2018 Polls

188 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Stephen Harper became prime minister because the Liberals had a Conservative leader in Paul Martin who put his own companies offshore to avoid Canadian taxes, Canadian Labour Laws, and Canadian Environmental Laws. And some of the NDP ads attacking the Liberals during the election campaign were quite effective as well. Now some folks, call them Liberals, will blame the NDP for Harper’s win, instead of looking in the mirror and realizing that by making Paul Martin the face of the Liberals, Liberals are to blame for choosing such a dud for Liberal Leader. 

Wasn't there also that tiny matter of the Sponsorship Scandal that even involved the RCMP coming out against the Liberals during the election?!?

NorthReport

Precisely my point. Liberals put Harper into office!

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Liberals will always put Conservatives in office, and then say, "Vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives!"

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Precisely my point. Liberals put Harper into office!

Isn't that like saying that Christy Clark and the BC Liberals put John Horgan and the BC NDP into office?!?

My opinion of Christy Clark just changed by 180 degrees!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is possible to have opinions that include:

1) The Liberals are in the way of real change due to bait and switch policies and that they target left voters. Effectively the Liberals must be beaten to get a real progressive government

2) The NDP has to behave as if it is in charge of its own destiny and not blame other parties or the media (the above point can be overpowered with the NDP operating well). Failing to do this, the party lacks the ability to see itself and face the challenges that it must address.

3) The Conservatives and Liberals are not the same parties and the there are significant differences between them although at times they back similar policies and represent similar interests.

4) Strategic voting works poorly and sells future potential for, at best, a marginal impact today. It can also backfire.

5) The Conservatives used to be a more centrist party, that was much closer to the Liberal party, but they have not been that in the last generation. They are now more dangerously right wing and pose a threat to the country and vulnerable people any time they get power.

6) The Liberals are bad and helping them strips potential to achieve anything significant in the long run.

7) The Conservatives are worse.

It is possible to believe all these things at once and I think many progressive voters do -- if not most. This is what causes the difficulty and controversy in supporting Liberals in the short term. Many of us recognize a conflict between short and longer term and a recognition that the Liberals are not our answer. the choice between avoiding greater pain from the Conservatives now and preserving the strength to have greater gain from a more left party is a difficult one.

There is not really a right answer but a matter of opinion and judgment. I know this is emotional and difficult for people to grasp but we have to respect these differences in judgment because they are responses to a very difficult and closely-matched conflict. That opinion and judgment guides each voter in each election and the choices are frequently painful.

The fact is that assuming that the Conservatives are no worse than the Liberals in the present is wishful thinking contradicted by experience. To assume that there is no cost to abandoning the NDP to support the Liberals in the present is also wishful thinking contradicted by experience. We may disagree as to which has the highest price. As people here know, I tend to look at the longer term costs, but this is not to celebrate Conservative victories or to fail to recognize the disaster any Conservative victory poses. I disagree with any propaganda saying the Conservative and Liberals are the same -- as well as the dualistic simplicity of suggesting that a difference between them make either the Liberals a viable or acceptable choice.

There is another factor: governments operate in perpetual fear. What they fear is the opposition and that is a key attribute of the Westminister parliamentary model which highlights a shadow government debating with the present one. As such, the government is partly the complexion of parliament.

A Liberal government across from a Conservative government can effectively be worse than a Conservative one across from a strong NDP opposition. Ironically, since the Liberals are left in opposition and more right in government, a Conservative government in fear of a strong Liberal and NDP opposition can at times be more moderate than a Liberal government facing a right wing opposition (even though the Conservatives by nature are worse). When the Liberals are in power the opposition lacks their strength at opposing the very policies that they end up implementing. This was a fact we saw in 1995 when the Martin government slashed many programs that the Conservatives would not have dared to cut, due to the Liberal and NDP opposition. At that time the NDP had lost party status.

Experience tells us that in threat of a Liberal or Conservative government, the priority is to preserve NDP party status since the loss of it is a crisis for a generation. Knowing the NDP has party status and considering both the danger of strategic voting and the realities in the individual riding, many people make decisions about preserving NDP strength and growing that, or blocking an immediate Conservative government. Most NDP supporters understand that just as the Conservatives are much worse than the Liberals the Liberals are also much worse than the NDP (at least to us).

