[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

The people I worked with in Sask seems pretty conservative. But then again North Battelford, though a city (town?), isn't exactly an urban environment.


Also, Regina is a cesspool. Saskatoon is nice though. The area by the river is beautiful. At least where I stayed.

[Barrister]

The people I worked with in Sask seems pretty conservative. But then again North Battelford, though a city (town?), isn't exactly an urban environment.


Also, Regina is a cesspool. Saskatoon is nice though. The area by the river is beautiful. At least where I stayed.

North Battleford is 100% not urban.  Population 19,000.

I'm biased because I grew up in Saskatoon, but "cesspool" is much too harsh for Regina.  But yes the South Saskatchewan River valley is nice in Saskatoon, and Regina has nothing equivalent.

[HVC]

had the best Ukrainian style cabbage rolls in Saskatoon.

Yeah, North Battleford was pretty small. I still liked it. Had a charm of its own and the hotel was friendly (shout out comfort inn). Had decent food choices too, for its size.

I only went to Regina once, so maybe I caught it on an off week. Visited Saskatoon and NB thrice. The drive between them had so many dead deer and happy crows

[Barrister]

had the best Ukrainian style cabbage rolls in Saskatoon.

Yeah, North Battleford was pretty small. I still liked it. Had a charm of its own and the hotel was friendly (shout out comfort inn). Had decent food choices too, for its size.

I only went to Regina once, so maybe I caught it on an off week. Visited Saskatoon and NB thrice. The drive between them had so many dead deer and happy crows

Holoptsi!

So I mean if you liked NB then I don't want to change your mind.  I used to "do my job" on just the other side of the border, so I have talked with "people who do my job" out of North Battleford, and it has a very high crime rate.

And no - depending on where you stayed in Regina it can be a hole.  But I could say the same about Saskatoon too.  Nieither town's downtown is a place you really want to visit.

[HVC]

had the best Ukrainian style cabbage rolls in Saskatoon.

Yeah, North Battleford was pretty small. I still liked it. Had a charm of its own and the hotel was friendly (shout out comfort inn). Had decent food choices too, for its size.

I only went to Regina once, so maybe I caught it on an off week. Visited Saskatoon and NB thrice. The drive between them had so many dead deer and happy crows

Holoptsi!

So I mean if you liked NB then I don't want to change your mind.  I used to "do my job" on just the other side of the border, so I have talked with "people who do my job" out of North Battleford, and it has a very high crime rate.

And no - depending on where you stayed in Regina it can be a hole.  But I could say the same about Saskatoon too.  Nieither town's downtown is a place you really want to visit.

Oh yeah, I'm under no delusion that it's not rough around the edges our dually was stolen, used in a crime, and set on fire my first week there (after we had just bought the company). But, I don't know it just tickled my fancy as a place. People were great too.

[Josephus]

Isn't Neil in Saskatchewan?

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-party-ad-campaign-1.7368291

So an article about how Liberal MPs are complaining that they're getting killed by Conservative negative ads. 

In 2023, the Liberals spent just $381,346 on advertising, a figure easily dwarfed by the $8,542,867 the Conservatives spent that year, much of it on TV ads.

The figures for 2024 are likely to show much the same, as the Liberals have essentially ceded the TV ad space to their main opponent.

Anyways, Liberals are promising some kind of advertising response.



But here's another article. dated July 31:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-conservative-fundraising-federl-party-1.7281306

Conservatives in second quarter of 2024 raised more money than all other parties combined.

The Liberals raised nearly $3.8 million in the second quarter of 2024, an increase from the nearly $3.1 million raised in the first quarter.

Most of those donations came in before the Liberals' stunning late-June byelection loss in a long-held Toronto riding, so the impact is unclear.

WATCH | Conservative breakthrough in Toronto seen as message to Trudeau, Liberals:

Conservative breakthrough in Toronto seen as message to Trudeau, Liberals

4 months ago
Duration3:31
A Conservative byelection win in a Toronto stronghold is being seen by many as a message to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals that it's time for major change in the party and who leads it.
The Conservatives continue to bring in more money than all the other parties combined, although their fundraising fell from nearly $10.7 million during the first three months of the year to just over $9.8 million in the second quarter.

The New Democrats raised nearly $1.3 million in the second quarter, a decrease of about $55,000 from the previous quarter, while the Bloc Quebecois raised just under $322,000, about $21,000 less.

So it's not quite clear to me if the Liberals have the resources for a massive advertising blitz.

It's worth noting that during the formal election period (aka after the writ has dropped) there are tight rules on political advertising, but those rules don't apply pre-writ which is probably why there are so many Conservative ads right now.  But parties also need to make sure they have enough resources for the writ period first and foremost.


Going back to the first article:

While it's difficult to say if these ad campaigns have given Poilievre a boost, last summer's TV ad did coincide with a notable uptick in public support for the Conservatives.

The party started posting higher numbers in opinion surveys in late July, August and September of last year, before moving higher still in 2024.

Political advertising is ubiquitous in the U.S., especially in the swing states that will decide the presidential election. There's a reason for that.

A 2021 study of nearly twenty years worth of television advertising in U.S. elections found "the larger a candidate's advantage in advertising compared to their opponent, the larger their share of the vote."

With respect - I wonder if this is mixing up cause-and-effect.

Is it:

A: Candidate has more money->Candidate spends lots on ads->Candidate becomes popular?

or

B: Candidate is popular->Candidate raises lots of money->Candidate spends lots on ads?

Because you can think of outliers to either narrative.  Going off the US (which has many fewer rules on election spending) there have been candidates with tons of money who failed to gain any traction.  Jeb Bush in 2016  primaries, or Michael Bloomberg's 2020 Presidential campaign.

Or on the other hand candidates who spent relatively little money who did quite well - Trump in 2016, or maybe NDP under Layton in 2012 - heck actually Liberals in 2015.

(Just speaking about Trump - in 2016 his campaign was very disorganized, and both raised little money and spent little money.  His campaign in 2024 is quite different).

[crazy canuck]

There has been a lot of research done on this point.  As an aside,  one of the leading experts is a prof at UBC who we had as an expert witness in one of our election spending constitutional cases. 

As I told Oex in the US election thread, the consensus is that generally election spending has minimal or no effect on election outcomes.  There is some effect on low information voters related to how they form their initial opinions.  But once a voter has a preferred choice, and particularly when they are a member of a party, election spending has no effect on how they vote.

The messages of the campaigns mean much more than amount spent.  And that is the thing the Federal Liberals are not understanding.  They are not low in the polls because people are convinced by PP's negative ad campaign.  For large amounts of Canadians it is despite the fact they hear PP spout nonsense every once in a while.

[Oexmelin]

I am unsure about that consensus, as I have read in multiple recent studies that it continues to have an effect. I may be wrong.

In any case, my point about money wasn't simply about air time or even simply messaging, but about what money can buy: teams, call centers, signs, campaigns, etc.

[crazy canuck]

You are correct point out at the research I am referring to only analyzes money spent on political ads. I don't think you are correct that there is any research to support the conclusion that there is some kind of direct line causality between the amount spent and the result in election.  Or I should properly say no research which hasn't received considerable Academic criticism.

As I said in my post the research I'm familiar with is much more nuanced and does suggest that there is a small effect only for low information or uncommitted voters.

That is one of the reasons why Harris has not been able to move the poll numbers very much, even though she is out spending the Trump campaign considerably. There are very few uncommitted voters.

You raise an interesting hypothetical about spending in other areas of an election campaign, but I don't know of any research that actually bears that out either.

A good example is the recent BC election campaign.  The provincial conservatives had next to no resources.  They were dramatically outspent by the NDP. And they came very close to forming government.

[Barrister]

I am unsure about that consensus, as I have read in multiple recent studies that it continues to have an effect. I may be wrong.

In any case, my point about money wasn't simply about air time or even simply messaging, but about what money can buy: teams, call centers, signs, campaigns, etc.

So from the first article I posted:

A 2021 study of nearly twenty years worth of television advertising in U.S. elections found "the larger a candidate's advantage in advertising compared to their opponent, the larger their share of the vote."

"Despite increasing partisanship in the electorate, there are still persuadable voters that respond to television advertising," said the political science researchers behind the study, published in the American Political Science Review.

"The persuasive impact of television advertising appears to be larger than the impact of other electioneering, such as canvassing or mail, whose impact is quite small, even zero."

This is all purely anecdotal, but I totally agree that mail is pretty much useless.  Getting a pamphlet in your hands doesn't persuade anyone.  I always thought though that canvassing - getting an actual live person at your door - was reasonably effective.  Obviously you're not going to persuade a partisan, but I would've thought it was more effective than a TV ad.

Then there's things like GOTV efforts, which help around the margins at increasing turnout.

But again, just from personal experience - you need a certain base-line amount of money to be able to compete.  But past a certain point money alone has rapidly diminishing effect.

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/election-analysis-harris-trump-1.7374844

So what effects will Trump 2.0 have on Canada?

So last time around he demanded to tear up NAFTA.  Ultimately we had the re-negotiated CUSMA which probably wasn't as good but still kept free trade.

Now of course he's promising tariffs on everything.  That will inevitably have a negative effect on our economy - the article above suggests from negative 0.5 to negative 5% of GDP.  That's not good.

We'll be pressured to spend more on our military.  We should have been doing that for years so that might be a positive.

It's probably a gift for Trudeau though.  He will continue to portray Poilievre as a maple-flavoured Trump whether or not it's justified which may well help him in next year's election.

[Grey Fox]

Maybe the Liberals can also learn that people want somewhere to live more than freedom.

[HVC]

Unless it comes out Poilievre sacrifices children or something, Trudeau is cooked.

[crazy canuck]

The most immediate concern I have is the tariffs Trump puts on trade with us.  But I am less concerned about that now that he won in Michigan and other border states.  Those states might now have more pull with him.

I don't think Trudeau benefits at all from Trump being elected. He can't say Trump is bad and so he can't saying PP is bad by association.