Calgary Centre Federal By-election - Nov 26 (UPDATE - Crockatt wins for CPC)

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

I am looking forward to hear the result of the latest polls. There are at least two recent polls. I got one call last night and one the night before. The call I got last night was interesting, in that it asked if 1CC would influence my vote. Obviously, this could be a private poll, but even these often get released unless the people paying for it really don't like the result.

Yes, we heard about this Robocall last night.

It wasn't tied to us as our budget doesn't allow us to run a Robocall campaign, nor have we endorsed the idea of Robocalls. For those curious our budget is $3,000 based on Elections Canada's rules for Third Party Registration in a single riding (which we are officially registered as). To be honest, it's quite flattering that one of the campaigns would try and and leverage us in this manner.

That seems like a lot of effort by 1CC for what seems like a predetermined endorsement of Turner. Tweets have been biased toward Turner. There seems to be a number of personal links between 1CC & the Turner campaign.

I'll throw this out there again, and I'll also place my personal reputation on this, but nothing with this process is predetermined.

At this point we have 500 registered voters, may look like at the end of the registration drive we have 700-800 people partaking. We also do not know which way the votes will swing until everything is tabulated. From my standpoint, I'm curious as to how it all plans out. How the questions are arranged will provide some interesting information into not only who people support, but who they think will win.

At the end of the we're hoping to get the opinion of 700-800 residents of Calgary Centre. Who the collective endorses is who the collective endorses.

Now this process of registering with validation. Sure, it shows that they are going above and beyond to screen out duplicates. However, this will by no means be a random sample. This is very biased toward those that are very active online. Turner's campaign is very actively promoting that people sign up. Given that it appears that Turner has the strongest volunteer army, his supporters will dominate the poll. The sad part is 1CC will use this "validation" process to argue that it was an impartial process.

I agree with you that Turner supporters are very active online. I guess the question is if Harvey or Meades campaign were as active or more active online would the project be biased to Harvey or Meades? Is Twitter more biased to Turner or Harvey because many of the users are online? Is Tumblr more biased to Harvey because the campaign has a Tumblr blog? At the end of the day the 1CalgaryCentre project was a tool for people in the riding to find out more about the candidates and it was a tool for the campaigns to leverage. All three campaigns were well aware of the process when we started in July/August. We can't control who embraced it and who chose not to, we have been encouraging all "progressives" in Calgary Centre to participate - it's always been open to everyone.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The conservatives have already instituted Child Tax Credits which anyone can apply towards day care.

A daycare subsidy punishes families who choose to have a stay at home parent.

That's a really good point, actually.

I'll just add that universal benefits (like the Universal Child Tax Credit) are generally also cheaper to administer.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I certainly hope the turnout is better than 22%...then again didn't one of the mayoral elections (either 2001 or 2004) have a lower than 20% turnout? We're actually a pretty embarassing city when it comes to voter turnout, though part of me wonders how much that has to do with the sense of inevitability (i.e. the CPC will almost certainly win every seat) that many races have, which probably tends to make voters apathetic.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

That seems like a lot of effort by 1CC for what seems like a predetermined endorsement of Turner. Tweets have been biased toward Turner. There seems to be a number of personal links between 1CC & the Turner campaign.

Now this process of registering with validation. Sure, it shows that they are going above and beyond to screen out duplicates. However, this will by no means be a random sample. This is very biased toward those that are very active online. Turner's campaign is very actively promoting that people sign up. Given that it appears that Turner has the strongest volunteer army, his supporters will dominate the poll. The sad part is 1CC will use this "validation" process to argue that it was an impartial process.

Keep in mind I am saying this as someone who is going to vote for Turner and I really hope that he wins (no matter how big of a longshot). I still think he is the best candidate, by far. Even if he comes in third, my vote is not wasted. It shows that if you bring forward a great candidate, you have a great shot of winning even if you are are backed by a "loonie" party. I think he would be in the lead if he was the Liberal candidate.

I am looking forward to hear the result of the latest polls. There are at least two recent polls. I got one call last night and one the night before. The call I got last night was interesting, in that it asked if 1CC would influence my vote. Obviously, this could be a private poll, but even these often get released unless the people paying for it really don't like the result.

I agree with your sentiment here (not every thing, like I have no idea how you discern that Turner has the strongest volunteer army, but its not a big deal). Honestly, just trying to be objective, if 1CC picks the guy in third place over the guy in second the entire process was flawed. I totally understand that there are a lot of people who like Turner over the other two, and vice-versa. There are a lot of people who also like Crockatt over the other three. If the entire decision comes down to an online poll though and basically disregards the other polls, there is something misguided. Looking at the polls and trying to read the tea leaves to somehow suggest that Turner is the favoured progressive because of things like "growth since the beginning of time" or "Turner has never lost an election the day after the Grey Cup game" or whatever is just plain gerrymandering in my opinion.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

I'll throw this out there again, and I'll also place my personal reputation on this, but nothing with this process is predetermined.

