latest polling thread - 5 july, 2012

Everyone here is intitled to their opinions, but if they are absurd it is often best to just ignore them.

nicky wrote:

 "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

I agree.

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. 

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:

 "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing."

I agree.

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. 

Debater, don't you have shoes to polish or something?

Debater wrote:

Except Justin Trudeau does have substance - that's why he's already been elected twice in a competitive riding and is attracting more supporters to his cause every day. 

Oh boy does Justin ever have substance. Today he decalred that he thinks the Senate is fine exactly the way it is and that the only thing that has to change is for a Liberal PM to appoint senators rather than a Tory PM (In other words more gems like Anne Cools who PET appointed to the senate)

Serriously Debater, are you sure you don't have some shoes to polish?

I'm a big fan of Jester Trudeau for the good laughs he gives me. 

Gloater, got those shoes polished yet?

I will have to say that some of the Babbler-land knocks Justin gets are a bit overwrought--yeah, his share dropped btw/2008 and 2011; but that was a merciless time to be a federal Liberal, and it's hardly a signal that he'll "inevitably" get knocked out by a New Democrat in 2005.  But in the name of playing defense, Debater's even sillier from his "increased margin" end--look, this was more a matter of the surging NPD and who was thought to be the primary opponent, the Bloc's Vivien Barbot, cancelling each other out.  We went from conventional feds-vs-seps 2-way voting patterns to something a little more, uh, "complicated" that, in the end, worked on Justin's behalf; IOW the kind of opposition splitting that Debater likes to claim elects Conservatives, elected Justin.  Barbot was supposed to be Justin's mortal threat; instead, by quelling the local NDP surge, she turned out to be his saviour.  Such is the game-of-chance that is voting-booth politics.

Not to say that Justin only won by split-opposition default; after all, as a Debater'll tell you, he lost far less ground than your usual federal Grit in Quebec in 2011--though how much of that was a Hail Mary salvage job from central party HQ, who knows (and who knows whether "save Justin" reallocated resources led to a few other surprise defeats, maybe Jennings in NDG or whomever...)

adma

That was a reasonably good analysis - thanks.

adma wrote:

I will have to say that some of the Babbler-land knocks Justin gets are a bit overwrought--yeah, his share dropped btw/2008 and 2011; but that was a merciless time to be a federal Liberal, and it's hardly a signal that he'll "inevitably" get knocked out by a New Democrat in 2005.  But in the name of playing defense, Debater's even sillier from his "increased margin" end--look, this was more a matter of the surging NPD and who was thought to be the primary opponent, the Bloc's Vivien Barbot, cancelling each other out.  We went from conventional feds-vs-seps 2-way voting patterns to something a little more, uh, "complicated" that, in the end, worked on Justin's behalf; IOW the kind of opposition splitting that Debater likes to claim elects Conservatives, elected Justin.  Barbot was supposed to be Justin's mortal threat; instead, by quelling the local NDP surge, she turned out to be his saviour.  Such is the game-of-chance that is voting-booth politics.

Not to say that Justin only won by split-opposition default; after all, as a Debater'll tell you, he lost far less ground than your usual federal Grit in Quebec in 2011--though how much of that was a Hail Mary salvage job from central party HQ, who knows (and who knows whether "save Justin" reallocated resources led to a few other surprise defeats, maybe Jennings in NDG or whomever...)

Sorry, adma, but there's nothing 'silly' about the 'increased margin' that was discussed above.   They are not my words - they are stated in numerous articles by various journalists.  Did you even notice that it was not myself who wrote those articles?

The rest of what you say is pure supposition - there was no attempt to 'save' Justin or sacrifice other ridings.  He won the riding decisively on his own merits because he is well-liked in his community and the voters chose him.  He did not win because of vote-splitting.  Babble is coming up with its own interpretation of events that differs from the mainstream views that I linked to above.

