Federal Polling April 3rd

New Nanos:

http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110404-BallotE.pdf

Con    39.8   -2.5

Lib     30.2   +1.8

NDP    16.5   +0.1

BQ       8.3   +0.3

Grn      4.0    +0.2

Conservatives have gone from a 17% lead in Ontario to a 1.5 deficit in the space of a few days

Cool to see the Cons are the only party with losses so far today. I hope that trend continues.

Does anyone have thoughts about the Prairies; I personally just don't believe those numbers. Anyone here able to offer some thoughts on this? If they are accurate, it would mean goodbye to the New Dems in Winnipeg. I'd be interested in what people think.

Could I get some feedback please? Thanks.

We are sorry, but the spam filter on this site decided that your submission could be spam. Please fill in the CAPTCHA below to get your submission accepted. Rabble, turn off the stupid spam filter!

acramer wrote:

Does anyone have thoughts about the Prairies; I personally just don't believe those numbers. Anyone here able to offer some thoughts on this? If they are accurate, it would mean goodbye to the New Dems in Winnipeg. I'd be interested in what people think.

The Nanos "Prairies" category appears to include Alberta where the NDP does not perform well at all outside of a couple of ridings in Edmonton. I expect Sask/Man alone don't provide a large enough sample size for a statistically significant result.

I do suspect, though, that the NDP might have a tough go in Winnipeg North given the byelection loss and limited other information I've seen and heard that does suggest lower NDP popularity in Manitoba.

Here are the results from the Prairires (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta combined) for the past five elections:

1997: Ref - 43%, Lib - 27%, NDP - 16%, PC - 14%, Grn - 0%, Oth - 1%

2000: CA - 50%, Lib - 23%, NDP - 13%, PC - 12%, Grn - 0%, Oth - 1%

2004: Cons - 53%, Lib - 25%, NDP - 15%, Grn - 5%, Oth - 2%

2006: Cons - 57%, Lib - 19%, NDP - 17%, Grn - 5%, Oth - 2%

2008: Cons - 59%, NDP - 18%, Lib - 14%, Grn - 8%, Oth - 2%

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It looks like the NDP may have to redirect its campaign to fight the Liberals based on the Liberal campaign strategy. This of course opens the door to the Con majority. If Ignatieff were working for Harper he could not do a better job at ensuring his victory by forcing the opposition in to a fight exclusively between each other. For the NDP to ignore the gauntlet thrown down by the Liberals will be to sacrifice hard won seats for long shots. I think Ignatieff has virtually handed Harper a majority. No matter what the NDP do, the strategy gives Harper a red carpet. All the NDP can do now is focus on best prospects and defend-- going after Harper except in the best hope ridings is likely a wasteful strategy given how firmly the Liberals are forcing the campaign in to NDP-held ridings.

Absolutely not. I've said this time and again, but while there is all this talk about Ontario, people are glossing over the fact that if the NDP does well out West, Harper loses seats. That's why we need strong NDP showings in BC (apparently the Conservatives have a 10 point lead, as opposed to the 15+ point lead they had last time), Edmonton, and Saskatchewan. In fact, 2 of those provinces have elected NDP governments in the past, so right there you have a base of support upon which to build.

The country does not revolve around Ontario and I am tired of hearing so many people talk as if it does.

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

As an Ontarian I say hear, hear.   It is even worse than that though.  It is treated as if Ontario revolves around the GTA and a few other urban centres.  Big ole country and province here folks.

Even within the GTA, there are major differences between the 416 and the 905, not to mention differences also between the rural southeast, rural southwest, industrial cities of Windsor and Hamilton, and the North from North Bay to Kenora. You're correct, Ontario isn't this one homogenous block (neither is Quebec, for that matter).

It all depends on what poll you look at. According to Ekos the NDP is at 23% in Mansak and 17% in Alberta! Also, in the past when the Liberal vote in Saskatchewan shrunk - it almost all went Tory - so if it rises it should also come from the Tories.

I'll add the run at the BQ but that is perhaps more understandable since the objection to a coalition seems mostly to concern the BQ.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So I'll say I am tired of seeing people assume because I live in Ontario that I cannot be aware of the rest of the country.

