Canadian Political Polls

[normanchateau]

Remember,much of Canada does very nicely thanks to all the cash flowing out of right wing,hard working Alberta.We owe them big time.

Alberta's projected deficit is $4.3 billion for the 2009-2010 budget year ending in March, with billions more in red ink likely in 2010-11:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Tories+face+budget+balancing/2489199/story.html

Why do you suppose a province with such hard working folk is experiencing economic disaster?

Could it possibly have something to do with declining oil revenues rather than how hard Albertans work?

And when Alberta finally recovers, do you suppose that it might be a function of increasing oil revenues rather than how hard Albertans work?

[waldo]

My internet server is Sympatico. They have a survey everyday on their home page. Today they asked "If an election were held today which party would you vote for?"

Now I know this is an unscientific poll. I'm just confused as to how it can be so different from EKOS and the others!

Does Sympatico only serve Conservative areas of the country? These figures sure don't jive with the official word for Ontario having the CPC and LPC running neck and neck.

EKOS only used 3 thousand people. Where the hell does Sympatico get their 12,654 and (climbing!) folks and where do they live?

ya see... this here interweeb thingee allows all manner of websights to skew the results of any online poll - simply have the Blogging Tories link to that poll and ask it's 'readership' to "make it so"... voila! That's how that unscientific poll differs from polling done by so-called legitimate pollsters.

[madmax]

The figures so far are :

51% Conservatives

25% Liberal

9% NDP

It's only 9:30 am here and they show 12,654 votes counted.

Now I know this is an unscientific poll. I'm just confused as to how it can be so different from EKOS and the others!

Its different because it is an "unscientific Poll. We have now had 6 Polls in a row that have firmly indicated that Harper lead his party down the garden path.

Its different because you can easily stack deck.

I have more faith in the punters here and our polls as we have been pretty close to the actual result at the end of the day. However, I wouldn't compare the fun here to a real polster.

I recall when the Ontario By Elections were held and an "Unscientific Poll" ended up with more votes for Conservatives then there were votes available in the riding. John Tory went on to lose big.

I have more interest in questioning the methodology of the polsters. The best discussion on those methods I have found on babble where a former employee of a polling firm explains the hows, whys, if and or butts that we have about these polls.

[Wild Bill]

ya see... this here interweeb thingee allows all manner of websights to skew the results of any online poll - simply have the Blogging Tories link to that poll and ask it's 'readership' to "make it so"... voila! That's how that unscientific poll differs from polling done by so-called legitimate pollsters.

I see. Well then, wouldn't that make the Facebook perogies protest that claimed over 200,000 members a similar sort of "thingie"?

[waldo]

I see. Well then, wouldn't that make the Facebook perogies protest that claimed over 200,000 members a similar sort of "thingie"?

let's see: in one case you might have websites actively directly readers to an online poll with intentions to skew the results of the poll to a favoured result. Happens all the time - most online polls don't even prevent multiple voting simply based on same IP (and cookie retention). In the other case, in the Facebook perogy group case, my understanding is it was principally grown via the traditional social networking means... friends inviting friends. Of course, all the media play certainly factored in bringing notice to the group and driving new membership. Is that a similar type skewing? In any case, you were asking for comment/input on how the particular poll you highlighted could be so different from the results realized by the professional polling companies.

FWIW: seems the Facebook Perogy group has settled in around the 222,000 number. I read that the pro-perogy group has actually changed it's name and now calls itself the, "I SUPPORT the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper" Facebook group. Apparently the name change hasn't helped group members as they still sit at around 1100. Oh my... am I skewing it's results by linking to it?

[capricorn]

FWIW: seems the Facebook Perogy group has settled in around the 222,000 number. I read that the pro-perogy group has actually changed it's name and now calls itself the, "I SUPPORT the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper" Facebook group. Apparently the name change hasn't helped group members as they still sit at around 1100. Oh my... am I skewing it's results by linking to it?

