2017 Polls

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
2017 Polls

TBC

 

Pondering

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7554

 if an election were held tomorrow of decided voters:

four in ten (41%) decided voters would vote for the Liberal Party, while three in ten (30%) would vote for the Conservatives. The NDP (19%), Bloc (5%) and other parties (5%) are well behind on a national basis. Three in ten (29%) Canadians either are not sure (23%) about who they would vote for or they wouldn’t vote/would spoil/not choose any (6%).

Liberals 41%

Conservatives 30%

NDP 19%

Bloc 5%

other 5%

unsure 23%

not vote or spoil 6%

  • Six in ten Canadians (59%) say they approve of the performance of the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau (13% strongly / 45% somewhat), while four in ten (41%) disapprove (19% strongly / 22% somewhat). While the Liberal government’s approval ratings remain strong overall, they have softened somewhat over the past year (from 66% in March 2016, to 62% in October 2016, to 61% in December 2016, to 59% now).

 

Pondering

From the same poll:

Among decided voters, the vast majority tend to say they’d vote for their current choice no matter who’s leading the Conservatives (Tories will vote Tory, Liberals will vote Liberal, and so on). Yet, the survey reveals that many current NDP voters say they’d vote Conservative if O’Leary were leading the CPC.

In fact, two in ten (22%) current NDP voters appear poised to change their vote to Conservative if O’Leary wins the leadership race. Moreover, the proportion of Canadians who are undecided on their vote choice decreases when O’Leary is the leader (23% don’t know of their vote choice if O’Leary leads the party, 29% if Leitch leads it, and 30% if Bernier leads it), suggesting that the rise in support for the Tories under an O’Leary leadership comes both from undecided and some NDP voters, although this could be temporary given the NDP are also looking for a new leader.

 

Mighty Middle

New mumbers for Toronto from Mainstreet/Postmedia

All of Toronto

Liberals – 60%
Conservatives – 26%
NDP – 8%
Green – 6%

Municipal Breakdown

Etobicoke

Liberals – 53%
Conservatives – 36%
NDP – 4%
Green – 7%

Scarborough

Liberals – 56%
Conservatives – 26%
NDP – 11%
Green – 7%

Downtown

Liberals – 73%
Conservatives – 16%
NDP – 5%
Green – 6%

North York

Liberals – 54%
Conservatives – 32%
NDP –10%
Green – 4%

Mainstreet surveyed a random sample of 2,103 Torontonians on February 21, 2017 through Chimera IVR. Landline and Cell lines were included. Responses were weighed based on the 2011 Census.The margin of error for survey results is ± 2.14 percentage points, 19 times out of 20

https://www.scribd.com/document/340703366/Mainstreet-Toronto-February-20...

Cody87

Good to see the Liberal numbers are coming down since this time last year. I wonder what's the reason for that.

I am REALLY surprised that O'Leary is getting support from some New Democrats and undecideds. I haven't paid much attention to any of the leadership candidates, but my impression was that he was one of the more Conservative candidates.

Off topic, but on the new forums can you edit the first post?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Numbers coming down? Judging by the 2 polls cited,they have a huge lead and still have majority numbers

 

Cody87

40% is less than 50%. I said coming down, not low. Yes they still have majority numbers under FPTP with 3 major parties but not by nearly the margin they did a year ago - last year the polls indicated they would have won a majority of votes, not just seats.

josh

The latest weekly Nanos federal ballot tracking has the Liberals at 42.5 per cent support, the Conservatives at 29.2 per cent, the NDP at 16.1 per cent, the Greens at 5.2 per cent and the BQ at 4.8 per cent

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/03/28/federal-liberals-43-conservatives-29-ndp-16-greens-5-nanos/#.WNpcfmczXbh 

 

NorthReport
mark_alfred

Re: Post #9:

The link in post #9 doesn't work for me.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Cody87 wrote:
I am REALLY surprised that O'Leary is getting support from some New Democrats and undecideds. I haven't paid much attention to any of the leadership candidates, but my impression was that he was one of the more Conservative candidates.

O'leary is liberal on social issues, and is a celebrity. With this in mind, there are two things that are likely leading to this response.  One is that some current NDP supporters and undecided are anti-Liberal  voters who are liberal on social issues but quite right-wing economically. Folks who won't support the Conservatives if they lean conservative on social issues, but are fine with O'leary's combination of social liberalism and hard right economic policy.

The other factor is O'leary' capitalist celebrity status. There are a lot of naive people out there who are susceptible to being conned by the idea of a CEO savior who will magically solve all our problems. [sarcasm]The idea that people as successful as Trump and O'leary must know what they're doing, so there's no way they could ever screw things up like other politicians.[/sarcasm]

Cody87

Thanks Left Turn. I guess that Conservatives supporting O'Leary would need to consider if electing a "Trump lite" to their party leadership is likely to be wise by 2019 once we've really had a chance to see what trouble Trump gets up to. Certainly if the Trump experiment fails a similar pitch is unlikely to work here. From the sounds of it, O'Leary may end up dead in the water just by association.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Poll: Canadians deeply concerned by growing inequality

Of Canadians surveyed, 73 per cent said their and their family’s economic situation had stayed the same or gotten worse over the past two years, while 68 per cent did not expect it to improve over the next two years. The poll, conducted by Strategic Communications, was made public at the Broadbent Institute’s Progress Summit in Ottawa.

Asked who benefits from today’s economy, 67 per cent fingered the wealthiest Canadians. Despite the Trudeau government’s rhetorical focus on the middle class, only 11 per cent of respondents identified the middle class as benefiting from today’s economy.

Eighty-two per cent of Canadians think the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing, and 84 per cent think that’s a problem.

Asked who is to blame for growing income inequality, around half of respondents identified a tax system that benefits richer Canadians, as well as government policies that favour big business at the expense of everyone else.....

josh
Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

Poll: Canadians deeply concerned by growing inequality

Of Canadians surveyed, 73 per cent said their and their family’s economic situation had stayed the same or gotten worse over the past two years, while 68 per cent did not expect it to improve over the next two years. The poll, conducted by Strategic Communications, was made public at the Broadbent Institute’s Progress Summit in Ottawa.

Asked who benefits from today’s economy, 67 per cent fingered the wealthiest Canadians. Despite the Trudeau government’s rhetorical focus on the middle class, only 11 per cent of respondents identified the middle class as benefiting from today’s economy.

Eighty-two per cent of Canadians think the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing, and 84 per cent think that’s a problem.

Asked who is to blame for growing income inequality, around half of respondents identified a tax system that benefits richer Canadians, as well as government policies that favour big business at the expense of everyone else.....

And yet the NDP still refuses to represent us. It infuriates me.

nicky

But Pondering, it doesn't seem to infuriate you that your sainted Justin, who IS in aposition to do something about it, doesn't.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

nicky wrote:

But Pondering, it doesn't seem to infuriate you that your sainted Justin, who IS in aposition to do something about it, doesn't.

That is also the NDP's fault, if they only talked nicer to Trudeau he would be their friend and start taking their advice instead of the advice of his other friends from the 0.1%

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And yet the NDP still refuses to represent us. It infuriates me.

You hold a grudge against the party you didn't support, but when the party you DID support doesn't represent us you say "well, that's just them and how they roll".

Pondering

nicky wrote:

But Pondering, it doesn't seem to infuriate you that your sainted Justin, who IS in aposition to do something about it, doesn't.

No, I don't get angry at neoliberalists acting like neoliberalists.  Trudeau campaigned on running a deficit and P3s and exporting oil.

