reid folks have posted a PDF breakdown with lots of interesting stuff, and I wanted to share a few thoughts on.

First, they offer some interesting insight on the impact of the Conservative ads:

After disclosing their voting intention, respondents to this survey were divided into three groups. The first group observed one of the television ads that the Conservative Party has launched targeting Ignatieff, the second group was shown the same ad and the response that Ignatieff posted on YouTube, and the third group was not exposed to any ads or videos.

The momentum score for Harper among respondents who saw the ad is -40 (10% improved, 50% worsened), and the prime minister posts similar numbers among those who saw the ad and the video (9% improved, 52% worsened) and those who were not exposed directly to either the ad or the video (7% improved, 49% worsened).

The momentum score for Ignatieff among respondents who saw the ad is -18 (24% improved, 42% worsened). However, the opposition leader bridges the gap with those who also saw his YouTube video (29% improved, 31% worsened) and is even among those who did not see the ad or the video (28% improved, 28% worsened).

As I've said before, I'm not ready to pass judgment on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the Conservative ads yet. But there is one message I take from these results: The Liberal Party needs to get its response in front of more people than those who watch YouTube.



On another note, I found this amusing:

Respondents were also asked to select up to six words (out of a list of 17 traits and characteristics) that may be used to describe Canada's federal political leaders.

The words that were associated with Harper the most are secretive (54%), arrogant (53%), out of touch (38%), uncaring (37%), intelligent (35%), boring (34%) and dishonest (also 34%).

Ignatieff comes across as intelligent (53%), arrogant (42%) and strong (31%), and a quarter of respondents also see him as open, secretive end efficient.

And who says pollsters don't have a sense of humour?

Remarkably, the five federal party leaders post exceptionally low marks on being exciting (from 3% for Harper to 13% for Layton), and at least one-in-five Canadians regard them all as boring (from 21% for Ignatieff to 34% for Harper).

Remarkably? Surely that's sarcasm, Angus...

Finally, interesting regionals. I like those Quebec numbers (ouch, Cons) but those Atlantic numbers aren't pleasing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper is as popular in Quebec as Stephane Dion was...

... and Harper is trending downward from Dion's basement popularity number. That's my take-away from today's CROP poll for Quebec.

The horserace numbers show the BQ having regained first place from the Liberals, while the NDP and Conservatives remained largely unchanged. Here's the numbers, with the % change from CROP's poll last month in brackets:

BQ: 36 (+5)
Liberal: 32 (-5)
Conservative: 15 (-)
NDP: 12 (-)

Why the flip in BQ and Liberal #s? Here's the translated CROP analysis:

But Wilkins says this fall by 5 points in one month is not necessarily disastrous for the troops of Michael Ignatieff.

"When our survey was made in April, it was a special time," says the analyst. It was really when Mr. Ignatieff was very, very present in Quebec. There was a strong media presence, he was at Everybody's talking about, there was the launch of his book, his speech in Laval was fairly recent. The charm of Ignatieff operation was underway."

"This month, it's as if things had stabilized," she notes. "There is a rise in the PLC since January and the party has become the alternative to the Bloc in Quebec, as far as the federalist option."

Seems reasonable. The poll also notes the Conservatives have slipped to third in their Quebec City stronghold, where interestingly the Liberals lead at 33%. Hmm.

But here's what really caught my eye in this poll:

Finally, Mr. Harper received his worst score at the question of who would make the best Prime Minister of Canada. He garnered 15% of the vote, against 39% for Michael Ignatieff and 21% for Jack Layton. The last federal leader to obtain 15% was Stéphane Dion, a few days before the Conservatives do not trigger the last election.

Ouch. And Harper still has room to fall.
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?"

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Decima: Attack ads hurt Harper more than Ignatieff

Submitted for your consideration, CP coverage of a recent Decima poll:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll found that about half the respondents said the ads had no impact on their impression of the Liberal leader, with 30 per cent reporting a negative effect on their attitude toward him.

However, just over half of the respondents said the ads have a negative effect on their feelings about Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Tories.

``The effect seems to cut both ways,'' said Jeff Walker, senior vice-president of Harris-Decima. ``There is evidence that these ads are having a negative effect on Mr. Ignatieff, but an even greater negative effect on Prime Minister Harper.''

Interesting, as they say.

I'd add three things:

1/ It's too early to gauge the real impact, if any, of these ads. These things can take awhile to sink in. As long a Ignatieff doesn't play into the narrative however (and, indeed, perhaps turns it against them) then these numbers could well hold up.

2/ I don't buy theories about backlashes for negative ads. I think the backlash figure could be inflated just because people like to say they don't like negative ads. So they may well tell the pollster that to feel superior. They also tell pollsters they lots of vegetables. But they still eat more cheeseburgers than they do carrots.

3/ For any of these numbers to offer any insight the pollster would need to tie then to voting intention So your impression of Ignatieff or Harper is more negative. So what? The question to ask is, will this cause you to change your vote? That would be a more interesting question.

So, my evaluation would be the jury is still out, but the campaign isn't looking like a great success so far. Certainly not of "not a leader" levels at least. But time will tell.

Any-ho, Steve has more on a similar Quebec-only poll. And on this one.
____
PS. Check-out my entry for the YLC's positive politics ad challenge, "Is this your Canada?"

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers