Polling thread Beyond the Infinite Edition Volume 6
December 18, 2009 - 6:29am
This has been started because volume 5 is getting close to the magic "100 posts" mark.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Continued from HERE:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/infinite-edition-polling-threa...
Gee, what a surprise!
Gordon Campbell most unpopular premier in Canada, poll showshttp://www.straight.com/article-275943/vancouver/gordon-campbell-most-unpopular-premier-canada-poll-shows
With all the trouble Harper has been having recently, these sure seem like pretty dismal numbers for the Liberals.
EKOS
Dec 17/09 / Last election
C - 35.9% / 37.6%
L - 26.7% / 26.2%
N - 17% / 18.2%
Harper - 32%, down 2%
Layton - 29%, up 5%
Ignatieff - 15%, up 3%
Harper Down, Rivals Improve in Canadahttp://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34694/harper_down_rivals_improve_in_canada/
Nik Nanos has the NDP at 18.7% to finish out the year (+2.1%), the Greens at 4% (he says NC in the blogpost, but the numbers show -1.9%), and the undecided unusually high, with Ignatieff's leadership numbers falling another 15.8 percentage points this quarter, below Jack Layton.
This just came out late tonight, and the detailed numbers for the horserace question are now on the site. [ETA: I just found the full report here as well (opens PDF).] Because of the very high undecided, the decided sample is just 745, and so the regional numbers have huge margins of error. Here's a precis of what he's also reporting on his blog:
Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between November 7th and November 10th, 2009.
National Decided Voters Only (n=745)
Conservative 39.5% (-0.3)
Liberal 30.2% (+0.2)
NDP 18.7% (+2.1)
BQ 7.7% (-1.2)
Green 4.0% (NC)
Undecided 25.7% (+8.2) of all voters surveyed
Leadership Index Questions: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between September 3rd and September 11th, 2009.
National (n=1,003)
The Most Trustworthy Leader
Stephen Harper: 29.3% (-2.0)
Michael Ignatieff: 10.9% (-3.1)
Jack Layton: 16.4% (+2.7)
Gilles Duceppe: 6.3% (-1.5)
Elizabeth May: 4.6% (-3.4)
None of them/Undecided: 32.6% (+7.4)
The Most Competent Leader
Stephen Harper: 35.3% (+0.8)
Michael Ignatieff: 13.3% (-7.1)
Jack Layton: 10.8% (+0.2)
Gilles Duceppe: 5.7% (+1.1)
Elizabeth May: 2.3% (NC)
None of them/Undecided: 32.6% (+8.7)
The Leader with the Best Vision for Canada's Future
Stephen Harper: 30.0% (-2.3)
Michael Ignatieff: 14.8% (-5.6)
Jack Layton: 14.0% (-0.6)
Gilles Duceppe: 3.4% (-0.6)
Elizabeth May: 2.8% (-0.9)
None of them/Undecided: 34.9% (+10.0)
Leadership Index Score
Stephen Harper: 94.6 (-5.1)
Michael Ignatieff: 39.0 (-15.8)
Jack Layton: 41.2 (+2.3)
Gilles Duceppe: 15.4 (-3.2)
Elizabeth May: 9.7 (-4.3)
Here is the latest EKOS poll from CBC.
"The margin of error associated with the survey is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."
They should have added that the Green Party results are incorrect 20 times out of 19!!
I was just looking at the data for this poll. One of the days it shows the Greens at almost 20 per cent amongst decided voters nationally (Just 6 points behind the Liberals).
Hard to put much credence of any kind in a poll that is that wonky. Even the most dedicated Green I know would never buy into that sort of number. I'll wait until a crediable polling company releases a poll to see if there is any kind of trend happening for anyone.
Ekos is much like Robinson Research. Taken with a grain of salt. It is troubling that the CBC bothers to report this polster. Perhaps one time Ekos was legitimate or their methodology was more accurate but this poll is a joke.
Lets see, Nanos has the Greens at 4% which is around where they ended up in the by elections. Not bad.
These clowns at Ekos have their Green Party numbers so out to lunch that when I posted it on another forum everyone started laughing. Its time to toss the whole Ekos mess into the bit bucket. Good for a laugh though.
I already explained the reason for these results in post 6 here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/infinite-edition-polling-t...
The assumptions people make about these polls are mostly inaccurate-- As I said more poeple vote than will answer polls-- increasingly those who answer polls will be core activists and polls may in fact measure their enthusiasm more than voting intentions of ordinary people. I have long believed (from working in the polling industry at one time and even hearing the calls first hand) that polling results are not skewed by having people respond and then vote differently but by the undersampling of ordinary people who vote for other parties. The Greens are the opposite of what people think they are because people misread the polls. They are by and large a smaller band of very committed supporters who appear oversampled in polls because they want to participate and other less committed supporters of other parties who are nonetheless willing to vote are undersampled. There are a large number of people who automatically vote Liberal -- left over from default natural governing party stuff-- but many of these would not bother to talk to a pollster. This is why the Liberals traditionally are underrepresented in the polls and other parties a bit over. As I have said the Cons break even. The NDP is also oversampled at times for the same reason. Unfortunately the NDP also suffers from the same misreading that gives rise to theories of NDP desertion to the Liberals at the last minute after many elections-- I think that just does not happen in large numbers people think. Those who vote Liberal but have inner NDP sympathy usually make their decisions much earlier and not the last weekend but pollsters want to explain last minute "shifts" as something other than problems with method (which in this case I think are chronic and unresolvable).
Nanos shows Green Support at 4%
EKos at 13.6%.
I disagree with you analysis even though you have experience in the field. Why are "Green supporters" less likely to answer Yes to the Green Party in a Nanos Poll and more likely in an Ekos Poll?
The margin is HUGE!!! Two polsters with a difference of 9% is massive.
One polster is wrong or are they both right???
If Sean's theory about Green supporters being so "committed" was true then I would have expected to see wayyyy better Green results in the four federal byelections in November where the overall turnout was so low.
Stockholm-- my point is they are very committed but there are actually much fewer of them so you would not see better results.
Even with low turnout -- As I said the vast number of voters will not talk to pollsters.
My explanation explains why you will always see a much lower Green vote in elections because their support simply does not exist ever in the numbers the polls report. It is not as if it does on the phone and evaporates later-- it was never there.
The logic of saying there is big support that goes away is illogical when you consider that pollsters go through over 99% refusals. There are certain characteristics to those who agree to answer surveys. Not all will be people who are very committed (there is a component of lonely people who will talk to anyone who calls) but far more than the general population so a party with a small highly committed support will poll higher proportionally than a party with about the same number of highly committed but many more who are not as zealous but still supportive.
It is also true that other respondents will be committed to their parties in greater number in a poll than on election day where over half of the eligible voters vote. But the other parties' activist voters match the less committed voters on election day more directly.
This also makes sense when you consider that the Greens are a party with few electoral prospects-- you have to be pretty committed to vote for them. The idea that there is over 10% of the voters out there considering voting Green is a myth created by over selection in polling. They do not exist. The folks who are pushing for mergers and cooperation and the like would be shocked as this is a small pool to start with.
Nanos shows Green Support at 4%
EKos at 13.6%.
I disagree with you analysis even though you have experience in the field. Why are "Green supporters" less likely to answer Yes to the Green Party in a Nanos Poll and more likely in an Ekos Poll?
The margin is HUGE!!! Two polsters with a difference of 9% is massive.
One polster is wrong or are they both right???
This one is easy to explain as well:
Polling methodology has a pile of other variables-- if you tell the people before you start the poll that it is a political poll you will self-select more of the highly committed people-- some polls do this and some do not. If you call at different times of the day you will get different results-- calling at 5pm will get people who work close to home or at odd hours-- calling at 7pm will get people who are urban transit users who were not home at 5pm. Some pollsters are more diligant about the demographics-- it is easier to reach people in rural areas than urban ones but you should not fill your sample with rural voters because they vote differently-- over sampling rural results will create a result where the Green and NDP vote is almost identical but sampling more urban will have a much higher NDP support rate-- the latter is a more expensive poll as you have to dial far more numbers in an urban exchange than rural to complete your survey.
Having other questions appear before the political preference can change the result and can be done on purpose. Most political polls are a part of omnibus polls. If you have polls about Greenpeace before the political question Greens will go up -- about finances and NDP and Conservative support will go up depending on how they are put.
If you saw how these polls are done you would have a lot less faith in the results than many do here.
BTW-- telling people it is a political poll will increase the numbers of people who will do the poll so many will do that. Problem is it creates a bias and more activists will agree-- not telling is more accurate but you have to call more places because most polls are about soap and shampoo and few people want to do those. It is considered bad tradecraft to bias your sample by telling them what the survey is about before starting but many do it if they have a topic that many people will want to answer. considering 99% refuse-- if you have a topic that 10% are extremely interested in then that can boost your response rate by ten times-- except with polls you are biasing your sample with the top 10% in committment-- and the Greens may represent 12% of that even though they only represent 3-4% of the general population.
Madmax-- you are on the right track though in interpreting these-- understanding the variations and knowning the difference on how the surveys are done is exactly the key to interpretting the results.
I have only touched on the types of variables used. Even where you buy your sample makes a difference-- how old and how many times used makes a difference and believe it or not changes the results in political questions-- cheapscate pollsters use older crappy sample because more people will do political polls and they can squeeze a survey out of poor sample. they also use trainee interviewers on those for the same reason--commercial polls like laundry soap will get the better interviewers because the surveys last longer and you have to bust more refusals. Company policies on fraud make a difference as well-- some political surveys are contaminated by dishonest interviewers pretending someone is on the line and making up answers-- better pollsters do more monitoring to catch that... many reasons.
Isn't it obvious to even the most casual observer that EKOS, CBC, etc, pimp for the Liberals - this poll is a farce.
Isn't it obvious to even the most casual observer that EKOS, CBC, etc, pimp for the Liberals
Even when they had a 15% Conservative lead?
Double post
Putting aside the issue of Green Party support for the moment, it appears that the Conservatives may have lost some ground in this poll, and that is what is most important.
Your theory may have some merit, but we still need an explanation of why Green supporters are more committed than the supporters of other parties.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
"the narrowing of the Conservative lead over the Liberals is the story"
Paul Wells
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/cbcekos-behold-the-ignuggernaut/
AR did a socio political poll today obviously commissioned by a right wingy group....
Hmm. All these people looking for a reason to not vote for Harper and the only one to supply that reason turns out to be Harper himself.
Sean, I find your analysis interesting, and I respect your knowledge of the trade. However, as I understand it, the major difference between the methodology of Nanos and the other major pollsters is that Nanos does not prompt with the names of parties, while the others do, and they include the Green Party in their list. Also, Nanos seems to consistently show much lower Green support than the others. To an amateur analyst like me, this implies that many of those who select Green in the non-Nanos polls are doing so not out of comittment, but as a way of saying "None of the above". Your hypothesis would imply that highly motivated Green supporters would be just as likely to answer Green without a prompt. So, are you suggesting that Nanos consistently under samples Green supporters, or is there some other explanation for the anomalously low Green numbers in Nanos polls?
Your theory may have some merit, but we still need an explanation of why Green supporters are more committed than the supporters of other parties.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
The are not-- people are still looking at the issue backwards. The Greens have a lower number of strongly committed supporters than other parties even in real numbers but relative to their size they have more. This is because they are small. I am sorry but this is a hard concept to explain: look at it this way-- it is the marginal supporters that they have fewer off that creates the phenomenon.
I'll make up some numbers just to illustrate the concept: Assume that support sits in three levels: core activist, committed voter and marginal.
Activist: The Greens have 3% core, the BQ 5% the NDP 5% the Liberals 7% and the Cons 15%-- these are the most committed 35% of voters.
Then the Greens have a further 1% fairly committed support, the NDP 8% the Liberals 11% and the Cons 12% the BQ 3%. These two account for 70% of the vote (we don't count non voters).
Then we have usual marginal support The Greens have 2% the NDP 3% the Cons 5% and the Liberals 9% BQ 1. This is now 90% of the vote and what we normally call a party's core=
To total Greens 6%, BQ 9% NDP 16%, Liberals 27% and Cons 32%. The balance of 10% decide the election.
