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
The numbers are certainly very similiar, although the NDP number is a point or two lower.
It also shows that Harper is beginning to poll in minority government territory again.
the numbers are within the margin of error thus no difference from the year before.
The latest Ekos is out:
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full-report-november-12.p...
Tories down another point 36.6%, Libs unchanged at 26.6% and NDp up half a point at 16.8%. Of course they also have the Green party at a fictitious 11.2% nationally - but after their average 3% in the four byelections this week - we know for a fact that this is just an inflated function of flawed polling methodology. Once we cut them down to 5%, I suspect that the actual numbers are more like Tories 38%, Libs 28%, NDP 18.5% or thereabout.
I posted that poll in what I thought was the current thread, and came to the exact same conclusion.
I think the latest pile-on against the Liberals will take a few weeks to work its way through the national numbers, as well.
I think the latest pile-on against the Liberals will take a few weeks to work its way through the national numbers, as well.
Did the last one ever stop?
Actually Stock I wouldn't give the Green vote to the cons at all - they are well known as being anti-environment. Considering that the libs are falling and in various polls when they ask who they trust most on the environment, and the NDP is always way ahead on that question, one might be more prone to give the NDP the lion share of that Green vote. That would be that the NDP is actually polling in the early 20s.
Actually Stock I wouldn't give the Green vote to the cons at all - they are well known as being anti-environment. Considering that the libs are falling and in various polls when they ask who they trust most on the environment, and the NDP is always way ahead on that question, one might be more prone to give the NDP the lion share of that Green vote. That would be that the NDP is actually polling in the early 20s.
I think it's more that these potential Green voters don't show up at the polls rather than switch their votes. As a result, you bump the other parties up in the same proportion.
The latest Ekos is out:
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full-report-november-12.p...
Tories down another point 36.6%, Libs unchanged at 26.6% and NDp up half a point at 16.8%. Of course they also have the Green party at a fictitious 11.2% nationally - but after their average 3% in the four byelections this week - we know for a fact that this is just an inflated function of flawed polling methodology. Once we cut them down to 5%, I suspect that the actual numbers are more like Tories 38%, Libs 28%, NDP 18.5% or thereabout.
Looks like the Conservatives have peaked and are beginning to decline away from majority territory and back into minority level.
That appears to be the main trend this month.
I thought the research said that the Green vote *came* from other parties, but when it broke away, it broke 50% or more TO the NDP. In fairness, though, I now forget where I read that at the time, but it was either during or just after the last election.
My memory about that shifting Green support is that its NDP first, but Liberals not far behind, and Cons in very distant third.
That could mean around 50% for the NDP, but I think just stating like that tends to be misleading.
That said, pure anecdotal observation tells me that this varies HUGELY from riding to riding- more than the variability the other parties get. For example, there are lots of Conservative ridings or where the Cons are strong where the GPC seems to be able to poach a lot of those votes... and not only where the Cons are virtually guaranteed the seat [like Alberta]. The GPC also seems to generally do very poorly in NDP or NDP contending seats [notable exception of Ottawa Centre]. Conversely, it does very well, occasionaly ahead of the NDP, in places like suburban 905 where the NDP is not remotely in contention. And I have a personal hunch that the GPC is more able to get or keep soft Liberal votes even where it is just as apparent as in the comparable 'NDP seats' that the Liberal MP/candidate needs those votes to win.
Follow-up suggestion:
That a very high proportion of the NDP/Green shifting is situated in ridings where the NDP has remote prospects of contending. While the Liberal/Green shifting is more spread across the board.
Actually Stock I wouldn't give the Green vote to the cons at all - they are well known as being anti-environment. Considering that the libs are falling and in various polls when they ask who they trust most on the environment, and the NDP is always way ahead on that question, one might be more prone to give the NDP the lion share of that Green vote. That would be that the NDP is actually polling in the early 20s.
Let's be realistic here - the NDP is not likely to be polling in the 20's.
It may be the case though that a plurality of the Green vote will indeed go NDP, although Green voters are made up of people from across the political spectrum - NDP, Liberal AND Conservative. Remember that in the last Ontario election, most of the increase in the Green vote was actually from unhappy PC supporters who didn't want to vote for Tory, McGuinty or Hampton.
The Toronto seats are also a notable exception--generally speaking, the poaching is more likely in the "urban champagne socialist" types of seats than the blue collar/resource economy types of seats. (Though not Outremont, which is a special case.)
The Green vote is also declining in Ottawa Centre as Paul Dewar becomes more entrenched as our incumbent M.P.
Let's be realistic here - the NDP is not likely to be polling in the 20's.
Well, while we're being realistic here ... let's be honest that the last time you said something about how we should all be realistic, it was that Ignatieff could never fall below Dion in Quebec. If only wishing made it so, eh, Debater.
I noticed that too.
Plus the comment that as Dewar gets entrenched in Ottawa Centre, the GPC vote has declined.
That said, I think adma's comment characterizes this exception of a small number of seats where the GPC vote is more insulated against the effect of the NDP being contendors.
That is, if my bootstrap observation is correct that the high number of voters who go from the NDP to the GPC is very concentrated in ridings where the NDP is not a contendor. As to, comparatively speaking, going from the Liberals to the GPC even if the Liberals are contendors.
cf. Edmonton vs Calgary.
Didn't understand that
Are we talking politics, or hockey, or both?
Do more people abandon the GPC in Edmonton?
Given that a political nickname for Edmonton is Redmonton, I'd say yes.
