2018 Polls

SocialJustice101 wrote:

I came here for a stimulating conversation.

Good luck with that, but I for one generally enjoy your comments, despite often disagreeing with them.

NorthReport wrote:

I hope you Liberals enjoy talking to each other.

How did you become omniscient?

progressive17 wrote:

The only way the non-Conservative vote will be united is if the Liberal Party is destroyed.

That would lead to massive Conservative wins not an NDP win. If the NDP ever did win they would be Liberals wearing orange. The Orange Crush was a result of the NDP going centrist not the population moving left. The way to win is to stop thinking about left and right and political theory and start offering Canadians a cohesive vision that would improve the lives of the 99% instead of dividing them into interest groups to be served individually. 

progressive17 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Good old fashioned Canadian racism. Pure and simple.

What is? Did you put this in the wrong thread?

No. It is why Singh is down to 11%. He is not white.

It couldn't possibly be his incompetence? The fact he has to drag Guy Caron around to press conferences to tell him the answers to questions just goes to show what a better leader Caron would have been (or anyone else with the experience to do the job). Or maybe it's his poor public-speaking skills, or his arrogance, or his ungenuine bespoke-suite-wearing BMW-driving socialism? Or maybe it's his utter lack of experience to be PM? Or maybe it's because he doesn't have a seat in Parliament and the party seems to have no cohesive voice? Or maybe it's because his MP's have to continually correct him or contradict him publicly (most recently Boulerice and Singh taking different positions on whether the NDP would support a court decision on Kinder Morgan regardless of what that decision turned out to be)? Or maybe it's the policy direction the party is taking under his leadership that isn't resonating with the public at large? That's probably the biggest reason right there!

You see, jumping to "racism!" as the excuse for the NDP's upcoming electoral failure under Singh isn't truthful and doesn't address his many drawbacks and failings as leader. Sure, racism is one reason some people (Conservative voters mainly) may not want Singh to be PM, but it's certainly miles away from being the only one.

progressive17 wrote:

The only way the non-Conservative vote will be united is if the Liberal Party is destroyed.

The Liberal Party was almost destroyed in 2011.  How much was the NDP Official Opposition able to accomplish for Canada, during those 4 years?  In 2015, Mulcair campaigned to the right of the Liberals, insisting on balanced budgets.   So if the Liberals got replaced with a more centrist NDP, what's the difference?  Was it worth giving the Cons easy victories in the process, just to switch party names?  That's exactly what the Cons want.

Also, the Alberta Liberal Party is practically dead and they even have an NDP government.   Is that NDP government everything you hoped it would be?   It's easy to demagogue on the opposition benches, but not so easy to govern.

As you yourself suggested, what matters is actions not ideologies.   Instead of dreaming of a pie in the sky, the NDP should be working with the Liberals on common policy goals.   In the past, such co-operation produces tangible results, such as Medicare.  Also the most recent Liberal convention was very similar to the NDP convention.   So be the proposition party, as Layton once suggested.

R.E.Wood wrote:

It couldn't possibly be his incompetence? The fact he has to drag Guy Caron around to press conferences to tell him the answers to questions just goes to show what a better leader Caron would have been (or anyone else with the experience to do the job). 

I supported Caron for the leadership too. That is why I think it shows excellent judgement on Singh's part that he keeps Caron close. Caron doesn't have the charisma to lead the NDP to greater popularity. There is no superhero that has every quality needed to lead a party single-handed. You may hate Trudeau but he has been an excellent leader for the Liberals. No one else that tried for the leadership could have done half as well. One of the reasons is the people he chose to surround himself with. Experts in every field. Behind the scenes too. I think keeping Caron, an economist, close is a sign of the direction Singh intends to go in. 

R.E.Wood wrote:

Or maybe it's his poor public-speaking skills, or his arrogance, or his ungenuine bespoke-suite-wearing BMW-driving socialism? 

His speaking skills are excellent in English and French. He will do extremely well against Trudeau and Scheer in the debates. Judging someone by the clothes they wear or the car they drive illustrates prejudice. 

R.E.Wood wrote:

Or maybe it's his utter lack of experience to be PM? Or maybe it's because he doesn't have a seat in Parliament and the party seems to have no cohesive voice? 

If lack of experience was a problem the party should have prevented him from running for the leadership. Instead he was elected leader. That is his qualification for leadership. That is how it is determined not through a resume although his provincial record is progressive. 

