babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

latest polling thread - 5 july, 2012

love is free
Offline
Joined: May 21 2012

i wanted to get back to this:

"Actually, Jan, if you want to be an objective political analyst, you need to acknowledge that Justin Trudeau has some good political skills and knows how to campaign.  That's how he got elected twice in Quebec, in difficult circumstances.  Once against an incumbent Bloc MP, and then in an election in which almost 60 ridings went NDP and very few Quebec incumbents survived.  Even giants like Duceppe were toppled."

barbot was the bq candidate in all of quebec whose vote total dropped the least.  people account for dion and coderre surviving because of the ethnic voting patterns in their ridings, and in papineau, this holds as well, but with a twist: trudeau survived the ndp wave up there because of 5000+ votes from the cultural communities that went barbot, that in any other riding would have gone ndp.  leader or not, if the ndp stay over 40% in quebec in 2015, the guy will lose that seat, and believe me that with demographics like we have up there, there'll be no shortage of city councilors and other notables jostling to take a run at the guy under the ndp banner.


Comments

jjuares
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2012

I raised the point that the NDP should have responded to the Conservative attack ads with some cheap internet ads. Some people responded that the Con ads were ineffective. No arguments here. However that is a good reason to respond to them not ignore them. Next time the Cons come out with negative ads and the NDP responds the corporate media will definitely draw people's attention to the fact that the NDP did not respond to the first ineffective ads but are doing so now. That must because this new bunch of ads are effective will be the argument they put forth. Further to this point, the Con attack ads are an opportunity. The NDP can respond without looking negative. Ask any boxer.Do you fail to counterpunch just because your opponenets blows missed the mark? No on the contrary that is the best time for a counterpunch.

The NDP missed the boat. No shot across the bow should go unanswered.


Ippurigakko
Offline
Joined: May 30 2011

There are two thread? I posted it yesterday July 4, you post it today.

which one is should closed?


Lou Arab
Offline
Joined: Jul 25 2001

jjuares wrote:

I raised the point that the NDP should have responded to the Conservative attack ads with some cheap internet ads. Some people responded that the Con ads were ineffective. No arguments here. However that is a good reason to respond to them not ignore them. Next time the Cons come out with negative ads and the NDP responds the corporate media will definitely draw people's attention to the fact that the NDP did not respond to the first ineffective ads but are doing so now. That must because this new bunch of ads are effective will be the argument they put forth. Further to this point, the Con attack ads are an opportunity. The NDP can respond without looking negative. Ask any boxer.Do you fail to counterpunch just because your opponenets blows missed the mark? No on the contrary that is the best time for a counterpunch.

The NDP missed the boat. No shot across the bow should go unanswered.

Perhaps.  But it's worth noting that the advertising blitz defining Mulcair that the NDP launched shortly after the leadership race was part of that response.  They chose (wisely in my opinion) to define Mulcair before the Conservatives got a chance to do it.

That may not make it wrong to respond now, I'm just saying it's not as if the NDP have done nothing to address this expected attack.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Well Debater, where is that apology? Jan won't ask you to apologize to her for your commentary, but I will. So how about it, are you going to be a gentleman about this and apolgize, or not?

And I say again, stop telling other people that they need to be objective. Its is patronizing, and no one wants to hear it, period.


David Young
Offline
Joined: Dec 9 2007

Debater...apologize?

Arthur, you've got to be kidding!

Someone so biased towards the Liberals admitting fault...?

Easier to put a fat man throught the eye of a needle!

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Getting back to polling. Check out this new poll of 1,000 Newfoundlders by Environics. It has the federal NDP at 49% in NL as a whole - that would practically lead to a clean sweep of the province!

http://www.environics.ca/uploads/File/Environics-NL-Federal-and-Provinci...


Very Far Away
Offline
Joined: Sep 20 2011

Stockholm wrote:

Getting back to polling. Check out this new poll of 1,000 Newfoundlders by Environics. It has the federal NDP at 49% in NL as a whole - that would practically lead to a clean sweep of the province!

http://www.environics.ca/uploads/File/Environics-NL-Federal-and-Provinci...

 

Wow. These numbers for NL are fantastic.

 


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

Very Far Away wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Getting back to polling. Check out this new poll of 1,000 Newfoundlders by Environics. It has the federal NDP at 49% in NL as a whole - that would practically lead to a clean sweep of the province!

http://www.environics.ca/uploads/File/Environics-NL-Federal-and-Provinci...

 

Wow. These numbers for NL are fantastic.

 

These results (NDP had 49%, Cons 34% and Libs 17%) support the NDP lead in the results in a national poll done in late June where the NDP had 59%, Cons 22% and Libs 18% for a Newfoundland and Labrador subsample with smaller subsample size and larger margin of error.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2012/06/majority-support-for-federal-nd...

 


Brachina
Online
Joined: Feb 15 2012

Lou Arab wrote:

jjuares wrote:

I raised the point that the NDP should have responded to the Conservative attack ads with some cheap internet ads. Some people responded that the Con ads were ineffective. No arguments here. However that is a good reason to respond to them not ignore them. Next time the Cons come out with negative ads and the NDP responds the corporate media will definitely draw people's attention to the fact that the NDP did not respond to the first ineffective ads but are doing so now. That must because this new bunch of ads are effective will be the argument they put forth. Further to this point, the Con attack ads are an opportunity. The NDP can respond without looking negative. Ask any boxer.Do you fail to counterpunch just because your opponenets blows missed the mark? No on the contrary that is the best time for a counterpunch.

The NDP missed the boat. No shot across the bow should go unanswered.

Perhaps.  But it's worth noting that the advertising blitz defining Mulcair that the NDP launched shortly after the leadership race was part of that response.  They chose (wisely in my opinion) to define Mulcair before the Conservatives got a chance to do it.

That may not make it wrong to respond now, I'm just saying it's not as if the NDP have done nothing to address this expected attack.

Not to mention that there will be a response, but there isn't a rush, no worries, lets do this right, do the studies, raise the funds, and aim,well so our ads DON'T miss. Nobody that I know, even knows about the ads. The ads won't effect our votes. A swing and a miss when the threat level is low is a waste of funds. I do understand your worry, but trust me we still have time.

mmphosis
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2009


bekayne
Offline
Joined: Jan 23 2006

jerrym wrote:

Very Far Away wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Getting back to polling. Check out this new poll of 1,000 Newfoundlders by Environics. It has the federal NDP at 49% in NL as a whole - that would practically lead to a clean sweep of the province!

http://www.environics.ca/uploads/File/Environics-NL-Federal-and-Provinci...

Wow. These numbers for NL are fantastic.

 

These results (NDP had 49%, Cons 34% and Libs 17%) support the NDP lead in the results in a national poll done in late June where the NDP had 59%, Cons 22% and Libs 18% for a Newfoundland and Labrador subsample with smaller subsample size and larger margin of error.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2012/06/majority-support-for-federal-nd...

 

 

You've got the Cons & Libs numbers mixed up


Northern-54
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

EKOS poll from early July has been released (regionals only):

British Columbia

NDP 39.4
Con 26.3
Lib 12.9
Green 10

Alberta

Con 60.5%
NDP 19.5%
Lib 15%
Green 4%

Saskatchewan/Manitoba

NDP 31.9%
Con 29.8%
Lib 24.0%
Green 11%

Ontario

Con 35.3%
NDP 29.3%
Lib 23
Green not reported

Quebec

NDP 39.1%
BLOC 20.8%
LIB 16.4%
Con 13.2%
Green not reported

Atlantic Canada

LIB 32.5%
NDP 28.4%
Con 25.8
Green 11

 

Many of the regional results do not add to 100%. And, as usual, EKOS has "high" numbers for the Green Party.

 

 


Ottawa Centre-Left
Offline
Joined: Mar 6 2012

 

Can you share the link?

Northern-54 wrote:

EKOS poll from early July has been released (regionals only):


Northern-54
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/13/new-poll-shows-conservatives-sliding-...

 

Here is a story that talks about the poll. I got the numbers from a friend of mine earlier. The only number

that seems to be incorrect is the Liberal vote in Alberta (which the story has at 10% rather than 15%) and

the Green vote in Alberta is not mentioned.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Is this the poll you are referring to?

 

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/FG-2012-07-03.pdf


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

it is good news that the NDP has a 3 % lead over the Cons with the Greens at 9.5

Two-thirds of the Green vote will melt away with the bulk of it going to the NDP.

