On defined options

The inevitable effect of Stephen Harper's "majority or coalition" framing of Canadian voters' choices looks to be sinking in even among Con supporters. Here's Bob Plamondon:

Stephen Harper is warning us that, unless we elect a majority Conservative government at the next opportunity, a coalition of the other parties in the House of Commons will take over, virtually overnight. “They will deny it every day of the campaign,” the Prime Minister predicts. “The day after, they will do it.”

But by telling Canadians that a coalition represents a serious threat, he also gives it legitimacy. And because a coalition may be the only way he can be defeated, Mr. Harper should be careful about tempting his opponents.
...
(H)aving warned Canadians that he needs a majority to block a coalition, Mr. Harper would be in no position to cry foul if he ends up on the opposition benches, even if his party wins the most seats next time out.

Mind you, Plamondon seems a bit too eager to allow Harper to dictate how legitimate a coalition of other parties can be. And he leaves out the question of whether the idea of cooperation may itself be seen as a positive, particularly compared to the Cons' one-man rule.

But it's absolutely correct to note that Harper's message implicitly allows for the prospect of a coalition in the very near future. And any statements now which portray it as an inevitable outcome will be awfully tough to take back if Harper once again ends up having to fight to hold onto power in the face of a coalition alternative.

Evidence of irrelevance

The Hill Times' report on party fund-raising includes a transparent effort on the part of one Con supporter to pretend that the party's anti-coalition message has served to boost its fund-raising:

The constant threat of a snap election in this minority government era is another issue they've consistently brought to their donors over the years to keep the war chest full, said Bob Plamondon, a public policy specialist and the author of two books on conservative politics.

But the most frequent word that has appeared in fundraising letters lately, from what Mr. Plamondon has seen, is "coalition."

"I would say their emphasis has been more on the fear than on hope. I think it's a stronger motivator," said Mr. Plamondon. "They use the fear of a Bloc-NDP-Liberal coalition as the reason to keep the Conservative Party strong and to help them push the Conservatives toward a majority government. It's a message that's resonating with their base. And the evidence is the fundraising dollars are quite substantial."

So let's take a quick test: looking at Alice's handy chart of quarterly fund-raising efforts, spot the point where the Cons are supposed to have radically improved their fund-raising based on anti-coalition fearmongering.
As best I can tell, the only conclusion available is that the Cons' fund-raising is somewhere between exactly on course and slightly down compared to when they didn't use the coalition bogeyman as their chief pitch. And that looks to me more like evidence that it's done nothing much to motivate the base beyond the party's normal fund-raising tactics - not an indication that it somehow reflects any particular motivation on the part of donors.