I suspect adma meant that the Green Party has, on occasion, posted some decent results in Calgary, but fewer in Edmonton. This supports Ken's theory (which I think is true) that the Greens tend to do better in areas where the NDP has little, if any, ground campaign.
There are exceptions to this theory, May did well in Guelph and Central Nova, and I expect her to have a strong showing in Saanich. However, in those cases the Greens put in more resources because it's their leader's seat, and the NDP generally gets shuffled to the side. Taking aside the effect of running a leader in a riding, GP vote tends to wither away to nothing when there is a strong NDP campaign present, and it tends to be stronger when there isnt.
Latest Nanos:
Con: 38% (-1.8%)
Lib: 28.8% (-1.2%)
NDP: 17.9% (+1.3%)
BQ: 9.3% (+0.4%)
Grn: 5.9% (+1.3%)
Undecided: 19%
Extrapolated from the "Vote Profile" in this poll from today:
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-S09-T397.pdf
Also referred to in John Ivison's column of late this afternoon on Full Comment, entitled "Ignatieff slips closer to Dion territory".
Exactly. Calgary's known to be less competitive for non-Tories than Edmonton, so voters feel more obligated to plump their conscientious vote in the Green column...
Here's the regionals for Nanos:
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Ballot-200911.pdf
Angus Reid
Conservatives 38
Liberals 23
NDP 17
BQ 11
NDP and Liberals could be tied if the margin of error is 3, though ones does not know as they do not say what it is...
The sample size for a telephone poll of 1,000 is 3.2%, but ARG's poll is an online poll and you aren't supposed to quote a margin of error on an online sample because it isn't derived from a totally random sample of the population. (I'm not saying its less accurate, just that strictly speaking you cannot describe a margin of error on an online poll)
Okay I get it....
In fact their record has them being more accurate.
Liberals at 23%!??!?!?
That's pretty stunning.
Iggy's leadership numbers are also rock bottom.
If this trajectory continues, at some point we will see IL SORPASSO* - where the NDP overtakes the Liberals for the first time in a poll.
*In Italy, IL SORPASSO is often used to describe the day that the per capita income in Italy overtook the UK about 15 years ago.
If this trajectory continues, at some point we will see IL SORPASSO* - where the NDP overtakes the Liberals for the first time in a poll.
*In Italy, IL SORPASSO is often used to describe the day that the per capita income in Italy overtook the UK about 15 years ago.
They were tied at 21% in an Angus Reid poll during last year's election. If the NDP passed the Liberals, then the Conservatives would probably have a lead of over 20%
If this trajectory continues, at some point we will see IL SORPASSO* - where the NDP overtakes the Liberals for the first time in a poll.
*In Italy, IL SORPASSO is often used to describe the day that the per capita income in Italy overtook the UK about 15 years ago.
They were tied at 21% in an Angus Reid poll during last year's election.
In one poll - which turned out not to be an accurate predictor of voting intentions since on election night the Liberals beat the NDP by a large margin.
What I am more interested in seeing is whether the Conservatives will drop in the next poll with the new controversy over the torture scandal and their refusal to do anything about it.
NOW, we're talkin'!!
Ipsos - which usually has the most consistently dismal numbers for the NDP - reports the following:
Tories - 37% (down 3)
Grits - 24% (down 1)
NDP - 19% (up 6!!)
Greens - 8% (down 1%)
BQ - 9%
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Federal+making+gains+Liberal+Tory+expe...
Gotta like these Ontario numbers
In Ontario, 39 per cent of decided voters said if an election were held today, they would cast their ballots for the Conservatives (down two points since October); the Liberals would attract 29 per cent support (down three points); the NDP 21 per cent, up eight points; and the Greens eight per cent, down six points.
Shows that Horwath instincts on the HST and other issues have been bang on as well.
So the two polls released today were taken at the same time?
I believe the ARG was Nov. 16-18 and the Ipsos was Nov. 17-19. You can't get more recent than that.
Gotta like these Ontario numbers
In Ontario, 39 per cent of decided voters said if an election were held today, they would cast their ballots for the Conservatives (down two points since October); the Liberals would attract 29 per cent support (down three points); the NDP 21 per cent, up eight points; and the Greens eight per cent, down six points.
Shows that Horwath instincts on the HST and other issues have been bang on as well.
Dalton McGuinty was crazy to impose another tax hike on Ontarians. He escaped the wrath of the people last time because of a badly-run Conservative campaign and John Tory's ineptitude. You would have thought he'd learned his lesson and yet he went ahead and did it again.
I'd wonder how much these numbers are a byproduct of the byelections as well...
Sure do like those Ontario numbers - I'm thinking that the NDP and lib numbers meet in the 3% margin of error for sure > 22/21 <
Go NDP
Gotta like these Ontario numbers
In Ontario, 39 per cent of decided voters said if an election were held today, they would cast their ballots for the Conservatives (down two points since October); the Liberals would attract 29 per cent support (down three points); the NDP 21 per cent, up eight points; and the Greens eight per cent, down six points.
Shows that Horwath instincts on the HST and other issues have been bang on as well.
This is the trend that will take the NDP to IL Sorpasso if sustained - ARG had the NDP strong in BC, which is consistent with provincial NDP polling here and the NWC by-election result, but weak in Ontario. If the IR trend is confirmed and the Lib vote in Ontario starts bleeding to the NDP, then we're starting to talk about 50+ seats in the next general and passing the BQ and even the Libs if they continue to slide.
ARG also has the Greens very high and we know that is classic "Astroturf" polling
it won't show up at the ballot box and Jack is well positioned to win that vote with his strong climate change positioning and Iggy championing the tar sands and joining Harper to block the NDP's climate change bill.
I'm really keen to see the next CROP or Léger poll from QC to see if the Rochelau NDP momentum is sustained on the Island of Montreal - i.e. is the NDP becoming the federalist alternative to the BQ in Montreal?
The regionals are in for the Ipsos poll, so we can compare the 2 polls-taken at the same time:
http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-ipsos-poll-13-pt-conservative-lead.html
BC:
Ipsos Angus
Con 37% 44%
NDP 34% 25%
Lib 17% 19%
Grn 12% 12%
Alberta:
Ipsos
Con 63% 61%
Lib 14% 15%
NDP 9% 12%
Grn 13% 11%
Prairies:
Con 56% 55%
Lib 18% 16%
NDP 15% 27%
Grn 10% 2%
Ontario:
Con 39% 43%
Lib 29% 29%
NDP 21% 15%
Grn 8% 13%
Que:
BQ 38% 42%
Con 20% 19%
Lib 24% 19%
NDP 12% 14%
Grn 7% 7%
Atlantic:
Con 31% 33%
Lib 24% 33%
NDP 24% 29%
Grn 21% 6%
I guess averaging the regionals from the two polls would tell us something. I suspect that the folks at Ipsos must be pretty embarrassed about that absurd Green number in Atlantic Canada. I wonder if they got the decimal point in the wrong place and they meant 2.1%. If there is one place in Canada where I can assure you, Green party support is virtually non-existent - its in Atlantic Canada - esp. now that Elizabeth May has picked up her toys in Central Nova and left nothing behind.
In BC, if you combine the two polls you would get Tories at 40.5% (down 4% from last election) and NDP at 29.5 (up 3.5 from '08) and the Liberals still pushing up daisies at 18% (down 1%) and the Greens (up 3% at 12) - apart from the fact that we know that Green support is as WCL so aptly described - pure astroturf - and will never materialize - that trend for BC would confirm the pattern we saw in the NWC byelection where a 3% NDP margin on election night last year turned into a 14% blow out!
One thing that is important to keep in perspective is how much volatility there has been over the past year.
It was only a year ago during the coalition crisis when people were predicting that Stephen Harper was finished politically and that the government would fall and he would be done.
Harper survived, and over the course of this year Harper recovered and has moved back up into a strong position.
Meanwhile, Ignatieff started out in a strong position and overtook Harper in the polls for a while and remained tied with him up until the end of the Summer. Then Ignatieff collapsed and over the past few months people have been predicting his political demise. However, like Harper, he could come back and recover as well.
That won't necessarily happen since Ignatieff may be now too damaged to win the next election or become PM, but the current polling trends and political dynamic we are seeing may change again by the time of the next election.
That's true Debater. But the trick is to figure out what strategy is required to pull that off. Thus far the Liberals haven't found the formula, and they have a lot of pretty smart strategic minds in that party. I just think the world view they're all operating inside now has limited usefulness going forward, and they haven't found a new way of looking at things yet which is more relevant to their current situation.
Though remember, too, the potentiality of their bluffing into something, even mid-election--cf John Turner in '88...
It's not a new poll but is this a new West Coast publication?
NDP inches closer to Grits in new poll
After taking repeated hits from the right flank by the Harper Conservatives, it now appears that the NDP are moving in to attack Michael Ignatieff's Liberals on the left flank, according to a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and
Global Television.
In a political pincer attack, the NDP have charged ahead to 19% support nationally while the Liberals have retreated to 24% support, a new low for the Grits under Michael Ignatieff.
A relatively poor showing in the recently-held by-elections underscores the problems that opposition leader Michael Ignatieff is having resonating with the public.
Recent attacks on the government for partisan appointments and stimulus hand-outs, as well as allegations that Canadian Forces knowingly handed over Afghani detainees to certain torture, have failed to propel the faltering Liberals.
http://www.vancouverite.com/2009/11/21/ndp-inches-closer-to-grits-in-new...
Here's the latest EKOS poll. Totally unrealistic so far as the Green Party goes and one has to wonder what the numbers would look like without them being counted.
What is the point posting polls if we do not believe them? You can't take them selectively and say well I like that number but not the other number-- if you already have in your head what you want to believe then a poll won't inform--
There is a range for polls-- and people find them entertaining-- kinda like the astrology section in the paper, great until you start believing in it and then you are certifiable.
The only thing polls can tell you is an established trend over a long time-- like the Liberals are below the Cons and the NDP is in third place. If you get all excited as some did last week about the poll with the NDP and Liberals 4 points apart you'll only feel foolish when the next poll comes out (or you should feel foolish). That's why I downplayed the impact of that poll in another thread.
I have seen the NDP really on a move-- twice and it looks different. Once was in 1987-1988 when it went way up to around 40%. The other time was coming back up to traditional territory from single digits after Layton took over. These were things you could hear, see and feel not only in the polls but on the streets, in conversations. This last poll-- that's another thing.
I'll admit, a smaller trend just recently was observable: the NDP decision not to force an election went down well and the party reversed its declining support to around where it was before the last election.
Any other excitement is the product of people taking their entertainment too seriously or being sucked in to a media trying to manipulate that there is a story when there is not or trying to shove a stick in the eye of the Liberals (which may have its own entertainment value but can't be taken seriously either). We will wake up tomorrow and those New Dems who want something big to happen will still have their work cut out-- will still need to come up with a communications plan and platform that work. Nothing has changed yet but you won't need a single poll to tell you when it has.
Now we can go back to reading the polls and astrology pages for entertainment- ok?
Its not a question of cherry picking against results you don't "like" Sean.
The huge variance in the Green vote that shows across all polls is obviously not just 'recording' volatility. Its pretty obvious that there is a lot of artifice of polling method in there.
So when the GPC vote shows particularly high, you have to 'bracket' accordingly the preference shown for all the parties. [Most effect on NDP and Libs, etc.]
For example, two weeks ago we had a "real" poll as over 100,000 people v oted in four byelections - and the Greens got an average of 3%.
What is the point posting polls if we do not believe them?
It's not that I don't believe them. I just don't find them very helpful when they show a party like the Greens at 11.4% when everyone knows that they will never get that kind of support in the next election. EKOS loses credibility when they tell me the Greens have more than 5 percent support.
It's not that I don't believe them. I just don't find them very helpful when they show a party like the Greens at 11.4% when everyone knows that they will never get that kind of support in the next election. EKOS loses credibility when they tell me the Greens have more than 5 percent support.
All Ekos is asking is how people would vote, not if they will vote. They provide results for support by age groups, which is a pretty good indicator that Green support would fall to their traditional level in an actual election.
I know this is purely anecdotal, but back during the heady days before the internet, they used to do incessant telephone polling to gauge public opinion.
A very close family member of mine seemed to get called all the time for political polls - and not being one to ever say to anyone who they were voting for, he would just answer "I'm voting for the Natural Law Party."
Coincidentally, I was talking to someone who is politically aware, and usually leans Liberal, who always says "whenever anyone asks me, I just say I vote or voted Green."
I think the Green effect is down to the fact that it's good way for people to say, "please eff off" to the pollster without directly not participating.
I have a friend who says he is going to vote Conservative for the same reason -- also he enjoys pissing people off.
It's a more socially acceptable response, rather than saying "I'm not sure", or "I probably won't vote".
And Ekos can't replicate the Nanos-style question, since it's a press-1 for Iggy, press-2 for Lizzy kind of technology they use (IVR), if I understand it correctly. So they have to decide to either prompt with the Green Party or not; there's no third alternative available. If the Green number continues to overpredict their actual results in another general election, I can see the polling firms stop prompting with the Green Party, just so they don't look like fools.
There was also a fair bit of variation over the 13 days during which the Ekos poll was conducted if you look at the data tables; which is probably normal, but also points to the fact that variability IS normal, and shouldn't be obsessed over the way it is. But the Ekos higher daily NDP numbers over that period coincided with the shorter timeframe Ipsos was polling in, if I remember right. So, it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.
I agree with most if not all of what Sean said as well.
Seriously I don't think that the Green numbers really reflect all that many people who are not considering the party-- I think that when it comes to the polls and the party has no chance there just is not the commitment to vote for the party.
The NDP vote has a larger number of people who will still vote for the party in no-hope ridings- in part just to register the vote. I remember voting in Quebec when we would look for our poll to see our family's votes because we were it and now and again there would be an extra vote and we would wonder who that was. (That was back in the day when there was no internet, no computer at home and there was nothing on TV-- actually in those years we didn't even have a TV). Actually If I indulge my own drift for a moment I was talking to a person who downloads everything and he was pointing out how great it was to have the shows exactly when he wanted- would not miss anything. I told him we always had that technology-- needs no batteries, no net connection and you can even take it in the washroom without fear of electrocution. My grandmother used the same technology.
And I hope people realize that part of the purpose of my first post comparing astrology to polling was for comic relief-- I used to work for a pollster...
Prompting for the Greens is the real culprit here. I think EKOS would get a more accurate picture of voter intentions if they prompted for all registered political parties in Canada, or none.
It would have been fascinating if someone did a riding poll in NWC in the summer before the byelection was called and just read the party names including Green, then did a subsequent poll just before the byelection with candidates names included and after people had been exposed to a saturation campaign by the NDP and Tories and very weak to non-existent Liberal campaigns by the Liberals and Greens. I suspect that Green support could easily have gone from 15% to 4% that way - and ditto with the Liberals.
The good news is that Harper is slipping away from majority territory. He seemed headed towards a Murloneyesque 1984 style landslide just a few short weeks ago. The Afghan prisoner scandal certainly won't help his majority ambitions. I knew another scandal would pop up to halt Harper. It always seems to. Mulroney-Schreiber, Listeriosis, Quebec arts funding, etc.
Another thing that is to safe to say looking at the past few months of polling is that the public was INFURIATED and ENRAGED that Ignatieff would even dare to threaten to call an election. The horror of having to take 5 minutes out of your day to vote and do your civic duty:( They finally seem to be coming out of their manic rage and are realizing that given Harper a majority is not wise. The August Ontario Liberal caucus was a catastrophic disaster for the Ignatieff Liberals that they are only just now starting to barely halt the slide off the cliff from.
Well then here's another poll (or astrology sign) from today for you to decipher:
Which political leader and party offered below do you most support at this time?
Stephen Harper and Conservative Party of Canada
32.5 %
Michael Ignatieff and Liberal Party of Canada
25.0 %
Jack Layton and New Democratic Party of Canada
22.5 %
Elizabeth May and Green Party of Canada
10.5 %
Gilles Duceppe and Bloc Quebecois Party of Canada
8.5 %
Undecided
13.0 %
We admit to baiting the Bloc Quebecois a little... by referring to the Bloc as the "Bloc Party of Canada" provoking the much higher incidence to hang ups and aforementioned Undecided
http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_644.html
Here's the latest EKOS poll. Totally unrealistic so far as the Green Party goes and one has to wonder what the numbers would look like without them being counted.