Say the Cons get 7%, the Liberals 1, the NDP 1, the BQ 1 and the Greens perhaps nothing. This brings us to Cons 39%, Liberals 28% NDP 17 and the BQ 10% and the Greens 6%.
Each of those parties have different sizes of core votes and different numbers of additional votes they attract. The bigger the party the bigger the out levels of support get. But their core votes tend to be more even but you will see that the parties are not at all evenly distributed between marginal committed and core activist support. While the Greens are the lowest core support it is higher among the core voters than it is among all voters. In fact the Greens rarely get more than their true believers to the polls on election day. So if you sample all voters you get the grand total from my bottom line but if you only sample core voters you will see the Green much higher. It is not so much what the Greens have in the small core of support that is interesting -- it is that they lack the usual moderate support to bulk up those numbers (and they lack it because they are a no-chance party among other reasons). Other parties that have not much bigger cores are able to attract committed marginal and even some of the 10% swing voters but those people won't answer polls so the Greens get over represented.
A little complicated but if you read carefully you will see this works.
What is truly astonishing is that with all the disenchantment with the current government the Liberals are not able to mount a credible attack on the Conservatives.
Stoffer angry with Ignatieff
'Quiet' Liberals giving PM free rein
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1161021.html
Sean, I find your analysis interesting, and I respect your knowledge of the trade. However, as I understand it, the major difference between the methodology of Nanos and the other major pollsters is that Nanos does not prompt with the names of parties, while the others do, and they include the Green Party in their list. Also, Nanos seems to consistently show much lower Green support than the others. To an amateur analyst like me, this implies that many of those who select Green in the non-Nanos polls are doing so not out of comittment, but as a way of saying "None of the above". Your hypothesis would imply that highly motivated Green supporters would be just as likely to answer Green without a prompt. So, are you suggesting that Nanos consistently under samples Green supporters, or is there some other explanation for the anomalously low Green numbers in Nanos polls?
I don't think that the prompt issue is the significant one-- there are other differences in methodology. In fact you will see big differences betweeen pollsters who prompt as well.
In my last post I got in to a little of that.
Nanos says the Greens have lost 40% of their support since the last election and are now at 4%. They have only a quarter of the NDP support.
Ekos says the Greens have doubled their support and are now at 13.4%, only a couple points below the NDP.
Just nuts. Almost a 10% difference, a slice of the electorate that could actually decide the election.
Sean's explanation of a committed Green vote that eagerly participates in polling is intriguing but seems counter-intuitive to me. I always thought the Greens were less committed than the supporters of other parties. Certainly polling in the last election showed that they were more likely to shift. In fact this seems to have happened in the last days with the Green vote ratcheting down to 6.8% from a high of perhaps 11% in some polls in mid-campaign.
We are also told that the typical Green voter is younger, more disengaged from politics, more apathetic and therefore less likely to actually show up at the polling station.
Sean's theory also does not explain the 9.4% difference between the two polls. If Green voters are so keen to participate in polling why is this reflected in only one poll and not the other?
I think explaining this phenomenon is important. I personally would like to see the Greens fade away because I believe, as I have posted before, that they simply siphon off anti-Conservative votes into a losing effort. Polls that give them an artificially high score contribute to the false impression that they are actually contenders and shore up what support they actually have. It is therefore important for us to understand why the Greens poll so much more in some polls than others.
The prompting explanation seems the most promising one but I am not at all convinced. Has anyone done an analysis of this issue by comparing the various polls and their methodology? Has any one polling company run parallel polls at the same time, one that prompts for party names and one that doesn't? Are the results significantly different?
I have looked up the final polls for the last election and here are the numbers for the final Green predictions:
Ekos 9.6
Angus Reid 7
Nanos 8.2
Harris 9
Strategic Counsel 11
Ipsos Reid 8
Segma 10
Can anyone advise as to which of these polls prompt and which do not? Is there a correlation with a more accurate prediction of the Green vote?
Here's my understanding of the methodologies used by the different folks, but I could stand to be corrected. It's not only the prompting that influences things as others have noted, but whether they sample from online, landline phone, landline plus cell phone, and how hard they push to ensure urban voters are represented.
Ekos - phone (no ideas on the sampling representativeness, but they use both landline and cell); IVR technology (press 1 for X, 2 for Y, etc.; therefore prompting)
Angus Reid - online; I assume prompting
Nanos - phone (landline and cell); no prompting
Harris-Decima - phone; prompting (I can say this for sure, as they got me for one of their omnibus polls before Copenhagen)
Strategic Counsel - phone; I assume prompting
Ipsos-Reid - phone; I assume prompting
Segma - no idea
I believe Nanos is unique on the no-prompting thing. I think one of the pollsters uses a combination of online and phone. Perhaps others who are more knowledgeable can help.
Sean's explanation of a committed Green vote that eagerly participates in polling is intriguing but seems counter-intuitive to me. I always thought the Greens were less committed than the supporters of other parties. Certainly polling in the last election showed that they were more likely to shift. In fact this seems to have happened in the last days with the Green vote ratcheting down to 6.8% from a high of perhaps 11% in some polls in mid-campaign.
We are also told that the typical Green voter is younger, more disengaged from politics, more apathetic and therefore less likely to actually show up at the polling station.
Sean's theory also does not explain the 9.4% difference between the two polls. If Green voters are so keen to participate in polling why is this reflected in only one poll and not the other?
I think explaining this phenomenon is important. I personally would like to see the Greens fade away because I believe, as I have posted before, that they simply siphon off anti-Conservative votes into a losing effort. Polls that give them an artificially high score contribute to the false impression that they are actually contenders and shore up what support they actually have. It is therefore important for us to understand why the Greens poll so much more in some polls than others.
