Canadian Political Polls

[nicky10013]

You want to see excitable? Check out the Liberal blogs. Right after that poll was published, there were predictions of a Liberal majority.

BTW, looking at your avatar, with the hair on fire? That's exactly how I picture you sitting at your computer while you post.

Bahahahahaha. Is this the blog you were talking about?

Liberal Majority

Ignatieff said yesterday that he is convinced that whenever an election arises, Canadians, by a majority will choose to come back to the Liberal party, or as he calls it, the "big red tent." After seeing him perform during the summer, I believe he can get a government. What I'm less sure of is if a majority is possible. In Canada, with support being divided between the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green, we might not be seeing another majority for a long time. Parties will have to learn how to cooperate, like in the U.K. There can't be any more Stephen Harper bullying tactics. I am expecting more coalitions negotiated after elections.

BADDECK, N.S. — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Wednesday he's out to earn a majority government in the next election and is pitching his party — the big red tent — as the clear alternative to Stephen Harper's "politics of meanness."

The Liberal leader, who spent most of his summer on an election-style tour, said he is trying to gain voters' trust and that it's a work in progress to persuade Canadians to ditch their party allegiances and support the Liberals instead.

Gee, that's a strong prediction indeed.

[capricorn]

Bahahahahaha. Is this the blog you were talking about?

Bahahahahaha right back at you. Do you have a link?

[nicky10013]

Bahahahahaha right back at you. Do you have a link?

I fail to grasp the reason why you would need one since I posted the entire blog. Furthermore, why should I be posting the link? You're the one who made the accuastion. Where did this blog come from? Where is your link?

None-the-less, here it is.

http://the-happy-wanderer.blogspot.com/2010/09/liberal-majority.html

Edited September 4, 2010 by nicky10013

[capricorn]

I fail to grasp the reason why you would need one since I posted the entire blog.

It's normal practice to provide a link to what you're quoting.

Furthermore, why should I be posting the link? You're the one who made the accuastion. Where did this blog come from? Where is your link?

What accusation? That the Liberals were buoyed by the poll and there were discussions on Liberal blogs of a Liberal majority? I will not go back to pour over http://liblogs.ca/ and http://liberalsonline.feedcluster.com/ to provide you those links. I read those blogs every day and there are too many posts and too many comments to revisit. I would have thought you read those blogs but I guess I am mistaken.

None-the-less, here it is.

Thanks.

[nicky10013]

What accusation? That the Liberals were buoyed by the poll and there were discussions on Liberal blogs of a Liberal majority? I will not go back to pour over http://liblogs.ca/ and http://liberalsonline.feedcluster.com/ to provide you those links. I read those blogs every day and there are too many posts and too many comments to revisit. I would have thought you read those blogs but I guess I am mistaken.

Uhhh, here's the accusation.

You want to see excitable? Check out the Liberal blogs. Right after that poll was published, there were predictions of a Liberal majority.

In other words, it didn't happen and you're making false accusations.

Edited September 4, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wild Bill]

Wow. The CPC loses almost 10 points none of which they've been able to gain back and you have them PICKING UP SEATS?

I think the general comment here is that, you're right, movement doesn't happen until the writ has been dropped. However, the stastical trend, not even from just the summer, but from the last prorgation has been that there has been a general ceiling on Conservative support. They haven't been able to crack 32% in any meaningful way. Most of the support hasn't gone to any party, rather, they've sat in the undecided column. It hasn't flowed into the Liberal Party, but is that a rejection of the party? No, I think that's a reflection that the platform hasn't been released yet and there are few policies on which to judge them. That will absolutely 100% change, especially during the election period. Since it hasn't reverted to normal, unless there's an absolute disaster on the campaign trail, I doubt any of those undecideds will end up voting CPC.

So, what do you have? You have a CPC with a ceiling of votes and a Liberal Party that's tied with them that's upwardly mobile. Considering that the Liberals pulled off the summer tour essentially without a hitch, I don't see the campaign being a problem. Indeed, the debates will be incredibly interesting to watch. Really, given all the statistical trends, the newspaper reports, the editorials, the gaffes, the fact that Harper wasn't likeably to begin with, things really are not looking good for the CPC right now.

How many is a couple? 2-3 max, to most folks. I stand by it because many ridings were close wins and it won't take much of an incumbent bounce to give them to the CPC.

