Provincial Election

[acottawa]

CBC poll tracker was updated yesterday. Not looking good for the Liberals.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/poll-tracker/

[1overcosc]

2 seats, 1 in East (almost certainly Ottawa-Vanier) and 1 in Toronto (St. Paul's?).

Also, wow.. NDP up to 37 with error range up to 48. Interesting that even at the top of their confidence interval which places them at 48 seats they still have just 2 in Eastern Ontario, likely Ottawa Centre and Kingston. What would their 2nd Ottawa seat be if their surge continues? OWN?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

2 seats, 1 in East (almost certainly Ottawa-Vanier) and 1 in Toronto (St. Paul's?).

Also, wow.. NDP up to 37 with error range up to 48. Interesting that even at the top of their confidence interval which places them at 48 seats they still have just 2 in Eastern Ontario, likely Ottawa Centre and Kingston. What would their 2nd Ottawa seat be if their surge continues? OWN?

I don't see a second seat for the NDP in the Ottawa area. Even in 1990, when they won a majority, they still only won one seat in the Ottawa area.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

2 seats, 1 in East (almost certainly Ottawa-Vanier) and 1 in Toronto (St. Paul's?).

Also, wow.. NDP up to 37 with error range up to 48. Interesting that even at the top of their confidence interval which places them at 48 seats they still have just 2 in Eastern Ontario, likely Ottawa Centre and Kingston. What would their 2nd Ottawa seat be if their surge continues? OWN?

The model might say those two but it would likely be harder to predict. In 2011 federal election they got 25% in Ontario which translated into 11 seats. Some of which were won by well known candidates in less liberal friendly ridings. I don't know who provincially could punch above their weight. Probably Kathleen Wynn herself? Maybe some former mayors.

I can't see the NDP actually going much higher. As soon as their poll results threaten to form a government the right flank of the Liberals might peel off to the PCs. This is one factor in 2011 results. Granted Ford is a different beast but like educated suburban Trump voters they might expect the PC party to keep him in check.

[Truenorth00]

The PCs look set for an outsized victory thanks to vote splitting on the left.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The model might say those two but it would likely be harder to predict. In 2011 federal election they got 25% in Ontario which translated into 11 seats. Some of which were won by well known candidates in less liberal friendly ridings. I don't know who provincially could punch above their weight. Probably Kathleen Wynn herself? Maybe some former mayors.

I'm not sure we're in 2011 territory anymore. In that election the NDP and Liberals basically tied at 25% (but the NDP got more seats). Current polling has the NDP in the 30 range and the liberals in the low 20s. If that is correct (and we all know polling isn't as accurate as it used to be) then the Liberals would have a hard time keeping the 416 ridings and small cities like Kingston and Guelph they held in 2011.

I think you're right that a prominent local politician can buck an overall collapse (as Elsie Wayne and Jean Charest did in the Tory collapse of 1993), but Team Wynne is lacking in star candidates.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I can't see the NDP actually going much higher. As soon as their poll results threaten to form a government the right flank of the Liberals might peel off to the PCs. This is one factor in 2011 results. Granted Ford is a different beast but like educated suburban Trump voters they might expect the PC party to keep him in check.

That part of the Liberal voter base has already left. I don't think the PCs can take much more from the Liberals. Whether or not the NDP or PCs win the election largely depends on how much more the NDP can take from the Liberals, IMO. Is the Liberal "floor" at 20%, or 10%? If it's the former, we'll end up with a PC majority with a strong NDP opposition, if it's the latter, we'll have Premier Horwath.

The math and the conventional wisdom say the Liberal floor is very low due to how bit-shit scared progressives are of Ford, but I have a hard time seeing the OLP drop into the teens.

[1overcosc]

Some amazing soul did the number crunching and redistributed the 2014 provincial elections onto the 2018 riding borders; the numbers for reach riding are posted on the http://www.electionprediction.org/2018_on/index.php site.

One thing that stands out. In Ottawa's western suburban seats, the federal Liberals did WAY better in 2015 than their provincial cousins did in 2014, by nearly 20 points:

Nepean: 36% for Wynne Liberals in 2014; 52% for Trudeau Liberals in 2015
Carleton: 28% for Wynne Liberals in 2014; 44% for Trudeau Liberals in 2015
Kanata-Carleton: 33% for Wynne Liberals in 2014; 51% for Trudeau Liberals in 2015

Even with redistribution, MacLaren won by 12 points in 2014; just 16 months later, the federal Conservative lost the same riding by 12 points.

In the rest of Ottawa, the 2014 Wynne Liberal and 2015 Trudeau Liberal numbers are fairly similar.