I agree explaining it is important but please sort your evidence more carefully. Your statement that starts with "I always thought" is based on unsupported statements that have been repeated over and over as if they were true based on an assumption: that assumption is that the polls were right and somehow the vote moved. What evidence do you have that those polls were ever right? That those legions of Green supporters the polls tell us about ever existed? The Pollsters have to say they are right and that the people change their minds. It is the only possible explanation they can give other than to admit they got it wrong. From there the myth of the uncommitted Green voter comes and is fed by piles of wishful thinking. Add to this the idea that answering a poll is easy so anyone will do it but they won't bother to go out and vote in spite of the evidence that only about 1% or fewer will respond to a poll yet nearly 60% will vote. Which do you think will have the true believers?
The idea that the Green support is younger is also exaggerated by a problem of methodology-- if younger people who support other parties are less likely to talk to pollsters then pollsters will exaggerate their impression of the numbers of young people supporting the Greens. Polls are only useful if you consider the implications of the refused. People don't fully understand this because they see small numbers of refused or do not know (DK responses). The reason is most refusals are call terminations which are not recorded. If I were to tell you that only a small number of people who heard what the poll was about agreed to answer-- you might want to ask yourself if there is anything different between the demographic of those who participate and those who don't especially considering that the number who refuse to participate is many times the number who participate.
It is amazing that people do not question the idea that whenever a pollster gets it wrong they just say- the vote moved. Maybe that is becasue we want to beleive that the polls have it right because we are entertained by them. But the more logical conclusion is that they do not get it right and in our more complicated communications world are finding it harder and harder to do so-- they want to find simple explanations to manage the huge differences in the Green vote other than to say that the sample sizes are now way to small given the changes that have happened in the industry and the public.
Now here is a statistic-- in terms of methodology-- all the pollsters but one have a methodology that allows self selection based on the content of the poll-- allowing political junkies activists to over represent themselves. The one exception works from a preset invitation list of people willing to do polls in exchange for points or prizes -- and they do polls on everything. This pollster also has no variation in the approach because it is neutral through the internet. This pollster does prompt for Greens yet this pollster is the one that you, Nicky showed predicted the lowest and most accurate Green numbers: this is Angus Reid. Seems your data supports my argument better than those who disagree with me.
I know this is hard because the fiction has been repeated many times over and those who have an economic interest-- those who sell the results (the media) and those who create them (pollsters), to convince you that the polls are right and the differences are last minute shifts or a lack of commitment.
Polls are only useful if you consider the implications of the refused. People don't fully understand this because they see small numbers of refused or do not know (DK responses). The reason is most refusals are call terminations which are not recorded. If I were to tell you that only a small number of people who heard what the poll was about agreed to answer-- you might want to ask yourself if there is anything different between the demographic of those who participate and those who don't...
Its not like they dont control for this.
Which is why whenever I agree to be polled, when I'm asked my age, they stop right there.
And for every larger company that does polling, if they do not adequately control for such distortions, they will shown to be inaccurate. The majority of people paying for polling pay attention to all this.
They cannot control for this--
What you are thinking of is another matter.
When you set up a poll there are so many open surveys allowed and as you fill them you close those. The easiest group to fill will be older demographics. They also have limits for women, area codes etc. Depending on how much you pay they will be more rigid on those-- and when the poll is nearly done to get it finished they may blow open all the demographical limits to get it done. Some of the regionals make huge differences and I can tell you that how tough you are on these makes a huge difference. What these closed demographics means is you ahve to keep calling and refusing people who would agree to do the poll who do nto fit the what you are looking for-- this is done by changing the script so when the poll has many closed demos the script might be changed from asking for an adult to asking for an adult between 18 and 24 if that is all you have left (that is by far the most difficult age demo to fill).
But I was not talking about the difference between respondents in measurable categories-- men or women or age. I was talking about the unmeasurable difference between the class of people who will talk to pollsters and the class who won't. You would be naive to think there is no difference. People who talk to pollsters include the lonely, the curious, the heavily opinionated who want to share, the political activists who want a chance to be counted. Those who do not talk to pollsters include those who are unavailable or not at home at prime polling times, use different communications technology than the pollsters (not on the internet or not on a land line), those fed up with calls, those who are very busy or have commitments like family, those whoa re extra suspicious of calls, those who are impatient, those who do not like to hear people with accents (many people doing these calls are speaking English as a second language), those who do not speak English and can't manage the call (many older immigrants). The pollsters do not have access to these people even though they are the vast majority. Pollsters pretend that the ones they reach are representative of the ones they don't and depending on the issue that can be the case-- but when it comes to political preferences there are far too many variables for there not to be differences. Pollsters cannot factor out inaccuracies based on the fact the group that will answer their questions is not completely representative. They can only try to balance the groups that will speak to them by asking and closing full demographic categories however even this is about quality as there is a cost to that and some will do more of it than others but their polls are more expensive to do and therefore cost more.
There is also the public error issue-- many people are simply not good listeners and actually tell pollsters the opposite of what they mean because they don't hear the question properly-- we used to see this often in monitoring but could do nothing about it because the person gave that response. (You can tell when answers are inconsistent or contradictory.) The poll cannot be more intelligent than those interviewed. For example you might ask who would you vote for the NDP lead by Jack Layton the Conservatives lead by Harper etc and then get a response-- The NDP because I like Steven Harper-- well that does not make sense but you would record the NDP because that was the answer.
I am sharing this information because I think there are many misconceptions about how polls are done and presumptions that every variable can be accounted for and it simply can't-- and the problems are increasing.
I happen to like Angus Reid because I think a stable of willing respondents is better than individual self selection based on a specific poll, I agree that an internet delivery is more neutral and read questions are more likely to be understood accurately than heard ones.
There are far better things to focus on than prompting or not for Green voters--there are not that many people who will select a party preference only if they hear it but otherwise would forget who they would choose to vote for. I am sure some exist but not enough to bias a survey-- people here have for some reason latched on to this one methodological difference but it really is way, way, overblown and the stats Nicky put out above prove that. I can also say that often when a poll is done badly it has more than one problem so there is seldom one smoking gun problem. And with low sample sizes -- people need to take seriously the 19 times out of 20 statement-- even if you do everything perfectly (and you can't) and even if you disregard the differences between those polled and those who refuse or can't talk to pollsters, you will still get it wrong infrequently, but regularly.