As for the liberals, I really think you are placing too much hope about the release of their platform. First of all, Liberal platforms have ALWAYS been more "sizzle" than "steak"! Besides, I don't believe that most voters study platforms that closely. Only political weenies like us do that!

I mean, you make a big deal out of Ignatieff's bus tour. If you did a "man on the street" type poll I doubt if you'd find very man folks who even knew he went! As I said, the average Canadian just doesn't care.

I would class ALL the points you made about the Liberals as "political weenie" stuff!

Our electorate is like a huge ocean liner with a 2 square foot rudder! It can take forever to get the ship to change course. As I had said earlier, a scandal or one big issue seizing the mind of the public can do it but that's not likely. Party handlers are just too careful to let that happen, unless they're very inexperienced like those who worked for Stephane Dion. So far neither Harper or Ignatieff has shown any real guts in taking a stand on a hot button issue. They seem very careful to walk down the middle of the road.

The big majorities and political upsets have come from leaders who seized what was truly popular and not what was "safe". Trudeau tweaked his nose at the entire political establishment. Mulroney appeared as a rebel who would shake up Ottawa and knock off the Liberal "fat cats". Harris saw that the average Ontarioan saw government as a bunch of politically correct power hungry types who wasted our tax money and ignored our problems. By adopting the persona of the common man who would "damn the torpedoes" and actually do what he promised he rode a wave of anti-establishment feeling!

You don't seem to understand that the average man doesn't understand politics and he doesn't trust politicians anyway, Nicky! It may not be fair but I'm sure that "Joe Lunchbucket" would be surprised if he was told the CPC stole taxpayers money, even if he didn't like them anyway! However, AdScam was not that long ago. Tell him the LIBERALS stole money and he might get angry but NOT surprised! Once you've broken a trust it can take a LONG time to regain it! If you break it again you'll be crucified for generations. I'm sure that even though he's a provincial Liberal their federal party is not to happy about Charest's latest scandal.

Neither Harper or Ignatieff is a Trudeau, Mulroney or Harris! They don't inspire a parade - they find one to jump in front! Still, it's very early yet and anything can happen. I just think that you are putting too much stock in things that really only reassure the party faithful and not voters at large.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Wild Bill

[waldo]

I just think that you are putting too much stock in things that really only reassure the party faithful and not voters at large.

and... you managed to throw in Adscam to boot! As much as any poll is meaningful/meaningless... as much as this latest poll is meaningful/meaningless... those polled are/were, as you say, "voters at large".

[capricorn]

Uhhh, here's the accusation.

If you think what I said is an accusation, you're pretty thin skinned.

Definition of ACCUSATION

1: the act of accusing : the state or fact of being accused

2: a charge of wrongdoing

In other words, it didn't happen and you're making false accusations.

You post a link that supports what I said and you maintain it didn't happen? OK then.

[waldo]

You post a link that supports what I said and you maintain it didn't happen? OK then.

it's only a few posts back... it shouldn't be that difficult for you to follow. You claimed 'Liberal blogs' were predicting a majority... nicky10013 provided you a link that commented:

What I'm less sure of is if a majority is possible. In Canada, with support being divided between the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green, we might not be seeing another majority for a long time.

and this is what you suggest "supports" what you said about predicting a majority??? Of course, you could actually substantiate your prediction statement... by actually linking/quoting from one of the 'Liberal blogs' where you claimed a 'jump for joy' was predicting a majority. You could do that - right?

[capricorn]

You claimed 'Liberal blogs' were predicting a majority...

No. This is what I said.

You want to see excitable? Check out the Liberal blogs. Right after that poll was published, there were predictions of a Liberal majority.

Of course, you could actually substantiate your prediction statement... by actually linking/quoting from one of the 'Liberal blogs' where you claimed a 'jump for joy' was predicting a majority. You could do that - right?

There you with your "dog with a bone" act again.

[waldo]

You claimed 'Liberal blogs' were predicting a majority...

No. This is what I said.

Check out the Liberal blogs. Right after that poll was published, there were predictions of a Liberal majority.

you're suggesting to check out the Liberal blogs... where there were predictions of a Liberal majority

There you with your "dog with a bone" act again.

and your attempts to bury the bone are belied by your own words - you know, by what you said.

[punked]

Says what evidence?

Says the polls you look at Ekos and other pollsters that prompt the Greens get numbers 3 to four times higher then those who don't prompt. Are you telling me Green Party supports are so dumb they can't name the party when asked which party they are going to vote for unless it is read off? I don't think so, I think it is vote parking when the telephone doesn't let you pick other. End of story their numbers are grossly over stated and inflated.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but on the ballot, the Green Party will be listed.....meaning the voters will be prompted. I know it's a scary thought for a New Democrat.

[punked]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but on the ballot, the Green Party will be listed.....meaning the voters will be prompted. I know it's a scary thought for a New Democrat.

You have to get voters who are to dumb to actually name the party they "support" unless it is listed to them to the polls before they can be prompted. Voting isn't as easy as getting a telephone call you actually have to go and only 55% do. I would think the vast majorty of the other 45% are made up of people who can't even name a party unless given a list. Wouldn't you?

Remember EKOS had the greens at 12% before the last election what did they get again 6%? That is terrible polling, you know why it is because they prompted.

Edited September 4, 2010 by punked

[nicky10013]

How many is a couple? 2-3 max, to most folks. I stand by it because many ridings were close wins and it won't take much of an incumbent bounce to give them to the CPC.

As for the liberals, I really think you are placing too much hope about the release of their platform. First of all, Liberal platforms have ALWAYS been more "sizzle" than "steak"! Besides, I don't believe that most voters study platforms that closely. Only political weenies like us do that!

I mean, you make a big deal out of Ignatieff's bus tour. If you did a "man on the street" type poll I doubt if you'd find very man folks who even knew he went! As I said, the average Canadian just doesn't care.

I would class ALL the points you made about the Liberals as "political weenie" stuff!

Our electorate is like a huge ocean liner with a 2 square foot rudder! It can take forever to get the ship to change course. As I had said earlier, a scandal or one big issue seizing the mind of the public can do it but that's not likely. Party handlers are just too careful to let that happen, unless they're very inexperienced like those who worked for Stephane Dion. So far neither Harper or Ignatieff has shown any real guts in taking a stand on a hot button issue. They seem very careful to walk down the middle of the road.

The big majorities and political upsets have come from leaders who seized what was truly popular and not what was "safe". Trudeau tweaked his nose at the entire political establishment. Mulroney appeared as a rebel who would shake up Ottawa and knock off the Liberal "fat cats". Harris saw that the average Ontarioan saw government as a bunch of politically correct power hungry types who wasted our tax money and ignored our problems. By adopting the persona of the common man who would "damn the torpedoes" and actually do what he promised he rode a wave of anti-establishment feeling!

You don't seem to understand that the average man doesn't understand politics and he doesn't trust politicians anyway, Nicky! It may not be fair but I'm sure that "Joe Lunchbucket" would be surprised if he was told the CPC stole taxpayers money, even if he didn't like them anyway! However, AdScam was not that long ago. Tell him the LIBERALS stole money and he might get angry but NOT surprised! Once you've broken a trust it can take a LONG time to regain it! If you break it again you'll be crucified for generations. I'm sure that even though he's a provincial Liberal their federal party is not to happy about Charest's latest scandal.

Neither Harper or Ignatieff is a Trudeau, Mulroney or Harris! They don't inspire a parade - they find one to jump in front! Still, it's very early yet and anything can happen. I just think that you are putting too much stock in things that really only reassure the party faithful and not voters at large.

Like with most of your posts, most of this is garbage. Most people who vote know the general basics of what's going on. When the Canadian voter is treated like they're stupid, like the CPC has been doing for the last 2 years, they get angry, which is why Harper can't crack 32%. There's a genuine dislike of what he's doing and the manner in which he's doing it. The polls bare this out.

No, neither candidate is a Trudeau, but then again, I never claimed there was going to be a majority in the first place.

[Wild Bill]

Like with most of your posts, most of this is garbage. Most people who vote know the general basics of what's going on. When the Canadian voter is treated like they're stupid, like the CPC has been doing for the last 2 years, they get angry, which is why Harper can't crack 32%. There's a genuine dislike of what he's doing and the manner in which he's doing it. The polls bare this out.

No, neither candidate is a Trudeau, but then again, I never claimed there was going to be a majority in the first place.