It does seem to be a pattern with EKOS that it gives the Grees an inflated %. It should really figure out how to get a more realistic figure for the Greens.


Northern-54
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

NorthReport wrote:

Is this the poll you are referring to?

 

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/FG-2012-07-03.pdf

 

The numbers are not as similar to what my friends sent me as the article link provided.  The article refers to polling conducted up to July 5 while the link you provide was published on july 3.   So, I think the link you provided is to an earlier poll in July or perhaps the first half of a two week survey.  Not really sure.


UWSofty
Offline
Joined: Dec 4 2002
Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Few have commented on this so I'll take a run at it.

The PC or CPC parties have been down before and the Liberals have as well since Confederation they have see-sawed back and forth. However, it is extremely rare if not unprecedented to see them combined at less than 50%. With the Liberals at 19.2 and the Cons at 29.3 they combine for only 48.5% in this latest Ekos poll. This is a stark illustration of the rejection of the two parties that have governed Canada since confederation when collectively they cannot manage 50%.

Another historic point worth considering is that the last time Canada's Conservatives won 4 elections in a row started in 1878 and ended in 1891. This was the only time in Canada's history that the Cons managed to get re-elected 3 times after a first victory. One could argue that Harper is also no John A. It is not surprising to see the government in its third mandate tired and unpopular. The difference is their support is not bleeding to the Liberals - their usual alternate.

The next historic observation is what happens to the opposition party. The opposition party is always the party that replaces the government when that government loses. Every opposition has become the government except for two-- those were regional opposition parties that while they did not become government they overwhelmingly dominated the regions they contested (Reform, alliance and BQ).

Look at the 30% mark in terms of opposition strength in seats. When a party is going down or staying roughly stable and they manage 30% in opposition there is little indication of what will happen in the next election but when a party is trending up from the previous election and they reach 30% they become government in the following election in all cases except one: 1972.

As for parties dropping to third place from government this has only happened once in Canadian history: 1993. That party did not survive to come back above 3rd place. So a fall from government to third is historically a one-way trip in Canada.

You have to like the odds for the NDP.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The PC or CPC parties have been down before and the Liberals have as well since Confederation they have see-sawed back and forth. However, it is extremely rare if not unprecedented to see them combined at less than 50%. With the Liberals at 19.2 and the Cons at 29.3 they combine for only 48.5% in this latest Ekos poll. This is a stark illustration of the rejection of the two parties that have governed Canada since confederation when collectively they cannot manage 50%.

The CPC is mostly a new party (Reform) with very few progressives. They have little or nothing in common with the party of Diefenbaker and others, and have roots as government only  since 2006 - not since Confederation.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Agreed but they ate that party whole.

The point that a Conservative party and a Liberal party together don't reach 50% in the polls is a first as far as I know...


knownothing
Offline
Joined: Mar 24 2011

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Few have commented on this so I'll take a run at it.

The PC or CPC parties have been down before and the Liberals have as well since Confederation they have see-sawed back and forth. However, it is extremely rare if not unprecedented to see them combined at less than 50%. With the Liberals at 19.2 and the Cons at 29.3 they combine for only 48.5% in this latest Ekos poll. This is a stark illustration of the rejection of the two parties that have governed Canada since confederation when collectively they cannot manage 50%.

Another historic point worth considering is that the last time Canada's Conservatives won 4 elections in a row started in 1878 and ended in 1891. This was the only time in Canada's history that the Cons managed to get re-elected 3 times after a first victory. One could argue that Harper is also no John A. It is not surprising to see the government in its third mandate tired and unpopular. The difference is their support is not bleeding to the Liberals - their usual alternate.

The next historic observation is what happens to the opposition party. The opposition party is always the party that replaces the government when that government loses. Every opposition has become the government except for two-- those were regional opposition parties that while they did not become government they overwhelmingly dominated the regions they contested (Reform, alliance and BQ).

Look at the 30% mark in terms of opposition strength in seats. When a party is going down or staying roughly stable and they manage 30% in opposition there is little indication of what will happen in the next election but when a party is trending up from the previous election and they reach 30% they become government in the following election in all cases except one: 1972.

As for parties dropping to third place from government this has only happened once in Canadian history: 1993. That party did not survive to come back above 3rd place. So a fall from government to third is historically a one-way trip in Canada.

You have to like the odds for the NDP.

Yeah it seems very similar to the Diefenbaker government. After a while the country was like, "Yeah, yeah, the West wants in, but that is far enough"


JKR
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2005

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
It is not surprising to see the government in its third mandate tired and unpopular.

It seems to me that over the last 6 years the Conservatives have often polled in the low 30's and sometimes even just in the high 20's. During this time they've been able to raise their numbers during the four elections we've had and this has given them much more power than their ongoing support between elections would indicate they should have.

The financial advantage they have over the other parties has played a large role in allowing them to peak when it counts the most. Their financial advantage has allowed them to mount unopposed advertising campaigns whenever an election seems imminent. So far their ad campaigns have been able to lift their numbers by the few percentage points they need to keep them in power.

It will be interesting to see how this dynamic changes in the future. Will the Conservatives be able to continue holding unopposed ad campaigns during this election cycle? Will their ad campaigns continue moving their numbers upward enough to keep them in power? What can the NDP do to short circuit this process?

The general long-term lack of popularity of our federal government is a trend that distinguishes Canada from other countries. I can't think of another country that has had a government over such a long time with such ongoing low popularity. In most countries when a governing party or coalition continuously polls in the mid to low 30's or worse, they're time is up at the next election. Only in Canada and the UK is it possible for a government to remain indefinitely in power with ongoing support in the mid to low 30's or worse.

The solution to this problem is obvious - proportional representation.


Michael Moriarity
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

Thank you for the interesting analysis, Sean. I agree that the next election will in all likelihood be a "kick the bums out" election, and the NDP, with the very Prime Ministerial Tom Mulcair as leader, is almost certain to be the vehicle through which the voters will do the kicking.

 


howeird beale
Offline
Joined: Jan 13 2011

Yeah, that was fascinating, Sean.


Brachina
Online
Joined: Feb 15 2012
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-canada-politicspolll2e8idi63-201207... This is odd, American News Papers usually ignore Canadian domestic politics don't they?

NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Cause for concern for Harper: the NDP is either in first place, or tied for 1st place, in the last eleven federal polls.

And I'm sure this weekend's removal of a refuge who just wanted to ask a question at a Conservative party event by Kenney's thugs is NOT going to help the Cons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Canadian_federal_election


David Young
Offline
Joined: Dec 9 2007

It's been a month since Angus Reid, Harris-Decima, or Ipsos Reid have released new polling data, but EKOS comes out with two polls in the meantime.

I'm beginning to wonder if the NDP continues it's string of leading polls, will the polling firms stop releasing results that they don't necessarily like???


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

It would make sense for pollsters to slow down in the summer-- not as much interest and results are less likely to be accurate as there are fewer people available-- lastly in the summer polling is much more expensive to do.

For those who don't know about this last one, I can explain (I used to work for a pollster).

Pollsters buy phone numbers (sample) and they pay people to dial them. During the summer many more people are away (not just on vacation but outside etc.) but you still have to pay for the sample. Only about 1% of numbers actually turn in to a survey (most are unanswered or hangups and the remainder are mostly refusals) and this goes even lower in the summer. If you need to dial a lot more numbers to get people at home it costs more.The more the public are interested also the cheaper it is because more will agree to do a survey. When we get close to an election and more are paying attention then it actually gets cheaper to conduct a poll because it will take fewer numbers to get completed surveys. If you over poll you also burn your sample-- people start saying "take me off the list" instead of just refusing. If they ask to go off the list, you can't call them again. The busier they are -- like on vacation etc. the more likely they will get fed up and say "take me off the list."

So you see, polling is more costly in summertime when people are busy having fun and are more often out. It is also more expensive when you are not near an election because people are less informed and less interested and less patient about pollsters calling. Finally, polls are down because the clients have less money to spend. When the media is having economic difficulties, they need to cut back on costs including polling. If the public is less interested the expense of polling is even less worth it.

My guess is we will see fewer and fewer polls over the next couple years due to the economic uncertainties in the industry.


David Young
Offline
Joined: Dec 9 2007

Nanos Research released four polls between May and September 2011, when the Conservatives had a 5%+ lead over the NDP.

Now that the NDP is leading the Conservatives (or in a 'statistical tie'), suddenly Nanos isn't giving out poll results?

Does anyone else find that suspicious?

 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments