Much like in my previous post on the Atlantic provinces, let's take a quick look at some of the results from Quebec in the 2006 federal election which may come as somewhat of a surprise - as well as the party spending levels which helped to shape the results that developed.
- Let's start with Quebec's award for Largest Waste of Money, which goes to the Libs' John Khawand. In an effort to unseat the Bloc's Claude de Bellefeuille in Beauharnois—Salaberry, Khawand spent $80,757.87 - the fifth-highest reported total in Quebec, and trailing only Lib Liza Frulla for money put into a losing effort. But for that investment, Khawand finished a distant third...not only failing to take the seat from de Bellefeuille, but also finishing 11 points behind the low-budget ($7,922.81) Con campaign of David Couturier.
- That said, Khawand was far from the only candidate to spend a bundle to no avail...and while the Libs were the worst offenders in that category, the Bloc and Cons got into the act as well. Other candidates who finished third or worse while outspending all of their competition (at least based on the reports so far) included the Libs' Eric Cardinal in Drummond, Lib David Price in Compton—Stanstead, Lib Diane St. Jacques in Shefford, Lib Robert Fregeau in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Con Audrey Castonguay in Hochelaga (though the Libs' candidate's report isn't available), and Con Daniel Fournier in Outremont.
- Speaking of which, the Cons' reluctance to call a by-election in Outremont may have been based on more than just a desire to keep a likely opposition seat vacant, as the riding looks to be one of the Cons' more spectacular Quebec failures from 2006. Fournier outspent all of his rivals at $73,903.31, yet took under 13% of the vote to finish in fourth place. No wonder the Cons aren't eager to face the voters again - especially with the third-place finisher from 2006 looking to make a major step forward.
- Meanwhile, the title of best investment out of any Quebec candidate wasn't even close. Andre Arthur ensured himself plenty of public attention as the only independent candidate to win a race in 2006. But what's even more remarkable is that he won Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier while spending next to nothing - only $1,092.74, compared to the $47,506.77 spent by the Bloc's Guy Cote in trying to retain the seat. In contrast, better-funded independents in several ridings that I've reviewed so far haven't come close to Arthur's vote total.
- The lowest-budget riding in Quebec was Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, where nobody spent more than the $30,435.75 put in by Lib Fregeau. (The Greens' spending numbers aren't yet listed, but based on their spending elsewhere I'm pretty comfortable assuming they didn't lead the pack.) While the Bloc's Gilles Perron retained the riding with 53% of the vote, it seems entirely likely that there's a significant vacuum in election-time effort which could make the riding ripe for the picking - assuming that other parties don't also react to the lack of spending by flooding in.
- Turning to a party-by-party review, the Cons' resource management in Quebec seems to have been remarkably poor. The Cons spent a significant amount of money into Montreal with virtually nothing to show for it - managing to finish behind the Greens in one riding, and never coming within 11,000 votes of a seat. Meanwhile, a number of poorly-funded Cons managed to run a strong second around rural Quebec - suggesting that if the Cons had focused their money on what proved to be their most promising areas, they may have taken several more seats away from the Bloc.
Of course, that offers some opportunity for the Cons to expand their seat count in the next election. But it also suggests that the Cons' campaign wasn't anywhere near as flawless as reported - and that their vaunted election machine may have a long way to go in figuring out how to use the party's resources.
- For the Libs, it's clear that the party had a lot more money than public support near the end: while the party's spending totals were far beyond anybody else besides the Bloc, the funding simply wasn't enough to fight against the tide of voter dissatisfaction.
- The Bloc's spending numbers don't reveal much worthy of note: obviously the party didn't lack for ability to outspend its rivals in most ridings, and even the Bloc's money that didn't lead to seats tended to be relatively well-spent in seats where the party had a reasonable chance of winning.
- While I knew the NDP still had building to do in Quebec, I had wrongly assumed that it had been putting enough money into at least a few ridings to support a campaign capable of winning. Of the ridings disclosed so far, the party didn't spend more in any riding than the $28,015.97 invested in Pierre Laliberte's run in Hull-Aylmer. (By way of comparison, only Arthur and Perron managed to win seats while spending less.)
Of course, there's a flip side for the NDP in that there's plenty of room for growth. And indeed, there's probably a case to be made that the NDP's brand was at least as positive as the Libs' in Quebec in 2006. Comparing ridings where the two parties put in roughly equal investments (i.e. apparent non-priority ridings for both, primarily in Côte-Nord and Saguenay, Quebec City, Central Quebec, and Laurentides, Outaouais and Northern Quebec), the consistent pattern is one of the Libs' lead in votes (where one even existed) being significantly smaller than their advantage in spending. In 2006, the Libs' advantage in money and star power gave them a significant leg up - but with those gaps apparently narrowing, the NDP looks to be in great position to go toe-to-toe with the Libs.
- As for the Greens, I was surprised to note that even in the NDP's weakest area of the country, the Greens still couldn't top the Dippers' vote in a single riding - which now makes the five easternmost provinces where that holds true. And while the Greens' generally-lower investments surely played a part, the ridings where the NDP held its ground included several where the NDP itself spent nothing (or barely more than that)...hinting that the NDP's base level of support is simply higher across the board.
No comments:
Post a Comment