The NDP supports neoliberalism while claiming to be a leftist party. The NDP is no different than the Liberals or the Conservatives. The primary objective of all three parties is to get elected on whatever platform will get them there. If the NDP thought promoting the military would get them elected they would do it because the NDP represents the interests of the NDP party not its members or supporters. That is identical to the Liberals and the Conservatives. All three parties are "establishment" parties. I'd rather face a wolf than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The NDP opposed marijuana legalization in favor of decriminalization.  The NDP took that position AFTER the Liberals declared in favor of legalization so it isn't like they had to take that position to avoid appearing too radical. I always let the members off the hook for what the party does but the membership didn't make a big stink.

More and more it seems the NDP currently exists to oppose the Liberals (not the Conservatives, not neoliberalism) only the Liberals. The NDP as a business doesn't want to be different from the Liberals they just want to replace the Liberal Party as the alternative to the Conservative Party or gain more power through PR.

That's what you don't understand about me. I see the political parties as commercial businesses. They do not exist to represent me or serve me they exist to pay salaries to politicians. Once in government they are paid to administrate. They are like management companies on long contracts.

When there is sufficient dissatisfaction rebel parties rise. That is how the NDP began. In my ignorance I just assumed the NDP was "the party of the people" - "the progressive party" but on closer inspection the emperor wears no clothes. There is only the most feeble opposition to trade deals and pipelines, the two greatest threats to Canadians. Kudos to "The Leap Manifesto" for getting the facts mainly right but politically tone deaf delivery killed it even within the party.  That is the other component required (to win).  The ability to sell (communicate) the vision.

I will probably vote for Angus, or Ashton, or Caron, maybe some others, if they win the leadership of the NDP, assuming they offer more than just attacking Trudeau. I don't think any of them with the possible exception of Caron could win the election.

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Decriminalization would be far better than DrugWars.2.  If Trudeau has his way I will not be able to legally drive a car again. He can go fuck himself and his phoney bullshit changes on pot. As well of course the price for legal pot will be two to three times the price I pay now. Not to mention that if they do allow home growing for personal use they are discriminating against couples. Both my spouse and I smoke pot regularily and the asshole Liberals are saying we can only grow half of what two individuals in separate apartments couls grow. 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Decriminalization would be far better than DrugWars.2.  If Trudeau has his way I will not be able to legally drive a car again. He can go fuck himself and his phoney bullshit changes on pot. As well of course the price for legal pot will be two to three times the price I pay now. Not to mention that if they do allow home growing for personal use they are discriminating against couples. Both my spouse and I smoke pot regularily and the asshole Liberals are saying we can only grow half of what two individuals in separate apartments couls grow. 

So you would rather have decriminalization for users than have legalization for everyone along with the massive potential for research into medical uses and higher quality safer product for everyone. You do realize that under decriminalization you can't grow any plants. Personally I'm not sticking to a 4 plant limit because nobody will be counting my plants as long as I don't turn my apartment into a grow-op. The senate may choose to alter the bill anyway.

Sure the legislation isn't perfect but I'd say the larger problem within it is that it the feds will licence instead of the provinces as is with alcohol but even that is way better than keeping cannabis illegal.

Once it is legal the rest can be worked out as cannabis proves itself to be relatively harmless.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

 You do realize that under decriminalization you can't grow any plants.

Please quit the outright lies and alternative truths. You are a Liberal through and through like Trudeau and Clark in BC, you will lie about any issue. The parliament of Canada can decriminalize both simple possesion and the growing of small amounts of pot if the majority of MP's vote for it.

What your selfie obsessed idol is introducing is not legalization it is merely a new set of criminal laws dealing with pot. But apparently since it is good for you PERSONALLY you think its okay to lock up others for the new crimes that will be on the books. Under the "feminist" Trudeau someone could now face a longer prison sentence for passing a joint to a 17 year old than they would get for raping them.  And to think some people are so deluded as to think this is legalizing the substance and like I said if they pass what they propose for driving as a chronic pot user I will never be legally allowed to drive nor will anyone else who uses pot routinely for either pain or pleasure. I volunteered to drive for a field trip for my Grandson's school. I had to submit a Drivers Abstract and I can proudly say that there have been no infractions of any kind in latest five years (that is the timeline ICBC sends out). However under this altenative facts "legalization" I will be barred from driviing.

