The 2006 Canadian Political Science Association Conference

This weekend I'm headed to "The Big Smoke" to attend the 2006 Canadian Political Science Association conference at York University.

The agenda looks interesting. Some interesting papers are going to be presented. I will do a debrief on Monday when I am back in town.

More Firepower from Al Gore

In an interview with the Guardian in the UK, Al Gore refered to the Bush administration as:

"A renegade band of rightwing extremists"

I like it - maybe its time for us to start pointing out how Harper easily fits into that mold.

The article can be accessed here.

California Seeks to Bolster Election Clout

“Seeking to force presidential candidates to pay attention to California's 15.5 million voters, state lawmakers on Tuesday jumped aboard a new effort that would award electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

“Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide.”

Just Abolish the Senate...

In today’s Globe and Mail, Brian Laghi writes about Prime Minister Harper’s plan to reform the Senate. First he’s going to term limit them and then this will force him to replace them through elections since he pledged he would never appoint Senators (oops Michel Fortier).

Well, I agree that adding term limits to Senators is a good idea, but I do not agree with electing new representatives to fill the empty seats. We should just let the Senate slowly die with a goal of total vacancy by 2010.

Why abolish the Senate? Well my reasoning is not based on the fact that it’s the best option. It is based on the conclusion that the alternatives are far worse.

Status Quo Doesn’t Work…

First let us discuss the current Senate. Despite a membership of some genuine scholars and hardworking individuals, an unelected, unaccountable representative institution does not have a place in what is supposed to be a healthy and vibrant democracy. Australia got rid of their unelected Senate years ago and the US did away with their appointed Senate in the early 1900s.

Arguments in favour of the chamber of sober second thought do not mesh anymore. The Courts serve that purpose. If the elected House of Commons steps outside its bounds then the Courts rein them in. The Senate has not blocked legislation in a meaningful way in a very long time. If they are not willing to be a chamber of sober second thought, why should they exist? The very political pressure that they are supposed to be able to overcome (public opinion, mob rule mentalities) stops them from dutifully doing their work (For example – what if the Senate blocked passage of the Accountability Act? BTW – it definitely should, more on that in another post).

Therefore, the current Senate – with all its unelected, unaccountable members – is unacceptable and has to go.

But Electing It Won’t Fix Its…

Now that we’ve concluded that the current Senate is unacceptable, what about doing what Reformers and Harper have been calling for for years – “let’s elect the thing”.

Well I am against that too. If we choose to elect Senators, we automatically give them more legitimacy and therefore, they will demand more power. You cannot say that an elected member in the House of Commons is more important than an elected member in the Senate. With equal legitimacy (popular election) comes equal power. And within the system of responsible government how would such a system work? Can the Senate defeat the budget and cause an election? Does the government need the confidence of both houses of Parliament?

I say look to the framers of the Constitution. The Senate was made an appointed body in part to fulfill the patronage tendencies of the time, but also because the framers did not want to give the Senate an equal footing with the House. Hence its lack of power in matters related to budgets and defence.

If you give the Senate legitimacy through a vote, then you have to give it more power. And it is at this point that I cannot support an elected Senate. Responsible and Parliamentary democracy cannot survive in the Canadian context with an elected second chamber. It works in the United States because of the division of powers and executive separated government. It can’t here in Canada.

Heck – no province has a second representative body anymore. If a province like Ontario can manage (despites its clear regional cleavages) than so can Canada. Some improvements can be made to representation in the House, but there is no need to elect Senators.

So there you have it – abolishing the Senate is the only acceptable option because the current Senate is unaccountable and undemocratic but a democratic and accountable body will conflict with our system of government. This will cause more headaches than solutions.

So Mr. Harper – ABOLISH THE SENATE!

Generic Ballot Measurement in the United States

For those of you closely following the political landscape in the United States and particularly poll results showing the Democrats in a lead and ready to take back Congress, check out this post by Mystery Pollster (aka Mark Blumenthal) about what the generic ballot means and how we should take it with a grain of salt.

It also makes reference to a recent Democracy Corps poll released on three lower tier, potential Democratic Party pick ups this fall. From Mystery Pollster:

Right now, however, the value of the generic vote is mostly for comparisons with polls conducted by the same organzation using identical language at this point in prior election cycles. For example, the Pew Center did just that and concluded, "there has been only a handful of occasions since 1994 when either party has held such a sizable advantage in the congressional horse race."

But remember the limitations: These generic questions may be telling us more about voters' general attitudes about politics right now than about their candidate preference. And, as with any poll, tomorrow's opinions may be different.

So while there is reason to be optimistic about a Democratic takeover, it should be cautious optimism.

Political Hack's Bookclub - Politics Lost

Since I'm going to be doing all this reading over the next four to five years pursuing my PhD I figured I'd start writing a few short book reviews of books I've read and provide other reviews of the same book. If you have also read the book, please leave your comments or send me an email because I'm interested in feedback.

