Fractured Country Produces Tight and Unpredictable Race

NDP EMERGING AS THE HOME FOR THE MOST DISAFFECTED WITH INCUMBENT

[Ottawa – August 14, 2015] Nothing definitive has emerged from this week’s polling. The race remains very tight with the NDP having plateaued, but they are still hanging on to a slight lead over a pretty moribund Conservative Party. The Liberals are showed some signs of life and may be closing the gap somewhat.

We saw that the debate did generate attention and impacts but the effects dissipated as we got further away from that event in time. But the debate did have at least a short term impact and seemed to help Justin Trudeau and the Liberals somewhat and also gave a temporary boost to Elizabeth May and the Green Party. We suspect that it will take more concerted communication and exposure to sustain and build on these effects. That is why the future of the debates, particularly the English consortium debate (viewed by some 10 million Canadians last time) is so important.

It is also important for other reasons. Notably, finding the sweet spot in the promiscuous progressive voter spectrum which signals a commitment to two things: 1.) progressive values and policies; and 2) an understanding that change of government is the top priority for those voters and party fealty is secondary. It is also our view that the traditional appeal of the center moderate position has been at least temporarily distorted by nine unprecedented years of rule from the right. Looking at disapproval of federal direction and second choice data, we get a clearer sense of the strategic challenges facing the contenders for government.

While overall scores for direction of the federal government (and country) are horrible and approaching historical nadirs, the fractures across social class, age, and partisanship may be even more revealing. While only small minorities outside of the nearly universally approving Tory base think the government is moving in the right direction, the incidence of satisfaction is twice as high for Liberal and Green supporters as for the NDP. This gap is also reflected in the demographic constituency for the NDP who have risen on the strength of the university educated and age cohorts outside of seniors. These are precisely the groups which show the highest disaffection with the government.

The NDP have, for the moment, emerged as the rallying point for those who are extremely disaffected and most committed to change. For the NDP, they have to continue to provide confidence to their supporters that they are the best antidote to the current political malaise that infects the progressive voters who are now in their camp. We suspect that a clear commitment to change of government as a priority (and openness to coalitions if necessary) has been critical to this success. It may also be the case that their blunter, progressive position on Bill C-51 has been an important ingredient of success. The issue of future debates therefore must be considered with caution in light of these dynamics. Bluntly, the current and available constituency for the NDP are not in tune with their current position on the consortium debate.

Second choice reveals strategic predicament for NDP/Liberals

Looking at second choice, there is a sharp strategic dilemma emerging for both the NDP and the Liberals. The two parties have almost symmetrical second choice preferences. The NDP’s biggest source of exposure is the Liberal Party. The Liberals’ biggest source of exposure is the NDP. By extension, both parties’ best opportunities for growth are each other. This segment of voters who are open to voting either NDP or Liberal are what we refer to as the ‘promiscuous progressive’ segment – i.e., those voters who are focused on deposing the current government, but are not committed to any one party. They place job one as changing government. Shifting back and forth across the NDP and Liberal parties does little to affect the Conservatives constituency and may, because of the vagaries of vote splitting actually reduce the prospects for changing government

Therein lies the predicament. In determining each party’s optimal strategy, the progressive parties have to weigh carefully how to focus on growth. The sheer political arithmetic is obvious. For both the NDP and the Liberals, by far the largest pool of available voters is each other’s supporters. There is a near perfect symmetry of roughly 40 percent of both NDP and Liberal voters that would pick the other party. However, this strategy leaves the Conservative vote intact.

Even though potential Conservative defectors make up a much smaller pool, it may be a more attractive strategy to entice would-be Conservative voters with a message that change is possible, but one that attracts centre-right Canadians as well. Roughly 15 per cent of Conservative supporters would consider either the Liberals or the NDP. Making progress with these voters may be fishing in a smaller pool but it does have the advantage of reducing the Conservative chances of success, which is a unifying and salient motivation for their supporters. This is an interesting and important strategic conundrum and it links to attitudes to coalitions, which we will show is very positive and rising (next week’s poll). It may be that voters now favour progressive government over any single party solution to the majority appetite for change of government.

No clear winner in leaders’ debate

This week, we asked Canadians about their thoughts on the August 6th leaders’ debate. Long story short, there was no winner. Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau did well, but the clear winner of the debate was ‘none of the above’.

On the issue of further debates, we seem some interesting results on the issue of who should or should not attend. Clear majorities of Green, NDP, and Liberal supporters say all four federalist leaders should be present for all debates. These results suggest that Mr. Mulcair needs to be cautious when it comes to the debate around the debates. The very reason he appeals to Canadians is because he’s tapping discontent with government. In the case of the debate, Mulcair does not want to see himself in the same box as Harper (indeed, 81 per cent of his supporters think he should participate).

We understand why the NDP might not want Green Party present at the debates – it is clear they are toe-to-toe in some ridings in British Columbia. However, refusing to debate the Green Party will, at best, deny the Green Party one to two seats (and this is a generous estimate). The voters who are angry over his refusal to participate, however, may well cause far more serious losses, as the promiscuous progressives are a highly fluid group. Indeed, in this case, the potential downside to not participating certainly outweighs the upside.

Green Party seen as champion of the environment

We also asked Canadians which party they felt was best poised to address a number of different issues. Looking at what is consistently ranked as the most important election issue – the economy – responses almost perfectly mirror vote intention. Clear majorities believe it is their party that is best positioned to lead the economy (with the exception of Green Party supporters who would seem to be more comfortable with the NDP taking charge). The game in on here and the principal job of the opposition parties will now be to draw attention to the poor state of the economy and to convince that they are the best positioned to restore a confident and prosperous Canada.

Interestingly, the Green Party leads on environmental issues, suggesting that Elizabeth May has done very well in terms of championing herself as the most committed source on what has effectively become an orphaned issue. The Liberals trail – but are still in the hunt – on economic and social issue but may want to redress their clear gap on environmental issues where they trail all, even the Conservatives. The NDP has a firm advantage on social issues and holds a slight lead on restoring middle class progress. Stephen Harper, meanwhile, does not have a clear advantage on any of these issues and his best option at this point may to hammer away at issues related to security at terrorism, which has generally worked well for them in the past. Unfortunately, in the absence of a high-profile terror episode, this becomes a more difficult challenge. As the moral panic associated with the shooting on Parliament Hill and the ISIS atrocities has faded, so has support for a strengthened security agenda, as well as Harper’s prospects for success.

Majority of Canadians support Trans-Pacific Partnership

Trade has never been a particularly polarizing issue for Canadians — at least not since the 1990s. Indeed, eight in ten Canadians support the concept of free trade in North America and a clear majority would support some form of pan-American free trade agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a special case in that the agreement is still being negotiated and details have not been made public. So voters have been left to speculate on the basis of online rumours — some plausible, some downright silly. The Harper government has done little to address these concerns.

Nevertheless, by a margin of nearly two-to-one, Canadians appear to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Support is fairly tepid (43 per cent of Canadians ‘somewhat’ support the agreement), which suggests that many Canadians don’t feel sufficiently informed to take a firm stance one way or the other. The TPP talks are rolling out against a backdrop of softening support for trade liberalization in general, undoubtedly linked to rising economic anxieties. Canadians remain solidly pro-trade but are less enthusiastic than they were in the early days of the century.

Methodology:

This study draws on data from two separate surveys, both of which were conducted using High Definition Interactive Voice Response (HD-IVR™) technology, which allows respondents to enter their preferences by punching the keypad on their phone, rather than telling them to an operator. In an effort to reduce the coverage bias of landline only RDD, we created a dual landline/cell phone RDD sampling frame for this research. As a result, we are able to reach those with a landline and cell phone, as well as cell phone only households and landline only households.

The field dates for the first survey are June 30-July 7, 2015. In total, a random sample of 2,160 Canadian adults aged 18 and over responded to the survey. The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/-2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The field dates for second survey are August 5-11, 2015. In total, a random sample of 3,055 Canadian adults aged 18 and over responded to the survey. The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/-1.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Please note that the margin of error increases when the results are sub-divided (i.e., error margins for sub-groups such as region, sex, age, education). All the data have been statistically weighted by age, gender, region, and educational attainment to ensure the sample’s composition reflects that of the actual population of Canada according to Census data.

Click here for the full report: Full Report (August 14, 2015)

Tweet