Corruption surrounds us. Here an example of political corruption in the paper today and why the BC NDP will have to have another look at election financing rules
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-govt-ponders-more-changes-to-election-financing-rules
In between elections polls are just a measure of the mood in the moment. People know the election isn`t tomorrow. If pollster bias is identified it can be taken into account. That doesn`t make polls useless. They indicate trends and general positioning. You can also view the results in the context of current events.
Without even looking at polls it makes sense that Trudeau still has a strong first place but down some. Scheer has the conservative base. The NDP is in disunity so no surprise that they are down to their base.
As to pollster bias, they all underestimated Trudeau`s win. No one predicted he would get a majority. With the exception of the Star the papers all endorsed Harper. I`m not sure why. It`s not like Trudeau isn`t neoliberal. All he has done is soften the edges. It`s like good cop bad cop. Trudeau isn`t beating the shit out of us so he seems great in comparison.
I don`t think anyone here doubts my support for Singh. I still think he has lots of potential if he can pull the party and caucus together. Being realistic, Nanos probably has a pretty good handle on the lay of the land. Maybe the NDP is really at 18%, but they are definitely not at 21 or above. The Liberals could be as low as 37% but they still have a strong lead over the Conservatives.
Take it all with a salt shaker, it still has some validity as long as you know the biases.
Corruption surrounds us. Here an example of political corruption in the paper today....
Why haven't the mainstream media or alternative media exposed the bias of the corrupt Liberal pollsters?
I don't see how BC financing rules apply in any way to the topic of 2018 Federal polls.
As to pollster bias, they all underestimated Trudeau`s win. No one predicted he would get a majority.
Popular vote and seat projection are two different things. The latter depends on the seat by seat breakdown of the vote and is much harder to predict. The following from Nanos, who were right on the mark for the popular vote:
Nanos does not do seat projections. Our focus is to estimate the popular support and to understand the dynamic of the campaign. The research points to a Liberal victory. The magnitude of that victory -- whether it be a minority, a strong minority or a majority government --will be de cided by Canadians.
Oops
5 of the 6 most recent polls are by Nanos - what lack of science, what a farce!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_feder...
Look at the "Polling Method" column of the tracking table. Nanos Research is actually the only conventionally scientific pollster.
Why haven't the mainstream media or alternative media exposed the bias of the corrupt Liberal pollsters?Corruption surrounds us. Here an example of political corruption in the paper today....
I can see myself asking an almost same question. The difference would be is that I would have added the word "yet" at the end.
To me the pollsters or a bunch of them have displayed they are biased by the wide variety of different questions they ask and choose to publish.
I remember several months ago there was one pollster that had a question about which federal leader would you prefer to drink a beer with. I found this really spun out and bizarre. To me this is evidence that the pollster was making up a wide variety of questions that their darling would pull in stronger numbers, and when their darling failed in other borderline questions, they probably just wouldn't publish them.
Look at the "Polling Method" column of the tracking table. Nanos Research is actually the only conventionally scientific pollster.
You don’t understand. A poll is a quality poll if it has a bad result for the Liberals. It is not a quality poll if it has a good result for them.
WWWTT, the beer question actually makes perfect sense, considering how many average folks vote for someone because they like them personally. Personality cults are huge in politics. I keep hearing "I like {insert politician's name here}." While policies do play a crucial factor, a politician's attitude and personality also matters to voters.
Look at the "Polling Method" column of the tracking table. Nanos Research is actually the only conventionally scientific pollster.
You don’t understand. A poll is a quality poll if it has a bad result for the Liberals. It is not a quality poll if it has a good result for them.
I find it really odd when an NDPer cheers at a Con lead.
Look at the "Polling Method" column of the tracking table. Nanos Research is actually the only conventionally scientific pollster.
You don’t understand. A poll is a quality poll if it has a bad result for the Liberals. It is not a quality poll if it has a good result for them.
I find it really odd when an NDPer cheers at a Con lead.
I find it really odd when people twist the statements of others so badly that they bear no resemblance to what was originally said.
EDIT: Also, it's unclear if your shot was at josh or NR, but I hope you can tell that josh was agreeing with you by satirizing NR's position.
I was concurring with Josh. For some posters here a Con lead is unexplicably a cause for celebration. If you want progressive politics to succeed, you'd want to see a Lib vs NDP battle for government, with Cons in third place.
A cause for celebration is an exaggeration. However, when the conservatives are in the lead and the NDP are polling in official opposition numbers, such as the current Ontario provincial polls, liberal supporters suddenly get amnesia about the evil conservatives
Would anyone want to see a repeat of the 2011 federal election? NDP got over 100 seats and 0 power.
I believe there is a demographic in Canada who are not represented by a political party.
The Socially conservative fiscal progressives.
The federal Liberals are a no go zone for them as they do not meet a single criteria for them.
The NDP is fiscally progressive therefore they are half happy with them.
The Cons are socially conservative so they are half happy with them.
They can live with either one of them but the Liberals are exact opposite of their political beliefs.
After years of witnessing this sort of visceral hatred for Liberals and a soft side for both NDP and the Cons, I have come to this conclusion. This combination of political beliefs is very common in the Union memberships.
I was concurring with Josh. For some posters here a Con lead is unexplicably a cause for celebration. If you want progressive politics to succeed, you'd want to see a Lib vs NDP battle for government, with Cons in third place.
OK...but it's impossible for that to happen unless there's a large decline in Liberal support. It's not possible, for example, that there would ever be polls that came out(among "decided voters") 40% Liberal, 35% NDP, 20% Con, 5% Greens/Bloc combined. That kind of polling result simply can't happen.
Would anyone want to see a repeat of the 2011 federal election? NDP got over 100 seats and 0 power.
Strawman. There was never a possibility in that election that fewer NDP seats would have led to Harper being stopped-there was no chance the Liberals under Ignatieff were ever going to stay in second, let alone finish first, and their refusal to back the "coalition" proposal that could have removed Harper two years earlier proved they would never have worked with any other opposition parties to bring in progressive governance.
My point was that the 2011 election may have looked good for the NDP, on paper, but was actually disastrous for anyone remotely progressive. Nothing at all to cheer about.
My point was that the 2011 election may have looked good for the NDP, on paper, but was actually disastrous for anyone remotely progressive. Nothing at all to cheer about.
For you maybe not.
SoCons did win. The socons winning also has a silver lining to it. The social order that gives privileges to a WASP at least get presrved if not strenghthened. Some people have nothing to lose if the SoCons win while others have a lot at stake. Therefore a Con win doesnt bother them as musch as it does others.
I said it once and I'll say it again. New Democrats who vote Conservative ,especially the current hyper SoCons under Scheer are rank morons.
This hate for the Liberals is pathological. Have you been paying attention? They are WAY more progressive than the Conservatives. Why woould a progressive vote Conservative when another option already exists that is trying to pass NDP policy? It's stupid,moronic and imbecilic.
So I think YOU should speak for yourself.
I said it once and I'll say it again. New Democrats who vote Conservative ,especially the current hyper SoCons under Scheer are rank morons.
This hate for the Liberals is pathological. Have you been paying attention? They are WAY more progressive than the Conservatives. Why woould a progressive vote Conservative when another option already exists that is trying to pass NDP policy? It's stupid,moronic and imbecilic.
So I think YOU should speak for yourself.
alan alan alan....... I am with you my friend. I think it is moronic for progressives to vote Con.
But we agree that it does happen, so I am just trying to figure out why.
The conclusion that I have come to is that for the vast majority of Con/NDP switchers, their SoCon thinking pervails when its between Cons and Libs and their Fiscal progressivism pervails when it comes to NDP and Libs (since both of them dont appeal to their bigotry). So the Liberals end up losing their support in both scenarios.
There is a tradeoff between losing the social privileges and gaining through progressive fiscal policy when the NDP wins. With Liberals winning there exists no such tradeoff. Its a lose lose for this demographic.
An then there are pretenders who just try to fools others and maybe get a kick out of it. A Con's wet dream is NDP and Libs both tied in support in the twenties. And as soon as there is even a little movement towards that, a Con will automatically be gleeful.
I said it once and I'll say it again. New Democrats who vote Conservative ,especially the current hyper SoCons under Scheer are rank morons.
This hate for the Liberals is pathological. Have you been paying attention? They are WAY more progressive than the Conservatives. Why woould a progressive vote Conservative when another option already exists that is trying to pass NDP policy? It's stupid,moronic and imbecilic.
So I think YOU should speak for yourself.
alan alan alan....... I am with you my friend. I think it is moronic for progressives to vote Con.
But we agree that it does happen, so I am just trying to figure out why.
The conclusion that I have come to is that for the vast majority of Con/NDP switchers, their SoCon thinking pervails when its between Cons and Libs and their Fiscal progressivism pervails when it comes to NDP and Libs (since both of them dont appeal to their bigotry). So the Liberals end up losing their support in both scenarios.
There is a tradeoff between losing the social privileges and gaining through progressive fiscal policy when the NDP wins. With Liberals winning there exists no such tradeoff. Its a lose lose for this demographic.
An then there are pretenders who just try to fools others and maybe get a kick out of it. A Con's wet dream is NDP and Libs both tied in support in the twenties. And as soon as there is even a little movement towards that, a Con will automatically be gleeful.
Sorry if I misconstrued your comment. But in a case where the Libs and NDP are polling in the 20's,a coalition makes sense to me. The Cons will always have their solid 30% support. A Lib/NDP coalition would have a solid 60% suppport and we'd probably wouldn't see a Conservative government again for at least 25 years or more. A coalition is the Cons worst nightmare.
Sorry if I misconstrued your comment. But in a case where the Libs and NDP are polling in the 20's,a coalition makes sense to me. The Cons will always have their solid 30% support. A Lib/NDP coalition would have a solid 60% suppport and we'd probably wouldn't see a Conservative government again for at least 25 years or more. A coalition is the Cons worst nightmare.
With Libs and NDP both in mid or low twenties the Cons win a big majority. Coalition does not even come into the picture.
Hence a Con's wet dream.
Sorry if I misconstrued your comment. But in a case where the Libs and NDP are polling in the 20's,a coalition makes sense to me. The Cons will always have their solid 30% support. A Lib/NDP coalition would have a solid 60% suppport and we'd probably wouldn't see a Conservative government again for at least 25 years or more. A coalition is the Cons worst nightmare.
With Libs and NDP both in mid or low twenties the Cons win a big majority. Coalition does not even come into the picture.
Hence a Con's wet dream.
If we're talking about what's going on in Ontario right now,yes,unfortunately,you're right.
But in a case where the Libs and NDP are polling in the 20's,a coalition makes sense to me. The Cons will always have their solid 30% support. A Lib/NDP coalition would have a solid 60% suppport and we'd probably wouldn't see a Conservative government again for at least 25 years or more. A coalition is the Cons worst nightmare.
I think if there was a Lib/NDP coalition the Cons would move closer to the center to remain competitive.
My point was that the 2011 election may have looked good for the NDP, on paper, but was actually disastrous for anyone remotely progressive. Nothing at all to cheer about.
There was no way t0 predict that there would be an Orange Crush AND a Harper majority. Nor was their any way to be absolutely certain of blocking the election of a Harper majority. In the last weekend, the polls were a virtual dead heat between the NDP and the Cons...it simply wasn't possible that a swing from the NDP back to the Liberals in the last weekend would have kept Harper out of power. The Liberals were totally discredited in all regions of the country...there was nowhere, anywhere in Canada where it was even going to be possible to stop Harper by arguing that progressives should vote Liberal on "strategic" grounds...Everyone knew there was no region a vote break of that nature could have been arranged and could have made any difference...especially since the Liberals weren't willing to do what THEY would have needed to do to make that a worthwhile idea, and call on THEIR supporters to vote NDP in regions where the Liberal candidate had no chance of winning.
It's a waste of time trying to shame people for swinging to the NDP from the Liberals seven freaking years ago.
I think if there was a Lib/NDP coalition the Cons would move closer to the center to remain competitive.
I don't think that would be a bad thing. Eliminating the far right from our political landscape would be a god send.
I think if there was a Lib/NDP coalition the Cons would move closer to the center to remain competitive.
I don't think that would be a bad thing. Eliminating the far right from our political landscape would be a god send.
I also think it would be much better. In 2 candidate FPTP contests, FPTP would provide better democratic results as the median voter would be better represented than they are now. However, I think PR, STV or MMP, would be much better than FPTP. Even instant runoff voting would be better. I think we're currently stuck with the worst case scenario, FPTP with more than two majoir parties causing consistant undemocratic results.
I don't see how BC financing rules apply in any way to the topic of 2018 Federal polls.
Today's Nanos Research data tracker update:
Lib 38.25%
Con 31.60%
NDP 17.90%
BQ 3.75%
Grn 7.04%
Pretty well looks like the 2015 election results. My, how we have come a long way in 2 1/2 years.
Eliminating the far right from our political landscape would be a god send.
Whoever's furthest right would just become the new "far right".
Half of the population have absolutely zero after paying mortgages, rent, food, bills, and taxes. Working for nothing is slavery. Everybody in that condition knows they are a slave. Punk kids half or a third of your age telling you what to do. Parasites standing around on full pay looking at your real time productivity numbers on their cellphones, and cracking the occasional whip, and being part of the theft of 33% of the real price of your wages. That 33% which would leave you something left over after paying for everything.
If you have a job sitting in a chair pushing around paper and tapping little buttons on your typewriter things you will never know this existence, unless you work in a call centre. There, the slavery is just as bad, and you have to endure abuse from people you really should not be calling in the first place. If I want or need something, I will get it. Unless you know me, you have no authorization to call me whatsoever, unless you are legally allowed to do so, which means you are in a registered charity, selling newspaper subscriptions, or a political party.
And you have to smile and dial, which makes you an excellent hypocrite, as you have to pretend you are enjoying your torture. Having experienced much corporate and other torture and slavery in my life, I will be one of the best hypocrites you will ever meet.
If you can afford to never have to consider taking a job like this, you are living off the back of the slaves. No matter what political ideology you claim. Slaves serve you in cafeterias and load your grocery bag in zero seconds flat. Behind them, slaves load the shelves. For example, you have 1-litre bottles in 12-packs. That is 12 litres or 12 kg. 26 lbs. There are either 56 or 70 on a pallet. You have to scan each 6-pack, both to register inventory changes, and to monitor your biomechanical output. If you are loading on the same shelf, you have 10 minutes. Now get to work! If you are loading onto many different places on a floor, that may go up to 20 minutes. Generally they want to see not much short of 20 pallets a day. At least 10 tonnes. Brutal, unforgiving toil. Then some crap gets loaded into a truck, and the driver-slave is being paid by the mile. After a while anyone else on the road is an enemy of the driver paying their rent. People who can afford to drive around and shop. People walking around not looking where they are going, and tying up an intersection. The driver-slave in the big rig just wants to squash you all like bugs.
These people bring you every physical thing you touch. The real physical wealth of the nation. Money moves arduously through call centres. Credit card and mortgage applications. Collections calls. Insurance sales. Cavernous offices and warehouses with hundreds of employees on slave wages. All being monitored by the millisecond. All the productivity showing up on the slavemasters' little screens.
If I were the dictator of a socialist country, I would go by the book and say that everyone has to contribute according to their abilities. If I decided you were to do a certain job, you would do it according to all of the modern biomechanical slavery principles described above. If you refused to do the job, you would be sent to a place where the incentives to work were more intimate. If you could not work, I would not want my proletarian working classes to get downhearted seeing someone who did not have to endure their form of slavery. I would remove you to an asylum, where you would be treated humanely, but kept there until you were fit for work, or you died, whichever came first. If it were an undeveloped place, I would put you in the arms trade, which I could very successfully run with a command economy. I would also allow field workers a very reasonable lease on the plots of land allocated to them, and let prices for food fall as they may in a fairly unrestricted marketplace. You would be in my factories, and you would be on my land, buying and selling things with my money. I would use foreign exchange receipts to buy producer goods for the next plan, which means toil on roads and railroads for you. As I am paying nothing for my labour, my country's balance of payments will rise. As for your revolution, it put me in power. And you say you want another one?
Six of the last seven polls are from one pollster. The mirror image of Rasmussen’s tactics in the USA. What would right-wing Liberals do without their weekly Nanos fix. What a farce.
Nanos Research poll dated Oct 18, 2015: Lib 39.1%, Con 30.5%, NDP 19.7%
General Election results on Oct 19, 2015: Lib 39.5%, Con 31.9%, NDP 19.7%
NR..You're shameless in your partisanship. The Liberals are headed for another victory in 2019. Deal with it.
NR..You're shameless in your partisanship. The Liberals are headed for another victory in 2019. Deal with it.
I wont count on that. I will take a Con loss to any combination of parties. For all I care the BQ could be the government as long as the Cons are defeated. And that result would be enough to make some people go nuts, just like they did at the end of last election and are still wandering around babbling nonsense.
Oh and I was going nuts on a daily basis by just having Harper and his slimy ilk as the government, so its only fair that their cheerleaders suffer the same for at least ten years.
Please stop with the nonsense
The day day before the election any pollster worth their salt can tell you the results It is the pollster who forecasts the results a month or weeks ahead of time that is actually a good pollster
Nanos Research poll dated Oct 18, 2015: Lib 39.1%, Con 30.5%, NDP 19.7%
General Election results on Oct 19, 2015: Lib 39.5%, Con 31.9%, NDP 19.7%
So instead of a scientific pollster we are looking for fortune tellers.
NR..You're shameless in your partisanship. The Liberals are headed for another victory in 2019. Deal with it.
I wont count on that. I will take a Con loss to any combination of parties. For all I care the BQ could be the government as long as the Cons are defeated. And that result would be enough to make some people go nuts, just like they did at the end of last election and are still wandering around babbling nonsense.
Oh and I was going nuts on a daily basis by just having Harper and his slimy ilk as the government, so its only fair that their cheerleaders suffer the same for at least ten years.
I agree with you gadar. But not so fast about a Con (job) victory. Scheer has all the personality of a snail. Trudeau's approval ratings might be down but he's still popular. And if the Liberals keep up an at least propped up populist campaign agin,they will probably win.
But I'm entirely on your side. I'd be happy with a BQ government over a Con government. I'd be happy with the Greens. People here are wishing hard for an NDP government but for the moment,their chances are as great as the BQ and the Greens. They just can't get over the 20% mark. It's not a competitive edge by any means.
But if an NDP/Liberal coalition were to be the best bet,I'd jump on that bandwagon. The Cons would have an impossible task against a coalition government. Unless of course their support surpasses 40-45% which is highly unlikely.
Yes by all means let’s be scientific. What percentage of Canadian pollsters have political connections?
Gazillion percent??
Who cares about a proven track record and reputation when you can turn to conspiracy theories.
Don't you get it,SJ101. Polls are bullshit unless they show the Liberals losing.
Yes, apparently it takes no skill whatsoever to accurately predict voting preference of millions of voters based on 1000 people. Instead, we need someone who can predict election results months in advance of an election, despite the numbers changing during the course of a campaign.
Half of the population have absolutely zero after paying mortgages, rent, food, bills, and taxes. Working for nothing is slavery.
Didn't you just say they had "mortgages, rent, food, bills and taxes"?
Cut the nonsense alan
No one is saying these polls are necessarily inaccurate, but when 6 of the 7 most recent polls are all from the same pollster, it is possible that the polling results could be skewed, and if they were, this pollster could be giving Canadians a false impression. Some pollster’s results in the US are skewed on purpose so why would there not be a possibility of it being done in Canada. But the defensiveness of some people around this subject can make one wonder.
Don't you get it,SJ101. Polls are bullshit unless they show the Liberals losing.
Eliminating the far right from our political landscape would be a god send.Whoever's furthest right would just become the new "far right".
This is a real problem, by the way. I've seen Lacey Green labelled "alt right."
