It's a four-peat (54 out of 57 ain't bad)

Looks like I was right in 54 of 57 constituencies in my Manitoba election prediction. I was wrong in thinking the NDP's rural vote would slide enough for them to lose Dauphin and Dawson Trail. In the end, they held on against strong Tory challenges in those seats. I was also wrong about St. Norbert, where new NDP candidate Dave Gaudreau managed to narrowly hold the seat for the party by around 150 votes.

The end result is 37 NDP to 19 PC and 1 Liberal rather than the 34 to 22 to 1 I had predicted. I thought the Conservatives would beat the NDP in popular vote, but the NDP still won 46% to 44%. That means an unprecedented fourth majority government and seat count, at least in modern Manitoba political history, and a stunning win for Selinger who entered his first campaign as party leader.

Election Oracle, Manitoba edition

After the mediocre prediction posted in last spring’s federal election, you think Prairie Topiary would have the good sense not to come out of retirement once again to make an election prediction. Alas, old habits die hard.

This is my forecast for this Tuesday’s provincial election: 34 NDP, 22 PC and 1 Liberal. Yes, so that means an unprecedented fourth majority for Manitoba’s NDP and a first for Premier Greg Selinger, a slightly larger and stronger PC opposition under Hugh McFadyen, and Liberal survival as Jon Gerrard clings to perhaps the last bastion of Liberal support in his River Heights seat.

Expect the NDP to win a comfortable majority of seats but lose the popular vote to the Tories who tend to pile up massive wins in rural areas yet fall just short of victory in most of Winnipeg suburbia.

Throughout the campaign, the media has kept its focus on the battles in Winnipeg, which holds 31 of the province’s 57 seats and the bulk of NDP holds that the Tories have to win to form government. I think, however, that the races outside of Winnipeg are just as interesting, so let’s start there.

South-western Manitoba

In southwest Manitoba, which has eight seats, expect the Tories to win solid victories in Arthur-Virden, Spruce Woods, Agassiz and Riding Mountain. I’m expecting previously NDP-held Dauphin and Swan River to be close. Though incumbent and Finance Minister Rosann Wowchuk is not running again, I expect the NDP to retain their Swan River Riding. In Dauphin, the battle is much tighter given riding redistribution, which reduces the NDP’s 2007 lead to 900 votes. I predict Tory candidate Lloyd McKinney will score an upset victory here over the NDP’s Stan Struthers, taking the seat for the Tories for the first time since 1977.

Brandon’s two seats are also battlegrounds. Brandon East has been held by the NDP since 1969, though the party’s wins have been slimmer in recent years. Brandon West, though traditionally Conservative, went NDP in 1999 and 2003 before Rick Borotsik took it back for the Tories in 2007. Both races could go either way in this election, though I predict an NDP hold in East and a Conservative hold in West.

SW MB tally: 2 NDP, 6 PC

South-eastern Manitoba

This region has 14 seats, most of which elect Conservatives. The NDP is hoping to hold its seats in Interlake, Gimli, Selkirk, and Dawson Trail, with Tory challengers strongest in Interlake and Dawson Trail. I predict defeat for Ron Lemieux in Dawson Trail against Tory Laurent Tetrault but NDP holds in the other three, with Interlake the narrowest of these. I may not be right – in 2007, I wrongly predicted defeat for Lemieux.

The only other seat worth watching is Portage la Prairie, which has never elected a New Democrat MLA, a goal the NDP has nevertheless been coming closer and closer to achieving in recent years. With redistribution, the 2007 Tory margin is only 400 votes and their incumbent is not running again while the NDP’s James Kostuchuk is. I’m not predicting it, but this may be one of the few places the NDP can make gains despite slippage in their vote elsewhere. Expect easy Tory wins elsewhere in this region.

SE MB tally: 3 NDP, 11 PC

Northern Manitoba

I don’t see any surprises here. Provincially, the NDP has long ruled northern Manitoba and should take all four seats again in this election.

Northern MB tally: 4 NDP

Winnipeg

Let’s get the strongholds and easy wins out of the way. The Conservatives will easily win Charleswood, Tuxedo and McFadyen’s seat of Fort Whyte (3 seats). Expect easy NDP wins in Wolseley, Minto, Logan, Point Douglas, St. Johns, Burrows, Elmwood, Concordia, Kildonan, The Maples, Transcona and Greg Selinger’s seat of St. Boniface (12 seats). And though the Tories may be eyeing the following seats (as they should), they’ll also remain safe for the NDP in this election: Assiniboia, St. James, Rossmere, Radisson, St. Vital, Fort Garry-Riverview and Fort Richmond (7 seats). That leaves nine Winnipeg battlegrounds to consider.

Kirkfield Park and Southdale: In 2007, these were the site of shocking NDP gains in Tory heartland. While the Conservatives are putting up stronger campaigns in this election, the organizational resources of the NDP combined with the incumbency factor of the MLAs likely mean NDP holds. Either way, these will be close races.

Tyndall Park and Fort Rouge: These represent the only true Liberal-NDP battles in the city. As Inkster in 2007, most of what is now Tyndall Park was strongly Liberal. Redistributed results, however, put the Liberals only 400 votes ahead in this seat and, without now-MP Kevin Lamoureux as their candidate, the Liberals will almost certainly see the seat return to the NDP fold. Liberal Paul Hesse is putting up a strong campaign in Fort Rouge against the NDP’s Jennifer Howard and it’s their only chance – albeit a long shot – of actually gaining a seat in this election. With Liberal vote fizzling in this election, I predict an NDP hold.

River Heights: Liberal leader Jon Gerrard is fighting to hold his own seat against Marty Morantz of the Conservatives. With redistribution, he would have won 4,448 to 2,407 votes in 2007, which is still an impressive margin of victory. Despite the Liberals’ plunge in the polls, I think the good doctor can eke out a victory here. This seat was traditionally Conservative until Sharon Carstairs took it in 1986 and they have struggled to win it since, succeeding only in 1995.

Riel, Seine River and St. Norbert: These three NDP seats in southern Winnipeg are being strongly targeted by the Conservatives. Under redistribution, the NDP would have won them last time by 2,200, 2,100 and 500 votes, respectively. With a close margin of victory and no incumbent running for the NDP, St. Norbert is ripe for Tory picking and I think they’ll do it. My gut tells me the margin of victory is too much for the Tories to overcome in the other two seats, though, even for popular former City Councillor Gord Steeves, who hopes to knock off Health Minister Theresa Oswald in Seine River.

River East: Conservative Bonnie Mitchelson barely held on to this seat in 2007, in what was a surprisingly strong result for the NDP. Under the redistributed boundaries, the NDP would have actually won the seat by 70 votes instead of losing it by 52 votes. I think the NDP’s numbers will drop here, like in most areas of the province, so that the Conservatives hold the seat.

Winnipeg tally: 25 NDP, 5 PC, 1 Liberal

Final thoughts

Of the 16 close races I’ve identified throughout Manitoba, I predict NDP wins in 9 (Swan River, Brandon East, Interlake, Kirkfield, Southdale, Tyndall, Fort Rouge, Riel, and Seine River), Conservative wins in 6 (Brandon West, Dauphin, Dawson Trail, Portage, St. Norbert, and River East) and a Liberal win in River Heights. Whether I’m right or wrong will come with Tuesday night’s news.

If I am right, the NDP will be jubilant even if stung by a few of their losses, Conservatives will devastated even if in a stronger position to win in 2015 (with a similar seat count to the NDP’s before they took power in 1999), and the Liberals will be relieved to be alive even with the soul searching that undoubtedly lies ahead for them.

---

Photo: A ballot from Afghanistan’s 2006 legislative elections. Large numbers of Manitoba voters will hopefully exercise their own right to vote on October 4.

Manitoba's new electoral boundaries

As some fellow bloggers (Curtis, PolicyFrog and The Hack) have already pointed out, the new provincial election boundaries have been finalized. While most of the outgoing constituencies will be replaced with fairly similar new counterparts, there are a few big changes. Most notable is the loss of one seat in southwestern Manitoba and the gain of another in southeastern Manitoba.

As PolicyFrog also noted, there are some interesting name changes and I like what I see. For example, most of Inkster, a constituency named after a street, becomes Tyndall Park, a constituency named after a community. Rupertsland becomes Kewatinook (Cree for "from the north"), in a nod to the constituency's large aboriginal population.

A few nomination battles could well result. For the Conservatives, five sitting MLAs will have to fight it out over the four seats that remain in southwestern Manitoba. In south Winnipeg, the NDP-held seats of Fort Garry and Lord Roberts unite to become Fort Garry-Riverview (a much better name than the ugly Pembina-Jubilee moniker that appeared in the draft proposed maps). NDP-held St. Norbert loses Fort Richmond but gains some Tory territory from Fort Whyte.

I'll have more thoughts soon. In the meantime, those wanting to take a look for themselves should consult the boundaries commission site and report.

Which polls are most accurate?

Here's an interesting post from Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, a keen blogger who's analyzed the seemingly inexplicable gaps in party support that we see between pollsters' numbers, particulary between the Liberals and Greens. He illustrates why poll watchers will be wise to trust Nanos's daily releases most.

Dreaming big

Following a stream of historically poor Liberal poll numbers, some campaign observers are beginning to ask whether the NDP is about to surpass the Liberals (see here, here and here) and form Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the next parliament.

Indeed, the big fantasy of the federal NDP, and likely a prerequisite for the party to ever become a true national contender for power, has always been to surpass the Liberal Party. New Democrtas believe this milestone would give rise to a new political polarization between the right and left, thus damning the Liberals to the political wilderness forever.

This thinking is never far from the minds of NDP strategists, who face the tricky task of fighting the Tories without inadvertently sinking themselves by helping the Liberals who, for their part, adeptly hug the middle, adopting the rhetoric and policies of the right or the left in whatever combination is most likely to win them power.

The model of political polarization the NDP seeks emerged in Britain in the first half of the 20th century as the Labour Party surpassed the Liberals, who were never again to taste power. Canadian examples can be found in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and BC, though sometimes this is in a two-party system with the Liberals on the right (e.g., Saskatchewan's anti-medicare Liberals of the 1960s and 1970s and the current right-leaning Liberals in BC, who replaced the Social Credit Party there). Polarization is arguably occurring in Nova Scotia where the NDP appears close to winning power and the Liberals slip further into third place every election.

The big question: can it happen federally? As things stand, the New Democrats are likely to make gains and the Liberals likely to suffer losses, but can the shift be dramatic enough for the NDP to form Official Opposition? Some polls show the gap between the two parties to be as little as 3%, a level of competitiveness not seen since around 1990.

So what would it take?

First, it's important to note that the NDP need not necessarily surpass the Liberals in popular vote to surpass them in seats. This is because, generally-speaking, the Liberals' votes tend to be more evenly spread than either the Conservatives' or the NDPs' votes, which tend to be concentrated in particular areas. This tends to make the Liberals more efficient than other parties at converting votes into seats when they're popular but less inefficient than other parties when they're unpopular. In 1984, the Liberal-NDP gap was 28% to 19%, but the seat gap was only 40-30. Another percentage point or two might have pushed the NDP into second.

To come in second in this election, the NDP would likely have to win at least 60 seats or so, with the Liberals falling below that number. The losses for the Liberals in Ontario, where they won 54 seats in 2006, would have to especially large. Specifically, we'd need to see the following:

Ontario

Liberal numbers would have to drop below 30% from the mid-to-high 30s where they are now, while the NDP would have to climb 5 points or so to the low 20s, with noted strength in northern Ontario. The Tories would break 40%. Liberal losses to both the Conservatives and NDP, plus bleeding to the Greens in vulnerable suburban ridings, would result in a seat count of something like this:
Con 55 / Lib 28 / NDP 23 (2006: Con 40 / Lib 54 / NDP 12)

Quebec

Bloc numbers would have to stay over 30%, around where they're hovering now, as continued Bloc leakage to the Tories and NDP will produce new victories for the Liberals. The Tories would have to stay around their current 30% while the the NDP approached 20% (up from about 15% now). This might yield something like this:
Bloc 33 / Con 23 / Lib 14 / NDP 4 / Ind 1
(2006: Bloc 51 / Con 10 / Lib 13 / Ind 1)

Atlantic Canada

The Tories would need to gain only a few points (to maybe 36%) at the expense of the Liberals for them to steal a number of close Liberal seats in Nova Scotia, PEI and especially New Brunswick. This would offset Tory losses that are all but guaranteed in NL (a victim of Danny Williams's ABC campaign). The NDP, who are already up a few points over their 22% in 2006, would have to eke out a few new victories in St. John's and Nova Scotia. In seats, that would probably come out to something like this:
Con 14 / Lib 10 / NDP 7 / Ind 1
(2006: Con 9 / Lib 20 / NDP 3)

Prairies

On the prairies, a couple of points gained for the NDP over their 2006 numbers could give them up to five more seats (I can't see the party winning more than three in Saskatchewan). The Tories would have to win some, lose some, leaving the Liberals with 1-2 seats in total on the Prairies. That would leave something like the following seat count:
Con 46 / NDP 8 / Lib 2 (2006: Con 48 / NDP 3 / Lib 5)

BC

NDP numbers have been strengthening in BC in the last week. Two or three more points would put them over 30% and win them a few new seats at the expense of both other parties. The Liberals, who are bleeding to the Greens in suburban Vancouver, would see some seat losses to the Tories. That could leave the situation something like this:
Con 18 / NDP 17 / Lib 1 (2006: Con 17 / NDP 10 / Lib 9)

North

A territorial seat for each party as the Cons pick up Nunavut:
Con 1 / Lib 1 / NDP 1 (2006: Lib 2 / NDP 1)

Nationally

In order to make the above happen, the NDP would need something in the range of 22%, while the Liberals could have no more than about 26%. In addition, the shift in numbers would have to be in the right regions. The above seat counts total as follows:
Con 157 / NDP 60 / Lib 56 / Bloc 33 / Ind 2
(2006: Con 124 / Lib 103 / NDP 29 / Bloc 51 / Ind 1)

The above exercise, apart from being fun (it's still more fun than realistic at this point), suggests it's narrowly possible for the NDP to surpass the Liberals. I would suggest that it remains an uphill battle for the NDP and that they shouldn't underestimate the Liberals. Still, a lot can happen in the one month of campaign that remains.

If the Liberals somehow do tank and make a historically poor showing on October 14, they really shouldn't blame Dion, who seems to be a rather decent, intelligent politician. Rather, for a number of reasons, they can place the blame squarely on this fellow.

Photo: The House of Commons (facing the government side)

If I were a rich man...

I wonder if this scene from the musical Fiddler On The Roof is what Dion had in mind when he announced on Tuesday that he's not a rich man.

It does make me wonder: did the Liberals not see this campaign coming? First, they were forced to scramble to secure a campaign plane (and ended up with a real gas guzzler). Now, they've suddenly realized that Dion's image needs a makeover and are trying to recast him as just a regular guy -- why didn't they do that a year ago?

Some other thoughts and observations on the campaign thus far:

• You have to wonder about Ontario Liberal Premier McGuinty's decision not to endorse his federal counterparts. Apparently, he doesn't want to worsen his already abysmally poor relationship with feds. If that doesn't tell us how far ahead the Tories are in this campaign and how unlikely the Liberals are to win, I don't know what does.
  
  
• The puffin poop Tory ad that was all over the new today blew up in the Tories' faces, as it well should have. Have they forgotten how their ad making fun of Chretien's paralysis backfired several years ago? Perhaps the Tories' punishment should fit the crime -- straight to bed with no dessert, plus grounding for one week.
  
  
• I was somewhat surprised that May was barred from the televised debates given that the criteria for entry has always been to have a minimum of one MP, which the Greens have now met. Ironically, the Liberals, who pushed for May's inclusion, would likely have the most to fear from May's participation, as polls show it's them bleeding the most to the Greens, particularly in Ontario (confirming some comments I made previously).
  
  
• One new EKOS poll puts the Liberals at the historically low level of 24%, only narrowly ahead of the NDP, at 19%. Similarly, a second poll (by pollster Segma Unimarketing, which I've never heard of until now) put them at 25% to the Conservatives' whopping 43%. The federal Liberals, one of the most successful political parties in the western world, have only received that low a share of vote once -- in 1867! In 1984, their next worst performance, the Liberals converted 28% of the popular vote into just 40 seats.
  
