President Hillary Clinton

That is what we will be hearing in January after she takes the oath of office.

The reason for this is she just has too many advantages over Donald Trump for him to overcome.

Her first advantage is her experience in presidential elections.  Essentially this is her third one.  She knows what it takes to come out the winner at the end of the final sprint to the finish line because she has already lived it twice.  If she forgets she can ask her husband because he did it twice and if that does not work she can ask the current President because has done it twice as well.  That is before considering that she has assembled an very good election team.

Donald Trump has no experience on how to win the final three months of the campaign.  In fact he has very little political experience at all.  That was glaringly obvious when he publicly suggested a sometimes hostile government hack the e-mails of an American citizen and interfere in a US presidential election.  That was just dumb and the attack ads during the next three months pretty much write themselves.

Politics is a game and like all games if one opponent has tonnes of experience playing it while the other has very little the one with experience almost always wins.

Her second advantage is the Democratic Party is united behind her.  The media has played up the dissidents from the Bernie Sanders camp a great deal in the last few weeks. However, what they forget (willfully I might add) is Bernie Sanders and most of his followers were not members of the Democratic Party 18 months ago.  Although Ms. Clinton would certainly welcome them she does not really need them because the "old" Democrats, the ones that helped Barack Obama get elected twice, are firmly behind her.  Further, they know that they have a golden opportunity to elect two different Democratic presidents back to back, something that has not happened since FDR and Truman.  As well, the election apparatus that the Democratic Party has spent the last four years building just for these next three months is also firmly behind her.

Donald Trump essentially blew up the Republican Party.  He can count on his own supporters but he cannot count on the support of the Republican "old guard".  Some will certainly support him out of habit but many others will not.  Further the election apparatus that the Republicans have been building for the last four years is in tatters.

That leads to Hillary Clinton's third advantage.  Anybody who has ever participated in an election knows that elections are won on the ground.  It is the GOTV efforts of those low level operatives and volunteers at the local level that decide elections.  Ms. Clinton, with a united Democratic Party and election apparatus behind her should be able to count on a much more successful GOTV effort than Donald Trump with a fractured Republican Party behind him.

Her fourth advantage is she is out fundraising Donald Trump.  Donald Trump has the personal resources to run a campaign but it is an open question whether he wants to spend that much of his own money.  Mr. Clinton is spending other peoples' money, she has more of it and she will not hesitate spend it all for the campaign.

Advantages three and four are going to be crucial in those tight races in the battleground states.  In state battles where the margin of victory is often only a few thousand votes having the most successful GOTV effort, to identify and pull the vote of your supporters, while having the money to campaign hard right to the very end to convince independent and non-aligned voters to support you could be the difference between receiving that State's electoral college vote or watching your opponent walk off with them.

Her fifth advantage is this is the first time a woman has a legitimate chance at becoming President.  In 2008 when Barack Obama was nominated the voter turnout of African Americans on election day hit record highs.  They came out in droves and contributed greatly to what became a landslide for President Obama.  The same is probably going to happen this time.  Even amongst women who do not like Ms. Clinton she will probably receive their votes.  I am certain that the women of the US realize the historic potential of the moment, that it might not come again for a long while and they will come out in force to try to make history.  That 103 year old women from earlier in the week who stated she is really exited that she will be able to vote for a women for President is only the tip of the iceberg.

Her sixth advantage is she is the only candidate that the "establishment" can really back.  In past elections the two parties have always nominated presidental candidates that were acceptable to the "establishment" so it divided along partisan lines and no one candidate received a clear advantage.  That is not the case this time.  The "establishment" craves continuity and Hillary Clinton virtually guaratees that.  This advantage will manifest itself over the next three month as Conservative and Liberal think tanks will publish op-ed pieces in major publications, on line and on TV talk shows warning of the dangers of a Trump presidency and extolling the virtues of Hillary Clinton.  It will be subtle and relentless.  What will not be so subtle but still just as relentless will be the treatment of Donald Trump by the MSM.  It is all owned by representatives of the "estblishment" so they will do what they can to prevent a Trump victory.  This advantage will really frost the balls of those on both the left and right who want to see the status quo changed, who want nothing more than revolution. However, it should be noted that revolutions never come from the ballot box so you should not expect it to be any different this time.

Her seventh advantage is she is competent.  She will probably be able to do the job. Despite the hype we see in the US media I am certain that the majority of Americans are like the majority of Canadians and citizens of other democracies. They want leaders who they believe will not wreck their country and/or make life more difficult for them.  It is a safe bet that Hillary Clinton will meet those two criteria while it is an open question as to whether the same can be said about Donald Trump.

The one aspect where she is equal to Donald Trump is her level of unpopularity.  Americans do not seem to like either one.  In the end it will probably be a wash.

Her one disadvantage is that there is a desire for change in the United States.  You can ask Stephen Harper (if you can find him) what that can mean to a politician.  However, you can also ask Tim Hudak if that was enough when he tried to bring down the Ontario Liberals. The desire for change can be a strong motivator but if voters do not like the change that is presented to them they will play it safe.  Again, I will point to Stephen Harper.  He won two elections, in 2008 and 2011, despite the fact there was a desire for change and the fact he was not well liked even by many who voted for him.  However, enough Canadian voters decided on both occasions that he and his government were competent enough and that the change represented by the other guys was too much of a risk to change the government.

Donald Trump would be hard pressed to overcome even one or two of Hillary Clinton's advantages.  To overcome them all is probably an impossible task and that will likely result in Hillary Clinton being the next President of the United States.

Setting Fire to the Ashes

Yesterday I wrote a post stating that Donald Trump needs to mend fences with the many factions that the Republican Party has fractured into in order to increase his chances of winnning the November election.

Having seen his acceptance speech it can only be said that he did the exact opposite.  He burned many bridges to win the nomination and the speech he gave yesterday did nothing to reverse that.

Unfortunately for him his convention speech was the best chance of him starting the process.  He could have began the real campaign for the US Presidency by sounding presidential.  He could have used the speech to reach out to the supporters of the other Republican hopefuls from the primary season.  If he could not bring the actual candidates on board he could at least have begun convincing their supporters that a vote for him was a vote for their values.  He could even have begun the process of expanding his appeal beyond his own supporters and the Republican Party.

He did none of that.  He stuck to the script that got him the nomination.

Time will tell if that was a mistake but my initial thoughts are he seems to believe he can win this election as a one man band and he could be in for a very big surprise if that continues. As well, the next few months are for the Presidency not just for the nomination.  He should have used his acceptance speech as the pivot from the nomination battle to the battle for the Presidency and he did not do that either.

If he loses the election many will point to that acceptance speech as the point at which his remarkable run began to go off the rails.

Donald Trump has the same problem as Stephen Harper

Donald Trump has won the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. He should be congratulated for that achievement.  However, that was the easy part.  The next thing he has to do is create a coalition of American voters big enough to put him into the White House.  On that score he has a very steep hill to climb.

