Federal political polling - started Saturday, March 26, 2011

@JKR:

I truly hope you are right. Everyone said "they'd be shocked"  when Lamoureux won the last time. Don't dismiss this guy; he is a poitical animal and a con man who could sell refrigerators to a refrigerator maker. He is slick, and ruthless.

This could turn out badly, and frankly, this scares the h... out of me.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

NorthReport wrote:

Quote:

"After two days of talking about contempt, it's clear that there's not a lot of interest in the issue," said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research, Canada's largest survey firm. "I think that's going to cause a lot problems for the opposition parties."

 

Another new polling firm? Humm.....

Who talked about contempt?  All I heard from the media was all coalition all the time.   They worked hard to clear the decks for the Conservatives let them enjoy their success.

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

1) The Liberals will never agree not to run candidates against the NDP.

That's what they said in India before parties started making agreements with each other to not run in each others ridings once they felt that was their only way to beat the Indian National Congress. And it worked. That's how the Indian National Congress's stranglehold on power ended.

If the NDP and Liberals find themselves cooperating within minority governments the Conservatives will be able to run against them colllectively. At that point vote splitting would likely hurt the NDP and Liberals even more then now necessitating some kind of change. In all likelihood they would change the electoral system.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

2) PR is not in the interests in the Liberal party, because the Liberals want to win an outright majority of seats. PR makes that less likely to happen, so it is a non-starter for them. True, the Liberals are not in a position to win a majority any time soon, but there is a culture within the Liberal party that they are entitled to power and are too blind to see that.

What happens if after an election or two, the Liberals see that it is very difficult to win majority governments, and that the Conservatives have a huge advantage due to vote splitting? Will they just shrug and let the Conservatives keep their huge built-in advantage?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

3) If there was a merger between the Liberals and the NDP, a good chunk of right-wing Liberals and left-wing New Democrats would bolt, thus leaving the new merged party with the same amount of support the Liberals routinely enjoy, in the best of circumstances.

Why wouldn't most of the "centre-left" vote and participate within the same party as they do in Manitoba, BC, and Saskatchewan? If people like Broadbent, Chretien, Layton, Libby Davies, Dryden, and, McGuinty supported the new party, why wouldn't others follow?

In those provences the libs did not merge with the ndp, the liberals were essentially destroyed by the ndp and if harper is to be stopped this must accure at the federal level. Also the liberal leadership is so full of corrupt right wingers that merger at this time could not occur until the libs purged the poisonous elements.

josh wrote:

Not saying that a Con majority would be the NDP's fault.  Just that the "trend" in the poll -- 41% -- would be enough to give them one.

depends on the vote spread. If it is conconstraited in ridings they already hold or spread too thinly they could get squat. In fptp system the spread is as important as the percentage if not more so.

KenS wrote:

@ josh's response above:

Amazing how that keeps coming up as a response.

This time I wont bother with the math of why NDP overtaking the Liberals would not correlate with greater likelihood of the Conservatives getting a majority.

Because you just cannot shake people from the article of faith that the Liberals are the bulwark against things not getting worse.

Not to mention that another Harper plurality is by far the most likely outcome, and depending on the Liberals is the best way to ensure that Harper is still governing after the election. Get it into your thick skulls: it is how long Harper governs that determines how bad it can get, NOT whether he gets a majority or 'just' a minority.

Actually I disagree on two counts:

1) It is important to get into the match of this-- the Cons are a national party present in every riding. The other parties are simply not. For this reason the gap between the first and second is not as important as the regional races. Now, I am not saying there is no chance of a majority but you won't get the answer from the national numbers. The regional numbers are not accurate so you won't get the answer there either-- patience, over time we will get an answer. Those interested in strategic voting (something I will never support) may also draw different conclusions given the relative strengths of the parties and traditional visions of this may not apply. It is possible that the low Liberal and NDP votes might be more efficient than assumed. The Cons as well pile up huge wasted majorities in some seats. Expect numerous distortions of the national vote and make few conclusions.

