Global News – Decision 2008 – News

Summing Up The Latest Polls

Darrell Bricker — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:25:00 GMT

Mostly consensus on the final polls - the Tories ranging between 33 and 35, the Grits 25-29, the NDP 18-22. No matter how you add it up, it doesn't look like a Tory majority. It will all come down to how the votes split in Ontario. The "ballot box bonus" the Grits picked up in the last two elections, mainly in the 905, will be the biggest wildcard. It gave Martin a win in '04, and shrunk Harper's majority in '06.

Assuming that you're interested in politics (I assume you are, or why else would you be reading this), I'll be on Global National's election coverage on Tuesday night. I'll be reviewing the results of our exit poll with Eric Sorenson, but also will be live blogging on Global National's website. Please join me if you can.

More on the Economy...

Darrell Bricker — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:18:00 GMT

Lots of action on the blog regarding the economy. Hope this helps:

1. Harper and the Tories get the best performance scores on every economic performance question we ask;

2. Canadians don't feel the economy is doing badly at the moment. All of their concerns are about the future. We're now getting among the worst scores we've ever had on "economy will worsen over the next year";

3. The majority of Canadians think the US financial crisis will hit Canada hard, and that our financial insititutions are at risk.

Bottom line, these are scary, scary times. Harper needs to walk a fine line between scaring Canadians, and reassuring them. So far, he hasn't been able to find the necessary middle ground. And, Canadians don't trust him enough to just take his word for it.

Here's Where It's Going Wrong for Harper on the Economy

Darrell Bricker — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:49:00 GMT

It looks like Harper is slipping in the tracking polls. While there's some confusion as to what's happening to the other parties, there's no denying that the Tory vote is under pressure. What's going on? After all, Harper and the Tories are way ahead on "best able to manage in an economic crisis". The logical conclusion is that the Tories should be rising, not falling.

Here's the problem. In the midst of relentless news to the contrary, Harper appears to be whistling past the graveyard. Granted, he doesn't want the public to panic, but he needed to at least admit much sooner that there's a serious problem. Otherwise the person who is supposed to be the best manager looks to be the least prepared. Again, it's about comparing performance to expectations. That's where Harper is failing.

Slip Sliding Away...

Darrell Bricker — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:03:00 GMT

As I wrote in an earlier posting, the Tories biggest problem is that they don't have a second act. They decided to run on Harper's leadership (steady hand on the tiller in turbulant times), and it wasn't enough. I thought the US credit crisis might serve as the Tories second act, but even that hasn't helped them stop their now traditional end-of-campaign slide.

In 2006 the Tories decided to drop their policy book at the start of the campaign. Brilliant idea. It gave them something to point to anytime a critic said they had a hidden agenda. "No we don't, it's all right here."

This time, they've held their policy book until the end. As a result, it's all Harper all the time. Let's face it, he's not popular enough to sustain this level of attention for an entire campaign. Granted, voters like him better than Dion, but they still don't like him. Sure, they respect him. But, that's not the same as liking him. There's no Harper-mania.

So, will the Tory policy book contain enough to stop the slide? The Conservatives sure hope so.

The Day After...

Darrell Bricker — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:36:00 GMT

There's a week to go, and it's looking less likely every day that Stephen Harper and the Tories will form a majority. This means the day after the election could be way more interesting than the election itself.

Why? Because all sorts of coalition governments become possible. Consider this scenario. Harper and the Tories win a pluarlity of the seats, but not as many seats as the NDP and Grits combined. The possibility of a Lib/NDP government becomes very, very real. After all, Ontario was governed by a Lib/NDP coalition in the mid-80s under a similar set of circumstances. And, who was one of the leaders that made the Ontario coalition possible? None other than former Ontario NDP Premier, and current federal Liberal star, Bob Rae.

There's three ways that Harper could prevent a Lib/NDP coalition. The first would be getting defeated on a new Speech from the Throne and forcing another election. That, however, may not work given that the GG could ask an opposition leader to try and form a government. Harper's second option would be to form his own coaltion. His only likely partner would be Gilles Duceppe and the BQ. While this might look like political suicide in the short term, desperate times call for desperate measures. Harper's final option would be to induce a number of opposition members to cross the floor (a la David Emerson) to give him a larger number of seats than the Libs and NDP combined.

