Latest polling thread Jan. 27 2015

Seat projections are voodoo politics

http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/01/seat-projections-are-voodoo-politics/

josh wrote:

If the conservatives get the most votes and the most seats, they'll have an argument for keeping power. But if they get the most seats but not the most votes, or the most votes but the second most seats, it will be hard for the GG not to give the party with the most seats the opportunity to form a coalition government with the party with the third most seats.

Only if the party in power:

a) Resigns;

b) Falls as a result of a confidence motion;

Power is not transfered automatically after an election. In this constext, Trudeau saying that he is "against" any of "those ideas", suggests heavily that if awarded anything less than a majority, they will not defeat Harper, precisely as they did in 2008.

This is true even if the Liberals have more seats than the Conservatives. In fact Harper can continue with his mandate on a weak minority, as long as the Liberals co-operate.

Trudeau's objection on the point of coalition is a big legal, and political stumbling block for the movement to remove Harper. Your point is predicated on the view that Harper is a "reasonable" and fundamentally "fair minded person", and he has shown little capacity for being either. If there is anything consistent about Harper is that he believes the end justifies the means, in all cases, and his historical patern is to play brinksmanship, and hold onto power at whatever costs.

His musings on the "right" of the majority of voters in 2008, were nothing but empty arguments and justifications for holding on to power.

Indeed, it is ironic that the Liberals are campaigning on a strategic vote aimed at getting rid of Harper, when in fact they have made no such commitment themselves.

This is particularly important, when polling shows that a minority parliament is in the offing.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Trudeau's objection on the point of coalition is a big legal, and political stumbling block for the movement to remove Harper.

It's not a stumbling block at all. He isn't going to say that he would participate in a coalition when he is trying to win an election. He mentioned the Clarity Act and being too interventionist as the barriers to a coalition. Those are far from insurmountable barriers.

Pondering wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Trudeau's objection on the point of coalition is a big legal, and political stumbling block for the movement to remove Harper.

It's not a stumbling block at all. He isn't going to say that he would participate in a coalition when he is trying to win an election. He mentioned the Clarity Act and being too interventionist as the barriers to a coalition. Those are far from insurmountable barriers.

This post is non-factual and not supported by any evidence. If so you would provide it. In fact, the only thing that Trudeau has not ruled out is coalition, or a deal with Harper and the Conservatives.

Wow i didn't know small business owners were the wealthy now. I really should revise what 40,000-70,000 if at all is now considered rich. So you are just straight out attacking the NDP while supporting Justin standing pat on the corporate giveaways while mulcair said any tax reduction would be tied to employment, which you conveniently didn't mention.

NorthReport wrote:

aj, this post is for you pal. What happened? 

Quote:

Examining Key Battleground Races…

A new election year also brings with it a change in electoral boundaries, with the addition of 30 new ridings to Canada’s electoral map. This will make key battleground races even more crucial to attaining victory in Canada’s 42nd federal election.

• In seat-rich Ontario, the Conservatives (41%, up 4 points) have surged past the Liberals (34%, down 3 points), breaking the dead heat the parties showed late last year, with the NDP (21%, down 1 point) and other parties (4%, no change) playing catch up.
• In Quebec, the NDP (31%, up 2 points) have bypassed the Liberal (24%, down 8 points) lead seen at the end of 2014, with the resurgent Bloc Quebecois (25%, up 4 points) jockeying with the Liberals for second place. The Conservatives (18%, up 3 points) and other parties (2%, down 1 point) lag noticeably.
• In British Columbia, the three-way race continues, this time with the Liberals (34%, up 6 points) slightly edging the Tories (30%, down 3 points) and the NDP (28%, down 3 points) although all are within striking distance of each other, while other parties (8%, no change) trail.
• In Alberta, the Conservatives (58%, no change), as expected, continue to have a solid lead over the Liberals (23%, down 1 point), NDP (16%, up 2 points) and other parties (4%, up 1 point).
• In Saskatchewan /Manitoba, the Conservatives (46%) hold a noticeable advantage over the Liberals (33%) and the NDP (20%).
• In Atlantic Canada, the commanding Liberal lead (41%, down 12 points) has weakened but is still prominent, still besting the NDP (29%, up 10 points), Conservatives (26%, no change), and other parties (4%, up 2 points).

 

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6728

this poll was debunked as having an oversampling for alberta, and ipsos reid had a three way race at 30% each a night before the Ontario election. 

thorin_bane wrote:

Wow i didn't know small business owners were the wealthy now. I really should revise what 40,000-70,000 if at all is now considered rich. So you are just straight out attacking the NDP while supporting Justin standing pat on the corporate giveaways while mulcair said any tax reduction would be tied to employment, which you conveniently didn't mention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/28/ndp-small-business-tax-cut-wealt...

ajaykumar wrote:

thorin_bane wrote:

Wow i didn't know small business owners were the wealthy now. I really should revise what 40,000-70,000 if at all is now considered rich. So you are just straight out attacking the NDP while supporting Justin standing pat on the corporate giveaways while mulcair said any tax reduction would be tied to employment, which you conveniently didn't mention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/28/ndp-small-business-tax-cut-wealt...

 

Another Althia JT fan club posting from a right wing economist who has proned more across the board corporate tax cuts especially to the oil industry for whom he works. He's obviously afraid that shifting the tax burden from small to large corporations wont help his benefactors. Manitoba and Liberal gallant in NB cut the SB tax rate and Manitoba is growing faster than anyone else right now.

If they had to, absolutely. Who else is more in tune with each other policywise in the House of Commons today than Trudeau & Harper?

bekayne wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

This is true even if the Liberals have more seats than the Conservatives. In fact Harper can continue with his mandate on a weak minority, as long as the Liberals co-operate.

you actually think that if the Liberals won more seats than the Conservatives, they would keep them in power?

Rokossovsky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Trudeau's objection on the point of coalition is a big legal, and political stumbling block for the movement to remove Harper.

It's not a stumbling block at all. He isn't going to say that he would participate in a coalition when he is trying to win an election. He mentioned the Clarity Act and being too interventionist as the barriers to a coalition. Those are far from insurmountable barriers.

This post is non-factual and not supported by any evidence. If so you would provide it. In fact, the only thing that Trudeau has not ruled out is coalition, or a deal with Harper and the Conservatives.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2015/01/20150...

Right now, Justin Trudeau says there are "very, very big impediments to forming a coalition with the NDP." But "impediments" are merely obstacles to be overcome.

Indeed, when forced into specifics, Justin tends to narrow his "very, very big impediments" into quite minor concerns: he thinks the NDP has too low a standard for recognizing the validity of a Quebec secession referendum (50%+1) and he doesn't quite trust their disposition towards certain realms of the economy ("trade, foreign investment, resource development" are the three he singles out in his book).

These are not existential disagreements, they are quibbles on the edges.

On the matter of Quebec referenda, a compromise could be easily achieved. Mulcair's 50%+1 standard is not popular anywhere but Quebec, and polls suggest even Quebeckers support raising the bar. It would be absurd to suggest that's not a sacrifice Mulcair would be willing to make if the deputy prime ministership was on the line.

On economic matters, likewise, Justin is being too cute by half.

No political party in this country has a consistent philosophy regarding trade, foreign investment, and resource development.

You aren't the least bit interested in an honest discussion of political events.

Mulcair is the one that ruled out any kind of coalition so I guess he must have been lying by your yardstick.

Thomas Mulcair rules out any kind of coalition with Liberals.

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party. “N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.

The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition. “The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/end-of-story/

Shall we repeat that one more time: Mulcair: "The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,"

Sounds a lot more definite that what Trudeau said.  

Since then Mulcair has realized that the NDP will not win and may even remain in 3rd so he wants to reassure voters that it doesn't matter whether they vote Liberal or NDP.   Mulcair and the NDP just keep trying different tactics instead of presenting a coherent identity.

Trudeau is far more politically astute. He didn't back himself into a corner. 

 

ajaykumar wrote:

just remembered that the NDP supported the libyan mission with Harper, its supporting tax cuts for the wealthy with harper (small business tax cuts).it hates Trudeau like harper. I still support the Ontario NDP, will never support the federal ever again.

