Harper's Cabinet

Like any cabinet, it is neither 100% good nor 100% bad and although some hardcore partisans while argue one way or another, I thought I would give a fair analysis. Now note, my predictions could be totally off as with many inexperienced cabinet ministers who knows what kind of mistakes they will make. I thought Maxime Bernier and Gordon O'Connor would have been good picks last time around, but yet both were disasters. By the same token I thought Stockwell Day would have been a disaster, yet he at least stayed out of trouble to my surprise. Also, Harper is a real control freak, so my comments below only matter if he grants his cabinet ministers some independence, otherwise it is just window dressing. I was pleased there were more women and I felt the regional representation was good. I was also glad no senators were appointed like last time around and no floor crossers were appointed to cabinet. At the same time I thought there were a few who should have been demoted who weren't as I will explain below.

Of the Atlantic Canada ministers, nothing too surprising here. It was off course expected Gail Shea would go into cabinet since she is the only member from PEI and it would make sense for them to have some representation. I though do think that one of the existing senators from Newfoundland & Labrador could have gotten a junior post so they would also have representation. Harper's choice of two ministers in New Brunswick was certainly good political tactics, after all the province rewarded him with more seats so it would seem logical politically to give them another spot.

In Quebec, I was glad he didn't go overboard here. Despite the breakthrough last time around,the depth of talent was quite shallow. Only Lawrence Cannon had any talent. I am glad Josee Verner was demoted and I am glad Maxime Bernier was not appointed to cabinet. As for foreign affairs, I don't have a lot of confidence in Harper here, but I hope that with Lawrence Cannon being one of the more moderate members he can help moderate Harper on this. Also hopefully an Obama presidency will mean no allies for his policies and that more than anything will mean change.

In Ontario, there were both good and bad picks and some mixed. I think appointing Lisa Raitt to cabinet made sense, but natural resources was the wrong portfolio. The GTA is not exactly an area known for its natural resources. I think transport would have been a more appropriate one for her since beside her experience at the Toronto Port Authority, her riding is on the edge of the GTA and one of the fast growing in the country so transportation is a big issue for many people in her riding, especially considering a lot spend over an hour every day commuting into Toronto. Appointing Peter Kent to a junior post made sense as he doesn't have the experience to take any senior one, at the same time he was the closest they have to Toronto proper. I am disappointed Jim Flaherty wasn't shuffled out as finance minister as he has handled this portfolio poorly whether it be his reckless spending, calling Ontario the last place to invest, and the fact as provincial finance minister he left a $5.6 billion dollar deficit. I am glad Bev Oda, Peter Van Loan, and Diane Finley were demoted while disappointed Tony Clement and John Baird weren't demoted to lower level portfolios. In crisis times, we need people who can work together, not always be picking fights and fierce partisans as the Harrisites were. I think Jim Flaherty, John Baird, and Tony Clement should still be given cabinet posts, but lower level ones that don't involve dealing with others a lot.

In the Prairies, I was very disappointed Gerry Ritz was kept on as agriculture minister. His comments about Listeria were clearly enough to deserve a demotion. Yes, I realize he was a farmer himself, but I am sure there are others Harper could have tapped into. Despite the large number of MPs in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, this is probably the part of the country with the shallowest talent. Many are ex-Reformers who are populist and rather right wing. Although BC, Alberta, and Ontario have plenty of those two, at least they have some more moderate and knowledgeable ones too.

In the case of Alberta, I think Diane Ablonczy should have gotten a more senior post as she is one of the more talented members. Jim Prentice is definitely one of the brighter lights in the party and an improvement on the environment, although I doubt he will do as good a job here as his previous portfolios. Appointing Jason Kenney as immigration minister seemed more about party politics than public good. He got this mainly because he was successful in wooing many ethnic voters and helping the Tories breakthrough in these communities. But just because he maybe best for the party doesn't mean he is best for the country. I fail to understand why Rob Merrifield got a cabinet post. I don't think it is necessary to have a cabinet minister from Rural Alberta if none is qualified. Monte Solberg was clearly cabinet material while Rob Merrifield is not. Ted Menzies is the only rural Alberta MP who could potentially be a cabinet minister. In fact the two strongest rural MPs, Bob Mills and Monte Solbert both retired so not much talent in this region this time around.

In the case of British Columbia, I thought giving James Moore a promotion to a more senior post was good. In fact I fail to understand why it took so long for him to go into cabinet as he should have been in the very first cabinet in 2006. Gary Lunn should have been sacked from cabinet altogether, but at least a demotion is better than the status quo. Stockwell Day did an okay job as public safety minister and therefore should have stayed in that position. I think moving him to international trade was a bad choice. Although there are no obvious choices here, this is going to be an important file as protectionism become more prevalent in the United States. Not solely because of the Democrats gaining all three branches, but also Americans tend to be more protectionist during recessions in general, so we need someone who can work with the next administration.

In the case of the North, Leona Agulukkaq got the position of minister of health. As a representative from the North, female, and Inuit, she definitely deserved a cabinet post, but I am not sure if health was the right choice as this is a big responsibility. Yes, she has some experience here, although I am not sure if this should go to a rookie. Still I do hope she does make progress on the aboriginal health file as this has been neglected for much too long.