2) Now this is a little bit against conventional wisdom. People assume that the closeness of the Liberal to Con vote the more likely an "opposition" government. However, that is not the case in my view. The Liberals if close are more likely to hold off and let the Cons twist hoping to get a majority later (if Harper has a weak minority) whereas if the Liberals are low with nothing to lose the pressure to form a government now with help may be greater even if it means breaking a promise they made. A stronger NDP that wants to govern and oppose the Cons will change the direction of the opposition. In this sense a stronger NDP with weaker Liberals increase the chance of a coalition-- if for example at the end of a great campaign the NDP and the Liberals managed 25% of the vote each, the argument for them to govern together could be compelling with the Liberals having less choice in the matter. Of course the long term for the Liberals is very, very bleak and this would make it an impossible choice for them because staying out of power or going in as equals with the NDP would both have the same result for team red.

Still the stronger the NDP is the less the chance that Harper remains PM and the weaker they are the greater that chance.

NorthReport wrote:

Apparently the Liberals will only have one riding in Alberta with a campaign office - not a good sign for what was previously Canada's natural governing party to write off almost an entire province like this. 

sounds good for the ndp vote, but how many campaign offices are normal for alberta?

NorthReport wrote:

This tells me that the polling coming out of Quebec by CROP is probably accurate.

 

 

Five-term Liberal MP won't run again in Montreal riding

 

 

http://www.canada.com/news/national/Five+term+Liberal+announces+surprise...

 

wow the libs most be scared shitless.

He is doing a composite of polls released in recent weeks with the more recent polls weighted more heavily than the older polls. I think that since the NDP has been doing a lot better in polls over the last week - as older polls get dropped from his calculation and newer ones get added you are going to see the projection slowly go up for the NDP (and to some extent for the Tories) and down for the Liberals...of course if the trend in the polls starts to change, then the projection will change as well.

What do you think the reason that Harper is beloved by the Canadian people is? He's certainly at least as well liked as Chretien. If we know his strength, we can work on eroding it. I always thought he was an unpopular dunce who was lucky to get a minority twice due to poor opposition leadership but now I am starting to think thee's a strong bond between him and the Canadian people that was probably there as early as 2004, the election he lost. WTF indeed.

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

josh wrote:

.  .  .  as well as a Conservative majority.

and that will be the fault of the Liberals.   Layton went to Edmonton, Ignatieff went to Outramont.   That and the explicit statement that they are fine with a Harper government and would not pursue a coalition to topple him tells me all I need to know about the Liberals- and it ain't pretty.

And Duceppe went to Papineau, so he wants a Conservative majority too. If, after 37 days, Ignatieff has spent considerably more time in NDP ridings than Layton in Liberal ones, then you can make your case.

How do we know Papineau will go to the Bloc?

By the way, what is the "little bit more to that riding story"?  Do you mean the rumours that the NDP is helping the Bloc?

Rob8305 wrote:

What do you think the reason that Harper is beloved by the Canadian people is? He's certainly at least as well liked as Chretien. If we know his strength, we can work on eroding it. I always thought he was an unpopular dunce who was lucky to get a minority twice due to poor opposition leadership but now I am starting to think thee's a strong bond between him and the Canadian people that was probably there as early as 2004, the election he lost. WTF indeed.

Beloved probably wouldn't be the right term, except in the obvious places. Strong leadership (you certainly couldn't accuse Stephen Harper of the reverse!) and a relatively mishap-free term of office help to explain it. Combine that with a Liberal Party that shows it has learned nothing from the 2008 campaign and an NDP which seems so far to have trouble appealing to more than 20% of voters and there you have it.

gyor wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

josh wrote:

.  .  .  as well as a Conservative majority.

and that will be the fault of the Liberals.   Layton went to Edmonton, Ignatieff went to Outramont.   That and the explicit statement that they are fine with a Harper government and would not pursue a coalition to topple him tells me all I need to know about the Liberals- and it ain't pretty.

And Duceppe went to Papineau, so he wants a Conservative majority too. If, after 37 days, Ignatieff has spent considerably more time in NDP ridings than Layton in Liberal ones, then you can make your case.

He can make it now. One day was one thing, but now he has done it on three. It sets the tone for his whole election. By the way where did this rumour about ndp helping the bloc come from?

I'm thinking it came from a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who wears a red scarf.

Lens Solution wrote:

gyor wrote:

 By the way where did this rumour about ndp helping the bloc come from?

Chantal Hebert, John Ivison and others have reported that the NDP and the Bloc both want to defeat Martin Cauchon and Justin Trudeau so that neither one emerges as Liberal leader.  Apparently the BQ is helping the NDP in Outremont, and the NDP is helping the Bloc in Papineau.

I don't know if that is true but if it is that is biazzare and oddly funny. The relationship between the bloc and ndp is a strange one.