  
• The NDP might be the only party to run a full slate of 308 candidates in this election. The Tories have bowed out of Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier to help Independent MP André Arthur in Quebec, while the Liberals are of course not running against Elizabeth May in Central Nova, whose party isn't fielding candidates against either Stephane Dion in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville or former Conservative Bill Casey in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
  
  
• On Monday, Young Liberals heckled Jack Layton for borrowing Liberal votes in the last election instead of focusing on Harper. They claim that attacking the Liberals in 2006 split the anti-Harper vote and helped elect him. Now, if they really believed that, would they not be busy heckling at Tory rallies instead?
  
  
• With PQ leader Pauline Marois undergoing surgery, the Bloc loses an important campaign ally (Marois had planned to stump for Duceppe). That party is desperately struggling to stop the loss of support to the Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, the NDP (a just-posted Globe article suggests the Bloc may have slowed the Tory momentum in Quebec).
  
  
• New Stephane Dion website: http://www.thisisdion.ca/. I wonder how many fans looking for this website will accidentally wind up at the Liberal leader's site.
  
  
• Finally, there are some great online resources for political junkies who just can't get enough. Pundit's Guide is an amazing database of candidates, contests and results. Paulitics and niXtuff provide regular tracking of polls. The Globe's, Canwest's and the CBC's sites provide additional articles, polls, and punditry. Independent sites nodice.ca, Election Prediction Project are also great resources. Democratic Space will launch its election coverage on Sept. 14.
  
  
  

May's Greens: rising tide?

Globe columnist Lawrence Martin's latest piece on Elizabeth May and the federal Green Party was quite interesting. As many know, May is fighting to participate in the leader's debate and hoping to knock off Peter MacKay and win the first seat for her party. It won't be an easy task, but the Greens are feeling boosted by recent polls showing her party as high as 13% nationally and as high as 17% in Toronto's "guilt-ridden" 905 belt.

The big question is whether May can hold on to her poll numbers and translate them into votes at election time. It's likely that the Greens will be far outspent and outorganized by the three national parties, all of whom will be spending the maximum amount, and likely the Bloc too. Electoral history is filled with stories of overly optimistic parties driven by buoyant but ultimately ephemeral support levels.

A lot of folks assume that if the Greens do gain support that it'll be at the expense of Layton's NDP. According to the Martin article, some Greens even talk about merging with the NDP to create a new GDP (apparently that's short for "Green Democratic Party" and not "Gross Domestic Product"). However, Green gain at NDP expense isn't entirely certain. If it were, how might we explain the fact that the GP's greatest strength, when looking at all 500,000+ sized urban areas, lies in Calgary (9% in 2006, on average) and the 905 belt (17%, according to some poll numbers). These are hardly traditional areas of support for the NDP, which, at 10%, came in barely ahead of the Greens in Calgary and, outside of Oshawa, Hamilton and the Niagara region, struggles for votes in the 905 area that surrounds Toronto. Meanwhile, the NDP's two strongest cities, Vancouver (27% in 2006) and Winnipeg (28%) are actually two of the GP's weakest (5% and 4%, respectively).

My hypothesis right now is that the Greens are emerging as a or perhaps even the protest party of choice in regions where the NDP is relatively absent. Apart from a few BC ridings, wherever the NDP has a strong, well-managed campaign, the Green vote tends to be a non-factor, staying in the 2% to 6% range.

For the Greens, it certainly doesn't hurt that their message is more palatable for some suburban voters who feel a need to support a platform they see being ecologically-conscious, but who may be uncomfortable with the NDP’s traditionally pro-labour, redistributive policies (which the Greens tend either not to share or to keep awfully quiet about). If that's the case, the Greens may well be usurping more Liberal vote than NDP. Is that the reason behind the Dion/May hug-a-Green/hug-a-Liberal strategy? It's unlikely that, over the long run, they're both going to emerge victors from their quasi-alliance.

The Internet, being the ever-glorious provider of election study and polling numbers that it is, has given me quite a bit of interesting data to play with. That's one source of the tables I have above, which are simply summed riding-by-riding totals for each region. I've also found that the 2006 Canadian Election Study data files are freely available; that study consisted of interviews with thousands of Canadians before and after the election to gauge such things as party momentum, preferred second choices, and reactions to party platforms, campaign announcements and party leaders. In the lead up to the next federal election, I hope to share of the interesting findings from this data.

---

At least one fellow Manitoba blogger, upon noticing my recent profile change (which states I've been a blogger since only January of this year), has concluded that my entire 2007 blogging history must have been written and posted all this month. It sort of conjures up the image of some wretched, hunched-over character in a dark, grungy basement cackling madly in between fits of wild typing to produce mass amounts of blog content (if only I was that prolific...). No harm done, but lest others make the same assumption, I thought I'd make it known that I merely changed the Gmail account I associate with the blog to a new one. For those using a Gmail address with blogger.com, it's easily done, as the instructions here, here, and here all attest. Of course, given the new profile date that'll appear by your name, you should be prepared to have any and all past election predictions challenged! Don't say I didn't warn you...

The endorsement game

For some reason, I found the Friday Globe and Mail's list of celebrity endorsements received by each presidential nomination candidate to be extremely amusing.







For example, did you know that Bob Vila, the televised fix-it guy from 25 or more years ago, has endorsed Clinton? To borrow a pun from Sir John A. MacDonald, Vila might just be useful should a President Hillary Clinton need to put together a cabinet.

Chevy Chase has also lined up behind Clinton, as has trash TV king Jerry Springer, and musicians Madonna and Janet Jackson.