R.E.Wood wrote:

Or maybe it's because his MP's have to continually correct him or contradict him publicly (most recently Boulerice and Singh taking different positions on whether the NDP would support a court decision on Kinder Morgan regardless of what that decision turned out to be)? 

Boulerice said they need to do a better job of briefing Singh when he returns to Ottawa from traveling to ridings. I suppose you think that's fun, like a sight seeing tour. As someone who has traveled on business it isn't fun. It's hard work and living out of a suitcase when you aren't on vacation isn't fun either. 

R.E.Wood wrote:

 Or maybe it's the policy direction the party is taking under his leadership that isn't resonating with the public at large? That's probably the biggest reason right there! 

You can't be serious. The public supported Singh on voting against the Conservatives on the summer jobs thing. Reporters asked about Ashton and Cullen's views. It is obvious there is a faction within caucus that doesn't support Singh and actively wants to undermine him. 

R.E.Wood wrote:

You see, jumping to "racism!" as the excuse for the NDP's upcoming electoral failure under Singh isn't truthful and doesn't address his many drawbacks and failings as leader. Sure, racism is one reason some people (Conservative voters mainly) may not want Singh to be PM, but it's certainly miles away from being the only one. 

I agree with you there. I think your reference to lack of experience betrays your driving motivation. Singh didn't pay his dues in the federal NDP. You wanted an old-school NDP stalwart to win. Someone humble who would wear 200$ suits. 

Michael Moriarity wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Most people are racist. Especially many who say they are not.

This is an interesting claim. Do you have evidence for it, or did you just make it up?

It is based on my experience of about 40 years working and drinking with Canadians. You go into a company and all the workers are not white, and all the management are white, for example. It really is not too far under the surface.

progressive17 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Most people are racist. Especially many who say they are not.

This is an interesting claim. Do you have evidence for it, or did you just make it up?

It is based on my experience of about 40 years working and drinking with Canadians. You go into a company and all the workers are not white, and all the management are white, for example. It really is not too far under the surface.

So, are you a member of the racist majority? If not, what is so special about you that makes you morally superior to most others?

Michael Moriarity wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Most people are racist. Especially many who say they are not.

This is an interesting claim. Do you have evidence for it, or did you just make it up?

It is based on my experience of about 40 years working and drinking with Canadians. You go into a company and all the workers are not white, and all the management are white, for example. It really is not too far under the surface.

So, are you a member of the racist majority? If not, what is so special about you that makes you morally superior to most others?

I have never been part of the majority of anything. Whoever I vote for generally loses, and by a wide margin at that. Maybe one day the majority might wake up, but I severely doubt they will do so in my lifetime. They never have, so why should I expect they ever will?

All people in the world are like this. They do not want to be with strangers and foreigners, unless they are too poor to live anywhere else. Because they are too poor to live in a homogeneous neighborhood, they are the ones who are at the vanguard of racist activity.

I have always been the "alien", the "outsider" and the "other" all my life. Even here, few understand me, and are quick to condemn one word, when it is surrounded by explanations that I have tried very hard to make sense in the context of what this site is all about.

If what I say makes you feel uncomfortable, maybe you should look at yourself.

progressive17 wrote:

No. It is why Singh is down to 11%. He is not white.

First of all, it's not Singh that's down to 11%, it's the NDP. Second of all, haven't you ever heard of an outlier poll? Third, if Canadians were so racist don't you think we'd have seen a drop sooner? Courtesy of wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_feder...

Nanos-Sept 29th, 2017- NDP 15.2%

EKOS-Oct 1st, 2017- NDP 14.5%

Angus Reid-Oct 4th, 2017- NDP 14%

(Singh elected leader Oct 1st) Other polls just before Singh's election showed a similar ~15-17% for NDP

Campaign Research- Oct 11th, 2017 - NDP 19%

Angus Reid - Oct 12th, 2017- NDP 18%

Nanos- Oct 13th, 2017- NDP 16.3%

Environics- Oct 16th, 2017- NDP 20%

Skip ahead a few months of generally 17-20% polls all the way to the end of March...

Now in April we have 15.8%, 11.9%, 17.9%, 14%!

Clearly, this is indisputable proof that up to 88.1% of Canadians are racist (and blind for just now noticing Singh is not white). There is no other explanation (and you're subconsciously racist if you deny the drop is due to racism).

