Latest polling thread July 14, 2015

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

On the CTV article page, the posters seem to think this will be really bad for the NDP and great for the Liberals.

NorthReport

Actually it is the reverse Arthur.

This is another major Trudeau strategic mistake, perhaps not as big as Trudeau supporting C51 but it is up there as it shows Trudeau is not willing to co-operate with the NDP to bring Harper down.

CTV just did an extensive interview with a professor from Queens about it who explained the significance.

Once again bad news for Trudeau. Frown

 

 

 

 

NorthReport

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  4h4 hours ago

Norman Spector retweeted Globe Politics

Does @paulisci understand that the #NDP are far ahead in seat-rich francophone areas of Quebec?

Norman Spector added,

Globe Politics @globepoliticsQuebec the most volatile electoral battleground: election simulator http://bit.ly/1OohPQL  #cdnpoli

 

NorthReport

Good article in nat post today entitled:

Tom Mulcair and the magic of momentum

Rokossovsky

nicky wrote:
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/5705222-liberals-can-hold-on-to-... This article refers to a Forum poll from about a month ago showing the NDP ahead in Guelph. 34 to 28 for the Liberals and 26 for the Cons. This would be a remarkable gain for the NDP and perhaps reflects why Mulcair is campaigning heavily in SW Ontario. No reference in story to the so- called star Green candidate Gordon Millet but he cannot be polling more than 12% and maybe less. I have tried to find further details of this poll without success.

Oh yes. Despite all the griping about Andrea Horwath, the Ontario election did a lot to institutionalize the NDP in South-Western Ontario.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I do not think that JT made any mistake by saying no to a coalition government. It would have been political suicide for him if he had said yes. A yes would imply that the Liberals have accepted defeat and the election has not even been called yet. By saying no, he is telling Canadians that the Liberals are out to win the election and that they are a good party to vote for. If he had said yes, he would be letting voters know that he has thrown in the towel and that the NDP is the only alternative to the Conservstives. This does not mean that the Liberals would turn down a coalition proposal if they finish the election in third place and the NDP comes out on top. This is not the time to be discussing matters like this. It is rude, and it is the same kind of questioning that the NDP has been historically bombarded with each election because they have always been known as the third party in Canada. This is not the time to get worked up over trivia and posturing.

Misfit Misfit's picture

It is also not good for Mulcair to be discussing coalitions either at this point. It sends a message to voters that he believes that the NDP is only minority government material. He should be talking majority and thinking exclusively majority. It gives voters a better sense of confidence that Mulcair is the one to vote for. Set your goals high and show your confidence as a leader and leave the coalitions to discuss after the election if that is what the results come to.

Rokossovsky

Policywonk wrote:

josh wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

NDP open for coalition with Libs.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-open-to-forming-coalition-government-...

Good.

That presupposes that the Conservatives win the most seats.

No, that presupposes that no party wins a majority and the Conservatives win enough seats that they feel that they can face the house even with fewer seats than the party that wins the most seats. 

Yes, however if Liberals abstain, then government will fall on strength of NDP vote. Tricky situation for Justin there with no money in the bank and a potential election call in the works if he doesn't guarantee NDP governance. If no coalition with NDP in the works, then it looks like Justin is basically forced to support Harper if Harper doesn't have more seats than NDP, doesn't want a deal with the NDP and doesn't want an election.

Real problem will be LPC caucus revolt. No doubt CPC already has feelers out to soft Liberals, who may jump ship to help Harper form majority in case of hung parliament.

There might be more to Nathan "the appeaser" Cullen's  foray into coalition talk than meets the eye. They maybe positioning him as central agent of coalition negotiations over Mulcair in order to avoid increasing personality conflicts between Trudeau and Mulcair, giving Mulcair a free hand on the attack as necessary with Justin.

No doubt Cullen developed many positive contacts with LPC operators (Joyce Murray?) during his "cooperation" leadership bid, and would be a natural to suss out pliant Liberals, and even possible defectors, should the LPC have a serious caucus split over who to back in a minority parliament.

Rokossovsky

Misfit wrote:
It is also not good for Mulcair to be discussing coalitions either at this point. It sends a message to voters that he believes that the NDP is only minority government material. He should be talking majority and thinking exclusively majority. It gives voters a better sense of confidence that Mulcair is the one to vote for. Set your goals high and show your confidence as a leader and leave the coalitions to discuss after the election if that is what the results come to.

NDP has campaigned successfully twice by remaining open to coalition once in 2011, and all through 2014/15 with the polling result we see now. Its tempting to try and dry out the Liberals using a strategic voting stretcher, but NDP positive openness in contrast to Iggy's negative closure helped set the tone for the positive campaign that created the Orange Crush.

It would be an utterly transparent vote buy for Mulcair to flip-flop on this, when many have questioned previous statement against "cooperation" in the NDP leadership campaign --- there and back again?

As long as Trudeau doubles down the "no coalition" line, the contrast will remain, and he may have said "no" too often, and too definitively to back track now.

Liberal strategy at this point seems to be damage control, and holding onto the base, hence the obnoxious "Mulcair is a separatist" attack ad, recently released -- this is of no interest to anyone but LPC veterans of the sovereignty wars of the 80s and 90s. Remember, success for the third place Liberals will be judged at a bear minimum of doubling their seat count, with "success" measured as becoming official opposition -- that will be their target now.

Winning or bust is not a precondition for Trudeau, as it is for Mulcair.

Staying on track with positive "coalition" talk will also reduce much post-election political fuss of "legitimacy" should the NDP try a coalition with LPC, since they are campaigning on it.

Unseating Harper is what those tempted by "strategic voting" want so there is probably as much to be gained from defining the NDP around being willing to unseat Stephen Harper one way or the other, as soon as possible after the election, and Trudeau rejection of that will sour his image with that demographic.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  4h4 hours ago

Norman Spector retweeted Globe Politics

Does @paulisci understand that the #NDP are far ahead in seat-rich francophone areas of Quebec?

Norman Spector added,

Globe Politics @globepoliticsQuebec the most volatile electoral battleground: election simulator http://bit.ly/1OohPQL  #cdnpoli

 

They have the Bloc winning 27 seats?!

mark_alfred

Rokossovsky wrote:

Misfit wrote:
It is also not good for Mulcair to be discussing coalitions either at this point. It sends a message to voters that he believes that the NDP is only minority government material. He should be talking majority and thinking exclusively majority. It gives voters a better sense of confidence that Mulcair is the one to vote for. Set your goals high and show your confidence as a leader and leave the coalitions to discuss after the election if that is what the results come to.

NDP has campaigned successfully twice by remaining open to coalition once in 2011, and all through 2014/15 with the polling result we see now. Its tempting to try and dry out the Liberals using a strategic voting stretcher, but NDP positive openness in contrast to Iggy's negative closure helped set the tone for the positive campaign that created the Orange Crush.

It would be an utterly transparent vote buy for Mulcair to flip-flop on this, when many have questioned previous statement against "cooperation" in the NDP leadership campaign --- there and back again?

As long as Trudeau doubles down the "no coalition" line, the contrast will remain, and he may have said "no" too often, and too definitively to back track now.

Liberal strategy at this point seems to be damage control, and holding onto the base, hence the obnoxious "Mulcair is a separatist" attack ad, recently released -- this is of no interest to anyone but LPC veterans of the sovereignty wars of the 80s and 90s. Remember, success for the third place Liberals will be judged at a bear minimum of doubling their seat count, with "success" measured as becoming official opposition -- that will be their target now.

Winning or bust is not a precondition for Trudeau, as it is for Mulcair.

Staying on track with positive "coalition" talk will also reduce much post-election political fuss of "legitimacy" should the NDP try a coalition with LPC, since they are campaigning on it.

Unseating Harper is what those tempted by "strategic voting" want so there is probably as much to be gained from defining the NDP around being willing to unseat Stephen Harper one way or the other, as soon as possible after the election, and Trudeau rejection of that will sour his image with that demographic.

Full agreement. 

adma

Rokossovsky wrote:

nicky wrote:
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/5705222-liberals-can-hold-on-to-... This article refers to a Forum poll from about a month ago showing the NDP ahead in Guelph. 34 to 28 for the Liberals and 26 for the Cons. This would be a remarkable gain for the NDP and perhaps reflects why Mulcair is campaigning heavily in SW Ontario. No reference in story to the so- called star Green candidate Gordon Millet but he cannot be polling more than 12% and maybe less. I have tried to find further details of this poll without success.

Oh yes. Despite all the griping about Andrea Horwath, the Ontario election did a lot to institutionalize the NDP in South-Western Ontario.

 

Though the NDP were fourth in Guelph, thanks to Mike Schreiner's Green candidacy (but actually, the spread btw/the 2nd place PCs and 4th place NDP was barely over 3 points)

josh

Forum: NDP 34 (134 seats) Liberals 29 (78 seats) Con 28 (121) Bloc 4 seats, Greens 1.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/Federal%20Horserace%20News%20Release%20(2015%2007%2021)%20Forum%20Research.pdf

mark_alfred

josh, your link doesn't work (for me, anyway).  This link should, though.

NorthReport

Conservative support among voters jumps as child care cheques land on doorsteps poll finds

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/conservative-...

takeitslowly

never heard of that polling company

josh

Did polling in the Alberta race. Don't think they have much, if any, of a national track record. Outlier.

Pierre C yr

What was the track record of Mainstreet in the Alberta election? I dont think we can discount the UCCB bump anymore than we could the Duceppe bump. But if the economy keeps falling off a cliff it may not matter.

NorthReport

They were polling as the cheques arrived in the mail

Brachina

 If you look at the Ontario numbers they radically sqew the poll towards the Tories. I mean all of a sudden the NDP drops to 16% and the Tories explode to 45%. I don't buy the sudden extreme explosion in Harper's populatity, there is no evidence of it anywhere else.

 Also notice that it was a push poll on the Tories childcare benifit and that 30% were undecided.

 Interestingly the mainstreet poll has the NDP at over 40% in BC, so that part might be too high too, (but I hope not:-) 

NorthReport
Stockholm

I wonder why according to Mainstreet people in Ontario were genuflecting before Harper in gratitude for the UCCB cheques, but people getting the cheques in BC gave him a cold shoulder?

Brachina

 Because the numbers in Ontario are bullshit, no one else sees them or anything close, forum came out with at poll at the same time period and it doesn't show it.

 Look at for who the poll was designed and how.

NorthReport

Forum - Jul 20 '15

 

Pop Vote

NDP / 34%

Cons / 28%

Libs  / 29%

 

Best Prime Minister

Mulcair  / 29%

Harper  / 25%

Trudeau  / 20%

 

Seats

NDP / 134 seats

Cons / 121 seats

Libs / 78 seats

BQ / 4 seats

Grns / 1 seat

Total / 338 seats

 

All this talk about NDP minority government is precisely that, a bunch of hot air.

Do people for one second seriously think Trudeau would support Mulcair to be Prime Minister? The odds of that happening are about a million to 1.

Unfortunately the NDP is facing 2 right-wing parties, Trudeau said as much yesterday, and in such a scenario Harper would continue to govern.

The only way that Mulcair will become Prime Minister is if the NDP is rewarded by the voters and earn a majority government.  

-----

3,600

 

Sean in Ottawa

I have not been on rabble this week but I wanted to come and share this:

I raised a number of questions about this Mainstreet poll on Twitter today. The numbers don't add up. While I do not question their data or methodology in terms of collection, I suspect that when they prepared the data for release numbers were transposed in error.

Here is the link to the release (the PDF is at the bottom but not the excel sheet of course): http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/2015/07/24/conservative-christmas-in-july/

In their release they say those who are following the release of the UCCB cheques closely AND are eligible to receive them, are much more likely to vote Conservative (heading to para 4). This subgroup is reported at 38% for the CPC.

They also say that those who are not aware of the UCCB cheques are much less likely to vote CPC (23% -- but reported as 25% in the NP).

(There have been reports in the media during the last week stating that those who are eligible to get the UCCB cheques are more likely to be Conservative and more likely to be in Conservative ridings.)