As I have stated a few times on this site, during the last Federal election in Canada I found Stephen Harper was throwing an inordinate amount of red meat to his base.  At no time during the election did he attempt to expand the appeal of the Conservative Party beyond his base.  In fact, I would say he did the opposite.  I suspect the reason why is because the Conservatives were not certain that they could count on their base to come out and vote for them or to just vote at all.  In the end the Conservatives did hang on to their core vote but only after two months of effort.

Donald Trump has the same problem.  The Republican base is fractured.  Party stalwarts, including the last two Republican presidents have come out against him in this election and his greatest opponent during the primary season just jammed a political sword between his ribs during the current Republican convention.  Those high profile Republicans that have endorsed him have not exactly been effusive in their praise of him.  They have said the minimum necessary and then retreated back into the woodwork.

This all means that Donald Trump is going to have to spend a great deal of time and resources over the next few months repairing the rifts in the Republican Party.  For him to have any chance of winning he needs to expand his base from those who absolutely love Donald Trump to include those Republicans that think he is the worst thing to happen to the GOP since Barry Goldwater.  In short, he is going to have to do what Stephen Harper did and shore up support from those voters most likely to vote Republican.

It is an open question whether he can accomplish this task and even if he does he then needs to expand his appeal beyond the core Republican vote.  Mitt Romney won that vote in 2012 but failed to expand beyond it and it cost him the election.

The second part of his task will be the hardest part.  He has managed to alienate virtually every demographic in the United States except old and middle aged, poorly educated, angry white men.  He is going to find it very difficult to walk back alot of what he said about the different demographics in the last few months.  Most will not believe him and a large segment of those who have supported him from the beginning may feel a bit betrayed if he does begin to pander to them.  As well, the amount of time to do it is short. The election is only four short months away and although that is many lifetimes in politics it is still a very short timeframe in which to repair the rifts in the Republican Party and expand his appeal beyond it.

All this has to be done while taking on an opponent who will have a very popular sitting President campaigning for her and a still very popular former President campaigning for her as well.  The only saving grace for him is the fact that Hillary Clinton is not very well liked either but she at least can count on maintaining the core Democratic vote going forward.

My guess is Donald Trump faces a nearly impossible task.  He does not have the time, the charisma, the political smarts or the temperment to be able to mend all of the bridges he burnt to win the nomination while running against an opponent who will be actively trying to prevent him from accomplishing that feat.

The Police Shootings in Dallas

The police shootings in Dallas are tragic and they should be condemned on so many levels.

However, no one should be surprised by them.  There have been countless instances of white police officers shooting mostly unarmed black men and not suffering any consequences for their actions.  Are people really surprised that in the racially charged atmosphere of the US that some angry blacks would not seek revenge?

The fact it took this long surprises me but not that fact it happened.  As well, my guess is this was probably not the last of such attacks.  There is great potential for things to get very nasty in the United States.

As well, I have read some media commentators, both here in Canada and the US, and I am surprised that they now seem to have just realized that there is a problems between the black communities of the US and law enforcement.  For the many times mostly young black men died at the hands of most white police officers these media commentators did not see a major problem but when a black gunman decides to specifically target white police officers there is SUDDENLY a huge problem.  

It speaks volumes to the blindness (and perhaps just a little racism) of much of the media to the real problems facing society and the world. It is the same blindness that caused them to declare 9/11 as a world changing event. Islamic terrorism had been a scourge on the world for many decades before that but until those Saudi citizens flew a couple of wide bodies jets into the sides of the World Trade Centre and the Pentigon very few North American media commentators noticed.  They finally did notice and we have been living with the consequences ever since.

Mr. Kenney goes to Calgary

Jason Kenney has decided to leave Federal politics to attempt to win the leadership of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party and to unite the right in that province.  What can I say but "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Much has been said about his chances of success and most of it has been of the nature that he has a very tough mountain to climb.  I could say more but that just about sums it up so I will not add anything.

What I will mention is that many media commentators have taken this to mean that really serious Conservatives believe that the Liberals cannot be beat in 2019.  My only comment about that assertion is it was true before Mr. Kenney decided to jump into Alberta provincial politics.

I have written in this space before that the next Conservative Prime Minister of Canada is not on anybody's radar right now.  All of the current crop of hopefuls for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada are trying for the job of placeholder and nothing more.  None of them or any others that might throw their hat into the ring have much of a chance of becoming PM in 2019.

It is a simple fact that after a long serving government loses power it is destined to wander the political wilderness for at least two election cycles.  There have been exceptions but they are very rare.  Liberals, including me, forgot about this fact in 2006 and their belief that the first minority Harper government was just going to be a short recess between Liberal governments was a great contributor to the profound downturn in their political fortunes in the next ten years.

Many people in Conservative circles seemed to believe the same thing about the current situation and it took the departure of Mr. Kenney to begin making them think otherwise.  I guess that should not surprise me but it does.  

Barring something really big derailing the Liberal machine they are probably a shoe in to winning the 2019 election.  Conservatives had better accept that.  Then again, if they want to do what the Liberals did after the 2006 election and miserably fail to do what was necessary to renew the party until after a crushing electoral defeat then I would have no problems with that.  It would only guarantee a Liberal win in 2019.

Brexit

The voters of the United Kingdom have had their referendum on whether to stay or go from the European Union and they voted to leave.

Or did they?

When the votes were counted only 72% of eligible voters had bothered to vote and of those 52% of them voted to leave.  By any measure that is not an overwhelming majority of the citizens of the UK who voted for leaving the EU.  As well, the vote broke along national, ethnic and age lines showing great divisions within British society.  In short the only thing this vote did was bring the divisions in British society into sharp focus. 

So, this thing is not over by any stretch of the imagination.  Like Canada the UK is a parliamentary democracy so referendums are nice but the final say will come from the UK House of Commons and the UK House of Lords.  If the vote on whether to stay or go would have been left to Parliament the outcome would have been much different.  Further the final deal to leave the EU will need to be voted upon by Parliament in order to ratify it and alot will happen between now and then.

The backlash against the Leave vote has already began and it will continue to grow, particularly when the nitty-gritty details of what leaving the EU means to the UK dawns on the British.  It will be a couple of years before any deal can be brought before the UK Parliament and this issue will dominate British politics for that entire time.  By the time any deal reaches Parliament things could be very different in the country.

Stay or go the impact on the EU will not be as dire as many in the media seem to believe. The United Kingdom has always been a reluctant partner in the EU, constantly demanding and negotiating special arrangements within the EU structure.  It has never really embraced the EU, preferring the benefits of membership while trying to reduce the responsibilities. Further the EU has always been a more continental arrangement and the two key members of the EU, Germany and France, will keep it going.  The other countries of the EU will follow their lead.  If you need any further proof of that I would point to Greece.  It has been thoroughly rogered by the EU in the last few years.  If there is any country with a case for leaving the Eurozone, Greece is it.  Yet they still continue to bend over and take it in order to stay completely within the EU.  All of continental Europe realizes that there is much greater advantage to maintaining the European Union, despite its many faults and imperfections, than to allow it to disintegrate and be required to go it alone.