Anti-perogies sign online petitions, which are free. Harper and Conservative supporters sent cash.

Now, to put things in perspective, the Conservatives did raise $4.87M from just over 40,000 donors. It might be their worst fourth quarter since 2004, but it's nothing to sneeze at in a recession, and nearly meets the amount raised in 2007. The party's overall take for the year rings in at $17.7M, down from a record $21.2M in 2008, but it still represents a small increase over 2007 as well.

http://punditsguide.ca/2010/02/fourth-quarter-financial-results-what.php

[ToadBrother]

Anti-perogies sign online petitions, which are free. Harper and Conservative supporters sent cash.

And if dollars were votes, I'd be impressed.

[capricorn]

Speaking of dollars, we'll see the reaction of Canadians with the Liberals' plan to fight the deficit. So far, we have a tax increase floated by Gerard Kennedy and Ignatieff's revival the oft-promised but undelivered Liberal universal child care program.

Michael Ignatieff says a Liberal government would pour money into child care and early childhood education, no matter how deep a financial hole the Tories may have dug the country into by then.

The Liberal leader's promise Monday marked the clearest attempt yet at differentiating the Liberals from Stephen Harper's Conservatives when it comes to managing the country's finances.

The Tories are expected to launch a government-wide spending review in the upcoming March 4 budget aimed at eventually eliminating the $56 billion deficit racked up during the last year's global recession.

But Ignatieff rejected the Tories' contention that the massive deficit means the country can't afford new spending on social programs.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100201/ignatieff_child_care_100201/20100201?hub=QPeriod

Looks like the battle lines on deficit reduction have been set.

[nicky10013]

Speaking of dollars, we'll see the reaction of Canadians with the Liberals' plan to fight the deficit. So far, we have a tax increase floated by Gerard Kennedy and Ignatieff's revival the oft-promised but undelivered Liberal universal child care program.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100201/ignatieff_child_care_100201/20100201?hub=QPeriod

Looks like the battle lines on deficit reduction have been set.

Well, if we're going to be fair, the Liberals were kicked out of office before they could deliver.

[Alta4ever]

Well, if we're going to be fair, the Liberals were kicked out of office before they could deliver.

13 years wasn't long enough to deliver?

[Gabriel]

13 years wasn't long enough to deliver?

I didn't want to ask the question, but I was gonna respond with something very similar. I just didn't wanna be Captain Obvious.... cheers. :-)

[nicky10013]

13 years wasn't long enough to deliver?

It was Martin's plan, not Chretien. Martin had two. Hardly enough time to construct a national plan. Spin Spin Spin and no original ideas. Apparently that's all we get with you.

[Smallc]

Actually MArtin did deliver. It was the first thing that the Conservatives cancelled.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

And if dollars were votes, I'd be impressed.

You're right, TB. Dollars are not votes. Still, we can take them as a general indicator as to commitment. Not an absolute, but an indicator nonetheless.

Voter apathy appears to be much higher in the younger "facebook" demographic, for a variety of reasons. I deal with younger folks daily in my business of building and repairing guitar amplifiers and I am often shocked by how many have never yet bothered to vote!

Yet they are online virtually daily!

I don't know exactly why this is true but it sure appears to be. Perhaps it's the modern equivalent of how the over-40 demographic has always tended to vote more consistently, taking the trouble to get off their asses and go down to the polling station. I'll bet if you asked many of those younger folks that take part in Facebook and online polls that they have no idea of WHERE to find their polling stations!

I would think it just common sense that if someone will actually pony up cash they are much more likely to actually vote.

Everybody loves a party but how many are willing to fork out for the beer?

[Shakeyhands]

You're right, TB. Dollars are not votes. Still, we can take them as a general indicator as to commitment. Not an absolute, but an indicator nonetheless.

Yet they are online virtually daily!

I don't know exactly why this is true but it sure appears to be. Perhaps it's the modern equivalent of how the over-40 demographic has always tended to vote more consistently, taking the trouble to get off their asses and go down to the polling station. I'll bet if you asked many of those younger folks that take part in Facebook and online polls that they have no idea of WHERE to find their polling stations!

I would think it just common sense that if someone will actually pony up cash they are much more likely to actually vote.

Everybody loves a party but how many are willing to fork out for the beer?

Interesting, I've always been against online voting because of the chance of fraud (read: Diebold), but this brings up a good point, perhaps we should make that an option, especially given how many Canadians are online.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Shakeyhands

[Keepitsimple]

I don't know exactly why this is true but it sure appears to be. Perhaps it's the modern equivalent of how the over-40 demographic has always tended to vote more consistently, taking the trouble to get off their asses and go down to the polling station. I'll bet if you asked many of those younger folks that take part in Facebook and online polls that they have no idea of WHERE to find their polling stations!

I would think it just common sense that if someone will actually pony up cash they are much more likely to actually vote.

Everybody loves a party but how many are willing to fork out for the beer?

I think there are a few obvious reasons for young voter apathy - as generally compared to the supposedly more "mature" crowd. The older you get, the more in touch you become with government - healthcare, house taxes, taxes in general. Also, as you grow up, you tend to read the newspapers more - sometimes to start the day, sometimes to relax at the end of the day. When you're young - you're busy spending money, when you're older, you're trying to save it - RRSP's, pensions. When you're you're young, it's mostly about me, me, me. When marriage and family take over, it's about "us" and education, daycare, sports programs. All these things put you more in touch or more aware of government as you age. Again - all generalities and not the same for everyone.

[capricorn]

"I am not going to allow the deficit discussion to shut down discussion in this country about social justice," Ignatieff said. "We will find the money because it seems to me an excellent investment."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Child+care+tops+Liberal+social+agenda/2510912/story.html

A new poll suggests Canadians want the federal government to turn back the spending taps starting next year.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicates a slim majority - 51 per cent - believe the federal government should continue spending this year to create jobs and stimulate the still-sluggish economy.

But beyond 2010, 62 per cent of respondents said they believed the government's priority should switch to controlling spending in a effort to eliminate the federal deficit, projected to hit a record $56 billion this fiscal year.

The survey results appear to mesh with the Harper government's plan for the March 4 budget, which will implement the second year of the Conservatives' economic stimulus plan even as it launches a spending review aimed at reining in costs the following year.

However, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff might be bucking public sentiment with his promise to pour money into child care and early-childhood education, no matter how deep the deficit, should he become prime minister.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hekpWKkJQOQHtKEVyEDL5P2g1i-g

It's all good that Ignatieff is rolling out a Liberal vision for the country. Considering his decisive tone when he announced that universal child care is (again) a Liberal priority, he seems confident that his ideas will receive the blessing of Liberal delegates at their thinkers conference next month.

He may be able to convince the party faithful to adopt his road map but it's quite another thing to sell the public on a plan that is sure to cost the treasury billions.

[ToadBrother]

It's all good that Ignatieff is rolling out a Liberal vision for the country. Considering his decisive tone when he announced that universal child care is (again) a Liberal priority, he seems confident that his ideas will receive the blessing of Liberal delegates at their thinkers conference next month.

He may be able to convince the party faithful to adopt his road map but it's quite another thing to sell the public on a plan that is sure to cost the treasury billions.

It certainly didn't seem difficult to convince the public that several billion dollars in pot hole filling money was worth it.

[ToadBrother]

You're right, TB. Dollars are not votes. Still, we can take them as a general indicator as to commitment. Not an absolute, but an indicator nonetheless.

I don't know of what. It's not like the Tories winning the fundraising race every year for the last four or five years has delivered them a majority government. In fact, despite the vast successes, the polls are now showing a very disturbing trend for the Tories in Ontario.

Never confuse donations for votes.

Voter apathy appears to be much higher in the younger "facebook" demographic, for a variety of reasons. I deal with younger folks daily in my business of building and repairing guitar amplifiers and I am often shocked by how many have never yet bothered to vote!

Yet they are online virtually daily!

Being online doesn't mean doing anything useful online.

I don't know exactly why this is true but it sure appears to be. Perhaps it's the modern equivalent of how the over-40 demographic has always tended to vote more consistently, taking the trouble to get off their asses and go down to the polling station. I'll bet if you asked many of those younger folks that take part in Facebook and online polls that they have no idea of WHERE to find their polling stations!

I would think it just common sense that if someone will actually pony up cash they are much more likely to actually vote.

Everybody loves a party but how many are willing to fork out for the beer?

I wouldn't be so worried about the young people not voting, but the falling voter turnout numbers suggest that even in demographics that historically tend to be more politically plugged in, apathy has set in.

[ToadBrother]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100201/ignatieff_child_care_100201/20100201?hub=QPeriod

Looks like the battle lines on deficit reduction have been set.

Good luck to the Tories. I cannot imagine a worse position to be in when trying to tame the deficit than in a minority government. Is it even possible in the current climate? With the potential for an election at any time, the last thing I'd want to be is an incumbent government that has to campaign on "we're reducing services and programs just when you need them the most! Vote for us, the party of heartless skinflints!"

This is why, in the middle of an economic downturn, it's much preferable to be the Opposition (even though the Opposition is as much responsible for the vast spending last year as the Government, but voters will never make that connection).

Edited February 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Wild Bill]

I don't know of what. It's not like the Tories winning the fundraising race every year for the last four or five years has delivered them a majority government. In fact, despite the vast successes, the polls are now showing a very disturbing trend for the Tories in Ontario.

Never confuse donations for votes.

I didn't think I was confusing them! Someone who sends cash may be a committed voter, but you can only count him for himself. A lot of donations means a lot of committed votes. What has this to do with getting more votes than the number of donations?

Obviously, you mistook my point. The success of the Tories at fundraising only shows a highly loyal and committed core. The NDP also has a highly loyal and committed core. It's just smaller and they don't seem to give the party any money.

It may well be that the Tories have locked up the demographic that is willing to "put it's money where it's mouth is!" If that's so, then it CAN'T grow any larger! That leaves the much larger demographic of people that are willing to vote but not to give donations.

I find it interesting that the NDP, BQ and Liberals would rather get government money instead of working at individual fundraising. Leaving aside the idea of giving a welfare of $1.95 per vote, it can't help but be a point of pride for the Tories to have so much money freely given by their supporters. The fact that the other parties can't claim the same makes it look like they don't have the same level of popular support from people who work for a living. After all this time you would think that the Opposition parties would have done a better job with their fundraising. Surely they have supporters who are just as committed as the Tories! I suspect it's just that they haven't properly put the effort into building the party fundraising machinery.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Wild Bill

[capricorn]

It certainly didn't seem difficult to convince the public that several billion dollars in pot hole filling money was worth it.

We never got to vote on stimulus spending. Our MPs did it for us and they voted in favour 211 to 91. Once it was understood that a budget structured around stimulus spending was in line with the global response to a global recession, the majority of Canadians grudgingly went along. Universal child care as proposed by the Liberals will probably be an election issue and will not form part of any budget unless the Liberals win government. The difference is that we will have our say on the matter in an election that will most certainly showcase the Liberal child care plan.

[capricorn]

Oh, and BTW Toad, I fully agree with your other post on the pitfalls of being in government in the face of a humongous deficit.

[Alta4ever]

It was Martin's plan, not Chretien. Martin had two. Hardly enough time to construct a national plan. Spin Spin Spin and no original ideas. Apparently that's all we get with you.

Funny the National Daycare program is listed in the 1993 Liberal Red Book.

[madmax]

Funny the National Daycare program is listed in the 1993 Liberal Red Book.