McKenna out, Manley maybe, Leblanc in

Already the leadership race is starting to shape up. Frank McKenna announced yesterday he would not run for the Liberal leadership race. While I think his position is perfectly understandable and I fully respect it, I think he would have been exactly the type we need to re-build. He would have little difficulty raising the money necessary, he was a very popular premier in New Brunswick and considering the results in New Brunswick were not far off the national results, this is probably telling about his general appeal. He has a strong business background which in times of economic crisis like right now is very important. He is also a Blue Liberal so he could appeal to many soft Tory votes, which matter just as much as the Green and NDP votes. In areas such as the 905 belt here in Ontario or many of the Lower Mainland suburbs such as the North Shore and Richmond, the party will regain these seats by planting itself firmly in the centre, not by moving to the left. That being said, if there is anyone happy about this announcement, it is probably the six Conservative MPs in New Brunswick as three of them would likely lose their seats and the other three would face much tougher battles than they did this time around.

John Manley is also testing the waters but still has not said whether he will run or not. At this point I don't want to endorse anyone until I see the full slate, but certainly Manley is one I could support. Like McKenna he is a centrist too and also has strong economic credentials. Right now, the economy is the biggest issue for Canadians so having someone with strong economic credentials is important. Now it is quite possible we will be out of the recession by the time of the next election, however, if we do go into deficit, I don't have much confidence in the Harper government pulling us out of it, so that is why is all the more important to choose someone who will be able to balance the budget. As for his chances, it is tough to say. He is popular amongst some, but his somewhat hawkish stances may make him a tough sell amongst those on the left of the party. Also his Afghanistan report may make some feel he is too cozy with the Tories. However, considering that minority governments are likely to be the norm, not the exception in the forseeable future, I think being able reach across the aisle and cooperate with other parties is a good thing for the country.

Dominic Leblanc has declared he intends to run. At only 40 years old, he is young enough that he will be able to stay on even if we don't win the next election. Although our goal must be to win the next election, having someone who can re-build the party is also equally important. I also so far like his talk about moving the party back to the centre and appealing to the middle class. He also comes from a rural riding, which is becoming an increasingly rare for the Liberals and so he probably understands better than some the issues that concern Rural Canadians and what is needed to win back the support in those areas. He also comes from New Brunswick, which was the Tories strongest province in Atlantic Canada and one where we lost a lot of ground (we lost 3 seats, which is 30% of the seats in the province). I highly doubt he will win it, but this will at least raise his profile and improve his chances in any future run. He is young enough that regardless of the results in the next few elections, he will get another chance to run again since even if we win and are in power for 10 years, he will still be young enough to run again.

I will have more on the cabinet appointments tomorrow. My only hopes which may or may not come true are as follows. I hope he adds more women to his cabinet. I hope that we get more GTA cabinet ministers considering they did make gains in the 905 belt. In addition to Lisa Raitt, I think either Bob Dechert or Peter Kent should be made cabinet ministers as there ridings are close to Toronto, more urban, and more multicultural, whereas the other ridings they won maybe in the GTA, but are far enough removed from Toronto that their issues are quite different (i.e. Oakville, Whitby-Oshawa, Newmarket-Aurora, and Halton) and they are also ridings that are over 80% white as well, so hardly reprensentative of the GTA. Thornhill and Mississauga-Erindale on the other hand have much higher population densities than the other GTA ridings the Tories won and also are multicultural and diverse. I think Jim Flaherty should be moved out of Finance and instead either Jim Prentice or Lawrence Cannon should get this one. He should stay in cabinet, but get a lower profile position as he clearly is not competent enough to be a senior cabinet minister. Diane Ablonczy and James Moore both should get cabinet posts unlike last time around. Since appointing Diane Ablonczy would mean four cabinet members from Calgary if you include the PM, I think Jason Kenney should be dropped from cabinet. He maybe good for the party, but he has little to offer the country. If any senators are appointed to be cabinet members, they need to be from Newfoundland & Labrador as that is the only province they were shut out of. I also oppose appointing any defectors to cabinet. If one wishes to cross the floor, I respect that right, but they should not go into cabinet until they have earned it. As much as I hate to see any Liberals defect to the Tories, I have been consistent in my view of supporting the right of MPs to cross the floor and will not change that view regardless of who it benefits.

US Election Predictions

Much as I did with the Canadian election, I thought I would give the various scenarios on what I think might happen in the US election in just over a week. So below is where I think each state stands and at the bottom will give the total electoral votes

Safe Obama

Washington
Oregon
California
Hawaii
Illinois
Michigan
Maine*
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
District of Columbia
Total EV: 206

* 2 Electoral Votes for the state of Maine as a whole and 1 for Maine 1.

Likely Obama

New Mexico
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Maine*
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Total EV: 277 (safe Obama + Likely Obama)

* All four electoral votes for Maine not just three.

Toss-Up

Nevada
Colorado
Missouri
Ohio
North Carolina
Florida
Total EV: McCain 261, Obama 364 (safe + likely + toss-up for each candidate)

Likely McCain

Montana
North Dakota
Indiana
West Virgina
Georgia

Total EV: 174 (safe McCain + likely McCain)

Safe McCain

Alaska
Idaho
Utah
Arizona
Wyoming
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Arkansas
Louisiana
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
South Carolina

