Latest polling thread - started April 10, 2012

I saw some people commenting about the 308, and their polling average from March. I also thought it was a pretty stupid framework, and seemed a little fishy.

But in Eric Grenier's defense, he's been doing monthly averages for a long time.

So I don't think he was cherrypicking a timeframe to mute the NDP's gains on purpose. It just so happens that the beginning of March is very different from the end of March.

The interesting thing, looking at all the monthly averages, is that there is an "chasm" effect for the New Democrats where some gains are actually *bad* for defeating the Harper government. If we make enough gains, we can combine with the Liberals for a majority. That's also true to some extent if we lose. But there's this perfect gap where we make enough gains to screw up the Liberals, but not enough to take the seats from the Conservatives.

Funny enough, the election seems like it happened at the perfect time. A few days earlier, and the Liberals wouldn't have tanked in Ontario. A few days later, and we might have gotten enough seats to stop the Conservatives from sneaking up the rightward flank.

When the April polling averages come out in a few weeks we may see the NDP in first place in both vote share and seat count for the first time!!

why do the ndp dots turn red.  Confusing...

For polling data usually the data favours the folks who pay for it...follow the money...

So, if the Polling firm gets their $$$ from the Liberals... the report will favour them, 

Doctor Manderly wrote:

For polling data usually the data favours the folks who pay for it...follow the money...

 

So, if the Polling firm gets their $$$ from the Liberals... the report will favour them, 

This is not always the case. Especially for reputable market research companies.

There is no way to gage how accurate a polling firm is between elections and the polling companies know it. It is only when we are close to actual elections they have to have some semblance of closeness to the actual voting results otherrwise they can be discredited. That is basically the only time where they have to be careful. And that's why pollsters can put out polls right now saying anything and who can prove them incorrect? Not saying they do or don't, just suggesting that they all have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. 

What CTV poll are you guys referencing regarding Rae? And does the CTV poll show the Libs ahead of the NDP? I looked on their website and I can't see anything. I don't know to which polls you guys are referring.

As I read NorthReport's comments, he spoke of believing polls more when close to elections.  I find polls during elections, when the election date is more than 10 days away, to be suspect.  Polling firms that do a lot of government business have too much vested interest for me to trust them. Having analyzed night by night results of NANOS during the last election, for example, shows that the results of some of the nights were so improbable as to be statistically impossible, not once but several times.  It is telling that similar analysis close to election night shows no "beyond the realm" of possibility evenings.  NorthReport is correct when he says that there is no way of "proving" that the polls are manipulated unless it is very close to an election date.

In between elections, I am more likely to trust those firms without strong connections to one political party or another.  There have been too many cases of "push polls" undertaken by "reputable" firms for me to trust results all the time.  Since the Liberal Party has fallen to third place, I tend to trust EKOS more now as there is no obvious connection between company government business and the polling results.  I trust the Conservative pollsters less now as there is such an obvioius connection.  I distrust NANOS polls the most.  I tend to like Harris Decima in spite of the company's Conservative connections.

On the other hand, if an election is due within a few days, I trust that all reputable pollsters are trying to get their polling result to reflect what the actual outcome will be.  Therefore, there is a time when I have a lot of trust in pollsters.

Very Far Away wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

There is no way to gage how accurate a polling firm is between elections and the polling companies know it. It is only when we are close to actual elections they have to have some semblance of closeness to the actual voting results otherrwise they can be discredited. That is basically the only time where they have to be careful. And that's why pollsters can put out polls right now saying anything and who can prove them incorrect? Not saying they do or don't, just suggesting that they all have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. 

 

Sorry, I don`t agree with you, NorthReport.

If you really think a reputable market research company changes the real numbers, then you must never believe the results of any polling. If this is the case, this polling thread is meaningless, isn`t it?

Of course, different market research companies may show different results for the same kind of polling and this is normal. There is no 100% correct polling. 

 

 

 

Do you not agree that is is very possible to skew your poll results based on how you pose the questions?

Northern-54 wrote:

As I read NorthReport's comments, he spoke of believing polls more when close to elections.  I find polls during elections, when the election date is more than 10 days away, to be suspect.  Polling firms that do a lot of government business have too much vested interest for me to trust them. Having analyzed night by night results of NANOS during the last election, for example, shows that the results of some of the nights were so improbable as to be statistically impossible, not once but several times.  It is telling that similar analysis close to election night shows no "beyond the realm" of possibility evenings.  NorthReport is correct when he says that there is no way of "proving" that the polls are manipulated unless it is very close to an election date.

In between elections, I am more likely to trust those firms without strong connections to one political party or another.  There have been too many cases of "push polls" undertaken by "reputable" firms for me to trust results all the time.  Since the Liberal Party has fallen to third place, I tend to trust EKOS more now as there is no obvious connection between company government business and the polling results.  I trust the Conservative pollsters less now as there is such an obvioius connection.  I distrust NANOS polls the most.  I tend to like Harris Decima in spite of the company's Conservative connections.

On the other hand, if an election is due within a few days, I trust that all reputable pollsters are trying to get their polling result to reflect what the actual outcome will be.  Therefore, there is a time when I have a lot of trust in pollsters.

Here are the polls before the last election (campaign and pre-campaign):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_ele...

Some figures are kind of weird, but in general they all show the "trends" and that`s the most important thing.

Ippurigakko wrote:

here I made line graph on MS excel

That's a great graph! good job!

So basically, these are polls that reflect the fact no one really knows Mulcair, the fact that the NDP in Opposition has been seem as leaderless, and the MSM have been treating the Libs as though they were the government in waiting. Basically, people are being asked for opinons based on deception and falsehoods.

Nope, these dont worry me in the least. Just like all the polls that said the NDP was done in Quebec. I didn't either believe them or worry them, and I'm not going to worry about these either.

CTV can poll all they want. And it was Nanos, all I can say is, what do you expect?

Big deal!

ETA: Ippurigakko, thanks very much my friend. Cheers!

Seat counts over-represent parties going down and under-represent parties going up as a general rule. And I mean this in terms of long-term trends.

I think it is partly because the over-value incumbency but there is another reason. When a party is very low their support is more evenly spread but as it increases peaks and valleys appear. A party that is low in an area and moving up will according to the model keep the same flat appearance and not have that gain reflected in seats but when a party in reality comes up and the peaks appear those will become gains in seats the model did not see. Problem is you cannot predict where they will be-- there is no possible model for that as the historical baseline is flat.

By the same token parties going down are expected to keep the same peaks and valleys when in reality they tend to flatten out. There are exceptions of course with candidates who are elected not because of the party but because of their personal popularity.

Keep in mind the news media is still just a social club. If you have a relationship with journalists where you can call them up and say "here's my comment on this story, please post it", that relationship might persist regardless of your electoral fortunes.

The media has always hated the NDP. Because they're a business, and we're "anti-business", whatever that means.

New Forum poll just of Quebec confirms the massive surge for the NDP under Mulcair:

NDP - 41%

BQ - 22%

Libs - 16%

CPC - 14%

The parties are all almost exactly where they were on election night 2011 - whihc means 59 NDP seats again!

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2012/04/11/ndp-lead-all-parties-i...

Quote:

“I think those of us that supported Tom were hoping and expecting that this would be the kind of reaction. That’s one of the reasons we chose him,” Mr. Christopherson said.

Mr. Christopherson acknowledged the challenge facing the party now is in Ontario, where the NDP won only 22 of the province’s 106 Commons seats in the May election.

“I think we’re going to see a turnaround in Ontario, but it’s not going to happen right away, it’s going to be a gradual build,” Mr. Christopherson said, admitting Mr. Mulcair is an unknown product so far in the country’s most populous province.

“Any new leader has the challenge of getting themselves known, and quite frankly you don’t really become a household name until you’re about two weeks into an election, whether that’s national or provincial, in my experience,” he said. “We have more in the Ontario caucus now than we had in the entire national caucus when I arrived in 2004. We’ve gained seats every election, and it certainly gets tougher with every success to move on to the next success, but we’re committed to it and I think there is going to be a very positive, favourable response to Tom Mulcair and his approach to offering an alternative government.”

Stockholm wrote:

Ippurigakko wrote:

Good to see NDP stays alive in Quebec.

I knew they would vote only native Quebecker leader rather than non-Quebecker as always.

Except that last year Quebecers voted for "Toronto Jack" over Gilles Duceppe the pur-laine Quebecois icon

And considering that the first ever NDP leader from Quebec actually presided over a drop of popular support in la belle province....

.

Good news from New Brunswick, though I don't have access to the data.

Translation:

Quote:

Finally hope for the NDP: Wednesday, April 11, 2012

FREDERICTON - The New Democratic Party of New Brunswick is experiencing a resurgence in popularity in the city of St. John. To such an extent that it exceeds the Conservatives and Liberals in the polls.

http://www.capacadie.com/actualites/2012/4/11/enfin-de-l-espoir-pour-le-npd

Quebec in this sense is like any other electorate the world over. They vote for people who understand them, talk to them and support their values. Just like Alberta.

Canadians outside Quebec like to spotlight this because at moments the rest of Canada and Quebec are out of touch.

What the NDP is trying to do is build a bridge here.

I hope no one thinks that this means that all the Tories need to do is make Maxime Bernier their new leader and they can then expect to be competitive in Quebec!

Detail on the NB poll:

Quote:

Environics Poll Shows New Democrats in the Lead in Saint John: New Democrats 39%, PCs 33%, Liberals 28%

...

 

Environics Vice President Derek Leebosh said “The New Democrats have been gaining ground across Atlantic Canada in recent federal and provincial elections. In Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that growth started in urban areas, such as Halifax and St. John's. We are now seeing a similar trend to the NB New Democrats in Saint John. This is bolstered by the federal NDP's rise to official opposition status and the NB NDP's growing visibility.”

http://www.nbndp.ca/node/636

Tks JW

This is absolutely fantastic what is happening in Saint John, NB. I have to keep pinching myself to make sure what is going on with the NDP both provincially and federally across the country is real, but it is. Just amazingly delightful. But it won't mean much unless we kick Harper out of the PMO.

whoop-dee-doo whoop-dee-doo whoop-dee-doo!