Then they say that the national figures for Conservative popularity is 38% -- the very same number (para 3) as the subgroup of those getting cheques.

Even if the CPC had increased for other reasons across the board you would expect support from those receiving cheques to go up in tandem. How would it make sense that the rest of the population could catch up while they remained the same? It is difficult to believe that a group identified as core support for the CPC would have identical support to the national result.

It seemed more likely that the figures provided for the national poll has been overwritten in the data excel by the subgroup figures OR that they took the figures for the subgroup as the national figures.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Thanks, Sean. It really does look as if there is something seriously wrong, when the sub-sample that gets the benefit and is paying close attention to that fact has the same CPC vote number as the general population. How can this error be forced into public view?

socialdemocrati...

That's a pretty coherent explanation. It would be odd for the subset most likely to support the CPC to be the same as the overall poll. Something is defintely wrong. 

NorthReport
adma
Pierre C yr

Im not so sure they made a simple mistake on the Mainstreet poll. If the UCCB isnt what is giving the tories a bump in that poll the only other thing I can see is the near Adrian Dix moment the media made out of the East Energy pipeline recently where Mulcair, and Trudeau, seemed to oppose it instead of supporting it. I dont think you will find the environment anywhere near as close as the economy in peoples minds. BC taught us that much and green issues there are much higher than the rest of the country. And even in Quebec Im not sure its that high an election issue with overall high unemployment still a bane in the country and in pretty much every province.

We need a job creation policy and I dont see it from anyone really right now... not sure the public will think a small biz tax cut is enough for the NDP to score on that front. We need a public investment agenda with numbers, physical and timely targets that are costed. For example give us a proper 4 lane highway coast to coast. You can finance it and others with bond issues that dont appear to be funded by taxes and that have assets to back them. IOW we are building a richer country. Whats great about public infrastrucutre is that you can sell it as visionary. I dont know why no one is thinking of mixing a visionary and public investment message yet.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I did an analysis of the available information about the demographics of the Mainstreet Poll. Very little information is available but what we do see does not suggest reason for confidence. Since I did this work, I may as well post it here.

I approached them and they offered me tables to see the math. Then they sent me the UCCB eligible table 1044 respondents and then said I could not see the rest as it was private between them and the client. The client is a newspaper and the poll is a publicly released poll.

You can see the demographic breakdown if you look at their poll and you can see some significant distortions.

They interviewed 5147 people as follows:

# ages %

534 18-34 10%

860 35-49 16.7%

1698 50-64 32.9%

2055 65+ 39.9%

As you can see only 10% of their survey were people under 34. Elections Canada has provided an estimate of the voting demographics here: http://www.elections.ca/res/rec/part/estim/41st_GE_turnout_e.xls

18-24 7.7%

25-34 12.7%

35-44 15.65%

45-54 22.0%

55-64 20.37%

65-74 12.9%

over 75 8.5%

These demographics do not overlap in all age ranges but some do. Let's compare Mainstreet age demographics to actual voting statistics.

18-34 Mainstreet weight 10% Elections Canada 20.4% Mainstreet under estimate by half or 10%

65+ Mainstreet weight 40% Elections Canada 21.4% Mainstreet over estimate by almost double or 19.6%

My estimates as Mainstreet is 35-49 and 50-64 and Elections Canada is 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64.

35-49 Mainstreet 16.7% Elections Canada 15.65 and portion of 22 let's take 10% = 25.65% Mainstreet underestimate by 1/3 or 9%

50-64 Mainstreet 32.9% Elections Canada 20.37 and portion of 22 let's take 12% = 32.37% Mainstreet seems to have this correct.

This age distortion is so significant that the survey would be very compromised.

We have no idea what other distortions exist but we have a couple clues as to more:

They surveyed 1044 parents of kids under 18. they only surveyed 1394 people under age 49. While some parents may be over 50 the vast majority would be expected to be under 50. This means that the number of young people they surveyed were tilted heavily to families with children and very few single young people were interviewed.

Now lets look to see how they did weighting provinces

In 2011 here are the following percentages of total votes from each province (http://www.elections.ca/scripts/ovr2011/default.html)

Atlantic 7.7% 8.1%

Quebec 25.8% 27.0%

Ontario 37.5% 31.16%

Prairies 6.4% 8%

Alberta 9.4% 9.8%

BC 12.7% 15.8%

Overall much closer but still a few differences.

The Mainstreet survey gender split was 45% male and 55% female.

Women do vote slightly more than men: women participated at a higher rate (59.6%) than men (57.3%) and they represent a higher share of the population but the difference is only 1% of the population (49.5 male 50.5 female). The difference Mainstreet has is much greater. I have to assume this was due to distortion of younger adults being more likely to have children (more families are headed by women than men).

So what we see is a significant mystery when it comes to much of the methodology but some serious questions about the methodology we can see.

All this is a case in point for one survey showing you how demographics can distort the result.

Of course you can also distort a result more by taking more sample from rural areas (easier and cheaper to survey than cities if by phone), particular ridings, specific ridings and poll districts etc. And then there is the question of how the survey itself is conducted-- the order of questions etc.

There is a lot of reason not to trust polls in general. This particular howler provides a case study of the types of problems and the lack of accountability so the public cannot verify all that much.

I am not following these threads very much right now  -- if you want to ask me a question about this survey please send me a DM -- I will geta notice in my email and come and get any messages. Otherwise I may miss a reply.

josh

Nice job debunking the poll Sean.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Thanks for this analysis, Sean.

Sean in Ottawa

Thanks Josh and Michael -- I now want to debunk the notion that more responses make for a more accurate poll. Several people have been saying Mainstreet is more accurate becuase they included more responses. That is absolutely false. Here is why:

Surveys that are to be representative are difficult to fill all quotas and demographic ranges. Sample is very expensive -- even if you are using IVR as Mainstreet does rather than live callers. You have to call a lot more people to fill the age demographics appropriately.

So a balanced survey done by another firm may call the same number of people as Mainstreet, but they throw out the extra volume of respondents in the easier to fill demographics in order to have a balanced survey. Mainstreet clearly goes ahead and uses the sample to get more data -- and claims to be more accurate in the process due to having more data. But what they are doing is blowing open the demographics to do so and in fact getting a bigger but less accurate survey than if they only used the proportionate number in each age group.

In the field it looks like what they did is applied a minimum quota for the parents part of the survey and simply collected all the surveys they got from any age until they had the right number of parents. Instead, they should have closed the filled demographics and kept dialing to get the hard-to-reach people. I have run surveys in field for another pollster and I know how hard that is when you are looking for the 18-34 parent and you have tons of over 65 lonely single people who want to do a survey and you can't find the 18-34 range. You have to keep dialing and this "burns sample" -- even if you are using IVR.

This is a question of quality. And when you release data like this I would say ethics. So when they speak about the accuracy with x points based on the size of the survey this is based on a presumption of the same methodology and the same proportion of quotas and demographics but you completely blow that accuracy out of the water if you over-use the easier-to-get demographics to fill up quantity.

My concern is if a survey blows open the age demographics to a distortion of 400% as was done here -- what did they do with the regional breakdowns? What is stopping them from dialing more in ridings where there are more kids (mostly Conservative ridings)? This would cost less and is no more unethical than the age distortion in my view.

A quality opinion survey uses sample that is designed to produce a balanced result across all ridings and closes quotas to avoid having to many in certain areas.This measn due to cost and limited surveys in some quotas that the top line number of participants will be lower.

In the case of Mainstreet, how do we know they did not have most of the Ontario results from places like Newmarket? Newmarket is a nice choice -- it has a high number of families, the commute is shorter than many places (meaning the calling window is longer for surveys) -- but they are far more Conservative than Etobicoke -- or Ottawa. You might have to dial more in Edmonton to get your fill of families than in Calgary or Lethbridge. If you don't care, your survey is less expensive but also less accurate no matter how many you include in total.

I get suspicious of surveys that are this big. To me it means they are probably not closing quotas because if they were, to keep a balance, the number you would have to dial for a survey of this size and complexity is astronomical.

