Gronk!
Senior Member
You should know by now that election polling means sweet F.A.
|
|
|
- Thread starter TAS
- Start date
policyenthusiast
Active Member
There are also a lot of folks who aren't stereotypical right-wingers but will likely vote CPC without vocalizing it beforehand. Kamala Harris was projected to win in the U.S., but the poll results suggest a large amount of people are on board with the populist agenda while simultaneously disapproving of the people peddling it.
At the end of the day, everyone is speculating. Vote for who you think deserves to win.
constance_chlore
Active Member
I wouldn't say that Harris was projected to win. If I recall correctly, 538's forecast was just about exactly 50/50 the day of the election, and the eventual outcome was well within the distribution of forecasted outcomes. But that just goes to show: even in a country like the States where polling data are much better than in Canada, forecasting outcomes of elections is hard. In the States, forecasters have learned their lesson and try to account for dozens of ways that polls could be systematically biased, which means the amount of stated uncertainty always ends up enormous.
TAS
Senior Member
The reason the Liberals may win this election, outside of Carney replacing Trudeau, is that a lot of NDP and Bloc support has gone to the Liberals across Canada. Many NDP and Bloc supporters see the Liberals under Carney as the best choice for Canada vs Poilievre in terms of the next 4 years dealing with Trump and new growth/economic direction.
When Harper won his elections, the NDP was strong. When he lost, the NDP was weak and lost support which went to the Liberals. When the progressive vote is split, it certainly improves conservative fortunes.
TAS
Senior Member
Singh will most likely lose his seat in what is his 3rd election and it really looks like the NDP may be down to 5 or 6 seats across Canada - with potentially half of them in Edmonton, ha.
Unlike other parts of the country, though, Edmonton has never been much for strategic voting. Sohi is in a dogfight still and that may be Edmonton's only Liberal chance. Calgary may have a few Liberals this time, however.
Unlike other parts of the country, though, Edmonton has never been much for strategic voting. Sohi is in a dogfight still and that may be Edmonton's only Liberal chance. Calgary may have a few Liberals this time, however.
David A
Senior Member
Another reason is the Conservative vote is really not very efficiently distributed, which the percentages in the polls do not reflect.
Their percentages are boosted by where they win by landslides in rural Alberta and Saskatchewan, but that strong vote does not gain them any more seats.
David A
Senior Member
Actually, Anne McLellan got elected several times here in Edmonton in Edmonton Centre based on strategic voting and to return the favour a bit after that a number of Liberals in Edmonton Strathcona ending up supporting the NDP to get rid of the Conservative MP.
I don't know how the NDP will do nationally and I actually hope it is better than that, but I feel only one or two (if they are lucky) of their seats will be here.
Gronk!
Senior Member
This afternoon I waited over an hour at the Matrix Hotel but I casted my vote.
archited
Senior Member
From CBC (April 19, 2025)...
I hope that Edmonton has at least a few Liberal seats to ensure wellbeing.
I hope that Edmonton has at least a few Liberal seats to ensure wellbeing.
David A
Senior Member
We don't want to end up having the cabinet minister or ministers for Alberta and MPs in the government only from Calgary. I feel Edmontonians are smart enough to get this.
archited
Senior Member
TAS
Senior Member
Anne would have won by more than the skin of her teeth each election if Edmonton voted strategically. Chretien won 3 majorities and Edmonton had a highly qualified, influential cabinet minister and eventual deputy PM, and Anne only squeaked out victories. If we voted stratgically, she should have been a shoe-in each time - especially since she was respected by the Oil lobby.
Currently our best bet for a minister if Liberals win is Sohi and that race is now classified as a toss up. It's looking like all the other seats in Edmonton will go NDP or PC (Edm Centre is leaning Liberal but it also shows NDP at only 12% and I can't see Eastabrooks being that low).
Edmonton would not have been a safe seat for Carney because we don't vote strategically. Not that we have to, but i think it has merit in situations.
Last edited:
kcantor
Senior Member
^
I would add that Lennox in Griesbach would also make a great cabinet minister.
I also think Desjarlais - who was almost a surprise beneficiary of strategic voting and not strong NDP support in the Kay election - would also make a great cabinet minister but there won’t be an NDP cabinet.
Most of the discussion around strategic “anyone but Diotte” voting seems to suggest voting for Desjarlais is the right place for a strategic vote. I would suggest they’re wrong.
There seems little likelihood of Diotte being more that an opposition back bencher even if elected so a real strategic vote for the riding and Edmonton and the region would appear to be Lennox - substantial upside vs little (albeit not no) downside.
I would add that Lennox in Griesbach would also make a great cabinet minister.
I also think Desjarlais - who was almost a surprise beneficiary of strategic voting and not strong NDP support in the Kay election - would also make a great cabinet minister but there won’t be an NDP cabinet.
Most of the discussion around strategic “anyone but Diotte” voting seems to suggest voting for Desjarlais is the right place for a strategic vote. I would suggest they’re wrong.
