latest polling thread - 5 july, 2012

4083 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Isnt' anyone going to give me a nod for "Beautiful Fantasy Gardens...FANTASTIC!"???????Frown

NorthReport

Everyone here is intitled to their opinions, but if they are absurd it is often best to just ignore them.

nicky

I think there was an element of messianic malevalence with Bill Vander Zalm that  isn't present with Justin T. 

But on another level there is a certain parallel. Kim Campbell's warning at the Socred leadership convention about Vander Zalm might also be made about Trudeau: "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

Debater

nicky wrote:

 "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

I agree.

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. Smile

nicky

Debater, have you ever listened to Justin trying to answer a question?

If you think he has substance you must think Rob Ford is the reincarntion of Abraham Lincoln.

By the way, why is it that Justin has never been entrusted with any shadow portfolio more important than critic for amateur sport?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:

 "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

I agree.

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. Smile

Debater, don't you have shoes to polish or something?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In comparison to being elected MP twice I think the idiot Zalm had much more substance. To dismiss his years as a councilor, Mayor, MLA and cabinet minister prior to winning the leadership tells me that someone didn't check their facts before making a comparison.

Quote:

He was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in the 1975 election for the riding of Surrey (he would later represent Richmond after the 1986 election), in which Social Credit won back power after a three-year hiatus.

He served in the cabinet of Premier Bill Bennett as Minister of Human Resources from 1975 to 1978, where he continued his crusade against welfare fraud.

...

He also served as Minister of Municipal Affairs & Transit from 1978 to 1981 and as Minister of Education from 1981 to 1983.

In 1984, he bought Fantasy Garden World, a theme park. The same year he ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Vancouver, as the candidate for the Non-Partisan Association. He lost to Mike Harcourt, who was later the provincial NDP leader during most of Vander Zalm's tenure as premier.

Provincial Premier

In 1986, Premier Bennett announced he was retiring. Vander Zalm attracted considerable attention as he considered whether he would run for the leadership of the Social Credit Party. He generated more press out of the race than the other candidates did in it. At the party's convention in Whistler, British Columbia, he prevailed over 11 other candidates by winning on the fourth ballot.

He was sworn in as premier just a month before the 1986 election.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/latest-polling-thread-5-ju...

 

Stockholm

Debater wrote:

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. Smile

Oh boy does Justin ever have substance. Today he decalred that he thinks the Senate is fine exactly the way it is and that the only thing that has to change is for a Liberal PM to appoint senators rather than a Tory PM (In other words more gems like Anne Cools who PET appointed to the senate)

David Young

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:

 "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

I agree.

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. Smile

A competitive riding?

Give me a break.

Papineau was a long-time Liberal stronghold that they used to parachute Pierre Pettigrew into Parliament in 1996 when it was Papneau-St. Michel.  The only time the riding didn't vote Liberal since 1957 (one of the few ridings that staying Liberal in both the 1958 Diefenbaker sweep and the 1984 Mulroney sweep) was in 2006 when it was won by the B.Q. by just 990 votes.

Trudeau received 1295 FEWER votes in 2011 than he did in 2008, and won again only because of a split vote between the B.Q. and the NDP.

Those are the facts!

Keep on living in your world of revisionist history, Debater.

The rest of us will keep up the battle in the real world.

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Serriously Debater, are you sure you don't have some shoes to polish?

jjuares

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:

 "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

I agree.

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. Smile

I find this to be a rather curious defence. He has substance because a lot of people have been caught up in the media frenzy?

felixr

I'm a big fan of Jester Trudeau for the good laughs he gives me. 

Debater

David Young wrote:

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:

 "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

I agree.

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. Smile

A competitive riding?

Give me a break.

Papineau was a long-time Liberal stronghold that they used to parachute Pierre Pettigrew into Parliament in 1996 when it was Papneau-St. Michel.  The only time the riding didn't vote Liberal since 1957 (one of the few ridings that staying Liberal in both the 1958 Diefenbaker sweep and the 1984 Mulroney sweep) was in 2006 when it was won by the B.Q. by just 990 votes.

Trudeau received 1295 FEWER votes in 2011 than he did in 2008, and won again only because of a split vote between the B.Q. and the NDP.

Those are the facts!

Keep on living in your world of revisionist history, Debater.

The rest of us will keep up the battle in the real world.

Riding victories are measured by how many points there is between you and your next competitor - Justin won Papineau by 10 points in 2011.  That is the way most people refer to his victory - as an increase from 2008 when he only won by about 4 points.

Those are the facts, David Young.  I'm just explaining to you the way victories are measured.  I realize here on Rabble you do it by counting in a different way, but that's not the way it works in the 'real world' of politics.

Example, article by Joan Bryden:

in the 2011 election, in which he managed to increase his margin of victory in the teeth of an NDP tidal wave that swept much of the rest of the province.

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/533914/trudeau-wants-to-empower-backbenc...

--

Example, article by Rebecca Lindell:

Trudeau first won the nomination and then the election in Papineau, beating Bloc Quebecois incumbent Vivian Barbot. His second election saw Trudeau increase his margin of victory as the Liberal party languished. 

http://www.globalnews.ca/whispers+from+the+past+echo+in+trudeaus+present...

--

Example, article by David Akin:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/01/justin-trudeau-could-win-on-popular...

in 2011, when the Orange Wave was sweeping Quebec, the blue-collar, slightly sovereignist Papineau riding should have been the first to jump on Jack Layton's bandwagon. Instead, Trudeau increased his margin of victory while many other Liberals were swamped and defeated.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Gloater, got those shoes polished yet?

NorthReport

There is a big difference between winning a riding and owning a riding.

For example, Jenny Kwan owns her riding.

But the David and Golaith story in Quebec belongs to Mulcair.

adma

I will have to say that some of the Babbler-land knocks Justin gets are a bit overwrought--yeah, his share dropped btw/2008 and 2011; but that was a merciless time to be a federal Liberal, and it's hardly a signal that he'll "inevitably" get knocked out by a New Democrat in 2005.  But in the name of playing defense, Debater's even sillier from his "increased margin" end--look, this was more a matter of the surging NPD and who was thought to be the primary opponent, the Bloc's Vivien Barbot, cancelling each other out.  We went from conventional feds-vs-seps 2-way voting patterns to something a little more, uh, "complicated" that, in the end, worked on Justin's behalf; IOW the kind of opposition splitting that Debater likes to claim elects Conservatives, elected Justin.  Barbot was supposed to be Justin's mortal threat; instead, by quelling the local NDP surge, she turned out to be his saviour.  Such is the game-of-chance that is voting-booth politics.

Not to say that Justin only won by split-opposition default; after all, as a Debater'll tell you, he lost far less ground than your usual federal Grit in Quebec in 2011--though how much of that was a Hail Mary salvage job from central party HQ, who knows (and who knows whether "save Justin" reallocated resources led to a few other surprise defeats, maybe Jennings in NDG or whomever...)

janfromthebruce

Mulcair, Harper approval ratings tied, but NDP leader has cause for concern: EKOS

Ah yes, Liberal pollster says

The EKOS survey revealed 47 per cent of Canadians disapprove of Harper, while only 25 per cent disapprove of Mulcair. However, those numbers were reversed when it came to how many Canadians chose to not register any opinion at all. Forty-eight per cent said they had no opinion of Mulcair, versus 25 per cent who expressed neither approval nor disapproval of the prime minister.

Frank Graves, president of EKOS, said the numbers should be taken “with a bit of a grain of salt.”

“They’re useful but they often tend to be the tail wagging the dog,” he said. “Who do Canadians approve of? None of the above… none of those are particularly good approval ratings.”

So Mulcair and Harper are tied but the NDP should be concerned but wait, this poll should be taken with a grain of salt. Wink

NorthReport

adma

That was a reasonably good analysis - thanks.

Sean in Ottawa

There is a constant story about the collapse in NDP support. The narrative is strained however.

The NDP had support in the low thirties in 2011 and at some times since. This is the high water mark. Since then most polls put NDP support between 27% and 29% a drop of perhaps 3-5 percent depending on the poll. Still the "catastrophic" drop is reported over and over as this long and significant fall over the last year-- something more newsworthy than a change barely out of the margin of error.

There is of course the problem that some people may do the math and actually see that the drop is not enough to be significant. Or worse, they may as other parties fluctuate lead to similar reports as the Conservative support has fallen by about the same amount. The Liberals having had a real catastrophe have recovered marginally to a few points above where they were. If Trudeau is unable to be the magical Sun Prince then, this rhetoric could sting when it comes round.

The media parading this propaganda as well face risks of being taken less and less seriously, something that should be alarming for them given their current need to convince people to pay for what they have been receiving for free over the last few years.

So the numbers themselves are quite unremarkable except when you consider the fairly little change that has really occurred over the last two years. What is more interesting is the nature of the poll propaganda and how stories are being made up in the face of numbers that are fairly clearly showing a stalemate.

As I have said before, polls now are likely to overemphasize those with more interest in being counted at a time when few are responding to political polls. Once people regain attention, the hope of the propaganda artists is that they will believe the "catastrophic drop in NDP support" before they see the real numbers. This drop is as we, who have been paying attention, only wishful thinking on behalf of Liberals and Conservatives. Interesting of course as well is that the NDP increased support by three times as much before it was newsworthy but a minor correction downwards is some story that must accompany breathless headlines.

The NDP will have to create momentum to respond to this very significant propaganda campaign. And it will have to protect and increase its support but for now the propaganda itself is interesting to see. The desperation is clear. Two years in and there are few measurable signs of Liberal recovery in spite of the Princeling and some modest erosion of Conservative support that, if continued will take the Conservatives out of office.

