Canadian Political Polls

punked · July 9, 2009

In third place or lower.

Seems like some parties bend and sway with the wind. Support EI reform one second sell it out the next depending on the poll of the day. I will stick with the progressive party that wants to move forward even if we only hold our seat total.

jdobbin · July 9, 2009

Latest Ekos poll:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...943732020090709

A weekly Ekos survey put the Liberals at 32.2 percent support, unchanged from last week while the Conservatives edged up to 31.8 percent from 31.0 percent. Ekos considers the standings to be a tie due to the margin of error.
The left-leaning New Democratic Party was at 16.0 percent, down slightly from 16.2 percent.

I expect the Tories will continue rising through the summer barring any major incidents.

punked · July 9, 2009

The AR poll has the Cons with a real lead this time.

Cons 36% (32%)

Libs 30% (31%)

NDP 16% (18%)

Greens 7% (7%)

Iggy is really slipping and I expect with the IMF predicting Canada's economy to grow twice as fast as America's in the next year with 1.6% growth that the Cons will extend their lead through the summer as Iggy loses hold of the Center he has no moved for the Left vote like Dion did and that might be a good call. He is clearly eating some of the moderate NDP vote but not enough to cost a lot of seats.

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads....09_PoliEco.pdf

Edited July 9, 2009 by punked

jdobbin · July 9, 2009

Iggy is really slipping and I expect with the IMF predicting Canada's economy to grow twice as fast as America's in the next year with 1.6% growth that the Cons will extend their lead through the summer as Iggy loses hold of the Center he has no moved for the Left vote like Dion did and that might be a good call. He is clearly eating some of the moderate NDP vote but not enough to cost a lot of seats.

As I said, I expect the Tories to go up all summer and then Harper will likely consider calling a snap election and blaming the Opposition for it.

punked · July 9, 2009

As I said, I expect the Tories to go up all summer and then Harper will likely consider calling a snap election and blaming the Opposition for it.

I agree I don't know what the Liberals can do. Harper is pulling funding out of their riddings like Geoff Reagans lost 15 million just yesterday, and is putting into Conservative and NDP riddings. I expect this too happen all summer. He is really going after them.

punked · July 10, 2009

The new SC poll shows the liberals falling as well.

http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_new...tionaudited.pdf

jdobbin · July 10, 2009

The new SC poll shows the liberals falling as well.
http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_new...tionaudited.pdf

That is the old poll which was reported here.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=438359

punked · July 10, 2009

That is the old poll which was reported here.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=438359

My bad

Jerry J. Fortin · July 10, 2009

Iggy will be the next PM, bank on it.

Harper now has all summer to burn bridges. BY the time any election arrives Harper will be done like dinner.

ba1614 · July 10, 2009

Iggy will be the next PM, bank on it.
Harper now has all summer to burn bridges. BY the time any election arrives Harper will be done like dinner.

Does it really matter? I don't think too many people with their feet planted in reality see much difference between any of the mainstream parties, unfortunately.

IMO a significant factor in the pathetic voter turnouts over the past decade.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 10, 2009

Does it really matter? I don't think too many people with their feet planted in reality see much difference between any of the mainstream parties, unfortunately.
IMO a significant factor in the pathetic voter turnouts over the past decade.

You are very right. Yet in the upper ends of society, these things make and break fortunes.

ba1614 · July 10, 2009

You are very right. Yet in the upper ends of society, these things make and break fortunes.

Agreed, and therein lies the root problem with our political system.

myata · July 10, 2009

It'll take time but people will come to realize that we can't live by the rules made 200 years back, when people used horses and carts, and there was no telephone, forever. If we won't die out of old age marasmus before then, that is.

Smallc · July 10, 2009

We aren't governed by rules made 200 years back. The best thing about our form of government is that it changes as needed. That doesn't mean change in a way that you think is needed either.

myata · July 10, 2009

I'm only talking about the time when all voters would have meaningful choice according to their actual preferences, unlike Iggy or Harper or nothing that we have now. If we only stop playing the game, and ignore it till voter participations drops below any meaningful levels, the elite would have no choice but to act. Till then we can as well all go to sleep, one of the two would win, and things will always be the same, because they're becoming like identical clones of each other (looks and rhetorics aside).

Edited July 10, 2009 by myata

Smallc · July 10, 2009

unlike Iggy or Harper or nothing that we have now.

There are only two ridings where people actually have that choice, and the two aren't running against eachother. We have a great deal of choice and a great deal of input. You want more, but I doubt that many care.

jdobbin · July 10, 2009

I'm only talking about the time when all voters would have meaningful choice according to their actual preferences, unlike Iggy or Harper or nothing that we have now. If we only stop playing the game, and ignore it till voter participations drops below any meaningful levels, the elite would have no choice but to act. Till then we can as well all go to sleep, one of the two would win, and things will always be the same, because they're becoming like identical clones of each other (looks and rhetorics aside).

So, don't vote. Or do. That has always been your choice.

It is you who believes it is meaningless. Changing the system doesn't guarantee high voter participation. Israel had 65% voter participation in 2009. That is about what Canada had in 2006. It dropped to 58% last election probably more due to voter fatigue and the belief among many that an election was not needed.

Shakeyhands · July 11, 2009

can't wait to see what Harpers announcement the reversal time line for deficiets is going to do to him in the polls. Amazing how he couldn't admit this while parliament was still sitting... he's as good as toast come fall.

capricorn · July 11, 2009

Deleted. Punked has already posted this poll.

Edited July 11, 2009 by capricorn

myata · July 11, 2009

We have a great deal of choice and a great deal of input.

I only want a real, meaningful choice, not that junior kindergarten thing "Oh, Johnny, you can have Iggy or you can have Harper, but I'm afraid not much else" we have now. And only our action, concious decision to not participate in the circus that will eventually bring about the change.

but I doubt that many care.

Indeed, I already commented on the other possibility.

Edited July 11, 2009 by myata

jdobbin · July 11, 2009

I only want a real, meaningful choice, not that junior kindergarten thing "Oh, Johnny, you can have Iggy or you can have Harper, but I'm afraid not much else" we have now. And only our action, concious decision to not participate in the circus that will eventually bring about the change.

Your disengagement policy is not likely to bring the constitutional change you want or make your views any less politically palatable.

Your decision not to participate isn't going to force the two largest parties to try and accommodate you.

Molly · July 11, 2009

I only want a real, meaningful choice, not that junior kindergarten thing "Oh, Johnny, you can have Iggy or you can have Harper, but I'm afraid not much else" we have now. And only our action, concious decision to not participate in the circus that will eventually bring about the change.
Indeed, I already commented on the other possibility.

This is an attitude that annoys me no end. If you want greater, and more nuanced influence than you currently exercize, there's plenty of room to go get it... but it takes the investment of time and effort and thought.

If nuance is your bag, then start by evaluating your own representative, voting based on local worth-- and if your rep is found wanting, by seeking out someone more worthy.

If you are too damned lazy to work within the system as it is, even so far as exercizing more than kindergarten nuance in the marking of the X you have, then why should we give a rip about your whines that the system doesn't offer you effortless additional nuance- enhanced influence?

Edited July 11, 2009 by Molly

myata · July 11, 2009

This is an attitude that annoys me no end. If you want greater, and more nuanced influence than you currently exercize, there's plenty of room to go get it... but it takes the investment of time and effort and thought.
If nuance is your bag, then start by evaluating your own representative, voting based on local worth-- and if your rep is found wanting, by seeking out someone more worthy.

Really? And where would the "nuancing" go, once you get your rep elected in the House? I'll tell you. In the basket, under the table of the party whip. She/he would do as the leader/exec committee/whip commands, or be expelled from the caucus. There you go, for all the nuancing.

The party politics is here to stay. The only question is, would there be exactly two preappointed for us parties, or any party of our choosing? The most efficient way to achieve the change is to stop playing the game. This is not a "disengagement", Dobbin, but another concious peaceful and democratic strategy, except is falls outside the lines you (i.e. your mainstream parties) set for us 150 years back, if so, sorry, but can't be helped.

Smallc · July 11, 2009

The only question is, would there be exactly two preappointed for us parties, or any party of our choosing?

Like I told someone last time, I had 6 choices on my ballot last time, and 5 of them were party affiliated. It seems that the Canadian people don't want to vote for the other parties.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Smallc

jdobbin · July 11, 2009

If you are too damned lazy to work within the system as it is, even so far as exercizing more than kindergarten nuance in the marking of the X you have, then why should we give a rip about your whines that the system doesn't offer you effortless additional nuance- enhanced influence?

I have been pointing out the childish behaviour of withdrawing and disengaging elsewhere to this poster.