So go peddle your Liberal bullshit to someone else, I  am too well informed to buy into your Liberal lies.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 You do realize that under decriminalization you can't grow any plants.

Please quit the outright lies and alternative truths. You are a Liberal through and through like Trudeau and Clark in BC, you will lie about any issue. The parliament of Canada can decriminalize both simple possesion and the growing of small amounts of pot if the majority of MP's vote for it.

What your selfie obsessed idol is introducing is not legalization it is merely a new set of criminal laws dealing with pot. But apparently since it is good for you PERSONALLY you think its okay to lock up others for the new crimes that will be on the books. Under the "feminist" Trudeau someone could now face a longer prison sentence for passing a joint to a 17 year old than they would get for raping them.  And to think some people are so deluded as to think this is legalizing the substance and like I said if they pass what they propose for driving as a chronic pot user I will never be legally allowed to drive nor will anyone else who uses pot routinely for either pain or pleasure. I volunteered to drive for a field trip for my Grandson's school. I had to submit a Drivers Abstract and I can proudly say that there have been no infractions of any kind in latest five years (that is the timeline ICBC sends out). However under this altenative facts "legalization" I will be barred from driviing.

So go peddle your Liberal bullshit to someone else, I  am too well informed to buy into your Liberal lies.

There is no way the NDP would make it legal to drive while high as a kite medical user or not.  If you think it is legal now you are an idiot. You could be charged with reckless endangerment. Police still have to have cause to stop your car and cause to test you. So, don't drive with pot fumes floating out your window or weave around on the road.  As to school field trips if they knew you smoke pot they would not accept you law or no law so I guess you lie to them by omission because you want to do what you want to do. You don't give a shit if the parents of those children aren't comfortable with it because you figure it's your right to supercede their judgement concerning their children.

Many medications make driving dangerous. It's very difficult for a law to take individual tolerances into account. Driving laws should be changed to require certain physical and mental abilities such as a minimum reaction time, minimum ability to judge distances, etc. It would be easy enough to design a roadside test for that. As things stand, Canadians probably do want strict driving laws in relation to cannabis use by a large majority. Is the NDP opposing that aspect of the bill?  Are they opposing the 14 year -maximum- for providing minors with pot? 

How about the federal rather than provincial licencing of producers? That is designed to keep out small "craft" producers. Is the NDP going to oppose that aspect of the bill? Both federal and provincial NDP should be opposing it.

I don't agree with every aspect of the law. The law has not passed parliament nevermind the senate so we don't have the final version yet. I'm hoping for changes (because of the senate no thanks to the NDP). Even if there are no changes to the new law we will still be miles ahead of where we are now. 

You have nothing to say about current growers or about Compassion Clubs. 

I say PM Trudeau is crappy and you call that idolizing him. In another thread you called me provincial for not knowing that there are fully automated subways.

You, kropotkin, are trolling and complaining that you can't sell pot to minors without risking a 14 year sentence. Correction, it must be other people selling pot to minors you're really concerned about not yourself. Well that and the right to drive kids around on field trips with high levels of THC in your blood. How unreasonable the Liberals are to fail to allow for that eventuality.

Pondering

The proposed changes on the laws for impairment:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3565219-Impaired-Driving.html

I don't see how they could get away with doing less.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering you have now accused me of driving minors whole impaired and selling them drugs. Gee I can't figure why I am not nicer to a Liberal shill.  I am telling you that your government is going to invoke a law that says I either have to quit smoking or I will always be over the legal limit even when not impaired. In BC over 14% of the people use pot. In communites that are on the Salish Sea you can easily double that number. Maybe in your circles smoking pot is some type of pariah inducing activity but out here where BC Bud was developed it is not. 