The Liberals supported the mission and Harper's tax cuts.

Geniune question, why do you support the Liberal Party?

Many of us hear you JTT, and that is why silence often can be golden.

Any way for what it is worth on Power Play a few minutes ago, an independent journalist suggested the NDP are gaining as the alternative to the Cons, as right-wing voters will not vote for Harper-lite (ie Trudeau). They will vote for the real thing (IE Harper), and those who don't want Harper will vote Mulcair. That has been my hunch all along as well and why the Liberals will probably continue to fad in the polls as we approach the actual dropping of the writ.

 

 

Harper and Trudeau remain locked in a tight race for preferred PM in Nanos weekly tracking

(Released 01/28/2015)

Harper and Trudeau remain locked in a statistical tie in the weekly preferred Prime Minister tracking by Nanos. Thirty-one per cent of Canadians identified Stephen Harper as their choice for preferred PM, while 30 per cent picked Justin Trudeau. Thomas Mulcair remains in third at 19%, followed by Elizabeth May at 4%. Fifteen per cent were unsure.

--

Voter accessibility remains a key driver of Liberal strength on the Nanos Party Power Index as they are the only federal party more than half of Canadians would consider voting for. Asked a series of independent questions for each federal party, 55 per cent of Canadians would consider voting Liberal, 45 per cent would consider voting NDP, 44 per cent would consider voting Conservative, and 30 per cent would consider voting for the Greens.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Nanos%20Political%20Index%202...

 

And now for a little reality from Nanos instead of from our Liberal cheering section:

Party / Oct '13 / Feb '14 / Jan '15 / Change

Cons / 29% / 29% / 31% / Up 2%

NDP / 23% / 23% / 24% / Up 1%

Libs / 37% / 34% / 35% / Down 2%

So according to our Liberal cheering section, the Liberals trending down, while the NDP and the Cons are trending up, is good news for the Liberals. Go figure.   

By the-way, with the NDP now solidly in the mid twenties, long before the writ is dropped, the NDP look quite strong to most political observers.

 

The NDP are not in the mid-twenties.  They have a National average of 21% according to the aggregate of all the polls.

You also glossed over the distant 3rd position of Mulcair in the Preferred PM Nanos Index.

There's also the Party Power score:

Voter accessibility remains a key driver of Liberal strength on the Nanos Party Power Index as they are the only federal party more than half of Canadians would consider voting for.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Nanos%20Political%20Index%202...

Debater wrote:

The NDP are not in the mid-twenties.  They have a National average of 21% according to the aggregate of all the polls.

You also glossed over the distant 3rd position of Mulcair in the Preferred PM Nanos Index.

There's also the Party Power score:

Voter accessibility remains a key driver of Liberal strength on the Nanos Party Power Index as they are the only federal party more than half of Canadians would consider voting for.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Nanos%20Political%20Index%202...

What does it say about Mulcair's approval rating and the liberals second party preferences?

Or would that hurt your cause?

Although Grenier's average may put the NDP at about 20% there seems to be a persistent gap in the polls concerning the party's level of support.

Nanos, Environics, Ipsos and Abacus put the NDP at 23 to 24%

Forum, Ekos, and Leger  give it  17 to 20%.

The difference is important. The NDP is either 5 or 10% away from parity with the Libs and Cons. Either contending for power or a distent third.

NR always quotes the higher polls. The Liberal groupies ( I am looking for a more acceptable term than what I have been  banned for using) always seize on the lower polls.

I can't say myself which is more accurate EXCEPT Forum, which has been persitently unfair to the NDP, has certainly had the worst track record overall of any of the frequent pollsters. I think it is time to simply eliminate Forum from aggregates of polls in order to get a more reliable fix on things.

montrealer58 wrote:

This is very grim news for the Liberal Party.

Canadian poltics is polarizing between Harper and anti-Harper forces, and there are reasons why an anti-Harper voter would not want to trust Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party.

Being in first place is not grim news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_feder...