Apart from that people measure candidates and policies against trust in the parties. Many of us do not trust the Liberals to implement what they promise.

To suggest this is either the simplistic block the Conservatives at all cost or to vote NDP at all cost is to live in some kind of partisan bubble or deep denial.

I have always voted NDP, but I will not pretend that these issues do not concern me or that I might not think differently in a Liberal riding that I considered really could go Conservative but that would be close enough that my vote could make a difference. In that case I would have to evaluate all these issues and regardless of which answer I came up with, I would still deserve the respect of the community of progressive people. I am thankful that I have never been presented with such a choice. I think many people here who attack strategic voters live in ridings either so safely Conservative that voting other than NDP would make no difference or so safely not Conservative that the Conservatives are not a significant threat. I know this due to the statistics of which ridings really are in play.

A little respect for the people in these difficult situations really ought to exist along with a recognition that a minor difference in a perception of facts could weight to different decisions between two people who are essentially 99% on the same page.

 

I agree with 2 disagreements.

First,I'd have to have a full frontal lobotomy to vote Conservative. Ideologically speaking we're as different as an apple and a turd. In a swing riding scenario,I'd vote Liberal if it meant stopping the Conservatives. Remember,Harper has been gone only 3 years. Hasn't everybody learned their lesson with his 10 year tenure? It appears Scheer is worse and it's clear the party is modeling themselves after the Trump Republican party. This is unacceptable,IMHO. I'd rather an onion ring take over Parliament before the Cons.

Secondly,I don't believe you can claim to be progressive and vote Conservative at the same time. It's just not ideologically possible.

I understand that most people here hate the Liberals but they are following through with some of their promises. And I'm happy to get SOME of the policies I'd like to see passed rather than NONE. A Conservative gvernment is the biggestt threat to any forward progression. They'd like to bring back the 1940's or 50's -- fuck that.

But we are all spinning our wheels if we spend all our energy on hating the Liberals. I'd rather read about how we (as a country) can lift the NDP from 19-20% support to something relevant like 30%.

This place has been a forum for trashing the Liberals,going back to when I first started visiting this site. And that was with a Tory government in Ottawa.

The Tories were a plausible party before Mulroney. And they've become much,much worse after Mulroney. If this was 1979 and we were talking about the Joe Clark Progressive Conservatives,this would spark a much different conversation. 

The Liberal bashing reminds me of right wingers in the States bashing Obama..even today and he's been out of power for going on 2 years. It becomes silly and pathological after a while,I understand why some,like myself,get tired of it after a while.

I'm sure the majority of us here consider ourselves progressive. Therefore,we're on the same team. But once you start cheerleading the Conservatives,I'm afraid your street cred as a progressive is dead.

I am utterly confused by your stated disagreements: On 1 where did I suggest any merit in voting Conservative? I merely stated that there are times when support for the NDP may be more urgent than blocking the conservatives-- that is not the same as voting conservative.

Then you say, as a disagreement that voting conservative is not a progressive. Again where did I say it was. I looked for a typo and could not find one.

And no, it is not cheerleading for the conservatives to place a higher priority on voting NDP than blocking a conservative government. Those are two voting concerns and voting NDP is never a vote to support the conservatives or cheerleading for them. I think this is somethign Liberals want people to think but it is quite false.

Well,Sean..I think I got side tracked by some comments.

The Liberals are not to blame for every shitty thing that has happened politically in Canada.

The Liberals are not to blame for Harper. It's the electorate who are directly to blame. They could have gone Orange and they almost did. Quebec did all the heavy lifting,the ROC blew it.

And what really pissed me off royally was the insinuation that Canada would be better off with a Conservative government. I had a really hard time getting passed that one.

It's perfectly fine to bash the Liberals and Trudeau. But don't do it in a fashion that mimicks right wing Americans Obama bashing. Obama is long gone but people are still blaming him for everything...Quite literally for things like Hurricanes and secret pedophile society headquartered at a pizzeria. The hyperbole about Obama in the US is pathological. I don't think we should follow such low ball bullshit. Blame the Liberals for what they are doing now. Forget about Paul Martin. Everyone here knows that he has long since been thrown into the dustbin of history,why bother bringing him up?

When Harper was PM I bashed him 24 hours a day. But I rarely bring him up these days or bash hime these days. Even if we are still paying for the sins of both Martin and Harper. They are gone and never coming back, I've moved on.

I didn't mean to misquote you. If anything,your comment was rational and mirrored reality which is something lost on some.

I'm a radical anti-Conservative. It's why my politics are different than some in this forum. I think there is never a situation to say that they are 'good' for Canadians. There was a time when the Conservatives weren't a radical right wing insurgency. But that was 40 years and more. It's not worth me voting NDP if my riding is a dog fight between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I'd vote Liberal. Not because I necessarily like them but I prefer them over the Conservatives. I'd vote for any party running neck and neck with the Conservatives because that's how much I despise the Cons. And it's this hatred that strays me away from the NDP in a case where it's a race between the Libs and the Cons.

So to make a long story short,the assertion that a Conservative government would be better for Canadians is what made me freak out. The logic behind it was moronic and even knowing that people hate the Liberals,that comment took me back and questioned why such a stupid ass-backward comment would find itself on a supposedly 'progressive' forum.

The comment made me lose my mind. Sorry if I got sidetracked,Sean.I really do agree with your comment. I think I cherry picked it to explain explicitly how I feel about the Conservatives. It wasn't even an endorsement for the Liberals. I just think the premise of the Libs being worse than the Cons could only be believed by shameless partisans.

So I apologize for misrepresenting your comment.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Thank you Alan. My post was largely to point to a bridge between people who may disagree very much on some things but actually be quite close on ideology. There is belief and judgement and I thin what seperates many here is a judgement of priorities but neither really disagree with the other's priority that much.

So, while I do nto like strategic voting much -- I consider it almost like a form of extortion from a flawed system -- that is not becuase I think any different of the conservatives than you do. I also while recognizing the extreme nature of the Conservatives, recognize that a weakened NDP is also very bad for Canada. None of these things suggest to me that the Conservatives are not worse than the Liebrals. I woudl be the first to admit that if there were a mythical election where there were only Liberals and Conservatives I would vote Liberal, however, I want to make sure such a choice never happens. Overall I think the Conservatives have gone hard right in dangerous ways for this country. I also think that the Liebrals while not as bad as the Conservatives have blocked needed change, frequently supported policies that are closer to the Conservative than NDP and have campaigned on a bait and switch strategy. It is this last strategy that has created the distinction that I think many understand: that is that while we know the Conservatives are worse, we hate the Liberals more due to this chronic misrepresentation of themselves as more progressive than theyactually are. It is easy to hate the one that knifes you in the back more than the one that shoots you in the face with a revolver. The reason is the human reaction to betrayal. It is incorrect to consider that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same but it is also unreasonable to consider that those who express the most anger at the Liberals somehow want the Conservatives to rule.

As well, we should not minimize that each person has only one vote. Now in all of the electoral discussions we have never discussed changing that but in a multi-party system it might not be a bad idea. It is not as if we do not see this socially. Imagine if each person had both a positive and a negative vote -- like we have in many polls to create net approvals. Imagine if we could vote for the party we want and against the party we do not want as to actions? Then we would be able to on the one hand record our vote for the party and programme we want the most and against the one we want the least. The winner would be the net result.

I am not saying that this would prefer one party over another but it woudl be a way to record both the positive and negative feelings that are perfectly justifiable among voters. It is that chocie between the two that leads some to strategic vote (negatively) against the party they do not want giving up on the one they want -- or to vote for the party they want knowing that this is a minority view that could lead to the election of the party they want least.

When you consider this idea, you can also see why I prefer PR which finds another way to do much of the same thing. PR prevents a party form having a false majority even though a majority dislike it the most. This does a similar thing by allowing for negative votes. In fact I suspect that this would lead to a more representative result closer to PR than the present. The instant run-off options may to some degree prevent the election of an unpopular party but they do this by herding support to be recorded for many second options which could in fact lead to increased suppression on third parties on the way to choosing a less-bad option.

But my point remains that once in a while, as angry as we may feel, it is important to recognize that these judgements are often less about belief and ideology than shades of judgement aboutt he effects of a given thing or rankings of priorities that we may agree on generally but put in a different order. This place should be able to draw out some of the common ground on this but often it leads to widening the gaps to the point that the common ground becomes more distant.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Very good assessement.

I agree strongly with PR. No more phoney baloney majorities. It would also force coalition governments that could bring us superior policies.