There seems little likelihood of Diotte being more that an opposition back bencher even if elected so a real strategic vote for the riding and Edmonton and the region would appear to be Lennox - substantial upside vs little (albeit not no) downside.
kcantor
Senior Member
Unlike the author I do talk politics and comment on politics on Facebook (and disagree). This however is a unique and undisclosed yet important point that should be part of the general discussion. Even though it is longer than a typical Facebook post, it is worth reading to the end. It also sums up why so many traditional PC voters are increasingly voting elsewhere - if the C forces is to choose between the P and the C, we will choose the P.
From Chris Sturwold on Facebook:
“I don’t usually talk politics on Facebook.
But I’ve been quiet too long, and this election, I’ve reached my line. I’m not posting this to change your vote — but I need to be honest about what’s solidified mine.
I now know for sure: I won’t vote for the Conservative Party of Canada.
Not because of carbon taxes.
Not because of slogans.
But because of how Pierre Poilievre talks about using the Notwithstanding Clause.
That’s Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If that sounds boring or irrelevant, I need you to hear this clearly:
You don’t need to be vulnerable now to be vulnerable next.
I’m not a lawyer. I play drums, take pictures, and work in the trades.
But I also believe that our rights aren’t just for academics or judges to defend.
They’re for all of us.
To understand. To protect. To speak up for.
Because when they’re gone, they’re gone.
Let’s talk about the Notwithstanding Clause.
It wasn’t created to help politicians win points with populist outrage. It was a reluctant compromise. Pierre Trudeau didn’t want it. He called it a “dead letter.”
But some premiers insisted on it — especially Quebec — fearing federal judges could overrule their laws. So Section 33 became the compromise. An escape hatch. A last resort.
It only worked because of trust:
Trust that it would be used rarely.
Trust that no federal government would invoke it lightly.
Trust that the courts were still the ultimate guardians of our rights.
That trust has already been tested.
Doug Ford used the clause to suppress labour rights before courts could weigh in.
Scott Moe used it to override the rights of trans kids.
And now Pierre Poilievre is promising to make it routine.
He’s floated using it to override parole rulings.
He’s hinted at bypassing Charter protections in the name of public safety.
He frames it as “democracy.”
But democracy with no guardrails isn’t democracy. It’s populist rule.
The Charter protects all of us — even the worst among us — from cruel and unusual punishment (Section 12).
It guarantees life, liberty, and security of the person (Section 7).
These aren’t abstract ideals. They’re foundational.
When the Supreme Court struck down consecutive life sentences in R. v. Bissonnette, they weren’t being soft.
They were defending human dignity.
Because justice isn’t supposed to be about revenge.
Because even in the darkest moments, we uphold the rule of law.
Poilievre calls it a “discount for killers.”
But parole after 25 years isn’t automatic.
The Parole Board decides who walks free — and when.
He’s spinning theatre. And in the process, he’s undermining public trust in the judiciary.
He wants Canadians to believe that courts are the problem. That rights are obstacles. That he alone can fix it.
He says he’ll only use the clause for criminal justice.
But that’s not a boundary. That’s a foot in the door.
Once a federal government breaks the taboo, it sets the precedent.
And we won’t know what gets overridden next.
Section 33 was meant to be a safety valve.
Not a first response to court rulings you don’t like.
Even Pierre Trudeau — a man known for strong views — only accepted it under massive pressure.
It was a compromise. Not a weapon.
No federal government has ever used it.
Because they’ve respected the Charter, the courts, and the principle of limited government.
Poilievre isn’t just willing to break that tradition.
He’s bragging about it.
This isn’t left vs right.
It’s rights vs power.
I don’t need to agree with every Supreme Court ruling to understand what’s at stake.
If you let a government override someone else’s rights today, it might be your rights tomorrow.
You don’t need to be vulnerable now to be vulnerable next.
That line echoes in my head.
That’s why this matters more than platform promises, or slogans, or talking points.
That’s why I’m not voting CPC.
I’m just a musician and trades worker — not a constitutional scholar.
So I lean on the wisdom of people like Dr. Jared Wesley, Duane Bratt, David Khan, and Max Fawcett — folks who study this stuff.
And they’re sounding the alarm.
This isn’t theoretical.
We’ve seen premiers use it against parents. Against teachers. Against kids.
Now the federal Leader of the Opposition wants in on it.
The Charter isn’t just ink on paper.
It’s the line in the sand.
It says: this far, no further.
We don’t elect prime ministers to punish.
We elect them to govern.
To protect.
To respect the guardrails that define a free and democratic society.
If you campaign on overriding rights — you’ve told me everything I need to know.
So yeah — I’ll sip from a paper straw.
I’ll pay a couple cents more on gas.
I’ll deal with potholes and housing plans and all the messy imperfection of democracy.
Because I’m not trading the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for podium rage.
This isn’t about being “woke.”
It’s about being awake.
To law.
To precedent.
To the quiet, dangerous ways authoritarianism slips in — not with a bang, but with a shrug.
If you’ve read this far, thank you.
I welcome good debate. I welcome disagreement.
But if you use slurs — especially anything ending in “-tard” — you’ll be blocked.
No warning. No exception.
Even if we’re related.
Let’s raise the level. Let’s protect what matters.”