Total EV: 137

With eight days to go, things can still change, but at the moment, Obama simply needs to win all the states in the safe and likely in order to win the White House, whereas McCain would have to win all the safe, likely, and toss-ups, plus one of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Virgina, or two of the other listed toss-ups. So a McCain win is still possible, but not likely. The biggest factor in determining who wins will be voter turnout. A high turnout should favour Obama as he has around 90% support in the African-American community while a solid lead amongst the under 30 age group and both these demographics have traditionally had much lower voter turnouts than the general population. On the other hand a low voter turnout could allow McCain to win as he is strong amongst older population, white, male, above average income, rural/suburban, and regular church goers. The other important factor for McCain is the Evangelical vote. This group heavily favours the Republicans and the increased turnout in 2004 vs. 2000 amongst this group played a strong role in Bush's better showing in 2004. Many in this group feel McCain is too moderate for them, so a big question is whether their dislike for Obama will be enough to bring them out to the polls or will they simply stay home. Unlike Canada, where this group is quite small, in the US they make up around 25-30% of the population so they are a significant voting bloc that cannot be ignored by the Republicans. The final factor, is are the polls showing the Bradley Effect. This is named after Tom Bradley who lost the governor's race in California in 1982 despite having a lead in the polls. This claims that African-American candidates tend to poll higher than what their real support is as some who are racist and refusing to vote for the candidate simply because of race will lie to the pollsters. I would like to hope this is no longer an issue, but one can never be sure as I still think there is a sizeable portion of the population that feels anyone who isn't white should not be president. True, this group is probably far more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, but if things tighten up this could have an impact. Anyways I will post my actual predictions on the night before the election when the final polls come out.

One final prediction I will make now though, is the US will have a higher voter turnout than Canada had in its most recent election. If this does materialize as I think it will, it will be the first time in a long time that the US has had a higher voter turnout than Canada, despite the fact registering to vote is far more difficult in the US than Canada.

UPDATE:

I am moving Pennsylvania to safe Obama and Colorado to likely Obama, so that makes it 227 electoral votes for safe Obama and 286 electoral votes for likely Obama + safe Obama.

Post-Mortem

Now that I have had time to digest the results, I thought I would give my opinion on how each party performed.

Bloc Quebecois

If there was any party that can be fully satisfied with the results, it would be them since few expected them at the outset of the campaign to hold what they already had. True, they didn't gain seats and they did get fewer votes, however, Duceppe said from the outset his goal was to stop Harper from winning a majority and after last night's results, it is absolutely clear that it was the Bloc, not the Liberals, Greens or NDP who prevented Harper from winning a majority. As much as I disagree with the Bloc Quebecois, you got to give them credit for being able to stay relevant even when separtism dies down. Every time it looks like the party has run its course, they always seem to find some raison d'etre to exist and are successful at convincing voters to vote for them for that reason.

NDP

I would say the results were mixed for them. Few in their right mind actually thought the NDP had any chance at forming government and even forming the official opposition seemed like a long shot. However, breaking the record Ed Broadbent sent in 1988 of winning 43 seats and 20% of the popular vote was certainly doable and that they failed to do. Still, they did gain seats and increase their share of the popular vote. They also won seats in 8 out of 10 provinces including ones they normally don't do to well in such as Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland & Labrador so at least they can claim they are a truly national party. If I am not mistaken, I believe winning seats in 8 out of 10 provinces is the best they have ever done in a general election in terms of the number of provinces they won seats in, so that should at least count for something and never mind they came very close to winning a seat in Saskatchewan meaning they could have potentially won seats in as many provinces as the Tories and Liberals.

Green Party

As with the NDP, a decent showing, but not as good as they probably wanted. Once again they failed to win a seat, which was not a surprise for me. For one thing, Elizabeth May choose the wrong riding to run in. There was no way she was going to win in Central Nova and she should have run somewhere like Saanich-Gulf Islands, Guelph, or even Vancouver Centre where she might have had a shot at winning albeit a long one. Also most polls showed they would get over 10% of the popular vote, which they failed to do, although I was not surprised they only got 7%. Their support was quite soft and never mind it was heavily skewed towards the younger demographic who traditionally have a lower voter turnout than the older voters. In fact this may explain why the NDP, Bloc, and Greens did worse than the last polls said, the Tories did better, and the Liberals the same as the former parties tend to do better amongst younger voters and the Tories amongst older voters while Liberal support is pretty even across all age groups.

Conservatives

They failed to win a majority as they wanted, but I would still say it was a good night on the whole for them. I never bought the idea that Harper saw anything less than a majority as a failure. In fact, I suspect he probably realistically only expected a stronger minority, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 140 seats. As Tom Flanagan said in an article in the Globe and Mail before the election, Harper is an incrementalists, so as long as the Tories are moving in the right direction that is what counts and for now they are doing so. If anything it was Quebec that was a disappointment for the Tories, not the results elsewhere. In the case of Ontario, I suspect the Tories weren't even trying to win seats in the 416, their goal was to make gains in the 905 belt, which they did. Now that doesn't mean it was a great result as the Tories clearly did have a chance to get a majority and they blew it big time in Quebec with their stance on the arts cuts and changes to the young offenders act. Still they made the gains elsewhere as they wanted to, so I would say it was a good, but not great result.

Liberals

If there was any party that had little to be cheering about, it was the Liberals regretably. The lowest vote share in Canadian history and second worse seat count as well as being dead in the water in huge swaths of the country (almost all of the West, Rural Ontario, off the island of Montreal in Quebec). Clearly the once dominate party is now a former shell of itself. Still, I don't think changing leaders is going to solve all the party's woes. Just as the Tories came out of the wilderness after doing poorly in the 90s, the Liberals can do the same, but they must re-build fully, not make cosmetic changes. Dion is an honourable man and I think would have made a good PM if given a chance. He ran a respectful campaign and clearly showed a vision for the future. However, as it goes with all things in life, when the leader cannot get the results, they have no choice but to step down. For myself, I would have argued Dion should have definitely stayed on had the Liberals gotten over 100 seats, anything between 80-100 seats, I would have had to look at the situation, however anything under 80 seats meant he had to go. Unfortunately the Liberals did not get over 80 seats, therefore Dion in my view should step down, although I have no problem with him staying on until a new leader is selected just in case we are thrown into an early election. However, we must not assume the next leader will lead us to the promise land. The Liberals must find a way to re-connect in the parts of the country they aren't doing well in. The party does not have a lot of money, but that does not mean they cannot find ways to re-connect. My suggestion would be that the party begin its nominations ASAP so we can have our candidates in place for the next election whenever it is. Both the current MPs and candidates should start door knocking right away as well as holding regular town hall meetings. This should not be about identifying supporters, but rather engaging people and seeing what issues matter to them. Likewise the leader should meet with the candidates on a regular basis and listen to their feedback on what they are hearing. We need to put an end to the idea we are a top down party and instead become a grassroots one. There is much talk about whether we should move to the left or return to the centre. The reality is Canadians are some of the least ideological people anywhere in the world. Unlike in the United States and many European countries were most people can cleary be identified as "left wing" or "right wing" most Canadians are neither but rather look at each issue on an issue by issue basis. That is why support for the parties is quite soft and why people frequently vote for parties of different ideologies at different levels. So with this in mind we should forget about whether an idea is a "left wing" or "right wing" idea and rather focus on whether it is a "good" or a "bad" idea.