I probably overstated my point. I don't actually believe that 1CC started this with the intent of having a separate campaign supporting Turner. It is just the biases toward Turner are apparent. This is both in individual comments as well as the process being biased towards his supporters. Given the bias, it is really hard to take the group seriously. There were bias accusations early on. As I stated earlier, I didn't include this group in my initial post because people were accusing them of being biased toward Turner. I think it is an innocent bias, but if this was done with more effort to be impartial the campaign would be a bit more effective.

There are tweets nearly every day that sound like spin towards Turner. Here is an example from yesterday:

Game changer? http://ow.ly/fsduR #YYCCentre

The link goes to a Facebook group for "Progressive Conservatives 4 Turner". This link could have just as easily been shared without the words, "Game changer?" The phrase implies that the existence of this group means that even if you thought that Locke was the candidate to beat the CPC, here is something that could change that. This link could have been shared with less biased wording. Even something as boring as "Here is a group of conservatives that support the Green party". If you wanted something a little less boring, it could have even been something like, "Even strong conservatives want a progressive candidate." I posted a link earlier of the assessment of the polls saying that Locke had hit is ceiling as another biased tweet. There are more, and I now fully understand why I was seeing so much criticism for 1 Calgary Centre early on.

At this point we have 500 registered voters, may look like at the end of the registration drive we have 700-800 people partaking. We also do not know which way the votes will swing until everything is tabulated. From my standpoint, I'm curious as to how it all plans out. How the questions are arranged will provide some interesting information into not only who people support, but who they think will win.

At the end of the we're hoping to get the opinion of 700-800 residents of Calgary Centre. Who the collective endorses is who the collective endorses.

I too look forward to seeing the result, but I will not use it to base my decision of voting.

I agree with you that Turner supporters are very active online. I guess the question is if Harvey or Meades campaign were as active or more active online would the project be biased to Harvey or Meades? Is Twitter more biased to Turner or Harvey because many of the users are online? Is Tumblr more biased to Harvey because the campaign has a Tumblr blog? At the end of the day the 1CalgaryCentre project was a tool for people in the riding to find out more about the candidates and it was a tool for the campaigns to leverage. All three campaigns were well aware of the process when we started in July/August. We can't control who embraced it and who chose not to, we have been encouraging all "progressives" in Calgary Centre to participate - it's always been open to everyone.

If you truly want to support the candidate that has the best chance of beating Crockatt, it would be best not to have an approach that biases any candidate for having more engaged volunteers. That in itself is a very good sign of a good candidate, but it is not an indication that they have the best chance of winning.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree with your sentiment here (not every thing, like I have no idea how you discern that Turner has the strongest volunteer army, but its not a big deal).

Turner supporters are more visible online. See here for some numbers. I am hearing more volume and passion from Turner volunteers, online and at the one forum I was at. I may be wrong, but if so, the Locke supporters are not as visible to me.

[Slava]

I just wanted to say that the work by 1CC has been great. I know some of the people involved, some better than others and some who have become involved at different stages. I think that they have put an enormous amount of work in and tried to keep it as non-partisan as possible. They should definitely be commended!

Personally, I would've liked to have seen them set this up so that a decision was made say 2 weeks ago, and tried to encourage the other progressives to drop out. I understand why they didn't go this route, but that would've been my hope.

I think its a great initiative, even though I think that the result will be them endorsing Turner, and I think that is the wrong decision based solely on who can most likely win.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by Slava

Personally, I would've liked to have seen them set this up so that a decision was made say 2 weeks ago, and tried to encourage the other progressives to drop out. I understand why they didn't go this route, but that would've been my hope.

Do you really think declaring earlier would make any difference? Given the polls, I can not see how either Locke or Turner would have possibly pulled out of the race two weeks ago. Locke had 2nd, Turner had momentum and was up to 23%. You do not go that far in a campaign to pull out that early from either position.

The only one that could possibly drop out is Meades. He could play kingmaker. If he supported either candidate publicly, that would sway a lot of votes. I'd even consider changing my vote to Locke if Meades supported him. This could be done today. It could even be done on Friday. Yes, you miss the advance polls, but that is the only significant downside of waiting. You gain the chance to pick up more polling information, which would include 1CC. When you factor that Turner & Locke were only 5% apart in the last poll (which is the margin of error), poll results from this week will be interesting.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

Do you really think declaring earlier would make any difference? Given the polls, I can not see how either Locke or Turner would have possibly pulled out of the race two weeks ago. Locke had 2nd, Turner had momentum and was up to 23%. You do not go that far in a campaign to pull out that early from either position.