So lets summarize the "legalization' of pot. Any current users are barred from driving until they quit and a 19 year old could face up to 14 years in jail for passing a joint to there 17 year old cousin. Only in the spin cycle world of a Liberal shill would that be legalizing it.

I note how you studiously ignored my good driving record. I don't drive impaired however according to your goverment and its police attack dog heading pot "legalization" my driving is always illegal.

2. Having said that, chronic users could have 5 nanograms of THC in their body at all times. The more regularly someone uses marijuana, the longer it takes to dissipate. Colorado attempts to account for this by issuing a permissible inference caveat to the DUI law, meaning the 5 nanogram per milliliter limit is only a presumption, not a direct confirmation, of stoned driving. Medical experts, therefore, could certainly make the case that people were completely sober with 7 or 10 nanograms of THC in their systems—especially in medical marijuana users.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Pondering you have now accused me of driving minors whole impaired and selling them drugs. Gee I can't figure why I am not nicer to a Liberal shill.

You attacked me twice and you expect respect in return. Whether or not you consider yourself impaired you don't have the right to impose that judgement on parents of other children. No 19 year old is going to prison for 14 years for passing a joint to a 17 year old and no government will make it legal for a 19 year old to provide pot or alcohol to a 17 year old. Maximum penalties are never imposed on a first time minor offence. 99% of people would agree that the Liberals are legalizing marijuana use as long as it is sold in stores. There are limitations on alcohol use too. That doesn't mean alcohol is still illegal.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I note how you studiously ignored my good driving record. I don't drive impaired however according to your goverment and its police attack dog heading pot "legalization" my driving is always illegal. 

A fabulous driving record does not prove that you don't drive impaired. My boss could handle 10 times the alcohol I could and had a perfect driving record. If I had 1 drink and he had 5 I would still trust him at the wheel before myself. It was still illegal for him to drive and legal for me to drive.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 2. Having said that, chronic users could have 5 nanograms of THC in their body at all times. The more regularly someone uses marijuana, the longer it takes to dissipate. Colorado attempts to account for this by issuing a permissible inference caveat to the DUI law, meaning the 5 nanogram per milliliter limit is only a presumption, not a direct confirmation, of stoned driving. Medical experts, therefore, could certainly make the case that people were completely sober with 7 or 10 nanograms of THC in their systems—especially in medical marijuana users.

Great so what is the limit here in Canada going to be? I haven't read any specifics. Is the NDP speaking up on this issue? isn't that their job? 

You can condemn the Liberals all you like. I agree with you on quite a few issues. It's just pointless unless you have a better alternative. The NDP is not proposing a superior form of legalization. Their sole complaint is that it should be decriminalized and pardons should be issues prior to legalization. Everything else you are complaining about the NDP is fine with or worse.

I pointed out a number of issues with legalization that I am not satisfied with which you ignored.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The NDP is not in government because your Selfie King lied through his death pretending to be a left liberal. I recognized the ploy immediately since it was used by Chrétien and Martin as well. He deliberately used the wording of legalization to imply he was going to remove pot from the Crimninal Code all together. That was a lie.  

If the NDP had won government and then introduced this piece of shit legislation on the issue I would be complaining just as loudly. That is in contrast to you who never misses an opportunity to praise the Lying Liberals and pan the NDP.

I post scientific evidence and your response is your boss used to be able to drive drunk and not get caught. So for you repeating that I would endanger kids including my Grandchildren by driving impaired I can only say, FUCK OFF and DIE.

 

Cody87

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP is not in government because your Selfie King lied through his death pretending to be a left liberal.

This is no more accurate than saying the Democrats don't hold the white house because of Wikileaks. If the democrats had run even a halfway decent campaign nothing Wikileaks could have done would have stopped them.

Likewise, it was the fault of Thomas Mulcair for running a poor campaign and getting outflanked and outmaneuvered by Trudeau. I would blame the NDP for electing a man like Mulcair except the NDP did not elect Mulcair with knowledge of who the next Liberal leader would end up being. Heading into the election season the NDP held the advantage and had a stronger hand. They played it poorly; had the NDP (and Mulcair specifically) played it better no amount of lying would have saved "Selfie King."

