Angus Reid has released its final poll of the campaign, and it has the Liberals up 4, the NDP down 3, and the Tories down 2. This produces a 4-point national lead for the Liberals. Angus Reid's likely voter model brings it down to a 1-point national lead. However, in Ontario, Angus Reid's likely voter screen does not change the numbers, and the Liberals have a 10-point lead either way, up from a tie in last week's poll. This is good news for the Liberals since Ontario is where their support level matters most. On the other hand, in BC, Angus Reid puts the Liberals 3-4 points (7-9 points with the likely voter screen) behind the other parties, unlike most other recent polls that have the Liberals at least tied for the lead. Interestingly, Angus Reid's likely voter model does not penalize the NDP even though it has lower support among seniors.
Today's EKOS shows mostly stability. The NDP has come down a little in QC (to 30.4%, consistent with what other polls show), and the Liberal lead in ON shrinks again, to 7.1%. Neither of these shifts are statistically significant, though given that the Liberals need to win ON by around 8% to win the election, we're really in an area where every point there can make the difference.
The updated projection moves toward the Liberals due mostly to the reduction of the weight on last week's Angus Reid:
CON - 128, -3 (33.1%, -0.3%)
LIB - 123, +2 (34.7%, +0.4%)
NDP - 82, +1 (22.4%, -0.1%)
BQ - 4 (4.6%)
GRN - 1 (4.2%)
This gives a 40-45% chance of winning to the Liberals. Note that when a pollster provides likely voter figures, I use those (instead of my own adjustment) for the projection. I still use the eligible voter figures for the unadjusted projection below:
LIB - 134 (35.6%)
CON - 113 (31.4%)
NDP - 84 (22.9%)
BQ - 6 (4.5%)
GRN - 1 (4.4%)
This gives the Tories a roughly 25% chance of winning.
Tomorrow morning, Léger and Mainstreet should release their final national polls of the campaign.
@ElectionWatcher, do you think the liberals can win this ? I'm mostly asking from a hunch perspective as am sure you would like to see the results from tomorrow into Sunday. I just was asking from a momentum perspective if it was holding for the liberals and if they can actually get the people out to vote for them. I just think its interesting how Angus Reid seemed to have a disclaimer at the end about possible 'hidden' conservative support which the polls arent showing necessarily.
Well, as my post suggests, I think it's close to 50/50. Perhaps things will clarify a little with the weekend's polls, perhaps not. I have no insight to offer regarding turnout: I don't have connections within political parties, so I don't know how things are looking in the field.
Remember that my turnout adjustment is about half of the advantage the Tories had outside Québec in 2011. If they reproduce that and things don't move further, they would easily win. But my guess is that Conservative voters are a little less motivated (and their opponents more so) this time around. If that wipes out their turnout advantage entirely, the Liberals would easily win.
Thanks for this great blog. You can count me as one of those 'shy Tories'. I have trouble believing these heavy leads for the Liberals given how badly they mismanaged that province. Personally I can't stand Harper and would like to see him go so we can have a better leader. I might have sat on my vote but I do not want the PMO becoming the Trudeau family dynasty. So probably I'll be out on Monday to put the brakes on the Liberals.
Leads in Ontario.. that is.
Angus Reid confirmed my fear after all. This is not an easy win for the Liberals at all and is a 50/50 race. I am shuddering already.
This was a good blog. A very realistic view of how things have shaped up.
I know the decline of the NDP seems to have halted, but I predict there are still quite a few NDP voters who will jump ship come Monday. And of course I'd assume those voters will strategically vote Liberal, and so I'm predicting a Liberal minority, just shy of a majority.
Two years ago I predicted NDP support will wane as the election date nears, for fear of splitting the left wing vote, allowing Harper to win, therefore bolstering Liberal support just past the Tories on election day. At least as of today, my prediction seems like it may become a reality.
Of course that prediction banked on Trudeau running an excellent campaign. I feel Trudeau ran a very well executed campaign. He didn't crumble under the harsh, heavily funded Conservative ads. He was straight forward with his plan to run three deficits. He didn't treat the voter like an idiot, and trusted the public to understand that growth requires investment.