While Clinton boasts some impressive celebrity backing, if you're an American voter wanting some rock and roll at your political rallies, you'd be best advised to stay clear of her campaign, which is also endorsed by singers Barry Manilow and Barbara Streisand. Hopefully, they won't be singing during the rest of the primaries when Clinton's worker bees will need something a little more upbeat to keep the blood flowing. Anyone, quick, has Chuck D endorsed a candidate yet?

We all know that Oprah has endorsed Obama (potential O Magazine partner, perhaps?), but I had no idea that a huge cast of actors were also behind him. If the Obama campaign starts to run a little short of dough, maybe endorsers George Clooney, Matt Damon and Brad Pitt can crack into the Clinton campaign machine war chest safe (laser-protected, no doubt). Will Smith, Halle Berry, and Ben Affleck are also among the notable cast of Obama supporters.

The good lefty folks, including actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, consumer activist Ralph Nader and economist James K. Galbraith are endorsing Edwards, who can also count on Kevin Bacon, Harry Belafonte, and John Mellencamp to back him up. Now, if only Michael Moore would join them, they could all get together after the campaign and create a dramatic documentary (complete with accompanying musical score) on the scandalous cost of farm equipment for rural African-Americans.

Ted Nugent and Chuck Norris, gun-friendly men's men of yesterday, have both endorsed Huckabee. No surprise here that they didn't join feminist author Gloria Steinem in supporting Hillary Clinton.

Not to be outdone by Huckabee's scouring of 1978 for endorsements, Mitt Romney has recruited Donny and Marie Osmond and actor Rick Schroeder. Oh yeah, wait... I guess Ricky did eventually grow up and get that stint on NYPD Blue...

Never ones to miss a good war, Henry Kissinger and ex-Republican-in-Democratic-clothing Joe Lieberman both feel that war supporter and veteran John McCain is their candidate. Pat Sajak, meanwhile, is fully behind F_ED TH_MPS_N.

Adam Sandler begs to differ -- he's punch drunk love for Giuli. The 9/11-era Mayor of New York City also has Pat Robertson, Kelsey Grammer and Donald Trump behind him. No word yet on whether Trump plans to share any styling tips with Giuli.

Photo: Comedian and actor Adam Sandler, who is supporting Rudy Giuliani.

The more things change...

"Change" seems to be the popular word among American presidential nomination candidates and watchers alike, but I wonder how much change we're really going to see no matter what happens over the next ten or so months.

On the Republican side, we see an interesting cast of characters led by Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. There's not much to say about -- to be blunt -- America's party of thugs and zealots: its record over the last eight years speaks louder than any of those seeking to be its standard bearer. Frankly, none of the leading candidates stand far enough removed from the party's legacy to count as much in way of "change."

On the Democratic side, we see Barack Obama chasing front-runner Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards in third place. The winner of this contest will likely inherent the mantle of a party that has the U.S. presidency firmly within its sights. While the U.S. is far overdue in selecting a bright, talented woman or an energetic, inspiring African-American to lead it, can we really expect a significant shift in policy?

Clinton is on record as being strongly and consistently behind the country's plundering of Iraq, at least until very recently when that position became a political liability, while Obama has already started to flash his cowboy-esque diplomacy skills in proposing to bomb Pakistan, a nuclear power. Of course, we can't blame these Democrats entirely as it seems that no aspiring U.S. leader gets taken seriously without promising to "get tough" by tapping the country's vast arsenal when needed.

If anything changes during their reign, it certainly won't be the U.S. war machine, which some estimate to account for $1.3 billion or 51% of the country's 2008 federal budget. As Jeffrey Simpson suggests in today's Globe, the "change" we're hearing all about is really about persona rather than policy.

Third-place candidate Edwards has probably been the most exciting proponent of policy change for some of the reasons mentioned here, but he looks to be too far behind either Clinton or Obama to have a chance of winning. The best we may be able to hope for is that he plays an important role in putting important policy issues on the agenda.

---

For those curious about my predictions, I'm not one of those who jumped on the "Obama will win" bandwagon last week, after Clinton lost in Iowa. I thought then that Clinton remained ahead of the pack with her well-funded superior organization and experience. No surprise, I'm still predicting a win for this second Clinton "comeback kid." Obama will be well-placed for a future run at the presidency and could even wind up on the Democratic ticket as candidate for Vice-President.

The Republican side is much more of a toss-up. My sense is that loose cannon-types Huckabee and McCain will eventually flounder and that Romney, despite his current struggles, will go on to win the nomination as the anyone-but-Guiliani candidate.

Photo: Democrats rally on "the Green" at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

And the race is on...

Lots of posting today!

Tories fail to run full slate of candidates

There are sure to be some red faces in the Tory backrooms today. Nominations have closed and, after falling short in Flin Flon, the party was unable to field a full slate of candidates in the election.

Rightly or wrongly, the ability to run a full slate of candidates is almost always taken as a key indicator of whether a party is organized and serious about winning or whether it's a fringe party. Even the struggling Liberal Party, which was unable to run a full slate in 1999, was able to secure a name on the ballot in all 57 constituencies this time around. This is a big blow to Tories, indeed.

The race in Flin Flon will now be fought between NDP incumbent Gerrard Jennissen and Liberal challenger Garry Zamzow. That's if you can really call it a race: Jennissen took 73% of the vote in the last election.

The failure to run a full slate will be especially hard for the Tories' reputation in northern Manitoba. In some election campaigns, the Tory leader doesn't even visit the north. Now, long accused of neglecting and ignoring the north, the Tories won't even be offering residents of part of that region the chance to to vote for them.