Sean in Ottawa

To sum on the age demographics for Mainstreet:

If a survey were weighted to reflect actual percentages of voters in each age range (according to Elections Canada) the number of people surveyed under 34 should be close to the same as the number over 65. However, Mainstreet has four times as many over 65 as under 34. A 400% difference. Of course that means something.

bekayne

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To sum on the age demographics for Mainstreet:

If a survey were weighted to reflect actual percentages of voters in each age range (according to Elections Canada) the number of people surveyed under 34 should be close to the same as the number over 65. However, Mainstreet has four times as many over 65 as under 34. A 400% difference. Of course that means something.

They say they weighted by age, though they don't mention the census, as other pollsters do.

The poll surveyed a random sample of 5,147 Canadians by Smart IVR™ on July 20-21, 2015.Mainstreet surveyed a mixture of landlines and cell phones. Results were weighted by age,gender, region and language.

Sean in Ottawa

bekayne wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To sum on the age demographics for Mainstreet:

If a survey were weighted to reflect actual percentages of voters in each age range (according to Elections Canada) the number of people surveyed under 34 should be close to the same as the number over 65. However, Mainstreet has four times as many over 65 as under 34. A 400% difference. Of course that means something.

They say they weighted by age, though they don't mention the census, as other pollsters do.

The poll surveyed a random sample of 5,147 Canadians by Smart IVR™ on July 20-21, 2015.Mainstreet surveyed a mixture of landlines and cell phones. Results were weighted by age,gender, region and language.

A survey is weighted by the quotas you set for each demographic as you run it in field. This is done so you do not do piles of surveys you don't need to do. Age qualifiers are asked at the start of the survey -- may I speak to a person between the ages of x and y. As you do the survey and fill quotas x and y are modified.

You can see in their PDF that they are issuing both percentages and numbers for all 5147 respondents-- and the age ranges. The quota in each category they use is the weight. We know how many of each age they have as they published that. And they claim to have the weight of 5147 surveys when they claim their accuracy.

Looking at the demographics it looks like they did close quotas somewhat in regions but not appropriately in terms of age (if at all) -- unless they mean they "weighted by age to distort the survey in order to have the Conservatives lead..." Possible but I doubt it. More likely they did what was cheapest to get a big result at the least cost of sample.

Gender: they used 10% more women than men (I suspect this was to make it easier to get qualified parents as there are more female headed families than male).

Region: the provinces are semi-accurate -- I did analyse this and the results are off but not drastically.

Age: the weighting for age is what I have provided -- it is in their results. They are using results where 72% of the surveys come from people over 50 and 40% from people over 65. 10% for people under 34.

This IS their weighting. If they discarded any over-quota results above that we don't see this.

And let's be clear they are claiming the data is accurate becuase they used 5147 respondents. If they were to weight this then that number would have to go down to represent the number of surveys used in that particular line. Since this 5147 includes 4x the seniors as under 34 year olds when they should be equal, the actual size of survey where you could get balanced data would drop by 75% so we would no longer be speaking of a poll of 5147 but rather under 1500.

Either they are lying when they say that the topline party preference represents 5147 people or they are not being truthful when they say it is weighted. Of course they did not say it is accurately weighted or weighted to match voters or the population.

Canada is aging but Seniors do not yet represent 4 in 10 of us. And over 50 does not represnt more than 7 in 10.

It looks clear they used the entire data set. when you look at the PDF.

 

Pierre C yr

Are they weighing for likely voters? People over 65 vote at a far greater ratio than those under 34.

Sean in Ottawa

Pierre C yr wrote:

Are they weighing for likely voters? People over 65 vote at a far greater ratio than those under 34.

This would not make sense. The data I used is NOT population data which you would then have to calculate who are citizens and then apply an estimate re likely voters. This is already actual VOTER data from Elections Canada. The fact that older people vote more than younger people is built into this Elections Canada document becuase this is the actual voters. Elections Canada in the same chart provided eligible voters for each age group but I ignored that and took only numbers of voters for each age group. There is no reason to presume that the dynamic of likely voters would change that much in the last four years.