From Chris Sturwold on Facebook:
“I don’t usually talk politics on Facebook.
But I’ve been quiet too long, and this election, I’ve reached my line. I’m not posting this to change your vote — but I need to be honest about what’s solidified mine.
I now know for sure: I won’t vote for the Conservative Party of Canada.
Not because of carbon taxes.
Not because of slogans.
But because of how Pierre Poilievre talks about using the Notwithstanding Clause.
That’s Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If that sounds boring or irrelevant, I need you to hear this clearly:
You don’t need to be vulnerable now to be vulnerable next.
I’m not a lawyer. I play drums, take pictures, and work in the trades.
But I also believe that our rights aren’t just for academics or judges to defend.
They’re for all of us.
To understand. To protect. To speak up for.
Because when they’re gone, they’re gone.
Let’s talk about the Notwithstanding Clause.
It wasn’t created to help politicians win points with populist outrage. It was a reluctant compromise. Pierre Trudeau didn’t want it. He called it a “dead letter.”
But some premiers insisted on it — especially Quebec — fearing federal judges could overrule their laws. So Section 33 became the compromise. An escape hatch. A last resort.
It only worked because of trust:
Trust that it would be used rarely.
Trust that no federal government would invoke it lightly.
Trust that the courts were still the ultimate guardians of our rights.
That trust has already been tested.
Doug Ford used the clause to suppress labour rights before courts could weigh in.
Scott Moe used it to override the rights of trans kids.
And now Pierre Poilievre is promising to make it routine.
He’s floated using it to override parole rulings.
He’s hinted at bypassing Charter protections in the name of public safety.
He frames it as “democracy.”
But democracy with no guardrails isn’t democracy. It’s populist rule.
The Charter protects all of us — even the worst among us — from cruel and unusual punishment (Section 12).
It guarantees life, liberty, and security of the person (Section 7).
These aren’t abstract ideals. They’re foundational.
When the Supreme Court struck down consecutive life sentences in R. v. Bissonnette, they weren’t being soft.
They were defending human dignity.
Because justice isn’t supposed to be about revenge.
Because even in the darkest moments, we uphold the rule of law.
Poilievre calls it a “discount for killers.”
But parole after 25 years isn’t automatic.
The Parole Board decides who walks free — and when.
He’s spinning theatre. And in the process, he’s undermining public trust in the judiciary.
He wants Canadians to believe that courts are the problem. That rights are obstacles. That he alone can fix it.
He says he’ll only use the clause for criminal justice.
But that’s not a boundary. That’s a foot in the door.
Once a federal government breaks the taboo, it sets the precedent.
And we won’t know what gets overridden next.
Section 33 was meant to be a safety valve.
Not a first response to court rulings you don’t like.
Even Pierre Trudeau — a man known for strong views — only accepted it under massive pressure.
It was a compromise. Not a weapon.
No federal government has ever used it.
Because they’ve respected the Charter, the courts, and the principle of limited government.
Poilievre isn’t just willing to break that tradition.
He’s bragging about it.
This isn’t left vs right.
It’s rights vs power.
I don’t need to agree with every Supreme Court ruling to understand what’s at stake.
If you let a government override someone else’s rights today, it might be your rights tomorrow.
You don’t need to be vulnerable now to be vulnerable next.
That line echoes in my head.
That’s why this matters more than platform promises, or slogans, or talking points.
That’s why I’m not voting CPC.
I’m just a musician and trades worker — not a constitutional scholar.
So I lean on the wisdom of people like Dr. Jared Wesley, Duane Bratt, David Khan, and Max Fawcett — folks who study this stuff.
And they’re sounding the alarm.
This isn’t theoretical.
We’ve seen premiers use it against parents. Against teachers. Against kids.
Now the federal Leader of the Opposition wants in on it.
The Charter isn’t just ink on paper.
It’s the line in the sand.
It says: this far, no further.
We don’t elect prime ministers to punish.
We elect them to govern.
To protect.
To respect the guardrails that define a free and democratic society.
If you campaign on overriding rights — you’ve told me everything I need to know.
So yeah — I’ll sip from a paper straw.
I’ll pay a couple cents more on gas.
I’ll deal with potholes and housing plans and all the messy imperfection of democracy.
Because I’m not trading the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for podium rage.
This isn’t about being “woke.”
It’s about being awake.
To law.
To precedent.
To the quiet, dangerous ways authoritarianism slips in — not with a bang, but with a shrug.
If you’ve read this far, thank you.
I welcome good debate. I welcome disagreement.
But if you use slurs — especially anything ending in “-tard” — you’ll be blocked.
No warning. No exception.
Even if we’re related.
Let’s raise the level. Let’s protect what matters.”
archited
Senior Member
Based on current polling from CBC it looks like Eleanor Olszewski has a lock on Edmonton Centre and George Chahal has a lock on Calgary McKnight, both Liberal takes. Beside that there are 3 seats in Edmonton and 3 seats in Calgary that are rated toss-ups between Liberals and Conservatives. Improving from one riding in all of Alberta at the last election to at least two and potentially eight in the next nine days suggests there is a change afoot from an Alta standpoint.
Last edited: