Really appreciate the deep dive into the race. I wonder if more Canadians would participate in party leadership contests if they were covered like this more in the press....seems like a chicken and the egg kind of problem.
This brings up something I've often thought about when it comes to the kind of work I do. There are often criticisms that poll coverage is bad for democracy, but I think it is a way to get people interested and engaged in politics. Certainly it can go too far in one direction, but if you're not someone who can get excited by policy discussion, maybe this is a way to get you into politics — sort of a gateway drug (but in a good way).
I agree, people do appreciate a good horse race. What I don't like from the general media is how they report one poll and use only that to lead their election stories. It taints the coverage into only being a race rather than the race as a means to an end regarding policy proposals. Instead, coverage like yours, and from 538 in the US, really dig into the polls, consider all of them together and analyze more than just the poll numbers but all kinds of data (like you've done with donations and with past elections). When it comes to leadership elections, I think people would also be motivated by the fact their vote counts for way more than in general elections (1 out of 100,000 or so rather than 1 out of 17 million).
Provided with proper context, the data you are citing here offers a glimpse into the aggregate opinion. Unfortunately, as noted, the bigger media often settle for the over-simplified horse race (which was my quarrel also with pandemic reporting and the so-called mandate convoys.)
All of which may suggest that the Substack platform may provide a growing opportunity for those of us who want a more interactive and substantive media experience. On that score, I'm inclined to think that the current state of Substack is just the beginning of something larger.
Just curious, any word yet on why 3 candidates who met the fundraising and signature requirements were rejected by the CPC selection committee? My suspicion was they wanted to keep the final group smaller rather than larger. But do the CPC rules allow for that kind of thing? Seems contentious, in that I would think candidates and donors would be pissed. And what happens to the money?
The official word is that they didn't meet the requirements (signatures, money) but we'll see if anything comes out. I believe any money leftover after paying off campaign debts and the like would go back to the party. Remember that all donations are being funnelled through the Conservative Party, which takes its cut.
I just double checked the G&M article below from yesterday, suggesting the candidates were still claiming they met the requirements and were not given data supporting the decision. So I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.
I suppose the question is if they actually did meet the requirements (and also if the $300K they raised included the party's sizable cut of the fundraising).
Generally agree with your index. However, I would suggest that Baber is above Aitchison as of right now and that Poilievre's lead over Charest is greater than 20.9%.
Do you factor # of contributions into the fundraising index?
As of right now, I find it hard to see a scenario where Poilievre does not win on the first ballot... 2nd Quarter Fundraising numbers will help bring more certainty.
I've found that number of contributors is not as predictive as the dollars raised. I'm not sure why, since it is counter-intuitive, but I've found it is best to stick to fundraising rather than contributors.
Really appreciate the deep dive into the race. I wonder if more Canadians would participate in party leadership contests if they were covered like this more in the press....seems like a chicken and the egg kind of problem.
This brings up something I've often thought about when it comes to the kind of work I do. There are often criticisms that poll coverage is bad for democracy, but I think it is a way to get people interested and engaged in politics. Certainly it can go too far in one direction, but if you're not someone who can get excited by policy discussion, maybe this is a way to get you into politics — sort of a gateway drug (but in a good way).
I agree, people do appreciate a good horse race. What I don't like from the general media is how they report one poll and use only that to lead their election stories. It taints the coverage into only being a race rather than the race as a means to an end regarding policy proposals. Instead, coverage like yours, and from 538 in the US, really dig into the polls, consider all of them together and analyze more than just the poll numbers but all kinds of data (like you've done with donations and with past elections). When it comes to leadership elections, I think people would also be motivated by the fact their vote counts for way more than in general elections (1 out of 100,000 or so rather than 1 out of 17 million).
Provided with proper context, the data you are citing here offers a glimpse into the aggregate opinion. Unfortunately, as noted, the bigger media often settle for the over-simplified horse race (which was my quarrel also with pandemic reporting and the so-called mandate convoys.)
All of which may suggest that the Substack platform may provide a growing opportunity for those of us who want a more interactive and substantive media experience. On that score, I'm inclined to think that the current state of Substack is just the beginning of something larger.
Just curious, any word yet on why 3 candidates who met the fundraising and signature requirements were rejected by the CPC selection committee? My suspicion was they wanted to keep the final group smaller rather than larger. But do the CPC rules allow for that kind of thing? Seems contentious, in that I would think candidates and donors would be pissed. And what happens to the money?
The official word is that they didn't meet the requirements (signatures, money) but we'll see if anything comes out. I believe any money leftover after paying off campaign debts and the like would go back to the party. Remember that all donations are being funnelled through the Conservative Party, which takes its cut.
Thanks, for the quick reply (especially as I kept editing my questions : )
I just double checked the G&M article below from yesterday, suggesting the candidates were still claiming they met the requirements and were not given data supporting the decision. So I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-six-candidates-make-the-cut-to-run-for-federal-conservative-leadership/
I suppose the question is if they actually did meet the requirements (and also if the $300K they raised included the party's sizable cut of the fundraising).
Generally agree with your index. However, I would suggest that Baber is above Aitchison as of right now and that Poilievre's lead over Charest is greater than 20.9%.
Do you factor # of contributions into the fundraising index?
As of right now, I find it hard to see a scenario where Poilievre does not win on the first ballot... 2nd Quarter Fundraising numbers will help bring more certainty.
I've found that number of contributors is not as predictive as the dollars raised. I'm not sure why, since it is counter-intuitive, but I've found it is best to stick to fundraising rather than contributors.