Ontario polling thread (April 18, 2012)

The "hit" has surely been exagerated both by Forum and by the Toronto Star which ran the poll as its main story on Sunday with a headline "NDP Move Backfires"

In fact the poll shows a 1% reduction in NDP support and a 4% reduction in Horwath's, still leaving her ahead of the others.

The Liberals are running hard on the theme that the NDP has spurned an NDP budget" ( that the Liberals will abandon if re-elected). The media is echoing this in what, unfortunately, may be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

nicky wrote:

The "hit" has surely been exagerated both by Forum and by the Toronto Star which ran the poll as its main story on Sunday with a headline "NDP Move Backfires"

In fact the poll shows a 1% reduction in NDP support and a 4% reduction in Horwath's, still leaving her ahead of the others.

The Liberals are running hard on the theme that the NDP has spurned an NDP budget" ( that the Liberals will abandon if re-elected). The media is echoing this in what, unfortunately, may be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Maybe (re: your last sentence).  But things are a lot more volatile then they used to be.  None of the media expected the orange crush to happen in the last federal election.  It scared a lot of the right-wing power brokers.  I think Andrea's success at building up the Ontario NDP to a real contender from practically nothing also has them scared.  The right-wing power brokers are nervous.  This has the potential to become very exciting.  The mainstream media holds less sway on people than it previously did. 

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Forum's most recent Ontario poll that had the PCs at 38%, the libs at 33%, and the NDP at 22% undersampled voters under 35 years of age and did not properly control for the very small sample: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2014/05/pcs-gain-as-campaign-begins.html

Their secret seat weighting formula is also suspect and consistantly disadvantages the NDP.

Forum is wothout a doubt the worst pollster in Canada, and given recent polling, that's saying quite a lot.

From the link above,

Eric Grenier wrote:

As a rule of thumb going forward, I'd suggest increasing the NDP's seat share that is estimated by Forum by 50%, all at the expense of the Liberals.

So, rather than PCs 43, Libs 43, and NDP 21, I think we get:  PCs 43, Libs 33, NDP 31.  Unless I've misread what he said.

Thanks josh.  That makes sense. 

New Oracle poll reported here: Conservative: [b]42%[/b], Liberal: [b]31%[/b] NDP: [b]25%[/b].

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Ontario+election+roundup/9819903/story.html

Noting on the Oracle website though.

Don't panic Liberal supporters, as the CBC and the Toronto Star, where the Oracle poll of course is nowhere to be found, will come rusing to poor Wynne's rescue, even if something has to be "manufactured", as after all, they are old pros at this.  

Change is definitely in the air!

The nite is young, and as has already been mentioned, few voters will pay attention until the debates.

What do those opposed to Hudak now have to lose now by having 5 leader debates as Andrea has suggested?

Zero is what I can see.

If the PCs are actually heading for a majority as concerns robbie-dee, there are only so many ways to stop them.

Contrasting Hudak with the other 2 leaders five times for an extended period of time might be the only effective way to do it.

If Liberal supporters are serious about trying to stop Hudak, as opposed to just bashing the NDP, encourage Wynne to support Andrea's idea of 5 debates.

robbie_dee wrote:

42% for the Conservatives would probably mean a majority, though, despite the low Hudak popularity.

Thanks toaster,

Weren't the Liberal crowing over how unorganized the NDP was a very short time ago? 

And so now it really begins. 

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

12,560

NDP gains 5% on the Liberals as the NDP begin to move within striking distance of the Liberals now only seperated by 6% between them

Ontario - Oracle Polling

Party / Apr / May / Change

PCs / 34% / 42% / Up 8%

Libs / 35% / 31% / Down 4%

NDP / 24% / 25% / Up 1%

-----

12,680

I am curious as to why you almost always fail to quote the source article, seemlessly joining the quoted material with your own editorializing.

I am begining to think that your ignorance of copyright protocol is deliberate.

Moreover, the NDP did not "vote" to bring down anything. Wynne pulled the plug on herself, apparently because she didn't think it would be to her advantage to have her wonderful budget debated in the legislature.