Speaking of dire warnings in the media I would like to point out that they are mostly coming from the English media in the English speaking countries of the world, namely the US, Canada, Australia and Great Britain.  In other words, it is old and middle aged, English speaking, white guys who are implying that the EU cannot carry on without its English speaking partner.  As well, it was old and middle aged, English speaking, white guys who voted overwhelmingly for leaving in the referendum and they tipped the balance.

It should also be noted that it was this demographic that allowed the Stephen Harper Conservatives to win 99 seats in the last election, which is much better than he deserved and it is this demographic that has made Donald Trump the Republican nominee for President of the United States.  (And probably handed the White House, the Senate and the SCOTUS to the Democrats in the process.)

I have a message for these old and middle aged, English speaking, white guys, of which I am one.  

Our time of running the world is coming to an end.  Accept it.  We had a good run.  We ran the world for the better part of four centuries, a record that will probably never be surpassed and made ourselves very wealthy in the process.  However, simple demographics is changing all of that.  That and the actions of a bunch rich white guys who brought us Globalization which is redistributing global wealth to parts of the world where white skin colour does not dominate the landscape.  I am certain that many of those rich white guys are now regretting foisting Globalization on us because when they redistributed the wealth the beneficiaries of it began to use it to take more of that wealth for themselves, tipping the economic and political balance away from the white world to the non-white world. A trend that will continue and that cannot be stopped.  So accept it and adapt to it.

As an aside, I have a message to the under 35 set in the world.  The future belongs to you so you better get off your asses, step up, and do something to take countrol of it.  If you do not your elders will dictate your future for you.  I quote Plato at the top of this blog and there is a reason why I chose that particular quote.

The Brexit vote was just the beginning of a process of which we do not know the final outcome.  Alot of politics is going happen before that outcome is achieved.  However, I would bet a great deal of money that when this is all over things will be very different from what was conceived by the people of the UK and the world when this whole thing started.

Changing How We Vote

The government has set up a special committee to deliberate on a new way for voters to choose their government.  I personally do not believe our way of choosing a government needs to be changed but the Liberals did make a promise and I guess we should not be too surprised that they have decided to keep that promise.

Predictably the other parties have staked out positions that are case studies for political hypocrisy.

The NDP are insisting on some form of proportional representation.  They state that it is the "most democratic" method of choosing a government.  Of course, the fact that proportional representation tends to produce perennial coalition governments and the fact that historical voting patterns would make the NDP the kingmaker AFTER EVERY ELECTION is never mentioned by them.  They claim that they only have the voters needs in mind and they have never even considered the huge advantage it would give their party.

The Conservatives insist on a referendum because something as fundamental as how we vote should not just be left to politicians.  To do otherwise is undemocratic.  This from a party that until about seven months ago lead one of the most undemocratic governments in Canadian history.  The fact that they believe such a referendum would result in maintaining the status quo and the fact that they believe the only way they can ever win government again is to maintain that status quo is never mentioned.  

The Liberals would prefer some sort of ranked ballot as the means for voting.  The other parties accuse the Liberals of being self-interested because they believe, as do the Liberals, that such a system would give a big advantage to the Liberal Party in future elections. 

They are probably right.  Such a system would be an advantage to the Liberals...until it wasn't.  

You see, Canadians are much smarter than the people we elect to govern us.  Canada has become the prosperous, tolerant and globally respected country that it is DESPITE its politicians not because of them.  So, when the time comes that Canadians collectively decide to change their government they will do so regardless of the voting method put in front of them.

So, if we have to change the way we vote then let's just get it over with.  Go through the motions but in the end the Liberals should just choose their option and be done with it.

The election is over, what now?

With the election ending in a victory for the Liberals it is now time to take a look at what the future might hold for each of the three main parties.

The Liberals are back!  Their victory was convincing and it has been accompanied by an almost palpable feeling of relief amongst Canadians.

In the short-term the Liberals will do no wrong.  They will enjoy the usual honeymoon that comes along with a change in government and they will have all sorts of low hanging fruit left over from the last administration with which to establish their bonafides for governing.

However, in the medium to long-term the Liberal government is going to face many challenges.  First and foremost they are inheriting a weak economy that unlike 1993 is not on the cusp of the second longest economic expansion of the post-war era.  The economy is more likely to go down than up in the next year or so although we should see an improvement after that.  That is going to present a great challenge to them.  Fortunately, they have promised to stimulate the economy for the next few years by investing in infrastructure.  That might mitigate some of the upcoming economic downturn and it might act as a bridge from now to the upturn that should happen in a couple of years.

The second big challenge is the TPP.  The usual suspects will be out in force to oppose that agreement and as history has demonstrated they have the easier argument than those who would support the agreement.  Fortunately, there is no rush to ratify the agreement.  There is no way the Tea Party controlled American Congress will give President Obama a trade victory by ratifying it during the final months of his term.  That will leave it to the next president and most of the credible replacements for the President have come out against the agreement.  The Liberals can safely wait until 2017 or beyond before bringing any enabling legislation forward for the agreement.

The NDP is back, to their traditional place in the House of Commons.  

It is an open question of whether Mr. Mulcair will be able to hang onto his position.  The NDP usually does not eat its leaders like the other two parties do but the NDP have never been so close to winning government only to see it slip away either.  That is going to make things very uncomfortable for Mr. Mulcair in the coming months.  The only saving grace for him is that most of the most credible replacements for him all lost their seats in the election. As well, the NDP has not been successful as the conscience of the Canadian Parliament and they have now suffered failure pursuing a more pragmatic approach as well.  Is there a third way?  I cannot see it.  I suspect the NDP will be in third place for the foreseeable future.

The Conservatives are screwed.

History has demonstrated that a political party that is defeated after holding government for an extended period of time wanders the political wilderness for a great deal of time afterwards.  It will take that time for the party to renew itself and get rid of the dead wood and hangers on that always infest a party long in power.  Many names have been put forth to replace Mr. Harper but I would bet that none of them will ever see the inside of 24 Sussex.  The next Conservative Prime Minister has not entered anybody's radar at this time. That will probably not happen until after 2019.

Added to the Conservatives' problems is Stephen Harper pretty much tore the Conservative house down in his attempt to cling to power.  The Conservatives spent more than a decade attempting to shed the redneck, intolerant image that it was saddled with when the party was formed.  They threw all of that away with the Niqab, Cultural Barbarity tip line and taking away citizenship gambits of the election.  All of their work reaching out to new Canadians has been wasted.  All of their efforts to put forward an image of being a tolerant, big tent party has been for naught.  It is going to take a great deal of time to repair the damage that was done during the election.

Finally, it is an open question as to whether the Conservatives can remain united without the discipline of power.  The party is inevitably going to go through some upheaval over the next couple of years and no one knows what long-term impact that will have on the party.  

All of the parties are going to have to adjust to the new reality.  It is going to be interesting to watch how each one makes those adjustments.

In the end it wasn't even close

The election produced the outcome that I predicted on August 2.

The Final Week of the Election

We are one week away from election day.  That means there are six more days where we will have to endure the endless blathering of all of the party leaders.

The polls seem to indicate that the Liberals have the momentum and that they could very well win the majority government that I predicted on August 2.  Of course, polls are not the best way to predict an election outcome as they are a snapshot in time and by the time they are published they are already out of date.  

To supplement what the polls are indicating it is always a good idea to see what the parties are doing.

For the Liberals it has been business as usual since the campaign has begun.  I do not believe anybody can objectively state that they have seen anything resembling discomfort in their campaign since it started.  They have stuck to their script and it seems to be paying dividends.  It is interesting that Mr. Trudeau actually had a campaign stop in Nepean today. That has been a Conservative stronghold since 2004.  Usually leaders do not waste their time in these ridings unless they believe that they might be able to swing it to their side.  

If the Liberal internal polls are indicating what we are beginning to see in the public polls no one should be too surprised if today's foray into a Conservative stronghold is only the first of such forays over the next six days.

The Conservatives on the other hand are beginning to look like a party that expects to lose. It is just little things.  Stephen Harper has changed tack a bit in recent days and stated that this election is not about him but it is about issues that Canadians find important.  What a silly statement from a man who has run three straight elections telling Canadians that those who would replace him are "Not a leader" or "Just visiting" or "Just not ready".  However, Mr. Harper is somewhat correct.  One of the most important issues of a large number of Canadians is to be rid of him as the leader of our government.  So, he is correct that this election is about issues important to Canadians, it is just that his removal seems to be one of those issues, perhaps the most important.

The other statement that Mr. Harper has made about polls not winning elections is clarion call of a political loser.  

Mr. Harper campaigned yesterday in the three Toronto ridings held by Conservatives yesterday. When, in the final days of an election campaign, a leader campaigns in a stronghold of political opponent if is because they believe it is ripe for a change in MP.  When a leader campaigns in one of their own strongholds it is for the same reasons.  

Finally, Mr. Harper has announced he will no longer be interviewed by the national media and it has been reported that he has stopped taking questions at his campaign stops.  He did the same thing in 2004 when he realized that we was going to lose.

The Conservatives are at a crossroads in the election.  Do they continue to fight to win or do they begin to save the furniture?  To slow the apparent momentum of the Liberals they will have to do something really desperate and history has demonstrated that such actions often just lead to more crushing defeats.  However, if they begin to focus on the places where they are the strongest they might be able to mitigate some of the damage they could face.  

The next week will reveal what they have decided.

For the NDP I would just point to Mr. Mulcair's statement that he is still running and expecting to win a majority government on October 19.  

That statement is an example of what I would consider to be an iron law in Canadian politics. 

"When a political party, which is shown to be in third place for an extended period of time in the public polls, states that they are still running to win a majority government they are actually admitting that they have no hope of achieving that goal."

There is still a week to go and anything could happen.  It would not surprise me one bit to see the Conservatives try to use the levers of government to change the momentum. George W. Bush used the Department of Homeland Security in the US, on several occasions, whenever John Kerry showed any signs of momentum so I would not put it past Mr. Harper to try something similar.  The question would be whether the RCMP and/or CSIS would be willing to play along.

Barring something like that Liberal supporters will be celebrating winning the election with a majority government on October 19.

The Election's Second Month

We are now exactly 60 days into the 2015 election campaign.  It has been an interesting second month.

Generally speaking it is looking like it is shaping up to be like every other election of the last 50 years, with the 2011 election being an aberration.  That is, a two way race between the Liberals and Conservatives with the NDP barely relevant in third place.

The Liberals have managed to:

• Set themselves apart from the other parties with their plans for the economy.
• Largely establish themselves as the real agent of change.
• Allow Justin Trudeau to establish himself as someone who can handle the job of PM.  
• Make the Liberal Party not only relevant but to make it a contender for government.

The Liberal campaign has been focused and positive and it has been resonating with Canadians.  So far they have run a nearly flawless campaign so I am really looking forward to what they have in store for the final two week sprint to the finish.  If the final two weeks are anything like the first two months things could be very ugly for the Conservatives and NDP on October 19.

The Conservatives have so far managed to stave off the "Conservatives are losers" narrative so that is an accomplishment.

However, I cannot help but notice that they are continuing to throw an inordinate amount of red meat as their base.  By contrast at this stage in the 2011 campaign they had already moved on to convincing those outside of their base to vote for them.  So that begs the question of why they believe it is still necessary to placate their base.

One hint might be the fact that every poll that measures the desire for change is indicating that it is between 70 and 75%.  To put that into perspective the last time we had a change of government, in 2006, the Martin Liberals never had a "desire for change" score higher than 65%.  Further some of these polls are also indicating that the percentage of respondents that do not want change is less than 25% with one poll even putting it at 18%.

Political parties keep polling firms on retainer during election campaigns.  They poll Canadians in order to gain real and useful data with which they can tweak their message to maximize its impact.  I believe the internal polls of the Conservative Party are saying in no uncertain terms what the public polls are hinting at, which is, that the Conservative base is not as solid as many believe it is.  I personally know a half-a-dozen people who voted Conservative the last two times who will not be voting that way this time.  I suspect the Conservative base is not as happy as the party would like and they believe there is a real danger that a significant number of Conservative supporters may not bother showing up on election day or worse yet voting for someone other than a Conservative candidate.

I think the NDP might have blown it.  They were so close but I think the dream is gone. They made the mistake of believing the hype and they have been running a front-runner campaign when they were never really the front-runner.  Further they banked on maintaining the same high level of support of the Quebecois as they received in 2011 and as the polls indicated they might receive again this time. That was just plain stupid considering how volatile Quebec voters can be.  Now the NDP has begun a steady fade.  I am pretty certain that they have not yet hit the floor with regard to where the support will wind up.  Historically, they have generally been in the 20% range and I would not be surprised if that is where they finally end up by the time this is all over.

At this point in the campaign the Liberals are right where they want to be.  

• They are in contention.
• Mr. Trudeau's star is rising.
• Their main opponent has not begun the effort of building the voting coalition of 2011 that took them to their majority.  Instead, it looks to me like they are running more of a save the furniture type of campaign.
• The desire for change is at unprecedented levels in the country.
• The NDP is looking less and less like the most viable party to replace the Conservatives.  As that sinks in with those desiring change the Liberals are going to take off at the expense of the NDP.

On August 2, I predicted a Liberal majority government.  I still believe that is the most probable outcome of this election.

The election's first month

Some thoughts on the election after the first month.

