Polling thread infinite edition: Volume IX

Now that the other thread started at the same time as this on polling is full and closed, we might as well use this one up, will get a mod to change the thread title to # 9.

So continued from here

Last polling numbers were from Nanos as follows:

Conservative 35.6% (-3.9)
Liberal 33.9% (+3.7)
NDP 16.4% (-2.3)
BQ 8.5% (+0.8)
Green 5.6% (+1.6)

From the previous polling thread:

Why would the Liberals need a new leader after the next election? Does this mean you are predicting that the Liberals will lose the next election?

When I was here last week, people were telling me that the Conservatives would lose the next election.

So you have come around and are now predicting a Conservative win?

Tell me you are not stating that NR speaks for everyone here at babble, and that we are all of one mind, are you?

No, but it seems as if some of you are predicting a new Liberal leader.  The logical conclusion from such a prediction would be that you are not predicting success for the current Liberal leader.

In any event, the tie in the polls may not last much longer.  In a couple days the Olympics will begin and Canadians will become interested in what their athletes are doing and will not worry any more about the liberal media's focus on prorogation.  Christina Blizzard recently exposed the biased coverage of the prorogation issue.  The CBC is a pro-liberal party network that wanted to create a controversy for political advantage.

Then when Parliament returns in March, Canadians will be focused on what matters to them - jobs and the economy, and poll numbers will rise again.

What matters to Canadians is what Canadians say matters to Canadians, and they say, pretty damned consistently, that they want parliament to actually be working. They said it during the coalition fiasco, they said it when Iggy threatened an election, and they're saying it now. 

Oh and Christina Blizzard and the Toronto Sun aren't biased? Are you saying that they are neutral and objective, perhaps "fair and balanced" Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.

And, if you want my prediction...

2011 - Harper wins another minority, Iggy stays

2013 - Haper wins another minority, Iggy goes

2015 - Trudeau sweeps to power with majority

No....actually only one person was and you decided to make it a sweeping generalization. Just as you did again in this post as a matter of fact.

Certainly you are not trying to tell Canadians what they want to think about are you?

West Coast Greeny, I disagree with your prediction. I see Justin as a lightweight and young people of this day read "no logo". Trudeau is just a brand!

Whatever happened to the idea that Harper would be gone if he failed to win a majority after four tries? By 2015 the social, econonomic, environmental, and hence political landscape will have shifted considerably if not completely with likely no party having the same leader and possibly new parties.

Odds are greatest that the government will be gone with the next failure to achieve a majority: like I said before, even if Harper's still gaining and only 2 seats short of a majority.

Historically, such a plurality in a 3 party field, much lessa  4 party field, would virtually guarantee a returning minority government.

But it will end this government not because its the 4th failure- rather it will be the inevitable blow back on government by bullying.

I do not take it as a given that Harper will be out if he does not win a majority because coalitions and arrangements are hard to predict.

That said I do not think that it is certain that the Cons will even win a minority plurality of seats in the next election. Possible but not more likely than the Liberals.

I suspect the Liberals are ging to gain in Quebec substantially (they have recorded several near misses and I beleive a lot of BQ voters are getting fed up with Harper and may even hold their noses and give the Liberals a chance to a have a party with more seats in the House than Harper. I also think the Liberals may gain in Ontario many of the seats they lost previously to the Cons and that they along with the NDP will also gain in both NB and BC directly off the Cons column. I don't think the NDP will lose much if anything and may in fact make some gains including sliding up the middle to retake a seat in Sask.

EKOS

Canada

Conservatives: 31.0 (-)
Liberals: 29.0 (-1.9)
NDP: 15.5 (+0.1)
Bloc Quebecois: 10.3 (+1.9)
Green: 11.3 (+0.4)
Other: 2.8 (+0.4)

Undecided: 13.1 (-1.4

British Columbia (MoE 5.27)
Conservatives: 30.3 (-0.1)
NDP: 26.9 (+3.9)
Liberals: 24.1 (-3.5)
Green: 15.0 (-1.4)
Other: 3.7 (+1.0)

Alberta (MoE 6.46)
Conservatives: 57.1 (+5.0)
Liberals: 21.9 (+3.6)
NDP: 8.6 (-1.8)
Green: 8.1 (-4.9)
Other: 4.1 (-2.1)

Saskatchewan/Manitoba (MoE 7.35)
Conservatives: 45.5 (+5.6)
Liberals: 24.4 (+4.5)
NDP: 17.6 (-13.6)
Green: 10.3 (+2.4)
Other: 2.1 (+0.9)

 Ontario (MoE 3.08)
Liberals: 36.2 (-4.4)
Conservatives: 31.0 (-1.4)
NDP: 16.7 (+2.7)
Green: 13.6 (+3.1)
Other: 2.4 (-)