I get the stabbed in the back and shot in the face analogy but personally I prefer neither.

I do think the NDP can learn a lot from the last election. The strategy that pulled the Liberals from 3rd place to a majority. But this can't happen with everyone at each other's throats.

Here's to positivity. Cheers.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Very good assessement.

I agree strongly with PR. No more phoney baloney majorities. It would also force coalition governments that could bring us superior policies.

I get the stabbed in the back and shot in the face analogy but personally I prefer neither.

I do think the NDP can learn a lot from the last election. The strategy that pulled the Liberals from 3rd place to a majority. But this can't happen with everyone at each other's throats.

Here's to positivity. Cheers.

Cheers to you as well. Openness and understanding even from distant opinions is best and some opinions may be closer than they sometimes appear.

SocialJustice101

Today's Nanos Data Tracker update:

Lib 39.14%

Con 33.67%

NDP 16.45%

Grn 6.52%

BQ 2.43%

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

SocialJustice101

The rumours of Liberal demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Pondering

I like the idea of a negative vote. 

SocialJustice101

Today's Nanos data tracker update:

Lib 38.20%

Con 32.87%

NDP 17.19%

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

 

NorthReport

Quite a contrast between Nanos’ weekly churning and Ipsos Reid’s results

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_federal_election

SocialJustice101

Ipsos is an older poll and was conducted entirely online.

NorthReport

Liberals don't like the truth, er... Ipsos Polls, yet Ipsos polls for the Ontario Liberals. Go figure! 

gadar

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Today's Nanos data tracker update:

Lib 38.20%

Con 32.87%

NDP 17.19%

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

 

As compared to last week

Liberals down

Cons down

NDP UP

Whats not to like. 

Liberals are happy that they still have the lead. NDP is happy that they are up. Now only Cons can find something to complain about this one.

NorthReport
progressive17 progressive17's picture

Sweet dreams are made of statistical nothingness?

The real question is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzMQ3ovJO0

bekayne

progressive17 wrote:

Sweet dreams are made of statistical nothingness?

The real question is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzMQ3ovJO0

Second place, apparently.

SocialJustice101

The statistical margin of error that gets the media and political junkies excited.  "2% shift?  What does this all mean?"  It's kind of funny.

NorthReport
progressive17 progressive17's picture

40 31 19 is grim for both the Liberals and the NDP. I suppose Canada is going to try Howdy Doody after the petromarionette.

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Imagine if each person had both a positive and a negative vote -- like we have in many polls to create net approvals. Imagine if we could vote for the party we want and against the party we do not want as to actions? Then we would be able to on the one hand record our vote for the party and programme we want the most and against the one we want the least. The winner would be the net result.


Pondering wrote:

I like the idea of a negative vote. 

I look forward to the unexpected Christian Heritage Bloc Marxist-Leninist Rhinoceros Marijuana Pirate coalition government.

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Imagine if each person had both a positive and a negative vote -- like we have in many polls to create net approvals. Imagine if we could vote for the party we want and against the party we do not want as to actions? Then we would be able to on the one hand record our vote for the party and programme we want the most and against the one we want the least. The winner would be the net result.

Pondering wrote:

I like the idea of a negative vote. 

I look forward to the unexpected Christian Heritage Bloc Marxist-Leninist Rhinoceros Marijuana Pirate coalition government.

Why? I positive and one negative. There are three major parties. All three are not going to end up underwater. Also you do nto ahve to weight the negative as equal. I presented an idea -- these issues could be resolved.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Imagine if each person had both a positive and a negative vote -- like we have in many polls to create net approvals. Imagine if we could vote for the party we want and against the party we do not want as to actions? Then we would be able to on the one hand record our vote for the party and programme we want the most and against the one we want the least. The winner would be the net result.

Pondering wrote:

I like the idea of a negative vote. 

I look forward to the unexpected Christian Heritage Bloc Marxist-Leninist Rhinoceros Marijuana Pirate coalition government.

Which would still, somehow, manage to be an improvement.

SocialJustice101

Nanos Research Data Tracker update as of April 16, 2018:

Lib: 41.14%

Con: 29.22%

NDP: 15.82%

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

Pondering

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Nanos Research Data Tracker update as of April 16, 2018:

Lib: 41.14%

Con: 29.22%

NDP: 15.82%

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

That makes much more sense. Angus Reid is off the wall. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Wow.  Negative voting.  I wish I'd thought to suggest that years ago.

