40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[Azure]

Well, the only reason the Green Party got second in my riding is because nobody is crazy enough to vote for the Liberal or NDP candidates.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that this is exactly right. Liberals aren't completely stupid either. I would expect that McKenna (assuming he throws his hat in the ring), Kennedy or Iggy take this thing.

Seriously I wonder what happens to Harper though. Looking ahead doesn't it make any CPC supporters wonder about whether he has maxed out? The Liberal vote cratered to the 2nd lowest since confederation and still no majority.

Probably has one more election in him. With a 5 Party split of the vote, it IS hard to find a majority, especially with such low voter turnout.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

Probably has one more election in him. With a 5 Party split of the vote, it IS hard to find a majority, especially with such low voter turnout.

I suppose that is true enough. As a non-CPC guy though I think that with a different leader and no green shift the Liberals win a mojority next time around. (Assuming that Harper is still the leader)

[Ronald Pagan]

Low voter turnout helps the Conservatives in my opinion. They should have won a majority. Their stagnation in Quebec was the reason. Not 5 parties. If anything that should have helped them in Quebec.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Low voter turnout helps the Conservatives in my opinion. They should have won a majority. Their stagnation in Quebec was the reason. Not 5 parties. If anything that should have helped them in Quebec.

While be it low, Quebec had the highest turnout at 61%.... and how exactly does it help conservatives?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

I suppose that is true enough. As a non-CPC guy though I think that with a different leader and no green shift the Liberals win a mojority next time around. (Assuming that Harper is still the leader)

I think you run into a lot of difficulties in the upcoming months. New leader, new debts and there is no sure thing that Iggy, Rae, McKenna, or Trudeau is "the" guy.

[Bertuzzied]

Last nite was the first time ever I did not vote Liberal in a federal election. I can't believe Dion wants to stick around. He will be only the 2nd Liberal leader in the past 80 years not to become prime minister.

They really have to rework their leadership selection. It's like the democrats nominating John Edwards because Clinton and Obama split the vote. INSANE!!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dan02

While be it low, Quebec had the highest turnout at 61%.... and how exactly does it help conservatives?

Because it is easier to make that the excuse for the result than the fact that Harper's record resonated better overall than Dion's promises.

[calculoso]

I think this says a lot about Liberal voters.

When Kim Campbell was in charge of the Conservatives, they were reduced to 2 seats. Sure the Reform was still around (with arguably a strong leader in Manning), meaning that the Reform+PC got 56 seats.

With Dion, arguably the worst Liberal leader of all time, they only go down to 76 seats.

People complain about the West voting nothing but Conservative... and yet Liberal voters are exactly the same.. and even worse in my opinion. We keep hearing that these are uncertain times and yet their leader wanted to change (Shift) the whole economy. Add in all of the other Dion criticisms, and yet still gets 76 seats???

[Ronald Pagan]

While be it low, Quebec had the highest turnout at 61%.... and how exactly does it help conservatives?

Four parties competing for the center left vote should have helped the Conservatives. I wasn't talking about voter turnout.

Voter turnout isn't as likely an issue in Quebec where the bloc has the more mobilized base. So voter turnout could have affected the Conservatives negatively in Quebec.

I stand by my assertion that low voter turnout helps the Conservatives in the rest of the country because they have a much more active base and party machine. How is that controversial or partisan or me being a 'Liberal?'

Because it is easier to make that the excuse for the result than the fact that Harper's record resonated better overall than Dion's promises.

You just can't help yourself. Since when did I say that the reason the Liberals lost was because of low voter turnout? Get real, seriously, you are just stooping lower and lower with each passing swipe.

[MarchHare]

I think this says a lot about Liberal voters.

When Kim Campbell was in charge of the Conservatives, they were reduced to 2 seats. Sure the Reform was still around (with arguably a strong leader in Manning), meaning that the Reform+PC got 56 seats.

With Dion, arguably the worst Liberal leader of all time, they only go down to 76 seats.

People complain about the West voting nothing but Conservative... and yet Liberal voters are exactly the same.. and even worse in my opinion. We keep hearing that these are uncertain times and yet their leader wanted to change (Shift) the whole economy. Add in all of the other Dion criticisms, and yet still gets 76 seats???

Mulroney's majority coalition was built on three voting groups:

Quebec nationalists (Bouchard et. al.)
Western conservatives
Red Tories/Blue Liberals in Ontario and Atlantic Canada

In the 1993 election, the first group went to the Bloc, the second group went to the Reform Party, and the third group went to the Liberals.