 Quebec (MoE 3.83)
Bloc Quebecois: 41.7 (+6.8)
Liberals: 23.1 (-3.9)
Conservatives: 16.0 (-1.8)
NDP: 8.3 (-1.5)
Green: 8.1 (+0.7)
Other: 2.7 (+1.0)

Atlantic Canada (MoE 6.68)
Liberals: 34.1 (-4.7)
Conservatives: 33.7 (+2.0)
NDP: 21.3 (+2.1)
Green: 9.1 (-0.5)
Other: 1.8 (-1.1)

The Ekos poll makes a point-- the last edition of this poll is the one that sparked a bit of a row with a person who was making such a big deal of the Sask - Manitoba numbers because they had increased-- I said pay no attention as they are not accurate. Here we see the number reversed. Either we conclude that the NDP has gone way up and then way down in those provinces or that the provincial numbers are a joke.

The major point is that if the problem is not a disagreement regarding a single aspect of methodology but one of quality then you can draw little from any individual poll. I have already made the point that there are numerous methodological differences but none of them explain variations between one edition and another where there is nothing going on out there to explain them. Low quality where the margin of error is much higher than advertised does explain all of these.

This may be a more important poll:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/11/bbc-poll-influence.html

Canadians care about what other people think of them and these findings if they are part of a longer term trend are going to affect people's confidence in the foreign policy of the country.

If you drill down, you recognize that this is from only last year when Canada may already have lost standing from previous years. Secondly the weakest point (given where the drops are) may be due to environmental policy.

Our broken immigration system may also be a factor (some of the biggest hits come from countries where applying to visit Canada has become more of a hassle and where immigration files have been facing longer waits).

What if all the polls except Nanos and CROP are bogus?

Tories do well in poll - but with protest, not so much

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-do-well-in-poll-...

And 1 time out of 20 they will be bogus as well.

With polls it only means something if several agree and do so over time.

That Harper lost support over proregation seems to ahve been confirmed -- specific numbers are crap.

Environics

Libs - 37%

Cons - 33%

NDP - 13%

NR, those numbers came in a poll that was commissioned by the group advocating on behalf of income trust investors.  The sample was not likely to be as NDP-friendly, just based on who would be interested in completing such a survey.

So only B.C. has NDP as 2nd favorite. We will send even more NDP MPs to the house next time as the Cons fall from grace and the Libs remain with Iffy as leader. Maybe it will happen across Canada like that, or do they need a new leader? Will they be forced by Jack's illness to find one? Can they find a superstar NDP leader that could sweep the nation [like many Libs are hoping for too, eh N.R.]?

NS

I think Layton will be around for another election or two, seeing as he has been relatively successful as the NDP Leader. I'm anticipating a breakthrough for the NDP in Quebec next election. 

Leger

Quebec

Bloc - 38%

Libs - 27%

Cons - 16%

NPD - 12%

AngusReid Strategies (Vision Critical)

Cons - 34%

Libs - 30%

NDP - 18%

Bloc - 9%

Harris Decima

Cons - 32%

Libs - 30%

NDP - 16%

Tories take early gold in polls

In keeping with the Olympic spirit, it's gold so far for Stephen Harper's Conservatives, according to two new national public opinion polls.

And in keeping with Canadians' generous spirit, NDP Leader Jack Layton has received a slight bump in public perception, an increase the latest Angus Reid survey attributes to news he is suffering from prostrate cancer.

Mr. Layton's approval numbers are at 29 per cent, up 2 per cent, since the firm's last poll in late January.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-take-early-gold-... [27]

It looks like the anger over prorogation has faded and that things are returning to normal.

We missed you Augustus.

Your're premature. Looked at the other way- if your fondest wishes come true, your party may get back to where they were before you decided to stir the pot.

Only 1 week left in the O Show, and many weeks left until prorogation is over....

Not to worry the train wreck that is the olympic is making canadians sick. Most of the people I work with are A pissed that it isn't televised(350,000 in our region no CTV) B upset at the cost of the olympics, and C watching what an embaressment this has been. How is the view of the torch things...sorry you can't get close to it like all the elites are aloud to do.

The latest Ekos is out:

http://ekos.ca/admin/articles/cbc-2010-02-18.pdf

CPC - 31%

Libs - 29%

NDP - 16.5% (up 1% from last week)

Where is the Olympic bounce for the Tories??? Even in BC where you'd think it would be happening, Tory support has been 30% for three straight weeks - that is a FIFTEEN point drop from the 45% they got in BC in the '08 election!!

If IR were to be believed Canadians can thank our lucky stars there will be no election this year.

Cons - 37%

Libs - 29%

NDP - 16%

Voters would elect another Tory minority: Poll

Harper's personal numbers, though, have suffered over the last three months. When survey respondents were asked if their impression of the prime minister had improved over the last three months, about one in 10 (12 per cent) said it had but four in 10 (38 per cent) said their impression of Harper had worsened.

"This is fairly typical for Harper," Bricker said. "Very rarely has he ever had a time of public positive momentum. He's a controversial leader and even though people respect him, they don't personally warm to him."

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, too, has had a rough few months, with about one in 10 (12 per cent) saying they had a better impression of the Liberal leader but about three in 10 (29 per cent) saying their impression had worsened.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, though, is viewed more favourably at the end of the prorogation period, with just one in 10 (12 per cent) feeling worse about him but two in 10 (18 per cent) feeling better about him.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Voters+would+elect+another+Tory+mino...

Polls galore today!

Let's go from bad to good:

Ipsos week old poll says: Tories 37%, Libs 29%, NDP 16%

Harris-Decima says: Tories and Libs tied at 31% each, NDP 16%

Angus Reid says: Tories 33%, Libs 29%, NDP 20% (!) - I'll take it!

I think we now know why the Liberals are jealously taking potshots at Jack Layton every nasty little chance they get.

Even Warren Kinsella knows it's not looking good for Iggy ... and that was *before* the Angus Reid numbers came out:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry100301-202713

Does anyone know what the seat projections would be for NDP with 20% in the polls. The NDP should get a minimum of 50 seats in the next election, and more are possible. Nice to see the NDP picking up steam with 22% support in Ontario. 

Latest ARS poll:

Party/ Poll / 2008 Election

Cons - 33% / 38% / down 5%

Libs - 30% / 26% / up 4%

NDP - 20% / 18% / up 2%

VisionCritical (ARS)

NDP results

BC - 25%

AB - 9%

SK/MB - 15%

ON - 22%

QC - 16% (Up 4%  from 2008 election - Not too shabby!) 

AC - 27%

Total - 20%

Ontario is also up 4% from the last election. Its funny with the polls one will have the NDP doing really well in the west but badly in Ontario - then another one (like this one) will show us doing well in Ontario and not so well out west.

If you had the high water mark of recent polls reached in all regions at once the party would be around 22-3%.

The question is -- is the highwater mark realistic or polling inaccuracy? As I said in another thread a jump to the mid twenties may come with little warning. I don't think that this is incremental-- there are tipping points that large numbers of people have in common. Anyway, I've commented at length about this in another thread on waht it would take to get to 25% (or better).

Here is what I think is very possible in the next election. let's assume that the NDP loses no ground anywhere.

Say that the 26% in Atlantic from last time stays about the same.

There is more growth in Quebec and the 12% from 2008 grows to 15%.

There is an inch up in Ontario from 18% to 20% (perfectly possible given the number of times the NDP took 20-21% in Ontario all thorugh the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Then as a result of falling Tory support, we manage to gain a couple of points in Man/Sask from 25% last time to 27% - keep in mind that as recently as the 2000 election the NDP took close to 30% of the vote in Man/Sask.

maybe Alberta stays stuck at 13%

Then in BC if we even took the 26% from the 2008 election back up to the 29% that was won in 2006.

Add it all up and that is what could put the NDP nationally at about 20/21%

You know what region always gets overlooked in these discussions: the North.

The NDP has at one time or another in the last 30 years held every one of those three northern seats. Does anyone have any insights into what's going on in Yukon these days, or how popular Leona Agglukaq is at home?

You got to think that home town girl as fairly highly regarded Health Minister counts for a LOT in Nunavut... that it would take hard core sentiments against her or the government to trump that.

True, Ken, but Iqaluit is also a small town and not everyone supported her approach in the territorial government. I also suspect the way the community dinner at the G-8 Fiance Ministers meeting was handled would have wound up making people feel bad when none of the ministers attended, and I'm not sure how that would have reflected on the government. But I was just looking for any on-the-ground intel.

Interesting thing about Yukon--Audrey's old turf--is that the NDP was a poor *fourth* there last time (though I'd definitely be cautious about using that as a benchmark)

Tories hold lead over Liberals: EKOS

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/03/ekos-voter-intention-poll.html

Never heard about this, could you detail what happened, or give a link, please?

Check out this picture of Harper after hearing the latest post-Olympics polls - "where's the bounce? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering bounce!"

Maybe after a meeting with Layton - Harper screams "The creature has stolen the space modulator!!"

In the Ekos daily numbers the Conservatives had a 16% lead for March 2 so I guess that's their temporary Olympic bounce

Remind, I don't have easy access to links right now, but if you google Jim Flaherty Iqaluit Finance Ministers meeting and seal meat, you should find what you're looking for.

Iqaluit handles summit without a hitch

Huh, how very rude of them, thank you scott.......

Yeah, but the pushy tactics of the Conservatives kind of set them up for that kind of disappointment.  Of course the Europeans couldn't be seen by their own media to sell out the vitriolic anti-seal hunt folks back home.  So, in getting the Inuit to do all that preparation for a dinner they knew or ought to have known would be politically impossible for the other finance ministers to attend, I think the government people were being a bit too clever by half, and setting up the Inuit for a disappointment.  They never should have been put in that position.

ETA:  BTW, thanks for hauling up that link, Scott.

never under estimate the Conservatives ability to amuse themselves at others expense.

I suppose Layton's leadership is so strong the Globe though it should discuss the leadership of the also-rans instead.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-rides-olympic-bounce...

maybe those who commissioned the poll did not even ask the question

Actually the full Harris Decima results are available:

http://www.harrisdecima.com/sites/default/files/releases/2010/03/09/hd-2...

Note that Layton has 48% approval (and just 36% disapproval). Compare that to Harper's 41% approval/49% disapproval and Iggy's 29% approval and 51% disapproval.

Layton is the only leader nationally with a net approval rating

Easy stock we have never let facts get in the way of a good old NDP ashing in the media before> I would hate for it to start happening now.

Always the optimist eh Sean!

I value honest truthful inquiry over propaganda even if it is the propaganda of my side.

And actually I am optimistic-- so much so that I don't have to stretch all credulity by celebrating every positive, yet insubstantial blip as if it were something meaningful even though any unbiased observer would recognize it as meaningless.

I find the interpretation of any positive blip in the polls to be more like seeing faces in the clouds than political analysis and just as useful.It would be easy to ignore if it did not involve several victory lap-style content-free posts. At times I find it easier to ignore these extreme posts as static but at other times I find that much static to be in the way of more considered opinion -- just as I find those who cite the coming of summer to be a sign of global warming to provide a disservice to a valid argument. I find the meaningless celebrations of non-events get in the way of recognition of real solid progress - and there has been some of that.

You are not remarking with the same emphasis on the NDP numbers in the other polls showing the 15-16% the party has often been in recently I guess just leaves room to declare the same type of victory the next time the NDP hits 20% in a single poll.

I do think it is a problem that many polling questions seek opinions on only the government and the official opposition when in fact the gap between the official opposition and other opposition parties does not justify the line being drawn there. The fact that the Liberals are said to be the only other party that could be expected to govern after the next election is in many respects a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Too bad that 48% approval doesn't translate into voting intention.  The approval/disapproval numbers are largely meaningless.  Voting intention and maybe best PM a smidgeon are all that really counts.

Sorry, not trying to be snippy there, just realistic.

Campaigns matter and I would rather go into an election campaign with leader with 48% approval than with one who has 29% approval. Vote intention is often a lagging indicator.

BTW: The Ipsos poll that came out last week also had Layton as a solid second on the best person for PM question.

So take that Eee-yore!

I like that analogy.

C.(on)B.C. was crowing about the cons leading this morning after the budget(so they didn't factor this weeks shenanigans good job ekos best spin you can manage)

Cons 32

Libs 30

NDP(well back as the reporter said) 16

2% is probab;y the margin of error but yeah they are leading, I think ekos had them with a larger lead in the last poll which then should have been reported as tory lead cut to just 2% but we can't have that. I am pretty pissed at how bad the CBC is a mouthpiece for the cons. Power and Politics this week has not been any better with Barton. Terrible.

Maybe this Kady O'Malley is a little smarter than what we're used to seeing in our national press. She seems to grasp things a bit better than most of the rest of the flock. The Liberal CBC will have to reign her in with comments like these:

EKOS of the Day: Nothing to see here, folks -- move along, move along.

If I had to declare a winner for this week, it would be the NDP -- which is up nearly a full point nationally, although given how not awesome last week's numbers weer, that's less cause for raucous celebration and more deserving of a quiet sigh of relief for Team Orange. Everyone else seems mired in meh

 http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/ekos-of-the-day-nothing-to-see-here-folks----move-along-move-along.html

Thanks remind

working link to kady's article

EKOS again has the Greens at a surprisingly high level of support -11%, vs 6.7 in the last election. Almost everyone thinks this is a mirage and the Greens will melt down considerably come polling day.

If we accept that the Green vote in some polls, like EKOS, is artificially large, how should be read the poll? Does it really relect a 2% lead by the Conservatives over te Liberals with the NDP at 16%? Or should we read it in light of the expected racheting down of the Green vote to its general election level or less?

Personally I think it really refects something like Con 32.5, Lib 32, NDP 18, and Greens 6%.

A month ago EKOS asked about second preferences. The numbers among Green voters were: C 9.7, L 26.1, N 25.7, B 6.4, none 30.0

Why doesn't the CBC tell us something we don't know. Duh!

Kory's Tories media-not-so-friendlies list: Yup, we made it...

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/korys-tories-media-not...

Tied my ass. The NDP received close to 3 times the support the Greens did in our last election.

But this is the kind of misleading polling our mainstream press (read mainly Liberal, with the balance being primarily Conservative) love to publish to try and manipulate voters with going into an election campaign. Three weeks before the last federal election campaign this is what they came up with.

We're No. 2: NDP, Greens tied as second choices, poll says

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?pid=1447&cpcat=election&stry=137746062

I'm sure it's not hard for people to figure out which polling company was involved here.

Yes, that was a funny blast from the past!

Still, I think it may have been true that the Green party might have been an acceptable second choice for a lot of voters last time.  However, either that was amongst firm supporters of other parties who didn't have a reason to switch, or else it was amongst voters who didn't want to support either their first or second choices (I'm thinking disillusioned Liberals) and just stayed home instead.

One difference now is that the national media has written off Elizabeth May as flaky.  The "Green" name on its own obviously still has some attraction in some of these polls, but add it to the leader's name, or require people to actually volunteer who'll they'll vote for, and I think we'll find that the momentum has petered out for them.

The Liberals realize that they got badly burned by their gambit with the Greens last time, too.  I think they thought it was a way to drain off NDP votes, but it just drained some of off their own instead.  So, I doubt you'll see the big Liberal pollsters (like Bruce Anderson of Harris Decima, quoted in the above story from September 2008) pushing the Greens much more this time.  If the party loses votes in the next election, I think at least one polling firm will even stop prompting for their name.

I assume a lot of nonvoters say "Green" and that Green supporters seem to draw disproportionately from the NDP (i.e. when we hear Greens boasting about 11-12% in Ontario, say, usually the NDP is at something like 13-14%) and hardly at all from the Conservatives.

I agree LP.

The NDP should change its name to the Green New Democratic Party until this GPC is completely routed. To suggest that the GPC hierarchy, the decision-makers, are progressive is one of the biggest political con jobs ever perpetuated on Canadians.

Though it appears in the last election the Dion-May deal seemed to ironically shift a lot of Liberal votes to the Greens in the last election.

There is a new Leger poll out in Quebec:

BQ 37% (-1%)

Libs 25% (-2%)

Cons 17% (+1)

NDP 14% (+2)

http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/sondage_federal.pdf

Here is a very good article from the UK exploding some myths about political polling:

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

1) The polls are ALL wrong, the real position is obviously X

Er… based on what? The reality is that opinion polling is pretty much the only way of measuring public opinion. We have some straws in the wind from mid-term elections, but they tend to be low turnout protest votes, don’t tend to predict general election results and are anyway quite a long time ago now. Equally a few people point to local government by-elections, but when compared to general election results these normally grossly overestimate Liberal Democrat support. If you think the polls are wrong just because they “feel” wrong to you, it probably says more about what you would like the result to be than anything about the polls.

2) I speak to lots of people and none of them will vote for X!

Actually, so do pollsters, and unless you regularly travel around the whole country and talk to an exceptionally representative demographic spread of people, they do it better than you do. We all have a tendency to be friends with people with similar beliefs and backgrounds, so it is no surprise that many people will have a social circle with largely homogenous political views. Even if you talk to a lot of strangers about politics, you yourself are probably exerting an interviewer effect in the way you ask.

3) How come I’ve never been invited to take part?

There are about 40 million adults in the UK. Each opinion poll involves about 1,000 people. If you are talking about political voting intention polls, then probably under 100 are conducted by phone each year. You can do the sums – if there are 40,000,000 adults in the UK and 100,000 are interviewed for a political opinion poll then on average you will be interviewed once every 400 years. It may be a long wait.

4) They only interview 1000 people, you’d need to interview millions of people to make it accurate!

George Gallup used to use a marvellous analogy when people raised this point: you don’t need to eat a whole bowl of soup to tell if it is too salty, providing it is sufficently stirred a single spoonful will suffice. The same applies to polls, providing an opinion poll accurately reflects the whole electorate (e.g, it has the right balance of male and female, the right age distribution, the right income distribution, people from the different regions of Britain in the correct proportions and so on) it will also accurately reflect their opinion.

In the 1930s in the USA the Literary Digest used to do mail-in polls that really did survey millions of people, literally millions. In 1936 they sent surveys to a quarter of the entire electorate and received 2 million replies. They confidently predicted that Alf Landon would win the imminent US Presidential election with 57% of the popular vote and 370 electoral votes. George Gallup meanwhile used quota sampling to interview just a few thousand people and predicted that Landon would lose miserably to Roosevelt. In reality, Roosevelt beat Landon in a landslide, winning 61% of the vote and 523 electoral votes. Gallup was right, the Digest was wrong.

As long as it is sufficent to dampen down sample error, it isn’t the number of people that were interviewed that matters, it is how representative of the population they are. The Literary Digest interviewed millions, but they were mainly affluent people so their poll wasn’t representative. Gallup interviewed only a few thousand, but his small poll was representative, so he got it right.