Adieu, Monsieur Rocan

Longtime former Tory MLA Denis Rocan didn't follow through with his threat to run in the provincial election. He had suggested possibly running as an independent against Hugh McFadyen in Fort Whyte. The other obvious option for him would have been to run as an independent in Carman, where he was challenged and defeated for the Tory nomination. Frankly, running in Carman (where the Conservatives got 52% of the vote in 2003) would've been his best shot at winning.

I have to say I think Denis Rocan is a pretty decent guy, having met him once in the 90s. I could probably never vote for him myself, but I've heard he was a solid representative and hard worker in Carman. It didn't seem to do him much good within the Tory ranks, however -- he was booted out first as the candidate when he lost the nomination race and then from the caucus after he broke ranks and supported the NDP's budget.

Wellington recap

The race in Wellington continues to attract a lot of media attention, especially now that former New Democrats Conrad Santos and Joe Chan are running as independents against their old party. Flor Marcelino, the NDP's candidate and editor of the Philippine Times, looks like a great candidate. She'll do well.

The little parties

In addition to the three most established parties, the Green Party and the Communist Party are running candidates. The Greens will be on the ballot in 15 constituencies, while the Communists will be an option in six. The voters in Fort Rouge will have the most choice in this election, with six candidates to choose from: a New Democrat, a Conservative, a Liberal, a Green, a Communist, and an Independent.

The Green Party leader, Andrew Basham, is running directly against Premier Gary Doer in his constituency of Concordia. Andrew Basham's mother, whose basement he apparently still lives in, is running in Wolseley, where the Greens captured about 19% of the vote in 2003. After the infighting that's plagued the Greens since then and the NDP's general dominance of the environment as an issue, there's little hope they'll be able to even come close to repeating their 2003 result.

Manitoba's Communist Party, a perennial competitor and probably the most active such party in Canada, is also running. Most of its candidates are the same names that appear on the ballot election after election.

I once spent a little while chatting with Darrell Rankin, the party's leader, after he happened to knock on my door in one election. As a candidate, he struck me as quite interesting, engaging and intelligent. I wasn't quite as impressed with the party pamphlet -- complete with a headline praising the regime in North Korea -- that he left behind.

A day at the races

I'll be posting some seat-by-seat predictions in the very near future. However, I may wait to see what the next provincial poll numbers are before weighing in on the really close races.

My guess is that, with the relatively sleepy pace of the campaign so far and the inability of the Tories to land any punches, the next poll will show an increase in NDP support over the last poll, with the Liberals and others down a couple points each, and the Tories holding steady. Then I expect the NDP to come out a few points below those numbers on the night of May 22. My assumption is that there are many fickle and wishy-washy voters who, once alone in the dim light of the polling booth, will vote for change regardless of who's in power or how well they've done.

The last poll before the campaign started showed the NDP and Tories neck-and-neck at 40%, with the Liberals at 15%, and others holding what's left. To compare, the NDP received 49% in the last election, with the Tories getting 36%, the Liberals 13%, and others 1%. If the poll numbers stay as they are when people vote, it's likely the NDP would be re-elected with a majority by winning a pile of Winnipeg seats by a small margin, while the Tories stack up giant majorites in places like Steinbach, Emerson, and Pembina.

In the next poll, the Liberal numbers will be the ones to watch: provincially, the Liberals almost always fall during the campaign, which tends to benefit the NDP. The Tories usually have the best chance of winning when centre-left voters are split between the NDP and the Liberals. If the Liberals buck the trend and creep upward, it may cut into NDP votes in southern Winnipeg and toss those seats to the Tories. In contrast, if the Liberals sink below the 13% they got in the past two elections, the NDP may be able to pick up Inkster from the Liberals as well as Southdale and Kirkfield Park from the Tories.

To compare with 2003, the pre-campaign polls then put the NDP ahead at 44%, with the Conservatives at just 30% and the Liberals at 21%. Mid-campaign polls showed the NDP surge to 51% and 55%, while the Liberal numbers dropped off and the Tory numbers stayed static. On election day, the Tories "pulled" their vote well and ended up with 36%, still well behind the NDP's 49%.

A second thing to watch in the next poll will be the Winnipeg/non-Winnipeg split in the numbers. The last study showed the NDP down 8 points in Winnipeg and down 15 points outside of Winnipeg compared to the last election. If the party picks up, will it be in one region or both?

Astonishing facts

Emerson and Springfield, now both staunchly Tory seats, were once NDP seats.

In 1973, Steve Derewianchuk, the NDP candidate in Emerson, took 2,374 votes, beating out the Tory with 1,937 votes and the Liberal with 1,768 votes. The victory was relatively short-lived, however: Albert Driedger regained the seat for the Tories in 1977. Driedger later went on to represent Steinbach in the legislature. In Emerson in 2003, the Tories took 59% of the vote to 21% for the Liberals and 19% for the NDP.

Rene Toupin won Springfield for the NDP in 1969 and 1973, but lost it in 1977. Andy Anstett narrowly regained the seat for the NDP in 1981, only to lose it to Tory Gilles Roch by 55 votes in 1986. Almost immediately after being re-elected as a Tory in 1988 (and being subsequently denied a cabinet post), Roch crossed the floor to join Sharon Carstairs's Liberals, which had just become the Official Opposition. The Tories easily regained the seat in 1990 and have held it ever since with ever-increasing majorities, which come largely due to an influx of wealthy Tory voters into new subdivisions in places like Oakbank. In 2003, the Tories won the seat with 61% of the vote, to the NDP's 31%.