Voter Turnout

Considering how low this was, I thought I should mention something here. I think it is absolutely shameful that 41% couldn't be bothered to vote. Many people around the world are willing to risk their lives just to have the right to vote, so there is absolutely no excuse for not voting. And claiming that no party represented their views is not an acceptable excuse either. As with any choice, you vote for the least bad. Someone has to run the government, so one should always vote even if they don't like any of the leaders. As the saying goes, if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. I don't support compulsory voting, but I do hope something can be done to reduce voter apathy. I would be fine if we had 80% voter turnout, but 59% is just way too low.

Regional Analysis

Now that I have had a few days to digest the election results I thought I would give a regional breakdown on how things went. My next post will then look at each party.

Newfoundland & Labrador

Danny Williams had stated he intended to see the Tories get a goose egg in the province and he succeeded in doing it, however it does mean for the first time since joining confederation, Newfoundland & Labrador will have no members sitting on the government benches. Also looking at the vote totals, it appears the huge decline in Tory support primarily benefitted the NDP as opposed to the Liberals. In fact the NDP was able to win a seat in a province that rarely elects NDP members. Although I expected the Tories to do poorly here, I am surprised they got only 17%. That being said, at least one province seems to share my views on them, well at least sort of, since as much as I don't like the Tories, I still believe they should have some seats, just not be in government.

Nova Scotia

Not a whole lot of change here. Peter MacKay easily beat Elizabeth May as I fully expected. Also, Robert Thibault lost to the Tories in West Nova, which was not a total surprise as this has always been a competitive riding and even this time around it wasn't by a huge margin. One interesting fact in Nova Scotia, is no party got over 30% of the popular vote. I don't think this has ever happened in any province ever to the best of my knowledge, so a historical first here. If anything this probably shows just how little confidence Nova Scotians have in any of the parties.

Prince Edward Island

It may have gone predominately Liberal as expected, but for the first time in over 20 years, the Tories broke the liberal fortress of PEI by winning on seat. In the past, votes have usually been fairly evenly distributed throughout the island, whereas this time around the Tory votes were more concentrated thus despite getting a lower share of the popular vote than Mulroney in 1988, Jean Charest in 1997, and Joe Clark in 2000, there were able to win a seat. I think it is fair to say Gail Shea will get a cabinet post being the only member from PEI.

New Brunswick

This is a case where individual polling of each province would have made predicting the results in Atlantic Canada easier. The Tories were doing poorly in this region, so I assumed they wouldn't gain seats as many others did, but what many didn't realize is they had fallen through the floor in Newfoundland & Labrador, held their vote in Nova Scotia asides from Bill Casey's riding, went up slightly in PEI, while they declined slightly in the French speaking parts of New Brunswick but increased significantly in the English speaking parts. That being said, Miramichi was the only riding that I was surprised the Tories won. Fredericton and Saint John were both ridings I saw as vulnerable so the Tory pick ups there are not a total surprise. New Brunswick is the most conservative province in Atlantic Canada, so it makes sense it would be their best province. I also think regretably the Green Shift was a tough sell here, especially considering New Brunswick is quite rural.

Quebec

Gilles Duceppe claimed only the Bloc Quebecois could stop the Tories from forming a majority and based on the election results, it looks like he was right. This is not the first time people have talked about the Bloc Quebecois vanishing, after all, many said the same thing in 2003 before the sponsorship scandal erupted, yet each time there is talk of the Bloc Quebecois' demise, they somehow come right back. The Liberals got more votes and seats than the Tories, so at least the bleeding has stopped in Quebec, still they have a long ways to go before they return to their previous strength there. The Tories hopes at making a breakthrough in Quebec clearly failed to materialize, that being said they did manage to hold onto their own seats which most polls said they wouldn't. Considering how many close ridings there were in English Canada, I almost wonder had the Tories spent less money on Quebec and more on Ontario if they could have gotten their majority through English Canada. The NDP breakthrough in Quebec also failed to materialize, although they did win Outremont, which was a first as they have never won a seat in Quebec during a general election, only in a by-election (once in 1990 and again in 2007).