There is also a real demonstration of the need to take poll numbers with a grain of salt (last week one poll had the Liberals at near 40% and another at 21% both claiming regular margin-of-error accuracy. On the other hand you would need a truckload of salt to interpret the rhetoric and article titles about polls that often directly contradict the numbers reported.

Let the entertainment continue in this not-so-much reality show.

 

Debater

adma wrote:

I will have to say that some of the Babbler-land knocks Justin gets are a bit overwrought--yeah, his share dropped btw/2008 and 2011; but that was a merciless time to be a federal Liberal, and it's hardly a signal that he'll "inevitably" get knocked out by a New Democrat in 2005.  But in the name of playing defense, Debater's even sillier from his "increased margin" end--look, this was more a matter of the surging NPD and who was thought to be the primary opponent, the Bloc's Vivien Barbot, cancelling each other out.  We went from conventional feds-vs-seps 2-way voting patterns to something a little more, uh, "complicated" that, in the end, worked on Justin's behalf; IOW the kind of opposition splitting that Debater likes to claim elects Conservatives, elected Justin.  Barbot was supposed to be Justin's mortal threat; instead, by quelling the local NDP surge, she turned out to be his saviour.  Such is the game-of-chance that is voting-booth politics.

Not to say that Justin only won by split-opposition default; after all, as a Debater'll tell you, he lost far less ground than your usual federal Grit in Quebec in 2011--though how much of that was a Hail Mary salvage job from central party HQ, who knows (and who knows whether "save Justin" reallocated resources led to a few other surprise defeats, maybe Jennings in NDG or whomever...)

Sorry, adma, but there's nothing 'silly' about the 'increased margin' that was discussed above.   They are not my words - they are stated in numerous articles by various journalists.  Did you even notice that it was not myself who wrote those articles?

The rest of what you say is pure supposition - there was no attempt to 'save' Justin or sacrifice other ridings.  He won the riding decisively on his own merits because he is well-liked in his community and the voters chose him.  He did not win because of vote-splitting.  Babble is coming up with its own interpretation of events that differs from the mainstream views that I linked to above.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

David Young wrote:

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:

 "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

I agree.

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. Smile

A competitive riding?

Give me a break.

Papineau was a long-time Liberal stronghold that they used to parachute Pierre Pettigrew into Parliament in 1996 when it was Papneau-St. Michel.  The only time the riding didn't vote Liberal since 1957 (one of the few ridings that staying Liberal in both the 1958 Diefenbaker sweep and the 1984 Mulroney sweep) was in 2006 when it was won by the B.Q. by just 990 votes.

Trudeau received 1295 FEWER votes in 2011 than he did in 2008, and won again only because of a split vote between the B.Q. and the NDP.

Those are the facts!

Keep on living in your world of revisionist history, Debater.

The rest of us will keep up the battle in the real world.

Riding victories are measured by how many points there is between you and your next competitor - Justin won Papineau by 10 points in 2011.  That is the way most people refer to his victory - as an increase from 2008 when he only won by about 4 points.

Those are the facts, David Young.  I'm just explaining to you the way victories are measured.  I realize here on Rabble you do it by counting in a different way, but that's not the way it works in the 'real world' of politics.

Example, article by Joan Bryden:

in the 2011 election, in which he managed to increase his margin of victory in the teeth of an NDP tidal wave that swept much of the rest of the province.

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/533914/trudeau-wants-to-empower-backbenc...

--

Example, article by Rebecca Lindell:

Trudeau first won the nomination and then the election in Papineau, beating Bloc Quebecois incumbent Vivian Barbot. His second election saw Trudeau increase his margin of victory as the Liberal party languished. 

http://www.globalnews.ca/whispers+from+the+past+echo+in+trudeaus+present...

--

Example, article by David Akin:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/01/justin-trudeau-could-win-on-popular...

in 2011, when the Orange Wave was sweeping Quebec, the blue-collar, slightly sovereignist Papineau riding should have been the first to jump on Jack Layton's bandwagon. Instead, Trudeau increased his margin of victory while many other Liberals were swamped and defeated.

So you cherry picked three articles from the internet to prove your point that the only metric that counts is the margin. One of them is Global News-not bad. Another is Metro-???? and finally Sun News-are you kidding?

And when you read them it is interesting. This one seems to be quoting Justin himself about the  importance of the margin.

"He said those lessons paid off in the subsequent election, in which he defeated a Bloc Quebecois incumbent, and again in the 2011 election, in which he managed to increase his margin of victory in the teeth of an NDP tidal wave that swept much of the rest of the province."

(Metro)

 

In this one the writer seems to misunderstand or did not know that Trudeau's vote decreased.

"Trudeau first won the nomination and then the election in Papineau, beating Bloc Quebecois incumbent Vivian Barbot. His second election saw Trudeau increase his margin of victory as the Liberal party languished."

Doesn't the writer realize that Liberal support "languished" in Justin's riding too-just not enough for him to lose?