It is amazing how many people talk about polling here as if they are experts and actually know almost nothing about it except armchair theories that become popular only out of repetition rather than evidence-- and that often aided by wishful thinking and the propaganda of those who sell the service. Poll interpretation is itself an art and experts are hired for the purpose by all parties. Please continue to speculate but keep an open mind, debate based on evidence and watch the false presumptions that are based on nothing but constant repetition.
I am pleased that we are debating what polls really are about here because they are mentionned so often I think this discussion is overdue.
New Angus Reid poll:
Con 36% (-2)
Lib 29% (+6)
NDP 16% (-1)
BQ 11% (-)
Grn 6% (-4)
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2009.12.14_Poli...
Polls are driven by general perceptions and those remain unchanged:
People do not like Harper-- but they never did-- people support him because they think he is the best there is-- a campaign to get people not to like Stephen Harper won't work because it was not out of affection that he ever got support-- you have to go after issues of competence and have an alternative to shake those numbers. Indeed people may be ready to leave the Cons but they are still waiting for the means. The party wants a majority but is limited by its ideology. And if you look to Alberta you can see their greatest threat -- if they even found a way to move far enough to capture the centre a new rightwing federal party would come out of the same place that the Wild Rose has provincially. There is no way of reconciling the political views of the centre and the right in the same party. At some point perhaps Harper is realizing this-- he is also becoming expert at coopting parliament with a minority and may no longer feel the need for a majority which would only open the potential for division in his own party. Of course he can never say that publicly- or even privately on camera.
Ignatieff is rising in the polls out of some people's anger at Harper but this is limited because he isn't convincing anyone that he is ready for the top job. Ignatieff's leadership is over-- not recoverable. It is hard to say how long it will take for the Liberal party to figure this out along with what to do about it. Canadians have written him off. His only salvation would come by accident- an amazing political opportunity but time is running out there.
People care about their finances most and the fear of the NDP and taxes has not been overcome. The NDP as always has to prove it is responsible (even when others are getting away with not being).
The BQ is limited by geography, potential, and national aspirations-- it goes up and down in a limited range with some votes heavily committed and some who feel they can't accept any of the alternatives.
The Greens cannot break 10% even after Copenhagen-- they are competing with the NDP which is active on the environment and not really making any headway-- they are seen as one-note singers and that won't get them in to the double digits no matter how important their issue is.
I suspect most voters are fed up and open to alternatives but most parties seem unable to break from their usual patterns.
The NDP which is the one I am most interested in must find a way to appear less scripted and deliver confidnce in its management and fiscal policy in order to make progress. There is simply no other way.
Thank you very much, Sean, for taking the time to share your expertise. The detailed discussion of polling reality is very interesting, and to me at least, very helpful in understanding which conclusions are valid and which are not.
Yes, thanks, Sean. Your contributions are really valuable, and I appreciate that you take a lot of time to explain your point of view.
Let me add my thanks Sean
I think the most important part of any polling will be seeing how far the Conservatives get knocked. Polling for any of the opposition, and yes this would include a sudden spike for the NDP too, won't matter that much because it will mostly be a parked vote. Liberals beware of getting to much false wind from this because Canadians are not very warmed to you Leader much more than Harper. There seems to be a pox on all their houses thing going on and it will take an election to sort out some real numbers.
I also think is that this is the exact moment the NDP needs to do something bold. It has to take place before the Olympics so that the ground work is laid to really hammer it home after they are over because now is a time when people are engaged to some extent. Jack needs to pop back up soon and start really laying it out there in an honest heartfelt way about a vision that is different for the country than what we are getting. He can do it, I've seen him do it. If that means suggesting they will work directly with others to remove Harper so be it. The Liberals need also to grow a back bone and not run and hide if there is strong reaction from the Con 30 per cen hard core vote.
As Nellie McClung famously said Never retract, never explain, never apologize - get the thing done and let them howl
Thank you!
I agree with you BA--good post.
I do not think we should be talking coalition right now-- that will turn people off but the opposition ought to be able to find agreement on some things-- meet and discuss with Harper, agree on what is wrong with the government, perhaps issue some jointly produced and paid for ads about the government. If the opposition can play nice with each other-- without going so far as the scary coalition talk at this point-- then people will notice and play the which party is different game and realize that the one not making parliament work is Harper. Joint press conferences that make no proposals for government but comment on what is heppening and what they can do as an opposition that happens to have a majority in the house. If they did this for a while by Spring people might warm up to them as government and grass roots movements to pressure them to ask for that role could spring up. That said there will be no coalition before an election that's a given at this point. The opposition can make an incredibly powerful point if they can cooperate on several things over a sustained period without it being a grab for power. They can kick each other in the election that will follow once Harper is proven to be a problem.
New Angus Reid poll:
Con 36% (-2)
Lib 29% (+6)
NDP 16% (-1)
BQ 11% (-)
Grn 6% (-4)
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2009.12.14_Poli...
Interesting. That's the biggest jump the Liberals have seen in a poll in a long time - up 6 points.
But I agree with a couple of the comments above that the Liberals need to be aware that their increase in the polls this month comes because of the voters' distaste for Harper rather than any overwhelming love for the Liberal Party right now.
The Liberals still need to demonstrate effective leadership and actually develop some policies and ideas if they want Canadians to vote for them.
that poll is over a month old...btw I'm posting very little these days as i'm on holiday in Argentina...I'm sure you all miss me!
Yeah it's weird that they are calling it a new poll since it is from a month ago, but it's the most recent one they did.
Perhaps the Conservatives are even lower now considering that the poll was taken before the recent Prorogation scandal.
AR did one on Thursday through Friday so look for it next week, if the numbers are supportive in anyway for Harper, if not who knows, as it was definitely commissioned by someone on the right....
As they are IMV, apparently looking to smoke screen his mess with opening up a debate on abortion, again if the numbers support it, I suppose.
that poll is over a month old...btw I'm posting very little these days as i'm on holiday in Argentina...I'm sure you all miss me!
I think I got led astray by a bad link somewhere. Here is their latests poll, & it's a pretty strange one:
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/01/three-in-ten-canadians-would-prefe...