Ontario

In the past many Westerners, especially Albertans have blamed Ontario for preventing the Tories from doing as well as they thought they should have. This time around, Ontario clearly delivered the seats the Tories were hoping for. In fact, this is the first time since 1988 that they have beat the Liberals in seats in Ontario and the first time since 1984 they have beat them in the popular vote. While they were shut out of the 416 (thankfully where I live didn't fall for them) they did make gains in the suburbs. Despite the talk about Toronto shutting out the Tories, I suspect they never really targeted the 416 to begin with. And never mind they got as close as its doorstep to winning in Toronto (Thornhill). While I am not surprised the Tories gained seats in Ontario, I am surprised how well they did in terms of the popular vote and seats. I figured 48 seats and 37% of the popular vote was their ceiling in Ontario. The biggest surprises were the two Kitchener ridings, which I was positive would go Liberal. The only good news for the Liberals in Ontario was Gerard Kennedy won back Parkdale-High Park and also Bonnie Crombie defeated Wajid Khan (off course the Tories were able to defeat Garth Turner in return). What is though really worrying for the Liberals is how poorly they did outside the GTA. They not only lost all of rural Ontario, they got clobbered. The last three elections have resulted in a steady slide in Liberal support in Ontario, so the party must re-build there if they ever want to return to power. The NDP also gained seats, primarily in Northern Ontario, which was not too big a surprise. It also appears strategic voting was largely useless in Ontario as some ridings such as that of Finance minister Jim Flaherty or Health minister Tony Clement would have gone Tory no matter what (they both got over 50% of the popular vote). If anything the Liberals will win Ontario back by increasing voter turnout not going after strategic voters as it appears a large chunk of Liberal voters just stayed home rather than vote for other parties.

Manitoba

In what has usually been the most Liberal friendly of the Western provinces, it was not a good night for the Liberals. They only won one seat, while both the Tories and NDP were able to make gains. The Tories got 49% of the popular vote which is their best showing ever in the province and in fact I couldn't imagine them getting over 45%. Even Winnipeg which never elected a Reform/Alliance member went Tory winning 4 of the 8 seats and having the highest vote total of the parties.

Saskatchewan

Went largely Tory as I expected with the exception of Ralph Goodale who is able to win due to his personal popularity. Jack Layton was once again shut out of the birthplace of the CCF for the third time even though he was able to win a seat in the normally conservative Alberta. I though wonder if Harper will use this as evidence to make changes to the Canadian Wheat Board since with the kind of numbers he got in the Prairies he can at least claim he has a mandate to make changes (although there is no way of knowing how the farmers in the wheat and barley industry voted since they make up less than 2% of the population).

Alberta

The big news here was the Tories weren't able to sweep the province. Alberta always goes for the most right wing party on the ballot, so the question becomes more will it be a clean sweep or simply domination. This time around, the NDP won Edmonton-Strathcona. This was not a total surprise as this riding has a large university population and is somewhat an anthema to what most people stereotype Alberta as being. You have several cafes along Whyte Street and many young singles living there. Likewise you have the U of A is in this riding so despite being in Alberta, the demographics are clearly not conservative. In fact, this type of riding in any other province wouldn't even be competitive for the Tories.

British Columbia

The Conservatives won close to the number of seats I thought they would, what was the big surprise here was the popular vote totals. I was surprised the Tories got 44% and the Liberals only 19%. I was also surprised how close the Tories came to unseating Ujjal Dosanjh and how easily they won Richmond (which I thought would be a lot closer). I guess the party is making inroads amongst the immigrant community, or at least the Chinese community and I would also add the Jewish community in Central Canada (i.e. Thornhill). I never really bought into the idea the Tories were making gains amongst these groups, but I guess I was wrong. If there is any lesson here, the Liberals should never take any group for granted as that is how surprises like this happen. Another interesting news is how this foreshadows the upcoming provincial election. The smashing of the Liberals certainly shows how unpopular the carbon tax is in British Columbia, however the Tories not the NDP being the primary beneficiaries shows there are probably many in the province uncomfortable with going back to the NDP. In fact if the BC Conservatives had a real party, not a joke one they might be competitive in the province. In many ways both the BC Liberals and BC NDP should be thankful the BC Conservatives are such a joke party. As much as I do support a carbon tax, the thought of the NDP returning to power in BC sends shivers up my spine. My hope is that Campbell drops it before the election and then re-introduces shortly after being re-elected. This is something you do at the beginning of a four year term, not near the end. It is the right policy, but unfortunately the public doesn't understand this and cannot made to understand it, so the only solution is to introduce far enough ahead of an election and when things don't all collapse, the public will forget about it.

North

Something here for everybody as the Liberals take the Yukon, NDP take the Northwest Territories, and the Tories take Nunavut. Also looking at the Tory numbers in Northern ridings, I wonder if they made gains amongst the Aboriginal community or did this community simply not show up as their numbers not just in the North, but in Northern Ontario, Northern Quebec, and Northern Saskatchewan are unusually high. After tearing up the Kelowna Accord, I would have thought the Aboriginal community would be infuriated at the Tories, but maybe the residential school apology is what they remember.

I will have my summary later on the parties, however I will say briefly that it was an good but not great election for the Tories and NDP as both increased their seats but failed to achieve their ultimate goals, while a disastrous one for the Liberals. As much as I like Stephane Dion and think he would have made a very good PM, I believe he has little choice but to step down.

Preliminary Results

Being late and still taking in the surprising showing by the Conservatives, I will give a post-mortem tomorrow. Thank God, Harper made his comment about culture, because had it not been for Quebec, we would be talking about a Conservative majority. Also it looks like Ontario seems to like to break in favour of the incumbent party at the last minute. How else can one explain the better than expected Liberal showing in 2004, while better than expected Tory showing in 2008. I will have more tomorrow on this.

Comments on Blog

In order to comply with the elections act which prohibits broadcasting results in one part of the country when polls are still open in another, I am temporarily turning off the comments. I will turn them back on at 10:00 PM EST when the BC polls close.