 

Finally the writer from Sun says that Trudeaus's riding should have been the first to catch the orange wave. He compares Justin to Garneau. Of course he forgets to mention that in Justin's riding the NDP vote increased more in Justin's riding that in Garneau's riding. They did catch the wave in Justin's riding. Fortunately for him the NDP base was so pitifully small to begin with.

Even the cherry picked artiicles are not that overwhelming.

nicky

I think there is some truth in both sides of the debate about Justin Trudeau's electoral appeal in Papineau. Here are the figures for the last 3 elections;

 

2006; L 38.5 B 40.8 N 7.7

2008: L 41.5 B 38.7 N 8.7

2011: L 38.4 B 25.9 N 28.3

Let's compare how Trudeau did in the two elections he ran in with the overall Liberal Quebec vote.

In 2008 Trudeau gained 3% over Pettigrew's vote in '06. This is precisely the same rise as the Liberals throughout Quebec. The Bloq vote, however held up better in Papineau than overall: -2.1 vs -4.0.

Trudeau's performance in 08 can only be seen as average and the Bloq as a little better than average.

In '11, Trudeau's vote fell by 2.9% but the Liberals fell by 9.5% throughout Quebec. The Bloq in Papineau fell by 12.8 vs 14.7 throughout the province. The NDP rose by 19.6 in Paineau vs 30.7% in Quebec as a whole.

Trudeau substantially outperformed his party , the Bloq losses were comparable and the NDP gains more modest.

These comparables are of course between Papineau and Quebec as a whole. It might be more instructive to compare the trends in Montreal itself. I don't have those figures but I suspect that the Liberal vote held up better in Montreal than the rest of the province. Trudeau will still have  outperformed his party in Montreal but not by as much as in the entire province.

adma

Debater wrote:
Sorry, adma, but there's nothing 'silly' about the 'increased margin' that was discussed above.   They are not my words - they are stated in numerous articles by various journalists.  Did you even notice that it was not myself who wrote those articles?

So?  They're articles by journalists.  And to pitch in your tent, you don't even need such articles--they're crutches--all you need is the raw, original results.

And it's not to say that Trudeau wouldn't have increased his margin anyway--it's just that what *really* spiked the margin, in the end, wasn't just the overall stability-by-Quebec-2011-standards of his vote, it was the collapse of the Barbot Bloc vote into the NDP camp.  Pure statistical happenstance--though yes, playing "Trudeau Liberal strategist" for the moment, I'm not denying that said happenstance can be used to the candidate's favour.

Quote:
The rest of what you say is pure supposition - there was no attempt to 'save' Justin or sacrifice other ridings.  He won the riding decisively on his own merits because he is well-liked in his community and the voters chose him.  He did not win because of vote-splitting.  Babble is coming up with its own interpretation of events that differs from the mainstream views that I linked to above.

Did I deny that?  Look at the part before the "though how much of that" in my post.  And to repeat: it isn't that he won through vote splitting, it's that he won by the margin that he did through vote splitting.  There wasn't the "one clear opponent" (much less the "one clear incumbent opponent" circumstance that he faced in 2008. 

Ironically, you should be thanking the NDP for that--it may be the only case in Quebec where the Orange Crush wound up saving and bolstering rather than defeating a sitting Liberal!  Imagine that!

And besides, let's turn tables and substitute, for Justin, Svend Robinson in that NDP black hole year of 1993.  Because it may be not unrightly claimed that just like Justin in 2011, *he* won his riding "decisively on his own merits because he was well-liked in his community and the voters chose him."  Yet at the same time, and especially in that merciless year for all New Democrats, I'm not denying that "vote splitting" worked on his behalf, either--look: he won that year with barely a third of the vote, how could it be otherwise?  (And I'm not even denying the possibility that there may have been "reallocated resources" in Svend's end, either.)

It's a little bit of one, a little bit of the other, and a lot of why polling booth politics is so gosh-darned fun to follow.  (And it takes away the false-benefit accusatory stigma of the term "vote splitting".)

adma

jjuares wrote:
Finally the writer from Sun says that Trudeaus's riding should have been the first to catch the orange wave. He compares Justin to Garneau. Of course he forgets to mention that in Justin's riding the NDP vote increased more in Justin's riding that in Garneau's riding. They did catch the wave in Justin's riding. Fortunately for him the NDP base was so pitifully small to begin with.

Then again, Garneau had a reverse circumstance to explain the lesser NDP-vote increase: a star 2008 opponent, Anne Lagacé Dowson.

adma

nicky wrote:
These comparables are of course between Papineau and Quebec as a whole. It might be more instructive to compare the trends in Montreal itself. I don't have those figures but I suspect that the Liberal vote held up better in Montreal than the rest of the province. Trudeau will still have  outperformed his party in Montreal but not by as much as in the entire province.

Incumbency plays a part of course.  But if we may examine all "incumbent" Montreal-area Liberal seats...