What worries me is that this political fandango will be taking place during one of the worst economic crises since the end of the second world war. Yikes!

Harper Best In English Debate, But Layton the Real Winner...

Darrell Bricker — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:29:00 GMT

Here's how 2,512 Canadians who viewed the English language debate scored it. The first number is what they thought after the debate, the second number is what they expected before the debate:

Who won:

- Harper 31% (40% pre)

- Layton 25% (20% pre)

- May 17% (4% pre)

- Dion 15% (4% pre)

And, here's their net impression scores (subtracting impressions worsened from impressions improved):

- Harper -10

- Dion +11

- Layton +28

- May +49

How does this add up? First, Dion did not keep the momentum going from the French language debate. He needed a big win and didn't get it. Second, Harper needed a win, got it, but did not perform to the level that people expected. But, Harper's campaign is now back on track in English Canada. From a political perspective, even though he didn't win the debate, Jack Layton may be the biggest winner in terms of votes. Finally, Elizabeth May became a political star last night. However, apart from consolidating some of the "none of the aboves", she probably hasn't moved enough votes in specific places to win seats.

Overall, the last week is shaping up like this:

- The Tories will almost certainly win. But, will it be a minority or majority?

- Harper's big breakthrough in Quebec has stalled.

- The most interesting dynamic is the NDP vs the Grits in urban Canada. Will those soft NDP voters who moved to the Grits to stop Harper in '04 and '06 stick with the NDP this time? If they do, the Grits will drop a bunch of seats, not just to the NDP, but also to the Tories who can come up the middle depending on the splits.

- Will Elizabeth May and the Greens break through and win a seat?

Stay tuned. It's shaping up to be a very interesting week.

Dion Wins!

Darrell Bricker — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:04:00 GMT

Stephane Dion won the French debate. Why? Because he out-performed the incredibly low expectations people had for him. And, that's what this game is about - how do you perform against what is expected of you.

Will he be able to do the same in the English debate? It remains to be seen. He starts again with incredibly low expectations, but he is really hampered by his difficulty with the English language. Add in the fact that almost a third of the viewers will be surfing over to the Pallin-Biden debate, and it will be tough to get noticed.

But, regardless of what happens in the Engish debate, yesterday was the only really good day Dion has had so far in this campaign.

Does Plagarism Matter?

Darrell Bricker — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:39:00 GMT

Not usually. Though many a politician has been embarrassed by getting caught ripping off a speech, it typically is somebody running for the leadership of something (like Joe Biden). It's not sitting PMs. Frankly, most of the words that they and their Ministers spout are written by others. As are the words of their major opponents.

Yesterday I saw an interview with Bob Rae in which he claimed that he wrote every word that he ever spoke in office. Really? Better hope that nobody checks that "greeting to the Rotarians of Cambridge, Ont", or the many other routine speaking events he had as Ontario's Premier. Of course he used speech writers. No one expects that he wouldn't. And, he'd better hope that none of his speechwriters ever cribbed from another politician. The line about living in glass houses and casting stones comes to mind.

Leaving aside the plagarism charge (which, in itself, is trivial). The subject matter and circumstances of this speech are especially damaging. I definitely agree with Mr. Rae on this point. If it was about anything other than Harper's SUPPORT for the war in Iraq, nobody would care. But, since this is a glaring reminder that Harper was on the wrong side of history, it challenges his very carefully nurtured image as a surefooted and measured (as opposed to risky) steward of the nation. So, how does this make you feel about a Harper majority?

We will see where this one goes. You know Harper will be vigorously challenged about this issue in both the French and English debates. If he doesn't have a great answer to allow the election narrative to move on, he could be in some trouble. Enough trouble to lose? Definitely not. Enough trouble to keep him from a majority? Very possible.

Final point, I know Owen Lippert, the Tory sppechwriter who resigned. He's a fine scholar and a talented writer. It's a shame to see him dragged through the mud like this. Owen - chin up. This too will pass.

Who Will Win the Debate?

Darrell Bricker — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:51:00 GMT

Conventional wisdom says that you evaluate debate performance by first looking at expectations. A candidate who comes into a debate with low expectations, and then scores reasonably well, will impress voters more than a candidate who comes in with high expectations and performs well.

On this basis, Stephane Dion should come out of this debate the winner. Expectations for his performance couldn't be much lower than they are. However, he's got so many factors playing against him that it's hard to see how this happens. Here's what's working against him:

- In the French language debate, where Dion should have a natural advantage, he's the third man in a two-way fight between Harper and Duceppe. It will be tough for the Liberal leader to be relevant in this context.

- In the English language debate Mr. Dion's task will be even harder. Leaving aside his issues with English, Mr. Dion has to be heard over three other hyper-active leaders who are all looking to take a piece out of Mr. Harper. Add in that many viewers of the English language debate will also be flipping back and forth with the US VP's debate, and Mr. Dion's window for a game-changing performance is very, very narrow.

While one can never say never, the fat lady looks to be clearing her throat in the wings.

Ready for the Second Act...

Darrell Bricker — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:03:00 GMT

The economic situation in the US got a whole lot worse today. While Stephane Dion argues that Tory times are tough times, the Tories currently own economic management as a political issue, not the Liberals. For some time I've been arguing that the Tories need a second act if they want to win a majority. That's because Harper's leadership only gets them to the high 30s. For a comfortable majority, they have to get about 42.

The Tory's second act appears to have come in the form of the US credit meltdown. The public is now focussed squarely on a risky economy - the perfect ballot question for the Tories.

Meet Stephane Dion's New Buddy....... Gilles Duceppe!

Darrell Bricker — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:58:00 GMT

It looks like Tory support has started to stall in Quebec, and the Bloc has come back a bit over the last week. This is a big problem for Harper and the Conservatives. They need about 25 seats in Quebec to have a chance of forming a majority.

Why has Harper slipped back? Well, maybe Duceppe's message of stopping a Harper majority is starting to sink in. Remember, this is how Duceppe started the campaign - "vote for the Bloc, we have the best chance of stopping Harper."

The best chance that Stephane Dion has of holding on to his job is if the Tories are kept to a minority. The Liberals are so weak right now (losing votes to both the left and right) that they can't stop the Tories by themselves. That means that, irony of ironies given Dion's history as a separatist fighter, that voting for the Bloc IS likely the best way to stop a Tory majority.

Where to From Here?

Darrell Bricker — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:32:00 GMT

I was struck today by how much the election of '08 is starting to look like the election of '93. It's not that I expect the Grits to be reduced to 2 seats like the Tories were. Rather, it's the dynamic that seems to be the same. Back in '93, Kim Campbell and the old PCs lost, not so much because of the Grit campaign, but because the shotgun marriage between Quebec nationalists and western conservatives that Brian Mulroney had pulled together, flew apart. At the start of the campaign the Tories and Grits were tied. After the first few days Tory support started to leak to the BQ and Reform, but Grit support stayed the same. Then, after the Chretien face ad, what was left for the Tories started to move to the Liberals.

This time around, instead of the Tory coalition flying apart, it's the Grit coalition that's fracturing. It's not that Tory support has increased by a huge amount - they're only up to 39%. It's that Grit support has collapsed - they've dropped from the low 30s to the low 20s. Who is leaving? It's NDP-Liberal switchers in Ontario and BC, and Paul Martin (centre-right) Liberals who are concerned about the economy and don't trust Stephane Dion to do the job.

Can the Grits recover? I doubt it. Sure, we'll all cover our bets by saying a week is a lifetime in politics (and there's over two weeks left), and the debates are still to come. And, heaven knows, Harper and the Tories blew potential majorities in '04 and '06. But, this time seems to be different, Here's a few reasons why:

- Both previous elections were driven entirely by issues that didn't really touch Canadians personally. Those issues were Liberal corruption, and the possibility that Harper was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Sure, pundits and activists could get frothing mad about neo-con extremism, or the latest revelations from the Gomery Inquiry, but average citizens really couldn't get that worked up about it. In this election Canadians are increasingly focussed on the economic calamity in the US, and what it might mean for their savings, homes, and jobs. This time it's personal, and Canadians will be thinking mostly about the economy when they mark their ballots. And, if they are, this is a huge advantage for the Tories.

- Dion decided to stubbornly campaign on a platform (the Green Shift) that's about two years too late. It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The battleground of ideas has now changed, and Stephane Dion is fighting for something that was au courrant when Al Gore was winning an Academy Award. Times have changed, and the Grits didn't get the memo. The Tories are way ahead on "who would be best in an economic crisis," and even boasts about Liberal economic management under Paul Martin seem quaintly nostalgic in the current environment.

- Convincing Canadians that electing Stephan Harper to a majority would be like giving George W Bush the keys to 24 Sussex worked spledidly in '04 and '06. This time, however, people's desire for a steady hand at the economic tiller may mitigate their fears about what Stephen Harper might do on social policy, etc. Given the current economic climate, even the most ugly negative campaigning may have little impact on the Tory lead.

So, while we can't say for certain where we're headed in this campaign. It looks like there's now only two serious possibilities - a stronger Tory minority, or a Tory majority.

Sorry Artists, They're Just Not That In To You...

Darrell Bricker — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:01:00 GMT

The surge of anti-Harper outrage from Canada's artistic community is amusing to watch. For some of these folks, this is the biggest audience they'll ever have. I could go on and on about this. But, it's a meaningless debate. The artists make the point that you judge the quaility of a society by how it nurtures uncomfortable and marginal creativity. Their critics respond that if you want to make a living as an artist, you should earn your way via commercial success instead of asking for handouts from the poor taxpayer. I don't know which side is right, but I do know it is a dialogue of the deaf. And, one of the truly stone deaf is Margaret Atwood. Her very strange op ed article in today's Globe actually makes a better case for the other side than for her own cause. Anyway, I could go on and on. But, this is a dew-loop to nowhere. I wish both sides well with their mutual outrage. What I'd really like to blog about is what all of this means in political terms. For the Tories, this one is simple. Kicking the arts community until they scream is great politics. This is just like the good, old free trade debate. The more Bob White and Maude Barlow howled, the better it was for the Tories. That's because the core conservative voter needs the occassional symbolic gesture that proves the Conservatives haven't gone native in Ottawa. If there's enough red meat on the table, it makes it easier for the core to accept policies like the apology to natives, or recognizing Quebec as a nation. Harper gets this point exactly, and is managing it brilliantly. As for the arts community, they are preaching to the choir. Their outrage only energizes core Dippers and Grits. And, they were never going to vote Tory anyway. In a tighter election it might make a difference, but not this time.

Sleepless in Seattle

Darrell Bricker — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:06:00 GMT

I'm in Seattle today on business. What's most interesting to me is talking to my American-based colleagues about their own election. They are energized by the choice they will make in November. The opinions they express about McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden have as much to do with their own personal world view is they do about the dynamics of the election race itself. Interestingly, there's been very little talk about which campaign has run better ads, which pollster has the "secret sauce" for predicting outcomes, and which campaign has fallen victim to the "gaffe-of-the-day" patrol.

What a contrast to Canada. Our campaign, no less important in terms of our future destiny, has spawned uninspring political choices, a general lack of interest, an obsession with campaign strategy and tactics, and some of the silliest media coverage I've ever had to stomach. Sure, some of this is because we may be "electioned-out" - 3 campaigns in 4 years is a lot to deal with. But, given the marathon that this US presidential election has been, campaign fatigue doesn't explain the difference.

So, why the difference? Thoughts please...

A Majority? Really, a Majority...

Darrell Bricker — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:23:00 GMT

In spite of the Prime Minister's protestations, the latest polling suggests that the Tories are now moving into majority territory. Why? It's simple. They lead in Ontario by 9pts, and are tied with the BQ in Quebec. Two more points (they're now at 40%), will make a Conservative majority a sure bet.

What's changed? It's not the array of campaign gaffes we've seen over the last couple of weeks. Ritz, planes, blogs, resigning canadidates, etc are fun for the journalists on the planes, but have little to do with the current campaign dynamic. What's starting to cut is the public's concern about the economy, which has now moved well ahead of the environment and healthcare as the most important issue according to voters. And, as we know from the polling, Harper and the Conservatives are well ahead on economic management.

So, what does this mean? In the near future the Grits will move off the pretence that they have a chance of winning the election, and will turn their attention to scaring NDP voters into voting for the Liberals to "stop Harper". Duceppe is already doing this in Quebec. If the numbers continue in the current direction, Dion will move to the "stop Harper" message just after the debates. So, good-bye Green Shift, hello to Martin's negative campaigns of '04 and '06. It's in the mail.

A Shifty Green Shift...

Darrell Bricker — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:47:00 GMT

If it's true, and Stephane Dion really did say today that the Green Shift is not a central part of his campaign, he's in worse trouble than the polls are showing. Even if the Green Shift isn't being well received by the public, to walk away now makes Dion look even weaker than his abstentions in the House of Commons.

Is the Economy Starting to Matter?

Darrell Bricker — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:31:00 GMT

While I agree with most of what John's said about Canadians and the economy, I'm wondering if this issue is starting to change. And, it's not because of the credit crisis. For most people the stock market is a casino. Very few of us know anybody who got rich or poor because of where the TSE closed on a specific day, or even a specific quarter. What we think is that there a few people who are winning in the market by gaming the house (insider trading, etc), and a few people who lose, get caught or get lucky. But, it's not something that impacts everyday Canadians.

Over the last couple of weeks that may have started to change. But, it's not really because of the market, it's because of the recent news about housing prices. That's because while we may not play in the stock market, most middle class Canadians view their principle residence as their biggest source of wealth. So, if the credit crisis starts to impact Canadian real estate prices, watch out. That is too close to home (pardon the bad pun).

A Bridge Too Far?

Darrell Bricker — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:26:00 GMT

Thirty-eight percent. That's what running a campaign based on leadership has netted the Conservatives. They're still 5% shy of what they need to form a comfortable majority. And, at the moment, this last 5% is the Conservative's Arnhem - A Bridge Too Far.

Here's the problem. In spite of the last two years of governing, the Tories haven't been able to shake off the view that they have a hidden agenda that will be unleashed on Canadians if they win a majority. They very effectively dealt with this problem in 2006 (after having learned their lesson in 2004), when they dropped a major policy brick on voters at the start of the campaign. ("What hidden agenda? It's all here in black and white").

This time they didn't bother with a major policy document. Why bother, they had a huge lead on leadership that they could campaign effectively with. After all, a single message campaign is easier to run and always more disciplined (look at Obama's message of change).

So far the Tories have run an absoluteluy flawless campaign based on their campaign message - you want Harper and the Tories in office during tough times. Dion and the Grits are too big a risk. Problem is that this message isn't compelling for Canadians. This doesn't mean that it won't become compelling, but it hasn't so far.

What I'm waiting for now is the Tory's second act. They ran hard out of the blocks, picked up and early 5%, and have now stalled. Do they have anything other than what we've already seen to get them past 40%? Because it looks like they'll need it.

"Uncertain Economic Times" Question...

John Wright — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:40:00 GMT

So a friend says to me tonight...

"Man, it all makes sense now..."

"What does?" I ask...

"This uncertain economic times slogan thing and the election call..."

"Yes" I say..."Quite something this institutional meltdown happening...it's almost as if the event's had been scripted to the campaign..."

"Actually" says he, "when you're Finance Minister and travelling around the world, you hear things...and maybe, just maybe, they knew this stuff was in the works and it was all just a matter of when so that the campaign could be scripted to the events..."

"Absurd" says I.

"Just maybe" says he...

Is It Really All About The Economy, Stupid?

John Wright — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:17:00 GMT

Back in 1991, we created the Economic Confidence Monitor which started tracking how Canadians felt about the economy now and its outlook, the impact on their family, their job anxiety, spending intentions and a few other things. You only have to go back to 1993/94 to see the impact that the economy had on Canadians -- a little bit like hurricane IKE going through parts of the Deep South recently. We had 36% of Canadians believing that they could probably lose their jobs and the outlook for the economy was pretty bad.

Over the last number of years we've heard dire predictions about the state of the Canadian economy and the stock markets on both sides of the border have taken steep dives and then climb back up the mountain in a few days. We've also witnessed a housing meltdown South of the border and a credit crisis. Now we’re watching entire financial institutions slip into the abyss.

This brings me to the fact that we keep hearing about “uncertain economic times", and surely they are, but let's look at it another way: what happens if people think the economy and Canada is headed for rough times but despite this they don't think that they personally, or members of their family, are going to feel any negative consequences. In fact, what happens if they actually think that those "uncertain economic times" are really everybody else's problems and not their own?

I know you can probably say here that uncertain economic times are already here -- literally, you don't know what's going to happen next. But what happens if your experience during the last five years is to hear dire predictions about the stock market on a black this day or that day only to have it recover by the end of the week -- on a constant basis? What happens when month after month projections are that the economy is getting bad and we shouldn't expect job gains when a fact we get reports from economists and others who are "shocked" that an abundance of jobs have been created? What happens when people say that the credit market meltdown is going to have a serious impact on the Canadian economy and people can still get mortgages and buy homes pretty much like they used to?

Honestly, haven't we lived with uncertain economic times for the last four years for us to get used to the gloom and doom scenarios that never materialize?

Oh, and I suppose you're going to tell me that the financial meltdown this week is the thing that was just around the corner and will finally tip us over, right?

So here's our latest economic confidence numbers:

74% of Canadians describe the economy as "good" right now
But 41% think the economy is going to get worse, 18% said it will get better, at 41% said it will stay the same
But then again, 28% say that their own family economic situation says it will improve over the next year compared with only 19% who say it's going to get worse and 53% who don't foresee any change
And on top of that, only 18% of Canadians have any anxiety about losing their job -- which takes us back to the same feelings that they had in 2004, and that when put in contrast with 1993 when 36% thought they might lose their job, people really aren’t worried

So as a vote motivator, what happens if they acknowledge that Canada may be headed for uncertain economic times but it's not going to have a big impact on them? And what if they've experienced uncertain economic times for the last few years, including meltdowns next door, and three quarters them still think that the economy is doing very well thank you very much?

So here's the question for all of you:

If only 19% of the people in this country think it their personal economic fortunes over the next year are threatened and likely to be worse, why do most Canadians need somebody to come in with leadership to save them from something they don't believe is going to affect them in an economy that, to their estimation, is doing really well?

Is Voting for Harper Like Voting for Bush?

Darrell Bricker — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:32:00 GMT

Half of us think this is the case. Especially NDP (78%) and Grit (74%) voters. Heck, even 9% of Tory voters agree with this statement. This underscores the difficulty of Harper winning a majority. Those currently voting for other parties are doing so because they reject an unfettered Harper government. It's tough to move to the Tories if you're feeling this way, and it's almost impossible for the Tories to form a majority if they don't pick up some loose fish from the other parties.

Why Harper Won't Talk About A Majority

Darrell Bricker — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:26:00 GMT

Why won't Harper talk about the possibility of the Conservatives winning a majority? Because only 35% of Canadians would be satisfied with this outcome. That's less than the 38% who plant to vote Tory on Oct 14th. In fact, 38% of Canadians would specifically vote for another party JUST to stop a Conservative majority. Who benefits the most from anti-conservative strategic voting? It's the Grits. Nearly half of the strategic voters would vote Grit just to stop a Tory majority. And, most of these are NDP voters (same as 2004 and 2006) who would hold their noses and vote Liberal just to stop Harper.

Harper isn't taking about a majority because he doesn't want to "jinx" it. He isn't talking about a majority because it's the single best way to make sure that it doesn't happen.

Not About Leadership

Darrell Bricker — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:27:00 GMT

Thanks to all of those who have taken the time to write John and I with comments. Your input is greatly appreciated. Keep it coming!