Election Predictions

Based on the fact there are no major news items out today that are likely to change things significantly and based on the predictions I have seen elsewhere I am going to post my predictions below. In the case of the Tories, they have zero chance at getting a majority, even if there is a last minute surge in their favour. They needed to gain seats in Quebec and at this point, the best they can hope for is to hold the seats they have. The Liberals could still win, but not likely though. The NDP vote is pretty firm and I doubt there will be a lot of late breakers there. On the contrary the Green vote is still quite soft as well as there is the undecided. If those two break heavily in favour of the Liberals, they could pull off a weak minority, although I am pretty much certain the Tories will still win the popular vote, just not certain as to whether they will have the most seats or not. And even if the Liberals lose, they should still have a decent size opposition and win considerably more seats than either the Bloc Quebecois or NDP. The Bloc Quebecois has totally turned things around and unlike at the beginning where many expected them to lose many seats, they now have a shot at breaking their record of 54 seats, although I doubt they will break their popular vote record of 49%. The NDP won't win become the official opposition and certainly not government as they have hoped for, but they still have a shot at breaking Ed Broadbent's record of 43 seats. So the question becomes is whether there will be a coalition or not. At this point, it seems unlikely as the philosophical differences between the Liberals and NDP are still pretty large, that being said will have to wait for the results and see what transpires. So below are my predictions.

Atlantic Canada

Liberals 21 seats
Conservatives 6 seats
NDP 4 seats
Independent 1 seat

Quebec

Bloc Quebecois 50 seats
Liberals 16 seats
Conservatives 7 seats
NDP 1 seat
Independent 1 seat

Ontario

Liberals 48 seats
Conservatives 42 seats
NDP 16 seats

Manitoba

Conservatives 9 seats
NDP 3 seats
Liberals 2 seats

Saskatchewan

Conservatives 13 seats
Liberals 1 seats

Alberta

Conservatives 28 seats

British Columbia

Conservatives 21 seats
NDP 9 seats
Liberals 6 seats

North

Liberals 2 seats
NDP 1 seat

CANADA

Conservatives 126 seats
Liberals 96 seats
Bloc Quebecois 50 seats
NDP 34 seats
Independent 2 seats

So after all this, it looks like we more or less have the status quo again. Talk about a wasted election. Off course maybe I will be wrong here and the numbers will be different. We shall see tomorrow night

The Home Stretch

We are now into the final days of the campaign and it looks like we will be getting another minority government. Based on the recent polls, it is more likely to be a Conservative than Liberal, although a Liberal is still possible, and certainly the possibility of a Tory majority is definitely gone. I will make my predictions once the final set of polls come in on Monday. This week has been a rough week on the market and no doubt this is hurting the Tories. While it is certainly not their fault the market is faltering as this is a global problem, their inability to deal with the issue is a serious problem. The reality is Harper has been asleep at the wheel and only woken up to the issue once it become obvious to everyone we were heading for a recession. The Liberal campaign seems to be improving, although it may be a little too late. Nonetheless, there is no risk of the Liberals doing worse than official opposition. All the talk of the Liberals falling behind the NDP is clearly just talk and won't happen. The other issue was Dion's ATV interview that he flubbed. CTV certainly should have not aired it, but the reality is any politician should never assume something won't be aired even if the media say they won't. The question was poorly worded, although I think Dion would have been better to simply repeat what he thought Steve Murphy was trying to say and then give the answer to the question to what he repeated. Even if not exactly what Murphy was asking, at least he could have gotten his ideas out on the economy. And in the case of Harper, he should have just said nothing on this rather than attacking Dion. When your opponent is self-destructing, you stand aside. But Harper did intervene and the damage this will cause to him will hopefully offset any damage it caused to Dion. For things complaining about Dion's poor English, his English is not that bad. I have met him and spoken to him in person. I have also travelled to Quebec and extensively in Europe and when travelling abroad, I had to repeat myself often, speak slowly, and use simple vocabulary. When talking to Dion, I spoke at regular conversation speed, never had to repeat myself, and used my normal vocabulary and he understood just fine. In fact his English was better than many of those in the tourist industries when travelling abroad. The final issue is the Afghanistan cost over-runs. While it is true the Liberals started the conflict and this includes the time both when the Liberals and Tories were in power, I think this can still be an issue as the Liberals had a large contigency in the budget so even with cost overruns like this (18 billion/10 =1.8 billion a year) they would still have a balanced budget, whereas with almost no surplus left under the Tories, cost overruns in Afghanistan could cause a deficit.

Anyways I am going to Kitchener for the long weekend and will make my last election post Monday night, where I will give my seat projections.

Recent Polls

We have seen a recent spate of polls which have showed slightly different numbers, although the one constant theme is Tory support is declining, while Liberals are rising. Based on how far the Tories have fallen in Quebec, I think the chances of a Tory majority are extremely low, while by the same token I think a Liberal win is still very much within the realm of possibility, even if the odds are not favourable. Based on the recent polls, I would I am revising my projections to 100-145 seats for the Tories, while 70-120 seats for the Liberals and 20-50 seats for the NDP and 40-60 seats for the Bloc Quebecois. So this means the Liberals will at the very least form the offical opposition if not win outright, while the Tories will get a strengthned minority in their base case scenario, while lose outright in the worse case scenario. This last week should be interesting as the election is far from decided.

Debate - My take on it

Unlike the French debate where either Dion or Duceppe was the clear winner and Harper was the clear loser, picking a winner here is much tougher. In fact, asides from Duceppe, you could probably make a sensible case for each one. Here is my take below.