Wait!  Seems I did!

Quote:
I suggested a while back -- facetiously, but not without a grain of truth -- that perhaps we should just switch to "negative voting".  Instead of voting for who you want, vote *against* who you don't.  Whatever candidate gets the fewest number of "fuck no's" wins.  Why not follow through on what we've already started?

Who's in?  Or, I guess what I mean is, who thinks the alternatives are worse?  Vote against them!

 

gadar

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Nanos Research Data Tracker update as of April 16, 2018:

Lib: 41.14%

Con: 29.22%

NDP: 15.82%

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

Since I dont like the results of this poll, I declare it fake.

SocialJustice101

But at least you didn't dig up a dated online poll as "counter-proof."

NorthReport

Oh for goodness sake

One pollster who keeps churning out weekly polls and you go gaga over that. No wonder the polling industry has little credibility in Canada. 

Pondering

gadar wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Nanos Research Data Tracker update as of April 16, 2018:

Lib: 41.14%

Con: 29.22%

NDP: 15.82%

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

Since I dont like the results of this poll, I declare it fake.

It isn't a matter of not liking results. It's a matter of evaluating the polling company and their results coupled with how things are going in Canada. I find the NDP results very disappointing. I hoped they would still be around 19. I think the infighting has hurt the party. 

Nothing is happening politically that would send Liberal votes to the Conservatives. Harper was no better at getting pipelines through. There is nothing he could do that Trudeau won't. If the Liberals lose votes over the pipeline issue the votes would go to the NDP not the Conservatives who failed for 10 years. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Imagine if each person had both a positive and a negative vote -- like we have in many polls to create net approvals. Imagine if we could vote for the party we want and against the party we do not want as to actions? Then we would be able to on the one hand record our vote for the party and programme we want the most and against the one we want the least. The winner would be the net result.

Pondering wrote:

I like the idea of a negative vote. 

I look forward to the unexpected Christian Heritage Bloc Marxist-Leninist Rhinoceros Marijuana Pirate coalition government.

Extremely unfortunately for you, that would make me your Pharaoh. And I don't know if you don't want that. I have this Karma idea of government, and it is very pleasant for the slaves and very unpleasant for the intellectuals and bureaucrats and managers and executives and other blights on humanity, who are all fighting to put our confetti money where their mouths are. I think there is a saying in a rather old book that the most shall be the least, and the least shall be the most, which is exactly what would happen when I became Pharaoh. 

Let's just say that the way the current political system is designed, there will never be any change. It was never designed to bring change. Power will always remain in the same hands. This is a monarchy.

All land is owned by the Crown, and all money is owned by the Crown. Everything you think you own can be expropriated by eminent domain. You own nothing already, and you think you have private property. You are just leaseholders. If you don't pay your rent, you are evicted, whether you think you are a property owner, or whether you know you are a tenant. Nothing better than serfs. You may till your land for your meagre share, and use analgesics for the rest of the time to forget your miserable existence, as it has always been.

What the system does is make us choose between different forms of slavery. The conflict between the different political slavemasters becomes the national narrative. As an old indigenous saying goes, "Left wing? Right wing? Same bird."

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Oh for goodness sake

One pollster who keeps churning out weekly polls and you go gaga over that. No wonder the polling industry has little credibility in Canada. 

Except the ones showing the Liberals losing, of course.

NorthReport

Poll showing Liberal rebound has signs of softer support

Liberals shouldn't celebrate just yet — their party and leader have taken a hit

 

Liberal support looks softer now

The last time the Liberals were at 41 per cent in Nanos's polling was in the survey ending on Jan. 5, which put the party 10 points ahead of the Conservatives. Other surveys in the field at around that time were showing similar numbers.

But while the Liberals may be doing just as well among decided voters as they were a little more than three months ago, their wider universe of supporters has gotten smaller.

On the question of who Canadians think would make the best prime minister, Trudeau now scores 39 per cent. That's down six points from his score in January. That still puts him 16 points ahead of Scheer (another indication that the Liberals' recent woes are largely self-inflicted, rather than due to a surge of popularity for the Conservative leader) but it means that Trudeau is now scoring lower than the Liberal party itself does among decided voters.