Let's get something straight. This campaign is NOT about leadership. At least as Mr. Harper has defined it. If it was, the incumbent would wake up on Oct 14th with a very comfortable majority. While that still may happen, it hasn't happened yet.

Instead, this campaign appears to be turning into a referendum on the possibility of a Harper majority. If you're for it, you are thrilled to be voting Tory. If you're not, your casting around for the best option to stop it from happening. That's why the interplay between NDP and Liberal voters is the most interesting in the campaign. As I've said before, the numbers for both parties are jumping around. And, more in-depth analysis shows that each party's voters are the others preferred second choice. This applies in all but Quebec where the BQ is the most likely spoiler. So, keep an eye on the Grits and the NDP, if the possibility of a Harper majority continues to dominate the news, swing-left voters will move behind one of them.

The Carbon Tax Will Be a Tax on Everything to Pay for Everything

John Wright — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:33:00 GMT

At least that's what I heard the Prime Minister say today in Québec. Okay, so I'm paraphrasing. But the point is that a couple of days ago the message was "the carbon tax will hurt the economy". Now it's carbon tax is not really for the environment but rather some big tax grab that will take the revenue and spend it on other government programs.

So, either this is:

a) a message just for Québec [I guess we'll see in the days ahead]

b) a new message because the old one has hit a ceiling and is not moving people any more

c) a broader theme that is starting to emerge that suggests that the Liberals can't be trusted because they will take your tax money intended for one thing and then rip you off whereas the Conservatives keep their promises

Let's watch over the next few days and see if there's something new that is starting to emerge...

The Tories Are Stuck in Cement

Darrell Bricker — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:59:00 GMT

Given the business I'm in, I'm an avid reader of all the polls. Most of Canada's credible pollsters, the ones that don't just pop up at election time, have a pretty good record of getting it right. And, as the website www.realclearpolitics.com shows for the US Presidential election, an averaging of all of the polls gives you a pretty good sense of where things are.

The other reason for averaging the polls is a phenomenon in statistics called "regression to the mean". Put another way, extremes tend to average out over time. The more polls you include in your calculations, the more the extremes get watered down.

So, following this logic, it seems that the Tories are stuck in cement. Of the six reputable polls that I've seen over the last few days, none has them higher than 38, and none has them lower than 36. Regardless of what's happening in the campaign, the Tory's numbers are not moving, and haven't moved appreciably since last Sunday when the writ was dropped.

But, while the polls are consistent on popular support for the Tories, they are all over the map on support for the Grits. Again, of the six polls, the lowest number is 24, and the highest is 32 - an 8 point gap. Also, the numbers for the NDP vary wildly. The low poll has them at 13, the high poll has them at 21.

In the last two election campaigns most of the polls (including ours) over-estimated the final result for the NDP, and under-estimated the final result for the Grits. In 2004 this switched a Tory minority to a Grit minority, and in 2006 it shrunk the Tory minority to one far smaller than the one secured by Paul Martin. The reason for this "miss" was a last minute surge from the NDP to the Grits, primarily as an anti-Harper vote. So, I'm nervous about the results that I'm seeing here. Word to the wise - keep an eye on the NDP vote. If a Tory majority looks possible, look for these voters to hold their collective noses and move to the Grits, regardless of how Dion performs in the campaign.

Fruit and Puffins

Darrell Bricker — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:42:00 GMT

Folks, as I've said in previous posts, this all about Harper. Is he able to subdue the perceived mean streak and get sceptical voters to warm up to him. The puffin caper raises the blue meanie again. Although Harper's did a very good sidestep (he's much better at this than in the past), the campaign created an easy-to-remember image that won't go away. You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube once its out.

An old rule of politics is that you never get in the way of a falling man. The Tory campaign, in their childish glee, forgot this. Now, they just look cruel and immature. Going negative is like nitroglycerine. If you don't handle it just right, you can blow yourself up.

On the fruit comment, it's really clever. A weird, spontaneous comment with a twist of humour from a person who has the opposite profile with most Canadians. I like it because it is so unexpected. And, the PM is going to have to deliver the unexpected to voters to win the majority that still sits out of reach.