Harper: Certainly performed better than the French debate. Remained calm and collective and also did explain some of his policies when attacked and the same time he spent far more time fending off attacks then going on the offence. If his goal was just to hold his ground, he achieved that, but if his goal was to come out stronger, he failed. That being said, considering it is Quebec that is dragging him down the most, it was more in French debates rather than English debates he needed to turn things around.

Dion: Not the greatest performance, but at least he beat expectations, which were extremely low. With many expecting him to bomb the debate, the fact he stayed above water was in many ways all he needed to do. He had a rough start, but improved as the debate progressed. Although he has a strong accent, his English is not imcomprehensible. He was also very polite but not interjecting unlike the others so in that since he looked more prime-ministerial than Layton or May. I suspect he got what he wanted and this debate will at least help him hold what he has now. He won't make the gains like he did in Quebec from the French debate, but at least be coming out fine, he can still portrary himself as the best person to Stop Stephen Harper and if past campaigns are any indication, the progressive vote tends to coalesce around the Liberals towards the end, although it is still too early to say if he can overcome the current deficit or not. By the end of the weekend we will have a better idea. The Nanos poll looks encouraging so I want to see if others follow suit or if Nanos starts going towards the others.

Layton: If I had to choose a winner, I would probably go for him. He was very strong in attacking harper and even occassionally Dion. And he certainly put out his ideas well. He came across as an ideal opposition leader, but he didn't came across as a PM in waiting. Now that is probably what Layton is looking for as contrary to what he claims, I think even he knows he has no chance at being PM.

May: Also feisty like in French and took Harper on well. A little over aggressive at times, but I still cannot see this debate being anything but good for her. The only thing she has to worry about is the Green vote is quite soft and much of that could shift to the Liberals or NDP in the later days to block the Tories.

Duceppe: Considering he doesn't run candidates outside Quebec and that most Anglophones in Quebec don't vote Bloc Quebecois, he just had to stay out of trouble, which he did. As long as there was no negative headline splashed on the Quebec papers the next day, he was in good shape and he did that.

As for how things will turn out, it won't be until early next week we get the full picture. In addition, people are paying more closely attention that at the beginning as well as we probably haven't seen the strongest ads yet, so any change from the debate can easily be offset much like Mulroney did in 1988 and Martin did in 2004 when both turned around their losses at the debate into wins.

As I expected I was not influence at all by them, but I am already one of those decided voters. In fact I went to the advanced polls today to cast my ballot for Christine Innes. Her chances are not great, but I would sure love to see her beat Olivia Chow. One thing that might be interesting if any Liberals accidentally vote Conservative since her first name also Christine.

English Debate Preview

Now that we've had a day to digest last night's debate, here is what each party needs to do in order to succeed in the English language debate. Dion and Duceppe were the big winners last night while most would agree Harper did not perform particularly well and even if he didn't perform horribly, he needed to gain in Quebec, not hold what he already had. So here is what each party leader needs to do tonight.

Stephen Harper

Staying calm and looking prime-ministerial like last night does make some sense, but not to the point that of letting your opponents rip you apart. He cannot be too passive like last night, but not overly aggressive either like he sometimes is in the House of Commons, rather he needs to strike some balance in between the two. It goes without question he will have four leaders ganging up on him again, although it is this time in his native language and he kind of has an idea of what is coming at him. In addition his lacklustre performance last night probably more or less killed any chance of him winning a majority, so now the goal is to hold what he has.

Stephane Dion

If he can perform as well as he did last night and do the same things, he should be in great shape. Yes, he has the disadvantage of not being as good a debater in English as French, but if expectations wer low for him in the French debates, I suspect they are even lower in the English debates, so even a half decent performance should be win. He needs to do two things, attack Harper hard, but also show how he would be a better PM. Unlike the other three leaders who have zero chance at becoming PM, he does. Saying how bad the current government is can only get one so far. He needs to show how a Liberal government would be better.

Jack Layton

He will probably have a decent showing but not a great one. He needs to focus most of his attention on Harper, but still make occassional references to the Liberals. His main theme should be how the NDP is a progressive party on a whole host of issues, not just when politically convenient, but consistently. Also how the NDP is the only party to have consistently opposed the Harper agenda.

Gilles Duceppe

Considering that most viewers of this debate won't be able to vote for the Bloc Quebecois and even the few English speakers in Quebec who are watching are not likely to go Bloc Quebecois, so all he needs to do is not get eaten alive. Essentially, he did what he needed to do last night, now he needs to simply make sure nothing bad about him appears on the front pages of the Quebec papers tomorrow. And off course if there is an opportunity to attack Harper had, seize it since even if few Quebeckers are watching the debate, any major statement or knockout punch will get media attention, but otherwise lay low.

Elizabeth May

Just being in the debate should be a huge victory for her. Her main goal will be to hold what she has and maybe pick up a few votes here and there. As in the past, she is good at attacking Harper and needs to continue this by being feisty but not looking overly nasty.

Anyways I will have more on my take after the debates are over.

Les Debats

Okay, now that the debates are over, here is my initial take on it. As always, each party is going to spin it in a way that will make them look good. And never mind most studies on debates generally show that debates don't to tend change how people vote, but either re-affirm their decision was correct or maybe make them pause for a moment, but only switch if other events in the campaign give them reason to. So without delay, here is my personal take on each of the leaders'

Gilles Duceppe - Has always been a strong debater in French and I think he did a fairly good job as expected. He did challenge Harper on a number of issues and show how he was out of touch with Quebec, at the same time he didn't deliver any knockout punch. Probably won't gain him much in support, but at least help solidify what he already has and at this point, that is what he needed to do.

