ScottM

I'm pretty sure it would be beyond 40. That's a guess, but a guess is all I have since the site doesn't show percentage ranges. I'd say it would probably take 43% or so to break 200.

The site doesn't show the percentage ranges, but it would be much higher than 32% with 201 seats won. It would probably be north of 40% if my guess is right.

I'd modify it, of course. Something like, "I negotiated the deal that was in the best interests of Canada," or whatever. Use it to stir up patriotism. I didn't necessarily mean a word for word thing, just the basic sentiment phrased to elicit emotion from the voters, because sadly, emotion seems to be what works the most on all fronts of politics from all sides.

It may have something to do with geography too, i.e. where the movement is coming. I say that since I see that the Liberals are up seats in BC and Quebec. Maybe they had several seats they were on the cusp of capturing because of regional numbers that finally fell their way.

Just to back up your point, let's assume that 80% of the population would like the agreement once they're informed. (Before anyone calls out that number, I'm just using it to make a point.) That would obviously be huge for the Conservatives if they can get the message out. The question is, is a week and a half enough time? If Kim Campbell didn't think 47 days were enough, I doubt 11 are. We live in a soundbite generation, and that does make it hard to hash out the details of serious topics in short periods of time. The initial, all too often uninformed opinions you speak of are often the ones that matter the most. Perception is more important that reality. If I were to put myself in the position of Harper's strategy team, that's just the play I'd make. There still might not be enough time, but that's the best "soundbite" approach I could think of. I don't say that to knock it. It has the strength of being simple and to the point.

They're at 24%. The 11% number is those who think they will win.

I understand. I'm doing the same thing. It's easy to get so wrapped up in this stuff that we try to explain what happened before it might not even happen. It can be great fun though.

I'll add this: When you take the polls as a whole, it seems to me that the Conservatives' numbers are where most of the disagreement among the all the pollsters, i.e., not just Nanos, is. If the shy Tory effect is playing a role in the Nanos numbers, and my theory that incumbency is worth a couple of points that I've floated around based on polling from 2004-2011 is accurate, Harper might surprise again like he did last time around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011 It might be worth adding that while the Liberals were underestimated in 2004 and 2006, the Conservatives appear to have been slightly more so in 2008 and 2011. That may support your theory more. If it does, should we expect it to be more pronounced this time?

I think erratic was probably a poor choice of words. Noisy might be better. Their trend lines for the Liberals and NDP have been pretty steady, or distinctly show the increase and fall. The Conservative numbers have bounced around a bit, though. I guess I know that a nightly sample size of 400 will produce that, but I guess it just unnerves me. I'm too much of a numbers nerd to be able to handle that sometimes. Lol Even so, I think we're in agreement on the larger point. Someone is wrong with the numbers they're putting it out, and we might not know who for another 13 days. Edit: I'll give an example of the movement for the Tories. They were at 28.9 on September 25 and 33.0 on the 28th. That seemed like a lot of movement in only three days. Just a few days later, they were back down to 30.5. It's not necessarily inaccurate, but it can seem unstable in short bursts. I think I probably get too caught up in that sometimes.

It could happen again, true, but unless the Mainstreet poll is the most accurate, I highly doubt it. Considering that polling in recent elections has tended to underestimate the incumbent party, I think a majority should have probably been viewed as a little more likely than it was. With the Conservatives polling 36-38%, it didn't take much of a bump for them to get there. I could be dead wrong. I admit that. I don't think we'll know what will happen until election night is actually here, but where things stand now, it seems highly unlikely to see a majority.

One thing to consider here: This election appears destined for a minority government of some sort. Even if the Liberals and the NDP have a majority of seats between them, that's no guarantee of any kind of change to the system, because they may not be able to agree on what to change it to.

Not definitively, but a company's track record is something to consider. All of the models incorporate that.

Here you go: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2011/05/ranking-pollsters.html As angrypenguin said, everyone underestimated the Conservatives, save Compas which grossly overestimated. They were pretty close on the Liberals and a hair high on the NDP. Nothing there from Mainstream, and a few stopped polling pretty early for whatever reason.

All good. I was just trying to make sure we were on the same page. I never realized those elections were in the same calendar month. That was before I started following Canadian politics.

I think Trudeau was nearly playing with house money this time. Even with a highly disappointing result he's all but guaranteed to significantly build on the seat total from 2011. I have a hard time conceiving of even a "disaster" scenario where he's booted from the leadership. He'd almost have to revealed as a child abuser who pushes little old ladies into the street and kicks puppies. Not to mention the erratic swings we've seen from Nanos. The only reason I see to take them ahead of the others is that their data is more fresh. Even then, Ipsos shows a closer race than Nanos, giving me pause anyway.

I think the only thing we know for sure is that someone is wrong since Nanos has the Liberals up by 3.5 points. My apologies if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but if you're saying that Chretien won an election with fewer popular votes, he didn't. Chretien and the Liberals always won the popular vote by a healthy margin in his three mandates. I believe the last time a party lost the popular vote but won the seat count was Clark's Progressive Conservatives in 1979. 1993 Liberals: 41.24 Reform: 18.69 PC: 16.04 Bloc: 13.52 NDP: 6.88 1997 Liberals: 38.46 Reform: 19.35 PC: 18.84 NDP: 11.05 Bloc: 10.67 2000 Liberal: 40.85 Alliance: 25.49 PC: 12.19 Bloc: 10.72 NDP: 8.51

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/conservatives-lead-as-ndp-slips/ And now Mainstreet suggests a Conservative majority is within the realm of possibility. Toriess: 37 Grits: 29 Dippers: 24

I've been off for a couple of days because of an extremely busy weekend, but I come back to it all to see that we seem to have some clarity, at least for the moment. Barring further shakeups, the Liberals look like they're in strong position to form a minority, but I have to wonder how much the NDP will fall. With Nanos now pegging them under 23%, I'm starting to wonder if their seat haul might more closely resemble 2008 than 2011. If the collapse continues, the Liberals seem likely to do the best in Quebec, and outside of there and BC, the NDP doesn't have much to hang on. There may be some decisions ahead for and about Mulcair.

I found it much more quickly than I expected. And I had the Liberals and NDP reversed. Anyway, here you go: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2014/12/whats-threshold-for-minority-or.html

I'll have to dig. I'll see if I can find it. And yeah, I'm a political junkie too. I'm an American, but since the Canadian campaign is going on right now, most of my attention is on that. Earlier in the year, I was focused on the U.K. When our primaries really begin, I'll key in on that. I follow Australian politics too. I basically just can't get enough of it. Lol

Well, polls are polls. We know that some are wrong right now, because there's a pretty sharp divide. Models do account for vote efficiency. I don't know how far back you'd have to go to find it, but Eric Grenier made a post on his blog some months ago in which he discussed estimated vote percentages needed for each party to reach a majority. The Conservatives' number was the lowest. I think it was just under 40%. The Liberals number was the highest -- just over 42%, iirc. But that link goes to a model which can make adjustments for factors like efficiency. A poll simply is what it is.

The Tories do seem to have the most efficient vote, but it's not enough to win a majority without a big shift, and the models take it into account. Plus, while I won't be surprised to see a Tory boost on election day, it's not because they're the Tories -- it's because they're the governing party. If you look at the polling articles on Wikipedia for each of the last four elections, the incumbent party has polled a couple of points higher than their polling numbers. But, again, it's only a couple of points. A big shift would be needed to get the Tories to the point that such a boost is enough for a majority. I don't think there's any chance of a majority unless the Conservatives are averaging ~37-38 percent in the polls in the days immediately before the election.

No problem. And yeah, I don't the NDP can form any type of government without Quebec. They're not doing well enough in Ontario to have a chance. Based on some things I've read, the Bob Rae government still seems to have something to do with that. Funny how electoral success can backfire later.

Yeah, I wasn't comparing today to yesterday. I just meant that the only thing the pollsters all agree on is that the NDP is well behind.

I didn't realize how old Joe Oliver is. Yeah, he's definitely out...