Continued from here
The Polling thread anew
Sat, 2009-08-15 13:08
#1
remind
The Polling thread anew
Sat, 2009-08-15 13:14
#2
remind
reposting regional breakdowns from Ekos
Location..........................Cons...Libs......NDP.....Bloc
NATIONALLY ....................32.7% 31.0% 16.5%
REGION
British Columbia ............. 31.3% 25.8% 26.6%
Alberta ............................63.0% 17.4% 11.2%
Saskatchewan/Manitoba 44.2% 29.7% 20.3%
Ontario ...........................35.5% 38.8% 14.7%
Quebec ..........................16.3% 27.3% 11.1% 38.5%
Atlantic Canada ..............25.6% 32.8% 30.1%
Sat, 2009-08-15 16:48
#3
continued from the previous thread:
This comment is too freakin funny in its non-credibleness.
Ekos has placed the regional results for the Bloc at 38.5 % which translates to 9.7% nationally.
In the lead up to the last election the Bloc were polling consistently nationally at 10%, sliightly above this poll, and they received 38.1% at election time.
What I was referring to was not the national numbers for the BQ (eg. 9%, 10% etc.) which don't tell you much, but the provincial numbers. That is, the numbers within Quebec (eg. 38%, 44% etc.) Historically, the poll numbers that the BQ gets prior to election day turn out to be lower when the vote takes place. That is, if the BQ is polling at say 44% in Quebec, they will usually end up several points below that. This has happened in most elections in Quebec and happened again last October.
The BQ went into Thanksgiving weekend and election day polling at around 40%-42% in Quebec and only ended up with 38% on the night of October 14.
As I've mentioned in the past, you shouldn't respond so quickly out of emotion and condescension as you often do before you understand the discussion taking place.
Sat, 2009-08-15 19:17
#4
As I've mentioned in the past, you shouldn't respond so quickly out of emotion and condescension as you often do before you understand the discussion taking place.
WTF?
Sun, 2009-08-16 03:45
#5
remind flies off the handle without thinking sometimes. That's what I was saying. We all have our own personalities and discussion styles, and that is part of hers. She shoots first and thinks later.
Sun, 2009-08-16 07:31
#6
Could you maybe leave off psychologizing remind? It's a new thread, no need to drag animosity from the last thread into this one.
Also, a word to the wise: telling women to stop being so emotional during a debate is like waving a red flag in front of a bull - even if some of us do have a tendency to do that (just as many men do), it's been a sexist trope used to silence women in the past, and it can be a real trigger for a lot of us. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but to a lot of us, that's how it comes across. So just don't.
Sun, 2009-08-16 08:37
#7
I hope you appreciate how much benefit of the doubt the moderator gave you there.
I tought I heard an audio clip of gritting teeth. But I don't see anything in the post.
Sun, 2009-08-16 21:14
#8
RANDOM FEDERAL ELECTION STATISTICS
Popular support in the 2000 federal election:
Liberals: 40.85%
New Democrats: 8.51%
The grit/dipper spread: 32.34%
Popular support in the 2008 federal election:
Liberals: 26.26% (a decline of 14.59%)
New Democrats: 18.18% (an increase of 9.67%)
The grit/dipper spread: 8.08% (a decline of 24.26%)
- from one of the blogs
Sun, 2009-08-16 21:55
#9
remind
Interesting, the drop in spread %'s, thank you NR, and the way Ignatief is going, well.....it most likely will at least be about the same % spread, should we go into a fall election.
Ignatief did not even appear to make a comment on Khadr, and the upholding of the court order, Bob Rae did. Amazing, that a would be PM, would not take the opportunity to note that a the Government of Canada is losing court challenge after court challenge on human rights.
Now what should we take from this huge silence? That he dare not make a comment, as he would do the same thing were he in the PM's office? Or considering his stand on the Iraq War and comments made, he dare not make a comment? Or is His royalness too royal to make a comment on Canadian's Human Rights?
Whichever it is, Ignatief is certainly not the Leader of the Official Opposition, in any meaningful way. Well...in no way at all. I guess as long as he gets to sit in Stornoway "Castle", on the tax payer's dime, "thinking", he is happy. Canadian human rights being ignored, be damn.
Mon, 2009-08-17 01:43
#10
I hope you appreciate how much benefit of the doubt the moderator gave you there.
I tought I heard an audio clip of gritting teeth. But I don't see anything in the post.
I noticed last week that you got a little attention from a moderator yourself, Ken. 
Remember the thread in which you were speculating on my identity? (incidentally, I am not the person who runs the blog you mentioned - he's younger than me and still in university. I finished my degrees several years ago.) Just wanted to wrap that up since I hadn't had a chance to respond yet. 
Mon, 2009-08-17 02:22
#11
A warning from a moderator is a warning from the moderator. And I also got one I deserved. But I think I can fairly say that there was no gringing of moderator teeth in the background.
I'm actually glad to hear you are not the person i thought [who will not be named].
But it still stands that just on the basis of what you say here, you are in practice a Liberal partisan... one with the aggravating habit, up to recently at least, of pretending to be otherwise.
The fact you may not be a card carrying member, or sometimes disagree with the LPC, or even that you do not always vote for them... none of that makes you other than what you show by what you post. Just like my expressed disagreements with or displeasure with the NDP does not make me one bit less a partisan.
Mon, 2009-08-17 13:16
#12
Back to the thread-- The NDP is interested in the spread between the Libs and the NDP but the Liberals may not be as they are more interested in governing and the spread between them and the Cons.
It is possible they realize they cannot deal with both at the same time: a trip to the right could help them pass the Cons onto government by taking from the Cons directly which is worth two votes from the NDP in closing that gap and the Cons have more support and more possibly unhappy support. So if the Liberals take from the Cons but give to the NDP half of what they take the gap does not open up on the NDP but they could govern-- as well where the NDP gain they might also reduce a few con seats-- all the better. I say all this because the Liberals may be aware that by moving to the right they open ground for the NDP but they might not mind. If they consider that the easiest way to govern is to do it with the NDP and without the BQ, they could consider it a strategy to look at the total both parties could get and plan to put the most effort there-- doesn't mean they won't take an NDP seat if they can but the campaign may not turn that way. Given the fact that scaring the NDP vote to going Liberal has declining returns this may be a sound strategy. If the NDP has more chance at getting policies through with the Liberals then the NDP might want to consider a focus on Tory held seats as well. That said any low-lying Liberal fruit should be taken.
The Liberals have one objective: getting power.
The NDP has of course two objectives one is getting more influence, balance of power, coalition or better yet government. The other is increasing the number of seats and the base of the party. This is one reason the Liberals can afford to not bother contesting too hard in NDP seats focusing on those that will put them over the Cons while the NDP must fight for every seat that it can win and then fight for every seat that it can make progress in. For example-- a seat like Ottawa Vanier held by the NDP-- the Liberals could ignore, while the NDP cannot ignore Ottawa Vanier and must seek to improve its vote even if it cannot win now or perhaps in the next couple elections-- the party has to look down the road for contention. Looked at another way-- The Liberals do not need those NDP seats where the party enjoys what the Liberals do in Ottawa Vanier. But the NDP knows that it will eventually need Ottawa Vanier in order to win government. The difference here should be remembered when either party is working out strategy and when each is considering what the other is doing.
What's good for the goose may not be for the gander...
Mon, 2009-08-17 13:48
#13
There have been several civil rights instances where the Liberals should have spoken up for the people affected. Iggy's silence on this has been deafening, and a brilliant opportunity for the NDP to speak up on their behalf has opened up.
Liberalism should have been about defending the rights of the accused and falsely detained and imprisoned, whoever and wherever they may be. The only Liberal who has been consistent in this recently is Bob Rae. This issue should speak to Canadians' considerable sense of fair play.
If Jack is talking about taking the "centre", surely this is where he should start.