They say that the voters are solid, but the fact that they even have a second choice says that it is not perfectly solid. I am curious as to who is the number 2 choice of the cons who said they had one.

Still I like that the ndp appeared to be the second choice of everyone, maybe excluding cons, I don't know what the prefered choice was for the ones that gave a none negitive answer to that.

I do like that the ndp does appear to being going up. Only Ekos had the NDP at 14% the rest have the NDP closer to 20.

Lens Solution wrote:

Chantal Hebert, John Ivison and others have reported that the NDP and the Bloc both want to defeat Martin Cauchon and Justin Trudeau so that neither one emerges as Liberal leader.  Apparently the BQ is helping the NDP in Outremont, and the NDP is helping the Bloc in Papineau.

Seems to me that Bloc and NDP voters in those ridings would figure this out without any instructions from any hierarchy.

NorthReport wrote:

Harris Decima

Ontario

Party / 08 GE / Mar 23 / Mar 28 / Change /

Cons / 39% / 38% / 38% / Down 1%

Libs  / 34% / 37% / 37% / Up 3%

NDP / 18% / 15% / 20% / Up 2%

 

Quebec

Party / 08 GE / Mar 23 / Mar 28 / Change /

Bloc / 38% / 40% / ?

Cons / 22% / 19% / ?

Libs / 24% / 19% / ?

NDP / 12% / 12% / ?

the ndp is up 2 from the GE, but up 5% from march 23, given they went from 15 to 20 that is an increase of a third of what they had. Increase by 5% again and the liberals are in trouble in Ontario as the NDP would have 25%.

NorthReport wrote:

Harris Decima - March 28, 2011

Ontario

Party / 08 GE / Mar 23 / Mar 28 / Change /

Cons / 39% / 38% / 38% / Down 1%

Libs  / 34% / 37% / 37% / Up 3%

NDP / 18% / 15% / 20% / Up 2%

The election is going to be decided in Ontario. These kind of numbers from Ontario leave the Conservatives with a smaller minority. If this is where Ontario's trending, the Conservatives are in trouble.

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Harris Decima - March 28, 2011

Ontario

Party / 08 GE / Mar 23 / Mar 28 / Change /

Cons / 39% / 38% / 38% / Down 1%

Libs  / 34% / 37% / 37% / Up 3%

NDP / 18% / 15% / 20% / Up 2%

The election is going to be decided in Ontario. These kind of numbers from Ontario leave the Conservatives with a smaller minority. If this is where Ontario's trending, the Conservatives are in trouble.

The Cons appear to be doing well in most polls.  I'm not sure if it's accurate that the Libs and NDP are up in Ontario and the Cons down.  We will have to see.  Hopefully the Cons will fail to make inroads with their much-desired "ethnic" plan.

Btw, people from smaller provinces like Sask. and PEI don't like to always hear that Ontario decides elections.  It makes it sound like other regions don't matter.  And there's no way to know in advance which province will determine an election.  Last time it was Quebec that determined the election because that was what stopped a Harper majority.  Quebec could end up being what denies Harper a majority this time too if he loses seats there.

Wilf Day wrote:

Lens Solution wrote:

Chantal Hebert, John Ivison and others have reported that the NDP and the Bloc both want to defeat Martin Cauchon and Justin Trudeau so that neither one emerges as Liberal leader.  Apparently the BQ is helping the NDP in Outremont, and the NDP is helping the Bloc in Papineau.

Seems to me that Bloc and NDP voters in those ridings would figure this out without any instructions from any hierarchy.

Quite right, Wilf - speaking for yours truly, anyway, who has voted both Bloc (Amir Khadir and later, to my shame and regret, Jacques Léonard) and NDP (Tom Mulcair) - we will do our best to keep Cauchon out. That may be a challenge. But "strategic" voting of this kind is pretty endemic in Québec.

ETA: I voted for Jacques Léonard in 2006, even though I couldn't particularly stand him, and not for Léo-Paul Lauzon, whom I know personally and have lots of time for, because I thought it was really important to get Jean Lapierre out of there. I'm still uncomfortable with that... Decisions, decisions, decisions, about which way to waste your vote under FPTP, eh? But in 2007, with a whiff of possible victory in the air, the decision was easy - and in 2008 it was a slam dunk. I have now decided to hold my nose over Mulcair's indiscretion of last summer and do what I can to help him win. Big of me, eh?