And as for whether or not the NDP would have had more pot-friendly legislation than what the Liberals are offering, the evidence simply doesn't support that. Mulcair was clearly running the NDP as an autocrat and his actions after the election made it clear to those who couldn't see it before the election. It's not hard to see that Mulcair's personal stance on marijuana is very critical and the NDP brass at policy conventions has not been receptive to the wishes of the grassroots on this topic either. If the NDP had won power, I would have been surprised to see any legislation at all on it even in an NDP majority.

Please understand that I don't disagree with your main point that the legislation is shit. I just don't believe the NDP would have done better and I don't blame the Liberals for the NDP's loss, which I consider to be self-inflicted.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP is not in government because your Selfie King lied through his death pretending to be a left liberal. I recognized the ploy immediately since it was used by Chrétien and Martin as well. He deliberately used the wording of legalization to imply he was going to remove pot from the Crimninal Code all together. That was a lie.  

If the NDP had won government and then introduced this piece of shit legislation on the issue I would be complaining just as loudly. That is in contrast to you who never misses an opportunity to praise the Lying Liberals and pan the NDP.

I post scientific evidence and your response is your boss used to be able to drive drunk and not get caught. So for you repeating that I would endanger kids including my Grandchildren by driving impaired I can only say, FUCK OFF and DIE.

No I didn't. I said that it isn't your decision. It's the parent's decision. I asked you what the legal limit is that the Liberals are planning to set but you didn't answer the question. You would rather rant and rave. For all you know the Liberal law will be the same as Colorado's.

If you are correct about people voting for Trudeau because they thought he was farther left than he is the NDP should have no trouble winning the next election so I don't see what you are so upset about. Your Selfie King will soon be gone.

The NDP would not have introduced a bill like this because they had no intention of legalizing marijuana.

You need to go take some of your medicine the way I am right this minute. That's why I am laughing at your schoolyard taunts while imagining smoke coming out of your ears. Blue Magic makes everything much more amusing. :)

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Trudeau sees a negative net favourable score Trudeau’s disapproval (47%) now exceeds his approval (42%), a net favourable score (approve minus disapprove) of -5, which a stark contrast from six months ago when his score was positively in double digits. (10%) say they don’t know whether they approve or disapprove.

Read more at: http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2715/trudeau-unpopular/
Copyright ©Forum Research Inc.

Debater

It's interesting that Forum has unfavourable numbers for Trudeau.  Those are in contrast to Nanos which has much more favourable numbers for Trudeau.  Which pollster is more accurate?

brookmere

Debater wrote:
Which pollster is more accurate?

That question is essentially meaningless because there is no concrete way to verify such a poll. We can certainly verify how accurately polls measure voting preference, but we know that how people vote does not correlate well with how well they regard the leaders.

scott16

Is it just me or has it been a month since any provincial polling has been released for Ontario? I think it must be good numbers for the NDP and the powers that be don't want it to get out.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP is not in government because your Selfie King lied through his death pretending to be a left liberal. I recognized the ploy immediately since it was used by Chrétien and Martin as well. He deliberately used the wording of legalization to imply he was going to remove pot from the Crimninal Code all together. That was a lie.  

If the NDP had won government and then introduced this piece of shit legislation on the issue I would be complaining just as loudly. That is in contrast to you who never misses an opportunity to praise the Lying Liberals and pan the NDP.

I post scientific evidence and your response is your boss used to be able to drive drunk and not get caught. So for you repeating that I would endanger kids including my Grandchildren by driving impaired I can only say, FUCK OFF and DIE.

 

"lied through his death"? 

That's a wonderful found expression, come to think of it. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Good catch Ken. I like it despite not doing it intentionally. Although with climate change it might be he lied through our death.