I think that poll is kind of interesting - it shows that Layton wins hands down as being a "HOAG" (helluva guy) and that he is clearly the leader that Canadians like the most as a person, while Harper being the incumbent PM wins on all the attributes that relate to governance. Iggy is dead last on EVERYTHING.
Ignatieff's leadership numbers are certainly pretty pathetic - it is the strength of the Liberal Party brand that is keeping the party strongly in 2nd place.
But the reverse seems to be true for the NDP - Layton has some good leadership numbers, but the NDP is still well behind the Liberals in the polls.
Angus Reid
Canada
CPC - 36%
Libs - 29%
NDP - 17%
In Quebec
BQ - 36%
Libs - 26%
PCC - 19%
NPD - 11%
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201001/09/01-937564-dans-lisoloir-cest-harper.php
La Presse says 17%, whilst visioncritial says 16%, which is it? The pdf does not say that I can see anyway.
The Liberals appear to have stabilized in recent polls after the collapse of the fall. They are now solidly in 2nd place and well ahead of the NDP compared to in the fall when they were only a few points ahead.
They also appear to have moved back into 2nd place in Quebec.
Harper has one thing going for him: Ignatieff
The Conservatives are slumping, but they're still ahead of the Liberals
Still, cynicism has worked, so far anyway. But the Conservatives have had other things going for them as well: Stéphane Dion's and Michael Ignatieff's serious shortcomings as party leaders. Add to that Ignatieff's sorry lack of any vision.
There was also Ignatieff's major error in judgment last year when he axed any possible coalition or alliance with the NDP. Which, mathematically, means that as long as the right remains united and the Bloc stays strong, it's possible for the Conservatives to stay in power for a long, long time - even if as a minority government.
Earth to Ignatieff: Do you get that? Do you get that at all?
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Harper+thing+going+Ignatieff/2418253/story.html
Harper has one thing going for him: Ignatieff
The Conservatives are slumping, but they're still ahead of the Liberals
Still, cynicism has worked, so far anyway. But the Conservatives have had other things going for them as well: Stéphane Dion's and Michael Ignatieff's serious shortcomings as party leaders. Add to that Ignatieff's sorry lack of any vision.
There was also Ignatieff's major error in judgment last year when he axed any possible coalition or alliance with the NDP. Which, mathematically, means that as long as the right remains united and the Bloc stays strong, it's possible for the Conservatives to stay in power for a long, long time - even if as a minority government.
Earth to Ignatieff: Do you get that? Do you get that at all?
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Harper+thing+going+Ignatieff/2418253/story.html
Yes, very true about Ignatieff. I just posted about his leadership numbers on another thread.
This article has been posted several times now though.
AR did one on Thursday through Friday so look for it next week, if the numbers are supportive in anyway for Harper, if not who knows, as it was definitely commissioned by someone on the right....
As they are IMV, apparently looking to smoke screen his mess with opening up a debate on abortion, again if the numbers support it, I suppose.
What would be wrong with having a debate on abortion? People in a free society should have the right to open debate on these issues and to express their opinions. Many Canadians are opposed to abortion and would like to see it discussed.
You do not get to discuss my human rights....full stop.
Eventually, once you have seen the "debate" enough times and the answer is not a question but an assertion of fundamental human rights, you realize the debate is not an inquiry - it is harassment.
On a matter of principle, I would tend to agree everything at some point can be debated, and perhaps Augustus missed the debate of a generation ago. But once debated you move on. And this was debated alright. And debated... and debated... to the point it became harassment. There is no excuse to go back now. So Augustus, you likely will recieve some benefit of the doubt being new but this is something to consider.
In philosophy we debate endlessly why we are here-- but debating why someone else is here, or their equality will not be taken the same way. So the concept of debating everything has to be applied with some restraint. Some inquiries when others are past that point may need to be done on your own (if you are not clear) in order to be respectful.
Thanks Sean...appreciate your wording of 'harrassment'
BTW, the assertion that "most people are against abortion" is actually a meaningless statement. Almost no one is actually IN FAVOR of abortion. Virtually no one has ever tried to get a woman who didn't wish to have an abortion to have one against her will(the rare exceptions to this have generally been wealthy families in which a young male heir to a large fortune or sizeable state impregnated a servant girl and the family paid/forced her to have the procedure in order to prevent the young male heir in question from marrying "below his station". And I'm not even sure that THAT has happened more than a handful of times OUTSIDE the pages of potboiler novels).
The issue is, and has always been, and will always be, defending the right of a woman to make that decision HERSELF, rather than having society impose its will on her in the name of a sanctimonious and nearly always hypocritical "moral code".
Does this clarify matters for you, augustus?
Parliment Shutdown leaves CPC LPC nearly TIED
CPC 31% DOWN 10% from 41%
LPC 30% UP 2% from 28%
NDP 18% UP 4% From 14%
"What the new numbers mean, says Woolstencroft, is that the prorogation has hurt the Conservatives but not overly helped the Liberals or New Democrats - at least not yet."
Considering that the Conservatives have dropped 10% from the last poll, I wonder where the rest of that support has gone? Greens? BQ?
In any event, I certainly don't think Harper expected to have such a narrow lead over the Liberals starting off 2010, but it's true that the Liberals and the other parties cannot get cocky and assume they are guaranteed to remain high in the polls.
OK, back to polling: there's a new Strategic Counsel out this afternoon.
N=2168 (1860 decided), Jan 5-8
Cons - 31% (-10 since Oct 2-4; -4 since Sep 3-6)
Lib - 30% (+2; --)
NDP - 18% (+4; +4)
Grn - 10% (+1; +1)
BQ - 9% (--; -3)
The changes don't add up, which makes me wonder what's going on with the undecided.
In other words, going just by the topline numbers, the Conservatives are down by 4 points from where they were in September, the Liberals are in the same place they were in September, but have recovered from a drop that occurred during the autumn, the NDP picked up 4 points over the course of the fall, and the BQ also dropped by 3 points.
Not bad for 4 months work, I guess.
Step one is to knock a sitting government off its polling pedistal and get people thinking there are other options and at least moving them into the undecided column. That seems to have been accomplished.
The next step will have to wait for an election I would think, unless Iggy or Harper want to give each other a big gift like they have done for each other since the fall.
The poll does confirm my early instincts that Harper was too clever by half.
Once again BA 1- traditional media pundits- 0
I love it, BA!
New Angus Reid poll:
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/01/after-prorogation-tory-lead-over-l...
Con 34% (-2)
Lib 28% (-1)
NDP 19% (+3)
BQ 9% (-2)
Grn 8% (+2)
Harper's negatives go up:
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/01/more-canadians-decry-prorogation-a...
And now for the Angus Reid:
N=1077 (Undecided not reported that I can find), Jan 12-13
Cons - 34% (-2 since Dec 9-10)
Lib - 28% (-1)
NDP - 19% (+3)
BQ - 9% (-2)
Grn - 8% (+2)
Note the wild difference in NDP support in Ontario between Strategic Counsel (14%) and Angus Reid (22%). Meanwhile Angus Reid has us much lower in BC (3rd place at 19%) than Strategic Counsel (2nd at 31%). There are also discrepancies in the Prairie numbers, but I assume that's explainable based on the maergin of error from subsamples.
Where are all those TV personalities who were going on and on about what a shrewd move this was by Harper and how once again he had proved to be the master strategist.
Though, who knows. If the prorogue leads into something like radical Senate reform, maybe Harper will wind up with an electoral last laugh. Though that might also be the polling version of high-risk activity like autoerotic asphyxiation...
Thanks for the link to yesterday's panel with Glover, Goodale and Mulcair. Tom was good.
But Evan Solomon is an idiot. He's a moron. Whatever he's doing hosting that show when he hasn't the first clue what he's talking about, and can't do any better of an interview than "how do you react to that", I have no idea. I can barely stand to watch the show anymore. But for Kady O'Malley, I would never tune in at all. Yuck.
ETA: Looks like I'm the idiot, because I clicked on the wrong thread, and posted without checking. Ooops. This was supposed to go in the prorogation thread. Oh well.
l think we call that irony?
The Liberals are 6 points ahead of the Conservatives in Ontario in the Strategic Counsel poll. That's the first time that has happened in a long time.
Here is the latest EKOS poll from the CBC:
Well, I'm back from South America feeling tanned, relaxed and delighted to see the Tories take a dive in my absence (maybe the Tories have dropped BECAUSE I was away??). I think that the most important number to keep an eye on is Tory support. I think that as long as that is tumbling into the low 30s we can be happy. We know from the past few elections that the Liberal/NDP/Green universe tends to be quite volatile and will shift depending on what happens in an actual campaign.
Generally very sensible. In part this is due to the fact that for most people who are not that political you are either for or against the government-- As well the methodology pollsters use is more likely to make a difference among opposition parties than between gerneral support for or against the government.
That said I think we need to look at long term NDP support if you are an NDP supporter. There is no panic at the moment -- the NDP is in the mid range of its normal track. The problem is the NDP has not managed to break out and for those who want to more consideration about how that might be done is important-- especially when there are opportunities due to political upheaval. The fact that the NDP remains a sub 20% party remains a concern in the longer term.
This might be a tiny finding, and perhaps fleeting, but when I was looking at the crosstabs in the Ekos poll, I noticed that one of the big shifts from the Conservatives to the Liberals was amongst people born outside Canada.
That would have been one of the Conservatives' big target groups. I wonder if the anti-democratic theme pushes a few more buttons with recent immigrants to Canada, than with us more complacent folks who were born here?
Oh and welcome back, Stockholm. I guess if we want to form government, we'll have to send you on a permanent vacation, eh!
By the way, what do the polling experts on this board make of the methodology change in the Ekos voter preferance question. They're starting to ask "Other" in addition to the five other parties.
Maybe we should start a fund to send Stockholm on an around the world trip during the next election!
New Harris-Decima poll:
Con 34%
Lib 30% (+3)
NDP 16%
Grn 9%
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100114/Poll_Tory_1...
If it will help reduce Tory support - please send me to the southern hemisphere every January!
BTW: It was fun wandering around Vina del Mar, Chile in the final week of the Chilean presidential election run-off. There were sound trucks zooming around belting out jingles for Pinera - the Berlusconi-like rightwing populist who is the slight favourite - while banners for Eduardo Frei of the ruling left of centre coalition all had a cancel symbol over an arrow pointing to the right and said "No to a swing to the right. Chile for everyone!"
The consensus seems to be that after 20 years of left of centre rule (and in Chile the left includes the Christian Democrats) - its time for a change. At least in the Chilean constitution the President can only serve a single four year term - so no risk of any endless dynasties.
It might strike some as being in bad taste but souvenir stands in Chile often sell coffee mugs with Allende picture on them - right beside coffee mugs with Pinochet on them! In Argentina, they stick to all that Evita Peron crap.
Now this boy needs to go on a major diet. Three weeks of massive steaks twice a day has added several inches to my waistline!
New Harris-Decima poll:
Con 34%
Lib 30% (+3)
NDP 16%
Grn 9%
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100114/Poll_Tory_1...
Michael Ignatieff is certainly getting a nice New Year's present from Stephen Harper.
By the way, welcome back Stock, but where's Unionist?
Latest Leger Quebec poll:
BQ 40%
Lib 23%
Con 17%
NDP 15%
Grn 4%
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/dissatisfaction-with...
Good to see the Conservatives down in 3rd place. Looks like their occupation of the 2nd place last fall was just temporary.
3rd place for now.
Yep, the Cons' lover-boy, M. Bernier, is back, is he not?
3rd place for now.
At this rate they will be in fourth place in Quebec very soon. 17% is not much higher than 15%
That was my point-- sometimes it is nice to be subtle
I figured I should try it more often
That was my point-- sometimes it is nice to be subtle
I figured I should try it more often
So, Sean, would you recommend sublety, then?
I can't recomend what I can't practice so you'll have to draw your own conclusions but I have heard that it is a good idea and been told that I should try it some time. If I get around to it, I'll let you know how it went.
Wow just saw my double post-- guess the computer gods didn't want me to be subtle after all--- So there!!
Yep, the Cons' lover-boy, M. Bernier, is back, is he not?