Tory justice: lock up the poor

If the Tories get elected to government on May 22, we're going to need to find ourselves some Robin Hoods real soon.

In case you missed it: on Sunday, Sheriff Hugh unveiled plans to lock up Manitoba's poor.

I am not making this up. Here's the 411 on the Tory plan:

Q. What's the gist of this proposed Tory plan?

A. Under a Tory government, anyone with a previous conviction for certain types of charges will be denied legal aid.

Q. Will this really mean that the poor will be disproportionately and unfairly locked up?

A. The Canadian Bar Association's position on legal aid is that, "without legal aid, the most disadvantaged people in our society would be effectively barred from protecting their rights and interests through the legal system. Our sense of justice and democracy demands that this barrier be removed." (thanks to Curtis Brown for this source - check out his comments on the issue).

Q. So what's the rationale for the Tories' plan, anyway?

A. Apparently, they believe it will generate cost savings: “Manitobans should not be held financially responsible for the crimes of gang members and drug dealers,” said McFadyen. “After just one conviction, lawyers will be on their dime.”

Q. How much does it cost to incarcerate a person?

A. According to StatsCan's Juristat (quoted by prisonjustice.ca) it costs $259.05 per prisoner per day to incarcerate a federal prisoner and $141.78 per prisoner per day to incarcerate a provincial prisoner. That comes to about $95,000 per year for a federal prisoner and $52,000 for a provincial prisoner -- far more than the average per-case cost for Legal Aid, which ranges from $223 to $12,564 depending on the type of charge, according to Legal Aid Manitoba).

Under the Tory plan, expect incarceration rates to rise -- incarcerate just a few people who'd otherwise have been acquitted in a fair trial and so much for your cost savings!

Q. Will the Tory legal aid policy take more criminals off the streets?

A. Consider first what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has to say.

Section 10 (b) states: "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right."

Sec. 11 (d) states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."

It's not unreasonable to conclude that the Tory policy increases the possiblity of an accused person who DOES represent a threat to society walking free if they can prove or if the judge decides that their right to a fair trial was violated due to inadequate legal representation. Expect the opposite to happen a lot more, too: more David Milgaards, Donald Marshall Jrs., and Guy Paul Morins.

Q. Who in Manitoba is most likely to get locked up under the Tories's plan?

A. Aboriginal Manitobans, who have average lower incomes than the provincial average, will be disproportionately affected. Aboriginal people in Manitoba make up 14% of the general population (according to the 2001 census), yet are 70% of the total prisoner population (in 2004-5, according to Juristat; quoted by prisonjustice.ca). According to Aboriginal People in Manitoba 2000, the share of women prisoners who are aboriginal is even higher than the male share.

For the Tories to launch into a tough-on-crime, let's-get-rid-of-legal-aid tirade without speaking to these issues smacks of a rather ugly sort of intolerance in their ranks. I'd say it's suprising, but then the 1988 report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry did lie gathering dust through three terms of Tory government.

Q. So what should we do if the Tories somehow manage to get elected on May 22?

A. Hope that Robin Hood, Little John and Friar Tuck make their way here from Sherwood Forest, and fast. The poor are going to need their help.

Update...

The race in Wellington became more interesting probably mere moments after I posted on it. The Free Press today reports that NDP candidate Angie Ramos has withdrawn from the race. Flor Marcelino, the publisher and editor of the Philippine Times newspaper, will apparently be the new candidate. The party has until May 8 to nominate or appoint the candidate, find 100 folks in the community to sign the nomination papers, and file them with Elections Manitoba. Despite the ongoing drama, the party will win the seat easily as predicted in my last post.

---

I have to commend Blackberry Addicts for their post today on Hugh's ridiculous attempts to be taken seriously on the crime issue. See also Dan Lett's clever take on the issue of Winnipeg as crime-ridden here and here.

Tories will tell you that crime is rising even when it isn't. They'll also tell you their punitive prescription is the road to lower crime, when every study on the subject points to the opposite. Real solutions are unfortunately a lot more complex than Hugh playing tough guy.

This debate reminds me of a hilarious take on the Tory world view, dubbed the "Tory cycle of life" (from Liberal blogger Centre of Canada):

Stage 1: Pre-Conception - Every Sperm is Sacred
Stage 2: Gestation - Abortion is Murder
Stage 3: Birth to Age 6 - Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child.
Stage 4: Age 6 to Age 12 - Lay on the Lash
Stage 5 Age12 and Older - Hang’em High

---

Wellington's fringe candidates

According to today's Free Press, both incumbent NDP MLA Conrad Santos and turfed nomination challenger Joe Chan are running as independents in the constituency of Wellington against Angie Ramos, who won the nomination race to stand as the NDP's candidate.

The Free Press quotes the Liberal candidate, Rhonda Gordon Powers, as saying "it gives me a lot of hope." A pal of mine seemed to confirm this by wondering out loud about Wellington.

Should the NDP be worried?

Last election, the NDP candidate received 74%. The Liberals came second, with 15%, while the Tories pulled up third, with 10%.

Conclusion: not exactly a horse race. However, the NDP's opponents are arguing that the election is a lot closer this time, right? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and take a look at the numbers.

First, let's assume the worst-case scenario for the NDP: it drops province-wide from 49.5% in 2003 to 40% this year, while the Tories surge to 43% from 36%, with the Liberals sopping up about 15 points of the remainder (up from 13). Let's also assume that these shifts in support are consistent across every seat in the province.

Projecting these results to Wellington using the groovy Excel vote-shifting calculator I invented, we find the NDP at 65%, the Liberals at 20%, and the Conservatives at 13%.

