What about the coalition?  What can we learn, tactically, from their performance?

Hindsight is 20/20, and a backseat driver is always the best judge of the road.  For what it's worth, here's my view of the past few weeks, as seen out the rear windshield.  Part I:  What lessons can we learn from the Conservatives?

I guess partisanship means never having to say "I'm sorry"?

We've heard a lot about Canada's limited experience with coalition governments in the past week.  Engaged citizens today are as familiar as ever with the 1917 Union Government, the 1925-26 King-Byng Affair, and the Ontario episode in 1985.  One prominent example of Canadian coalition government has been lost in all of the talk, however.  And there are important lessons to be learned from it.

I was heartened to hear that both sides in the current constitutional debate will be staging public events to drum up support for their causes.  Beyond a suggestion to dress warmly, I want to offer a quick blessing, and caution, to both sides as they plan to attend a series of rallies later this week.  If John McCain's recent presidential campaign offers any lessons, be wary:  keep the most ignorant among you from upstaging the event.  Cameras from the media and the opposing side will be on the lookout for acts of anger and zealotry, like burning effigies or inflammatory statements.  That's what will air on the evening news and Youtube. 

This said, best of luck to all.  Keep the messages positive, and be sure to dress in layers!

I spent 12 hours Christmas shopping and listening to talk radio shows yesterday, as I made my monthly drive from Winnipeg to Calgary.  If the media buzz is any indication, it seems almost everyone in Western Canada has an opinion on the quagmire on Parliament Hill.  From Canadian Tire to Suzy Shier, Tim Horton's to Starbucks, pundits to academics, leaders to followers - everyone appears to have chosen sides between the government and the coalition.  With each side talking past each other, viewing moment-by-moment events through their own unique set of partisan lenses, it's not difficult to see how we've come to this point.  For Canadians just tuning into the saga, finding "facts" and "truths" amid the rhetoric can be challenging and frustrating.

Strategic voting is wrong.  Not because it perverts some high-minded view of democracy, where every citizen sticks to her principles when casting a ballot.  (Quite frankly, that view of democracy is visible only through high-prescription, rose-coloured glasses.)  Rather, strategic voting is wrong because it is self-defeating.  What these people need is electoral reform, and that's the last thing they'll get by casting their ballots for either of the two most-successful parties.

Image: 

Elections Canada has released its preliminary advance poll figures.  The bottom line:  Turnout in these early polls is down 6.5% relative to the last election (see table above).  Between the lines, there are a lot of interesting stories.

In a campaign that was among the nastiest in recent memory, history will record: Stephane Dion had the last gaffe.  Dion's belly flop in Atlantic Canada came on the last full day of the campaign, as Canadians prepare for the extended Thanksgiving long weekend.  Words don't do it justice -- watch for yourself.

Just as in 2006, the Conservatives have earned endorsements from both of Canada's major daily newspapers (The Globe and Mail & The National Post).  We wait with baited breath to see what the Toronto Star will do.  (Rumours have it they could endorse the NDP for the first time.  Odds have it, they'll back Dion.)

The Economist weighed in on the Canadian election today, with two separate articles offering a lukewarm endorsement of the Conservatives.  Specifically, the authors suggest "another minority Conservative government would not be a bad result for Canada: neither of the main party leaders has done enough to persuade Canadians that they deserve untrammelled power." 

A lot has been made of Stephen Harper's inability to empathize with "the average Canadian" during the present economic downturn.  To be certain, Mr. Harper has done little to help his cause.  Last night on The National, he made an off-hand comment about how the stock market decline has opened "opportunities" for Canadians to invest at bargain prices.  Earlier in the day, instead of releasing his platform in a more 'grassroots' setting, he opted for a business audience at the Canadian Club.  (No sweater vests allowed.)  In Harper's defence, however, he faces a unique set of challenges -- distinct from those facing opposition party leaders and the two presidential candidates in the United States.

A reporter from our university newspaper once asked me, "Why do parties run attack ads?  Don't they just turn people off?"  A friend offered a similar comment in reaction to the Conservatives' latest round of 'Weak Dion' ads:  "I wasn't voting Conservative before I saw them," he said.  "Now, I'm really not voting for them.  Why would they run these ads?"  My response:  Because they work.... but not in the way most people think.

These days, we hear a lot about the divided left in Canada.  The Harper Conservatives are poised to win a number of close seats by virtue of vote-splitting among Greens, New Democrats and Liberals.  In Alberta, the Provincial Liberal Party is debating the same issue: how to unite a fractured, left-leaning opposition to defeat the 36-year Conservative dynasty.  If the history of Prairie provincial politics is any guide, below is a short-list of the options available to these opposition parties:

I'm not sure whether many people noticed, but Barack Obama's speech this afternoon marked a major shift in the American presidential campaign:  It's become a little more like Canada's.

The second line in Obama's statement -- "This is a time of uncertainty" -- officially shifts his campaign from one emphasizing "hope" to one focusing on "ambiguity" and "instability" (at least for the time being).  It's the same theme Stephen Harper has been stressing for the past two weeks.