Interesting numbers. How many of those “potential gain” seats are held by each of the other 3 major parties ?

Also, what effect would a 4 % swing away from the NDP and say a 2 % swing away from the Green party have on the above marginal ridings (assuming a progressive Liberal party was able to attract nearly all of that swing) ?

The liberals have two strategies if they want to win - get back some of the vote lost to the NDP and other small parties, OR get back the “red tory” vote, principally in Ontario. Ideally they will want to do both, but treading that path will be difficult.

Good question, Michael. I would have to run a scenario to answer the 4%/2% shift you suggest. But, the breakdown of the 60 potential picks-ups are 37 CPC (60%), 14 NDP (25%) and 9 BQ (15%). But I would hesitate to say that the only way to win the 37 CPC ridings is by attracting Red Tories, since many in Ontario for example voted against the Liberals for change (not necessarily because they are Red Tories).

I’ve heard about polls saying that if Dion wins, 30% of the Quebec electorate would vote liberal. Any idea on the break down of this and how it might affect the Quebec vote. I.E. Would this change be enough to win several seats in Quebec or is it too thinly distributed?

May be an impossible question to answer but just wondering what you may think about it.

And this is why Kennedy’s results in Québec don’t matter. What matters is that he can win Ontario and make tremendous gains in Alberta and other parts of English Canada. No other candidate, including Ignatieff, has the wide appeal and reach that Kennedy has. A lot of people keep ignoring one important fact: eventually, the new leader will have to face the general electorate, and they clearly prefer Kennedy (even in Alberta!!!)

Or we could say it is as likely the Liberals could be reduced to 50 seats (losing seats they won by less than 15%)as they forming a majority governemnt(winning seats they lost by less than 15%). Given most of the seats in question were held by government MPS or Cabinet ministers, it may be more likely they are reduced to 50 or so.

Werner, with respect, I disagree. Ignatieff certainly has a higher national profile and appeal than Kennedy does, and, while I might not like his politics much, so does Rae. Kennedy has a lot of advantages to him, I agree, but your analysis there is absolutely crazy.

Greg, I definitely agree with your point about the need to attract Red Tories back. About a month ago on my blog, I had quant. analysis showing exactly that, as the Liberal Party has a lot more to gain in terms of the number of seats by going after Red Tories than it does by moving to the left and going after those on the Liberal/NDP fringe.

Anonymous Liberal, I respectfully disagree. There is a lot more buzz about Kennedy when you talk to average citizens (including non-Liberals) than about Ignatieff or any of the other candidates. I believe in talking and listening to the average person in the street, and Kennedy is the clear winner (again, among Liberals and non-Liberals).

I also agree that we should appeal to Red Tories. Many Red Tories I know, including the provincial Tories in Alberta, have become federal Liberals, because the CPC is not the right “home” for them. Also, several of the Liberal candidates in the last federal election were Red Tories, so by all means, let’s go and target Red Tories.

I think you have made, unintenionally, a strong case for a Kennedy leadership win. Kennedy will attract traditional Liberal support in Ontario, attract a swing from the NDP, and ALSO bring new voters out to the polls. The Kennedy effect will be most pronounced in Ontario and BC.

Not to mention Alberta, where he sold a record number of Liberal memberships to rural “rednecks” (!!!!). That’s quite an accomplishment. I have not seen Iggy do anything like that (or any of the other candidates). Many conservative Albertans have told me for weeks and months now that they would vote or seriously consider voting for the Liberal Party if Kennedy is in charge. As for the other more prominent choices, Iggy, Rae or Dion, they say, “Forget about them”.

Werner, your analysis might be correct in Alberta. Not having been to Alberta since this leadership campaign started, I certainly have no basis to judge. Having been to and spoken with Liberals of all stripes in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, the average citizen and the average Liberal is not most inspired by Kennedy. There are those who like Kennedy, and, like Keith’s, those who like him, like him a lot. I don’t dispute that there aren’t a large number of those.

But at least in my experience, among Liberals, the two candidates who generate that kind of buzz are Ignatieff (for those who want a bold choice) and Rae (those who want an experienced and safe choice). Now, I don’t necessarily agree with those; but at least of the people I’ve talked to, that’s their opinions.

Also, as another note, if you look at the “average person on the street”, they haven’t even heard of Kennedy. 15% of the population can’t even properly name the Prime Minister, almost half can’t name another cabinet minister. There’s no way that more than 50% of Canadians have heard of Kennedy, let alone are inspired by him. You (along with me, on various occasions, and virtually everyone in the blogosphere) is committing the sin of imputing characteristics of ourselves and our circle of friends on the general population.

your one of the few guys who “gets it” in terms of the long term health of the Liberal Party. in the past their base was quebec but now they cant rely on quebec with the Bloc there, they must move thier base to Ontario, and it looks like they are doing so

It is clear that Kennedy does have populist appeal that the others candidates just do not generate. I also find it hard to imagine that the average person in the street knows who Kennedy or any of the candidates are. WE are the political junkies, THEY just want to live their lives. In my opinion, Kennedy is a “work in progress”. I just don’t think the time is now for him because we need a leader that has enough experience to pull the party together, win the next election and be able to govern as Prime Minister. That’s what we should be shooting for. My choice is Dion.
By the way, considering that you are a blogger - anonymous Liberal - why are you not using a name? Just curious…

The average person doesn’t know who Kennedy is, but it seems that of those who do know who he is, he is well liked. Therefore, give him the leadership and he’ll do wonders for our party. With Iggy’s recent mistakes, even some of my conservative friends are starting to want him to win!

Why is everyone talking as if the Bloc is permanent?
I’m convinced that had Martin not bungled the Adscam file, the Bloc would have been finished in 2004. I blame their continued strength solely on Paul Martin. Look at 2000 when even under Chretien, they won as many seats as the Bloc (The lone PC andre bachand put federalist parties in the majority in QC).
IMHO, the Liberals MUST regain strength in Quebec if they are ever to form a credible government again, for the days of Ontario sweeps are gone forever, or at least until the Conservative splits up into two groups again, which is not likely to happen for at least another 100 years.
Given a choice of someone other than paul martin, especially if he’s a native son, gives the Liberals another chance to retake some ground from the Bloc. However, I think the Tories will continue to build in QC, in the Quebec City/Beauce/Appalaches regions and points North.
I think the Liberals and tories can both contribute to the final ouster of the Bloc, who have proved utterly useless in this parliament, more than any of the previous ones.