This week: Politics Lost, by Joe Klein - ISBN: 0385510276

Joe Klein is an excellent writer. For a non-fiction book, Politics Lost is entertaining and engaging, bringing the reader into the world of political consultants and American politics. Made famous by Primary Colors, Klein sets out on a crusade against the almightly political consultant. He argues, and quite successfully in my opinion, that American politics is being ruined by political consultants.

One of my favourite examples is of the 2000 Presidential election and Al Gore. In the book, Klein explains how Gore was taken off his message by consultants who wanted him to focus on core Democratic Party issues like education, jobs and healthcare. Despite it being good politics, Klein argued that these issues, while important, were not key passion drivers for Gore and thus his often robotic, boring tone. Klein believes that had Gore been allowed to talk about global warming, the environment and other issues he has worked on his entire political career, his public persona would have been different and he would have won the election. According to Klein, in 2000, Al Gore didn't loose the election, his political consultants did.

The book was very good and a fairly easy read. It goes through American elections from the 1960s to 2004 and John Kerry. It is a strong critique of American politics and the pundits and politicos that drive politicians away from speaking their mind and towards speaking to a select group of voters that will ensure their reelection.

At the end, the basic argument is that politics and our political leaders are no longer authentic. It’s authenticity that separates winners from losers, good politics from bad, and he-man leader types from consultant-directed puppet boys. Real politicians say honest and heartfelt and down-home things while the shames listen to the consultants and utter simple cliches and market-tested drivel.

The AH HA Factor

While reading this book I couldn't help but think of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. Instead of presenting Canadians with a broad vision for the country, he has focused almost obsessively on his five key priorities which were undoubtedly market tested with his key target - middle class families who live in suburban ridings across Canada - particularly in the GTA and around Montreal.

Klein would harshly critize this approach and even suggest that it may backfire eventually.

What others say about it:

History Wire runs a review: "One of the book's most interesting sections discusses the phenomenon of the political maverick, from John McCain and John Anderson to Ross Perot and Howard Dean. Their initial appeal usually comes from the fact that they are not handled at the outset -- probably can't afford a handler -- so they say what's on their mind, something voters often find refreshing. Soon, they're winning primaries, which convinces some candidates they really are the Second Coming."

"Then, either they decide to employ political consultants, who script them beyond recognition. Or they insist on going it alone and, inevitably, flame out because they have underestimated the complexity of the system and the land mines that will be thrown into their paths. Politics Lost is, at once, substantive, anecdotal and stimulating."

Other Reviews

New York Times Book Review by Jennifer Senior

The New Republic Review by Jonathan Chait

A review by George Will at the Washington Post

Al Gore: The Comeback Kid?

Will Gore run?
I think he will. The political environment is perfect for his comeback and he may be the only candidate able to defeat Hillary in '08.

His new movie will get him lots of press and his recent appearence on SNL was priceless.

There's a great article in New York Magazine this weekend.

New Ipsos Poll - Liberals, NDP Slip as Tories Surge

Ipsos released a new poll today that has the Tories up by 18 points.

Conservatives -43%
Liberals - 25%
NDP - 15%
Bloc - 9%

Margin of error - plus or minus 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.

You can get the full story here.

So what does this mean?

1. Liberals have no leader.
2. Conservatives have been keeping their promises and nothing bad has happened.
3. The NDP has been hitting the Liberals hard and now both parties are paying for it.
4. The Liberal Party is dead in Quebec (at only 14% compared to 33% for the Tories).

Dryden Interview with Calgary Grit

Calgary Grit had a great interview with Ken while he was in Calgary.

You can get it here.

Afhganistan Vote Details

This morning I did a little research into the vote last night on the Afghan mission. In particular, I was interested in how the Liberal caucus voted since the other parties voted by party line.

Liberal Caucus (102 members)

Speaker = 1 (did not vote)
Yes votes (in favour of mission) = 23 (including Brison, Iggie, and Graham)
No votes (opposed to mission) = 67 (including Dryden, Fry, Bennett, Bevi, and Volpe)

And now for the interesting part - those who didn't bother show up to vote = 11

Ray Bonin (Nickelback)
John Cannis (Scarborough Centre)
Raymond Chan (Richmond)
Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal) - surpised!
John Godfrey (Don Valley West)
Ralph Goodale (Wascana)
Charles Hubbard (Miramichi)
Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt)
Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard) - not surprised - always been a chicken
Lucienne Robillard (Westmount-Ville-Marie) - wonder what public opinion is in Quebec
Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill)

I think if Liberals are wondering how the Conservatives possibly won that vote (and I was surprised) the answer is not with Ignatieff and Brison who we knew would take unique positions for political reasons. But some of the MPs above undoubtedly would have voted against the motion.

I think Canadians need to ask where these voters were. Were they sitting it out purposefully to let the vote pass? Was this contrived by the Liberals and Conservatives? Canadians need to ask these questions - remember, the devil is in the details.

Endorsement: Ken Dryden for Leader

Seeing as though many of my fellow bloggers have recently provided their preferred candidate for the Liberal leadership - I decided to sit down and get my opinions out on paper (or computer screen).

I will be voting for delegates committed to KEN DRYDEN.

Ken is my choice for three specific reasons.

Fundraising Potential

My most significant reason for supporting Ken is due to the clear disadvantage the Liberal Party now faces in fundraising.

The first quarter results speak for themselves.

Party (Number of Contributors, Average Contribution)

Conservatives - $5,371,354.00 (37,391, $143.65)

Liberals - $ 1,328,515.12 (6,493, $204.61)

NDP - $1,113,563.26 (12,850, $86.66)

Bloc - $147,855.66 (1,902, $77.74)

Green - $125,782.89 (1,612, $78.03)

What's the problem - The Liberals cannot raise small amounts of money from Canadians. Clearly the Conservatives have a huge advantage on us, while the NDP is also doing better among small donors (double the number of contributors).

So, when I look to a leadership candidate who will be able to get the party back into fighting shape, money, as always, talks.

Ask yourself, which of the 11 candidates can go into rural Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta and draw a crowd out larger than say 30 or 40 people? Bob Rae? - Maybe in rural Ontario, but that is just to throw eggs. Michael Ignatieff? - Highly doubtful. Stephane Dion - most likely, NO.

So when I look at Ken Dryden - with his unbeatable name recognition and personal appeal - I say this man can be a cash cow for the Liberals. And for mainly that reason - I will be supporting him.

But my support is not only based on money.

Head Start in Name Recognition

If Ken is elected leader on December 3rd, he will not have to work for five months to increase his name recognition. People know who he is - what he has done. This also is useful in making it harder for the Conservatives and the NDP to define him. What if Bob Rae wins? Harper et al. will have a field day defining the Liberal Party based on Bob Rae's record (a record he accomplished not as a Liberal). And Ignatieff - well 30 years out of the country, supporter of the War in Iraq - can you say Jack Layton's own wet dream?

The fact is - it will be difficult to attack Ken personally. He's a big, lovable guy that many Canadians idolize. Harper will only be able to attack his policy positions. And this will allow us to contrast our ideas and I believe more Canadians subscribe to Liberal ideas than Conservatives ones (just look at the 2006 election results - Conservatives 37%, everyone else 63%)

And finally - vision, intellect and down home charm.

Ken Can Sell Liberalism

Its easy to say - "the government has to get its hand out of your pocket" and "less government is good government" - but simple 10 second sound bites can't build a country.

I like Ken's "Big Canada" vision. It speaks to directly the kind of federal government we need. Big vision, big endeavors, big results - heck Preston Manning even told us to Think Big - unfortunately his prodigal son (Harper) didn't listen.

I think Ken is the only candidate that can walk into small town Canada, and speak directly to people. First because as mentioned earlier because they will come to hear him, but second because I think he gets it. He's not an academic and he's not an idiot. He speaks directly to what Canadians want to hear - a proud country that puts people first. The "its cheaper when we pay for it together" attitude of small L liberalism.

Yes - he needs some work to focus his speeches and get directly to the point - all of which can happen. If Stephen Harper can turn around is image anyone can.

But Ken can reconnect the party to the grassroots. To progressive Canadians who lost faith in our party during the last 13 years. We are the party of public healthcare, of old age pensions, of the Charter of Rights, of economic prosperity and a strong national government.

Canadian unity will come when each region is strong and each is an equal partner in the grand endeavour. I'm excited for the future of the Liberals if Ken is leader.

He has my full support.

So to sum it all up:

1. Money, money, money - only Ken can reconnect and build a base of small donors across the country.
2. Unbeatable name recognition
3. Vision, intellect and passion.

Will Harper Flip and Flop on Gun Registry?

Here's some interesting information from Wikipedia:

Harper was the only Reform MP to vote for a bill establishing the Canadian gun registry at second reading stage in 1995, although he voted against it at third reading. He made his initial decision after concluding that a majority of his constituents supported the measure, but later decided that there was substantial opposition to the law.^[13]

I have read this somewhere else too. If his constituents wanted it back then, and the registry is accessed over 5,000 times a day - wouldn't the Conservatives be wasting another billion dollars scrapping this program?

Sure it wasn't managed well up to this point - but they are not arguing we don't need - they just want to rid the country of Liberal waste. Well - Harper, step up - keep the registry that you voted for and make it work more efficiently.

Ambrose Should Sit and Watch this Movie

Al Gore's new documentary on Climate Change will raise the issue again to the next level.

Isn't great that as the world is really waking up to the reality that its global warming, Harper and his chums back away.

Check it out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=an+inconvenient+truth&pl=true

Josh, Toby, CJ and Jed - We will miss you.

Last night, the West Wing signed off for the last time. It was a bittersweet episode.

I will definitely miss this show - it was the only good thing on television.

Read this. A great account of the finale.

Libs need fundraising reform

Appearing in the Hill Times.

In the face of dramatically declining financial contributions and in a new era of political financing, the once reigning Liberal Party needs a bold new grassroots strategy and a clearer, more compelling message to raise money, say Liberal MPs.

Political party financing returns for the first quarter of 2006, released by Elections Canada at the start of the month, show the governing Conservative Party continues to benefit from the new fundraising rules that came into force in 2004. The party received $5.6-million from 37,000 contributors in the first quarter of 2006, $4.2-million more than the Liberal Party's earnings of $1.3-million, which came from only 6,493 contributors.

Under the current financing laws, introduced by former prime minister Jean Chrétien before he left office in 2003, corporate and union donations are limited to $1,000 and individuals can contribute up to $5,000. The measures are said to democratize fundraising and limit corporate influence through political contributions.

The Liberals saw a dramatic drop in fundraising after the introduction of the new rules. In 2003, before the current law came into force, the Liberals attracted $24-million in contributions, but in 2004, under the new rules, the party raked in just $5.2-million, according to Elections Canada financial data.

But the Conservative government, under the Federal Accountability Act, which is now being studied at the Commons Bill C-2 Legislative Committee, proposes to outright ban all corporate, union and organization donations. The bill will only allow up to $1,000 contributions annually for individuals.

Liberal MP Stephen Owen (Vancouver-Quadra, BC), who is on the legislative committee studying the Federal Accountability Act, said he supports the new limits on campaign contributions because they will reduce public cynicism surrounding corporate influence in politics, but he acknowledged that the Liberal Party will have to look at developing more grassroots support from a base of permanent party members.

"I think that's always been the intention, but I think perhaps more emphasis now will have to go in that direction, even though it's an area that wasn't neglected before," Mr. Owen said. "When that becomes more and more the major source of electoral financing, then we're going to have to. That's the name of the game, certainly now. Get as broad a signed-up, permanent membership as you can, donating on an annual basis, especially in a minority government, you never know when you're going to need it."

Mr. Owen added, however, that he thinks the Liberals will have to go through a period of adjustment before making significant gains in the new era of political fundraising. "I think for all parties it will take an adjustment in how funds are raised," Mr. Owen said. "In my own constituency we've never had difficulty raising funds, but it's been from small fundraising activities and dinners and small donations from lots of people."

The new rules proposed in Bill C-2 appear to spell more trouble for the Liberal Party, which continues to suffer from the limits on corporate donations and lagging party support nationally. In the first quarter of 2006, according to the data released this month, the Liberals earned about only $183,000 more than the federal NDP, which received $1.1 million from 12,850 contributors.

A poll released last week by Decima Research for The Canadian Press also suggested the Conservatives are at 41 per cent nationally and the Liberals at 29 per cent. The NDP had 16 per cent support nationally, according to the poll, the Bloc Québécois nine per cent and the Green Party seven. The poll, conducted May 4 to 7, surveyed 1,008 people and is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 per cent, 19 times in 20.

"Clearly the party needs to reform its fundraising, to a more broad-based, a more grassroots approach," Liberal leadership candidate Scott Brison (Kings-Hants, NS) told The Hill Times last week on his way into Question Period on the Hill. He suggested that the Liberal Party leadership campaign, now under way and scheduled to select a new leader at a convention in December in Montreal, will help renew grassroots support for the party as new policy ideas are discussed and absorbed by the public.

"I think national permanent membership will help significantly, and I think that money follows message. With clearer messages that affect people it will be more compelling for them to support us," Mr. Brison said. "As we have a clearer message, and as we present our ideas, individual Canadians, I believe, will see merit in supporting them [candidates] both personally and financially."

Conservative MP Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.), the Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), said the Liberal party is going to face further fundraising troubles with the new limits proposed in Bill C-2.

"They've got a great challenge because they're not a grassroots party. It's a party of powerful elites, corporate donors and

Bay Street lawyers and lobbyists who have propped them up financially," Mr. Kenney said. "Now, with the elimination of corporate donations and reducing individual donations from $5,000 to $1,000, they'll have a hard time making ends meet."

When asked to give the Liberals advice on a grassroots strategy, Mr. Kenney smiled and said: "You have to find issues that have a broad-based, popular appeal. I'm not going to give them our secrets. Maybe they should read our platform."

As a result of the 2004 political financing legislation, the government subsidizes parties after each election with $1.75 per vote received, and large donations must be disclosed. Liberal MP Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Ont.) questions the proposed limits in Bill C-2, saying they are likely to shut out some areas of support, and said he wonders how much administration and enforcement will cost with so many limits and reporting requirements for political donations.

"While I see the good public purpose envisaged by that, it's going to mean that parties are certainly going to have to restructure, and it is notable that large portions of public money now go to political parties," Mr. Lee said. "The next question will probably be, now that no institutional donations are going to be accepted--if the bill is passed--what proportion of political party expenses are going to be borne by the tax payer and what proportion by the individual donors? This is something that we haven't had to deal with directly before."

Mr. Lee also noted that the NDP used to benefit from large union donations, but Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, Man.), said the party is adapting. "I don't think anything's changed for us," Ms. Wasylycia-Leis said. "It's always hard to build, to maintain a mass-based party, but that's what we aim to do."

Although Ms. Wasylycia-Leis said it will be fairly easy for even individual donors to reach the proposed $1,000 limit, she said she supports the measures. She added that the NDP found fundraising easier in the last election and has found successful fundraising in her riding through teas, garage sales and other grassroots events.