What's interesting about this latest poll is that it basically has the Conservatives and the Liberals back to the numbers they had on election night last year, with the NDP down a bit and the Green up.
But as others have said here, the Green numbers are unlikely to be that high.
If it was just that I don't think it would be a problem. It's the weeks of advertising and phone calls that most would like to avoid.
And even a bit more ... it was the idea that the MPs couldn't accept the decision the voters had just made and work together, but wanted to go back and try to gain another edge or advantage during a time of serious economic crisis for a lot of people ... that's what I think was making most not-normally-very-political people so very very angry.
In other words, a disaster for the Ignatieff-led Liberals. So bad last time that the Liberals changed leaders. Oops, forgot to mention that, did we.
Well then here's another poll (or astrology sign) from today for you to decipher:
Which political leader and party offered below do you most support at this time?
Stephen Harper and Conservative Party of Canada
32.5 %
Michael Ignatieff and Liberal Party of Canada
25.0 %
Jack Layton and New Democratic Party of Canada
22.5 %
Elizabeth May and Green Party of Canada
10.5 %
Gilles Duceppe and Bloc Quebecois Party of Canada
8.5 %
Undecided
13.0 %
We admit to baiting the Bloc Quebecois a little... by referring to the Bloc as the "Bloc Party of Canada" provoking the much higher incidence to hang ups and aforementioned Undecided
http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_644.html
He said he baited one of the parties in the conducting of the poll. This is not a professional company.
The guy is a flake. The poll is a farce.
I hope there are no New Democrats desperate enough to derive satisfaction from the numbers that guy pulls out of his...
In other words, a disaster for the Ignatieff-led Liberals. So bad last time that the Liberals changed leaders. Oops, forgot to mention that, did we.
They're certainly not great numbers for Ignatieff, but the main point about this poll is that it is more likely reflects the true state of where the parties are right now.
I notice you forgot to mention that in this poll the NDP is 12 points behind the Liberals.
Green support is soft, but it is there.
I think the confusion arises because pollsters are asking "who would you vote for... (implied "if you voted")". A lot of Green supporters don't vote. They support the party, but don't vote. The reason should be obvious. Green candidates can't win because as yet their support is not locally concentrated, so Green supporters either park their vote for another party that is in contention, or just don't show up. As an example I live in Edmonton Strathcona, which was won by the NDP over the Cons by only 500 votes. I would be STRONGLY tempted to vote NDP to stop a Con, but if I were asked in a poll I would plump for the Greens, in order to register my support.
Green Party support is volatile and intersects with the non-voting population. Second choice polls in BC indicate that if there are no Green candidate running the green vote would break 45 to 70 percent to the NPP, 20-25 percent to the BC Liberals, and the remainder may not vote at all.
Core green support is very youthful, a sector of the population that has very low voter turnout.
Greens supported by 23.4% of voters aged 18-25
Elizabeth May would be Prime Minister today - or at least right there in the thick of it with the big political leaders - if only young Canadians were allowed to vote, according to a new EKOS poll.
The Green Party leader doesn't have one seat in the House of Commons right now and prospects for one soon are dismal. But pass a law to disallow anyone older than 25 to vote and Ms. May's fortunes zoom.
The poll by EKOS's Frank Graves of 5,759 (a huge sample) Canadians shows that the Green Party enjoys the support of 23.4 per cent of voters between 18 and 25 years old compared to 21 per cent for Stephen Harper's Tories, 24.7 per cent for the Michael Ignatieff's Liberals and only 18.8 per cent for Jack Layton's NDP.
"The Green Party is actually within the margin of error for the leader, which is kind of a shocking result when you think about it," Mr. Graves says. "But we know in reality they are going to get no seats and that may well explain why under 25s do not bother to vote because they know that one of their top choices actually get no seats so what is the point?"
Indeed, his numbers for the national horse race show that only 11.4 per cent of Canadians support Ms. May's Green Party compared to 36.9 per cent for the Conservatives, 27.1 per cent for the Liberals and 15.3 per for the New Democrats.
So to sum up. Green Party support is at least what the pollsters report, but only about half that support converts into votes for the Green Party. Nevertheless the support is there.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
OMG can't stop laughing, the twists and turns that some will go through to suggest EMay is more than she is is incredible....
One would think that after 23 years of people being less than 25, and the Green Party being around, that there would be a Green Party seat, eh.....
So to sum up. Green Party support is at least what the pollsters report, but only about half that support converts into votes for the Green Party. Nevertheless the support is there.
So what's the practical advantage of having support that doesn't vote? I'm not being sarcatic here. You're suggesting that having support that doesn't get out to vote is qualitatively different than not having support. I'm just wondering why you went to the trouble of pointing out the difference.
OMG can't stop laughing, the twists and turns that some will go through to suggest EMay is more than she is is incredible....
One would think that after 23 years of people being less than 25, and the Green Party being around, that there would be a Green Party seat, eh.....
I suspect that if only stoners (speaking as one) were allowed to vote, The Marijuana party would be doing much better too.
While that may be true, and I'm not going to categorically disagree, there are two different things being talked about. One is as you mentioned the volatility of the Green vote and the predictability it will not show at polling levels on eday.
The second that has been more what has been talked about in this thread- is that the levels of Green support being reported- leaving aside that it won't translate at the polling both- is not only volatile, but unusually subject to the artifices of how various polling companies ask their questions, and even moving substantially in one companies polls, without any visible reason that would account for such a large jump.