/s

Of course Canada has major racism Just look at what has happened to our First Nations people Yes we are working on it but to suggest there isn’t racism in our political parties, just like suggesting there isn’t sexism in our political parties, is absurd

progressive17 wrote:

Canada's "Founding Two Nations" concept is based on white supremacy, taught in every school, and part of government policy until "multiculturalism" came in, which the whites reject.

Do all of "the whites" reject multiculturalism? 

Would you say multiculturalism was a relevant issue in the last federal election campaign? What stance on multiculturalism did the current (white) prime minister promote during his campaign?  Did the PM talk about enforcing traditionally Western dress codes for citizenship ceremonies, or want to set up phone lines where you could snitch on your (multicultural) neighbours? Did the PM want to increase or decrease the number of refugees Canada accepts, and was he in favour of or against stripping immigrants convicted of (certain) crimes of their Canadian citizenship?

Now, keeping in mind the above, roughly how many votes did he get? How many of those votes were from "the whites", do you figure?

There is a great deal of hate towards anyone different throughout the world.   Whether it's based on ethnicity, race, religion or sexual orientation.   I'd say we have it pretty good in Canada compared to the rest of the world, especially considering the recent rise of Trump-inspired far right nationalism.  There's still a lot of racism in Canada, but it's not as open nor as socially acceptable as in other countries. 

As for racism affecting Jagmeet Singh's electoral chances, of course it does, but not as much as his religiousity.

Well, if we are just to focus on polls, I have to confess it was my post which derailed this thread. So, to get back to polls, do you think it is better to knock on doors, phone them on the telephone, or have them come onto a website?

How much do you think it would cost be to knock on doors, have people dial telephones and bother people during their dinner (but which they are legally allowed to do, AFAIK) or to have them go on websites?

Do you think that the less you pay for the poll, the more inaccurate it would be? Do you think if you gave a person with a felaffel sandwich or a cheeseburger they would feel obliged to fill out a polling questionaire?

Do you remember when newspapers and media organizations sponsored polls? Do you think that Craigslist killing all of their classified advertising has rendered them financially unable to do so? Should we make Craigslist pay for these important morsels of political delicacy which people hang on the edge of their seats for every day?

Should the government subsidize polls on a rep-by-pop or a province-by-province basis? Should we have a Department of Political Polling, like the the tax department?

There are many important questions we should consider about polling which have nothing to do with the results.

Unionist wrote:

Agreed. Such as: Is the main purpose of polls to find out what people think, or to tell them what to think?

The crux of the matter.

If you only want to find out what people think, you don't need to publish the poll. I believe the political parties do what are called "internal polls" which they use to form policy and determine other things. I expect they spend quite a lot of money on these, as if you want an accurate poll, the methodology is quite tedious.

I remember in the old days there were jobs available in Toronto in the polling business, and they were very low-paid. Even so you would be lucky to get a small number of completed forms per shift, and I was once told that it cost about $25 to get each person in a sample (even at the low minimum wages of about $8/hr at the time), so for a statistically significant sample you would be looking at $25,000 or so. 

So you do not need to publish a poll in order for it to be useful to your organization. 

Publicly published polls used to be paid for by media organizations which had lots of money. It seems logical that these media would publish these polls, as it would be part of "information" that the consumers of that media could digest.

If the poll were conducted honestly, statistics should dictate that the results of the poll would be somewhat near the true state of the body politic at the time. Also, the media did not (at least during those times) want to get a reputation for producing false information.

So even now, if we get a media-sponsored poll, I would guess that the medium concerned wanted to make sure that the poll was as accurate as possible. The question we must ask is who is paying for the poll. 

Now we have polls issued seemingly randomly and increasingly frequently by political and corporate consulting companies. We used to know who was paying for the poll. Now we do not.

I suspect that as these companies are politically connected, it is an excellent backdoor way to sell influence in the political area. "Pay for this poll, and we will get you in to see Minister X."

Now if you want to influence people, you have to word the poll in a certain way, which is not too hard to do. "Everybody thinks that Minister X is doing a great job. Press 1 if you agree and 2 if you disagree." As part of the backdoor deal between the business person and the political consulting company, the poll can be designed to cast Minister X in the most positive light, making Minister X even more keen to spend time with the client.

The poll is then summarily issued to the public, using the quite possibly biased wording in the questionaire. This then has the effect of influencing people, who nowadays do not question who commission the poll.

I don't know if this answers the question, but it is my stab at it.