"I think it's important," Ms. Wasylycia-Leis said. "We want to get away from big money in politics to ensure that ordinary citizens have a way to support and participate, financially as well as through direct participation."

Tories lead in first SES Poll since February

SES Research (the most accurate pollster out there) released a new poll today which has the Tories at 38%, the Liberals at 28% and the NDP at 19%. These results are a little different from past polls - especially NDP support. Since SES got it right during the election - they're the only polls I trust.

You can download the statsheet here.

Will Gerard Kennedy run in Quebec?

Today a thought occurred to me. Is Kennedy going to run in Quebec if he wins the leadership of the Liberal Party? I mean - he says he's quitting his seat in the Ontario legislature and packing up his family and moving to Quebec.

Now - if he is serious about this move - will he run there? If he doesn't commit to running there than its just another stunt.

So I think it's time the media asks - Will Kennedy run in Quebec? And if so - then in what riding?

Trouble for Democrats?

According to the New York Times, tension is building between DNC chairman Howard Dean and Democratic congressional leaders. “Dean was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee on an unusual promise: To send millions of dollars in contributions to build up state Democratic parties, even in states that vote solidly Republican." Dean "has done precisely that. But the policy that has defined his tenure -- while delighting state Democratic chairmen -- has embroiled him in a battle with the two Congressional Democrats leading the effort to retake Congress this fall.”

In a "heated meeting" last week, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) "challenged Mr. Dean on his 50-state program, saying it was undercutting Democratic hopes of taking back the House and the Senate, Democrats said. They warned that Mr. Dean was squandering an opportunity by sending money to parties in states that are a long way from becoming Democratic.”

The Washington Post notes that the argument was so fierce, Emanuel “stormed out of Dean's office several days ago leaving a trail of expletives.”

Newark Election Results - "Street Fight" #2

For anyone who saw "Street Fight" on CBC Newsworld on Sunday evening might be interested to know this.

In Newark, Booker Elected in a Landslide

"Cory Booker, the young, Ivy League-educated lawyer who fought an unsuccessful battle four years ago against the domineering incumbent Sharpe James, has been elected mayor, marking the start of a new political era in New Jersey's largest city," the New York Times reports.

Despite the nasty race against James in 2002, the Newark Star Ledger notes Booker held out an olive branch last night saying, "I want to take a hat off to the man who occupies the seat now, and I hope you all give applause to Mayor Sharpe James."

Liberal Leadership: Leger Poll - Dryden and Rae Lead

Leger Marketing released a poll yesterday with some interesting results. Keep in mind, 41% of Liberals were unsure, and 51% of Canadians were unsure. Nevertheless, it gives a quick snapshot of how the race is shaping out.

Question: Among the following candidates who have joined the Liberal leadership race, who seems more capable of leading the Liberal Party of Canada? Is it....

Toronto Muncipal Race: Pitfield Can't Beat Miller

An article in the Globe and Mail interviewed a number of key people in the past campaigns of Mel Lastman and John Tory.

The conclusion?

None wished to speak for attribution about Ms. Pitfield's prospects -- and none expressed much enthusiasm for her candidacy.

Dennis Mills for Mayor?

Some are doing more than waiting. Behind the scenes, a number of the powerful politicos that put Mr. Lastman in the mayor's chair are looking for another candidate.

The current hot prospect is Mr. Mills.

Now the vice-chairman of Magna Entertainment Corp., Mr. Mills was an aide to former prime minister Pierre Trudeau and a four-term Liberal MP for Toronto Danforth who earned a reputation as one of the most effective organizers in the House of Commons.

He provided the political push for the Pope's World Youth Day visit in 2002 and organized the Rolling Stones-headlined benefit concert after the SARS outbreak in 2003.

He almost dropped out of politics before the 2004 election, but stayed on to run unsuccessfully against NDP Leader Jack Layton, after which then-prime minister Paul Martin named him a one-man task force on the redevelopment of the Toronto waterfront -- a file that would land on his desk again if he were to become mayor.

Mr. Mills said last week that his priority is business, but also expressed an interest in getting into city politics at some point.

"Once our team cuts Magna Entertainment free of debt, I would like to challenge David Miller to turn his promises into performance," Mr. Mills said in an interview.

Despite his protestations, Mr. Mills is under heavy pressure to get into the race. One source said that if the money and campaign team needed for a serious challenge are lined up by midsummer, it is still better than even odds the former MP will enter the race by Labour Day.

A New SES Research Poll

Canada's most accurate pollster, SES Research, released a new Ontario poll this morning.

The findings should be a little worrisome for Dalton McGuinty.

Question: I am going to read you three statements and I would like you to me which statement, if any, comes closest to your view? (Read and Rotate)
a. The McGuinty led provincial government focuses too much on cities.
b. The McGuinty led provincial government focuses too much on small/rural communities.
c. McGuinty led provincial government has struck the proper balance between both.

Statement A: 43%
Statement B: 14%
Statement C: 27%
Unsure 20%

Liberal Leadership: Weekend Roundup

All 11 leadership candidates met in Toronto over the weekend for the annual meeting of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario). Here's a round up of the weekend:

Is Ken Dryden the sleeper candidate who will surprise everyone? I think so... and so does Shoshana (more to come in a few days on this).

From the CTV:

"Losing stinks," summed up hockey legend and former minister Ken Dryden.

He said Liberals need to adopt a positive attitude in order to save the country from another Harper election victory.

"We have to win. Not maybe win, not like to win. Win."

Former Ontario education minister Gerard Kennedy echoed that sentiment: "We cannot let Stephen Harper do to Canada what (former premier) Mike Harris did to Ontario."

Bob Rae, a former NDP premier of Ontario, told about 1,400 party faithful that the Harper government's first "focus group budget" on Tuesday, laden with small tax breaks for various groups, shows "this is not a government that's thinking about the future; it is a government that is only trying to buy an election."

Cherniak on the Leadership panel

New Strategic Counsel Poll - Tories Drop

A new poll by Strategic Counsel was released on Saturday that shows a slight dip for the Tories and a slight increase for the Liberals.

Conservatives: 35% (-4)
Liberals: 31% (+2)
NDP: 16% (+2)
Bloc: 10% (-1)
Green: 9% (+2)

May 3rd and 4th, 2006. The Strategic Counsel interviewed 1,000 Canadians, just after the Tory government released its first budget on May 2. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Analysis: Well the tory drop is outside the margin which suggests that Canadians were responding not only to the budget but also to the mess caused by the four deaths in Afghanistan and the flag flop. Despite Strategic Counsel's poor performance in the past election, the poll does show some movement down for the Conservatives. However, I find the 9% for the Green Party way too high. Especially since they have had no press since the election. I'd be interested to know who they ask this question. SC and Ipsos always has a very high Green vote - something is obviously happening and its probably a result of the methodology used.

Famous Republican Pollster Frank Luntz Meets with Harper

The Globe and Mail reports that Stephen Harper recently met with Frank Luntz, Republican pollster extrodinare and co-author of the Contract with America (the platform used by the GOP in 1994 to take Congress).

Mr. Luntz said the Prime Minister is one of the Conservative Party's assets. "You have a gentleman who may well be the smartest leader intellectually. Now, that is half the battle. The other half of the battle is to link that intelligence to the day-to-day lives of the average individual."

Voters want someone who is credible and trustworthy more than a person who shares their ideas, Mr. Luntz said. "More than anything else, they want to know that you are a straight shooter."

This just provides more fooder for those who believe that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are too close to Bush's GOP friends. Word of advice - George W. has an approval rating ranging from 30 to 36%. I'd stay away from any strategy that he's employed with a ten foot poll (pardon the pun).

Geography hurts Democrats

In today's Washington Post, an article appears that explains the disadvantage that the Democrats face leading up to the 2006 mid-term elections.

With Democrats locked out of the White House and in the minority in Congress, it might seem that there just aren't enough Democratic voters to win elections. But political scientist Gary Jacobson says the problem is actually more complicated: The distribution of Republican voters is more politically effective across the nation.

Jacobson's research shows a little more than half of all the nation's 435 congressional districts over recent decades consistently favored Republican presidential candidates. A little less than 40 percent went for Democrats. (The remainder had a mixed pattern.) Jacobson, at the University of California at San Diego, said this is due to an "inefficient" distribution of Democratic voters, with many concentrations of 60 percent or more in urban areas and places with large numbers of minorities. Republicans, he found, are distributed more evenly, yielding more districts in which GOP voters have a slimmer but sturdy majority.

Despite all the bad news for the GOP - retaking Congress is not a foresure thing for the Democrats.

The 2008 Presidential Line Up

A look at the 2008 Presidential line up from The Fix at the Washington Post:

THE DEMOCRATS

Evan Bayh: The Fix's dark horse in the presidential field, Indiana's Evan Bayh is working as hard as any other candidate in terms of his travel schedule and getting face time with key donors. He's also less conservative and less dull than most people think. Plus, Bayh will end 2006 with at least $10 million (and probably several million more) in his Senate campaign account, which he can transfer directly to a presidential committee. Bayh's challenge is to win, place or show in the '08 Iowa caucuses, since he has a natural geographic appeal there and has already been spending considerable time courting the state's voters. If Bayh doesn't make a strong showing in Iowa, it's hard to see how he stays competitive in New Hampshire and beyond. (Of course, it remains to be seen what state or states will be added by the Democratic National Committee to hold their primaries between Iowa and New Hampshire -- an X-factor in every Democratic hopeful's calculations.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton: When people ask why Clinton is in a class by herself in the Democratic field, the answer is money, money, money. Clinton has raised $40 million for her Senate reelection bid since 2001 and had roughly half that amount on hand at the end of March. She will likely close 2006 with between $20 million and $25 million in the bank. And here's the kicker: Every person who gave to her Senate campaign can ante up again for a presidential bid -- providing her with an even bigger head start over her opponents than her huge cash-on-hand total suggests. Liberals remain skeptical about Clinton because of her lack of outspokenness on the Iraq war, but after eight years without the White House they may swallow those doubts in hopes of winning back the nation's top office.