I think that this is also a function of the volatility of green support. Since Green votes can't elect anyone, in a sense all votes by Green Party supporters are strategic. You either vote strategically for a second choice party that can win in close riding, register your support for the Green Party itself in no contest ridings, or not vote at all. What an individual voter does depend a lot on what kind of riding they are in. Looking at BC Southern Interior, a fairly safe NDP seat, the Green vote is close to 10%, pretty much what they poll, because green supporters are free to vote their conscience. In Edmonton Strathcona, a close seat where the Green's most popular "second choice", the NDP is in contention, the Green vote falls to the 6% range.
As you say the choice of wording in a poll has greater impact with Green supporters because the results likely vary according the where you are. "Which party do you support?" may give very different results than "Which party will you vote for?" and will also depend on how closely contended the riding is.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
The other thing is that campaigns and organization make a difference. During the next federal election campiagn, its likely that the Tories, Liberals and NDP will spend the maximum at the national level and will run lots of TV ads etc.,.. and in Quebec the BQ will do the same. Also, the Tories, liberals, NDP and BQ will have about 300 MPs running for re-election and will each running seriously funded and staffed riding campaigns in anywhere from 70-80 seats in the case of the NDP to 150-200 seats in the case of the Liberals and Tories. In contrast, there will probably be ZERO national advertising by the Greens and in about 305 out of 308 ridings, there will be just paper candidates and no local campaign to speak of. This makes a difference.
Elizabeth May would be Prime Minister today - or at least right there in the thick of it with the big political leaders - if only young Canadians were allowed to vote, according to a new EKOS poll.
The Green Party leader doesn't have one seat in the House of Commons right now and prospects for one soon are dismal. But pass a law to disallow anyone older than 25 to vote and Ms. May's fortunes zoom.
What is the point of looking at hypothetical situations for the Green Party that will never arise? Unless we end up living in some sort of society out of science fiction where only young people are left, there is never going to be an election in which only youth vote.
Why are pollsters bothering to create these elaborate scenarios concerning the Green Party?
That was Jane Taber's spin on the age breakouts of the Ekos poll. But the bigger news in the age breakouts over the past six months, if you ask me, has been the complete drop-off of Liberal support amongst the same age bracket. The Greens and NDP are fairly competitive there, and the Conservatives are nowhere. And, as Stockholm says, the Greens don't have much infrastructure to translate that support (if that's what it really is) into votes in the ballot box.
BC Southern Interior is an interesting case though. Of course there has been a longstanding base of Green Party support in the Slocan Valley and the Nelson area, which is probably not too receptive to strategic pitches by the NDP or anyone else. However, the Conservative candidate in that riding ran into legal difficulties in 2006, which really skewed the results in Alex Atamanenko's favour, notwithstanding that Atamanenko came quite close in 2004 (within 600 votes or so). But it wasn't always a "safe" NDP seat as Scott claims: it was one of the ones that has switched back and forth over the long years between the NDP and populist conservatives, and was held by a Reformer from 1993 to 2006. So, when you assess a riding and call it "safe", just how far back are you looking exactly, Scott? Do you even know the terrain?
Anyways, it's also a case where the Liberal vote dropped ... and so precipitously ... in 2008, that they fell even below the Greens (whose vote also fell) and into 4th place. With virtually all of the Liberal vote going to the Conservatives, while Atamanenko held his vote, it means that Greens in that riding will have some much more consequential decisions to make there next time around.
That was Jane Taber's spin on the age breakouts of the Ekos poll. But the bigger news in the age breakouts over the past six months, if you ask me, has been the complete drop-off of Liberal support amongst the same age bracket. The Greens and NDP are fairly competitive there, and the Conservatives are nowhere. And, as Stockholm says, the Greens don't have much infrastructure to translate that support (if that's what it really is) into votes in the ballot box.
It's probably because Ignatieff does not have a lot of appeal to the younger generation. He is not resonating with them and their issues, and lacks the charisma of Pierre Trudeau or even the down to earth style of Jean Chretien.
The Liberals would probably be better off with a leader from a younger generation like Dominic LeBlanc or Justin Trudeau.
In most cases, drop-offs like that are not only a short term phenomena. They are the culmination of a building process [as the case with the erosion of the Liberal lock on immigrant community votes].
And as such, they don't move the other way over small effects. So having a Justin Trudeau as leader would only give the chance to arrest the fall- which the new leader would have to effectively capitalize on.
And a leadership race in the LPC is unlikely for about 2 years or more. In the meantime, it will be a surprise if there is any turnaround in that trend... and the longer it is established, the more difficult it is to move.
Remember that the Liberals and Conservatives were tied in the polls as of only a few months ago. That could happen again at some point next year.
Or the Cons could double their 10% lead over the Liberals to a 20% lead. As you say anything can happen.
Remember that the Liberals and Conservatives were tied in the polls as of only a few months ago. That could happen again at some point next year.
The other thing is that campaigns and organization make a difference. During the next federal election campiagn, its likely that the Tories, Liberals and NDP will spend the maximum at the national level and will run lots of TV ads etc.,.. and in Quebec the BQ will do the same. Also, the Tories, liberals, NDP and BQ will have about 300 MPs running for re-election and will each running seriously funded and staffed riding campaigns in anywhere from 70-80 seats in the case of the NDP to 150-200 seats in the case of the Liberals and Tories. In contrast, there will probably be ZERO national advertising by the Greens and in about 305 out of 308 ridings, there will be just paper candidates and no local campaign to speak of. This makes a difference.