The loss of support amongst those three groups, coupled with Kim Campbell's disasterous campaign (which featured the infamous "Is this a face you can trust?" ad) resulted in the decimation of the PC Party. The fact that the Liberals won 76 seats yesterday despite a poor leader and a bad (but not as terrible as Campbell's in 93) campaign shouldn't be spun as being a "victory" for the Liberals by any means. This is, afterall, their second worst result since Confederation.

[Bobblehead]

Harper doesn't have a majority today for 2 reasons.

1) The economy tanked during the campaign. Not that there was much Harper (or anyone) could do about that, but if the buoyant markets had held throughout the campaign then there would have been no ammunition for the opposition to go after him.

2) Saying he was going to cut culture spending. Quebec values "culture" seemingly more than anywhere, at least they are more vocal about it. How many votes did Harper scare away by that move?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Mulroney's majority coalition was built on three voting groups:

Quebec nationalists (Bouchard et. al.)
Western conservatives
Red Tories/Blue Liberals in Ontario and Atlantic Canada

In the 1993 election, the first group went to the Bloc, the second group went to the Reform Party, and the third group went to the Liberals.

The loss of support amongst those three groups, coupled with Kim Campbell's disasterous campaign (which featured the infamous "Is this a face you can trust?" ad) resulted in the decimation of the PC Party. The fact that the Liberals won 76 seats yesterday despite a poor leader and a bad (but not as terrible as Campbell's in 93) campaign shouldn't be spun as being a "victory" for the Liberals by any means. This is, afterall, their second worst result since Confederation.

Thanks for the history lesson, but you have apparently missed my point.

For all of the statements about "the west will always be Conservative no matter what", the same statements can be said about Liberal voters (especially GTA). It doesn't matter how horrible the leader, it doesn't matter how horrible the campaign, it's not going to matter.

The west at least tries different things - creating the Reform party, for example - when a party philosophy goes wayward... Liberal voters stay true to the brand no matter what that brand represents.

[Slava]

^ How exactly do you explain Rob Anders with that example?

[MarchHare]

You may not want to admit this, but Ontario is much more of a "swing province" than Alberta. In this election, Ontario voters elected multiple MPs from the CPC, NDP, and Liberals. Over the past 15 years, all three parties have formed majority governments at the provincial level. The criticism that "Ontario blindly votes for the Liberals no matter what" simply isn't true.

Meanwhile, Alberta always votes en masse for whichever major party is the most right-wing. At the provincial level, we've had the same Conservative dynasty for 40 years, and it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

If Shory's as good of a politician as he is a lawyer, then you're in for some fun in the NE!

So, it wasn't even close.

I'd ask what to expect from Shory, but I know what to expect - a sheep in the back benches uttering nary a bleet.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You may not want to admit this, but Ontario is much more of a "swing province" than Alberta. In this election, Ontario voters elected multiple MPs from the CPC, NDP, and Liberals. Over the past 15 years, all three parties have formed majority governments at the provincial level. The criticism that "Ontario blindly votes for the Liberals no matter what" simply isn't true.

If you look at the GTA voting results (not all of Ontario), you will see that GTA is all red.
So while it may not be "Ontario" that blindly votes Liberal, but the majority of people that live in the GTA, do blindly vote Liberal. And the GTA has enough seats to make a difference.

[Ford Prefect]

With regards to Albertans voting en masse for right wing parties, Don Braid has an interesting article in today's Herald in which he comments on how Albertans are perceived as "stupid, undemocratic and live in a dictatorship" for their voting habits, yet Quebecers are "considered brilliant when they vote strategically". I've always mused about this difference in perceptions as well. In reality, Albertans and Quebecers are just voting for what's best for their own regional interests, yet they're certainly perceived differently for doing basically the same thing.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...6-ab2b388523cc

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by arsenal

So while it may not be "Ontario" that blindly votes Liberal, but the majority of people that live in the GTA, do blindly vote Liberal.

Could you not just put the following: "but the majority of people that live in Calgary, do blindly vote Conservative"?

I think this is a silly argument anyway, to be honest; I think both the Cons and Liberals, even in their "downturns/bad policies/etc" still have valuable things to add. It is why they are the 2 major parties in the country effectively forever.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

In reality, Albertans and Quebecers are just voting for what's best for their own regional interests

Sure. As does Ontario, as does Atlantic Canada, as does BC....they/we all do.