SASKATOON—Political campaigns are marked by much inflated rhetoric about how each party surely will triumph over the others.

Obviously, we can never rule any party completely out of contention, because we do not know the minds of voters until after the ballots are cast. However, the competition for power occurs on an "uneven playing field."

Each party operates with different sorts of burdens and opportunities. Through focusing on each party's specific constraints and resources, we can make reasonably rational guesses about the likely election outcomes. Identifying realistic party performance targets is a useful exercise, particularly because inflated political campaign rhetoric easily can lead us to hold entirely unrealistic expectations.

Let's consider the main parties in light of four factors:

1. We can think about the broad vote trend for each party, whether public support has been increasing, decreasing or stable over the last five to 10 years.
   
   
2. Party history is important, such as whether a party historically usually holds power or how many terms it has governed.
   
   
3. Party poll standings going in to the election are usually reliable measures of overall support.
   
   
4. Finally, party resources are important endowments. These may take the form of goods such as monetary contributions or constituency personnel organization.
   

Thinking about these four factors, we can try to guess what results probably will occur, and therefore what ought to be the benchmarks for a solid election performance by each party.

Naturally, winning a fourth consecutive mandate surely would communicate a superior electoral effort from the New Democrats. But realistically, the NDP under Roy Romanow barely clung to power in 1999, and they placed second behind the Sask Party in terms of popular vote share.

Historically, four consecutive terms in government is a difficult goal to achieve, particularly for a party that has lost key personnel and organizers.

Finally, because the NDP were tied with the Sask Party in a spring poll, it is reasonable to suggest that Calvert will have done well if he can preserve his party's representation by winning 20 to 25 seats, secure his own seat, and keep the Sask party to fewer than 35 seats.

For the Sask Party, the pressure is on to perform to what may be unrealistically high expectations. After many years of being made to pay for Devine era errors, splitting votes with a resurgent Liberal party, and working hard to earn mainstream acceptance, the nascent Sask Party has high hopes.

Supporters envision another electoral sweep in the mode of 1982, when the Grant Devine Tories won a landslide victory, but this scenario probably won't play out exactly as expected, owing to several key differences.

In 1982, there was a general unwillingness to see the Tories as real challengers. Therefore, the election results were surprising. In 2003, long before the election was called, several analysts predicted a Sask party majority government, and the premier admitted that his party was facing electoral difficulties in the spring.

Hermanson is taking on a Saskatchewan institution in this election. The NDP has been the natural governing party here since 1944. While the Sask Party has expanded its public support greatly since 1999, the NDP will not be beaten easily.

Also, remember that the Sask Party is relatively young. While it is true that many former Tories and Liberals fill its ranks, this party has existed only since 1997. All new parties need time to develop a set of organizational policies and mechanisms, a leadership hierarchy and a cadre of skilled representatives and support staff. These are the key factors that determine whether a campaign proceeds flawlessly.

We ought to fully expect that the Sask Party will not have all the wrinkles ironed out. In sum, a realistic performance benchmark for the Sask Party is to win between 30 and 35 seats. The possibility of a minority government should not be discounted, although this option depends on how well Liberal support holds up.

The Liberals are the wild card in this election. Leader David Karwacki is under pressure to exploit a likely change in government through capturing additional seats. This could be accomplished through offering a viable alternative to dissatisfied NDP voters, while also drawing some pro-business supporters to his party.

Historically the Liberals garner around 15 to 20 per cent of the vote. Yet, the Liberal organization and policy machinery remains depleted. Many candidates were recruited late and are without help or means. A realistic performance benchmark is for the Liberals to secure the same election results as in 1999: four MLAs, with the leader winning his seat.

Considering each party's limitations and resources allows us to set realistic benchmarks for party performance. Parties that achieve these standards have fought a commendable campaign in view of the "uneven playing field," regardless of the actual election day returns.

to top