For anyone to make judgements about poll results when not even 50% of the candidates for the next election have been nominated is pointless, isn't it?
People make up their minds once they have a chance to see who their potential M.P.'s are.
In each of the past 3 elections, the NDP has gained support from the start of the election through to voting day.
Why?
Because once people see the quality of NDP candidates compared to the other parties, their support increased.
Should Jack Layton get a full slate of candidates in place before the next election is called, I believe that the level of NDP support would rise to the point where it would be possible to surpass the B.Q., and depending on how bad Iggy's Liberals sink, seriously challege the Liberals for Opposition status.
It seems to be occurring in Toronto (Trinity-Spadina, Beaches-East York) and to a lesser extent, Vancouver (Michael Byers came in third just ahead of Adrienne Carr, and this was a riding where they came very close in 2004).
we'll see if that happens in the next election, the dismal 5% the Green candidate got in the recent St. Paul byelection leads me to believe that the Green fad in downtown Toronto (such that it existed) has gone the way of bell bottoms and eight track tapes.
That exception was noted by myself and someone else. And intuitively it makes sense that in ridings like that there will be more core Green voters who don't shift. The exceptions don't bely whether there is a general trend.
My own hunch is that across the board the GPC is going to drop something between a bit and substantially everywhere in the next election. May is no longer new and novel. And she's out of sight. And the GPC- always VERY thinly spread on the ground- has turned almost exclusively to trying to win in SGI... with little sign they will even focus resources on the few more seats where they do the best. [With the exception of Carr's run- she also gets a big share of the limited resources at all times.]
Their national air campaign will be smaller, they are doing virtually nothing to prepare on the ground, and even previous high flyer campaigns like Guelph will get little or nothing transferred from the national party this time around.
Why is it no polling this week after the whole torture scandal...do the numbers look pretty bad on certain parties?
I was polled yesterday morning as part of the big Harris-Decima omnibus poll. They asked about a lot of different topics (federal, provincial and commercial), but nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan or the situation with detainees. They did ask a LOT of questions about Copenhagen, however, and it's now clear to me from listening to Harper's comments in the last 24 hours that some of the language he was using had been tested in the poll.
Ekos did come out on Thursday on its new bi-weekly schedule ... I think the polling firms are dialling back now that it looks like an election is off and the numbers appear to have stabilized.
There is a new Leger poll of Quebec only that confirms the NDP is gaining ground there and that everyone is feeding off the Liberal carcass:
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/278277/sondage-leger-marketing-...
BQ - 37% (up 4% since last Leger poll in September)
CPC - 20% (up 3%)
Libs - 20% (down 13%)
NDP - 17% (up 3%)
Green - 5% (up 1%)
Libs - 20% (down 13%)
Actually it's down 10%, not 13%. There were 2 Leger polls in September:the first was Quebec only, the second as part of a Canada-wide poll
http://legermarketing.com/documents/intvote/IVFEDEN_quebec.pdf
Here's the current poll in detail:
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/POL/0911301FR.pdf
so 17% according to that chart is the highest level of NDP support Leger has EVER recorded in Quebec.
remember though, nothing to see here
Slow but sure, just like the NS NDP.
What has to happen for the NPD to pick up 5 seats in Quebec in the next election?
Slow but sure, just like the NS NDP.
What has to happen for the NPD to pick up 5 seats in Quebec in the next election?
To give you some idea-here is every riding where the NDP had over 15% & finished within 30% of the winner:
1.Gatineau- 3.1% behind the BQ, 2nd (26.1%)
2.Pontiac-17.3% behind the CPC, 4th (15.4%)
3.Hull-Aylmer-17.7% behind the LPC, 3rd (19.8%)
4.Jeanne Le Ber-19.2% behind the BQ, 3rd (15.7%)
5.Drummond-22.4% behind the BQ, 4th (16.4%)
6.Westmount-Ville-Marie-23.6% behind the LPC, 2nd (22.9%)
7.Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine-29.4% behind the LPC, 4th (15.2%)
If you subtract the % behind the winner from the % of the vote, it would be:
1.Gatineau
2.Hull-Aylmer
3.Westmount-Ville-Marie
4.Pontiac
5.Jeanne-Le-Ber
If I understand correctly the NPD is most popular amongst urban Anglos in Quebec.
Which are the five most urban Anglo seats in Quebec? I know that's six, as I would assume Mount Royal is almost an impossibility for the NPD.
Westmount-Ville Marie
NDG-Lachine
Outremont
Mount Royal
St Laurent-Cartierville
LaSalle-Emard
If I understand correctly the NPD is most popular amongst urban Anglos in Quebec.
Which are the five most urban Anglo seats in Quebec? I know that's six, as I would assume Mount Royal is almost an impossibility for the NPD.
Westmount-Ville Marie
NDG-Lachine
Outremont
Mount Royal
St Laurent-Cartierville
LaSalle-Emard
The 5 most Anglo seats would be
1.Lac-St-Louis (61.9% English spoken at home)
2.Westmount-Ville-Marie (49.2%)
3.Pierrefonds-Dollards (48.5%)
4.Mount Royal (45.5%)
5.Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine (43.0%)
Lasalle-Emard is next at 29.9%
http://www.punditsguide.ca/census_e.php
So, west and west central Montreal Island then: Liberal bastions, for the most part. I'd be more inclined to concentrate on the earlier seats where the NDP has done well before, but use this information to try and focus efforts a bit better within them.