A poll might make some people re-evaluate their choices, and take a closer look at the party with the momentum.   The so-called "band wagon" effect.   Some people may also vote strategically based on the polls. 

But most importantly, polls drive the media narrative, and allow the media to "objectively" state whether a party is succeeding or failing at campaigning/governing.   The media narrative and headlines directly affect a certain section of voters. 

So do polls affect voters?   Yes, they most certainly do.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

So do polls affect voters?   Yes, they most certainly do.

It seems to me that outside of the period between 1992 - 2005 the federal NDP has usually hovered between 16 - 21% in the opinion polls for the last fifty years. I think the 1992 - 2005 period was exceptional because of the inception of the outsider Reform and BQ parties and for the very unpopular provincial NDP governments in Ontario and BC. The period between 2011-2013 when the NDP surged consistently into the high 20's for a couple of years seems anomalous now.

Well, if you accept the Liberals as inevitable, you are accepting that there will never be any real social, environmental, and economic progress in Canada.

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, the environment will continue to be destroyed, and there will always be delays in real economic progress, which the Liberals are so good at doing. 

Considering the big moneyed interests and the right-wing mainstream press have always been against them, it's truly amazin' the NDP has ever won any elections. Presently controling 2 of the 4 governments in Western Canada, and particularly in Alberta, is truly amazin'. 

And having Tommy Douglas recognized as Canada's Greatest Canadian to boot is a nice feather in the NDP cap as well, although it would have been more appropriate to recognize his achievements while he was still around.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Take a look at the provincial NDP governments and see how they measure up.  It's easy to dream and complain while you're in opposition, but it's not as easy to govern. 

You mean the media like the CBC and the Toronto Star. Don't make me laugh. The reality is rarely is the NDP ever supported by Canada's mainstream media, and of course the political party connected polling companies. 

And what matters for Notley is what Albertans think, and there has been a major shift in support for her in that province.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Is the NDP government in Alberta amazing?  You should tell that to the majority of posters on this forum.   As for the BC NDP, they are still in honey moon phase.

The right-wing media constantly attacks the Liberals as well, not just the NDP.  Almost all newspapers endorsed Harper in 2015.

progressive17 wrote:

Well, if you accept the Liberals as inevitable, you are accepting that there will never be any real social, environmental, and economic progress in Canada.

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, the environment will continue to be destroyed, and there will always be delays in real economic progress, which the Liberals are so good at doing. 

That isn't true. You are looking in the wrong direction for salvation. Parties and government are swayed by all kinds of lobbiests but if the public comes out in the 10s or 100s of thousands they fold. 

It seems to me people expect the NDP to be a group of movements not a political party. As a political party its number 1 purpose is to win elections not deliver social justice. The NDP only has a social justice edge because that is where they traditionally look for votes. Where the NDPs base is more conservative, so is the NDP. The NDP follows the base it doesn't lead it. In rare instances a political party will champion something the public didn't champion first or will lead in the direction it thinks people are going in anyway. Medicare being an example of the first, cannabis legalization the second. 

Social justice groups have to focus on getting support from the public. Then with the support of the public they can pressure government to address the issue, and if the government doesn't other political parties will see the opportunity.

That is why I supported Guy Caron. His focus is on the economy and he talked about the need to restructure. Singh's focus is inequality. I strongly believe that the NDP is going to come out with a progressive budget in 2019 that will be much better than whatever the Liberals are planning. By 2023 there will still be growing inequality. If the NDP has been talking about it for five or six years it might sink in. 

It would help the NDP a lot if activists not connected to the NDP did more on the issue of inequality disconnected from other issues. Anything coming from a political party is considered partisan. So, trying to convince people of the problem and of the party's ability to solve that problem. The person feels they are being sold something so they are wary and disbelieving. 

Unfortunately there is no social movement focused on inequality.

No, 99.9% the NDP is ignored, while the headline is negative towards the Liberals, who are not right-wing enough for media.

The Toronto Star ENDORSED the NDP in the previous election, while the CBC was controlled by Harper appointees.    You aren't making much sense, to say the least.

And there is no "etc."   The Toronto Star is the only major newspaper not controlled by the Cons.  But even the Star has a skeptical tone towards the Liberals.  

That's the first time I see you post the word Conservative, NR.     Enjoy your IVR Forum poll.  They've been showing a Con majority since last fall, the only pollster to do so.   If you wanted a Canadian equivalent of Rasmussen, you have it in Forum Research.