My issue is that the national media looks at the whole country through the lens of the GTA and assumes that as goes the GTA, so goes the country. If it's a Liberal/Conservative fight in the GTA, it is thus in the rest of the country. The national media does not take into account the diversity and complexity that is Canada, where as has been pointed out repeatedly that in many parts of the country it's NDP/Conservative battles with Liberals nowhere to be seen. Even from its Toronto base, the media still doesn't even understand what's happening in its own back yard, as can be attested to by the shocked reaction to Ford's victory in Toronto.

Basically, when I hear about "Liberal strategy" or "vote Liberal," this triggers that frustration I have with the national media, and Sean, I would like to apologize for taking out that frustration on you. I have grown to respect you, and I'm sorry for offending you.

Its ok Aristotle-- I should not have been so sharp in my reply-- I was not offended by you -- I just was unhappy with the impression because I spend so much time looking at the entire country for these things.

And Ottawa is second after the GTA in most loved targets so we get a little sensitive about being here and out of touch and all. (For most who live here it is a truth hurts thing but I pride myself in trying to step back). Anyway, no worries.

The trigger for my comment was actually reporting out of Halifax and if you look at the Liberal leader's calendar he is spending a lot of time in Nova Scotia this next week and next -- I think it is 4 visits on top of his last visit-- and mostly it seems to go after NDP seats there.

And of course I well remember the implications of this with Liberals campaigning saying they were the only alternative when they were running third-- and somehow increasing their vote so the second place NDP would be defeated by the first place Con.

I am a person who has learned to detest Liberals politically for many reasons.

ETA: and I hate that spam filter.

I think the Liberals are purposely going to NDP ridings to try to keep NDP out of theirs and to pick up votes-- right now it is polling that matters because Canadians are shep. If there is the big momentum for Iggy they may consider voting for him.

So they want to take seats where they can and to tie up NDP resources and to grab votes for polling and instead of going after the Cons for this they are targeting NDP areas.

I am feeling the NDP should return the favour with a good round of attack ads on the Liberal record-- I suspect they will do so. The NDP needs to take a few more hits before the return fire will look deserved and not more of the same but in the end the fact the Cons are not targeting the Cons as much as they should bothers me.

this spam filter is getting old --

It seems to me that media ads and stories on the news are better indicators of who the parties are targeting then where their leaders are visiting. Looking at the parties media ads it seems that the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc, are targeting the Conservatives and the Conservatives are targeting the Liberals.

I don't think local visits by the party leaders is that indicative of their overall strategy. To get media exposure the leaders usually host gatherings in urban centres near media outlets. Since the Liberals and NDP do well in central urban areas that are media centres, in makes sense that all the parties, the Bloc and Conservatives included, would often find themselves on Liberal and NDP turf.

If a leader comes to the City of Vancouver it is virtually impossible for them to not campaign in NDP and Liberal ridings. Chinatown is in Libby Davies riding but every leader goes there when they come to Vancouver because they are targeting a demographic throughout Canada.

No way Mulcair is going down. As for Palliser here on the Prairies I think Noah Evanchuk has a shot. The Tory he is running against is 73 years old, Ray Boughen!

Hi Josh the graphics ended up in the wrong place so a red arrow down is beside the NDP which went up-- the down arrows were meant for the Liberals and Cons (and they deserve it).

Should I hold my breath for the CTV headline about the NDP climbing.  Thought not.

Not really contempt4cpc.

Depends on what the objectives are:

People assume the objective is for the Liberals to win government-- I am not convinced.

The Liberal leadership's objectives could be:

1) hobble the NDP which is long term dangerous competition

2) gain seats to protect Ignatieff

3) hold Cons to a minority that can be brought down later when the economy sours next

4) Avoid a weak Liberal minority that would be destroyed a year later due to high expectations and difficult finances

The Liberals might be satisfied to go with a minority with more seats and a reduction in the NDP threat -- over the same number of seats and government with the NDP. With Ignatieff having dismissed a coalition they might prefer not to have strong enough coalition partners as their first objective-- so disabling them may be more important than engaging the Cons.

To think otherwise you have to presume three things:

1) The Liberals want to govern -- even without a majority

2) They have alternative policies to propose and disagree with the Conservative agenda substantively

3) They truly care about the country more than their own advantage.

