2018 Ontario Polls

938 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

brookmere wrote:

wage zombie wrote:
(Grenier) won't care.  I think he was predicting more Lib seats than NDP in fed 2011.  Every election he comes out with a new aggregation process that somehow seems to overestimate Lib support and underestimate NDP support

In 2011 he predicted 78 for the NDP and 60 for the Liberals. In 2015 he predicted 146 for the Liberals and 66 for the NDP. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

The 2011 result sounds close to me.

gadar

josh wrote:

gadar wrote:

"Doug Ford on track for majority"

Yeah, that’s why the huh to the, here’s hoping.

The mask slips now and then

Mighty Middle

Pogo wrote:

  • I am pretty sure you advised everyone repeatedly that Premier/PM was not an entry level job.

That was discussed when Jagmeet Singh was running for and then was elected leader of the NDP. How in the 2015 election campaign every single NDP candidate repeatedly said "Being PM is not an entry level position". And then the NDP does a 180 and elects as its next leader a politician who has less political experience than Justin Trudeau? Those were legitimate points of discussion during the leadership race.

Pogo wrote:

  • I also remember you recently telling people about Mulclair's statements regarding strategic voting

Just like right now how people are discussing strategic voting. How the NDP blasted the Liberals in the past, but now the NDP is now touting strategic voting. It is quite natural to discuss strategic voting during an election campaign, as it is a legitimate point of discussion.

Northern-54

In any First Past the Post election, there will be strategic voting.  I recall delivering a message to Conservatives to lend their vote to defeat the Liberal candidate in one election.   Of course, it was done the night before the election was held.  By the way, Father Bob Ogle won that election for the NDP.  He was running against Otto Lang who was hated by Conservatives.

Ken Burch

gadar wrote:

josh wrote:

gadar wrote:

"Doug Ford on track for majority"

Yeah, that’s why the huh to the, here’s hoping.

The mask slips now and then

Uh...WHOSE mask?  

(pm me with a response to that if you'd prefer).

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Your endless posts. I'm sure it won't take much effort to find them.

So go to it.

I meant you can find your own posts. 

Mighty Middle

jerrym wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Your endless posts. I'm sure it won't take much effort to find them.

So go to it.

I meant you can find your own posts. 

Either take action (to back up what you have been talking about) or stop talking about it.

josh

Great example why the Liberals suck.  Trying to take the  NDP down with them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9R8-UOkwd-Q#

NorthReport

FWIW

Greens leading NDP by 4% in Guelph.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1003005152809365504

scott scott's picture

NorthReport wrote:
Greens leading NDP by 4% in Guelph.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1003005152809365504

This is a continuation of the trajectory outlined by Mainstreet's earlier poll which had the Greens at 31% and the NDP at 28%. Judging by signs on lawns and general conversation I would say this poll is not far off. When the local paper headlines the Greens in first place it becomes self-fufilling as all the "I like the greens but they can't win" voters decide that they can't vote their conscience for once.

In other news an independant riding poll had Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte had Cons in first place with Greens as a rather distant second.

NorthReport

In Guelph the Libs before the unmitigated disaster which hit them today we’re polling at 11%

what per cent of the vote do you need to keep your deposit?

NorthReport

 

Add a few more Liberal votes to the NDP after today’s Liberal collapse and voila!

https://mobile.twitter.com/normsworld/status/1002700744762351616

SocialJustice101

It'd beautiful to see Ford lose in his own riding, as a bonus to losing the election, of course.  We wouldn't want to see him returning in a by-election, ala Christy Clark.     Then he'd get the 2nd mayoral election run he always wanted.

NorthReport

Pollara will be releasing more polling tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/craigworden/status/1002626962441945088

josh

Abacus:   NDP 37 PC 33 L 23 G 5 decided.  14% undecided.

http://onpulse.ca/blog/ndp-holds-onto-lead-over-pcs-as-outcome-is-uncertain-at-this-point

Mighty Middle

Andrea needs 45% to win because her support is more concentrated, while Ford's is much more efficient. So if they are still tied and even if Andrea wins the popular vote by 1%, Ford still wins by the seat count.

So unless we see Andrea at 45% we are looking at a Ford majority.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Andrea needs 45% to win because her support is more concentrated, while Ford's is much more efficient. So if they are still tied and even if Andrea wins the popular vote by 1%, Ford still wins by the seat count.

So unless we see Andrea at 45% we are looking at a Ford majority.

These are polls. They have to assume the same turnout as last time. This election will likely have an increase in young voters due to the polarization and the choices. NDP versus PC will likely bring  them out in droves.