The only polls in which the Liberals are not in first place are online polls and they are usually in first place there too. That's without any platform and with constant attacks and a leader with an ordinary resume. It's not that Canadians think the Liberals or Trudeau are so great. It's that they think they are better alternative than the Conservatives and a much better alternative than the NDP. All Trudeau has to do to win is be plausible.

No matter how much you attack Trudeau it will be meaningless because Trudeau isn't your problem.

When pundits say that people are ready for change it's because the government is old not because people are disenchanted with the ideology necessarily. Any government at the 10 year mark is in danger of the familiarity breeds contempt threat. When you interpret the desire for change as a change in political philosophy you are only fooling yourself. Instead of asking why Trudeau is doing so well you would do better to ask why the NDP isn't.

Debater wrote:

And the Conservatives themselves know that Trudeau is the one they have to worry about - not Mulcair.

Did you see the Hill Times article last month where Conservative MP David Tilson of Ontario said that Trudeau is the one the Conservatives say is their main opponent?  Tilson said he respects Trudeau as an opponent and knows he is e a stronger competitor for the Cons in Ontario than Dion or Ignatieff.

If you think the Conservatives haven't also been testing their anti-NDP strategy just to cover their bases if it becomes necessary then you are quite naieve.

Oops - wrong thread.

Forum today, but after reading about Nate Silver's process to prevent herding, what are the actual polling results, eh!  

Conservatives lead Liberals by 1%

Cons - 35%

Libs - 34%

NDP - 20%

“Nothing much in particular has happened recently, the prime minister is no more popular, the other leaders are no less so, yet the incremental decline in the Liberal lead has continued to the point where it is no longer a lead, for the first time in our polling since Justin Trudeau became leader,” Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff said in a statement.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/30/conservatives-and-liberals...

NorthReport wrote:

Forum today, but after reading about Nate Silver's process to prevent herding, what are the actual polling results, eh!  

Conservatives lead Liberals by 1%

Cons - 35%

Libs - 34%

NDP - 20%

“Nothing much in particular has happened recently, the prime minister is no more popular, the other leaders are no less so, yet the incremental decline in the Liberal lead has continued to the point where it is no longer a lead, for the first time in our polling since Justin Trudeau became leader,” Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff said in a statement.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/30/conservatives-and-liberals...

1.  I thought you've said that Forum isn't a reliable pollster?  Or is it only reliable if it shows lower Liberal numbers?

2.  The NDP has also declined to 20%.  So I'm not sure why this is considered a good poll.  Unless you're a Conservative.

Again, we see the Liberals losing. The NDP vote will not collapse under 20% for now, no matter how hard the Liberal shills try with their failing antics. It is said that so-and-so Liberal shill said X. Or that Tory MP (shill) said Y. Or that some Liberal-friendly journalist said X. It is all weak, useless, nonsense spin. They will do anything to please their corporate masters. 

Government: Conservative. Leader, Stephen Harper.
Opposition: NDP. Leader, Tom Mulcair.

This is not a delusion. This is the material fact of the state of Canadian politics today, no matter how much the Liberal shills want to spin it otherwise. Justin Trudeau is not a leader. Justin Trudeau is not qualified to be Prime Minister. Justin Trudeau is not up to the job. And Justin Trudeau has nothing on offer for me or anyone else in my situation.

The real deal in Canadian politics is Conservative vs. NDP. This is confirmed by the facts of our present situation.

montrealer58, you haven't said anything of relevance in that post.

The main opponent of the Conservatives are the Liberals.  They say this themselves.  So I'm not sure why you want to keep pretending it's a Conservative vs. NDP race and that the Liberals aren't a factor.

And this is the 2nd time you have said that because Justin Trudeau doesn't have anything to offer you, that should determine the way everything is decided.  Voting isn't just about what's good for you but about what is good for society as a whole.  And having the Conservatives in power is not a good thing for society so having the Liberal option available for voters to be able to defeat Stephen Harper is a good thing.

And I agree the NDP vote will probably not drop below 20%.  But it's down 10 points from the last election whereas the Liberals are dramatically up in support from the last election.  So what point are you making?