It's hard to take a political analysis by someone who can not distinguish between a premier disolving parliament, and a vote of non-confidence seriously, but then of course misleading voters into thinking that Horwath "voted to bring down the government", has repeatedly appeared in Liberal campaign material.

terrytowel wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

I am curious as to why you almost always fail to quote the source article, seemlessly joining the quoted material with your own editorializing.

I am begining to think that your ignorance of copyright protocol is deliberate.

Moreover, the NDP did not "vote" to bring down anything. Wynne pulled the plug on herself, apparently because she didn't think it would be to her advantage to have her wonderful budget debated in the legislature.

It's hard to take a political analysis by someone who can not distinguish between a premier disolving parliament, and a vote of non-confidence seriously, but then of course misleading voters into thinking that Horwath "voted to bring down the government", has repeatedly appeared in Liberal campaign material.

It is a direct copy and paste from Adam Radwanski article in today's Globe and Mail. All I did was copy and paste, no writing by me.

So if you have an issue with Radwanski vis a vis voting down vs pulling the plug, direct it to the editors of the Globe for their editorializing.

No it isn't. It is an edited copy and paste, with the parts you wanted included and the parts you didn't want, excluded. It is highly confusing, and hard to know where you start, and he begins, and vis-versa.

No. You are supposed to put quotation marks around parts that are quoted, and or use the quotation function in the message board. Otherwise, we don't know who is talking you, or the guy who things that a press conference speech by the leader of the third party in the legislature is a vote of non-confidence.

Rokossovsky wrote:

No. You are supposed to put quotation marks around parts that are quoted, and or use the quotation function in the message board. Otherwise, we don't know who is talking you, or the guy who things that a press conference speech by the leader of the third party in the legislature is a vote of non-confidence.

OK got it. The OP (original post) is ENTIRELY from the Globe and Mail, totally unedited. I'll follow those rules from now on. Sorry my mistake.

josh wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Don't panic Liberal supporters, as the CBC and the Toronto Star, where the Oracle poll of course is nowhere to be found, will come rusing to poor Wynne's rescue, even if something has to be "manufactured", as after all, they are old pros at this.  

Change is definitely in the air!

No surprise that some on here are practically dancing at the thought of a Hudak majority. Even if it's from a rather low profile pollster.

I am wondering if you had considered the net effect of mass privatization of public sector jobs and assets in comparison to the net effect of introducing so called "right to work" legislation, not that you ever seem to consider the actual nuts and bolts of policy or its impact on the people you profess to care about.

Outsourcing contracts to nebulous fly-by-night international contractors using temorary labour suppliers is probably just as good a way of undermining labour rights and wages, as introducing so called "right to work" legislation. But your type doesn't really care about that as long as no one uses language that you find offensive.

What's that song "unionist" likes so much? Oh yeah. Love me I am a Liberal".

Terrytowel, please use the quote function, cut and paste the relevant part of the article (not the entire article) and provide a link to the source so that people can read it in detail.

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Terrytowel, please use the quote function, cut and paste the relevant part of the article (not the entire article) and provide a link to the source so that people can read it in detail.

OK Rebecca thanks for making it clear. Will do the next time.

Rebecca West wrote:

Oh, and Rokossovsky, I'm getting complaints about you baiting and insulting participants. Please be more respectful.

Did they cite any examples? It would be nice to know what specifically it is that I did that upset someone, if its going to be aired publicly.

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander no? So, here, I was accused of being a McCarthyte:

Unionist wrote:

Rokossovsky is also very good at making clear and explicit ONDP promises and positions that the ONDP itself is vague and ambiguous about (corporate taxes, nationalization vs. just not more privatization of Hydro, etc.). This shows clear thinking and certainly no hint of a spirit of McCarthyism aimed at uncovering covert Liberal shills.

Having "no principles". Ok, not exactly said explicitly, but a clearly implied ad hominem, here:

unionist wrote:

Here's a novel idea: If a party's policies go against your fundamental principles, then criticize them, try to change them, make sure they never achieve power... But that presupposes something. That you have some fundamental principles.

Had my sanity questioned, here.

Josh wrote:

Have to laugh at the party hacks on here attacking Salutin as a "wacko" and a Liberal when he's far more sane and left than either of them.

Oh, and a "party hack" is also ad hominem, and funny because I ain't in the NDP... but that is another story. True I did say Salutin was "nutso", but then he's a public figure, and not engaged here, at least that I know.

And then also accused of lying, here by onlinediscountanvils.  This point which I rebutted here: I made a deduction based on his statements, which I quoted. In this case the accussation of how I "lied" was not demonstrated when I asked.

So, it kind of seems to me that it works like this. Pick a fight with someone, insult them, call them an "insane party hack, with no principles, who lies", then report them to the moderator, if they get in your face.

Hard to know where this stuff begins and ends, but really, it seems strange to be singled out for censure.

As for anonymous reports to the moderators about my behaviour, I have also received messages of support from several people, one who in fact said they don't post here anymore because of the trolling of some indiviuals. In the main I have stuck with the issues of policy on topic, despite a lot of peronalized heckling, which pretty much seems par for the course on this site.

I am not one to run to the moderators if people are going to lay in with personal attacks but if it is going to become a public issue, then I would appreciate it if examples of my unjustifiable negative behaviour were used, since obviously as above, it is hardly a one way street.

Moreover, I don't think this warning is warranted given the tenor of the discussion, especially when "straight forward" statements are pretty much the norm. I don't mind toning it down, but I don't think I should be singled out.

And while I am at it. Is this ok?

Unionist wrote:

Horwath and Wynne are liberals. Wynne admits it. There's a substantive difference.

But there is certainly one other substantive difference between Horwath and Wynne. Wynne is lesbian, and out. She doesn't do high-heel ads. If it came down to it, I'd vote for Wynne for that reason alone.

Reducing the discussion of policy differences between Horwath and Wynne to their sexuality, and clothing they choose to wear seems pretty dismissive of both, really. Curious about that.

Like the misleading EKOS & Forum polls near the beginning of the election showing the Liberals doing well, the article itself is dated as the latest polling is not included.

They say momentum is everything in politics, and Liberals not only don't have it, they don't even know how to spell the word. 

Ipsos is now showing the NDP within 3 % of the Liberals

C - 35%

L - 31, Down

N - 28, Up

What is interesting though are some of the comments following the article showing the pollster's political connections.

EKOS for example has Liberal connections. 

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2014/05/ontario-polls-continue-to-confu...

Tks m-a,

Tme for change theme is idefinitely in the Ontario air

PCs- 37% - NC

Libs- 31%, Down 1%

NDP - 28%, Up 1%

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

Hudak - 34%, Up 2%

Horwath - 28%, Up 1%

Wynne - 28%, Down 3%

Quote:

The Building Tide of Change…

The data reveal a growing desire for change in Ontario. Nearly three quarters (72%, up 4 points) of Ontarians believe that it is ‘time for another party to take over’, while just 28% think that ‘the Wynne government has done a good job and deserves re-election’, down 4 points.

Further, just 36% of Ontarians believe ‘Ontario is currently on the right track’, down 6 points), while two in three (64%) believe it is ‘headed in the wrong direction’, up 6 points.

http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/ontario-polling-thread-april-18-2012?pag...

Rokossovsky wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

Oh, and Rokossovsky, I'm getting complaints about you baiting and insulting participants. Please be more respectful.

Did they cite any examples? It would be nice to know what specifically it is that I did that upset someone, if its going to be aired publicly.

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander no? So, here, I was accused of being a McCarthyte:

Unionist wrote:

Rokossovsky is also very good at making clear and explicit ONDP promises and positions that the ONDP itself is vague and ambiguous about (corporate taxes, nationalization vs. just not more privatization of Hydro, etc.). This shows clear thinking and certainly no hint of a spirit of McCarthyism aimed at uncovering covert Liberal shills.

Having "no principles". Ok, not exactly said explicitly, but a clearly implied ad hominem, here:

unionist wrote:

Here's a novel idea: If a party's policies go against your fundamental principles, then criticize them, try to change them, make sure they never achieve power... But that presupposes something. That you have some fundamental principles.

Had my sanity questioned, here.

Josh wrote:

Have to laugh at the party hacks on here attacking Salutin as a "wacko" and a Liberal when he's far more sane and left than either of them.

Oh, and a "party hack" is also ad hominem, and funny because I ain't in the NDP... but that is another story. True I did say Salutin was "nutso", but then he's a public figure, and not engaged here, at least that I know.

And then also accused of lying, here by onlinediscountanvils.  This point which I rebutted here: I made a deduction based on his statements, which I quoted. In this case the accussation of how I "lied" was not demonstrated when I asked.

So, it kind of seems to me that it works like this. Pick a fight with someone, insult them, call them an "insane party hack, with no principles, who lies", then report them to the moderator, if they get in your face.

Hard to know where this stuff begins and ends, but really, it seems strange to be singled out for censure.

As for anonymous reports to the moderators about my behaviour, I have also received messages of support from several people, one who in fact said they don't post here anymore because of the trolling of some indiviuals. In the main I have stuck with the issues of policy on topic, despite a lot of peronalized heckling, which pretty much seems par for the course on this site.

I am not one to run to the moderators if people are going to lay in with personal attacks but if it is going to become a public issue, then I would appreciate it if examples of my unjustifiable negative behaviour were used, since obviously as above, it is hardly a one way street.

Moreover, I don't think this warning is warranted given the tenor of the discussion, especially when "straight forward" statements are pretty much the norm. I don't mind toning it down, but I don't think I should be singled out.

And while I am at it. Is this ok?

Unionist wrote:

Horwath and Wynne are liberals. Wynne admits it. There's a substantive difference.

But there is certainly one other substantive difference between Horwath and Wynne. Wynne is lesbian, and out. She doesn't do high-heel ads. If it came down to it, I'd vote for Wynne for that reason alone.

Reducing the discussion of policy differences between Horwath and Wynne to their sexuality, and clothing they choose to wear seems pretty dismissive of both, really. Curious about that.

You are being called on your disrespectful behavior. This is not about the behavior of others and your playing victim is, frankly, embarrassing. Numerous examples have been cited. Please stop wasting my limited moderating time.

mark_alfred wrote:

Ipsos-Reid poll:  Tories (37%) Maintain Lead over Liberals (31%), NDP (28%).  More details at this link, including breakdown of different regions, etc.  Of note is that a large majority want change from the current government and this has grown. 

This is huge:

Quote:

In Southwest Ontario, the NDP (38%) and PCs (36%) are ahead of the Liberals (22%) and other parties (4%).

In the North, the NDP (45%) are well ahead of the PCs (27%), Liberals (20%), and other parties (8%).

These are big areas. Those regions pull the provincial support up to 28%, although it is 23% in the 416, 23% in the 905 GTA, 26% in Central Ontario, and 16% in Eastern Ontario.

As usual, that 28% is 31% of women, 25% of men.

Thanks Wilf.

Another pollster missing from the previous mix, with a good track record is Environics. Although not current, I have added of what appears to be their most recent eye opener Ontario polls.

Does anyone know if, and when, Environics will be releasing a poll before Jun 12th, the date of the election.

The stakes are large and there is some very misleading information resulting from the current Ontario polling including aggregate pollsters as garbage in = garbage out. Nate Silver formerly at the NYTimes and  currently at www.fivethirtyeight.com would have a blast dismantling some of the nonsensical polling here. 

Interesting that EKOS & Forum were first out of the gate when the Legislature was being dissolved. EKOS one day before, and Forum one day after, which is additional confirmation that the Liberal's plan was to pull the plug all along. I'm surprised Liberals don't win all the Academy Awards for their acting abilities.  

My hunch is Ipsos Reid is probably quite close to representing where the Ontario voters  are presently at. 

Date / Pollster / PCs / Libs / NDP / Connections

2011 / GE / 35% / 38% / 23%

May 8 / Ipsos Reid / 35% / 31% / 28% / Neutral  / Bricker

May 6 / Innov / 33% / 39% / 20% / Liberal  / Lyle / Disregard

May 5 / Oracle / 42% / 31% / 25% /  

May 3 / Forum / 38% / 33% / 22% /   / Bozinoff / 

May 2 / Legislature Dissolved

May 1 / EKOS / 35% / 38% / 23% / Liberal / Graves  / Disregard

Apr / Oracle / 34% / 35% / 24% / 

Apr / Ipsos Reid / 37% / 32% / 27% / Neutral / Bricker 

Apr / Nanos / 36% / 36% / 22% /  / Nanos / 

Apr / EKOS / 27% / 32% / 29% / Liberal / Graves / Disregard

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

Jun '12 / Environics / 37% / 25% / 28%

Apr '12 / Environics / 37% / 27% / 30%

---------

13,320

Wilf,

Most pollsters with basic polling abilities can usually poll reasonably close if releasing polls on the day before the vote.

But for anyone who doubts Ipsos Reid's polling abilities, take a look at their accuracy in last federal election on May 2, 2011, and the Ipsos Reid's poll, 4 days before the vote on April 28, 2011:

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

Wilf Day wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Ipsos-Reid poll:  Tories (37%) Maintain Lead over Liberals (31%), NDP (28%).  More details at this link, including breakdown of different regions, etc.  Of note is that a large majority want change from the current government and this has grown. 

This is huge:

Quote:

In Southwest Ontario, the NDP (38%) and PCs (36%) are ahead of the Liberals (22%) and other parties (4%).

In the North, the NDP (45%) are well ahead of the PCs (27%), Liberals (20%), and other parties (8%).

These are big areas. Those regions pull the provincial support up to 28%, although it is 23% in the 416, 23% in the 905 GTA, 26% in Central Ontario, and 16% in Eastern Ontario.

As usual, that 28% is 31% of women, 25% of men.

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

13,350

Ok, enough with the he said, she said.

We are all trying to do what we think is best, so let's give our mods a break, and stick to the issues involved in the election, instead of ragging on the personalities here.

Can we all at least commit to making an attempt?

Life is short - let's enjoy it as much as possible, eh!

All right now, back to regular programming. 

Every election it seems, the mainstream media come out and say this is the closest election we have every had, or something to that effect. That's hogwash, but the reason they do that is so they can sell more ads.    

Intriguing that 308, by now has not even mentioned the Ipsos Reid polls showing the NDP and the Liberals neck and neck. I suppose we can not let that slip out, can we! 308 is  probably waiting for a Liberal pollster to miraculously appear and set the record straight.  

[quote=NorthReport]

Thanks Wilf.

Another pollster missing from the previous mix, with a good track record is Environics. Although not current, I have added of what appears to be their most recent eye opener Ontario polls.

Does anyone know if, and when, Environics will be releasing a poll before Jun 12th, the date of the election.

The stakes are large and there is some very misleading information resulting from the current Ontario polling including aggregate pollsters as garbage in = garbage out. Nate Silver formerly at the NYTimes and  currently at www.fivethirtyeight.com would have a blast dismantling some of the nonsensical polling here. 

Interesting that EKOS & Forum were first out of the gate when the Legislature was being dissolved. EKOS one day before, and Forum one day after, which is additional confirmation that the Liberal's plan was to pull the plug all along. I'm surprised Liberals don't win all the Academy Awards for their acting abilities.  

My hunch is Ipsos Reid is probably quite close to representing where the Ontario voters  are presently at. 

Date / Pollster / PCs / Libs / NDP / Connections

2011 / GE / 35% / 38% / 23%

May 8 / Ipsos Reid / 35% / 31% / 28% / Neutral  / Bricker

May 6 / Innov / 33% / 39% / 20% / Liberal  / Lyle / Disregard

May 5 / Oracle / 42% / 31% / 25% /  

May 3 / Forum / 38% / 33% / 22% /   / Bozinoff / 

May 2 / Legislature Dissolved

May 1 / EKOS / 35% / 38% / 23% / Liberal / Graves  / Disregard

Apr / Oracle / 34% / 35% / 24% / 

Apr / Ipsos Reid / 37% / 32% / 27% / Neutral / Bricker 

Apr / Nanos / 36% / 36% / 22% /  / Nanos / 

Apr / EKOS / 27% / 32% / 29% / Liberal / Graves / Disregard

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

Jun '12 / Environics / 37% / 25% / 28%

Apr '12 / Environics / 37% / 27% / 30%

---------