John Edwards: Though we are not numerically ranking the five candidates, Edwards has slipped a bit in our mind since the last presidential Line. Edwards and his strategists seem supremely confident that he can raise the $10 million (or more) he will need in the first quarter of 2007 in order to be competitive with the likes of Clinton, Bayh and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Maybe. Edwards is the most naturally talented politician in the field, a raw charisma that paid major dividends in 2004. And he will benefit (as will Kerry) from having been through the wringer of national politics once before. But there just doesn't seem to be the same energy for Edwards in the insider community as there was at this time in 2002. Given his skills, we keep him on the Line but count us as skeptical about his fundraising strategy at the moment.

John Kerry: Our belief that the 2004 nominee will run again in 2008 keeps growing. Two weeks ago Kerry spoke at Faneuil Hall in Boston to mark the 35th anniversary of his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after returning from Vietnam,. Kerry is also one of three candidates (Bayh and Clinton are the others) who will likely start 2007 with $10 million or more in a presidential account, ensuring him a spot on the Line for the foreseeable future. Kerry remains devoid of buzz among the chattering classes, but he has managed, somewhat remarkably, to reclaim his standing as a leader in the party over the last 18 months.

Mark Warner: After scanning through mounds of financial reports, we were amazed to find that Warner's Forward Together PAC had 23 employees at the end of March -- the second-largest staff maintained by a prospective Democratic presidential candidate other than Sen. Clinton's HILLPAC operation. And Warner's fundraising through the PAC -- $5 million since he began collecting cash for it last July -- is an extremely impressive total, especially considering that Warner never had to raise money under federal limits during his gubernatorial term. The story line of Warner as red-state governor has largely run its course; political insiders seem to be waiting for a new act from the Virginian. Given his past successes, we're pretty sure he'll have one.

THE REPUBLICANS

George Allen: The last month has not been Allen's best. He continues to labor under the dual burden of running for reelection this November while also traveling the country to keep his presidential prospects alive. And the senator seemed to be caught off guard by a New Republic profile (link is subscription-only) that details his youthful fascination with the Confederate flag. In the midst of the controversy, Virginia state Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis (the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom Davis) said on a local radio show that "if Jim Webb is [Allen's] opponent, [he] is going to have a very challenging year, particularly in Northern Virginia." Not exactly what the Allen people needed as they were scrambling to get out from under the New Republic story. But as we stated above, Allen is one of three GOP candidates who has the political team, national fundraising chops and policy credentials to compete for the nomination in two years.

Rudy Giuliani: What a difference a month makes. In April, we wroteAnne Dickerson, who served as the right hand man (er, woman) to Mercer Reynolds -- the finance chairman of President Bush's 2004 campaign; Dickerson will run Hizzoner's Solutions America PAC. Giuliani stopped in to Iowa earlier this week, the hotbed of presidential politics, for a fundraiser for state Rep. Jeff Lamberti. And he met with some key South Carolina operatives in New York City last month. Although a Giuliani candidacy now looks more likely, he must still find a way to appeal to conservatives despite his liberal views on abortion, gun control and gay rights. (and firmly believed) that there was little chance Giuliani would attempt a White House run. Today, it seems more likely than not that the former New York City mayor will jump into the contest. Giuliani announced Thursday that he has hired

Mike Huckabee: The Arkansas governor makes the Line for a second straight month largely on potential. Huckabee is the candidate seemingly best equipped to appeal to social conservatives (he is a Baptist minister) while also offering an unorthodox appeal to other elements within the party (note the media coverage he's gotten from his emphasis on nutrition, exercise and weight loss). But -- and it is a big but -- Huckabee just hasn't capitalized on the momentum he had coming into 2006. It doesn't help that his decision to sign a minimum wage increase last month drew the ire of fiscal hawks in the party -- led by the Club For Growth, which called Huckabee a "liberal." The window for Huckabee to move into the top tier is still open, but not as wide as it once was.

John McCain: American Research Group, an independent polling firm, this week released a series of surveys on possible 2008 Republican primary match-ups that includes data collected in key early presidential states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. McCain led the field in each of the three states, and without Giuliani as an option, the Arizona senator was lapping the competition. While polling at this stage of the 2008 race is largely a function of name identification, the surveys show that McCain sits in the driver's seat in each of the three early contests. McCain has made his ascent to the top of the Republican pack look easy, but he still must answer lingering doubts about his Republican bona fides if he hopes to become the party's nominee.

Mitt Romney: It's hard to underestimate the importance of Romney playing a leadership role in the passage of legislation to mandate health care insurance for every Massachusetts resident. It has drawn him favorable coverage from the dean of political reporters -- The Post's own David Broder -- and it gives Romney something to tout on the campaign trail -- a sterling example of his ability to forge compromise and solve problems. Romney is also moving around the country as aggressively as any other Republican candidate. For all the talk of Romney's Mormonism as a potential hurdle, his religious affiliation also has its benefits. Witness a recent Romney fundraiser in Utah where he raked in better than $1 million -- a shockingly large total for a state not traditionally known for its political bankrolling.

Harper Taxing Softwood Duties Returned to Canada

A great story found by BCer in Toronto.

Yes, you read that right. After surrendering to the U.S. and only getting a portion of our illegally collected softwood duty back from the Bush Administration, the Harper administration will be TAXING the portion of their own money our forestry companies ARE getting back from this deal. The tax windfall could be worth as much as $1 billion to Harper and the provincial governments.

I really should read the business section more often, because otherwise I would have missed this, I think, huge story in the Globe's Report on Business. And Eddie, why wasn't this in the A section anyway, instead of B5?

Wow. Simply wow. The NDP in BC will have a field day with this.

Q1 2006 Federal Fundraising Totals

Elections Canada has released the latest fundraising totals for Canada's five major parties.

Party (Number of Contributors, Average Contribution)

Conservatives - $5,371,354.00 (37,391, $143.65)

Liberals - $ 1,328,515.12 (6,493, $204.61)

NDP - $1,113,563.26 (12,850, $86.66)

Bloc - $147,855.66 (1,902, $77.74)

Green - $125,782.89 (1,612, $78.03)

Basically, the Liberal Party is in real trouble when it can only muster $200,000 more than the NDP (especially during an election campaign).

It is obvious that the new campaign financing rules established by Jean Chretien have seriously put his own party at the disadvantage. The most shocking difference is in the number of contributions. The Conservatives had a whopping 37,391 contributors compared to only 6,493 for the Liberals. The NDP has almost 13,000.

This shows that more than picking a new leader, the Liberal Party must reshape itself, rebuild its grassroots appeal and start raising some cash. This problem could only get worse with the new campaign finance rules outlined in Harper's accountability act.

1. A $1,000 maximum contribution limit per Canadians.
2. No contributions from corporations or unions.

The Conservatives have mastered the grassroots, small contribution method made famous by Preston Manning and the Reform Party. The NDP has always been strong in getting contributions from its supporters (dispite the small average size).

If the Liberals are going to compete during the next election, they have to work quickly to close the fundraising gap between them and the Conservatives.

A New SES Research Poll

From Canada's most accurate pollster, SES Research.

I guess Harper got the budget right. Ontarians want a little bit of everything.

Latest Polling Results (USA)

In Michigan, Gubernatorial Race is a Dead Heat

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of Michigan's gubernatorial race shows Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) leading Dick DeVos (R) by just one point, 44% to 43%.

"Early this year Governor Granholm enjoyed a double-digit lead, but it has been eliminated thanks largely to a steady spate of bad news in the auto industry."

Race for Colorado Governor a Toss Up

In the latest Rasmussen Reports survey of the race for Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter (D) and Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-CO) "remain essentially tied," with Beauprez slightly ahead, 39% to 37%, but well within the 4.5% margin of error.

GOP in trouble

As the 2006 mid-term elections approach, Professor Charles Franklin at the University of Wisconsin has put together some public opinion history regarding the approval rating of the President in 2006.


Prof. Franklin writes:

President Bush's approval rating is on course to set a record low for mid-term elections. The magnitude of the problem is greater than commonly perceived. The previous record low approval in the last Gallup poll of October was 41% for President Truman in 1950. Based on approval trends in 2005-06, the President and Congressional Republicans are facing an election day 2006 approval of between 20.4% and 40.8%. (The range is highlighted in the graph for 2006. The "dot" is the estimate based on the trend in most of 2005, which is less than half the current rate of decline.)

He conculdes his analysis by arguing:

I was frankly shocked at the above results. Other presidents have suffered low approval ratings, and President Bush still stands above the lows of four of the ten other post-war presidents. But I had not appreciated how much the current approval is below other mid-term approval ratings, even without extrapolating current trends. We have simply never seen a president this unpopular going into a midterm election.

I will be surprised if the current rate of decline continues. But I will also be surprised by a sustained upturn at the rate of November-January. Either would be an extreme outcome. But approval between the upper 20s and lower 30s seems entirely plausible. There is no precedent for a midterm with approval at those levels.

Basically - the GOP is screwed. The war in Iraq is not getting better. The scandals involving Karl Rove and lobbying are not going away and the immigration battle continues to put heat on the administration's handling of immgration reform. The only thing that can save the GOP's control of the House and Senate are the Democrats. If they cannot get their act together. It's over for them and it will be a generational opportunity to realign American politics.

Welcome

Soon I will begin the long (and some say) painful journey in hopes of getting a PhD in Political Science.

In late August, I leave my home of 5 years in Ottawa and head west to the land of oil, low taxes and Conservative domination.

I will be attending the University of Calgary to study Canadian and Comparative politics in the hopes that one day, I too, can be called "Doctor" and be able to teach bright minds about the joy that is Politics.

This blog will be an outlet for me - to throw ideas out there, share information I find around the web and hopefully get good insight into my research and other interests in the political world.

Topics will be broad (as are my interests) ranging from Canadians politics, public opinion research, American politics, elections, municipal politics and public policy.

Enjoy.
-DC