Stephen Harper - Not the greatest performance from him. He undoubtedly faced the most daunting challenge of all five of the leaders since they all ganged up on him. In the past he has often been accused of being over aggressive, but this time around I think he was little too passive. While I doubt it will cause his numbers to sink any Quebec any further, he needed to shore up some of the lost support, which I don't think he was able to do.

Stephane Dion - All in all a good night for him. Whether it be the economy, environment, or Afghanistan, he seemed to actually have a plan of what he would do in government not just attacking how bad a government Harper was and if anything he made clear that he was still trying to become PM, not just stop Harper from getting a majority. His only possible mistake was releasing the economic plan in the debate. Although not a bombshell like Martin dropping the plan to get rid of the notwithstanding clause during last debate, I would still say it is better to announce plans either before or after the debates. That being said, there was low expectations and he did peform well, so a good night for him. I doubt it will gain him a lot, but at least maintain the support he has and considering Liberal support is very concentrated on the island of Montreal, and some of the suburbs he really only needed to win back a few swing supporters in some of the ridings they narrowly lossed in 2006, which I think he might have done.

Jack Layton - A steady debater as usual and confident in French. Didn't say anything or do anything that would help him gain much in Quebec, but nothing to either hurt him. So I guess depending on what his goal is, it could be described as a win or loss.

Elizabeth May - Her debating skills in a language she was weak in were actually pretty good and she did a great job of taking on Harper. I guess the only thing is she might have seemed a bit too aggressive, but probably not too bad an idea. After all, if Harper struck back at her too hard, he would look a lot worse.

As for the winner, I would have to give it to Gilles Duceppe as his goal was to show how the Tories were out of touch with Quebecers and the best choice to stop a majority and he did it. And the loser I would have to give to Harper. Although not an absolute flop, it was definitely not what he needed and I wouldn't say a good night for him, although not a bad night. It will be interesting to see how he does in the English debates as he tends to do better there.

Les Debats - Preview

Tonight are the French debates and off course any impact from this will be primarily felt in Quebec. That is not to say this won't matter. Obviously for the Bloc Quebecois, this is the more important debate, but I would say in many ways this is just as important if not more important for the Tories. They have been sliding in Quebec and without gains in Quebec, a majority government will be next to impossible so tonight's debates could play a major role in determining if the Tory slide continues in Quebec, they level off, or they rebound. Here is my to do list for each party.

Bloc Quebecois

At the beginning of the election, many talked about them having their worse showing ever and being irrelevant. That proved to be somewhat premature since although sovereignty is now on the backburner, the Bloc Quebecois has been successful is portraying Stephen Harper as a right wing extremist who is out of touch with mainstream Quebeckers and that the Bloc is the best party in Quebec to prevent a Tory majority. This has paid off, in part because of some of the statements and policies the Tories have made (Funding cuts to the Arts as well as their Justice plan) and now we are talking about minimal losses for the Bloc Quebecois. In fact, we may even be talking about the Bloc gaining seats if the trend continues. So for Gilles Duceppe, do what he has been doing, which is working, and that is continue to hamme Harper as being too right wing for Quebec and out of touch with Quebec values.

Conservatives

At the beginning of the election, things looked pretty good in Quebec, with the Bloc and Tories almost tied and the Tories polling around 30%. Now, the prospect of big gains in Quebec is fading and the possibility of losing seats there, which was unthinkable a few weeks ago has now arisen. Harper therefore must turn things around in the debates since even the most optimistic gains in British Columbia and Ontario would still put him short of a majority, therefore he must win more seats in Quebec to win a majority. He needs to portray himself as moderate and one who understand's Quebec's distinctness and culture. He needs to play up his policies on having more Francophones on the CRTC, recognizing Quebec as a nation, and giving Quebec a seat at UNESCO. Debates are never a time to drop new policies, but they can at least set the stage for new ones. This is what Harper needs to do.

Liberals

Despite the dissatisfaction with the Tories in Quebec and the retreat of the NDP, the Liberals have not been able to gain much traction. Although Dion is hated by some in Quebec, he is also respected by others. More importantly, French is his native language so he is likely to have a fairly solid performance tonight (tomorrow is a different story though as he struggles in English still a bit). He needs to argue the Liberals cannot only stop Harper from winning a majority but also form government and introduce many of the priorities Quebec wants. The reality is Harper was able to make the arts cuts even with a minority so to prevent this, the Tories need to be defeated and the Liberals not the Bloc can do this. Likewise, Quebeckers tend to be more environmentally conscious than English Canadians and more open to the Green Shift, so tonight, not tomorrow is the time to sell it. Finally, he needs to address the economy which is faltering. Many see the Tories as better economic stewards despite the fact the Liberal record is far better than either the present Tories or past ones when it comes to the economy. He needs to emphasize this.

NDP

For a while the NDP was doing quite well, polling in the high teens, but has fallen back to the low teens. To regain what they have lost, the NDP needs to emphasize all the issues where they are the party that is most in touch with Quebeckers as Quebec is generally more left leaning than the rest of Canada and thus more likely to support Layton's policies than elsewhere. He needs to capitalize on this. Finally he should point out that the Bloc supported the Tories on the first two budgets and the softwood lumber deal. Only the NDP has consistently voted against the Tories, so for those who want a party that will stand tooth and nail against the Tories, the NDP is the best choice. This is what he needs to say. Also the fact he is a native son of Quebec and fully bilingual helps.

Green Party

They don't have a living hope in hell of winning seats in Quebec, and nevermind Elizabeth May's French is probably the weakest of the five leaders. Tonight is rather a warm up night for tomorrow which is what really matters for the Greens. She needs to do more listening and less debating. This is a time to see what issues the other party leaders are going to discuss and then she can use this to help prepare for tomorrow's debate