The only one that could possibly drop out is Meades. He could play kingmaker. If he supported either candidate publicly, that would sway a lot of votes. I'd even consider changing my vote to Locke if Meades supported him. This could be done today. It could even be done on Friday. Yes, you miss the advance polls, but that is the only significant downside of waiting. You gain the chance to pick up more polling information, which would include 1CC. When you factor that Turner & Locke were only 5% apart in the last poll (which is the margin of error), poll results from this week will be interesting.

I imagine there's larger institutional priorities for the NDP besides seeing a Conservative defeat in Calgary centre. Their national party interests are not in conceding a race to defeat the Conservatives. Gives the Cons alot of ammo at the national level to paint them as a power over all party.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I imagine there's larger institutional priorities for the NDP besides seeing a Conservative defeat in Calgary centre.

That's always the problem with the NDP.

Q: What did the Orange Wave give us?
A: A Conservative majority!

[Flamenspiel]

Looks like the hidden agenda is out of the bag for the Liberals. "Go Back to Alberta!"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article5528169

[Bunk]

That's just David McGuinty who generally just seems to be a jerk. He was quickly rebuked by party leadership.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Looks like the hidden agenda is out of the bag for the Liberals. "Go Back to Alberta!"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article5528169

I don't think that's a hidden agenda, considering the party basically sold him out immediately and forced him to resign when he was on vacation. They moved swiftly, it was a stupid comment and he was reprimanded. I don't think he speaks for the whole party.

[OffsideSpecialist]

I guess being an idiot runs in the family.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The conservatives have already instituted Child Tax Credits which anyone can apply towards day care.

A daycare subsidy punishes families who choose to have a stay at home parent.

And public transit punishes those who choose to travel by car.

Having a parent stay at home is a luxury for those lucky enough to be able to afford it. Affordable daycare should be available to those parents where both need to work or for single parents.

The Universal Child Care Benefit is $100/month. In Toronto, typical daycare is $81/day.
http://www.toronto.ca/children/mccs/register.htm

[Rerun]

I hear Joan Crockatt just sent David McGuinty a dozen roses and a big thank you. The timing couldn't have been more perfect for her.

I also would imagine that this is what Harvey Locke looked like when the news broke....

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And public transit punishes those who choose to travel by car.

Having a parent stay at home is a luxury for those lucky enough to be able to afford it. Affordable daycare should be available to those parents where both need to work or for single parents.

The Universal Child Care Benefit is $100/month. In Toronto, typical daycare is $81/day.
http://www.toronto.ca/children/mccs/register.htm

Well, the UCCB can't properly be termed a daycare subsidy--that would be like giving a university student a fiver and calling it a "tuition subsidy." But it is combined with other tax credits; there is also an income-tested provincial daycare subsidy program, though it's not available to most working families (the income limits are very low).

It might help if we just agreed on the principle: affordable daycare, whatever form it takes, would improve the lives of middle-class working families and likely stimulate consumer spending. I doubt anyone seriously contests that: that being the case, the question is simply how to achieve that end.

And really, that's the more difficult question. I think, on balance, a federal daycare subsidy might create some difficult logistical problems. It would make little sense, for instance, to layer it on top of the assistance program currently provided by the province. Also, how do you structure such a program--is it done (as now) in the form of a more generous tax credit, or is it done by the government administering its own daycare facilities? Alternately, should government fund daycares directly, as is the case with public schools?

I don't really find any of those alternatives very satisfying.

[Bunk]

Today's Power and Politics Evan Solomon mentioned a poll from a "national consulting firm" that was sent to him that said: CPC at 29.9%, the Liberals at 28.6%, the Greens at 21%, 16% undecided and the NDP at 4%

I assume this is one of the party's internal polls he got his hands on.

Thoughts?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Today's Power and Politics Evan Solomon mentioned a poll from a "national consulting firm" that was sent to him that said: CPC at 29.9%, the Liberals at 28.6%, the Greens at 21%, 16% undecided and the NDP at 4%

I assume this is one of the party's internal polls he got his hands on.

Thoughts?

It's BS the sample size is too low! /Slava

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Today's Power and Politics Evan Solomon mentioned a poll from a "national consulting firm" that was sent to him that said: CPC at 29.9%, the Liberals at 28.6%, the Greens at 21%, 16% undecided and the NDP at 4%

I assume this is one of the party's internal polls he got his hands on.

Thoughts?

My thought is that the 16% undecided is a very bad sign for Crockatt. A portion of the undecided vote is likely waiting to see who the best strategic choice will be. Depending on the sample size, she is basically tied with Locke--1.3% might be a matter of just a couple of votes. If undecideds break for the strongest challenger, she's in trouble. (of course, one other possibility is that "undecided" voters are less engaged, and less likely to vote)

This poll would also be bad news for Chris Turner--my feeling is that the moment that poll is published the 16% flocks quickly into the Locke and Crockatt camps, favouring Locke by a significant margin.

On the other hand, those are all within the MOE of the Forum Research numbers. So I guess if you're Turner you take heart in that.