Mon, 2009-08-17 19:38
#14
A warning from a moderator is a warning from the moderator. And I also got one I deserved. But I think I can fairly say that there was no gringing of moderator teeth in the background.
I'm actually glad to hear you are not the person i thought [who will not be named].
But it still stands that just on the basis of what you say here, you are in practice a Liberal partisan... one with the aggravating habit, up to recently at least, of pretending to be otherwise.
The fact you may not be a card carrying member, or sometimes disagree with the LPC, or even that you do not always vote for them... none of that makes you other than what you show by what you post. Just like my expressed disagreements with or displeasure with the NDP does not make me one bit less a partisan.
There is too much focus here on trying to pin down a person's political allegiance - why not just focus on the content of the points being made and the discussion itself? Try to get away from the labels.
But just to briefly summarize my recent political history since you seem to care - I was more or less a Liberal supporter during the Chretien years. However, when Paul Martin took over I disassociated myself from the party in 2004 when he eliminated so many of the left of centre Liberals. The Sheila Copps situation was the clincher for me. In 2004 I voted NDP and worked on Ed Broadbent's Ottawa Centre campaign. After Dion took over, I began to renew some of my Liberal associations and voted Liberal in 2008 because I wanted Harper out. At the moment I view the Liberals as the best way to get rid of Harper, but I would prefer a less conservative leader than Ignatieff - someone closer to Trudeau or Pearson.
My vocational background is in political science, communications and law and I work mainly as a researcher, analyst and advisor in the political and legal fields. I have a law degree, but do not practice it as I find the profession boring and prefer the world of policy, research, and governance.
And that is all you need to know.
Mon, 2009-08-17 21:38
#15
SO you are a liberal backroomer on the trudeau side. OK now we know :P
The NDP has moved about as centre as possible, they now have to put forward stands and stick to them regardless of the press. The inheritance tax should have been better explained (MSM not withstanding) and they shouldn't have ditched the idea. Look at cons, even when they do something horrible, people say "at least they kept their promise, even if we didn't want them to keep THAT one."
Tue, 2009-08-18 00:43
#16
I'm sure glad the NDP is not a main party
Main Parties Deemed Arrogant by Canadians
Polling Data
Here are some words that people may use to describe the federal [PARTY NAME]. Please choose up to six words that you think describe the federal [PARTY NAME].
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34029/main_parties_deemed_arrogant_...
Tue, 2009-08-18 01:10
#17
That said, it seems that many Canadians believe the NDP is inefficient, weak, out of touch (but not a lot more so than anyone else!) and foolish.
Nobody's exciting. Whoever manages to actually excite Canadians will probably do well.
Tue, 2009-08-18 01:16
#18
remind
Interesting, here is the pdf for the complete breakdowns
http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2009.08.15_CANPart...
Wed, 2009-08-19 21:33
#19
Now that Canada's mainstream press has thoroughly trashed the NDP and its convention it must be time for new polls, no!
Thu, 2009-08-20 00:17
#20
And how about those Conservatives:
2000 election - 25.5%, 66 seats, 100 seconds, total 166, for the Canadian Alliance, Stockwell Day was leader of opposition
2002 - Harper became leader of the Canadian Alliance and leader of the opposition
2004 Harper became leader of the Conservatives
2004 election - 29.6%, 99 seats, 90 seconds, total 189
2006 election - 36.3%, 124 seats, 117 seats, total 241, Harper elected minority prime minister
2008 election - 37.7%, 143 seats, 95 seconds, total 238, Harper re-elected minority prime minister
Thu, 2009-08-20 00:21
#21
So what's happening with the Liberals:
Chretien, 2000 election - 40.8%, 172 seats, 107 seconds, total 279
Martin, following his putsch of Chretien, coronated leader in 2003 - remember all that talk of Martin winning 250 seats
Martin, 2004 election - 36.7%, 135 seats, 145 seconds, total 280 - Martin elected minority prime minister
Martin - 2006 election - 30.2%, 103 seats, 116 seconds, total 219 - Martin trounced, becomes opposition leader
Dion elected leader in 2006 and becomes opposition leader
Dion - 2008 election - 26.3%, 77 seats, 123 seconds, total 200 - Dion crushed
Ignatieff, following his putsch of Dion, became de facto leader in 2008
Thu, 2009-08-20 00:56
#22
I like that Angus Reid poll! I think there's a lot of wisdom in it.
Thu, 2009-08-20 01:06
#23
RevolutionPlease
..
Thu, 2009-08-20 03:04
#24
peterjcassidy
Debater, thank you very much for this post , a very articulate statement of your recent poltical history and some insight into where you might now stand on matters political. I also appreciate KenS's pretty clear statment of where he stands. No reason we cannot have some good fun respectful debates. ( with the odd dig thrown in? 
)
A warning from a moderator is a warning from the moderator. And I also got one I deserved. But I think I can fairly say that there was no gringing of moderator teeth in the background.
I'm actually glad to hear you are not the person i thought [who will not be named].
But it still stands that just on the basis of what you say here, you are in practice a Liberal partisan... one with the aggravating habit, up to recently at least, of pretending to be otherwise.
The fact you may not be a card carrying member, or sometimes disagree with the LPC, or even that you do not always vote for them... none of that makes you other than what you show by what you post. Just like my expressed disagreements with or displeasure with the NDP does not make me one bit less a partisan.
There is too much focus here on trying to pin down a person's political allegiance - why not just focus on the content of the points being made and the discussion itself? Try to get away from the labels.
But just to briefly summarize my recent political history since you seem to care - I was more or less a Liberal supporter during the Chretien years. However, when Paul Martin took over I disassociated myself from the party in 2004 when he eliminated so many of the left of centre Liberals. The Sheila Copps situation was the clincher for me. In 2004 I voted NDP and worked on Ed Broadbent's Ottawa Centre campaign. After Dion took over, I began to renew some of my Liberal associations and voted Liberal in 2008 because I wanted Harper out. At the moment I view the Liberals as the best way to get rid of Harper, but I would prefer a less conservative leader than Ignatieff - someone closer to Trudeau or Pearson.
My vocational background is in political science, communications and law and I work mainly as a researcher, analyst and advisor in the political and legal fields. I have a law degree, but do not practice it as I find the profession boring and prefer the world of policy, research, and governance.
And that is all you need to know.
Thu, 2009-08-20 04:03
#25
Yes, we will see how it goes.
Btw, didn't you run as a candidate for the NDP in Stoney Creek once?
Debater, thank you very much for this post , a very articulate statement of your recent poltical history and some insight into where you might now stand on matters political. I also appreciate KenS's pretty clear statment of where he stands. No reason we cannot have some good fun respectful debates. ( with the odd dig thrown in?
A warning from a moderator is a warning from the moderator. And I also got one I deserved. But I think I can fairly say that there was no gringing of moderator teeth in the background.
I'm actually glad to hear you are not the person i thought [who will not be named].
But it still stands that just on the basis of what you say here, you are in practice a Liberal partisan... one with the aggravating habit, up to recently at least, of pretending to be otherwise.
The fact you may not be a card carrying member, or sometimes disagree with the LPC, or even that you do not always vote for them... none of that makes you other than what you show by what you post. Just like my expressed disagreements with or displeasure with the NDP does not make me one bit less a partisan.
There is too much focus here on trying to pin down a person's political allegiance - why not just focus on the content of the points being made and the discussion itself? Try to get away from the labels.
But just to briefly summarize my recent political history since you seem to care - I was more or less a Liberal supporter during the Chretien years. However, when Paul Martin took over I disassociated myself from the party in 2004 when he eliminated so many of the left of centre Liberals. The Sheila Copps situation was the clincher for me. In 2004 I voted NDP and worked on Ed Broadbent's Ottawa Centre campaign. After Dion took over, I began to renew some of my Liberal associations and voted Liberal in 2008 because I wanted Harper out. At the moment I view the Liberals as the best way to get rid of Harper, but I would prefer a less conservative leader than Ignatieff - someone closer to Trudeau or Pearson.
My vocational background is in political science, communications and law and I work mainly as a researcher, analyst and advisor in the political and legal fields. I have a law degree, but do not practice it as I find the profession boring and prefer the world of policy, research, and governance.
And that is all you need to know.
Thu, 2009-08-20 10:55
#26
The latest Ekos poll just came out - NDP inches up again to 17.3%
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/19/f-ekos-poll-federal-election.html
More details here:
Thu, 2009-08-20 14:58
#27
There's been no real movement for any of the parties this summer it seems - the Conservatives and the Liberals seem stuck in a dead heat, and the NDP seems to be in the same pattern as well - moving up and down a point or two. Until either the Cons or Libs break out into a big lead or until the NDP hits or exceeds 20%, there isn't much to report.
Thu, 2009-08-20 16:27
#28
remind
Except for QC and the Atlantic provinces again more females are supporting the NDP than males.
Also, on the last day the poll was conducted the NDP and Liberal polled exactly the same. As the NDP, over this week, are apparently on their way up and the Liberals are on their way down. As were the GP on the tail end of the weekday poll tracking.
Both the Libs and Cons, lost a couple of points too.
Can't be a post convention bounce given there was no media coverage of it either.
Really significant for Liberal fortunes and no election call possibley coming, seeing that they are continually declining.
Thu, 2009-08-20 19:19
#29
Ah but liberal fortunes are tied to lower con votes. I think they would 'accept' being tied around 110-120 with the cons plus minus con or libs. A If the NDP can hold balance of pwer it would be interesting. That is to say if we start to take a lot of BC/man/sask non liberal seats they would be happy with the end result, that being them back in power without the bloc who they always have to fight in quebec.
Thu, 2009-08-20 20:11
#30
remind
Thu, 2009-08-20 23:38
#31
peterjcassidy
Twice federally in Stoney Creek against Tony, who I take it was not your favourite Liberal. I always had a soft support for Sheila and what Martin and his henchman Valeri did to her was dumb and despicable. ,
.
Yes, we will see how it goes.
Btw, didn't you run as a candidate for the NDP in Stoney Creek once?
Debater, thank you very much for this post , a very articulate statement of your recent poltical history and some insight into where you might now stand on matters political. I also appreciate KenS's pretty clear statment of where he stands. No reason we cannot have some good fun respectful debates. ( with the odd dig thrown in?
A warning from a moderator is a warning from the moderator. And I also got one I deserved. But I think I can fairly say that there was no gringing of moderator teeth in the background.
I'm actually glad to hear you are not the person i thought [who will not be named].
But it still stands that just on the basis of what you say here, you are in practice a Liberal partisan... one with the aggravating habit, up to recently at least, of pretending to be otherwise.
The fact you may not be a card carrying member, or sometimes disagree with the LPC, or even that you do not always vote for them... none of that makes you other than what you show by what you post. Just like my expressed disagreements with or displeasure with the NDP does not make me one bit less a partisan.
There is too much focus here on trying to pin down a person's political allegiance - why not just focus on the content of the points being made and the discussion itself? Try to get away from the labels.
But just to briefly summarize my recent political history since you seem to care - I was more or less a Liberal supporter during the Chretien years. However, when Paul Martin took over I disassociated myself from the party in 2004 when he eliminated so many of the left of centre Liberals. The Sheila Copps situation was the clincher for me. In 2004 I voted NDP and worked on Ed Broadbent's Ottawa Centre campaign. After Dion took over, I began to renew some of my Liberal associations and voted Liberal in 2008 because I wanted Harper out. At the moment I view the Liberals as the best way to get rid of Harper, but I would prefer a less conservative leader than Ignatieff - someone closer to Trudeau or Pearson.
My vocational background is in political science, communications and law and I work mainly as a researcher, analyst and advisor in the political and legal fields. I have a law degree, but do not practice it as I find the profession boring and prefer the world of policy, research, and governance.
And that is all you need to know.
Fri, 2009-08-21 00:58
#32
Also, on the last day the poll was conducted the NDP and Liberal polled exactly the same.
On the previous day the daily tracking had the NDP & the Greens tied. Ekos said they polled 1886 & if they were in the field for five days then that means under 400 were polled for those daily figures.
Fri, 2009-08-21 01:29
#33
I don't know enough about Ekos methodology to know if they do a nationally representative sample on each individual night. For all we know, on that last night they were calling BC.
Fri, 2009-08-21 01:35
#34
Just went back and looked at EKOS's weekly polling results from June 1st through to Aug 18th, which were released today.
The Cons have stayed about the same, going to 32.8%, up 0.5%
The Libs are on the verge of dropping below 30%, having dropped to 30.2%, down 3.2%
And the NDP has risen to 17.3%, up 2.2%, resulting in the narrowing of the gap between the NDP and the Liberals to less than 13%. There is less than 5% difference between the the NDP - Lib spread now, compared to the spread which occured during the last election.
Fri, 2009-08-21 04:24
#35
No, I didn't like Tony Valeri. The whole series of events that happened in that riding in 2003-2004 was disgraceful. I was glad when he eventually went down in 2006. The impact of the Sheila Copps situation angered a lot of voters too, I think. The Liberals went from having all 3 Hamilton seats to gradually losing them all and now have none. Paul Martin and his team had a long-lasting negative effect in that area and the Liberals still haven't recovered there.
Twice federally in Stoney Creek against Tony, who I take it was not your favourite Liberal. I always had a soft support for Sheila and what Martin and his henchman Valeri did to her was dumb and despicable. ,
.
Yes, we will see how it goes.
Btw, didn't you run as a candidate for the NDP in Stoney Creek once?
Debater, thank you very much for this post , a very articulate statement of your recent poltical history and some insight into where you might now stand on matters political. I also appreciate KenS's pretty clear statment of where he stands. No reason we cannot have some good fun respectful debates. ( with the odd dig thrown in?
A warning from a moderator is a warning from the moderator. And I also got one I deserved. But I think I can fairly say that there was no gringing of moderator teeth in the background.
I'm actually glad to hear you are not the person i thought [who will not be named].
But it still stands that just on the basis of what you say here, you are in practice a Liberal partisan... one with the aggravating habit, up to recently at least, of pretending to be otherwise.
The fact you may not be a card carrying member, or sometimes disagree with the LPC, or even that you do not always vote for them... none of that makes you other than what you show by what you post. Just like my expressed disagreements with or displeasure with the NDP does not make me one bit less a partisan.
There is too much focus here on trying to pin down a person's political allegiance - why not just focus on the content of the points being made and the discussion itself? Try to get away from the labels.
But just to briefly summarize my recent political history since you seem to care - I was more or less a Liberal supporter during the Chretien years. However, when Paul Martin took over I disassociated myself from the party in 2004 when he eliminated so many of the left of centre Liberals. The Sheila Copps situation was the clincher for me. In 2004 I voted NDP and worked on Ed Broadbent's Ottawa Centre campaign. After Dion took over, I began to renew some of my Liberal associations and voted Liberal in 2008 because I wanted Harper out. At the moment I view the Liberals as the best way to get rid of Harper, but I would prefer a less conservative leader than Ignatieff - someone closer to Trudeau or Pearson.
My vocational background is in political science, communications and law and I work mainly as a researcher, analyst and advisor in the political and legal fields. I have a law degree, but do not practice it as I find the profession boring and prefer the world of policy, research, and governance.
And that is all you need to know.
Fri, 2009-08-21 06:41
#36
Could you guys please quit posting that huge long conversation in each one of your posts? This ain't e-mail. ;) No need to post the entire conversation thread in every post.
Sat, 2009-08-22 14:27
#37
No Harper majority eh.
Does anyone have any info about a just released Ipsos-Reid poll showing the Cons approaching 40%
If this is true the Liberal strategy to coronate Ignatieff has become an unmitigated disaster.
Sat, 2009-08-22 14:28
#38
I saw Don Martin mention that in his column, but I can't find any evidence of it!
Sat, 2009-08-22 14:42
#39
As much as I frequently disagree with his comments, Don does seem to be reasonbly reliable, so I don't think he'd throw that out there unless there is some substance to back it up. I wonder why it is being kept under wraps. Has the NDP already overtaken the Liberals in the polls? 
This could be turning into the worst nitemare possible for the Liberals.
Sat, 2009-08-22 15:42
#40
I got the impression he was speculating about a [likley] rise to 40%.
Sat, 2009-08-22 16:58
#41
It would be odd if there was a poll showing 40% for the Cons as it would be totally at odds with all the other polls this summer. I wonder if it is an attempt to discourage the Liberals and opposition from pulling the plug this Fall?
In any event, Harper has been "flirting" with majority numbers ever since the June 2004 election, and he always ends up missing out. Canadians back away from giving it to him every time.
Sat, 2009-08-22 18:55
#42
Actually Don Martin, columnist for the Calgary Herald, seems reasonably clear here, and I am in no way surprised. The Liberals have been in fuck-up mode for a long, long time, and it appears to be getting worse for them with each passing day.
Yes, avoiding an election based on the men's hockey team landing gold is a tad odd, but so were reports Prime Minister Stephen Harper will base his campaign on seeking a majority mandate, at least until a new Ipsos Reid poll came out Friday that showed the Conservatives surging ahead and flirting with 40 per cent voter support.
Sat, 2009-08-22 20:38
#43
Meanwhile its Saturday and no evidence of any Ipsos poll that came out on Friday! - unless he has a crystal ball and he's predicting Next Friday
Sat, 2009-08-22 21:03
#44
If the Tories were as high at almost 40% - in all likelhood all the opposition parties would be paying some of the price.
Sat, 2009-08-22 22:26
#45
I doubt Don would mislead readers with false results, so we can rule that out.
Some possibilities:
1 It might be some party's internal polling results.
2 IR is in the middle of polling and Don was somehow privvy to results so far.
3 CanWest has hired IR to do some polling but is not willing to make all the results public, just enough to try and stop this "election fever" talk.
I would like to see all the numbers though, to see who is paying the price here for Harper's surging Conservatives?
Sat, 2009-08-22 23:10
#46
And I hate to say it, but even if the notion strokes NDPer egos, I've yet to see concrete evidence of Iggy being an electoral disaster in the making. My hunch is that the general public has an ambiguous opinion of Iggy, but nothing yet on the scale of the Dion-leadership calamity--on the whole, the kinds of issues which Iggy could be taken to task for have so far been too deep within the political-geekery realm to properly "register"...
Sat, 2009-08-22 23:14
#47
That's makes sense and must be the reason why Harper is surging in the polling eh.
Sat, 2009-08-22 23:19
#48
As much as I frequently disagree with his comments, Don does seem to be reasonbly reliable, so I don't think he'd throw that out there unless there is some substance to back it up. I wonder why it is being kept under wraps. Has the NDP already overtaken the Liberals in the polls?
The last Ipsos poll in late June had the Liberals at 35%, Conservatives at 34% & the NDP at 13%.
Sat, 2009-08-22 23:40
#49
Apparently there is an IR poll out yesterday showing Harper surging to close to 40%, which does not surprise me. Even columnists which are usually more supportive of the Liberals than the Cons are wondering what happened to Ignatieff this past summer.
Sun, 2009-08-23 00:13
#50
peterjcassidy
Could you guys please quit posting that huge long conversation in each one of your posts? This ain't e-mail. ;) No need to post the entire conversation thread in every post.
My fault and my apologies. sorry for the weeping and gnashing of teeth 
Sun, 2009-08-23 00:21
#51