According to the latest survey, Nanos finds that 51 per cent of Canadians would consider voting Liberal, compared to 44 per cent for the Conservatives and 36 per cent for the NDP. But that's also down six points for the Liberals from Jan. 5.

And while 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed recently said that Trudeau has the "qualities of a good leader" — better than Scheer's 40 per cent and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh's 34 per cent — that number is down a sizeable 11 points from Jan. 5.

More polling will be required before a Liberal rebound in voting intentions can be confirmed or debunked. But the results on some of the other questions asked every week by Nanos suggest that the Liberal party and the prime minister himself have taken a hit — which is in line with what other polls have found.

That could signal the Liberals' support has gotten softer, making them more vulnerable in the future.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-liberal-rebound-1.4623115

WWWTT

It seems like these polls are kind of all over the road with the liberals vs conservatives.

For me it seems a little too mind boggling to try and use these numbers to predict another liberal government. At the very least, at this point in time, it looks like the federal liberals may very well be in trouble.

NorthReport

There is a pollster in the USA called Rasmussen. Like Nanos they release polls every week. Reliable aggregators like 538 discount the vast majority of Rasmussen's polling because it can really stack the deck and skew the results. They know garbage in = garbage out.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383561-trump-touts-approval-i...

SocialJustice101

The Canadian equivalent of Rasmussen is Forum Research, not Nanos Research.   Both Rasmussen and Forum use IVR, i.e. automated phone calls, which are significantly cheaper than live calls used by Nanos Research.   The problem with IVR is that it tends to overestimate right-wing support, as was perfectly on display during the Calgary election. 

As for Nanos Research, they were the most accurate pollster in the 2015 election.  

NorthReport

Nanos releases polls every week and posters here post the results every week giving Nanos an overabundance of influnce, and that is the comparison I was making with Rasmussen. You are getting carried away with the Nanos hype. There is no great achievement forecasting election results the day before the election when everyone pretty much knows what the results will be. 

SocialJustice101

Ok, but your comparison is wrong because Rasmussen uses a completely different polling methodology and has a record of inaccuracy.  

Nanos, formerly known as SES Research, was the ONLY major pollster to predict a Liberal come back in the 2004 election.   Other pollsters said it was too close to call.  Nanos has the most impressive accuracy record of any pollster in Canada.   I don't see how you can compare them to a well-known right-wing propaganda machine in the US.

NorthReport

Nanos says Nanos has an impressive record. There is no way to measure the accuracy of 99.9% of any polling company's results. Every election some pollster is closer and some pollster is further away. Polling is there primarily to manipute voters and they often succeed in that objective. That is why so many of them are politically connected. But to suggest political polling is based on science is nonsense.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Nanos says Nanos has an impressive record. There is no way to measure the accuracy of 99.9% of any polling company's results. Every election some pollster is closer and some pollster is further away. Polling is there primarily to manipute voters and they often succeed in that objective. That is why so many of them are politically connected. But to suggest political polling is based on science is nonsense.

Some polling companies may exist to sway the public but most do not. Political polling is how they sell themselves to companies to do research on other topics. If they can show themselves to be accurate they get more business. 

The results of pollsters can be tracked from year to year. When compared to actual results it's easy to see which ones tend to be most accurate and if they favor right wing candidates. 

Their ability to sway voters isn't that great because they can't go too far off the mark without getting caught or ridiculed. People will often support whichever pollster is telling them what they want to hear rather than evaluating the quality of the pollster's record. 

Polls are less and less accurate because of cell phones. Pollsters are generally conservative in the non-political sense. They question their own results if there is a radical change with no apparent cause. 

The Liberals know that it doesn't matter if Canadians think Trudeau is a terrible leader as long as they think Scheer and Singh are worse. 

SocialJustice101

NorthReport wrote:

Nanos says Nanos has an impressive record. There is no way to measure the accuracy of 99.9% of any polling company's results. Every election some pollster is closer and some pollster is further away. Polling is there primarily to manipute voters and they often succeed in that objective. That is why so many of them are politically connected. But to suggest political polling is based on science is nonsense.

Polling results are published PUBLICLY before an election, and then can be easily compared to election results, to determine how sound a pollster's methodology is.   Political polling is based on a science.  It's called statistics.    Look into it.   People study statistics at Universities.

And no, not everyone is a propaganda machine.  