And in all honesty, in federal elections, charisma matters. I think the juxtaposition of his charisma compared to Harper's lack-there-of, really pushed Harper to try act "warmer" - I. E. Starting every sentence with "my friends...", wearing Roots sweaters during televised speeches, and of course his famous one liner to show he can laugh: "And no my friends, budgets do not balance themselves". It's insulting to assume nobody will realize how out-of-context that statement was obviously taken.
All of it seems unnatural and forced; for Harper to act warm and friendly, that is. He just seems like a robot compared to Trudeau, and sure, even Mulcair. Whether it should matter or not, personality sways uneducated and educated voters alike. At first Trudeau seemed phoney and typical, but he's grown on our nation, and people really warmed up to him these past 6 months.
Obviously, I'm a Grit, but I don't always like Liberal leaders. Trudeau really seems genuine in his desire to help the middle class, and he seems trust that Canada and its inhabitants will make the most of his investments in order to stimulate growth.
As for the Tories having a 25% chance of winning. It depends on how you look at it, but it's hard to play it down to a roll of the dice. The decision is virtually made at this point, barring any extreme circumstances. One party has a 100% chance, the others have 0%. We just have to wait until Monday to find out where our hearts lay.
At the end of the day, Canada is always the greatest place on earth, no matter who's in charge! It hurts how bad I want the Liberals to win, but I understand the Tories have a very decent chance... And if it's Harper for four more years, I'll still wake up Tuesday not wanting to live anywhere but here in Vancouver, BC, Canada!
Thanks for the blog, it's helped me to not get TOO excited about the recent Liberal surge and to remain realistic. Despite the recent polls and seat projections, I still feel this race is too close to call. But all said, I'm hoping for two wins Monday: A Liberal majority and a victory for the Blue Jays. Wouldn't that be nice?
@Brad: Thanks. I think that given recent history, people distinguish between the OLP and the LPC. Chrétien/Martin governed very differently from McGuinty/Wynne.
@Gideon: That was almost certainly going to be the case, given Angus Reid's consistently poor numbers for the Liberals with respect to other pollsters.
@Earth: Thanks. Yes, Trudeau ran a wonderful campaign - let's hope that he'll be as good at governing. Yes, governing: I think it doesn't really matter if the Tories get a couple more seats since as long as they don't get a strong minority, the next government will likely be Liberal. And even if the Tories surprise us all and win a majority, it'll probably be only 2 more years of Harper. Of course, after that, it could be 2 years of Kenney, which may be worse from a centrist/left perspective.
Indeed, in a sense, it's a done deal already, and we're just waiting to find out what it's going to be. A Liberal majority seems very unlikely, barring some huge last-minute shift in QC. I wrote at the outset of the campaign that the key for the Liberals is to finish in front of the NDP; at this point, that should happen with 90%+ probability.
I wish I could distinguish between the OLP and the federals, but I can't. Gerald Butts has had his hands in both. And wiping that smug grin off Wynne's face is turning out to be a powerful motivator.
I think the Nanos numbers will probably give some direction. And @Brad, if u thought Wynne is bad, how about 44 years of conservative rule in AB. Werent they corrupt too ?
The only difference is generations kept voting for them, no matter what. While I personally dont believe climate change is the biggest issue, the world is moving forward on climate change and Canada is a laggard. Do you remember the part in the Munk debate where Harper had the gall to take credit for shutting down of coal fired power plants in Ontario when he was did everything in his power to oppose it. Now that its reduced emissions, he wants to take credit for it(that is the conservative way...take credit when things are good but when it goes bad, its everyone else). You state that you dont like Harper and while you do have a choice to vote for anyone you choose, to bring out the Wynne argument is silly as tories seem to conveniently forget their own misdeeds. When oil prices fell, Prentice conveniently increased taxes on most except his corporate buddies. 80% of the province was against a health levy and he still instituted it. Now, to your question of Wynne and Ontario, sure, you pay more taxes, but you see a lot more services. Could she do things better ? Sure, everyone can, but Hudak's first suggestion was cutting 100,000 public sector workers, and there goes the theory of trickle down economics which never works. Govt always has a role to play, maybe not an expansive role. Conservatives are amazing at taking credit during the 2008 crisis which is ridiculous because the previous Liberal governments had left them with a 27 billion dollar surplus which is all gone now thanks to "Harper's prudent fiscal management" and also, since our banks werent deregulated like in the states, it helped maintain banking stability.
I'm not supportive of either the Liberal or NDP platform completely but I would rather heed the advice of Danny Williams that Conservatives really need to think. I heard one person say he would rather stick with the devil he knows in the incumbent. Maybe being cynical is a sure way to live but I think when one has the opportunity to try something, why not. That is why many NDPers are considering not wasting their vote this year. If one has to wait for 44 years for a new generation to bring change in AB, then, its truly sad. And speaking of corruption, what about the F-35 program cost, or the money spent on fighting in the Middle east, TPP provisions for outsourcing jobs for TPP partners. Do you realize that wages in Vietnam for high tech workers are a tenth of the cost here and due to TPP, there are no wage controls for workers from there. So there are more things to worry about than worrying about a "Trudeau dynasty". Harper's final aim is going after our beloved medicare to encourage privatized medicine. I've lived in the States and its a terrible system but its hard to convince people who have lived under the privilege of having free healthcare all their life.
@Brad: I'm pretty sure Paul Martin and Dalton McGuinty shared a number of advisors, but they were clearly distinct governments. What I like about the federal Liberals is that they also have advisors (and even candidates) that include some of the country's best economic minds. No provincial party, regardless of the stripe, could hope to attract such an impressive team - these people have better things to do.
That's why I'm quite confident that Liberal economic policy will be sound (even if Trudeau himself is not particularly well-versed in the matter) quite unlike what happened under Trudeau père. And if it turns out that these people don't have enough influence, the Liberals can be thrown out in 2 years. The Liberal platform suggests that this shouldn't be a big worry. (In fact, the 1993 Red Book would have made one fear the worst, but thankfully sane minds prevailed and the Liberals broke their ill-conceived promises.)
@Anonymous: Sigh. The whole point of trade is cheap imports so that our resources (both labour and capital) can be used to produce higher-value goods and services. Trade and technology have similar effects on the economy. They are disruptive in the short run because they allow us to get some goods and services for cheaper, which puts some firms out of business and some workers out of a job. But in the long run, those resources get reallocated, and the economy is more productive. (Think where we would be if we decided to ban any technology that makes certain jobs redundant.) From the perspective of the economy, being against trade is no smarter than being against technological progress. For me, the NDP's opposition to the TPP disqualifies it from forming government.
And don't get me started on the why raising corporate taxes is a bad idea (especially while cutting the small-business ones). I'll just point out that Scandinavian countries have figured it out: Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland all have lower corporate taxes than us. The North American left should seriously ask itself why such progressive nations chose that path (and are in fact doubling down, with an ongoing round of corporate tax cuts in many of these countries). That would be a first step in figuring out how to fund a generous welfare state with minimal damage on economic growth - it can be done (unlike what the right says), but not if one insists on doing it in a stupid way like the NDP.
@Election Watcher fyi, I'm 100% pro trade and you are right, it will lead to a more efficient allocation of resources and personally, I love people coming here and even movement of people, and cheaper goods. I'm opposed to TPP because of its draconian IP clauses, the pharmacare provisions(more expensive drugs), and the extra territorial rights for companies. Also, why is it so secretive. If it impacts 40% of world GDP, its a shame when people dont get to see the text.