That's what I mean when I say the NDP has to crush the Liberals. Out West the NDP has to crush the Cons. This is the reason regional campaigns, marketing, advertising, strategy, tactics, etc. in a federal election are so important.
It's certainly amazing how fast Ignatieff managed to blow the huge lead he had in Quebec earlier this year. He is now about 15 points lower than where he was.
It's also important to remember though that the Quebec electorate is very fickle and volatile and that these poll numbers are likely to change again.
Its not amazing at all. And thats not a dig at Iggy or the Liberals.
Bumps like that for new Leaders are really common. They mean nothing until the dust settles.
All that bump meant- and this was predictable- is that in Qubec there is a significant slice of the population waiting for a Liberal saviour. While they are primed, they obviously won't buy into just any smuck who trips into the role.
[And the follow-up safe bet: Over time, and even more- after disssapointments like Iggy- those people stop waiting and start looking elsewhere. IE, by the time when/if the next reputed Liberal saviour comes on, on the aggregate they are somewhat less prone to buy into it... even if this latest version is 'real'.]
Although 17% for the NDP in Quebec is encouraging, it does not necessarily indicate any additional seats. Of the various ridings mentioned above, only Gatineau would be gained on the swing indicated by the poll. The margins in the other seats are just too great.
The real problem for the NDP is that its vote is just not concentrated enough to yield seats. The internal numbers in the Leger poll show that the NDP support is very even between the various demogaphic and geograhic subsets. It falls within a narrow band of 15-19 % for each of: French, Allophone, Montreal Region, Quebec City Region and the Rest of the Province.
By contrast, the Libs dominate the Allophone vote and remain concentrated in Montreal. The Cons have a strong lead in the Quebec City Region. This efficiency of support will maximize their seat totals. The NDP's inefficiency will minimize its.
The highest NDP support in the poll is in Quebec City (19%) but that is only half the Con support there.
I am interested in whether the NDP has any particular prospects in Quebec City and why the Cons have done so well there. Any comments?
If an election were held today, who would you vote for? When prompted for an answer with choices, many randomly pick one. The truthful answer is they are not voting. THose who don't vote or don't vote for the party they said they would vote for, demonstrates that the support isn't there. Looking at your answer, you have misled the polster. The polsters numbers are going to be wrong, because you have misled them. What party do you support and who/what party would you vote for are two different questions.
Your answer is, I would like to vote for my party preferance but am voting NDP to stop a CPC. That is a truthful answer and reflective of EDAY. I think its time the polsters trimmed the fat of these ridiculously high numbers for the Green Party. It also has a deflating effect for those who do support the party and vote for them only to discover that that 15% polling number turned out to be 5% on Eday. That margin of error is MASSIVE. No polster should continuously put forth such erroneous data. There is enough empirical evidence to show that while they get the 4 parties (CPC, LPC, BQ, NDP) within the margins of error, the polsters are often out between 100% and 200% on green party numbers.
continued over here
I didn't say that it was always a safe seat. I said it IS a safe seat for the NDP now.
The riding was only created in 2003 so it is a bit dicey to look back before then. The Reformer, Jim Gouk, was first elected (in Kootenay West-Revelstoke) in the Reform sweep in 1993. He was a true populist, personally well liked and very much a constituency politician, which helped cement his position. He retired frorm politics after his squeaker win over the NDP's Alex Atamanenko. Alex has now won 2 elections in BCSI, and is also personally well liked and active in the community which has helped cement his hold on the riding. He has name recognition, and since his first win he has faced different opponents every election. Jim Gouk himself has said that Alex is well established and will be very hard to beat.
I don't think so. In the 2008 election the polls showed the NDP way out in front from the get-go. This didn't stop NDP campaigners, in the last days of the campaign, from claiming that "secret internal polls" showed that the race was very close and urgently made a call for Green supporters to switch to the NDP. Many did and the Green vote was pushed below 10% and the Green candidate lost his deposit. Alex sailed to victory with a comfy 5000+ vote margin. Thanks NDP! This was a sad result because this stunt was totally unnecessary and will make it much more difficult to cry wolf again, even if it is called for.
I lived in the riding from 1992 until early this year and have been involved in community politics and several Federal and Provincial campaigns in BCSI. What is your experience with the riding?
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Worked in and around the riding for several years in the nineties and still visit the area, and have friends who are politically active there. But I defer to your greater local knowledge. Sorry.
With virtually all of the Liberal vote going to the Conservatives, while Atamanenko held his vote, it means that Greens in that riding will have some much more consequential decisions to make there next time around.
I don't think so. In the 2008 election the polls showed the NDP way out in front from the get-go. This didn't stop NDP campaigners, in the last days of the campaign, from claiming that "secret internal polls" showed that the race was very close and urgently made a call for Green supporters to switch to the NDP. Many did and the Green vote was pushed below 10% and the Green candidate lost his deposit. Alex sailed to victory with a comfy 5000+ vote margin. Thanks NDP! This was a sad result because this stunt was totally unnecessary and will make it much more difficult to cry wolf again, even if it is called for.
Yes, I remember that story now that you mention it. However, the implication of what you're saying is that the Greens are allowed to pitch for NDP votes, but not vice versa. The Liberals get grumpy about the same thing. The thing is we campaign hard for every vote, and don't take for granted that any of them "belong" to us like some other parties do. And, how can you be so sure what led to that outcome, given that your own leader was advocating people vote strategically to stop the Conservatives? Nothing is certain in election campaigns. Not the last one and not the next one.