Monday, October 19, 2015

Guide to Election Night

If you are a Canadian citizen over 18 and haven't voted yet, VOTE. You have until (all times local):
- 7pm in the Pacific time zone
- 7:30pm in the Mountain time zone
- 8:30pm in the Central, Atlantic and Newfoundland time zones
- 9:30pm in the Eastern time zone
Find your polling station at Elections Canada's website.

Click here for a summary of the projection.
Click here for the projected winner by riding.
Click here for a roundup and comparison of the various projections.
Click here for the complete trends since early September.

I have less time than I hoped for this, so I'll be brief. All times Eastern.

7pm: Polls close in Newfoundland. The Liberals should handily win all 3 ridings off the Avalon peninsula. They should also carry Avalon, despite the best efforts of Scott Andrews. The NDP will almost certainly win St. John's East. The race to watch is St. John's South--Mount Pearl, where both the projection and a riding poll this week suggest a very tight Liberal/NDP race.

7:30pm: Polls close in the rest of Atlantic Canada. I'm projecting 26 Liberals, 3 NDP and 3 Conservatives - the latter all in NB. Egmont (Gail Shea), Central Nova (Peter MacKay's old riding) and Halifax are all projected to narrowly go Liberal.

At this point, keep a very close eye on the popular vote. In 2011, the Conservatives outperformed polls by a similar margin across English Canada. Therefore, Atlantic Canada may be an early indication of how things are going.
- If the Liberals get above 55-56% and the Tories get below 19-20%, we could be en route to a Liberal majority.
- If the Liberals get below 52-53% and the Tories get above 22% or so, the election could turn out to be a nailbiter.
I will post a brief projection update based on the Atlantic numbers at around 9:15pm EDT.

9:30pm: Polls close in the rest of the country except BC. The big questions are:
- Will the Bloc regain official party status (12 seats)? All projections have the Bloc at 11 seats or less, but there is so much uncertainty that the odds of this happening are still quite decent.
- How well does the NDP vote hold up in Québec? The NDP is projected at 31 seats with 26.3%. But if it drops to, say, 23%, it could be looking at a disaster, and the Liberal odds of a majority would improve significantly.
- How big is the Liberal margin of victory in Ontario? The projection says 10% adjusted, 12.4% unadjusted. If that number climbs above 15%, we might have to stay up late to find out whether the Liberals win a majority. Conversely, if it drops below 8%, the Tories have a good chance of eking out a win.
- Liberal breakthrough in Calgary? Liberal/NDP breakthrough in Edmonton? The Tories have actually trended up strongly in Alberta in the past 2 weeks. The Liberals kept pace, but the NDP lost almost all of the Notley momentum, and its support fell by as much (proportionally) as in Québec since August, i.e. almost half! I think the Liberals have a good shot at 4 ridings (Calgary Centre, Confederation and Skyview, and Edmonton Mill Woods), while the NDP can hope to gain Edmonton Griesbach.

10pm: Polls close in BC. I'm projecting a very efficient vote for the Tories, and a very inefficient vote for the Liberals. Will those pan out? (They are at odds with most other models.) And what's going on in Victoria? With no public poll from that riding, it is difficult to know whether the Greens are on track to win a second seat there.

Enjoy election night, and once again, look for my post around 9:15pm EDT (follow me on Twitter if you need a reminder)!

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

@ElectionWatch, I'm wondering based on the Atlantic results if Mainstreet is right, and this will be a Liberal majority. I'm wondering if the model was too conservative. I'm happy regardless because while there is still quite a ways to go, at least Atlantic Canada is sending a message to the Harpers and the Kenneys

Election Watcher said...

Well, no model can deal with a party underestimated by 7 points in polls! Just sit back and enjoy the ride...

Habs24cups said...

Did you see Justin Trudeau's acceptance speech? I guess Bob Rae wasn't joking when he said that “He’s not the smartest guy in the room. No effing kidding . Seriously is this what you progressives want in a Prime Minister . What a luck box he wins a majority and now were stuck with that ass clown for 4 years otherwise he'd be gone in four weeks.

Election Watcher said...

Eh, I thought the speech was too long, but otherwise fine. But I'll judge him by how he governs, not by whether he manages to please cranky and condescending people.

Habs24cups said...

Cranky and condescending people best describes anti Harper folks of the last nine years . Can't wait to see our new Prime Minister during Question Period. Something tells me that he will have a low attendance record and that he will delegate other members of the cabinet to answer more than their fare share of his questions when he's present.

Anonymous said...