Why Aren't the Tories Way Ahead, And Why Aren't the Grits Way Behind

Darrell Bricker — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:46:00 GMT

This is the sixth national election campaign that I've been a pollster on. This is the strangest one I've seen so far. Why? Because the normal drivers of vote have not kicked in. Given where the Tories are in terms of leadership, country on the right track, and overall management suitability they should be miles ahead. They aren't. So, what normally makes you win is not helping them to win. And, for the Grits, who have dismal scores on just about everything (especially leadership), what normally makes you lose, isn't making them lose. Why is this? It's because the early going of this campaign is really a referendum on Harper and the Tories. The positions of the other parties and leaders aren't driving votes as much as reactions to the Tories. To me, this really shows how hard it's going to be for the Tories to win a majority. Especially if the anti-Tory vote consolidates behind a single Party. Maybe it will be regional (Grits in Ontario, Bloc in Quebec), but the result is the same. How much room do the Tories have to grow under this scenario?

Can Dion stop a Harper majority?

Darrell Bricker — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Here's the most interesting stat of seen in the campaign so far. Forty two percent say they're voting for the Grits primarily because the want to stop another party from being elected.

This helps to explain why Dion's bad leadership scores haven't hurt the Grits as much as they should have. Liberal voters aren't switching because they feel the Grits are the best option to stop Harper. They don't care about Dion or the Grit's policy program.

Negative voting among the other opposition parties is about a third or slightly more. So, they are buying more into their party's leader and platform more than Liberal Party voters are buying into what their choice is offering.

Here's the interesting question - can Dion position himself as the best option for stopping a Harper majority? If he can, it creates real problem for the NDP (in particular), and the other opposition parties because he could steal a third of their votes.

And we're off!

John Wright — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:54:00 GMT

Welcome to our blog...this should be fun and we invite your reaction and comments...

First thing though is a bit about us and our polling (because we get asked these questions a lot)...

Do we do polling for political parties or candidates?

Nope...22 years ago our founder (who left the company many years ago) did some polling on the John Turner campaign and resigned before the election concluded. Our company never worked for a political party afterward as a polling agency of record and by 1993 we were out of everything altogether and have never looked back.

And neither Darrell Bricker or I have any ties to any political Parties ... and the last time either of us did any work for anybody "off the range" was over 20 years ago ... we gave all that up a long, long time ago. We wrote a book instead (sold 28,000 copies Called What Canadians Think) and we have another one almost in the can (wait till you see the movie, tres awesome )...

Folks, we have 40 years between the two of us at one company and we've given counsel and advice and polling research on every topic you can imagine to governments of every stripe -- Liberal, NDP, Conservative, Progressive Conservative, Social Credit -- because we are professionals (kind of mercenaries, not missionaries as someone once said) ... and almost all of them have moved on, and we've hung around and kept the experience ...

Are we influenced by the work we get from government? Nope ... we do under a couple of million dollars for the federal government (all on the public record and disclosed) annually, whereas we do $170 million in market research annually in Canada -- mainly private sector, with some Association work to boot ... and some work for a few provincial governments, but not a lot.

Do the media tell us how to craft our questions or have us spin the results?

Nope ... never have and never will ... we publicly disclose our written analysis and all the questions and results on our web site at www.ipsos.ca and you can check it out.

And we've worked for them all, at some point in the past 20 years, often as their official agency of record ... CanWest/Global, CTV, The Globe and Mail, CBC, Southham, DOSE, Readers Digest, MSN ... and many more ... plus CNN International, The Associated Press, Al Jazeera and The Economist to name a few ... just Google us and them and see.

So, that's where we're coming from. Elections (we've polled lots of them), referendums and accords (been there, done that), world polls (yup, lots) and issues (400 releases a year).

And it's still a blast. Like Christmas every day.

No right wing ... no left wing ... no spin or influence ... just straight up and straight on.

Because we're here for a good time and a long time.

This blog thing is new to us (we usually trawl the other bloggers in blogsville and sometimes blog on somebody's page for slaps and giggles) ... but this is new to us ...

So enjoy, engage and entertain.

But remember not to run with scissors or sticks. And eat your vegetables. And, well, if we call, don't hang up.