Polling thread, the non-election edition

138 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Polling thread, the non-election edition

continued from here

Ekos new numbers are:

CPC - 35.1

LPC - 29,9

NDP - 16.5

GP - 9

Bloc  - 9.6

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/EKOS-Data-Tables_Sep-5.-17_.pdf

 

 

KenS

 

To the degree people are paying close enough attention, and I'm talking here about those who vote at least most of the time and pay some attention to the issues, here's my guess as to how people will react to recent events:

Very few people other than those who were hoping for something for themselves or someone else close to them will even notice that the target of the EI improvement was only the 'deserving'.

What most people will notice, and approve of, is that something was done. Nothing earth shattering [or they would be able to give an approximate rendition of what it was], but something.

Both the Cons and the NDP will get little 'credit ticks'.

No one except the crowd we travel among will take away the sense that the NDP blinked, didn't get anything, betrayed us, etc.

The opinion of Harper will be virtually unchanged- neither bothered or impressed/re-impressed anyone beyond those already implacably committed one way or the other.

Iggy will go unoticed. At least until he does something or something is done to him- but chances are high if he tries to do something to change that now or soon, it won't look good and/or come off well.

The NDPs days of being able to say "79 times the Liberals supported Harper" are over. No one- not even junkies- will care. [Though it will leave a bit of a vacuum for the NDP.] Iggy will not really get any credit for the discovery of the ability to show a backbone. Reporters will continue smirking about Layton and the NDP turnaround, and that never helps you. But despite appearances, the turnaround will not actually add to that. In other words, no damage was done.

 

Stockholm

Its not as if the NDP ever got all that much credit in the first place for opposing the Tories 100% of the time. People either didn't care, thought we were being inflexible or - in the Liberal bogosphere - the reaction was "how dare the NDP vote against Harper and put us Liberals into the position of having to prop him up - HOW DARE THEY!

Buddy Kat

Finally an exos poll that jives with what I hear. It was looking a little scary there with just a 4 point Green /nDP differance.

janfromthebruce

oh Buddy don't get too existed 16. 5 - 9 = 7.5% difference - I know math can be challenging

janfromthebruce

I was drilling down into the poll and noted some differences and things to think about for parties.

Party platforms matter the most except it is alot lower in Altantic provs. Local candidates matter the most in Altantic and Sask/Man - so parachut candidates would not be a good idea.

The NDP's party platform means the most in comparison to all other parties - interesting.

remind remind's picture

In that same vein Jan, the party leader for the NDP means the least, while it means the most for Coniberals. Guess their supporters like top down patriarchy.

NorthReport

There is a lot of polling, and in order that we don't too bamboozled it's good to occasioanlly have an overview of what is actually taking place in the polls as opposed to what people want to take place, if you get my drift, Tongue out 

Looks like Ignatieff have been cut right out of the decision-making process in Ottawa, so let's see how the Ignatieff Liberals have been faring recently with their great intellectual leader, and their latest brilliant political strategies:

Pollster / Cons / Change / Libs / Change / NDP / Change

EKOS  / 35.1% / Up 0.9% / 29.9% / Dn 0.9%  / 16.5% / Up 1.7% / Cons have increased their lead over Libs by 1.8%, NDP up 1.7% 

ARS / 36%  / Up 3% / 29% / Dn 3% / 17% / Dn 2% / Conservatives take seven-point lead over Liberals  

Harris/Decima / 34% / NC / 30% / NC / 15% / NC / Conservatives maintain four point-lead over Liberals

Nanos / 37.5% / Up 6.2% / 33.4% / Dn 0.4% / 14.8% /Dn 3.9% / Election speculation fuels Conservatives        

Stockholm

A couple of years ago, the polling industry made the mistake of starting to give this so-called green party legitimacy by starting to prompt for them in polls - thereby juxtaposing them with the Tories, Grits and NDP when in fact they should really be juxtaposed with the Libertarians, the Christian Heritage party and the Marijuana party. Most polls gross exagerrate their support by prompting for them. One thing i will say for nanos is that he doesn't prompt for ANYONE. In his polls he just asks - "Which party are you going to vote for?" without reading a list - and lo and behold when you do it that way, suddenly Green support evraporates from 10% to a more realistic 4%.

janfromthebruce

remind wrote:

In that same vein Jan, the party leader for the NDP means the least, while it means the most for Coniberals. Guess their supporters like top down patriarchy.

I noted that too.-

thorin_bane

The at issue panel went on and on about how layton is getting the short end of the stick and we are only supporting harper cuz our polling numbers are so low...keep spinnning CBC A New Tissue Panel

NorthReport

I'm surprised actually that Harper has not completley gutted the CBC News Department by now, as they pimp so much for the Liberals. but in spite of that, the Ignatieff Liberals just keep dropping in the polls.

How come?

Pierre C yr

I could see Layton's numbers go up assuming there was more to the EI bill than the 5-20 extra weeks. I think the public unlike pundits could respect modest changes relative to the size fo the NDP in the house.  But if its a take it or leave it from the tories the NDP might not gain much. Those who would be cynical about our 4 years voting record suddenly broken might balance out those who think we did ok.

I heard that the NDP supposedly voted down a better EI bill earlier but the pundit didnt give any details. Was there such an occasion and if so was it part of legislation with poison pills in it? Or did Jack really vote down on principal at the time knowing the libs would support it?

 

 

Mr.Canada_ts

Pierre C yr wrote:

I could see Layton's numbers go up assuming there was more to the EI bill than the 5-20 extra weeks. I think the public unlike pundits could respect modest changes relative to the size fo the NDP in the house.  But if its a take it or leave it from the tories the NDP might not gain much. Those who would be cynical about our 4 years voting record suddenly broken might balance out those who think we did ok.

I heard that the NDP supposedly voted down a better EI bill earlier but the pundit didnt give any details. Was there such an occasion and if so was it part of legislation with poison pills in it? Or did Jack really vote down on principal at the time knowing the libs would support it?

 

 

 

I think that Jack has been maximizing his power while in the HoC since being first elected there.  Probably why he still the leader of that party.  He's effective.

remind remind's picture

The NDP drafted a EI Bill and it has passed 2nd reading I believe.

ottawaobserver

Yes, but on his blog Paul Wells was referring to the EI changes in the last budget which we voted against, because we voted against the entire budget as being insufficient.  He claimed those changes added up to $6 billion vs. the $1 billion now.

So, I don't think he meant the private member's bill you're thinking of, remind.

remind remind's picture

If this were the case, why would the Conservatives change their own amounts for EI then? Why would they not, if they actually cared about the unemployed,  pull that amount out and make a new separate Bill with it? What it signifies to me, if this is true, is  that they are playing games with the people's of Canada's lives.

janfromthebruce

I'm glad he voted against the whole budget, however, as the NDP learned, saying one will vote against something without reading it, was not a good stance. This time, at least they are looking and saying well this is good, this is not what they said, and we want something more for long-term unemployed workers. And by the way, could you look at those who pay in but can't collect due to the Libs screwing up ei when in power.Kiss

Pierre C yr

LOL gotta love pundits when they dont give out any 'nitty gritty' details... Yeah we probably would have voted for the extra 6 billion which went through anyway had it been separate from the *entire* budget. My oh my they cant give any context anymore can they.

janfromthebruce

nope that would ruin their narrative, and they bet on both of horses, depending if one loses favour. Couldn't have the "dark horse" win one - would upset the rigged betting.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

What happened to the seemingly never-ending string polls all of a sudden?

remind remind's picture

Ekos should be out tomorrow.

Stockholm

actuallly they always come out on Thursdays. Last week Harris Decima came out on Wednesday so who knows if that happens again

ottawaobserver

Does it happen that if they find a new trend they poll for an extra few days to confirm it?  Please tell me they don't keep polling until they get the result they want...

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

Whatever new poll results that come out, I can almost guarantee that the media will continue to refer to the one poll that had the NDP at 12% as if it was typical (instead of the 20th time out of 20 referred to in the disclaimer clause). A low water mark for the NDP fits their longstanding narrative that the party is in trouble. If and when we actually do find ourselves in trouble for real, no one will be able to tell.

ottawaobserver

There's a nifty little factoid hidden in the advanced look at some Nanos numbers John Ivison wrote about today ...

QUESTION: Thinking of the federal party leaders, who would you trust to manage the following issues?

Issue ______ | Harper | Unsure | May | Iggy | Layton | Duceppe

HEALTH CARE_ | 28.9% | 18.4% | 3.8% | 21.5% | 22.1% | 5.3%

TAXES _______ | 40.1% | 19.0% | 1.0% | 24.2% | 11.6% | 4.0%

NATL UNITY __ | 30.1% | 20.9% | 2.7% | 28.1% | 14.8% | 3.3%

ENVIRONMENT | 21.6% | 18.1% | 17.9% | 16.8% | 21.1% | 4.6%

THE ECONOMY | 40.5% | 17.4% | 1.5% | 26.8% | 10.1% | 3.7%

Random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians from Sept. 3 to Sept. 11, 2009. The margin of accuracy for a sample of 1,002 +/-3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Source: Nanos Research Jonathon Rivait / National Post

Two factoids actually: (i) Stephen Harper is ahead of everyone else on health care ??? (ii) Layton is ahead of both May and Ignatieff on the Environment, and effectively tied with Harper there as well.

To repeat, Layton is ahead of Elizabeth May in trust on how he would handle the issue of the environment.

Iggy has a bit of traction on National Unity (could this be because of the default view of the Liberal Party) and taxes.

I'll be interested to see if these kinds of numbers hold up across different pollsters over time.

Centrist

ottawaobserver wrote:
Issue ______ | Harper | Unsure | May | Iggy | Layton | Duceppe

NATL UNITY __ | 30.1% | 20.9% | 2.7% | 28.1% | 14.8% | 3.3%

Well ... at least Duceppe beats out May on the national unity question!

ottawaobserver

I didn't notice that one ... good catch!

Coyote

I don't know how someone who's name has become anethema in Quebec can be in the lead in national unity; and I am floored that the Liberal Party leader is NOT in the lead. Granted, margin of error.

Stockholm

simple, Harper is PM and at the moment Canada exists and is united - so people assume he must be doing something right.

Since there is no "national unity crisis" in Canada right now, so no one is really thinking about who should lead the NON campaign in a referendum on sovereignty. Support for sovereignty is at an all time low in Quebec and there is a Liberal government there so nothing is happening on that front.

People probably think that whoever they are voting for would be best on this issue.

Debater

ottawaobserver wrote:

There's a nifty little factoid hidden in the advanced look at some Nanos numbers John Ivison wrote about today ...

QUESTION: Thinking of the federal party leaders, who would you trust to manage the following issues?

Issue ______ | Harper | Unsure | May | Iggy | Layton | Duceppe

HEALTH CARE_ | 28.9% | 18.4% | 3.8% | 21.5% | 22.1% | 5.3%

TAXES _______ | 40.1% | 19.0% | 1.0% | 24.2% | 11.6% | 4.0%

NATL UNITY __ | 30.1% | 20.9% | 2.7% | 28.1% | 14.8% | 3.3%

ENVIRONMENT | 21.6% | 18.1% | 17.9% | 16.8% | 21.1% | 4.6%

THE ECONOMY | 40.5% | 17.4% | 1.5% | 26.8% | 10.1% | 3.7%

Random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians from Sept. 3 to Sept. 11, 2009. The margin of accuracy for a sample of 1,002 +/-3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Source: Nanos Research Jonathon Rivait / National Post

Two factoids actually: (i) Stephen Harper is ahead of everyone else on health care ??? (ii) Layton is ahead of both May and Ignatieff on the Environment, and effectively tied with Harper there as well.

To repeat, Layton is ahead of Elizabeth May in trust on how he would handle the issue of the environment.

Iggy has a bit of traction on National Unity (could this be because of the default view of the Liberal Party) and taxes.

I'll be interested to see if these kinds of numbers hold up across different pollsters over time.

I suspect Harper's numbers on the National Unity issue are a lot lower in Quebec.

WyldRage

I don't agree: as a sovereignist, I believe Harper is doing the best job of all party leaders in the domain of national unity.

NorthReport

More bad polling news for those demoralized losers called the Ignatieff Liberals. You head it here first, Ignatieff is going to do worse in the next election, than Dion did in the last election.

Tories gain popularity amongst Evangelical Christians

The Liberal Party was once the most popular political party with Canada's millions of Evangelical Christians but has lost much of that support to the Conservatives and the New Democrats, says a new study.

And it is largely its own fault.

"It's depressing as hell," said Liberal MP John McKay. "It shows a voting trend which is not favourable to my party and I think we have some repair work to do."

McKay, who is also an Evangelical Christian, said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is taking the findings of the study seriously and is trying to repair relations with Canada's estimated 3.5-4 million Evangelical Christians.

The study by Don Hutchinson and Rick Hiemstra of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada tracked the voting patterns of Canada's Evangelical Christians from 1996 to 2008. Among the things they found was that there are a lot of differences between the way Evangelical Christians vote in the United States and in Canada.

For one, Canada's Evangelicals don't vote in a monolithic block for one single party. Secondly, while the most popular party with Evangelicals is currently the Conservatives, the second most popular party is the NDP.

The Liberals used to be a natural home for Evangelical Christians who care about issues such as social justice. In 1996, the Liberals were by far the most popular party with Evangelical Christians in every region except the West where the Reform Party was slightly more popular.

However, those voters began to move away from the Liberals after the Liberals denigrated and marginalized them, says the study. "Each time Canadians went to the federal polls in 2004, 2006 and 2008, the Liberals only managed to hold on to roughly half of the evangelical voters they had had at the previous election," says the report. "When evangelical voters left, they generally went to the Conservatives and the NDP, in a 2 to 1 ratio.

 

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWorld/2009/09/23/11081196.html

janfromthebruce

From your linked article:

Evangelical Christians who care about issues such as social justice.

 

Well when your party only represents money issues it doesn't leave much for social justice issues - liberation theology comes to me and that is progressive left.

I met many church going folks in Sask who are NDP supporters and see socialism as a projection of their spiritual beliefs. I think that there is a part of the NDP that would be considered -spiritual - and that there is a tension but in the end, the NDP is very flexible and open to beliefs of others, as long as it does not oppress others.

thorin_bane

NR could you tone down your rhetoric a bit. Every post you say the libs are toast and harper is headed for a majority. I don't see either happening.

The libs may well do very poorly, but for the cons to get this super majority they need quebec and their every move is at odds with 85%+ of quebecers so I fail to see how he will tanslate into a brian malroney style majority that your regular posts claim. Sorry just getting tired of the chicken little routine. Or being smug of the libs demise. Karma is a bitch you know. I would much prefer the cons to have been whipped off the map but somehow they are still above 30% it doesn't make sense. The only reason I can see for this is the huge amount of apathy making devoted cons votes = 2 normal people votes as they always go to the polls.

bekayne

janfromthebruce wrote:

From your linked article:

Evangelical Christians who care about issues such as social justice.

 

Well when your party only represents money issues it doesn't leave much for social justice issues - liberation theology comes to me and that is progressive left.

I met many church going folks in Sask who are NDP supporters and see socialism as a projection of their spiritual beliefs. I think that there is a part of the NDP that would be considered -spiritual - and that there is a tension but in the end, the NDP is very flexible and open to beliefs of others, as long as it does not oppress others.

Here's a link to the study:

http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V02I03/Evangelical_Voting_Trends_1996-2008.pdf

 

Because of the small regional samples for 2008 it appears the authors of the report made some "leaps of faith" in their conclusions

 

NorthReport

EKOS

Cons - 37%

Libs - 29.9%

NDP - 13.8%

Tories making inroads in Toronto: poll

After a summer that saw the federal Conservatives and Liberals in a virtual tie, the Tories have opened up a comfortable lead over the Liberal Party and appear to be making a breakthrough in Toronto, a new poll suggests.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/23/ekos-poll.html 

thorin_bane wrote:

NR could you tone down your rhetoric a bit. Every post you say the libs are toast and harper is headed for a majority. I don't see either happening.

The libs may well do very poorly, but for the cons to get this super majority they need quebec and their every move is at odds with 85%+ of quebecers so I fail to see how he will tanslate into a brian malroney style majority that your regular posts claim. Sorry just getting tired of the chicken little routine. Or being smug of the libs demise. Karma is a bitch you know. I would much prefer the cons to have been whipped off the map but somehow they are still above 30% it doesn't make sense. The only reason I can see for this is the huge amount of apathy making devoted cons votes = 2 normal people votes as they always go to the polls.

remind remind's picture

*gag*

bekayne

How many ridings in Ekos definition of "Toronto"?

janfromthebruce

Well, after a week of MSM bashing of the NDP - supporting EI and the ways and means confidence motion - is it a surprise that they took a hit in the polls?

I wonder if the two articles in the media today, basically writing nice things about the NDP had to do with a look at the polls and saying, gee, we went to far, they saved those libs' asses, and they were right in different areas of national concern, maybe we should ease up.

Let's see what next week brings.

SCB4

Or alternatively, the MSM has chosen to build up the NDP's stature in the hope of engineering more vote splits in marginal Liberal seats, allowing the Tory candidate to come up the middle in our woefully un-representative FPTP system.

I recall a similar phenomenon in 1987-1988 when Ed Broadbent suddenly started getting unusually friendly press, including a cover story in the Globe and Mail's report on business magazine.

 

 

Buddy Kat

janfromthebruce wrote:

oh Buddy don't get too existed 16. 5 - 9 = 7.5% difference - I know math can be challenging

I was referring to previous recent exos polls that had a 4 point differance. The latest ekos poll has it less than 4 points.  I will have to wait for a nanos to back it up before I believe it.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

Stockholm

SCB4 wrote:

Or alternatively, the MSM has chosen to build up the NDP's stature in the hope of engineering more vote splits in marginal Liberal seats, allowing the Tory candidate to come up the middle in our woefully un-representative FPTP system.

I recall a similar phenomenon in 1987-1988 when Ed Broadbent suddenly started getting unusually friendly press, including a cover story in the Globe and Mail's report on business magazine.

 

 

That is utterly ridiculous. The reason why Ed Broadbent started to get "unusually friendly press' in 1987-88 was that poll after poll kept saying that he was the most popular politician in Canada and for a while the NDP was actually leading the national polls. Its "monkey see, monkey do" - when the MSM sees that someone is popular they tend to feel they have to jump on the bandwagon. In any case in 1987 the NDP and Broadbent were so popular and the Liberals under Turner were so moribund that if you really buy into the theory that there is some vast conspiracy by the media to "split" the non-Conservative vote - then they should have been saying nice things about John Turner back then in order to make sure that the anti-Conservatve vote didn't all consolidate with the NDP which was wayyy more popular than the Liberals at that time.

Sean in Ottawa

There are times when the channel does not change between the pre election period and the actual election. I don't think this is one of those times. There are too many variables but I think there are risks for all parties-- and while I do think a Harper majority is possible, it could go the other way as well. I think a very large number of people are unhappy and could change their minds -- The public opinion is probably more like this: 12% NDP, 22% Liberal, 3% Green, 23% Conservative and 40% parked and capable of moving. If I am right we may have the most fluid electorate we have seen in a long while just waiting for a reason to go somewhere. In the case of the Conservatives they have another 5% parked that could only go somewhere else if there were a right wing federal alternative (like the Wild Rose in Alberta provincially). Therefore practically I would see them as being at 28% as I see no right wing alternative coming soon. this puts 28% in the bank for them. They only need a few points more to hold government even if a majority may be almost out of reach.