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Nanos says Nanos has an impressive record. There is no way to measure the accuracy of 99.9% of any polling company's results. Every election some pollster is closer and some pollster is further away. Polling is there primarily to manipute voters and they often succeed in that objective. That is why so many of them are politically connected. But to suggest political polling is based on science is nonsense.

Some polling companies may exist to sway the public but most do not. Political polling is how they sell themselves to companies to do research on other topics. If they can show themselves to be accurate they get more business. 

The results of pollsters can be tracked from year to year. When compared to actual results it's easy to see which ones tend to be most accurate and if they favor right wing candidates. 

Their ability to sway voters isn't that great because they can't go too far off the mark without getting caught or ridiculed. People will often support whichever pollster is telling them what they want to hear rather than evaluating the quality of the pollster's record. 

Polls are less and less accurate because of cell phones. Pollsters are generally conservative in the non-political sense. They question their own results if there is a radical change with no apparent cause. 

The Liberals know that it doesn't matter if Canadians think Trudeau is a terrible leader as long as they think Scheer and Singh are worse. 

I disagree that the polls' major problem is cell phones although I understand why many inclduing they say so.

It is fairly illogical when you consider that large numbers of people get polling calls on their cell phone and do not have a problem with it. There are still very large numbers of land lines. Demographic adjustments can make that sample work -- ie dialling more to get  one demographic or another. All in theory. But there is a bigger reason pollsters don't want to face:

There are too many of them. People are fed up. Refusals are almost universal and what is left now is not representative.

The problem really is they overdid it until most people opt out. Those who opt in tend to be the most enthusiastic of supporters for political polls. In other words the vast majority of voters would not answer a poll but a small minority of enthusiastic respondents want to be counted. They consent to the poll. They do not represent the others well.

As we get close to elections I think the enthusiasm spreads among all parties as people care more and polls get more accurate until e-day. We accept that opinions change but it is also possible that it is different people allowing themselves to be counted.

We have a new mix in the system now which is the attacks on the media. This is leading to increased refusals to some pollsters from some people in a way disproportionate to their populaion representation. In my view this was the explanation for the Trump polling difference: Trump told his supporters to hate the media and when the media called many more hung up as a proportion than his opponent's. Thus he was undercounted chronically. Whipping people into anger against pollsters and the media will only make them more inaccurate.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

There is a pollster in the USA called Rasmussen. Like Nanos they release polls every week. Reliable aggregators like 538 discount the vast majority of Rasmussen's polling because it can really stack the deck and skew the results. They know garbage in = garbage out.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383561-trump-touts-approval-i...

The release a poll every weekday.  And their Republican bias is well known.  There’s nothing to indicate that Nanos is biased.

NorthReport

And just like Rasmussen in the USA, Nanos probably releasing more polls than all the other pollsters in Canada put together. Overkill, just perhaps.

SocialJustice101

Rasmussen polls are garbage, while Nanos Research conducts expensive high-quality live telephone polling.  The only pollster to do so between elections.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Polling is there primarily to manipute voters and they often succeed in that objective. That is why so many of them are politically connected. But to suggest political polling is based on science is nonsense.

If political polling is nonsense, why do you post so much about political opinion polls? It seems to me that you say that political opinion polls are corrupt when they show the Liberals are doing well that they are legitimate when they show that the Liberals are doing poorly. I think the partisan manipulation of the facts here is not being done by the political pollsters.

NorthReport

 

Collective amnesia I suppose.

How sweet it must be to have such memory lapses as it was not that long ago that the polling industry participants in Canada were at each other’s throats because of their incompetence or perhaps more accurately their rigging of their polling results. Liberals are the most connected to the manipulating polling companies and of course is the reason the Liberals here are up in arms whenever anyone questions one of their most useful tools in helping to get Liberals elected.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

 

Collective amnesia I suppose.

How sweet it must be to have such memory lapses as it was not that long ago that the polling industry participants in Canada were at each other’s throats because of their incompetence or perhaps more accurately their rigging of their polling results. Liberals are the most connected to the manipulating polling companies and of course is the reason the Liberals here are up in arms whenever anyone questions one of their most useful tools in helping to get Liberals elected.

It's amazing that these secretive and corrupt Liberal pollsters can get any opinion polling business from people who support other political parties and fairness on general!

Pages