Tuesday, November 30, 2010

By Election Numbers

By elections have a life of their own. It's an exercise in futility to project them and it's foolhearty to use them as barometers of where public support is shifting. Especially when most people were voting for Julian Fantino or Kevin Lamoureux, rather than for the Conservative or Liberal Parties.

But, since we all know the media will use them to write the all powerful narrative, we should at least get the numbers straight.

So, here are the cummulative numbers from the three by elections.


Change in average share of vote
Lib +10% (from 24% to 34%)
CPC -1% (from 40% to 39%)
Green -4% (from 6% to 1%)
NDP -7% (from 30% to 23%)


Change in total votes
Green -5,475 (from 6,875 to 891)
Lib -6,929 (from 33,976 to 27,047)
CPC -13,474 (from 42,555 to 29,081)
NDP -13,476 (from 24,442 to 10,966)

posted by calgarygrit at 8:22 a.m.

19 Comments:

  • Are you comparing a General election result to a by election?

    By Blogger CanadianSense, at 8:54 a.m.  

  • Once again, Warren Kinsella didn't have a clue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:07 a.m.  

  • CS - yes.

    We shouldn't, but if we're going to, people should at least have the numbers correct.

    I'm planning to compare these by election swings to other recent by elections, but that's an exercise for tonight.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 9:40 a.m.  

  • When the party in power wins two of three by-elections, one being a take away. The voters have sent a message.
    Your spin is a little desperate.

    By Blogger Rotterdam, at 9:41 a.m.  

  • Yup. A real message. Here it is:

    If you run a big name candidate whose name has been in the news for years, that candidate will probably win the election.

    Ha ha ha.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 9:56 a.m.  

  • So why did't the Liberals have one for that riding, Gayle? Oh yeah they tried to get Fantino, and he told them to go pound salt. Then they couldn't find anyone else. For a safe Liberal riding. In the GTA.

    Ha ha ha.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:59 a.m.  

  • Umm, I know conservatives do not like hearing another side of their story, but in fact Fantino not running for the liberals was a mutual decision.

    I could not help but notice the CPC did not find a star candidate in the other two ridings - in western Canada. And you know what, they could really use a star candidate in my riding (Edmonton Strathcona) but they just could not find one there either.

    That was a real nice try though.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 10:26 a.m.  

  • Vaughan borders Oak Ridges--Markham and Thornhill, both conservative ridings federally (the latter provincially as well), so last night was not exactly the conversion of the heart of Liberal country.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 10:35 a.m.  

  • He told them to "pound salt?"

    Did he then ask the whippersnappers to get off his lawn?

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:37 a.m.  

  • Apparently 56% in Dauphin was not big enough for those with cognitive dissonance.

    The left are cannibalizing their own base.

    CG since you used these numbers It should be a RED FLAG.
    The coalition lost another 25,000 voters.
    That is 2 for 1 supporters in these 3 contests vs CPC base.

    By Blogger CanadianSense, at 10:45 a.m.  

  • Umm, I know conservatives do not like hearing another side of their story, but in fact Fantino not running for the liberals was a mutual decision.

    Thats right, they didn't want him anymore after he told them to get lost.

    Nice try though.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:01 a.m.  

  • It's not that it was a bad night for the Tories. They held the seat they should hold, were nowhere to be seen in the one they should be nowhere to seen, and won the seat they had a chance in, increasing their vote.

    But it was obviously a Fantino vote, not a Harper vote. Just look at the poll numbers if you want a sense of where the general public is.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 12:38 p.m.  

  • Conservatives: +1
    Liberals: NC
    NDP: -1

    Rationalize it all you want, today is a good day for the Conservatives: the progressive parties are down one seat and the Cons are up one seat. Simple math.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:46 p.m.  

  • CJ,

    What poll #? I have asked about local polling and no one is willing to link it.
    Are you referring to National polls?

    By Blogger CanadianSense, at 12:50 p.m.  

  • "Thats right, they didn't want him anymore after he told them to get lost."

    Actually, no. They did not want him any more after they talked to him. They did not like him and he did not like them. That is called a "mutual decision".

    Deal with it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:17 p.m.  

  • Actually, no. They did not want him any more after they talked to him. They did not like him and he did not like them. That is called a "mutual decision".

    A decision that was mutual after he told them to take a hike. Gotcha.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:16 p.m.  

  • Lamoureaux should have been treated like an affirmative action candidate and had points against him or not allowed to apply.

    Just like Kevin would do to we the little people.

    By Blogger Marginalized Action Dinosaur, at 6:33 p.m.  

  • "A decision that was mutual after he told them to take a hike. Gotcha."

    Thanks for proving that conservatives do not like hearing another side of the story.

    ha ha ha

    By Blogger Gayle, at 8:38 p.m.  

  • Very worthwhile data, lots of thanks for this post.

    By Anonymous muebles camobel, at 6:00 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home