5) Polls give the answer the people paying for it want

The answers that most clients are interested in are the truth – polls are very expensive, if you just wanted someone to tell you what you wanted to hear there are far cheaper sources of sycophancy. The overwhelming majority of polling is private commercial polling, not stuff for newspapers, and here clients want the truth, warts and all. Polling companies do political polling for the publicity, there is comparatively little money in it. They want to show off their accuracy to impress big money clients, so it would be downright foolish for them to sacrifice their chances with the clients from whom they make the real money to satisfy the whims of clients who don’t really pay much (not to mention that most pollsters value their own professional integrity too much!)

6) Pollsters only ask the people who they know will give them the answer they want

Responses to polls on newspaper websites and forums sometimes contain bizarre statements to the effect that all the interviews must have been done in London, the Guardian’s newsroom, Conservative Central Office etc. They aren’t, polls are sampled so they have the correct proportion of people from each region of Britain. You don’t have to trust the pollsters on this – the full tables of the polls will normally have breakdowns by demographics including region, so you can see just how many people in Scotland, Wales, the South West, etc answered the poll. You can also see from the tables that the polls contain the right proportions of young people, old people and so on.

7) There is a 3% margin of error, so if the two parties are within 3% of each other they are statistically in a dead heat

No. If a poll shows one party on 46% and one party on 45% then it is impossible to be 95% confident (the confidence interval that the 3% margin of error is based upon) that the first party isn’t actually on 43%, but it is more likely than not that the party on 46% is ahead. The 3% margin of error doesn’t mean that any percentage with that plus or minus 3 point range is equally likely, 50% of the time the “real” figure will be within 1 point of the given figure.

8 ) Polls always get it wrong

In 1992 the pollsters did get it wrong, and most of them didn’t cover themselves in glory in 1997. However, lessons have been learnt and the companies themselves have changed. Most of the companies polling today did not even exist in 1992, and the methods they use are almost unrecognisable – in 1992 everyone used face-to-face polling and there was no political weighting or reallocation of don’t knows. Today polling is either done on the phone or using internet panels, and there are various different methods of political weighting, likelihood to vote filtering and re-allocation of don’t knows. In 2001 most of the pollsters performed well, and in 2005 they were all within a couple of points of the actual result, with NOP getting it bang on.

9) Polls never ask about don’t knows or won’t votes

Actually they always do. The newspapers publishing them may not report the figures, but they will always be available on the pollsters’ own website. Many companies (such as ICM and Populus) not only include don’t knows in their tables, but estimate how they would actually vote if there was an election tomorrow and include a proportion of them in their topline figures.

Latest Nanos Poll

No Post Budget Bounce for Tories

(Nanos Poll Completed March 12th 2010)

Nik on the Numbers

The latest research indicates that there is no post- Olympic, post-Throne Speech or budget bounce for the Conservatives. In terms of the Olympics, it's unlikely that Canadians associated positive national sentiment toward the Olympics with the Conservative government. Likewise, the "stay the course" budget had little in it to break the deadlock between the Conservatives and the Liberals. (34.7% for Conservatives and 34.6% for Liberals).

Support for all the federal parties remains relatively stable.

Based on the current situation, an immediate election is unlikely in the short term unless there is a new political revelation which could rock the government or the Liberals. The next realistic election windows include the Fall of 2010 or early 2011 prior to the next federal budget. 

To chat about this poll join the national political online chat at Nik on the Numbers. The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website along with regional breakdowns. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates.

Methodology
Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between March 6th and March 12th 2010. A survey of 1,000 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20, for 804 committed voters, it is accurate to within 3.5 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Margins may be larger for smaller samples.

Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)

The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between January 29th and February 4th, 2010.

National Committed Voters Only (n=804)
Conservative 34.7% (-0.9)
Liberal 34.6% (+0.7)
NDP 17.8% (+1.4)
BQ 7.7% (-0.8)
Green 5.2% (-0.4)

Note: Undecided 19.6% (-2.3) of total voters surveyed

Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Poll."

What's surprising about this poll is that the BQ seems to have lost support and is now tied with the Liberals in Quebec. If this is true, the BQ will want to avoid an election and will prop up the Cons if necessary.

It'll be interesting to see if this tie between the BQ and Liberals in Quebec is replicated in future polls.

The Ignatieff Liberals are scared shitless about having an election right now as they know, even with all the Harper gaffes, there is no hope for them to form government. Probably the only Liberal who wants an election now is Bob Rae.

As far as Quebec polling, it is usually CROP and Leger that have an accurate handle on what is happening there.   

NR, I am somewhat confused. I have a question for you:

I assume that you are a NDP supporter? Is that correct? Now, imagine for a second that the NDP mysteriously vanishes, would you say that your ideology more closely aligns with the Harper Conservatives or Ignatieff liberals if you were on a "desert island" and those were the only 2 choices left.   If you could please stay away from using the line, "they're both the same", I'd appreciate it.  It just seems to me that you have more hatred for the Ignatieff Liberals than you do for that psycho maniac Harper which I find bizarre.

Imagine for a second that the NDP mysteriously vanishes, and you were on a desert island with Steven Harper and Michael Ignatieff.  Would the political situation you found yourself in be extremely different than the political situation you find yourself in today?

If water started flowing upwards and the sky turned Green, would the NDP still be worth supporting?

If Jack Layton were to drown you in peanut butter, would you think he was an appropriate leader for the NDP?

Rob8305, it is your questions i find bizarre.

While the Liberals and Conservatives are not equal, they are equally unacceptable as governing parties.

Wishful (even robotic) thinking on the Liberals' part, I suspect NR, although your comment on peanut butter did make my afternoon ! ;-)

Well stick around babble for awhile, there are a number of babblers who do think they are essentially the same. 

Personally, I think the parties are different in two ways:

1) During election campaigns, and occasionally when the Liberals are in opposition* - Liberals will promise to be progressive.  Conservatives don't make that promise.

2) In minority parliaments*, Liberals can occasionally be forced to act in progressive ways.

However, when it comes to how the parties act in majority government situations - I personally don't see any difference.

*Does not apply during Michael Ignatieff's leadership.

Isn't NR a Conservative spin doctor?

Paul Martin legalized SSM, stood up for aboriginal rights with the Kelowna accord, was moving towards the legalization of marijuana, passed the new deal for cities and set up the health care fix at the first ministers' conference in 2004.  Martin did this in the context of an unbelievably tenous minority to be sure but the Cons would never make such conessions in a minority parliament to hold onto power.  We also have the unmistakable legacy of Pierre Trudeau.  We also have the legacy of the Liberals bringing down the government in 1988 to force an election on the FTA.  We also have the liberals bringing in gun control and standing up to the cons draconian crime legislation. Cons are secretly pro death penalty. Liberals anti.

Now their #2 MP is Bob Rae!!!! Bob Rae of all people. Bob Rae is as far away from Conservative ideology as you can possibly get.

I have no idea why Chretien lurched so unbelievably far to the right in the 1990s but the Liberals have a strong progressive tradition.  Once Ignatieff loses the next election, Rae or Justin Trudeau will take over the leadership and the Liberals will become progressive once more.

There is a huge difference between the cons and libs.  What you are probably seeing right now is the right-wingers are still running the show in the Liberal party through their proxy, Michael Ignatieff, who actually was pushed for the leadership by Chretien who was engaged STILL in his never-ending war with Paul Martin.  All influence of Chretien/Martin needs to be drained ASAP from the Liberals.

I personally would like to see a Liberal/NDP merger to take on the Con montrosity.  The "experts" say that the 2 parties are too disparate but I am not entirely convinced that it couldn't work.  What came out of a policy convention would be fascinating.

As for me, I think of myself as a progressive pragmatist/realist.

Well this seems like a good time to enter a brief exerpt from Brian Topp's new book (which just arrived by mail this afternoon) into the record.  He is writing about the previous time the NDP tried to work with the Liberals in government:

Sorry if that went a bit beyond what should normally be quoted from a copyrighted book (although note that I do link to its entry at Indigo.ca [85], and can report that it's well worth the read, even if you already read the 6-part coalition series at the Globe online).

But frankly the Liberal lines in some of the posts above are such total BS in comparison to the way their party actually behaves, that we should not take them seriously or at all at face value.

If indeed there are such things as progressive Liberals, they need to understand that the only way their progressive agenda will be implemented is to vote NDP.  Period, full stop.

That's kinda the way I remember things as well OO, although it is quite enlightening to see Topp, now for a second time, produce a documented version of how Liberals really behave.  Finally, for the first time that I can remember, there is a serious expose of this two-faced Liberal party. One face is the secret one, the one that is hidden from the voters most of the time, and the other face which they use to try and promote themselves to the public.  

So let me see, if we can just change the leadership of the Liberal party, and then drain it of all the influence of the previous two Prime Ministers, THEN, the Liberals will be progressive.

I'll get right on that. :)

Well, Justin Trudeau has the legacy of a P.M. who was canonized upon his death to build on, doesn't he?  And Chretien, would be nowhere without PET.

Sorry, Rob, we're not much into the cult of leadership around here.  Also, Justin has to prove his own chops.  I will give him points for going into Papineau and working hard first to win the nomination and then his seat, but he's not his dad's intellectual equal by a long shot, and remember that Trudeau the senior was only canonized in certain quarters ... he was also responsible for a lot of the regional rifts in our contemporary political culture, which are still causing us grief.

'Liberal weakness' pushes Tories ahead in poll

Mr. Graves notes "this is the 12th consecutive poll where we haven't seen either party crack 33 points."

"I honestly can't remember a period in Canadian political history where no one has been able to summon more than one in three Canadians to their cause for such a protracted period," he told The Globe this morning.

Sounds like at least one scared Liberal is worried about a Harper majority - I wonder why!

Harper has his finger on the election trigger.

How Stephen Harper might trigger the next election

Parliament has only been back a few weeks. But even with a bland throne speech and a boring budget - or maybe because of them - the Conservatives are beginning to creep ahead of the Liberals again in the polls.

If that trend continues, the dreams of the elusive majority will again begin dancing in the heads of the Harper Conservatives, and the desire for an election will become uncontainable.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/18/f-vp-newman.html [92]

Sounds like NR is happy to hear about a Harper majority - I wonder why?

Another play out of the Liberal playbook it seems.

How about we stick to debating the issues instead of personalities.

"Gee, I never thought of that he says."

NDP'ers and BQ'ers are the ones who most oppose a Harper majority.

Kady is by far the most entertaining political journalist in Ottawa:

EKOS of the Week: Mind the (4.2) gap, Liberals

Yes, 4.2 percent -- that, it seems, is the divide that yawns before us, with the Conservatives inching ever more upward towards that magic 35 percent threshold that would ensure the government maintained minority control, albeit of the white-knuckled variety, if we went to the polls today and everyone voted just as they assured the EKOSbot that they would. 
The Liberals, meanwhile, are down a full 0.2 percent, mostly due to frittering away the gains made in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, while vaulting forward with slightly less strength and fortitude in Ontario. As for the NDP -- well, they've pulled into second place in British Columbia and are on the march in Quebec, which likely makes up for being behind the Greens in Alberta. Also, it's Alberta.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/ekos-of-the-week-mind-...

IR

Cons - 34%, down

Libs - 28%, down

NDP - 18%, somebody must be up 

If we're at 18% in an Ipsos-Reid poll, something is definitely happening.

It's that Olympic bounce Harper was expecting but the NDP received.

I'm sure Harper was hoping for a bigger spread, but at 6 points ahead of the Libs (some media headlines absurdly referred to the IR results as a "dead heat" when 6 points was the Harper victory margin in 2006!) the Ekos and IR results are still good news for the Conservatives.  After the media push on Guergis/Jaffer/Blackburn over the last few weeks and the continuing scandal over detainees, etc, for the Conservatives to have a clear lead and zero momentum for the Liberals shows that the Conservative prorogation gamble worked - and the opposition and much of the media fell for it hook, line and sinker. 

The huge scandal of the Afghan detainees and massive cover-up by Conservative Ministers and staff was swept away with arcane debates about the GG's prorogative and how the House was "shut down" for 2 months - then the MPs come back and the Libs fold on the Throne Speech and budget with no changes within 3 days. 

Process stories never last that long with voters - Harper broke his fixed election law in 2008 and got a bigger minority a month later, he appointed Senators after promising not to, etc.  It's great fodder for political junkies but most voters have more immediate concerns to worry about. 

The budget has passed, the economy is "recovering" according to the corporate media and the lead question in Friday's Question Period was...about Blackburn and the tequila incident at the airport.  Layton and the NDP are doing better to some extent in the polls but the key challenge is to focus on the real issues of jobs, protecting public services and a real plan for climate change, and not getting distracted over trivial issues like Jaffer, Guergis, etc. 

Of course there was also a Nanos poll this week that had the Liberals and Tories dead-even. I don't think the prorogation gamble "worked".To say it worked you have to compare it to what would have happened if they had not prorogued and come back in late January giving Harper a platform to brag about helping Haiti etc...

Its true that the public doesn't always care about process issues - but this was not a process issue. I think it was yet another example of Harper and his party showing all the traits of manipulation and insincerity that cause so many swing voters to mistrust them.

Why the Tories MIGHT have had a small dead cat bounce after the Olympics and after some good economic numbers came out still doesn't make for the fact that they have lost ground that they never regained.

BTW: With regard to Harper not paying any price for breaking his own fixed election date law - I agree he paid no price - but I think that's largely because no one criticized him for it at the time. I don't recall any of the opposition parties making an issue of it. If you can find me a quote from Sept. '08 by Layton or Dion or Duceppe saying "we don't want an election, we want the Harper government to continue" please show it to me.

So...what about the torture scandal?  Is that done with?  Because of it is, then prorogation worked.

No, its not done with - have you not been reading the newspapers for the past week with references to the speaker to hold the government in contempt and more demands for the documents etc...?

If the detainee scandal fades away - it will be because there is a roadblock and no more new information - but that if that's the case now, that would also have been the case if the house had come back a month a go and there had been no prorogation.

Over here.