According to the report on the cabinet I just saw on the news, Bernier is not back in cabinet.
Rather disappointing numbers for the NDP in the latest EKOS poll:
In situations like we're in- and just about any time that an election is not expected soon- I never expect the NDP numbers to move.
You pretty much have to make a judgement where you mash together where you think the universe of potential supporters is and will be in the near term, and whether the NDP has been doing things that can be expected to capitalize on that [or not].
Its really only with the Cons and Liberals that you can generally expect to see whats going on registered in the parties polling numbers of the moment.
It's a bleak comment on the Liberals that they STILL can't get the parked Green vote to come back to them. They ought to be eight to ten points up on Harper by now.
As I've said before, I think that at this stage of the game the only thing that really matters is see where Conservative support is at. They are the government and people tend to have stronger and more unshakeable opinions about whoeveer is in power than they do about the opposition. I'm happy to see Tory support down to 31% - we can worry about shaking loose soft Liberal and Green votes down the road.
It's a bleak comment on the Liberals that they STILL can't get the parked Green vote to come back to them. They ought to be eight to ten points up on Harper by now.
I'm not sure why they "ought" to be eight to ten points up on the Tories now. I realize that if you post on babble you probably thinki that the opportion ought to be 100 points ahead of Harper because you probably can't get your mind around how it is that ANYONE supports the Tories. When you consider how far ahead the Tories were just two months ago, its a minor miracle to even see them in a dead heat with the opposition. There is a limit as to how many people are switch their vote intention away from the Tories just over prorogation and that is a story that serves to depress Tory support but doesn't necessarily draw people to anyone else. You could say that its just as bleak a comment about the NDP that they also can't get the "parked Green vote" to come to them - but there is no reason for "vote parkers" to drive out of the parking lot when we are not in an election campaign - let alone being in the voting booth.
So Angus Reid, will now be using the Vision Critical brand... gah, they should have done a poll on it.
It seems that their voting intentions and abortion poll, must have been an CPC poll, as no results from it were even posted in their January Newsflash.
I get that we are biased against right wing conservatism here but I truly don't get how the centre and even the right wing voters are all on board with Harper's attacks on democracy in Canada. This has been a sustained assault and in fact it is likely to be his legacy once all is said and done-- what other does this PM have? I find it shocking that around a third of Canadians have no problem as our democratic traditions are being thrown away, as they are being lied to. I realize that there are other historical examples where people have gone on for the ride that some autocrat has brought them on but it is a bit of a shocker here. I believe this would not have been possible a generation ago-- I think this reflects deep cultural problems here feeding the apathy.
I'll say it again -- please look up thread-- the evidence that there are large numbers of people parked with the Greens is based on faulty methodology and assumptions. There are not as many of them as the polling data implies and no evidence that those who are there are "parked" any more than with any other party. Polling is prone to self selection and is very subjective even though it appears scientific. Broad conclusions can be drawn like the Cons are down right now-- but beyond that be careful what you assume.
It's a bleak comment on the Liberals that they STILL can't get the parked Green vote to come back to them. They ought to be eight to ten points up on Harper by now.
Actually, the numbers are not a bleak comment on the Liberals - it indicates the strength of the Liberal brand that only a few months after being way down in the polls that they are almost tied with the Conservatives. Particularly when the Liberals have a weak leader who often ranks behind not just Stephen Harper, but Jack Layton on the leadership index.
The leadership numbers are bleak - but not the party numbers.
If I hear the word "brand" applied to questions of political ideology and personal reputation again, I'm going to barf all over this page.
Please take that marketing crap right out of here.
Thank you.
It's a bleak comment on the Liberals that they STILL can't get the parked Green vote to come back to them. They ought to be eight to ten points up on Harper by now.
I'm not sure why they "ought" to be eight to ten points up on the Tories now.
1) Because they're the "Official Opposition" and the voters, in most situations like this, would put the opposition solidly ahead of the government in some polls in retribution for the recent mistakes.
2) If the Greens are the party where "disgruntled Liberals" are temporarily parking their votes, even the slight possibility of an early election should be bringing those votes back.
If I hear the word "brand" applied to questions of political ideology and personal reputation again, I'm going to barf all over this page.
Please take that marketing crap right out of here.
Thank you.
Brand is the terminology that is often used by pollsters in their analysis of why voters identify with or give support to a political party.
You will often hear pollsters such as Nik Nanos and others use the word "brand", and that is why I used it in this analysis.
If it bothers you I guess I could use the world "party" instead. The main point was just to distinguish the fact that the Liberal party is stronger than Ignatieff.
Ignatieff is running behind his party, and that is what he needs to address if he wants to become PM.
Recent mistakes have moved the Tories from being 14 points ahead to being even - I think it would be a bit much to expect them to go from being 14 poiints ahead to 14 points behind just because they prorogued parliament.
I'm not sure that the Greens are where "disgruntled Liberals" go - I think its just a place for people who know what they are against (the Tories) but haven't yet decided who they are for. I suppose that an early election is theoretically always possible - but as a result of Parliament being prorogued until march 3 - one thing we know for sure is that there is ZERO chance of the government falling for the next weeks and most of the talking heads seem to think that an election is unlikely any time in 2010...so why not keep parking.
In any case, its hard to know what to make of the Green vote - for some reason Ekos always has them at the high end, while nanos has them at 4%. I'd like to ask Sean - if Green supporters are so eager to be polled - why is that when Nanos does not prompt ANY party names, these supposedly enthusiastic Green partisans suddenly can't remember the name of the party they supposedly support. What does it say about a party when people have to be coached about the name of the party or else can't think of it?
Please take that marketing crap right out of here.
Thank you.
Agree.....
~
New polling thread continued here
I'd like to ask Sean - if Green supporters are so eager to be polled - why is that when Nanos does not prompt ANY party names, these supposedly enthusiastic Green partisans suddenly can't remember the name of the party they supposedly support. What does it say about a party when people have to be coached about the name of the party or else can't think of it?
Already answered upthread-- this is not the only variable and you are being selective. Other parties that probe by party name have the Greens low as well-- this is not the major variable you think it is.