=====================

Bourassa: 49.8 to 40.9

Brossard-La Prairie: 32.6 to 27.3

Honore-Mercier: 43.7 to 30.4

Lac-Saint-Louis: 46.4 to 34.1

La Salle-Emard: 40.6 to 26.6

Laval-Les Iles: 40.5 to 20.6 (retired incumbent may explain the sharper drop)

Mount Royal: 55.7 to 41.4

NDG-Lachine: 44.6 to 31.9

Papineau: 41.5 to 38.4

Pierrefonds-Dollard: 46.9 to 30.5

Saint-Laurent-Cartierville: 61.7 to 43.4

Saint-Leonard-Saint-Michel: 57.3 to 42.3

Westmount-Ville-Marie: 46.5 to 37.2

=======================

So, as you can see, as per Debater, Justin really did hold up better.  (But again, re Debater: present the stats.  Don't just present lame links to articles.)

David Young

The more times I see Debater trying to make points, the more I'm reminded of the Mark Twain quote...!

'Don't ever get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent!'

Or was it Will Rogers?

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

David, keep the personal attacks to yourself.

NorthReport

Worth reading, or worth re-reading if you have already read it.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a constant story about the collapse in NDP support. The narrative is strained however.

The NDP had support in the low thirties in 2011 and at some times since. This is the high water mark. Since then most polls put NDP support between 27% and 29% a drop of perhaps 3-5 percent depending on the poll. Still the "catastrophic" drop is reported over and over as this long and significant fall over the last year-- something more newsworthy than a change barely out of the margin of error.

There is of course the problem that some people may do the math and actually see that the drop is not enough to be significant. Or worse, they may as other parties fluctuate lead to similar reports as the Conservative support has fallen by about the same amount. The Liberals having had a real catastrophe have recovered marginally to a few points above where they were. If Trudeau is unable to be the magical Sun Prince then, this rhetoric could sting when it comes round.

The media parading this propaganda as well face risks of being taken less and less seriously, something that should be alarming for them given their current need to convince people to pay for what they have been receiving for free over the last few years.

So the numbers themselves are quite unremarkable except when you consider the fairly little change that has really occurred over the last two years. What is more interesting is the nature of the poll propaganda and how stories are being made up in the face of numbers that are fairly clearly showing a stalemate.

As I have said before, polls now are likely to overemphasize those with more interest in being counted at a time when few are responding to political polls. Once people regain attention, the hope of the propaganda artists is that they will believe the "catastrophic drop in NDP support" before they see the real numbers. This drop is as we, who have been paying attention, only wishful thinking on behalf of Liberals and Conservatives. Interesting of course as well is that the NDP increased support by three times as much before it was newsworthy but a minor correction downwards is some story that must accompany breathless headlines.

The NDP will have to create momentum to respond to this very significant propaganda campaign. And it will have to protect and increase its support but for now the propaganda itself is interesting to see. The desperation is clear. Two years in and there are few measurable signs of Liberal recovery in spite of the Princeling and some modest erosion of Conservative support that, if continued will take the Conservatives out of office.

There is also a real demonstration of the need to take poll numbers with a grain of salt (last week one poll had the Liberals at near 40% and another at 21% both claiming regular margin-of-error accuracy. On the other hand you would need a truckload of salt to interpret the rhetoric and article titles about polls that often directly contradict the numbers reported.

Let the entertainment continue in this not-so-much reality show.

 

Ippurigakko

Ekos feb 10

CON 29.3% (-2.6)
NDP 26.3% (+0.5)
LIB 24.6% (+0.2)
GRN 9.5% (+1.1)
BQ 7.2% (+0.5)

approve

JTrudeau 33%

Mulcair and Harper tied 28%

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_on_february_1...

 

 

NorthReport

Here we go with the mumbo-jumbo again.

Just take a gander at what the actual polls have been saying, as opposed to what political pundits in the mainstream press have to say, as we know very well who they are pimping for.

 

Date / Poll / NDP / Cons / Libs / BQ / Ind / Grn / Vacant / Total

Nov 25 /12 / BE / 101 / 165 /  35 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 308

Sep '12 / -- / 100 / 163 / 35 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 3 / 308

May '11 / GE / 103 / 166 / 34 / 4 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 308

Nov '08 / GE / 37 / 143 / 77 / 49 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 308

 

Popular Vote - alphabetically by pollster and then chronologically

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

May '11 / Gen Ele / 31% / +13% / 40% / + 2% / 19% / -7% / 7% / -3% / 4% / -3%


Abacus Polling

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge 

Feb '13 / Abacus / 31% / -1% / 35% / +1% / 21% / -1%

Dec '12 / Abacus / 32% / +3% / 34% / -2% / 22% / -- / 

Nov '12 / Abacus / 29% /  -6% / 36% / +1%  / 22%/ +5%

Sep '12 / Abacus / 35% / +3% / 35% / -2% /  17% / -3%

Aug '12 / Abacus / 32% / -3% / 37% / +2% / 20% / Flatlined

Previous election accuracy rating = -18

Average* / Abacus /  31% / -1% / 35% / -1% / 22% / +2% /

 

Angus Reid

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Jan '13 / Anus Reid / 29% / -4% / 35% / Flat / 22% / +3% /

Jan '13 / Angus Reid / 33% / - 2% /  35% / +1% / 19% / 0% /

Jun '12 / Angus Reid / 35% / --- / 34% / --- / 19% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating = -9

Average* / Angus Reid / 32% / -- / 35% / -- / 20% / -- / 

 

EKOS

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Feb '13 / EKOS / 26% / -- / 29% / -3% / 25% / +1% / 7% / ?? / 10% / ?? - tks Ippurigakko

Dec '12 / EKOS / 26% / -6% / 32% / +2% / 24% / +4% / 
Jul '12 / EKOS / 32% / -0.1% / 30% / +0.9% / 20% / +0.3%

Jun '12 / EKOS / 29% / --- / 29% / --- / 19% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating = -6

Average* / EKOS / 28% / -- / 30% / -- / 23% / -- /

 

Environics

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Sep '12 / Environics / 35% / Flatlined/ 31% / -2% / 20% / Flatlined / 9% / +2%

Jun '12 / Environics / 35% / --- / 33% / --- / 19% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating = -16

Average* / Environics / 35% / -- / 32% / -- / 20% / -- /

 

Forum

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Jan '13 / Forum / 28% / -- / 35% / +4% / 25% / +1% / 7% / ?? / 4% / 07% / ?? / 04% /

Dec '12 / Forum / 28% / -- / 31% / -2% / 24% / -4%

Nov '12 / Forum / 28% / -- / 33% / -- / 28% / -- / 6% / -- / 4% / -- 

Oct '12 / Forum / 32% / +2% / 31% / -1% / 27% / +2% / 6% /  

Sep '12 / Forum / 30% / -4% / 35% / +1% / 25% / +3%

Previous election accuracy rating = -7

Average* / Forum /28% / -- / 33% / -- / 26% / -- /

 

Harris Decima

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Sep 10 /  Harris Decima / 27% / -5% / 34% / +3% / 24% / +1%

Jun 18 / Harris Decima / 32% / --- / 31% / --- / 23% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating =  -13

Average* / Harris Decima /30% / -- / 32% / -- / 24% / --

 

Ipsos Reid

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Nov 15 / Ipsos Reid / 30% / -- / 34% / -- / 26% / -- 

Jun 21 / Ipsos-Reid / 38% / --- / 35% / --- / 18% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating =  -9

Average* / Ipsos Reid/  34% / -- / 35% / -- / 22% / -- /

 

Leger Marketing

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Dec '12 / Leger / 30% / -- / 35% / -- / 18% / -- / 

Previous election accuracy rating = 

Average* /  Leger / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- /


Nanos Research

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Feb '13 / Nanos / 27% / -- / 34% / -- / 28% / -1% / 4.6% / -??/ 4.7% / ?? 

Nov 22 '11 / Nanos / 27% / -- / 34% / -- / 29% /-- 

Oct 15 / Nanos / 28% / -2% / 33% / +1% / 30% / +5% / 5% /

Sep 9 / Nanos / 30% / +0.1% / 32% / -1.2% / 25%/ -1.9%

Previous election accuracy rating = -7

Average* / Nanos / 28% / -- / 34% / -- / 29% / -- / ?? / ?? / ?? / ??

 

* Average is based on the Pollster 3 most recent polls if available. Add them up and divide by 3 - it is quite simple but reduces the "herding" aspect around election time.

--------------


 

 

 

 

Debater

Mulcair’s plan to replace Clarity Act not gaining traction with Canadians, provincial NDP leaders

 

Federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair isn’t getting much support from his provincial counterparts for his controversial approach to national unity – and a new poll may help explain why.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests almost three-quarters of Canadians don’t buy Mr. Mulcair’s assertion that a bare majority of 50 per cent plus one vote should be sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec secession.

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulcairs-plan-to-replace-cl...

Slumberjack

The Grope will tailor it's reasoning to suit the advancement of a particular narrative as usual, but I'd suspect there are more reasons as to why people aren't buying into Mulcair.  If the devil you know is already up to their necks in doing many of the things the devil you don't know is associating itself with, then the reasoning may simply consist of an apathetic shrug that says six of one, half a dozen of the other, with favourable percentage breaks being handed to the ruling gang because at least they're experienced at what they do.  The work of rolling the public into an alley is not lightly given over just like that to amateurs who merely say they’ll do just as good of a job of it.

Debater

Posted by David Akin -- Vancouver Sun A1 lead today: Justin Trudeau most trusted politician:

 

Justin Trudeau - 39%

Stephen Harper - 36%

Thomas Mulcair - 33%

 

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/303506673996271620

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Posted by David Akin -- Vancouver Sun A1 lead today: Justin Trudeau most trusted politician:

 

Justin Trudeau - 39%

Stephen Harper - 36%

Thomas Mulcair - 33%

 

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/303506673996271620

Debater, so, what`s you point. No one knows who he is. Enjoy it Mac, it isn`t going to last.

Slumberjack

My layperson's reading of this popularity contest is that individually, up to 67% do not trust any of these three, which would hold as well for up to 75% in combinations of two of the available selections, with respect to the odd one out.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

SJ, nailed it! Man, I am a dummy!

NorthReport

I wouldn't waste much energy on also-rans, or Cons in Liberal clothing, as it is the NDP that is going to take the Cons down, and no one else. Best thing to do presently is to ignore most of the silly noise that is circulating these days.

 

Just three points separate Conservatives, NDP: EKOS poll

 

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/18/just-three-points-separate-conservati...

 

Debater

The numbers are even better for Justin Trudeau in the Toronto area, which bodes well for the Liberals and voters who want to undo the effect of the NDP vote-splitting that elected so many Conservatives in the GTA in 2011.

 

TORONTO - TRUST

 

Justin Trudeau - 55%

Stephen Harper - 48%

Thomas Mulcair - 37%

 

http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/trust.jpg?w=300&h=518

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

The numbers are even better for Justin Trudeau in the Toronto area, which bodes well for the Liberals and voters who want to undo the effect of the NDP vote-splitting that elected so many Conservatives in the GTA in 2011.

 

TORONTO - TRUST

 

Justin Trudeau - 55%

Stephen Harper - 48%

Thomas Mulcair - 37%

 

http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/trust.jpg?w=300&h=518

Boring.

NorthReport

Why the federal conservatives are falling in the polls

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/21/why_the_federal_con...

Debater

Justin Trudeau could help Liberals regain Ontario: Poll

 

Justin Trudeau could help federal Liberals take back their traditional stronghold in Ontario if he were chosen leader this spring, according to a new poll.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/22/justin_trudeau_could_help_...

NorthReport

If this and if that - just another push poll.

Wake us up when Justin has been leader for a year and then we will see

 Premier Shawn Graham addresses supporters at the curling club in Rexton, N.B., on Monday, Sept. 27, 2010. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan Ex-N.B. Liberal premier Shawn Graham quits politics after conflict of interest report

This is the federal polling thread and your post is like me suggesting here that the above story is going to help the Mulcair-led NDP federally

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Justin Trudeau could help Liberals regain Ontario: Poll

 

Justin Trudeau could help federal Liberals take back their traditional stronghold in Ontario if he were chosen leader this spring, according to a new poll.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/22/justin_trudeau_could_help_...

Gloater, you are SO boring!

Sean in Ottawa

There are many techniques for getting the polling results you want. Shall I share a few?

First if you know the issues that your party or candidate does best on then ask questions about those first-- it will put your candidate or party up on the polls significantly. I watched this happen with environmental questions which were not important but coming before the political question boosted the Green party.

Another way to do this -- really easy to do during a leadership race -- is to ask lots of questions about the party having a leadership race. The result will be that people interested in that race will stay on and the others will tend to hang up. At the end of those surveys you ask the voting intention question and then can announce that the party you supported did very well.

Another more passive way is just to ask the political questions anytime during the race. More than 99% of people refuse to answer pollsters (they hang up, don't answer or answer and refuse). This is known by any pollster as they dial thousands and thousands of numbers (sample) just to get enough answers. Under some circumstance this is okay-- when the people who answer have the same breakdown of opinions as those who don't. But of course that is not true during a leadership race. During a leadership race you have the supporters or potential supporters of one party tuned in and motivated-- some even wanting to be polled to get their choice out to help their candidate. The other parties' supporters are more tuned out-- sure some political junkies are always tuned in but a good number don't want to think about politics never mind be polled for the purpose of political operatives of a party they do not support trying to gauge support for one candidate or another.

Bottom line is the relative support of other parties declines during a leadership campaign as more motivated supporters of that party poll at higher rates and the others at lower rates. This may explain why the Conservatives are also apparently down perhaps more than they really are.

Debater of course is looking for good news. Certainly with Just-In-Time he has some-- the base is motivated. People are talking about the party. The distorted polls can sometimes engineer a honeymoon or real interest that can float the leader and party a bit after a leadership victory. But it would be a mistake to assume that this will continue-- it may but it also may not.

Just-In-Time has sucked the air out of the room for any other political discussion -- but that is only because there was not much air to begin with. There have been few initiatives new to the scene in the last few months. In a month there will be a budget. Right when Just-In-Time is crowned there will be an ongoing budget debate. It may have the effect of having more people involved politically than the current mostly Liberal audience. If that is the case the Conservatives will be able to report that they have gained support in the polls because of their budget and the NDP will be up as well. Just-In-Time will have to compete with more people paying attention than are currently.Of course it won't be true that either the NDP or the Cons will be up-- it will just be that their supporters will once again be more willing to talk to pollsters.

Then of course Just-In-Time will be one of the federal leaders. As the leader of the third party he will not get away with platitudes but will have to take more and more positions if he wants to get heard. Fluff will be reported only by a few Liberal friendly media but mostly it will get ignored even when reported. The third party lacks the ability to engineer news in the way the government can.

Want to know if Just-In-Time has really made a difference to Liberal fortunes? you will need to wait until late in the fall session -- after the budget, after the Christmas break and after the fall economic statement or whatever else is going on. Then you will see an opening position that could well change during an election either towards or against Just-In-Time but it will be more real than today.

So for now this is an opening for Debater to enjoy his fantasy news in the hope that it may become reality but in the knowledge that it may not and his beloved party could still be targeting oblivion. No point debating Debater on that point-- a good astrologer would be the only reference. The NDP has work to do to prepare and communicate policies that resonate with Canadians, promote the values of the NDP and introduce and promote the leadership of the party's fine furry friend. For other progressives their task will be to hold Mulcair to account and press for the specific policies they want hoping someone will adopt them and represent them in the House.

socialdemocrati...

It's as simple as the Hawthorne effect.

"How would your vote change if X Party had a new hat?"

New hat? 5% jump!

And none of the Canadian pollsters are up front about their methodology or voting screens. Which is telling, considering how far off the mark some are compared to others.

Debater

Justin Trudeau's Ontario Poll Numbers Suggest He Could Win Province

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/26/justin-trudeau-ontario-poll_n_27...

NorthReport

If this happed, that might possibly happen. Let's perhaps wait until something actually happens.

And Trudeau's buddy Garneau hardly thinks Justin is up to the task.

NorthReport

Not quite.

There is method in their madness. These Liberal party supporters want their entitlements. If the Liberals were ever to gain power again, God forbid,  the vast majority of this shrinking Liberal support base are looking for government jobs, or want government handouts (read: contracts). Many of these so-called supporters are probably lawyers, and we need more lawyer influence in our society like we need a hole in the head.

clambake wrote:

 This blind loyalty to the Liberal brand is insane.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

From Merriam Webster:

"patholgoical - being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal" - "This blind loyalty to the Liberal brand is insane". Anyone see a connection here?

This is actually what you hear about we New Dems every time you have a discussion with a LPC partisan. Today I had a Lib tell me that he didn't want another paternalistic Tory or New Demcratic government? What? Multiculturalism, the Great Society, Billingualism, CPP, Medicare, arguably Liberal ideas for most if not all. How are these in theri essential in at least a sense paternalistic? This is the kind of blindness that is typical of a Lb Partisan. Cutting taxes to stimulate growth, cutting the deficit for the good of the nation, etc., etc, etc. Is this isn't adherance to some kind of pathology, I don't know what is.

The real tell is the conversations such as Clambake had as he related. Well anything is better then Harper, agreed, but that anything really is a LPC PM led government. This is the result of a pathoglical preoccupation with the idea of a LPC that never was, combined a pathological ability to erase the reality of the LPC record of governance from their own minds. To be told that we are ideological, self focused, and self-righteous, is to say the least, rich. But this LPC partisan pathology allows this kind of argument to surface and be made by LPC partisans. Canadians are Centerist, they proclaim. Don't you see it; they WANT the LPC, we ARE the center! No one else. Followed to its logical conclustion, the conluding statement is Canada NEEDS the LPC. Canada NEEDS Trudeau.

Why anyone who actually thinks would be surprised by this peculiar patholgoy of Candian, Large L "Liberalism", is beyone me. I hear what Clambake is saying. They are going to sound this old siren song yet again, hoping to once more dupe Canadians and use their fear of Harper to vault to power. As NR said earlier on, maybe in this thread, "who could possibly more entitled to his entitlements then a Trudeau?"

This is a patholgoy which needs to be diagnosed, exposed, and cured.

Brachina

He's not Harper is the best the Justin's got? That's pathetic.

If someone asked me why I support Mulcair I can point to years of experience, the imtergity he possessed in standing up to Charest, the years fighting for national unity, his changes to Quebec's constitition to add the enviroment, his courage in confronting economic challenges like Dutch Disease, his work on keeping Harper to account on issues from the F-35s, to Penisons, government leaks, omnibudgets, to corrupt senators, to keeping his word on the Sherbrook declaration, to his ideas like Cap and Trade, increasing corporate taxes, making sure hald of appoints to federal boards are women, and a crap load more.

Yet the best they can come up for Justin is he's not Harper!

My Cats not Harper either, quick lets make Shadow (my cat) Prime Minster! He's even prettier then Justin, and just like Justin he like to chase shiny objects! The means my cat's qualified to run the country, right?

SHADOW FOR PRIME MINISTER!

Whose with me?

Pages

Topic locked