Just so you know the numbers the actual voting participation rate goes from 38% in 18-24 range to 75% in the 50-64 range (it declines after that). But as I say this participation rate is already built in to the numbers I used. BTW Canada has 34 million residents. It has only about 14 million voters. This is after you consider those who are too young and those not eligible like permanent residents.

The elections Canada statistic is the most accurate statistic to work from as it does not guess which ages might vote -- it provides data on who actually does vote in each range. They know who votes and who does not from voter lists and they know the ages of voters as this is recorded when you vote if it is not included in the tax derived voter list.

Now the one thing you might consider is population aging. However, population aging is very minimal over 4 years in these ranges. As well the differences would be more within the ranges rather than between them. For example:

1) some will go from under 18 to over 18; some from under 35 to over 35. These two cohorts are not much different as there is a boomer echo that is turning 18.

2) The group moving from Age 46 to 50 would make little difference either as they are offset by a similar cohort moving from 61 to 65.

3) The cohort moving past 65 is not completely offset by people dying off but the difference is not massive over 4 years (it is more significant over a longer period). So for example, the other cohorts would remain just about the same but the over 65 group might go from the current 21.4% to perhaps 22.5 or 23% But it sure won't explode to 40% as Mainstreet has it.

So, no -- there is no need to weigh the figures I am using any more than they are unless you are trying to distort results...

nicky

It seems like there will be more bad news for the Liberals in this week's EKOS.
Forthcoming EKOS poll apparently shows Liberals running fourth in BC, behind Greens. #cdnpoli.
12:02am - 27 Jul 15

nicky
Brachina

 This is disasterous news for the Tories, the economy is the.issue they tradionally dominate, to be losing it to Tom Mulcair and the NDP, its a huge crisis.

 It'd be like the NDP losing the issue of healthcare to the Tories or the Greens losing the enviroment to the Libertarians.

mark_alfred

nicky wrote:
">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-leads-election-poll...

It's great news.  People are really warming up to the NDP.  I'm looking forward to the Ekos poll.

One interesting quote from the article was this:

Quote:
Some also said the federal Conservatives, which have focused their efforts on hammering Mr. Trudeau, have yet to turn their firepower on Mr. Mulcair and the NDP. “Is Mulcair looking better having nobody taking a critical look at him?” one Conservative strategist said. “I’m sure that is helpful for him at the moment. I suspect that will not be the case for the next three months.”

For the summer I suspect they'll keep attacking Trudeau, since there are still votes for the Cons in Ontario that can be dislodged from the Libs.  But by September, if things still appear to be in the NDP's favour, then I suspect that the Cons will focus on the NDP.  Possibly sooner, but that would depend upon the polls.

johnpauljones

the problem with many of the polls that are being reported is that i think two key questions are lacking. 1 did you vote in the previous election and will you vote in this election. With turnout hovering around 50% nationally polling only really matters if they translate into actual votes at the polls. I fear that these numbers are skewed as it doesnt ask two important questions.

johnpauljones

double post sorry 

terrytowel

Mainstreet is also the polling firm that says a quarter of NDP supporters in Toronto Support Rob Ford

NorthReport

FiveThirtyEight's editor-in-chief (and America's most successful political prognosticator) is actually the only one in North America worth following. All the rest are either incompetent or are connected to a political party.

Nate Silver thinks Bernie Sanders could beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire

Before you write off a double Sanders victory as unlikely, remember that in the 2008 general election, Silver called 49 out of 50 states correctly, and in 2012, he nailed all 50. Ben Frumin

NorthReport

Is the NDP good for the economy? New poll suggests nearly half of Canadians say yes

A new national poll suggests more Canadians think Tom Mulcair would have a positive effect on Canada’s economy despite the Conservatives assurances that their party is the best steward of the economy.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2133770/is-the-ndp-good-for-the-economy-new-po...

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Brachina wrote:

 This is disasterous news for the Tories, the economy is the.issue they tradionally dominate, to be losing it to Tom Mulcair and the NDP, its a huge crisis.

 It'd be like the NDP losing the issue of healthcare to the Tories or the Greens losing the enviroment to the Libertarians.

I thought the Greens were Libertarians Cool

NorthReport

Pages

Topic locked