Conclusion: still not even close, though we haven't yet considered the impact of the vote splitting.

Let's assume that Chan and Santos take votes only from the NDP and that they both do stunningly well for independent candidates. Let's say Santos gets 15% and Chan gets 10%.

Final results in a worst-case scenario: NDP 40%, Liberal 20%, Santos 15%, PC 13%, Chan 10%.

Conclusion: nothing to worry about for the NDP. The only question remaining is over just how bad the drubbing will be for the NDP's opponents.

More predictions coming soon - for all 57 constituencies!

Photo: Wellington, New Zealand, where rumours of Conrad Santos cycling have NOT been confirmed.

When even winning means losing

It's always telling when a politician is so utterly defeated that they are reduced to preaching policies that are fundamentally those of their opponent. So it was this morning that I heard Hugh McFadyen practically read from an NDP resolutions booklet in answering questions from the public on a CBC radio Q&A hosted by Marcy Markusa.

It used to be the NDP reading from the Tories' playbook. It was once thought that the left had lost so much ground to the right that New Democrats had to essentially become Tories to gain power. Then today I heard Hugh

• say that we need more child care spaces;
• promise that, under the Tories, health care would be improved (it's universal and "rightly so," he noted);
• argue that we need a balanced approach to crime -- not just enforcement, but also crime prevention in the form of creating more opportunities for youth;
• praise Manitoba Hydro as a publicly-owned monopoly and vow never to sell it; and
• refuse to commit to reducing or eliminating the payroll tax even though he recognizes it's a "bad tax."

He's sounding more like a New Democrat every day. Of course, he might just have softened his tone thinking that CBC listeners would be more liberal than most voters, but still...

It's always the goal of a successful party to drub their opponents so badly and for so long that the opponents cede the terms and language of the debate and sit back clinging to the faint hope that some amorphous mood for change somehow sweeps them into office. If and when the opposition wins, they are so stripped of their own ideas and policies (often through promises that they won't do this or won't do that) and so used to promoting those of the governing party that all they can do is meekly follow the course that's been set. It amounts to losing even when you've won.

In this so far sleepy campaign, Hugh's going to need a whole lot more than a "pray for change" strategy to wind up Premier after May 22. I sure wouldn't want to be sitting in the Tory back rooms right now.

The photo is of the Kennedy-Nixon debate, 1960.

Manitoba Hydro and McFadyen's Tories

In the last week, we've heard a lot of debate about whether Hugh would privatize Manitoba Hydro once elected Premier.

The NDP was the first to raise the issue by warning voters that, regardless of what the Tories promise, they will privatize Hydro. The Tories countered by saying simply that they'd never, ever do such a thing. The Filmon Tories said exactly the same thing in the 1995 election about MTS, promptly before selling that, the NDP point out. It sure doesn't help the Tories' case that Hugh was one of the architects of the Filmon government's privatization of MTS and an alleged advisor to the Ontario government on their experiment with privatizing Hydro.

In a bid to reassure us all, the Tories actually held a big press conference, handed out bottles of water, and spent what amounts to one campaign day to announce they'd pass a "Legacy Act" that would essentially prevent Hydro from ever being sold. It's a risky move, but it's one that will probably pay off, I think.

In an otherwise funny take on the issue, Curtis Brown describes it as being "as defensive a posture as you'll ever see in a political campaign," which is never the place a campaign wants to be. Of course, bending over backwards to address the issue loudly and clearly while the campaign is still in its early days almost certainly blunts the "they'll sell Hydro" attacks in the coming weeks.

So will the Tories sell Manitoba Hydro?

It seems to me the debate thus far has missed the boat a little. Reviewing track records, resumes and personal blog posts are all fine, but when I reflect on whether a party will keep a particular promise if elected, I turn to what I know about their ideals and what the party stalwarts believe and preach daily. Tories of the modern variety believe in privatization. It's a fundamental tenet for them that the market is the best allocator of labour, investment capital, wheat and other commodities and -- yes -- hydro-electric power.

Elect the Tories and they may not sell Hydro in their first term, and maybe not even in their second term, but given enough political capital, they will sell it. You can bet the bank (or public utility) on that.

Welcome!

Here we have it: feisty Winnipegger starts new blog.

Nice starting, I thought, and more creative than just pasting in "Abandon every hope, all ye who enter here." Besides, if you read something here, I hope it'll provoke a reaction other than hopelessness: engagement, enthusiasm, tears, laughter, anger, 180-degree political realignment, etc.

That reminds me: you can expect to read plenty about politics. Being in the midst of a provincial election, there's hardly a better time to join in the punditry. I tend to be a stellar seat-by-seat predictor of elections (with some humbling exceptions). However, unlike a number of other Manitoba bloggers, I'm not a professional policy hack/wonk, spinster, or Blackberry addict. I do work in the private sector, though you'll soon see that hardly makes my political views predictable.

I really don't intend to be single-mindedly political: no, I hope to keep the politics down to a dull 90% or so of all blogging. Maybe we'll tone it down once the election is over - make that once both elections are over. Then maybe we can talk art, Winnipeg's best breakfast spots, and other fine yet less horse race-like topics.

Why "Prairie Topiary"? Topiary is one of those rich words I've always loved. Another is sluice. Everyone's heard that pictures are worth a thousand words; for me, the best words are those that are worth a thousand pictures. "Topiary" tends to invoke a garden scene made up of an alluring cast of intriguing characters, usually animals. Add the topiary and its cast of characters to a prairie setting and you net an image that seems somehow perfectly appropriate for Manitoba.

This is all for me today.