Moonbox

That's the positive spin on what happened here, which is that they lost the election where they had everything going for them. They couldn't have asked for more fertile ground than this. A decent number of those seats went to the conservatives, but either way, the transfer of NDP/Bloc/Green vote to the Liberals wasn't a fluke. It was because of Poilievre. The dude lost his seat too, which is just

That's your cope. The voting Canadian public just really doesn't like Pierre Poilievre. There's more to being Prime MInister than Verb-the-Noun. I said during the Conservative leadership campaign that if they wanted to lose the next election, Pierre Poilievre was one of the only guys that could make it happen. The most telling part of all of this is that even a lot of the folks who voted for Carney probably agree with you on the Liberal record. The worst PM that Canada's ever had was Pierre Trudeau...until his buffoon son picked up the mantle. Taking the leaders out of question, the Liberals weren't polling much past 25%, even with Trump on the horizon. That would have been a bloodbath, but Pierre "brought it home"...just for the wrong party.

Michael Chong is my MP and he's a great guy. That's the sort of Conservative I can (and usually do) get behind. Erin O'Toole isn't one of the chuds, but he couldn't convince people that he wasn't listening to them. Stephen Harper knew how to control and squelch the dumbest parts of the rabble in the CPC, but Pierre Poilievre is embracing them. If he loses, that's going to be why.

LOLOL Yep that was me bringing up math first again.

The question was whether or not people liked the party leaders. Where on this chart are they telling us how much people like or dislike the party leaders? Nowhere!? Great "math lesson", muppet! 🤡👌

Nope! Carney's polled close to 50% favorable and sometimes above. Poilievre can barely hit 40%, with the unfavorable percentage growing to upwards of 60%. https://angusreid.org/all-down-to-e-day-carney-poilievre/ Net favorable of +13%, vs net unfavorable of -20%. Ooof. Don't worry too much though. The CPC still has a chance here, in spite of their creep leader. As I've said before, if the Liberals win, it'll be because of Carney vs Poilievre, and in spite of the Liberal record. Take the Leaders out of the equation, and the Liberals are down to 28% and the Cons are up to 40%. If the Conservatives win, it'll be in spite of Poilievre. That doesn't mean you have to take down all of your posters though. You can still worship the guy if he loses.

You brought it up again, you donkey. If you want to respond to my last post in that thread rather than tuck tail after clowning yourself as you did, bring it. I'm always game to watch you make a fool out of yourself, as you're doing even here. These unhinged, spastic rants where you insist on fantasy re-imaginings of your past humiliations, however, are useless. Nobody reads them. Nobody even know what you're talking about except me, and I'm just laughing at you.

Everything you say is like you're talking to a mirror. 🤡

He said he was sticking around if he loses. Who knows? Not you or I. PP has never had a job outside of barking slogans and insults at opponents. Good at it? Maybe if what counts is riling up the base, but judging by the fact that the majority of Canadians don't like him and he seems poised to lose what should have been an unlosable election, I'd say that's up for debate!

I was responding to Army Guy, and then I was responding to you, when you quoted me. This isn't complicated. The only confusion is your own. I mean the time you tried to argue that I miscalculated a chosen constant in a math equation. That was so absurdly dumb I would have put it past even you, but you keep surprising me. There's literally is no floor on how belligerently stupid you can make yourself look.

I know who I was responding to, and no, I don't. How could I take someone telling us we should care whether or not a candidate lies, when he's blindly ra-ra-ra for a guy who's spent the last 2-3 years lying, bullshitting and circling the conspiracy vortex? Last time I checked you were telling me I miscalculated the constant in a math equation. 🤣 If I didn't know better, I'd think this was your latest diary entry. Literally nobody on this forum has less self-awareness than you. 🤡👌

I'd maybe be ashamed posting that to a thoughtful, serious poster capable of viewing things from an outside perspective, but alas, that wasn't my audience. When I'm posting in response to a hysterical ALL CAPS FORUM TITLE!!! or that the suggestion that Canadians should be singularly outraged about a Carney may have told over a phone call, while you gleefully slurp his opponent's fairytales, I don't feel bad about it at all. 🙃

Personally I agree with most of what you're saying here. I'm very much not on-board with how our Justice system has evolved over the last 30 years, and the seeming emphasis on the rights of the criminals over those of the community.

A remarkable sentiment considering how much lying and bullshitting Pierre Poilievre does, and how eagerly you believe literally everything he says. According to La Presse, after the French leader's debate....just as a recent example. There he was, still spinning his dumdum rhetoric about printing money, and about how it was all Carney telling Justin to do it. Everything about that is wrong/stupid, but he doesn't care, and you don't know any better. so you believe him because you want to.

The Ottawa Senators were founded in 1992. Avril Lavigne was married to Chad Kroeger ==== We Canadians get along. 🫠

So...you're suggesting that I made up a mathematical formula? It's from the same place as before. You made me look up how to embed PDF hyperlinks though, so I guess I learned something from interacting with your belligerent stupidity, for once: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf No, muppet. That's the number you use to capture 95% of a normal distribution, or a large polling sample like this. I suspect I know where you got that 97.5 number though, in your desperate interweb search: Way to prove (once again) you're a complete assclown. The formula I cited was for one poll. Since the z-score (1.96) is a constant in this equation. Saying I "calculated it wrong" is probably one the single stupidest things you could have possibly said, but I salute your dedication to the clownish arts. Regardless, while I've been posting how the math works, and you've been squirming around making shit up, you still refuse to answer a pretty simple question that highlights the painfully obvious error in your logic: What happens if you add +/- the margin of error to the PPC's polling support? Are they between 3.6% and -1.8% support? 🤣

Who are you talking to here? Why are you answering yourself? 🤔 The question isn't the margin of error on the whole poll, but rather the margin of error on the difference between two answers (Liberal and Conservative vote percentage). This is the formula you'd use to figure that out: For the Nanos poll you quoted at the start, the answer's ~3.8%. If the Liberals and Conservatives were within that margin for that poll, you could say it's not a statistically significant lead. For a two party race, P1+P2 would = 100% of the vote, which would yield an answer of 5.3% (roughly twice their margin of error). This doesn't work for our election, however, because the Liberals and Conservatives aren't getting 100% of the vote, or even close to that. Let me know if you need a walkthrough, but I'm sure you'll totally figure it out, genius that you are. After all, you've uncovered the secrets of 100-50...🤡👌 (As an added bonus for you, today's Nanos Poll is showing a statistically insignificant lead for the Liberals. Rejoice!)

I quoted a university professor's paper on how margins of error works on polls with more than two parties. You quoted PEW research talking about a two-party poll. Which sort of election does Canada have? I appreciate how reliably you project your fragility onto others - like clockwork! 😆👌

This, folks, is what we call delusional coping. Behold it in all its glory.

You posted how it works on a binary poll with only two options, which this election isn't. Good job, donkey! 🙃 Answer the question: Give me the range of likely probabilities for the PPC's 0.9%, + or minus a 2.7% margin of error. Are they in a "statistical tie" with the Greens and the Bloc? According to your "definition", they are! 🤣 Except they're not, because we aren't a two-horse race with only two candidates, we have numerous other parties pulling significant portions of the vote, and thus cannot just slap the margin of error uniformly across every party. Often pollsters, journalists and political scientists calculate this as twice the reported margin of error of the poll. ... While this is the correct conclusion when there are only two possible survey responses, it is not correct when there are more than two possible responses, which is in fact virtually always the case. How much difference this makes depends on how many responses are outside the two categories of interest. ... Whenever we compare proportions of candidate support within a single survey, this is the formula we should use. For low amounts of undecided or third party support the results will be close to the “twice the margin of error” formula, but the correct margin of error will be less than this as the proportion of “other” responses increases.

It is, and your "detailed explanations" are nothing more than your typical useless ranting and bloviating - telling us how you need things to be so as not to look like an assclown, rather than how it actually is. Why's that? Because it doesn't work with the reality you're manifesting for yourself? Do we not have more than two parties, and are those additional parties not eating up a sizeable chunk of the vote? That's the thing. It's not about "either party". It's about all the parties. You can't just slap +/- 2.7% on to the polled numbers, which should be pretty clear just by trying to do so with the PPC. Quick! Give me the range of likely probabilities for the PPC's 0.9%, + or minus a 2.7% margin of error. Are they in a "statistical tie" with the Greens and the Bloc? I'll wait for your answer...🙄

I would call it rather explicit and outright lies promoting the narrative and propaganda of Vladimir Putin - because that's what Trump has been doing! I'll tell you what - we've contributed a higher % of our GDP than the USA, AND we haven't had a buffoonish lying asshat leader who promotes Russian propaganda. 🤡

True enough, or our companies get outvisioned and outcompeted by foreign rivals...in certain other cases. 😆 Either way nobody is saying any of it is Trump's fault.

Yeah those kept coming up during the Leafs game. Seems like the Conservatives are finally acknowledging him as the liability he is, and put him in the candidate protection program. 😐

Ah, so when Vladimir Putin sent his little green men over the border, and eventually invaded altogether, it was all to protect those with Russian heritage? Speaking of Nazis: Oh yeah, such restraint: