April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by First Lady

One thing though.... the Premier is running in Calgary Elbow, not Klein.

Ha! Thanks for the clarification. Just had a look and definitely can't see her losing her seat there. I grew up near that area and it is definitively an area that has been a long strong hold for PCs (both federally and provincially). If I recall, that area voted in Joe Clark during the last Federal election before the merger...

Now Calgary-Klein, with Nixon on the ballot, I can see that being a battle ground.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Ha! Thanks for the clarification. Just had a look and definitely can't see her losing her seat there. I grew up near that area and it is definitively an area that has been a long strong hold for PCs (both federally and provincially). If I recall, that area voted in Joe Clark during the last Federal election before the merger...

Liberal Cheffins did take it in the 2007 by-election; but really that too can be seen as going in Redfords favor.

Now Calgary-Klein, with Nixon on the ballot, I can see that being a battle ground.

Yup, he is a solid, well-rounded candidate, who has been working extremely hard to earn the support of constituents.

.... and the incumbent, Kyle Fawcett lost a lot of friends with his Tweet after the Nenshi win. This followed other faux pas tweets; the Nenshi one earned him the nickname Leaky Fawcett.

[First Lady]

The (every) Friday Abacus poll is out (Commissioned by the Sun)

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by First Lady

The (every) Friday Abacus poll is out (Commissioned by the Sun)

Its becoming very apparent that the PC's are running out of options of how to gain back any semblance of power....they are going to haveto get nasty and personal...and it will have to be at Smith...will see how desperate they really are shortly me thinks.

The WRA leads in all significant areas for undecided voters on top of those decided ones....remarkable stuff IMO.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Someone unwilling to do their job because of some superstitious nonsense they happen to believe in should be fired.


into the sun.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its becoming very apparent that the PC's are running out of options of how to gain back any semblance of power....they are going to haveto get nasty and personal...and it will have to be at Smith...will see how desperate they really are shortly me thinks.

I think it's still possible for some sort of change to occur in the election. I don't think it'll be a swing back to any where close to what the polls showed in January or after Redford was selected, but I don't see the WRP gaining anymore. I think they've plateaued. As I said, earlier in the thread I could see a softening of the WRP lead in the next week.

I personally don't think attacking Smith is the answer to the change. Smith is a great political figure and her personality will be something that will be hard to derail. The PCs would be better to hammer on the untested candidates in each riding. The debate on Thursday is going to be an interesting turning point in the election.

As Slava said (online) I wouldn't count Carter out, just yet.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its becoming very apparent that the PC's are running out of options of how to gain back any semblance of power....they are going to haveto get nasty and personal...and it will have to be at Smith...will see how desperate they really are shortly me thinks.

The WRA leads in all significant areas for undecided voters on top of those decided ones....remarkable stuff IMO.

I actually wish the Libs were doing a bit better, but it looks like the ND's might switch places with them.

Its just another snap shot, as always a small sample (IMHO) and a LOT can change before the 23rd.

I'm looking forward to the Wildrose's 5th and final pledge. I don't know what it is, but suspect they saved best for last(?)

Also the debate on the 12th could be a pivotal point ... for any party.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I actually wish the Libs were doing a bit better, but it looks like the ND's might switch places with them.

Its just another snap shot, as always a small sample (IMHO) and a LOT can change before the 23rd.

I'm looking forward to the Wildrose's 5th and final pledge. I don't know what it is, but suspect they saved best for last(?)

Also the debate on the 12th could be a pivotal point ... for any party.

agreed, its just that every single poll in the last 10 days or so, sans one IIRC, has shown the same trends and answers to those key questions that often decide for those not sure yet...and all of those are favorable to the WRA....all of them...which is what i find so remarkable about it all.

As for the Libs it appears to my very amateur eye that they are heading the way of the dodo bird both provincially and federally and at some point there will be a Lib/NDP merge.

If Smith does anything but bomb in the leaders debate, she will be the next premier...the only question will be whether she has a majority mandate or a minority propped by her most bitter rivals.

[getbak]

There's an old saying that Alberta doesn't elect governments, it elects dynasties.

You can go back to the founding of the province, and we've never had a minority government, and when the tide finally turned against the government, it has traditionally been a virtual destruction.

Large image, showing the seat counts in every Alberta election:

Spoiler!

I didn't expect it to happen this time around, but it's shaping up that it might.

[Slava]

Well getbak, you know what they say: "this is what always happens, until it doesn't"

I looked at 308 this morning and while the polls are seemingly holding his seat counts are off I think. There is almost no way Calgary goes entirely Wildrose. Firstly, Kent Hehr and David Swann win. Then you have a bunch of ridings (Currie, Varsity, McCall for example) where there is a fairly decent amount of Liberal support and a growing split between the PC and Wildrose voter. It's not a lock for any party there, and could come down to each campaign.

Then we have ridings with guys like J. Denis, Ric McIver, and Alison Redford. I think they pull through. I don't know every riding in the city, but I would think there are strong PC associations and same goes for the Wildrose. So the numbers get a bit deceiving. A party can win one riding with 65% of the vote and next door they lose with 25%. Its really hard to predict.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well getbak, you know what they say: "this is what always happens, until it doesn't"

I looked at 308 this morning and while the polls are seemingly holding his seat counts are off I think. There is almost no way Calgary goes entirely Wildrose. Firstly, Kent Hehr and David Swann win. Then you have a bunch of ridings (Currie, Varsity, McCall for example) where there is a fairly decent amount of Liberal support and a growing split between the PC and Wildrose voter. It's not a lock for any party there, and could come down to each campaign.

Then we have ridings with guys like J. Denis, Ric McIver, and Alison Redford. I think they pull through. I don't know every riding in the city, but I would think there are strong PC associations and same goes for the Wildrose. So the numbers get a bit deceiving. A party can win one riding with 65% of the vote and next door they lose with 25%. Its really hard to predict.

I don't know how you infer riding-by-riding support from a province-wide poll anyway. That seems really goofy. Do they talk about their methodology?

That's not to say we aren't headed toward a WildRose government. I think we are; I just hope Albertans aren't surprised when it turns out that the party of Rod Love in 2012 is pretty much the same as the party of Rod Love in 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or you get the picture. Sometimes "voting for change" just means voting for lawn signs that are a different colour.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't know how you infer riding-by-riding support from a province-wide poll anyway. That seems really goofy. Do they talk about their methodology?

That's not to say we aren't headed toward a WildRose government. I think we are; I just hope Albertans aren't surprised when it turns out that the party of Rod Love in 2012 is pretty much the same as the party of Rod Love in 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or you get the picture. Sometimes "voting for change" just means voting for lawn signs that are a different colour.

Well he doesn't say who will win in each riding, he just adds projections based on the polling results. So the longer a party shows a certain trend or certain holding pattern he tries to factor that into his projections. Province-wide he gives a low/high for each party and his current thought.

I read his updates federally and as I recall he wasn't close. When I see his Calgary projection at zero Liberals though, I think he bases it entirely on the polling. Like I say, maybe Wildrose would dominate the city today, but there are still seats for the Liberals and I think seats in play in general. I think I live in a riding where the seat is up in the air really. There are quite a few signs for both the Wildrose and PCs, and its impossible to say who is winning from what I can see.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well he doesn't say who will win in each riding, he just adds projections based on the polling results. So the longer a party shows a certain trend or certain holding pattern he tries to factor that into his projections. Province-wide he gives a low/high for each party and his current thought.

I read his updates federally and as I recall he wasn't close. When I see his Calgary projection at zero Liberals though, I think he bases it entirely on the polling. Like I say, maybe Wildrose would dominate the city today, but there are still seats for the Liberals and I think seats in play in general. I think I live in a riding where the seat is up in the air really. There are quite a few signs for both the Wildrose and PCs, and its impossible to say who is winning from what I can see.

One not-insignificant question is what the Wild Rose's ground operation is like. I assume it's good, but somewhat untested? I honestly don't know; FL could speak to it maybe.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

One not-insignificant question is what the Wild Rose's ground operation is like. I assume it's good, but somewhat untested? I honestly don't know; FL could speak to it maybe.

Well I guess thats what I was alluding to when I was talking about some strong constituencies and some weaker. In my area the Wildrose nomination was uncontested and the riding doesn't seem particularly active. Next door though the candidate for the WRA has been hosting townhall meetings and out doing things for at least a year. I think that this is the case for every party where there are some strong ground games and some weaker.

In the case of the Wildrose the question is whether a rising tide lifts all boats though. If the party ends up at 40% in Calgary then I think they win most of the seats (with a few holdouts like Buffalo though). As that number is closer to 30% though you just have a lot of tight two way races and a handful of three way races.

I do agree with the line about change though. This is why the "Blue Committee" formed actually. They were concerned that the two parties would split the vote and another party would come up the middle. The coming up the middle part hasn't happened though!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't know how you infer riding-by-riding support from a province-wide poll anyway. That seems really goofy. Do they talk about their methodology?

This?

The seat projections are based on the popular vote projections made for each province and/or region. Those projections are based on an aggregate of all publicly available polling data, weighted by the age of the poll, the size of the sample, and the track record of each pollster, as well as the difference between past voting intentions and voting behaviour.


Basically, ThreeHundredEight's riding-level projection model is a proportional swing model. For example, if a party is projected to have 30% of the vote in a province, but had 25% of the vote in the last election, all vote shares in each riding in that province for that party are increased by a factor of 1.2 (30 divided by 25). The model does this for each party in each riding, and then corrects the results to ensure that they add up to 100.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This?

Yes, that.

That seems like a very clunky model to be using to project seats. I will henceforth treat this site's projections with a little skepticism.

[getbak]

[transplant99]

Danielle Smith clarifies the the non-abortion issue Saturday night...

“Can’t and won’t. I’ve made my position clear that as long as I’m leader of this party, we won’t be legislating on this issue,” Smith said at a Calgary seniors lodge.

“We have had no direction from our members that they want to open this issue, we have never had any policy on this issue. I would not legislate in this area, and it’s not an issue Albertans are talking about.”

“I’ve spoken with a legal scholar in the past couple of days, and he indicated it would likely be offside with section 7 of the Charter. This is the reason why it has to go to a judge. Because we can’t be having public referenda on things that can’t be instituted.”

Section 7 deals with a person’s right to “life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

“This is what happens in politics when you have a new conservative party, a new threat to a governing party, is that there are issues that are going to come up to try to scare people into thinking you shouldn’t vote for them because they are going to upend the legislation that currently exists,” she said.

“We have seen this time and time again, whether it was the Reform party or the Canadian Alliance or even Stephen Harper’s Conservatives — (Liberal leaders) Paul Martin, Jean Chretien always trotted out these divisive, contentious moral issues to try to scare people.”

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...249/story.html

[SebC]

“I’ve spoken with a legal scholar in the past couple of days, and he indicated it would likely be offside with section 7 of the Charter. This is the reason why it has to go to a judge. Because we can’t be having public referenda on things that can’t be instituted.”

Good to know that abortion funding is likely off the table. That's a non-denial.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

Good to know that abortion funding is likely off the table. That's a non-denial.

Really?

“Can’t and won’t. I’ve made my position clear that as long as I’m leader of this party, we won’t be legislating on this issue,”

No idea how it can be much clearer.