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

Andrea needs 45% to win because her support is more concentrated, while Ford's is much more efficient. So if they are still tied and even if Andrea wins the popular vote by 1%, Ford still wins by the seat count.

So unless we see Andrea at 45% we are looking at a Ford majority.

45%? Where do you come up with that figure?

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Andrea needs 45% to win because her support is more concentrated, while Ford's is much more efficient. So if they are still tied and even if Andrea wins the popular vote by 1%, Ford still wins by the seat count.

So unless we see Andrea at 45% we are looking at a Ford majority.

These are polls. They have to assume the same turnout as last time. This election will likely have an increase in young voters due to the polarization and the choices. NDP versus PC will likely bring  them out in droves.

I hope you are right but it really depends on who is engaged. Ford supporters seem to be more engaged than young people. Young voters don't remember the Harris years, no were they in tune with the Ford antics at City Hall.

From what I have seen no party has engaged and sought after the Millenial vote the way Trudeau got them to the polls. Remember it was voter turnout, not strategic voting that won Trudeau the election.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/dogwood-initiative/2015/10/strategic-vot...

NorthReport

That Abacus poll showing Andrea with a 4% lead was before Wynne capitulated so the NDP can pull off a victory here.

bekayne
progressive17 progressive17's picture

Valerie Plante got the millennial vote, and it put her over the top. So did Wynne.

robbie_dee

NDP seems stalled and Conservatives rising in most polls. I am thinking that a lot of the undecided might be Tories who were sour on Ford but reluctantly returning home. The only question left is whether Horwath can push the Lib vote down further in light of Wynne's "concession" or if conversely the Libs get a sympathy bounce.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Andrea needs 45% to win because her support is more concentrated, while Ford's is much more efficient. So if they are still tied and even if Andrea wins the popular vote by 1%, Ford still wins by the seat count.

So unless we see Andrea at 45% we are looking at a Ford majority.

These are polls. They have to assume the same turnout as last time. This election will likely have an increase in young voters due to the polarization and the choices. NDP versus PC will likely bring  them out in droves.

I hope you are right but it really depends on who is engaged. Ford supporters seem to be more engaged than young people. Young voters don't remember the Harris years, no were they in tune with the Ford antics at City Hall.

From what I have seen no party has engaged and sought after the Millenial vote the way Trudeau got them to the polls. Remember it was voter turnout, not strategic voting that won Trudeau the election.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/dogwood-initiative/2015/10/strategic-vot...

Ford obviously has a strong following but I think they have an outsized voice. The far right is always screaming even though that is what they accuse the left of. The papers were endorsing Harper, not Trudeau, right up until the election.

Millennials are digital natives. They don't read newspapers. They are accustomed to literally endless choices for entertainment, knowledge and communications. They don't watch broadcast TV, they watch netflix or other services on their TV. People today not reading newspapers is not the same thing as people in the 1950s not reading newspapers.

 Everything that has happened during the campaigns and the previous 4 years is readily available. The choices are stark anyway. Millennials won't vote because the NDP "reached out to them". They will vote because if they don't Ford might win. They do not need to listen to debates to figure out who to vote for. There is just no contest. Of course there are young people for Ford but not a lot.

The right is correct to be afraid of education. People who go into teaching are usually people who care more about people than about money. People who care more about money go into law, business, engineering and science not teaching. It is no accident that young people are so much more focused on the threat of climate change and pollution in general. They have been learning about the envionment since kindergarten.

I could be totally wrong, but the difference between Ford and Horwath is so stark and the race so close that people know their vote absolutely does matter. That is also true of Ford supporters so his core will be out in full force. I think his core is larger than the Liberal and NDP cores but Horwath has far more potential.

I don't think Wynne's plea to hold the others to a minority will fly. Her crocodile tears won't help a bit. People are not going to vote based on feeling sorry for Wynne. They are going to vote motivated on what they believe is in their own best self-interest. The notion that the electorate can aim for a minority when the call is this close makes no sense.

Her argument is that the PCs and NDP are both so bad that neither can be trusted to run the province.  Either must be held to a minority so she can rein them in. Her arrogance knows no bounds.

 Who would you want to have a beer with is an outdated question. Who would you want as your co-worker or neighbour is more to the point. Who do you trust to act in your best interest?

The NDP is the only party with a costed platform and it was reviewed by Kevin Page.

The media endorsed Harper over Trudeau in 2015. I believe that bias extends even more strongly against the NDP.

