Latest polling thread Aug 21 2015

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

So my question to you is, do you really find Justin's "career arc" acceptable, or only when in your personal camp? If a Conservative leader had gone from never running a single thing in his life, not even a lemonade stand, to wanting to run all of Canada, would you criticise that, I wonder? I think you would, but you don't when it's a Liberal candidate. For myself, I can assure you that if somebody in the NDP tried to pull that shit, the party would lose my support. Apparently your own standards are not so high.

The Orange Crush had many neophyte MPs that did not have a background suggesting that they had the skills to represent their constituency.

It is up to voters to decide who will represent them. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Trudeau brought the party back from near death reviving it financially and it appears will be bringing the party from 3rd place to 1st, something many said could not be done.

A democratic leader's skills are measured by their ability to lead not by a paper resume.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I'm not trying to single the guy out when I say he doesn't know what he's doing. I'm not saying he's stupid. I'm just making the logical connection that you, apparently, are not. Prime Minister isn't an easy job. It's incredibly challenging and stressful, and requires tons of skills that take a lifetime to build, and any person who has not spent their lifetime building those skills, no matter how gifted, will not be up to those stresses and challenges.

The ability to handle stress is not resume based. I don't agree that it is as complicated as you think it is. It isn't a one man band job. A good leader draws on the experience of others, listens to conflicting advice, then chooses what they believe is the best path forward. Trudeau has convictions of his own on how governing should be done and has a vision of Canada he wants to promote.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

This isn't about sports teams for me. I couldn't give two flying fucks about the NDP's electoral fortunes unless it comes with improved government and rational legislation, but creating those things is harder than it looks. Even the best-intentioned people get swallowed up in the political machine and find true change hard to accomplish. The notion that some charming lad could wander in off the street and set it all to rights with his gumption and optimism is woefully niave. Like, on a "Mr.Deeds goes to Washington" level. It's a movie-of-the-week that bears no relation to reality.

What is woefully naive is thinking voters have any expectation of that. From what I can tell voters are pretty jaded and consider all three parties to be similar. Although NDP provincial governments have done some good things they have not transformed any province into an example of best practices of governing.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Back in reality, even the toughest and smartest people find the pitfalls of trying to swim against the current in our political system incredibly taxing, pushing them to the brink of their abilities, forcing them to use the fullest capacity of their skills and experience.

I haven't noticed anyone trying to do that.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

The man is a simple figurehead, and instead of decrying this debasement of our political process where charming speech-givers get propped up to win elections while real decisions are made behind closed doors by shadowy elites, you cheer it. Hooray for the figurehead! Best figurehead ever! Have you forgotten that being Prime Minister is an actual job, and not a title you get for winning a game show? Are you aware that elections are more than just a season of Survivor, and that the person who wins doesn't get a cheque, but the right to run our lives and our country? It's a real job, probably the hardest job in the country, and it requires real skills and experience, and the consequences of not having that skill and experience can be catastrophic. 

That feeds the notion that regular people are incapable of understanding the big decisions on war and the economy and social benefits.

Prime ministers don't write the budget, write laws, or negotiate trade deals. It doesn't take a genius to unmuzzle scientists or reform the Senate. The Prime Minister gives sets out goals and direction.

Trudeau didn't take the decision on the F-35s in a vacumn nor on the advice of a single person.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

It is incredibly arrogant for anyone at all to think they can waltz into the job without those skills and experience and still somehow be effective.

But he didn't waltz into it. He won his seat multiple times, then won the leadership of the party, then convinced voters he and his party are the best choice.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

It's just as arrogant for Justin to think he can be PM as it is for him to think he could run a hospital with no hospital skills or experience, or a University. If he had never gone into politics and pursued those jobs with the same resume he has now, I feel certain you would be laughing at him right along with me, but you don't when he wants to run the entire country.

I wouldn't be laughing. I would be asking how he accomplished it.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Does that really make sense? Or do you just convince yourself it does because you care more about whether your camp wins or not than you do about whether we have someone running Canada who actually knows what they're doing?

He doesn't intend to run Canada. We don't have a President. He sees the position as chairman of the board rather than CEO and leading requiring a collaborative effort that includes stakeholders in decision-making.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Admit it. You wouldn't want him to run a hospital or a University, but you're fine with him running the country, and that doesn't make any sense. Your views are not rational. They are pure partisanship.

Trudeau does know about politics, he doesn't know about hospitals or universities.

bekayne wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

bekayne wrote:

chimurenga wrote:

So, again, because some people don't seem to understand. If 35% of the people who voted early were NDP supporters, they voted for the NDP. Duh.

"One third of voters (30%) cast their vote before election day, and this is more likely to have been a New Democrat voter (35%) than either a Conservative (32%) or a Liberal (31%)."

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2415/razor-thin-liberal-majority-seen/

If you're going to read it that way, then 24% voted for the Greens and 14% voted for the Bloc. Which adds up to well over 100%.

How do you mean? 35+32+31=98

What am I missing?

24% for the Greens, 14% for the Bloc, 25% for Other Parties. It's on Page 8 of the PDF file.

Oh -- okay I did not see the question as I had only looked at the thread here.

Thanks for clarifying.

It is clear what this means:

35% of those who said they were NDP voted in the advance poll -- not that 35% of those who voted in the advance poll did so for the NDP -- huge difference.

The total says 25% said they voted in the advance poll.

BTW I would not trust these stats because there is a bias.

The bias is that those who participate are likely to be more committed and want to be counted and therefore are more likely to have voted early.

Cody, are you serious?

Cody87 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Cody, are you serious?

Yes.

Sorry, I don't believe you vote anything other than Liberal. Period!

Yes, but governer of Texas is a largely ceremonial position with little legislative power. It's not that far off from the years Justin spent benchwarming, doing nothing of note or merit. They both won elections on the strength of their last name and then just snuggled down and slept through their terms. And then were elected to the highest political office of their countries. It says less about their abilities than it does about the degeneration of the political cultures they live in.

Waaah. Justin is inexperienced. Dubya is a better politician. Wait,how much experience had Thomas Mulcair? Oh,right....waaah.

Quote:

On the whole, though, the polls did a very good job. The only real error was in Quebec, and that was enough to make the difference between the 38% the Liberals were pegged at nationally in half the polls published in the last week and the 39.5% the party actually took on election night. That is a performance the pollsters can be proud of.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/10/how-polls-and-projections-did.h...

NorthReport wrote:

Major Reset in Federal Vote Share

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2644/major-reset-in-federal-vote-share/

This is certainly a warning for the government. A lead of 8 points when both opposition parties are in a leadership race is hardly comfortable.

It is also a warning to the NDP. If they remain this low, since the Liberals seem to be on their way to breaking a promise on getting rid of FPTP, the NDP will be seen as vote splitters in a context that could favour the Conservatives. The Liberals will certainly make the case for the NDP to vote strategically.

The only solution for the NDP, for their part, is to really stand for something not worth turning your back on to help the Liberals. The NDP often forgets that the antedote for the strategic voting model is to represent something so important and meaningful that it is better to throw your vote away to be recorded as in favour of real change than to help the Liberals out of a jam. The NDP when it lacks focus and principle is more vulnerable to strategic voting. And there is the problem: it is also vulnerable when it is very low.

I couldn't find a relevent forum for this but I thought I'd share it. Ranked voting sounds like a damn good idea. Certainly better than FPTP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW8MY8PQJpo

Cons - 169 seats

Libs - 130 seats

NDP - 26 seats

BQ - 12 seats

Gens - 1 seat (personal disaster for May)