If you can show me any evidence for any of these three presumptions then I can consider them.

The Liberal plan is to try and close the gap by collapsing the NDP vote into their own. Once the gap is closed, they will be the only ones gunning for the Conservatives. If they fail to collapse the NDP vote, then their secondary objective is to ensure the NDP stay in third place. This sets up the "ideal" conditions for a succession to the Liberal leadership as it is very clear that the party wants Ignatieff outta there unless he can pull a rabbit out of his hat this election.

Yes but from that same article:

Quote:

"When you look below the surface, however, it is clear that it would be wildly premature for the Liberals to start popping the champagne corks at this point in the campaign," Gregg said.

That's because the Liberal hold on Toronto is slipping, with the Conservatives opening up a wide lead in the so-called 905 suburban ridings that ring the city. If the Tories are able to pick up seats in 905, so named for its telephone area code, that could give them their much-coveted majority.

In the 905 ridings, Harris-Decima's two-week sampling of vote intention put the Conservatives at 42 per cent and the Liberals at 32 per cent. The NDP and Greens trailed at 14 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively.

"The Liberal fortress of Toronto is now perilously close to being breached by the Conservatives, who have been solidly polling in the 30-plus per cent range for all of 2011," Gregg said.

In the 416 ridings of Toronto itself, the Liberals had a slim 42-37 lead over the Conservatives with the NDP at 16 per cent, and the Greens at five.

Across Ontario, the Tories led the Liberals 43-34 in the most recent Sunday-to-Thursday polling, with the NDP at 14 per cent, and the Greens at eight.

That's only a modest shift from the two-week sampling that gave the Tories a 41-33 lead, with the NDP and Greens at 17-per cent and eight-per-cent respectively.

"The Liberals still have a long way to go to before even neutralizing the huge advantage the Conservatives had going into this election," Gregg said.

The historic Liberal advantage among women has all but disappeared and they now trail the Conservatives among men by 18 points, he added.

The main thing is that there is no measured drop in Green support. Nanos is probably closer to the mark than the others. But that is beside this point- the Greens are showing stable.

And when there is change trends, up or down, there is lots of discussion about what causes great variances in measurement of GPC support... but whatever the reason, it is volitile to methodolgy changes more than the other parties.

Nanos' results are inconsistent/kind of bizarre and off the mark. The Greens received nearly 1 million votes in 2008, approximately 7% of the vote. A sudden and dramatic drop in support - when the party continues to grow - doesn't add up, considering when Harris-Decima and EKOS consistently show the Greens in the 7-9% range of support, which coincides with their continual growth in support.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Yeah, but the Conservatives only hold a tenuous 7 point lead, in minority government territory. Meanwhile Stephane Dion is gone and Liberals will not be staying home this time. Ignatieff is a much more superior candidate/leader than Dion, and I think he may connect with those middle-of-the-road (vote Liberal one election, vote Conservative the other) voters. Also, the majority prefer a Liberal-NDP coalition over a Conservative majority:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Most+Canadians+support+Liberal+coalitio...

That article is trash and possibly the study as well. Here is what I wrote on their site [first quoting their article]:

"There is a chance that the ... federal election could result in one of the parties winning enough seats to form a majority government. In that case, the opposition Liberals could get together with the NDP and BQ to form a coalition..."

If the question was as quoted, the poll would be bogus. In the event of a majority there are no coalitions.

It is also wrong to say the BQ would have to be part of a coalition. While Harper keeps saying the BQ were in the last coalition attempt they were not. A coalition can govern as a minority just as the Conservatives are now. The previous Coalition proposal, included the NDP and the Liberals with the BQ outside but agreeing to an Accord that would have them not vote against the Coalition in the House for 2 years. The BQ were willing to give the Liberals and NDP a blank cheque for two years. The entire complaint about the Coalition including the BQ was fiction made up in the PMO.
As journalists you need to do better than this!

Until recently, EKOS and Harris-Decima had the Greens polling in the 10-12 % range, so having them now at 7-9% would indeed indicate a drop.  It has been my (completely anecdotal) observation that Nanos tends to underestimate Green support, while EKOS seems to greatly over-estimate (usually at the expense of the NDP's numbers).

This all said, I agree whole-heartedly with LOC that characterizing the Greens as "fringe" is ridiculous.  I believe they (along with the NDP and the Canadian public) are being done a huge disservice by the Liberal shills at the CBC and Globe and Mail.  And Canadians have a right to hear what they have to say (they have nearly the same support as the BQ)

You can see that the Liberals and their media pipe organs have changed their strategy this time around.  Last election, they really boosted the Greens in the press, banking erroneously on the assumption that this would hamper the NDP's growth exclusively. In fact, it could be argue that in addition to picking up support in their own right last election, the Greens may have hampered the Liberals as much or more than the NDP.

This time around, the Liberal-MSM strategy seems to be to ignore the Greens entirely (not even bad press), while repeating the same negative narrative about Jack's health to stymie the NDP.  The Liberals have shown no interest whatsoever in going after the Tories; their only goal this campaign seems to be to solidify their position as the only "opposition" to Harper (and I use that term, "opposition" very loosely).  It all really pisses me off!

I will not be "strategically" voting - I will cast a ballot for the NDP, but if I were to vote strategically it would be against the Liberals as opposed to anyone else.  I am thoroughly fed up with their corruption, their lies, their fearmongering, the guilt trips they lay on me and other Canadians every election period, their sense of entitlement to every left-of-centre vote when they failed to deliver on ANYTHING when in government for 12 years, and their righteous indignation that anyone would have the audacity to vote against them.

The Conservatives are going to win the most seats anyway; the last Parliament showed that whether it's a minority or a majority is inconsequential - Liberal MPs can and will make up the difference.  The only real votes available to left-of-centre Canadians are NDP or Green (perhaps Bloc).  If the NDP campaign in my riding is strong and a Liberal incumbent is defeated, while I will be disgusted to have a Tory MP, I will be thrilled to be rid of another Liberal.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That the Greens could get a million votes and really not even come close to seats bodes ill for them.

You mean it bodes ill for the country, as well as the fact that urban Conservative voters, rural Liberals and New Democrats, and the majority of Quebecers (who vote for federalist parties) also do not receive any, or very little representation under the first-past-the-post electoral system that we must get rid of and replace with PR.  

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not sure people will keep voting for them in a system that leaves them with no representation. They are not picking up support even with the massive help they are getting from the CBC's Vote Compass gimmick.

I live in a strong Liberal riding, but refuse to vote Liberal, as I vote for the party and its' values which I share. I think that's why people will still continue to vote Green, because they vote with their conscious - who they believe in, and don't waste their vote by voting for the lesser evil to stop the greater evil.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That article is trash and possibly the study as well. Here is what I wrote on their site [first quoting their article]:

"There is a chance that the ... federal election could result in one of the parties winning enough seats to form a majority government. In that case, the opposition Liberals could get together with the NDP and BQ to form a coalition..."

If the question was as quoted, the poll would be bogus. In the event of a majority there are no coalitions.

From the article: "54 per cent of those polled said they would favour a Liberal-NDP blend to a Harper majority. However, when the Bloc Quebecois is thrown into the coalition mix, support for a coalition drops to 50 per cent. A Harper majority takes the other 50 per cent."

wage zombie wrote:

What do you mean when you say "when the party continues to grow"?  Has the GP been increasing in membership?

Yes. I have several acquaintances (I'm not a Green Party supporter) who are heavily involved in the Green Party (both as candidates and as party staff and campaign organizers), and they are doing well with new memberships. 

Winston wrote:

Until recently, EKOS and Harris-Decima had the Greens polling in the 10-12 % range, so having them now at 7-9% would indeed indicate a drop.  It has been my (completely anecdotal) observation that Nanos tends to underestimate Green support, while EKOS seems to greatly over-estimate (usually at the expense of the NDP's numbers).

I agree, but that would also mean drops for the Conservatives and the Liberals, who were previously neck-in-neck over last summer and the fall.

Far from underestimating Green support (as contended in some posts) most polls, Nanos included tend to overestimate it. In 2008 the Greens polled 6.8%, well under what the final polls predicted;

Ekos                    9.6

Angus Reid           7

Nanos                   8.2

Harris Decima         9

Strategic Council    11

Segma                 10

Average                 9,13

Since the Greens are now averaging only about 7% we can likely expect them to poll 5% or lower.