I think there is some truth in both sides of the debate about Justin Trudeau's electoral appeal in Papineau. Here are the figures for the last 3 elections;

2006; L 38.5 B 40.8 N 7.7

2008: L 41.5 B 38.7 N 8.7

2011: L 38.4 B 25.9 N 28.3

Let's compare how Trudeau did in the two elections he ran in with the overall Liberal Quebec vote.

In 2008 Trudeau gained 3% over Pettigrew's vote in '06. This is precisely the same rise as the Liberals throughout Quebec. The Bloq vote, however held up better in Papineau than overall: -2.1 vs -4.0.

Trudeau's performance in 08 can only be seen as average and the Bloq as a little better than average.

In '11, Trudeau's vote fell by 2.9% but the Liberals fell by 9.5% throughout Quebec. The Bloq in Papineau fell by 12.8 vs 14.7 throughout the province. The NDP rose by 19.6 in Paineau vs 30.7% in Quebec as a whole.

Trudeau substantially outperformed his party , the Bloq losses were comparable and the NDP gains more modest.

These comparables are of course between Papineau and Quebec as a whole. It might be more instructive to compare the trends in Montreal itself. I don't have those figures but I suspect that the Liberal vote held up better in Montreal than the rest of the province. Trudeau will still have  outperformed his party in Montreal but not by as much as in the entire province.

jjuares wrote:

Finally the writer from Sun says that Trudeaus's riding should have been the first to catch the orange wave. He compares Justin to Garneau. Of course he forgets to mention that in Justin's riding the NDP vote increased more in Justin's riding that in Garneau's riding. They did catch the wave in Justin's riding. Fortunately for him the NDP base was so pitifully small to begin with.

Then again, Garneau had a reverse circumstance to explain the lesser NDP-vote increase: a star 2008 opponent, Anne Lagacé Dowson.

The more times I see Debater trying to make points, the more I'm reminded of the Mark Twain quote...!

'Don't ever get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent!'

Or was it Will Rogers?

Worth reading, or worth re-reading if you have already read it.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a constant story about the collapse in NDP support. The narrative is strained however.

The NDP had support in the low thirties in 2011 and at some times since. This is the high water mark. Since then most polls put NDP support between 27% and 29% a drop of perhaps 3-5 percent depending on the poll. Still the "catastrophic" drop is reported over and over as this long and significant fall over the last year-- something more newsworthy than a change barely out of the margin of error.

There is of course the problem that some people may do the math and actually see that the drop is not enough to be significant. Or worse, they may as other parties fluctuate lead to similar reports as the Conservative support has fallen by about the same amount. The Liberals having had a real catastrophe have recovered marginally to a few points above where they were. If Trudeau is unable to be the magical Sun Prince then, this rhetoric could sting when it comes round.

The media parading this propaganda as well face risks of being taken less and less seriously, something that should be alarming for them given their current need to convince people to pay for what they have been receiving for free over the last few years.

So the numbers themselves are quite unremarkable except when you consider the fairly little change that has really occurred over the last two years. What is more interesting is the nature of the poll propaganda and how stories are being made up in the face of numbers that are fairly clearly showing a stalemate.

As I have said before, polls now are likely to overemphasize those with more interest in being counted at a time when few are responding to political polls. Once people regain attention, the hope of the propaganda artists is that they will believe the "catastrophic drop in NDP support" before they see the real numbers. This drop is as we, who have been paying attention, only wishful thinking on behalf of Liberals and Conservatives. Interesting of course as well is that the NDP increased support by three times as much before it was newsworthy but a minor correction downwards is some story that must accompany breathless headlines.

The NDP will have to create momentum to respond to this very significant propaganda campaign. And it will have to protect and increase its support but for now the propaganda itself is interesting to see. The desperation is clear. Two years in and there are few measurable signs of Liberal recovery in spite of the Princeling and some modest erosion of Conservative support that, if continued will take the Conservatives out of office.

There is also a real demonstration of the need to take poll numbers with a grain of salt (last week one poll had the Liberals at near 40% and another at 21% both claiming regular margin-of-error accuracy. On the other hand you would need a truckload of salt to interpret the rhetoric and article titles about polls that often directly contradict the numbers reported.

Let the entertainment continue in this not-so-much reality show.

 

Here we go with the mumbo-jumbo again.

Just take a gander at what the actual polls have been saying, as opposed to what political pundits in the mainstream press have to say, as we know very well who they are pimping for.

Date / Poll / NDP / Cons / Libs / BQ / Ind / Grn / Vacant / Total

Nov 25 /12 / BE / 101 / 165 /  35 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 308

Sep '12 / -- / 100 / 163 / 35 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 3 / 308

May '11 / GE / 103 / 166 / 34 / 4 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 308

Nov '08 / GE / 37 / 143 / 77 / 49 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 308

Popular Vote - alphabetically by pollster and then chronologically

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

May '11 / Gen Ele / 31% / +13% / 40% / + 2% / 19% / -7% / 7% / -3% / 4% / -3%

Abacus Polling

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge 

Feb '13 / Abacus / 31% / -1% / 35% / +1% / 21% / -1%

Dec '12 / Abacus / 32% / +3% / 34% / -2% / 22% / -- / 

Nov '12 / Abacus / 29% /  -6% / 36% / +1%  / 22%/ +5%

Sep '12 / Abacus / 35% / +3% / 35% / -2% /  17% / -3%

Aug '12 / Abacus / 32% / -3% / 37% / +2% / 20% / Flatlined

Previous election accuracy rating = -18

Average* / Abacus /  31% / -1% / 35% / -1% / 22% / +2% /

Angus Reid

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Jan '13 / Anus Reid / 29% / -4% / 35% / Flat / 22% / +3% /

Jan '13 / Angus Reid / 33% / - 2% /  35% / +1% / 19% / 0% /

Jun '12 / Angus Reid / 35% / --- / 34% / --- / 19% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating = -9

Average* / Angus Reid / 32% / -- / 35% / -- / 20% / -- / 

EKOS

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Feb '13 / EKOS / 26% / -- / 29% / -3% / 25% / +1% / 7% / ?? / 10% / ?? - tks Ippurigakko

Dec '12 / EKOS / 26% / -6% / 32% / +2% / 24% / +4% / 
Jul '12 / EKOS / 32% / -0.1% / 30% / +0.9% / 20% / +0.3%

Jun '12 / EKOS / 29% / --- / 29% / --- / 19% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating = -6

Average* / EKOS / 28% / -- / 30% / -- / 23% / -- /

Environics

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Sep '12 / Environics / 35% / Flatlined/ 31% / -2% / 20% / Flatlined / 9% / +2%

Jun '12 / Environics / 35% / --- / 33% / --- / 19% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating = -16

Average* / Environics / 35% / -- / 32% / -- / 20% / -- /

Forum

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Jan '13 / Forum / 28% / -- / 35% / +4% / 25% / +1% / 7% / ?? / 4% / 07% / ?? / 04% /

Dec '12 / Forum / 28% / -- / 31% / -2% / 24% / -4%

Nov '12 / Forum / 28% / -- / 33% / -- / 28% / -- / 6% / -- / 4% / -- 

Oct '12 / Forum / 32% / +2% / 31% / -1% / 27% / +2% / 6% /  

Sep '12 / Forum / 30% / -4% / 35% / +1% / 25% / +3%

Previous election accuracy rating = -7

Average* / Forum /28% / -- / 33% / -- / 26% / -- /

Harris Decima

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Sep 10 /  Harris Decima / 27% / -5% / 34% / +3% / 24% / +1%

Jun 18 / Harris Decima / 32% / --- / 31% / --- / 23% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating =  -13

Average* / Harris Decima /30% / -- / 32% / -- / 24% / --

Ipsos Reid

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Nov 15 / Ipsos Reid / 30% / -- / 34% / -- / 26% / -- 

Jun 21 / Ipsos-Reid / 38% / --- / 35% / --- / 18% / ---

Previous election accuracy rating =  -9

Average* / Ipsos Reid/  34% / -- / 35% / -- / 22% / -- /

Leger Marketing

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Dec '12 / Leger / 30% / -- / 35% / -- / 18% / -- / 

Previous election accuracy rating = 

Average* /  Leger / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- / -- /

Nanos Research

Date / Pollster / NDP / N-Cge / Cons / C-Cge / Libs / L-Chge / BQ / B-Cge / Grn / G-Cge

Feb '13 / Nanos / 27% / -- / 34% / -- / 28% / -1% / 4.6% / -??/ 4.7% / ?? 

Nov 22 '11 / Nanos / 27% / -- / 34% / -- / 29% /-- 

Oct 15 / Nanos / 28% / -2% / 33% / +1% / 30% / +5% / 5% /

Sep 9 / Nanos / 30% / +0.1% / 32% / -1.2% / 25%/ -1.9%

Previous election accuracy rating = -7

Average* / Nanos / 28% / -- / 34% / -- / 29% / -- / ?? / ?? / ?? / ??

* Average is based on the Pollster 3 most recent polls if available. Add them up and divide by 3 - it is quite simple but reduces the "herding" aspect around election time.

--------------

The Grope will tailor it's reasoning to suit the advancement of a particular narrative as usual, but I'd suspect there are more reasons as to why people aren't buying into Mulcair.  If the devil you know is already up to their necks in doing many of the things the devil you don't know is associating itself with, then the reasoning may simply consist of an apathetic shrug that says six of one, half a dozen of the other, with favourable percentage breaks being handed to the ruling gang because at least they're experienced at what they do.  The work of rolling the public into an alley is not lightly given over just like that to amateurs who merely say they’ll do just as good of a job of it.

Debater wrote:

Posted by David Akin -- Vancouver Sun A1 lead today: Justin Trudeau most trusted politician:

 

Justin Trudeau - 39%

Stephen Harper - 36%

Thomas Mulcair - 33%

 

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/303506673996271620

Debater, so, what`s you point. No one knows who he is. Enjoy it Mac, it isn`t going to last.

SJ, nailed it! Man, I am a dummy!

The numbers are even better for Justin Trudeau in the Toronto area, which bodes well for the Liberals and voters who want to undo the effect of the NDP vote-splitting that elected so many Conservatives in the GTA in 2011.

TORONTO - TRUST

Justin Trudeau - 55%

Stephen Harper - 48%

Thomas Mulcair - 37%

http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/trust.jpg?w=300&h=518

Why the federal conservatives are falling in the polls

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/21/why_the_federal_con...

If this and if that - just another push poll.

Wake us up when Justin has been leader for a year and then we will see

  Ex-N.B. Liberal premier Shawn Graham quits politics after conflict of interest report

This is the federal polling thread and your post is like me suggesting here that the above story is going to help the Mulcair-led NDP federally

There are many techniques for getting the polling results you want. Shall I share a few?

First if you know the issues that your party or candidate does best on then ask questions about those first-- it will put your candidate or party up on the polls significantly. I watched this happen with environmental questions which were not important but coming before the political question boosted the Green party.

Another way to do this -- really easy to do during a leadership race -- is to ask lots of questions about the party having a leadership race. The result will be that people interested in that race will stay on and the others will tend to hang up. At the end of those surveys you ask the voting intention question and then can announce that the party you supported did very well.

Another more passive way is just to ask the political questions anytime during the race. More than 99% of people refuse to answer pollsters (they hang up, don't answer or answer and refuse). This is known by any pollster as they dial thousands and thousands of numbers (sample) just to get enough answers. Under some circumstance this is okay-- when the people who answer have the same breakdown of opinions as those who don't. But of course that is not true during a leadership race. During a leadership race you have the supporters or potential supporters of one party tuned in and motivated-- some even wanting to be polled to get their choice out to help their candidate. The other parties' supporters are more tuned out-- sure some political junkies are always tuned in but a good number don't want to think about politics never mind be polled for the purpose of political operatives of a party they do not support trying to gauge support for one candidate or another.

Bottom line is the relative support of other parties declines during a leadership campaign as more motivated supporters of that party poll at higher rates and the others at lower rates. This may explain why the Conservatives are also apparently down perhaps more than they really are.

Debater of course is looking for good news. Certainly with Just-In-Time he has some-- the base is motivated. People are talking about the party. The distorted polls can sometimes engineer a honeymoon or real interest that can float the leader and party a bit after a leadership victory. But it would be a mistake to assume that this will continue-- it may but it also may not.

Just-In-Time has sucked the air out of the room for any other political discussion -- but that is only because there was not much air to begin with. There have been few initiatives new to the scene in the last few months. In a month there will be a budget. Right when Just-In-Time is crowned there will be an ongoing budget debate. It may have the effect of having more people involved politically than the current mostly Liberal audience. If that is the case the Conservatives will be able to report that they have gained support in the polls because of their budget and the NDP will be up as well. Just-In-Time will have to compete with more people paying attention than are currently.Of course it won't be true that either the NDP or the Cons will be up-- it will just be that their supporters will once again be more willing to talk to pollsters.

Then of course Just-In-Time will be one of the federal leaders. As the leader of the third party he will not get away with platitudes but will have to take more and more positions if he wants to get heard. Fluff will be reported only by a few Liberal friendly media but mostly it will get ignored even when reported. The third party lacks the ability to engineer news in the way the government can.

Want to know if Just-In-Time has really made a difference to Liberal fortunes? you will need to wait until late in the fall session -- after the budget, after the Christmas break and after the fall economic statement or whatever else is going on. Then you will see an opening position that could well change during an election either towards or against Just-In-Time but it will be more real than today.

So for now this is an opening for Debater to enjoy his fantasy news in the hope that it may become reality but in the knowledge that it may not and his beloved party could still be targeting oblivion. No point debating Debater on that point-- a good astrologer would be the only reference. The NDP has work to do to prepare and communicate policies that resonate with Canadians, promote the values of the NDP and introduce and promote the leadership of the party's fine furry friend. For other progressives their task will be to hold Mulcair to account and press for the specific policies they want hoping someone will adopt them and represent them in the House.

Justin Trudeau's Ontario Poll Numbers Suggest He Could Win Province

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/26/justin-trudeau-ontario-poll_n_27...

Not quite.

There is method in their madness. These Liberal party supporters want their entitlements. If the Liberals were ever to gain power again, God forbid,  the vast majority of this shrinking Liberal support base are looking for government jobs, or want government handouts (read: contracts). Many of these so-called supporters are probably lawyers, and we need more lawyer influence in our society like we need a hole in the head.

clambake wrote:

 This blind loyalty to the Liberal brand is insane.

He's not Harper is the best the Justin's got? That's pathetic.

If someone asked me why I support Mulcair I can point to years of experience, the imtergity he possessed in standing up to Charest, the years fighting for national unity, his changes to Quebec's constitition to add the enviroment, his courage in confronting economic challenges like Dutch Disease, his work on keeping Harper to account on issues from the F-35s, to Penisons, government leaks, omnibudgets, to corrupt senators, to keeping his word on the Sherbrook declaration, to his ideas like Cap and Trade, increasing corporate taxes, making sure hald of appoints to federal boards are women, and a crap load more.

Yet the best they can come up for Justin is he's not Harper!

My Cats not Harper either, quick lets make Shadow (my cat) Prime Minster! He's even prettier then Justin, and just like Justin he like to chase shiny objects! The means my cat's qualified to run the country, right?

SHADOW FOR PRIME MINISTER!

Whose with me?