It also makes sense that with only one right wing option (I say right wing in a Canadian context not a global one which would define everything other than the NDP as to the right), the Cons likely have most of their possible constituency under their tent already and little room to grow.The top end of that party if everything broke their way is only about 45%. This 45% includes all right leaning Canadians including Quebec, centrists that could go either way. Without gathering the right wing Quebec vote which is presently divided between the Liberals, Conservatives and BQ, the Cons, maximum is about 40% which is around the minimum for a majority.

This is why everything must go their way to get a majority without Quebec-- while not impossible they have no other room for error. To get a majority therefore the Cons must get that 5% that has so far eluded them-- this means not having HST problems, not having Atlantic Canadians who could vote conservative but dislike Harper etc. 35-37% is a good result for Harper but less than a majority and he either has to run the table outside Quebec to get 40% or make an inroad in Quebec to make that up. Presently, running the table outside Quebec looks more likely but it would still be an impressive feat. Mulroney did do that for his PC party and would have won without Quebec in his first term. I think it unlikely that Harper can do this but not impossible. It is also not impossible for the Cons to lose the election as well. As most people have said, another minority remains the most likely but not the only possibility.

I am not convinced that the other parties have what it takes to go much further than they are either. The NDP with a good campaign can make up lost ground and even advance -- but it is hard to imagine crossing 20% in this context. The Liberals could recover to the low 30s but ti is hard to imagine them going further. The BQ can always sweep Quebec and should never be counted out. The Greens are capable of close to 10% showing in my view even if that does not reward them with seats. It seems that nothign much is changing-- and therefore a good reason not to have an election.

Sean in Ottawa

Stockholm wrote:

That is utterly ridiculous. The reason why Ed Broadbent started to get "unusually friendly press' in 1987-88 was that poll after poll kept saying that he was the most popular politician in Canada and for a while the NDP was actually leading the national polls. Its "monkey see, monkey do" - when the MSM sees that someone is popular they tend to feel they have to jump on the bandwagon. In any case in 1987 the NDP and Broadbent were so popular and the Liberals under Turner were so moribund that if you really buy into the theory that there is some vast conspiracy by the media to "split" the non-Conservative vote - then they should have been saying nice things about John Turner back then in order to make sure that the anti-Conservatve vote didn't all consolidate with the NDP which was wayyy more popular than the Liberals at that time.

I remember that campaign-- arguably they did just that as Turner became a media darling in the 1988 campaign coming from last place to a respectable second. Few seem to remember that the NDP came close to a second place finish in that election and blew it.

Had the NDP run out of the gate on an anti free trade platform (rather than a bag things mostly topped with Broadbent being a nice guy), that election would ahve turned out differently. But the media was actually quite kind to Turner during the 1988 campaign and not friendly to the NDP. The friendly NDP media trip ended as that campaign started and the debate on Free Trade heated up with the NDP largely AWOL on the issue at the start of the campaign.

SCB4

I remember it, too. And I do stand by my contention that there was ample opportunity for divide and conquer spin by the MSM. Keep in mind that the 1988 campaign essentially lasted a year; it really began in October 1987 with the release of the proposed FTA. Lots of opportunity for spin.

As for the NDP being "wayyy more popular", Angus Reid's tally during the first week of the election had the PCs at 43%, the NDP at 29% and the Libs at 25%. Not sure if a 4% advantage warrants three y's in "way" but it did cause Broadbent to over-reach and blow the election in the process.

 

 

 

Stockholm

If you seriously think that there is this vast conspiracy by the MSM to talk up the NDP and supposedly split the vote so that the Tories can rule forever - why no orgy of flattering puff pieces about Audrey Mclaughlin and Alexa MacDonough in the 90s?? For that matter why aren't CTV and the national Post and the Globe and the Star all writing endless hagiographical puff pieces about the great statesman-like Jack Layton being the only grown up in the room who is masterfully extracting all these valuable concessions from haroer and doing such a great job of making parliament work??? Instead, with the notable exception of this very, very, very rare article by Lawrence Martin, the MSM attitude towards the NDP is better characterized as "let's see how many ants we can gleefully stomp on on the sidewalk"

The reality is that about 80% of the mainstream media in Canada is pro Big-L Liberal. They will almost always bend over backwards to cast Liberal tactics in the most flattering light possible.

SCB4

Stockholm wrote:

If you seriously think that there is this vast conspiracy by the MSM to talk up the NDP and supposedly split the vote so that the Tories can rule forever -

 

I never used the term 'vast conspiracy" but it can and does happen.

 

Stockholm wrote:

why no orgy of flattering puff pieces about Audrey Mclaughlin and Alexa MacDonough in the 90s??

 

I do recall seeing a couple of flattering pieces about McLaughlin early on in her leadership.  The Liberals were in power when MacDonough was leader and had no need to build up the NDP as they were doing quite nicely with the divided right.

 

 

Stockholm wrote:

For that matter why aren't CTV and the national Post and the Globe and the Star all writing endless hagiographical puff pieces about the great statesman-like Jack Layton being the only grown up in the room who is masterfully extracting all these valuable concessions from haroer and doing such a great job of making parliament work??? Instead, with the notable exception of this very, very, very rare article by Lawrence Martin, the MSM attitude towards the NDP is better characterized as "let's see how many ants we can gleefully stomp on on the sidewalk"

The reality is that about 80% of the mainstream media in Canada is pro Big-L Liberal. They will almost always bend over backwards to cast Liberal tactics in the most flattering light possible.

 

Now that is utterly ridiculous. Did you catch one iota of CTV's and Canwest's television coverage of the Liberals last election campaign and the shabby way they treated Dion? With the exception of the Star and (very debatably) the CBC, all of the MSM leans heavily pro Conservative.

Sean in Ottawa

Why -- on The previous leaders they were not strong enough to make the argument with a straight face. With all due respect for them they were not ever in the game enough to be manipulated-- they were never a threat and could not be dressed up to be one.

And I have seen quite a few MSM articles support the NDP and the timing of these articles is always similar so I do buy the conspricay angle as at least possible. These articles are strategic-- they will never appear during an election because the NDP does represent the greatest threat to corporate power in Canada. But they will be tossed out whenever there is time to do a hit and run on the Liberals and recover in time for an election to deliver a Conservative message. I have seen this for decades. I'll think differently when I see an article like Martin's during an election.

By coming out with articles in favour of the NDP timed when they can do little harm also helps obtain the gravitas of a balanced reproter. But when we are coming down the road to a vote the true colours come out.

I think the media think that they are smarter than the rest of us and think they can manipulate opinion-- often they get away with it. No I do not think it is beyond them. No I do not think they produce articles like this just because the NDP deserved it- there are times when the NDP deserves credit but does not get it because it might affect a vote and give those "ants" seats.

Another motivation is to sell papers you have to write soemthing different from time to time otherwise you are saying the same thing you did yesterday and there is no need to buy the paper-- show some diversity. Martin did that. But do this when it is politically affordable. With the Cons up and the Liberals second trying to threaten and no election, then this is the time.

And no-- there is no need for a conspiracy plan-- just individual people doing what is in the best interest of their employers and political interests.

 

They did walk on the moon. Elvis is dead. But if they can manipulate the public, our so called "opinion leaders" will try.

Stockholm

"Did you catch one iota of CTV's and Canwest's television coverage of the Liberals last election campaign and the shabby way they treated Dion?"

What do you expect? Dion put on a dreadful performance and the media covered it. The media are like sharks in the water, they smell blood and then the feeding frenzy begins. If Harper committed a few gaffes and the consensus was that the Tory campaign was flagging, the media would start a feeding frenzy against him. I don't think you can claim that the media were ever all that positive towards the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives - they were invariably depicted (rightfully) as dangerous dinosaurs and religious freaks and in the 2004 federal election, I would argue that Harper got a lot of bad press (and disappointing results)

janfromthebruce

And one never heard - until after the election - that the NDP ran a superb election campaign and the best out of the 4. It was said after, during the campaign, well we know the drill.

Pages