@Habs24cups, do you know what is the difference between a conservative supporter and a progressive one, in defeat, many progressives accept defeat with Grace(for the most part)! Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Did you see how Brian Mulroney reacted after he saw the results ? Trudeau hasnt even started governing and you criticize him already. You sound like the shrills who were criticizing Notley for the past 44 years of conservative corruption. Get a life. We were fine before Harper and in fact, we were better off and we will be fine after Trudeau! Honestly, its such a relief!

Anonymous said...

And you want to talk about smartness, if Harper was smart, he should know that 70% of the country despise him and his govt and everyone could see through his shenanigans of the (un)Fair elections Act, bill c-24, bill 51, his gutting of the long form census, ....the list is endless. We are a center left country and in no way, did Harper run in 2011 of raising OAS age but slyly increased the age as soon as he comes to power. That is called deception, and its not called being smart. And the guy was waiting for Obama to leave so that he could get Keystone. Now, it looks like Obama played it right and got to see Harper done with instead.

Anonymous said...

@ElectionWatcher, u were right, I thought the speech was a little too long but very humble and he seemed exhausted and he reached out to the NDP supporters because many of us have our feet in both. Am very happy he won! As a liberal supporter, honestly, am just relieved more than anything! And am happy to see my hope of a high turnout panned out well!

Election Watcher said...

@Anonymous 10:25am: To be fair, progressives' online comments at many websites after the BC Liberal win in 2013 were similarly off-putting. Our country would be a better place if these people had more respect for their fellow citizens. Fortunately, these people are, in my experience, rare in real life.

Habs24cups said...

Justin Trudeau voted in favor of bill 51. MR Harper raised the retirement age to 67 out of necessity not because it would make him popular . If raising the retirement age to 67 was the wrong thing to do lets see the Liberals lower it back to 65.

Habs24cups said...

Posted this comment over at CBC in regards to whether Christy Clark would be interested in running for the leadership of the Conservative party...... She's hot She's conservative .She will become very electable once Canadians get to see newly elected Prime Minister Einstein in action. My comment was disabled . This after 1000's and 1000's of mean spirited Harper comments were welcomed during the election campaign . CBC ........ FAIR & BALANCED .

Anonymous said...

@Habs24cups, Well, if he was going to raise OAS age for the "good" of the country, he should've campaigned on it and I would've liked to see how many seniors he would've gotten in 2011. Since that is behind us, to your question of whether the Liberals would reduce the age back to 65, that is a near certainty.

A lot of us are not asking JT to be Prime Minister Einstein, we're asking him to show respect for 100% of the country and not 30% of the country and a respect for the charter and the courts and for people who disagree with him. Yes, JT voted for c-51 but did you see how he met with people who opposed him and spoke to them in person and they agreed to disagree respectfully. Can you ever imagine Harper speaking with anyone, nm, the respectful part.

With regards to the economy, a lot of what happens in the economy these days are based on central bank decisions and not by any leader in particular tho they would prefer that govts took the lead in spending versus them having to keep interest rates low and/or do asset purchases to get the economy moving when its not growing like its the case now.

With regard to Christy Clark, a lot of things can change between now and 2019-2020. But if the conservative party doesnt move to the center, they will certainly never form government again especially if there is electoral reform as the sum of Liberal + NDP support would ensure a conservative majority never rules like they did. The only question is if the Liberals will make changes to the system now that they got so many seats. I hope they do because honestly, for a lot of progressives, the Harper decade especially the latter 4 years was a scary thought of what an autocratic leader with no checks and balances is capable of.

Btw, to your question of being censored on CBC, as a progressive, I had the same problem on CTV news. So not sure but i think it works both ways.

corey1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
corey1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
corey1971 said...

She is also a well known federal Liberal!

Habs24cups said...

Mr. Chretien campaigned in 1993 on terminating the GST & the Canada -US free trade deal . In 1994 the Chretien government signed NAFTA. I guess free trade is only a bad idea when a conservative government signs it but a good idea when a Liberal government does

Habs24cups said...

The media works both ways? You're joking right. Harper ran in five elections . How many CBC employees do you think would have voted for him once out of five? CTV referred to the Liberals as ''Our Liberals'' during election night coverage when updating seat projections. The media repeat liberal talking points over and over again so that it becomes the narrative . An example of this was the claim that Steven Harper was using wedge politics, he was pitting Canadians against one another he was using the politics of fear in regards to deporting terrorist and the Niqab . The truth is that Canadians overwhelmingly were in favor of Harper's stance on these issues, 82 percent on the niqab . This was unacceptable to the media elites. So then the theme of the election was Steven Harper was using wedge politics, he was pitting Canadians against one another he was using the politics of fear. Did the media ever question JT about budgets balancing themselves ..... his admiration of China being a dictatorship .....that Canada should help refugees facing genocide with our knowledge of living in a cold climate. If he was a conservative he would have been.

Election Watcher said...

There's CBC and CTV on one side, but then there's Postmedia on the other. And let's not forget that CTV used to be rather pro-Conservative (remember that Stéphane Dion interview, and of course Mike Duffy), and that the polls flipped during the 2005-2006 campaign when the media made a big deal of that RCMP investigation, when it later emerged that there was no undoing.

I think the media tends to turn against any government after a few mandates. The Harper gov't may have accelerated that by the way it treated the media.

Election Watcher said...

*wrongdoing (not undoing, of course)

Anonymous said...

@Habs24cups, Regarding Canadians overwhelming supporting Harper's stance on bill c-51 and c-24 as you say, well, 70% of the country doesnt want Harper, so how do you square both ? I think 70% of those Canadians until Oct 19th didnt make it a point to show their disapproval together. This time, Harper drove them to vote to show him that 30% cant drive the agenda for 100% of the country. I despise the Niqab but I dont want to tell someone who does want to wear one that she cant. We dont dictate to people who have strongly held beliefs especially when its not at the expense of anyone else. Even worse, its just 2 women. What was truly galling at what the conservatives did is when it came to the Niqab, was that it was a ministerial instruction. If they really wanted to change the law, add the requirement onto bill c-24 as it was supposedly the "strengthening of the citizenship act". What a waste of taxpayer money fighting a losing case. It went against the law that is in the books and that is the shameful part. It costs 260,000 for the dumb court case. With reg to the survey conservatives like to quote for 80% are opposed to the wearing of the Niqab, the survey fails to mention that the person is being identified beforehand. So survey results are as dubious as some of the dumb angus reid surveys that I've seen which is why I think they got such a poor result this time around when it came to the election. You can drive to get any result you want based on the question you pose.

Reg stripping citizenship, what is egregious is that for the first time, they are putting into law that anyone who is "eligible" for another citizenship can have their canadian citizenship revoked and there is no appeals process before stripping and after revocation, its up to the plaintiff to prove that they arent able to obtain another citizenship. Conservatives are making the argument that there should be a conviction for treason for that to happen and that this applies to dual citizens only which is an outright lie. What they also fail to mention is that the law says a conviction in any jurisdiction that is similar to Canada's will suffice. So if a Canadian is convicted in the US, s/he is essentially screwed because he is essentially banished from returning to Canada to appeal. Harper recently stated that he wants to expand the list of crimes. Today it is treason, tomorrow, it can be financial crimes, tax evasion, the list is endless. Many dual US/Canadian citizens dont pay taxes in both places because of residency issues etc and many are largely unaware. Now your retort might be why commit these crimes, I agree, nobody should but then, the rule should apply equally, born citizens(who cant claim another citizenship) and naturalized. So try to argue facts versus using Jason Kenney talking points. After the loss on Monday, his takeaway was that the "tone" was wrong, and if that is what he thinks got 70% of the country to get together to throw them out, then, he will never see power again. Going and eating curry in ethnic neighborhoods is his version of engaging with ethnic communities, I mostly pity only the ethnic communities who voted for him for that purpose. Thankfully, all those ethnic communities got together to throw them out.

Habs24cups said...

The bottom line is, Why would you or any decent Canadian want terrorist living in Canada ?

Election Watcher said...

No, the bottom line is: Why would you or any decent Canadian want to create two classes of citizenship? And to let terrorists potentially go free abroad rather than be in jail?

Habs24cups said...

Canadian citizenship can be revoked from a dual citizen if the person:
• Obtained citizenship by false representation or fraud
• Served as a member of an armed force or organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict with Canada
• Was convicted of treason, high treason, spying offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life
• The person was convicted of a terrorism offence or an equivalent foreign terrorism conviction and sentenced to five years of imprisonment or more .........The only thing progressives would find wrong with this is it makes to much sense

Election Watcher said...

Devaluing Canadian citizenship by creating two classes of citizens makes no sense to me as a Canadian.

Also, even if one is OK with two-tier citizenship (as you seem to be), the law is written in a stupid way. A Canadian can get his citizenship stripped after a conviction by a *foreign* court, without any hearing in a Canadian court. So if a Canadian is on vacation in a country with a corrupt legal system (e.g. most tropical countries) and gets wrongfully convicted, the minister can take away that person's citizenship and prevent that person from ever coming home. Zero recourse. This apparently makes total sense to you.

Anonymous said...

I would add to that, Harper's real intention versus people thinking behind a lot of the bills his party authored. Here is a very short summary but I wont delve into too much as the list is long so will keep it germane to this topic.

bill c-24: Make citizenship conditional. In this way, naturalized citizens would always feel or those who were born of recently naturalized parents would always know they are not the same as 'old stock' Canadians. If they didnt obey the rules, they would be kicked out. Treason was only a start point, that is for sure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/30/bill-c-24-harper-tories-criminals-trudeau_n_8223162.html

Another intention in c-24: Slow down the number of people who can obtain citizenship by increasing wait times, residency rules etc. Since new Canadians are typically shown as least likely to vote conservative, why not make it difficult for them. Also, this would discourage them from applying. Top it all with a massive fee increase, not to mention increased wait times. Its from the GOP playbook.

Beyond the Border Action Plan: Everyone thought that Harper was truly going to be using Beyond The border to hunt criminals and so called immigration fraud. Now we know behind the scenes, his main aim was to go after snowbirds(ironically, the same people who vote for him most of the time...Funny how he bites the very hand that feeds him), welfare cheats, EI claimants, and child benefit claimants.

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/stricter-border-monitoring-could-impact-canadian-snowbirds-1.2630636

People get caught up when they hear about Harpers crusade against this fraud, that cheat, while at the same time, the Harper govt was going to bat to protect KPMG's fraud.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/harper-government-partnered-with-industry-group-battling-cra-over-kpmg-case-1.3257994

Danny Williams was 100% right and most of us dont even know Harper personally and for Danny Williams to say what he said, there has to be some truth to it.

I think its very simplistic to assume Harper had only one thing in mind. He was pursuing incremental change to see how far he could go before the 70% revolted. He bet the left could never unite. What he didnt see coming was how far he had scared the crap out of the 70%. Many folks I know and even many interviews since then show that for the 70%, it was mostly relief rather than jubilation after Oct 19th.

Regarding Harper's great economic management, since he was handed down from the previous liberal govts, a 27b dollar surplus, I seriously doubt he should get any credit for handling the 2008 financial crisis. He didnt even want the stimulus spending which actually helped the economy, his hand was forced by the liberals and the NDP at the time.

Habs24cups said...

Is this the same Danny Williams that went to the US for healthcare ? Rather than using the best healthcare system in the world . Let me rephrase this .It's the best healthcare system for non politicians but certainly not good enough for his eminence.

Habs24cups said...

Well it has taken 405 days for Justin Trudeau to prove what I said on election night He's no Einstein . Canada is the laughing stock of the world after his disgusting praise of Castro. What an ignoramus. Well I guess you could say that he's a chip off the block.

Election Watcher said...

Ottawa, Ontario - 22 January 2015

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement on the death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia:

“On behalf of all Canadians, Laureen and I offer our sincere condolences to the family of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz and the people of Saudi Arabia.

“King Abdullah was recognized as a strong proponent of peace in the Middle East. He also undertook a range of important economic, social, education, health, and infrastructure initiatives in his country.

“I had the pleasure of meeting King Abdullah in Toronto when Canada hosted the G-20 and found him to be passionate about his country, development and the global economy.

“We join the people of Saudi Arabia in mourning his passing.”

Habs24cups said...

I don't seem to remember any Saudis celebrating his death and I don't ever recall Saudis fleeing the country .

Election Watcher said...

So, if you have enough oil to dole out the cash and can rely on religious extremism to brainwash people, then it's OK to be a brutal dictator?

Habs24cups said...

So are you
saying that if Castro had more cash he could have brainwashed all the Cubans that fled Cuba to stay ?

Election Watcher said...

Partly. Money would definitely have helped - many more Saudi's would look for a way out if economic conditions there were half as bad as in Cuba. But even then, it would have been hard for Castro to pull off the religious aspect of the Saudis' rule.

Habs24cups said...

Once again Justin Trudeau has proven that doesn't have the intelligence and intellect to be Prime Minister of Canada . His comments on the problems facing Indigenous youth in our country completely asinine . He actually said that they need more storage room for their canoes and paddles. Completely indefensible . He's just not ready and never will be.

Election Watcher said...

I saw that interaction. The context was that he suggested that in some cases, storage room might respond to needs better than expensive community centers demanded by elders.

I tend to agree with both Justin and the prevailing Conservative view that there is a lack of accountability of First Nations leaders. Just giving more $$$ isn't going to solve problems if the money is not well spent. But, sadly, attempts to demand accountability are viewed as disrespectful to First Nations, so the Conservatives ended up doing little, and the Liberals are discovering how hard it is to make things better.

Habs24cups said...


Trudeau's 5 priorities

The prime minister said his government would immediately move on the following five promises the Liberals made during the recent election campaign:
■Launch a national public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.
■Make significant investments in First Nations education.
■Lift the two per cent cap on funding for First Nations programs.
■Implement all 94 recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
■Repeal all legislation unilaterally imposed on indigenous people by the previous government. NO MENTION OF CANOE STORAGE








Election Watcher said...

lol