On the job front, as a person who has experienced the upside and the downside to outsourcing of high tech jobs, I'm skeptical when I see upper mgmt executives getting all the money and govts giving tax breaks for offshoring jobs. They save money by sending the job overseas but the "saved money" goes to the senior level executive who cuts the most jobs. My point is they are not saving money. I know that is capitalism with the good and bad that comes with it. Its just that when it allows TFWs without full rights, to be taken advantage of, putting them through long work hours, abusive situations, its not pretty. And if that wasn't enough, central banks are already ensuring interest rates are maintained at historically low levels for the benefit of companies and borrowers who have overextended themselves and screwing everyone who is hoping to live of interest on their bank deposits. So companies and the well connected have enough breaks. So many of my friends who work as contractors find that the CRA comes after them for a $100 here or there for a home business deduction etc, while at the same time, they allow companies like KPMG to virtually buy their way out of it. So trade is amazing if companies are ethical or at least, show some level of discretion. I find it pitiful when Canada Post and other organizations say they saved money by cutting services and jobs and handing all that money to executives at the top. If the saved money was used to invest or even given to the shareholders, it would surely create jobs. Instead, its the people at the top so there is a big problem when I see these side deals negotiated like this. People like the Harpers and Kenneys have never held a real job which is why they have no idea what it is like to send resumes upon resumes, no calls, no breaks etc. When I hear conservatives say Harper is an economist, I wonder about their level of awareness that he's never worked as one. Sure, he has a degree but if you dont have experience in the field. Starting salary for all these MPs are 165,000, so I know they dont give a hoot about anyone making less but a lot of MPs within the conservative party are so tone deaf that its a pity when I see people vote based on ethnic group, niqab or the like.
Finally, even after all these trade deals were signed, we always have Canada price versus everyone else price. So in spite of having a stronger Canadian dollar, we never saw the benefits whether it was cheaper gas, cheaper grocery bills etc.
@Anonymous: Well, that's good to hear. Not sure about IP and extraterritorial rights for companies, but from what I hear, the pharmacare provisions would not raise drug costs relative to CETA. (Besides, lower isn't always better since the money to develop new drugs needs to come from somewhere.) I believe that the text will come out before ratification - lawyers are probably still working out the kinks...
Upper mgmt doesn't get "all the money" from trade liberalization. Executive compensation may have skyrocketed, but it is still tiny compared to the increase in trade flows or to firms' revenues. (This line of argument reminds me of Vancouver's transit referendum failing because some transit execs get paid $300-400k. Really, voters? You really think executive compensation is a large chunk of Translink's costs?) And increased competition from trade force firms to "save money" - if they don't, they'll go under.
Interest rates are low because the economy is weak. If they were high, we would be in a severe recession. That's probably the last thing one should complain about (even though it is very annoying for savers). This, too, is not a trade issue.
The gripe about prices being unaffected by trade/strong dollar is demonstrably false. Gas prices went up because oil went up by more in USD than the CAD appreciated. Just like gas prices have since fallen because oil went down by more in USD than the CAD depreciated. Other prices are also responsive to exchange rates (of course sometimes with a lag). I agree that the general price level on tradable goods is a little higher here than in the US, but given our smaller market size (which means fewer economies of scale) and higher minimum wages, that's probably inevitable. The real problem in Canada is that we allow ourselves to be milked by domestic cartels such as taxis and dairy farmers.
I don't think any of the above changes with a different government. (Well, maybe the NDP would change the problems to something even worse.)
TFW is a different issue from trade entirely. I agree that the program needed to be tightened. Ditto for any problems with the CRA and Canada Post. (And no, not "all the money" saved by Canada Post goes to the top - by not incurring losses, Canada Post avoids taking money from taxpayers. Whether that's a good idea is up for debate.)
For me, the biggest problem with the Tories' stewardship of the economy is their poor tax policy. Mistakes include:
- Cutting the GST instead of other taxes
- Not introducing a carbon tax
- Allowing income splitting for working-age families
- Bunch of boutique tax credits
- Not harmonizing the small-business and corporate tax rates (though they did bring them closer, before now promising to widen the gap again)
My problem with the Conservatives mainly lies in the realm of social policy;
Delayed reaction to support Syrian refugees, lack of support for Muhammad Fahmi (basically Harper bowed down to Egypt), his fear mongering over "home grown terrorism", his American-esque war on drugs... The list goes on.
I'm very delighted to find out that tomorrow, Trudeau is holding his final campaign rally in Surrey. I'll be there cheering him on!
Totally agree. On the economy, they've done a good job (except, as explained above, relative to tax policy, and even there it hasn't been disastrous) - though I think the Liberals would have done just as well. On most other things, it's been many years of darkness that are hopefully coming to an end.
Post a Comment