[acottawa]

Latest Ipsos poll shows the NDP with a slight lead.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4222975/o...ed-ipsos-poll/

I tend to think this still points to a Tory majority. With Ford leading in the 416 (something that never happens for the Tories) and the NDP starting from so far back in Eastern and Central Ontario it will be very difficult for them to pick up enough seats. And with the Liberals running last in every region, the chances of a minority government (of any type) are pretty low.

[lrt's friend]

What is driving the public's dislike for Kathleen Wynne? I have not figured this out.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What is driving the public's dislike for Kathleen Wynne? I have not figured this out.

This is just my opinion, but I think it is the huge shifts on policy. There is more of an ideological difference between the different iterations of Kathleen Wynne than there is between the three parties. If someone is a centrist then they feel betrayed that Wynne won the 2014 election on a centrist platform and then veered sharply to the left. If someone is a leftist they are suspicious of her deathbed conversion. Politicians sometimes get away with a major shift like (Jean Chrétien comes to mind) but such a successful shift is usually accompanied by some sort of narrative (such as concern about the deficit during the Chrétien era) but with Wynne there has been no explanation.

[SkeggsEggs]

My guess, most people don't follow or care about provincial politics. They just go by what they see in the news or read in the paper. Most of that has been overwhelmingly negative since the second she was elected.

Aside from issues with Hydro, Ontario seems to be in a very good position.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

Aside from issues with Hydro, Ontario seems to be in a very good position.

Hydro is a pretty big one. Out of all the things to screw up, they picked something voters are reminded about on a monthly basis.

The province's fiscal situation is a pretty obvious failure as well.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What is driving the public's dislike for Kathleen Wynne? I have not figured this out.

Just my opinion, but she appears to be the textbook definition of what is wrong with democracy.
- Beholdin' to financial benefactors (Teachers, PS Unions in general, Global Breweries, etc) with minimal apparent concern for anyone else.
- Surrounded herself with advisers (i.e. Butts) whose SOLE purpose is to win the next election, with little regard to "doing the right thing" and showing leadership on difficult files.
- continual deficit spending and misrepresentation of annual budget(s)
- willingness to stick our kids/grandkids with the Hydro bill for her own short term political gain.
- Only negative attack ads

That said... I'm sure many other politicians would do the same thing (incl Ford and Horwath)... however the problem with KW is it's just simply a performance record that one cannot brag about. As I mention in the first sentence, this is more of a failure in the way democracy works, rather than anything special about her.

Canada seems to loath almost all former politicians... this is just another example of someone who is well past her prime.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Hydro is a pretty big one. Out of all the things to screw up, they picked something voters are reminded about on a monthly basis.

The province's fiscal situation is a pretty obvious failure as well.

How is Hydro a major screw up? It seems to me that what happened as far as pricing was inevitable if we wanted a greener and more reliable hydro system. Remember the massive 2003 black out. The other parties do not really offer anything better on this front. The sell off of Hydro is helping fund infrastructure improvements.

The Ontario economy is also doing extremely well.

The problem with the deficit is because of heavy investment in infrastructure. How do the other parties provide a better option? How do tax cuts allow us to invest in infrastructure? This all seems to go back to the days of Mike Harris who cut taxes massively and shrank the tax base. He certainly did not invest much in infrastructure.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What is driving the public's dislike for Kathleen Wynne? I have not figured this out.

I've been a little confused by that too so I ask that question a lot. And generally I find everyone gives different answers.

I think this is part of the difficulty in uniting opposition to her government in one camp; there isn't a single narrative or driving force behind her unpopularity. Rather a bunch of things with every type of Ontarian having their own list.

Originally Posted by acottawa

This is just my opinion, but I think it is the huge shifts on policy. There is more of an ideological difference between the different iterations of Kathleen Wynne than there is between the three parties. If someone is a centrist then they feel betrayed that Wynne won the 2014 election on a centrist platform and then veered sharply to the left. If someone is a leftist they are suspicious of her deathbed conversion. Politicians sometimes get away with a major shift like (Jean Chrétien comes to mind) but such a successful shift is usually accompanied by some sort of narrative (such as concern about the deficit during the Chrétien era) but with Wynne there has been no explanation.

This is the best one-paragraph explanation one can give, I think. Every part of the spectrum has felt betrayed by her in some way shape or form, and for different reasons.

As for hydro, every government since the 1970s has mismanaged the file, IMO, and Wynne has mostly just inherited the storm that all of her predecessors have spent the past 40 years brewing up: the overeliance on expensive-to-maintain nuclear (Davis mostly), the use of deferred capital spending to balance the budget (everyone), the inefficient restructuring of the hydro system into a bunch of different chunks (under Harris), and overspending on green energy (McGuinty). All these mistakes coalesced into a disastrous system by Wynne's time.

Wynne hasn't managed the storm well either; the deferred capital spending scheme while reducing costs now will ultimately cost more in the end. But the storm isn't really her making.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

How is Hydro a major screw up? It seems to me that what happened as far as pricing was inevitable if we wanted a greener and more reliable hydro system. Remember the massive 2003 black out. The other parties do not really offer anything better on this front. The sell off of Hydro is helping fund infrastructure improvements.

I agree that some of the costs went to improving the hydro system, but beyond that:

There was a policy decision to dump a lot of non-hydro costs (industrial subsidies, general infrastructure) onto hydro ratepayers. This is not a general best practice in managing public utilities. These costs should have gone directly onto the provincial balance sheet.

There is a massive glut of power in the province. There is an installed capacity of 36,945 MW. The highest power consumption ever on Ontario (and that was in 2006) was 27,005 MW. Producing a surplus of electricity might make sense if it could be sold to other jurisdictions at a profit, but most of the surplus power is being sold far below cost.

And of course, the badly bungled gas plant cancellation.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Ontario economy is also doing extremely well.

So is the American economy. Should we give Trump credit for this?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The problem with the deficit is because of heavy investment in infrastructure. How do the other parties provide a better option? How do tax cuts allow us to invest in infrastructure? This all seems to go back to the days of Mike Harris who cut taxes massively and shrank the tax base. He certainly did not invest much in infrastructure.

Infrastructure is less than 10% of the province's budget. About the same as the interest costs.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Latest Ipsos poll shows the NDP with a slight lead.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4222975/o...ed-ipsos-poll/

I tend to think this still points to a Tory majority. With Ford leading in the 416 (something that never happens for the Tories) and the NDP starting from so far back in Eastern and Central Ontario it will be very difficult for them to pick up enough seats. And with the Liberals running last in every region, the chances of a minority government (of any type) are pretty low.

We're in completely unknown territory. Swing models break down entirely once third parties shift to front runner status, because when this happens it means a third party has acquired new chunks of support it's never had before, whereas swing models only calculate changes in already existing support bases. It's almost impossible to predict how the seats will line up. I do tend to think that the PCs are going to have more efficient distribution regardless so the NDP need at least 2-3 points of a lead to actually win though.

What I find interesting is how firm the Liberal floor is. It's been clear for weeks now that the Liberals are in third and that anyone who wants to stop Ford should vote NDP. Yet strategic voting hasn't really manifested that much, the Liberals are still firmly holding onto that 22%-23% or so of the vote in every poll. The NDP have continued to gain since the Liberals have dropped to the low 20s, but those gains have actually come at the expense of the PCs.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

We're in completely unknown territory. Swing models break down entirely once third parties shift to front runner status, because when this happens it means a third party has acquired new chunks of support it's never had before, whereas swing models only calculate changes in already existing support bases. It's almost impossible to predict how the seats will line up. I do tend to think that the PCs are going to have more efficient distribution regardless so the NDP need at least 2-3 points of a lead to actually win though.

What I find interesting is how firm the Liberal floor is. It's been clear for weeks now that the Liberals are in third and that anyone who wants to stop Ford should vote NDP. Yet strategic voting hasn't really manifested that much, the Liberals are still firmly holding onto that 22%-23% or so of the vote in every poll. The NDP have continued to gain since the Liberals have dropped to the low 20s, but those gains have actually come at the expense of the PCs.

Some of this is party loyalty but there are also committed centrists. Who do they vote for this cycle? Many are low information voters and voting for Ford already. Some know the extreme positions of both NDP and PC in this election so will stick with Liberals even though they may know this is a wasted vote.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

We're in completely unknown territory. Swing models break down entirely once third parties shift to front runner status, because when this happens it means a third party has acquired new chunks of support it's never had before, whereas swing models only calculate changes in already existing support bases. It's almost impossible to predict how the seats will line up. I do tend to think that the PCs are going to have more efficient distribution regardless so the NDP need at least 2-3 points of a lead to actually win though.

That's a good point. I just have a hard time seeing an NDP path to victory. Based on current polling I would expect them to run the table north of the French River, in urban SW Ontario and Hamilton/Niagara. After that the list gets pretty short: York/East York, some of the larger centres in Eastern Ontario (Kingston and Peterborough) maybe Scarborough (although Ford is strong there), maybe Ottawa Centre, maybe Brampton. That isn't enough to win an election. Unless the Liberal vote completely collapses (and as you said, the Liberals seem to have found their floor) then further gains in Ottawa or Old Toronto are unlikely. Otherwise they have to start taking rural and suburban ridings from the Tories. Hard to see that happening without a major drop in Tory support.

The last (well, only) time the NDP won, the distribution of ridings was a lot different. NDP strongholds like Hamilton/Niagara, SW Ontario, Northern Ontario had a lot more seats, while the 905 had fewer.