Polls give us a limited view. They are true in x cases out of y, if the election was the next day, and if people behave true to form in voter turnout. 2015 is being treated as an outlier but there is no reason to assume that it is. The tide may have turned not only on voting but also on the influence of not only mass media but also fringe media.

josh

bekayne wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Pollara will be releasing more polling tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/craigworden/status/1002626962441945088

And it's out:

https://www.pollara.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pollara_ONElxn2018-Me...

37-37-20.  Number of undecided has actually increased.

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Andrea needs 45% to win because her support is more concentrated, while Ford's is much more efficient. So if they are still tied and even if Andrea wins the popular vote by 1%, Ford still wins by the seat count.

So unless we see Andrea at 45% we are looking at a Ford majority.

45%? Where do you come up with that figure?

Frm the place that other excrement comes from.

The last day this troll has provoked a lot of the conversation ehre without adding anything really thoughtful -- just inane poking of half baked crap to wind people up.

bekayne

No-one's getting 45%

Sean in Ottawa

This Pollara poll with a significant increase in undecided to me seems more like an anti-Ford vote looking for a home. If Horwath got most of that it would give her a majority. But ifs don't mean much -- it may be that many who are undecided will not vote if they still have no idea now.

I think there are no more people trying to stop Wynne as undecided -- since her cause is lost.

I think there are people worried about stopping Ford and we do not know how efficient those efforst will be.

I alo think that there are people who really won't vote so getting out the vote is significant. Ford has an advantage here -- the voting participation rate is likely to be a deciding factor.

I wonder if there will be much play about the non platform of the conservatives -- this could also move some away from Ford.

None of the parties have a lock without moving some undecided and Horwath has an advantage in accessible voters. So, again, if those undecided decide and vote then likely the NDP wins but if they do not then likely Ford will win.

 

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Frm the place that other excrement comes from.

The last day this troll has provoked a lot of the conversation ehre without adding anything really thoughtful -- just inane poking of half baked crap to wind people up.

Showing your Road Rage again and your inability for any self-control

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Rural ridings are going to go Conservative by wide majorities. Even in the last federal when they lost they still got 45% and 55% majorities in those places. This may actually waste a lot of the Conservative popular vote. 

The NDP-Conservative battleground seats are, shall we say, a brand new phenomenon in many places. Because of that, it will be difficult to predict their behaviour.

If there is a heavy turnout, the NDP wins.

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

Rural ridings are going to go Conservative by wide majorities. Even in the last federal when they lost they still got 45% and 55% majorities in those places. This may actually waste a lot of the Conservative popular vote. 

The NDP-Conservative battleground seats are, shall we say, a brand new phenomenon in many places. Because of that, it will be difficult to predict their behaviour.

If there is a heavy turnout, the NDP wins.

This is what I have been hoping -- that the Conservative vote is not more efficient. But the answer means knowing the exact bounce of support since the most inefficient is right beside the most effcient -- close wins are very near to close losses.

cco

Efficiency is something to calculate after the fact. The most efficient majority government possible in Ontario would be one where a party wins 63 ridings by one vote each and doesn't even contest the other 61. That means a highly efficient government is a highly vulnerable government.

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:

Efficiency is something to calculate after the fact. The most efficient majority government possible in Ontario would be one where a party wins 63 ridings by one vote each and doesn't even contest the other 61. That means a highly efficient government is a highly vulnerable government.

Yes exactly. This is why hearing pollsters talk about one party being being more efficient than another is so irritating. Efficiency is by definition right next to inefficiency.

Ken Burch

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

cco wrote:

Efficiency is something to calculate after the fact. The most efficient majority government possible in Ontario would be one where a party wins 63 ridings by one vote each and doesn't even contest the other 61. That means a highly efficient government is a highly vulnerable government.

Yes exactly. This is why hearing pollsters talk about one party being being more efficient than another is so irritating. Efficiency is by definition right next to inefficiency.

Let's face it, in this campaign "effeciency" is simply code for "for God's sakes, don't EVER admit Ford can't count on a majority".  That's the only reason the seat predictors are using it...they are under orders to push the PC inevitability narrative no matter what.

Northern-54
bekayne

Ken Burch wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

cco wrote:

Efficiency is something to calculate after the fact. The most efficient majority government possible in Ontario would be one where a party wins 63 ridings by one vote each and doesn't even contest the other 61. That means a highly efficient government is a highly vulnerable government.

Yes exactly. This is why hearing pollsters talk about one party being being more efficient than another is so irritating. Efficiency is by definition right next to inefficiency.

Let's face it, in this campaign "effeciency" is simply code for "for God's sakes, don't EVER admit Ford can't count on a majority".  That's the only reason the seat predictors are using it...they are under orders to push the PC inevitability narrative no matter what.

What "efficiency" means in this context is how popular is a party with the demographic groups with higher turnout (age, income).  Which means a lot in a province which traditionally has a horrible turnout %.

josh
NorthReport

So the NDP has picked up 3% on the PCs while the Liberals drop. Not too shabby for Andrea!

Northern-54

Take a look at the breakdown of who was polled.  1/3 of the sample were people over the age of 65.

bekayne

Northern-54 wrote:

Take a look at the breakdown of who was polled.  1/3 of the sample were people over the age of 65.

Then they weighted it so  that they made up 21%

NorthReport

What percentage of voters are 65 plus?

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

bekayne wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

cco wrote:

Efficiency is something to calculate after the fact. The most efficient majority government possible in Ontario would be one where a party wins 63 ridings by one vote each and doesn't even contest the other 61. That means a highly efficient government is a highly vulnerable government.

Yes exactly. This is why hearing pollsters talk about one party being being more efficient than another is so irritating. Efficiency is by definition right next to inefficiency.

Let's face it, in this campaign "effeciency" is simply code for "for God's sakes, don't EVER admit Ford can't count on a majority".  That's the only reason the seat predictors are using it...they are under orders to push the PC inevitability narrative no matter what.

What "efficiency" means in this context is how popular is a party with the demographic groups with higher turnout (age, income).  Which means a lot in a province which traditionally has a horrible turnout %.

Nobody has used it that way. Also it makes absolutely no sense at all.

First, those speaking about efficiency also speak about likely voters and do not use the same language.

Second, they make it clear that it is about distribution of votes -- how they are divided into seats.

Third, this is a term used in elections that goes back over decades and always means the number of actual votes cast votes needed to get seats. These discussions always revolve around wasted votes (more than needed to get the seat) and wasted votes (not enough to get the seat). The problem is these numbers are only one apart from each other in any given seat.

The concept of efficiency is based on concentration -- over concentration leads to piling up majorities that you do not need like Conservatives in Alberta or not losing many votes in unwinnable seats like the BQ for many years were strong where they ran even though they had low Canada wide totals becuase they, of course, never ran outside Quebec.

Any discussion of mixing the concept of efficiency with likely voters is only coming from confused people who do not understand these concepts very well.

Sean in Ottawa

Northern-54 wrote:

Take a look at the breakdown of who was polled.  1/3 of the sample were people over the age of 65.

Good thing to check. You remember that Mainstreet poll from 2015 that had the Conservatives in the lead? I looked into the distribution there and saw how the numbers were gamed out in a very disproportionate way weighted like that.

Weighting to older voters is very easy as the sample will always be skewed to them as they are easier to reach. A cheap poll with a large number weighted to older voters can do this. But if weighted correctly then the older respondents are weighted at a better proortion. This is meant to equalize younger voters. The problem here is that with higher sample before weighting the older group is much more accurate and the accuracy of the poll is an average of all the sample. So you see the over sampling is still a problem when weighted correctly. The only way to fix this is for the better pollsters to close quotas when they get the correct amount of sample they need to weight carefully rather than having say 500 respondents for a 20% weight in older people and 100 respondents for a 20% weight of younger voters.

So to be clear -- there is the factor of weighting which can be the multiplier for a given amount of sample or the proportion of a given demographic in the survey, the quota which is the amount of sample you take to determine your result.

So a poll is comprised of proportions deemed to be representative -- so when it comes to age demographics the proportion in each age group in the final calculations. Then sometimes pollsters will have a proportion cut off when reached and others will keep dialling such that they have more surveys and accuracy for one demographic than another. So for one they may weight a given demographic at x2 if they lack the surveys against another x1. Others will simply fill up the quota and either throw away (or more often) not collect further data using closed quotas. This way they have the correct x1 data for every demographic with equal accuracy throughout.

This is seperate from how they weight the demogrphics for the final calculations -- do they do this by populaiton? Well some groups vote more. Or, do they do this using historical average voting rates for each demographic -- These are retained. Of course depending on the year more or fewer people could vote and different demographics could vote at different rates based on what policies seem to be at stake, the time of year (affecting students for example), or weather (some find it harder to get out in certain times of the year)

Excess weighting and over sampling puts the lie to calling polls a science.

What pollsters do is mix the science of tabulating results with the art of their guesses about proportions of voters in each demographic. They add to this over sampling to reach higher numbers. If they get the art right, and have a representative sample their science proves them right. If the art of weighting is wrong (either on purpose or by accident) then they are off.

This is why I have (along with others here) been speculating on who would vote -- if sufferage is high then that means that the weighted polls are going to be wrong and the younger totals will matter more. If voting is low then these polls could seem to be correct.

Some pollsters weight polls in order to provide momentum for one party or another so there is a lot of potential for manipulation here.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

What percentage of voters are 65 plus?

Stats Canada has this but they are down right now:

https://www120.statcan.gc.ca/stcsr/en/sr1/srs?start=25&showSum=hide&fq=&...

They may have stats on participation levels for each group as a percentage of voters. Or they may have participation rates for each age group that you would have to calculate levels using population of each group.

From memory the 20% sounds a bit high but it is also an aging population and cannot be off by much:

In population for all Canada they make up about 12%. Now factor in that among citizens they are a higher percentage -- say 15% and then vote at a greater rate -- then you can see how 20% seems reasonable. Ontario has a lower percentage of elderly than other provinces but on balance I would guess this is close.

Mainstreet did a poll a couple years ago where they had nearly double.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is why I have (along with others here) been speculating on who would vote -- if sufferage is high then that means that the weighted polls are going to be wrong and the younger totals will matter more. If voting is low then these polls could seem to be correct.

I'm not as sure that Horwath will win as I was Trudeau, but pretty close. I predict a high turnout from youth concerned about the environment. Her costed program will also appeal.

Even if that were not the case I think Doug Ford scares them and that will bring them out in droves.

Counting on young people not to vote I  think is a mistake. The trend may have been dropping numbers but times they are a changing. Baby Boomers were so dominant and the parties so alike young people weren't motivated. Now that boomers are beginning to die off other people have more of  a chance to impact the outcome.

Young people have been educated on pollution and climate change since kindergarten. They don't see businesses as providers because young people have no job security so when Ford champions businesses as the route to security it isn't very convincing. They want social services.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is why I have (along with others here) been speculating on who would vote -- if sufferage is high then that means that the weighted polls are going to be wrong and the younger totals will matter more. If voting is low then these polls could seem to be correct.

I'm not as sure that Horwath will win as I was Trudeau, but pretty close. I predict a high turnout from youth concerned about the environment. Her costed program will also appeal.

Even if that were not the case I think Doug Ford scares them and that will bring them out in droves.

Counting on young people not to vote I  think is a mistake. The trend may have been dropping numbers but times they are a changing. Baby Boomers were so dominant and the parties so alike young people weren't motivated. Now that boomers are beginning to die off other people have more of  a chance to impact the outcome.

Young people have been educated on pollution and climate change since kindergarten. They don't see businesses as providers because young people have no job security so when Ford champions businesses as the route to security it isn't very convincing. They want social services.

The problem here is that the Ford campaign is much more artful.

The strategy is to assume that older voters who want poor bashing and slashing and burning of social supports will vote conservative and will not need a platform. Younger voters are being bombarded with left "for the people" messages -- just look at you tube for an hour. Some will see through this but the more stupid ones will miss it. The Conservatives are working with a wink and a nudge on older voters and sounding as left as the NDP for the youth who won't know any better and may be encouraged by their parents.

Ford has put together the perfect coalition that works for the right -- the greedy and the stupid. all he needs is the greed vote with a decent cohort of stupid vote -- even with the more informed among the youth against him.

It will be a miracle if the NDP can beat this.

You just have to hope that the stupid vote and the not-bother-to-vote does not decide this thing.

Ford's advertising and campaign is the most opaque and dishonest as Ontario has ever seen.

The dynamic you are comparing with is totally different-- in 2015 it was the right party done like dinner and the most dishonest of opposition parties that won. (The NDP campaign was also dishonest with offers long into the futures and claims that taxes would not need to be increasesed in order to pay for needed social justice while the Liberals most sold policy was a bait and switch tax cut for the fairly rich.)

In Ontario you ahve an unpopular government on one side and on the other the NDP and the Conservatives trying to sound like NDP but not giving a platform so they can screw the people without looking like they are breaking platform promises too much.

When you have a party willing to go this low -- you cannot assume they will lose.

Also you cannot assume that the greedy + stupid in Ontario is not a majority. It is if you give an excuse to them to vote together.

Ontario is being fucked for a $1 beer, promise of cheap hydro  and a lie.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Ontario is being fucked for a $1 beer

If only Horwath were pledging universal dental care for the province.  Simpsons fans might know where I'm going with this.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Ontario is being fucked for a $1 beer

If only Horwath were pledging universal dental care for the province.  Simpsons fans might know where I'm going with this.

There is a Ford add for dental care -- as well.

This will be a bigger bait and switch than the 2015 Trudeau campaign

Pages