Quebec is the next stop in my continuing tour of ridings that look to be competitive in the next election. For all the talk about Quebec as a battleground, it has only 19 competitive ridings (out of 75) by my count. By comparison, Ontario has 37 competitive ridings (out of 106). So here we go again, same format as before:
Charlesbourg-- Haute Sainte Charles 0.45 BQ - CPC
Brome - Missisquoi 0.58 LPC - BQ
Gatineau 0.82 LPC - BQ
Portneuf -- Jacques Cartier 0.99 BQ - IND
Haute Gaspésie -- La Mitis -- Matane -- Matapedia 1.79 LPC - BQ
Saint-Lambert 2.42 BQ - LPC
Beauport -- Limollou 2.48 BQ - CPC - LPC
Laval 2.7 BQ - LPC
Gaspésie -- Îles-de-la-Madeleine 3.12 BQ - LPC
Jeanne - Le Ber 3.36 LPC - BQ
Alfred Pellan 3.8 BQ - LPC
Mégantic -- L'Érable 5.36 CPC - BQ
Pontiac 5.79 LPC - CPC - BQ
Brossard -- La Prairie 5.96 BQ - LPC
Vaudreuil -- Soulanges 6.16 BQ - LPC
Louis Hébert 7.05 BQ - LPC
Roberval -- Lac Saint Jean 7.88 BQ - CPC
Ahuntsic 7.92 LPC - BQ
Shefford 8.46 BQ - LPC
How important the Bloc has become in Canadian elections is clear from the fact that they are involved in every competitive race in Québec. Notably off this list is Outremont, which I rate as a Liberal gain by the numbers (it's not particularly close at 14.02 percentage points) but would place my money on Thomas Mulcair winning re-election. As I've explained before, my model has difficulty projected accurately ridings with violent swings in support. Particularly when a party, like the NDP in Outremont, goes from nowhere to competitive. I stand by the model for probably 300 of the 308 ridings. Outremont is not one of the 300.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Aaaron, where did you get the 14.02 for Outremont, it was 6%?
Model says LPC by 14.02 points. The exact projection is:
LPC 44.29
NDP 28.27
BQ 12.93
GPC 7.11
CPC 6.33
This is the sort of data I'm looking at in every riding.
You are correct that the last election was NDP by 6.4. The increase in Liberal support nationally and in Quebec shifts my projection but as I said I think Mulcair might hold on.
Oh, okay, I misunderstood your methodology. I thought you were referring to the previous gap. Cheers.
Post a Comment