The Conservatives have had a brutal campaign so far.  They have been completely unable to get their message across because outside events keep stomping on it.  Duffy, the recession, the picture of the drowned refugee boy have all conspired to put the Conservatives on the defensive.  The result has been predicable.  Polls are now consistently putting the Conservatives in third place and there are rumblings from within the campaign that things are not going well.  It is interesting that the stories regarding Ms. Byrne originated from within the Conservative campaign.  That is a bad sign.

Can the Conservatives turn it around?  It is not looking good but it is conceivable.  I would say at this point that they have less than two weeks at most to do so.  In about two weeks, if the Conservatives are still in third, the story of the election will become the probable changing of government on October 19.  Once that narrative takes hold it will develop its own momentum and quickly grow to the point that nothing short of a miracle will prevent that outcome.  We have all seen it before.  At that point everything the Conservatives do during the remainder of the campaign will be seen through that lens, which would result in every action they take being seen as a party desperate to stave off defeat instead of a party confident in victory.  This is assuming that they can stop the descent they currently find themselves in.  If that descent continues over the next few days the "Conservatives are losers" narrative will take off much earlier and they will be done.

The NDP are still running a disjointed election campaign.  I still cannot discern a central message. They are still doing a decent job of trashing the other guys but they have not done a good job of convincing Canadians why they should vote for them.  Their economic plan is a study in contradiction and their opponents are only going to continue to point that out to voters.  They have an historic opportunity here but I am getting the sense that it is beginning to slip away from them.  Like the Conservatives if their numbers begin to slip to the point that they lose the lead they have had for the past five month that situation will feed upon itself and make recovering that lead very difficult.

The Liberals have had the best campaign so far.  The month of August saw them pound the economic message relentlessly, ignoring virtually everything else.  Only the picture of the boy on the beach caused them to stray from that message but only for a short time.  It seems to be paying off.  The Liberals are the only party that has shown any persistent increases in their polling numbers.  The other two parties held steady or saw decreases.  By most standards that would seem to indicate that the Liberals have the momentum. Although, it is the momentum of a snail which is probably why no one is getting too excited at this point.  Not surprisingly the other parties have about two weeks to reverse any momentum the Liberals are enjoying.

I have seem some arguments about what will happen after October 19 if a minority Parliament is elected.  I have seen some rather implausible arguments of coalitions preventing the Conservatives from forming the government if they win the most seats or of the Conservatives attempting to cling to power even if one of the other parties wins the most seats.

This is great speculation but both scenarios goes against Parliamentary convention in this country.  In our system the party that wins the most seats on election night wins the first crack at forming a government.  So if that is the Conservatives they will use all of the levers of government, public funds and Conservative Party funds to discredit any idea of a coalition replacing them.  They will delay the opening of Parliament until they are certain that they can win the first confidence vote. Anybody that does not believe that they would be successful in their efforts has not been paying attention for the last decade.

If one of the other parties wins then the Conservatives will step aside.  To do otherwise would only make their defeat during the next election that much more comprehensive.  

This "October 20" speculation is all premised on the idea that the current logjam in the polls will exist on October 19.  Between now and October 19 Canadian voters will collectively decide whether they want to replace the Conservatives or not.  In either case they will vote in sufficient numbers to ensure the the outcome is not in doubt.

Can the Conservatives recover from the Duffy Trial?

With the adjournment of the Duffy trial until November the daily revelations of the corruption in the PMO has come to a stop.  

That has caused some commentators to express the idea that the Conservatives now have a chance to recover from the trial and possibly win the election.

While anything is possible in politics I would say the probability of that happening is not very high.

First, I have been trying to think of a political party that had a brutal first quarter of an election campaign and went on to win the election and I cannot think of one.  Just in recent memory, Mr. Hudak, Madame Marois, and Mr. Prentice all had very bad first weeks of their campaign and they all lost big.  They were never able to recover.  The same for Mr. Martin in 2006 and Mr. Day in 2000.

Most commentators point to the length of this election as the reason why they believe the impact of the trial revelations may not do serious harm to the Conservative campaign.  They also claim that Canadians do not care about the Duffy trial and that Canadians have short memories 

I believe they are forgetting one very important aspect of the last three weeks in their assessments. The revelations of the trial have created a widespread perception in this country that Stephen Harper lied, was caught in that lie and has been lying more to try to get out from under the original lie. Canadians are not going to forget that.  It is going to be at the back of the minds of Canadians for weeks and it will influence the vote of a large number of voters.  We only need to see how Canadians reacted the first time the Senate Expense Scandal came to light.  The Conservative polling numbers slumped and stayed slumped for over a year only rising again when two disturbed individuals decided to kill some Canadian Army personnel last fall.  

A second consideration that needs to be accounted for is the fact that the last three weeks has given the Liberals and the NDP a rich vein of material to mine to create political advertizements to remind Canadians of the lies and corruption of Stephen Harper and the PMO.  I imagine we will be seeing those ads in the coming weeks.

As much as they would like the testimony of the last three weeks to be forgotten by Canadians between now and October 19 I do not believe it is going to happen.  The perception that testimony created is going to be around for awhile so the only way that the Conservatives can overcome it is by running an stellar election campaign and by having both of their opponents stumble and stumble badly in the next few weeks.  

Karma's a bitch isn't it - two

I noticed today some Conservative sympathizers, both in the media and ordinary folks, lamenting the cost of the Duffy trial and how it has become politicized.

Again I am reminded of the 2006 election when Liberals desperately tried to distract Canadians from Adscam.

This time I disagree 100% with the concerns of these Conservative sympathizers.

First the cost.  The judge in the case, the Crown Prosecutor and all of the court personnel are salaried employees that have to show up for work regardless of which case they are working.  So whether they are working on the Duffy case or that of a drug lord they are going to get paid.  Further Mr. Duffy's lawyer is a private contractor.  His fees are being paid by Mr. Duffy, by some unnamed benefactor or Mr. Bayne is working pro bono.   In other words Canadians are not being saddled with any costs that they would not otherwise be on the hook for as part of the workings of our justice system.

Now some would argue that the money would be better spent prosecuting that drug lord but I would counter that you have nobody to blame but the Harper government for that as they were the ones that called in the Mounties to begin with.  Maybe they thought Mr. Duffy would be cleared or maybe they were just desperately trying to find some way to quench a political fire when they did so.  My money is on the quenching of a political fire.

As for the argument that the trial has become politicized that has to be the stupidest thing I have heard this summer.  The trial involves all of the senior advisors in the Prime Ministers Office, an office by definition that is a political.  To be surprised or upset that a trial involving them has become political is naive at best and extremely disingenuous at worst.

Both of these arguments are the same thing.  They are desperate attempts by Conservative supporters to distract Canadians away from the damaging revelations that have come from the Duffy trial, on a daily basis, for the last three weeks.  

Again, I have no sympathy.  If Conservatives really believed they were not going to wear this scandal they were living in a fantasy land.  

Karma's a bitch isn't it?

I recall during the 2006 election Liberal commentators, including myself, stating that there were more important things to talk about during that election than Adscam.  However, we were gleefully shouted down by Conservatives, and Dippers for that matter.

Now, as the slow drip of the revelations from the Duffy trial slowly dissolve the Conservative election campaign I cannot help but notice that many Conservative commentators, both the Conservative apologists in the media and non-professional ones at large are stating that there are more important things to talk about than the Duffy trial.

I happen to agree with them.  The Canadian economy is in a recession and the outlook for the short and medium future is not great.  Oil prices have not hit their floor yet and that floor is going to be lower than originally expected because of the expected influx of Iranian oil into the oil market.  Dozens of manufacturing companies fled Canada in the last decade taking over 1 million jobs with them.  They are not coming back which means the lower Canadian dollar will not have the same positive impact on exports and the economy as before. Finally, the only thing holding up the Canadian economy at its current level is the housing market and record consumer debt, which are approaching their limits before a major correction occurs.  That is what we should be talking about.  How each party is going to deal with that situation is what Canadians should be demanding.

All that being said, I have no sympathy for the Conservatives and their sympathizers.  Their holier-than-now attitude from 2004-2006 was infuriating and the current political travails that they are dealing with as a result of rampant corruption in the PMO is something they are going to have to wear for awhile.  

Maybe these last few days will teach them something about humility.  Not Stephen Harper and his gang.  They would not know humility if it came up and kicked them in the nuts.  But perhaps Conservatives at large will learn a little bit about it.

The impact of the Duffy trial on the election

The trial has progressed to the really critical bits.  Gone are the housekeeping days where the workings of the Senate and its byzantine expense rules were the main topics.

Now we are getting down to the real trial where the main characters behind the Senate expense scandal have to testify under oath.  Mr. Wright is the first and some of what he has stated is quite enlightening.

He has only been on the stand for three days but I am already seeing some pundits stating that the trial will not have an impact on the election.

What these pundits are forgetting is the trial is still in prosecution phase.  Mr. Duffy's lawyer has not yet launched his defence.

Since Mr. Bayne's defence seems to be to depict Mr. Duffy as someone who made an honest mistake, navigating the convoluted Senate expense rules, and then got caught up in the PMO's "scheme" to prevent such errors from embarrassing the government I would imagine that Mr. Bayne will be seeking to introduce evidence to back up that defence when his turn rolls around.

At that point things should really get interesting for the Conservatives.  I would imagine that frequent revelations about the machinations of the PMO during an election campaign it not good news for them.

The trial has the potential to become a running sore on the hide of the Conservative campaign as weeks of revelations are disseminated to the public. At best those revelations will distract from the Conservative election message and at worst they will put them on the defensive for weeks at a time during the campaign.  That cannot be a happy prospect for an incumbent government trying to overcome a desire for change.  As well, it is an open question on how Mr. Harper will react.  He is a well known control freak so his reaction to having journalists ask questions about the latest evidence coming out of the trial, instead of the Conservative announcement of the day could be interesting.

Then there is the fodder being produced by the trial that could be used by the Liberals and the NDP in election ads.  Mr. Wright gave them some rather juicy quotes and more will probably be forthcoming in the coming weeks.

We cannot overestimate the impact of the trial on the election but we also cannot dismiss the trial as never going to have an impact either like some pundits are currently doing.  

Thoughts on the election so far

My first thought is it has been rather dull.  It almost seems that the parties are not really on a full election footing yet.  Heck, I have not seen a single lawn sign in my riding yet or the ones they usually post at major intersections.

Some of my other thoughts.

The debate was a bust.  Dull, lifeless, pointless.  I agree with many of the professional pundits that no one was hurt or helped by the debate.

I am impressed that the Liberals seem to be sticking to their message of pounding the economy during the early going.  They are ignoring all of the other stuff going on and focusing on it.  They virtually ignored the Wright testimony.  There has been some hay made of the "economy of the heart" statement of Mr. Trudeau, by the usual suspects, but if that is all they have then it is thin pickings indeed.  It is a message that could resonate as the Conservatives suddenly appear vulnerable on the economy, the NDP have no experience running the national economy and the Liberals have a very recent stellar track record.  It is apparent that the Liberals want to make the economy and their plan to make it more beneficial for ordinary Canadians the ballot question.  If it does indeed become that the other parties could be in trouble.

I am biased but I believe the Conservatives are a tired, old government that has run out of ideas and the first couple of weeks of the campaign seem to bare that out.  Everything they have promised is more of the same and it does not seem to be resonating with Canadians at large.  Their plan so far seem to be to just attack Justin Trudeau, otherwise their campaign so far has been underwhelming. Also the Duffy trial is the proverbial wild card. The Conservatives were at their lowest ebb during the height of that scandal and the trial could remind Canadians as to why they were very unhappy with the government at that time just in time for the election.  

The NDP seems to be disjointed.  I have yet to discern a central message for their campaign. They are doing a good job of attacking their opponents but they have yet to provide any real reason why Canadians should vote for them.  They are trying to overcome a 150 year old voting pattern so they are going to have to do more than give reasons why voters should not vote for the other guys.  They need to give compelling reasons to vote for them.  I would say this is most true for the NDP.  The other parties can get away with not doing so to a certain extent because they are known quantities to voters.  The NDP is not.  They need to convince Canadians that they can be trusted to govern and so far they have not done so.

The polls are not changing much although you can see some hints of where things might be headed.

The gap between first and third is about five points.  That is an extremely small gap and it means that it is still anybody's election.

The Liberals are dominating the Eastern provinces.

The NDP is leading in Quebec but the Liberals are leading amongst Anglos and federalists, which if it holds could mean big gains for the Liberals.  You can expect the Liberals to pound the NDP promise to scrap the Clarity Act in that province so that they can solidify their support amongst these groups.

The most recent Nanos poll seems to indicate the NDP has fallen to third place in Ontario.  I firmly believe that as the campaign unfolds in that province it will become a two way contest between the Conservatives and the Liberals.  Could this poll be the first hint of that dynamic beginning to develop?

The position of the parties in the Western provinces are exactly where you would expect them to be so there are no surprises there.  

So far there is nothing to become overly excited about but there is still nine weeks to go so I am certain that will change.

And the winner will be...

The election has been called so I am going to go out on a limb and make a guess on who will win the the election.

My assumptions:

1.  The desire for change will become strong enough that the Conservatives will lose the election.
2.  While Canadians will want change they will not want the radical change represented by the NDP. Canadians will stick to their habit of alternating between Liberal and Conservative governments.
3.  Justin Trudeau will perform better than many expect.  He is likable, approachable and without fear and that will come through during this long campaign.
4.  The Conservatives will grow increasingly desperate as the campaign goes on and it will add to the extent of their defeat.
5.  A man very wise to election once told me that long campaigns always benefit the Liberal Party the most.  It seems to take them awhile to find their stride but when they do they become all but unstoppable and a longer campaign allows them more time to hit that stride.

So the final result of the election will surprise everyone as it will be a Liberal majority government.

The resurgence of the Liberals will begin in the East where they will win at least 25 seats.
It will continue in Quebec where Montreal and Western Quebec will go red.  The NDP wave will recede considerably during this campaign.  Although Mr. Mulcair will win his seat it will be by the thinnest margin of all of the party leaders.
Ontario will see the largest resurgence.  The Liberals will win a large majority of seats in that province, particularly within the cities and their suburbs.  The NDP will steadily lose relevance in that province as the campaign unfolds.
In the Prairies the Liberals will double their seat count in Manitoba and maintain their one seat in Saskatchewan.
The Liberals will breakthrough in Calgary, while the NDP does the same in Edmonton.  That will be a contributing factor in the Conservative loss.
The Liberals will meet their historical high water mark in BC.
The Liberals will sweep the North.

None of the above is based on any science.  It is based on my gut, which I find has been rather reliable in the past.  

If anybody actually reads this feel free to guffaw if you like.  I really do not care.  In the fullness of time if I am proven wrong sobeit.  It is not like I have not been wrong before but I believe the next few weeks are going to surprise alot of political observers in this country.

Who is going to win the October 19 election?

This post is inspired by a conversation I had with a colleague who also happens to be a Liberal supporter.  We had a good noon hour conversation.

The short answer to the question is ask me the same question on October 20.

However, the key question between now and then is whether the desire for a change of government will hit "critical mass".

If no, then the Conservatives will probably win the election, possibly winning a majority mandate considering the apparent split in the anti-Conservative vote.

If yes, then the Conservatives lose, by how much being the only mystery.

However, that then begs the question of which party Canadians will choose to replace the Conservatives.

Will Canadians stick to their 150 year old habit of alternating between a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party?  Or will they take the historic step of electing an NDP federal government for the first time?

We will know for certain on October 20 but my sense is the "throw-the-bums-out" sentiment is not as strong as it needs to be, at the present time, for me to be convinced that the Conservatives will lose the election.  That could change during the campaign but as of now they have a reasonable shot at winning a fourth election.

If they do not then I would say the Liberals would be their replacement.  The NDP certainly are having a good couple of months but I have serious doubts that those who are telling pollsters that they support the NDP are saying so with the degree of conviction necessary to essentially change a 150 year old political dynamic.  Further, I am not sensing a real enthusiasm with the idea of an NDP government.  In fact, from the people I speak to, and this is by no means scientific, there seems to be some trepidation at the prospect of an federal NDP government.  

Considering that, I find it doubtful that if Canadians want a change in government that they will opt for such a radical change.

But like I said at the beginning we will know for certain on October 20.

Greece

A Greek debt default and its exit from the Eurozone is probably inevitable now.  Indeed it was probably inevitable when the economic crisis first hit.

When it happens there will be alot of blame being thrown around by the various parties but really the lion's share can be place squarely on the EU, the IMF and Greece's creditors. They are the ones with the greatest room to maneuver in this crisis but due to their stubbornness they are refusing to use it.

By no means is Greece innocent in all of this.  They spent beyond their means expecting the EU to bail them out when the proverbial other shoe dropped but on the other hand Greece's creditors kept lending them money because they expected the same thing.  

The current crisis could have been avoided if the EU and the IMF would have taken a different approach to Greece's debt situation than their default position of demanding austerity before providing for bail-outs.  In order for Greece to get out from under its debts it needs to positive economic growth.  Austerity creates the exact opposite.  In fact since the crisis first materialized the Greek economy contracted 25%.

So the Greeks run into debt trouble.  They seek help and their helpers demand they take steps which reduces economic activity within Greece, which, of course, prevents the Greeks from being able to meet their new debt obligations, which leads to more demands for austerity from the EU and the IMF, which reduced economic activity some more and so on in a nice little vicious circle.

It is an untenable situation and something drastic will have to change in order to break the circle.

There are probably two choices, neither one of which is a good one.

The first choice is the EU and the IMF forgive some of Greece's debt and reschedule the rest of it, without imposing any more tough austerity measures on Greece, in order to allow that country to begin realizing positive economic growth again and give it the ability to repay its debts without having to take out new loans to pay off old loans.  This choice will not fly of course.  Internal EU politics will prevent that since other EU countries besides Greece have spent beyond their means and have been suffering the same austerity being imposed on them in order to receive EU bailouts.  If Greece gets a different deal they will demand the same and that will not just do for the movers and shakers in the EU.

So that leaves us with a Greek default and exit from the Eurozone.  Certainly it would have an economic impact in the broader EU but that would pale in comparison to what would happen in Greece itself.  The Greeks would suffer that is for certain and the EU and IMF would point to that suffering to keep the other countries going through EU/IMF imposed austerity in line.  

However, the Greeks are already suffering and this choice would eventually allow them to get off the treadmill they currently find themselves on.  

The current situation has pretty much run its course.  Neither side wants to continue down the current path.  Their reasons for not wanting to are markedly different but the final conclusion is identical. Since the chances of the EU and the IMF relenting on their austerity demands are nil it will be up to the Greeks to bite the bullet and do what is necessary to break the current vicious circle they find themselves in.

You would almost think and election is coming up

There has been alot of ink, wind and bandwidth expended in the last little while regarding politics in this country and some of it has been rather interesting.

Polls:  It would seem the NDP is on a bit of an upswing while the Liberals are in a bit of slump and the Conservatives just seem to be moribund.

As usual the punditry in this country just focuses on what is in front of their faces without looking past the present to draw their instant conclusions.  For two solid years the Liberals were ahead in the polls and they made huge gains in the half-a-dozen or so by-elections since 2011.  To read too much into these two facts is a mistake but to totally ignore them is also a mistake.  This is particularly true given the fact that an incumbent government has never trailed in the polls for that length of time in between elections.  Do the polls of the last few weeks totally erase what transpired in the last two years? Maybe, we are talking politics but I would not bank on it if you are a supporter of either the NDP or the Conservatives.  For two years the Liberals were considered the alternative to the Conservatives and it is highly questionable whether that has really permanently changed based on a few weeks of polling.

I would say this is backed up if you look at the most likely reasons for the changes.  Some pundits point to the Liberal's stance on Bill C-51 but many of these same pundits like to point out that Canadians really do not care that much about policy when it suits the narrative they are trying to push.  Others like to point to the "gaffes" committed by Mr. Trudeau but I find that rather dubious.

Opinions usually change as a result of something more visceral and you only have to look at what occurred since the fall to see the most likely cause of the current Liberal slump.

The slide began in October, after the attack on Parliament Hill.  That kind of event is right in the Conservative wheelhouse.  They were able make all sorts of noises about being tough on terror, just when Canadians wanted to hear exactly that.  Then ISIS began acting up and they figured prominently in the news for weeks and months.  Again, the Conservatives took the opportunity to appear tough.  They took a simple position of sending F-18s to the Middle East while the NDP took the exact opposite view and as is the wont of the Liberal Party they took a more nuanced approach. Personally, I thought the Liberal approach was the right one but at the same time someone in the Liberal establishment should realize that today's media does not do nuance.  They gave up reporting real news a along time ago in favour of presenting a "hook" to get you to click on a link on the many websites they place their stories on.  If you do not give them that hook they will create one and since negativity sells  it will not be good news for you.  This focus on ISIS and terrorism allowed the Conservatives enjoy a bit of a bounce while the Liberals slowly sank.  That bounce had pretty much run its course though by the beginning of spring.  

Then the election of an NDP government in Alberta happened.  That was a truly historic occasion and it deserved all of the attention it received in the media but is anybody surprised that all of that positive coverage did not impact the national polling estimates for the federal NDP?  By golly, a national poll came out 7 days after the NDP election in Alberta, which means the poll was taken right in the middle of all of that positive coverage, and not surprisingly it showed an NDP "surge".  Pundits who should know better then grasped at the "surge" narrative which gave the sudden good fortune of the NDP some legs. However, it should be noted that the NDP topped out in the polls about two weeks after the Alberta election and have since stayed there while the Liberals have bottomed out.  In other words the NDP "surge" already appears to have dissipated and the question in the coming months will be whether they will be able to maintain and grow their current levels or begin to sink back to where they were for the past two-and-a-half years.

The Conservatives:  I cannot get a read on them right now.  While I believe they are in tough I am not feeling that "kick the bums out" vibe I have felt that last few times we had changes in government.  Further it appears they still believe the Liberals are the threat to them more than the NDP as evidenced by the latest round of attack ads directed at Mr. Trudeau.  A divided progressive vote is vital to them retaining power so you would think, if the Liberals are truly in trouble, that they would be subtly trying to build up the Liberals a little bit instead of trying to bring them down.  After all, if we are to believe the polls it appears the NDP are now their greatest threat.  Maybe the Conservatives are seeing something that is not showing up in the national media.

The NDP:  It is interesting to see Mr. Mulcair trying to convince a business audience that an NDP government would not run deficits and that they would be good for business.  What is wrong with that strategy is the business community does not give a damn whether the government runs deficits. Witness the thundering silence from them when the Conservatives ran them for most of their term. What the business community cares about is what they can get from the government and it is a hard sell to convince them that a party that has promoted soaking corporations and the rich, for the last six decades, have suddenly had a change of heart just months from an election.  Further the NDP seems to be trying to out Liberal the Liberals.  Ms. Horvath unsuccessfully tried that in Ontario so you have to wonder why the federal party would pursue an identical strategy.  In addition, the base for the NDP is Quebec, which contains the most fickle voters in the country.  They have been known to turn on a dime.  It will be interesting to see how they act on October.  Finally, Mr. Mulcair is not Jack Layton. The reason for the NDP success in 2011 can be placed squarely at his feet.  Those are big shoes to fill and it is an open question whether Mr. Mulcair can do so.

The Liberals:  This is not the Liberal Party of 2011.  They have created a much better election machine at the riding level, they have resolved the fundraising issues they were having a few years ago.  They are still not up to the Conservatives but they have raised more than enough for the pre-campaign and actual campaign.  They are coming out with well thought out policies, although I have to admit to some reservations regarding their pledge to eliminate the first-past-the-post system.  They have a leader that still has that rock-star persona who packs them in at rallies and who people still want to be seen with.

It is going to be an interesting few months. 

Likability and politics

In politics it helps to be liked.  It is not essential but it certainly helps and in some cases it can be the difference.

We should be reminded of this by the two surprise election results in Ontario and Alberta this year.  In both cases the eventual winners were not given much chance of victory at the beginning of the election campaign but both triumphed.  Other factors went into the victories to be certain but the fact that both Ms. Wynne and Ms. Notley were generally liked played an important role in their eventual victories.

We see this phenomenon alot in politics.  Part of the reason Jean Chretien was so successful was people liked him.  Jack Layton lead the NDP to Official Opposition status partly because people liked him.  

Part of what held back Mr. Harper in 2006 and 2008 was the fact people generally did not like him and that included some of his supporters.  I have seen that personally among some of my friends and family who generally support the Conservatives.  Many of them support the Party but think Mr. Harper is a prick.  They genuinely mean that. They are not giving him a backhanded compliment.  They really do believe he is an asshole.  

In the upcoming election Canadians are going to decide whether they want a change of government or not.  If they decide that they do there is not much the Conservatives will be able to do about that.  History has made that abundantly clear.  In that case Canadians will be looking to find an alternative for the current government.  In that situation being liked by the electorate more than the other guys will not be an advantage to sneeze at.  As we have seen twice this year it can make a difference.

Senator Duffy

My fearless prediction about the upcoming trial of Senator Duffy.  It will not happen.

The Harper government will not want to have any of Mr. Harper's inner circle having to testify under oath during any trial regarding the Senate Expense Scandal.

Mark my words, a prosecutor very friendly to the Conservative government will be appointed.  He will offer Senator Duffy's lawyer a sweet plea bargain to get a guilty verdict to a couple of the charges the Senator is facing, with the remainder being dropped and this whole thing will be swept under a rug.

It will leave Mr. Harper open to further accusations of a cover up but they will blow over and he will be spared the alternative.

To all of the Bond Rating Agencies

And all of the other Conservative minded commentators bitching at Premier Wynne.

The guy that espoused your approach to the finances of Ontario lost and lost big.

So, stop trying to force Premier Wynne to follow that approach.  That is not what Ontario voters voted for.

The Prostitution Hearings

I have been paying some attention to the hearings currently taking place regarding the new Prostitution Bill before Parliament and it has come as no surprise that much of the testimony has been against it.  Most of that testimony asserts that the new Bill would make it very unsafe for sex workers and their customers.

Of course the Conservative government does not care.  It is often forgotten because he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian.  His caucus is dominated by them and the Reform wing of the Party, which currently holds sway over the whole of the CPC, is also dominated by them.

One thing that can be said about evangelical Christians is they are obsessed with sex.  They are particularly obsessed with people having sex that is not approved by their very narrow view of morality.  Same sex, premarital sex and sex for sale are anathema to them and they have no time for people who commit any of those "sins". 

So of course they do not give a damn about the safety of sex workers or their customers.  As far as they are concerned any harm that comes to them is a result of their immorality and they deserve whatever happens to them.

As well, the politics is pretty obvious.  The Supreme Court decision was ideal for firing up the base and it gave the Harper government an opportunity to enhance its social conservative bonafides without opening up any big debates on more controversial issues such as abortion.

So will the new Bill survive the Supreme Court when it reaches there?  No, but the Conservatives do not care.  By the time it gets their an election will have happened so this issue can be safely punted into the future.

Governing for your base is a lousy way to govern but it has been the MO of this government so it should come as no surprise that they did it this time too.