Sorry if I upset you enough to make you start insulting me. I get that a lot from Liberal supporters. I think it just has something to do with their typical level of courtesy.

As for your posts, despite the fact that we obviously disagree I see no need to insult you for your POV. We only have to wait and see what happens. Perhaps time will show us who has the most realistic picture of how things work out. If you prove out right, then good for you!

[nicky10013]

Sorry if I upset you enough to make you start insulting me. I get that a lot from Liberal supporters. I think it just has something to do with their typical level of courtesy.

As for your posts, despite the fact that we obviously disagree I see no need to insult you for your POV. We only have to wait and see what happens. Perhaps time will show us who has the most realistic picture of how things work out. If you prove out right, then good for you!

I didn't insult you. I just called what you wrote what it is.

[Wild Bill]

I didn't insult you. I just called what you wrote what it is.

Yes, you did! You referred to "Like with most of your posts, most of this is garbage." You did not just say that my particular take on your argument was garbage, you said that most of my posts contain mostly garbage!

You are insulting my reasoning and logic, in an ad hominem manner. We obviously disagree on how we think the mainstream electorate thinks and reacts. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I would brand not just your present argument but ALMOST ALL of your previous posts as garbage!

You were rude and arrogant, Nicky. That cheapens your arguments. Do not turn to the "Dark Side" or you will end up like CR!

[nicky10013]

Yes, you did! You referred to "Like with most of your posts, most of this is garbage." You did not just say that my particular take on your argument was garbage, you said that most of my posts contain mostly garbage!

You are insulting my reasoning and logic, in an ad hominem manner. We obviously disagree on how we think the mainstream electorate thinks and reacts. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I would brand not just your present argument but ALMOST ALL of your previous posts as garbage!

You were rude and arrogant, Nicky. That cheapens your arguments. Do not turn to the "Dark Side" or you will end up like CR!

Well, they are. Most of the stuff you post is an attempt to sum up your own personal biases into factual statements.

IE: You take some random thoughts from the Conservative movement and all of a sudden the generalization of an entire movement to justify your belief that the CPC will increase their vote. A year ago, if you would've said the statistical trend goes against the Liberals, I would've agreed with you. That's not the argument you're making though. In fact, you're not making an argument at all, just an opinion not backed by any kind of fact. Opinion's without facts, in my opinion, are completely spurious.

[Smallc]

Well, they are. Most of the stuff you post is an attempt to sum up your own personal biases into factual statements.

I can certainly second that.

[Wild Bill]

Well, they are. Most of the stuff you post is an attempt to sum up your own personal biases into factual statements.

IE: You take some random thoughts from the Conservative movement and all of a sudden the generalization of an entire movement to justify your belief that the CPC will increase their vote. A year ago, if you would've said the statistical trend goes against the Liberals, I would've agreed with you. That's not the argument you're making though. In fact, you're not making an argument at all, just an opinion not backed by any kind of fact. Opinion's without facts, in my opinion, are completely spurious.

What else is a prediction but an opinion? By definition, a prediction CANNOT be a fact unless and until it comes true!

Are you saying that your prediction of a big Liberal upsurge, based on your observations of mistakes on behalf of Harper and his party, is a fact? Or that your belief that release of some Liberal party platform will cause a miraculous surge in their fortunes is a fact?

Why is it that my opinions are unsubstantiated and your opinions are to be considered as gospels?

Again, arrogance. Unnecessarily rude as well. More worthy of "rubble.com" than MLW.

Also, the fact that you still refer to me as a Conservative tells me you really don't understand at all. I have voted Liberal before and could do so again, if they decided to act like real Liberals. Frankly, you seem blindly partisan to me.

Whatever, takes all kinds to make a world.

[nicky10013]

What else is a prediction but an opinion? By definition, a prediction CANNOT be a fact unless and until it comes true!

Are you saying that your prediction of a big Liberal upsurge, based on your observations of mistakes on behalf of Harper and his party, is a fact? Or that your belief that release of some Liberal party platform will cause a miraculous surge in their fortunes is a fact?

Why is it that my opinions are unsubstantiated and your opinions are to be considered as gospels?

Again, arrogance. Unnecessarily rude as well. More worthy of "rubble.com" than MLW.

Also, the fact that you still refer to me as a Conservative tells me you really don't understand at all. I have voted Liberal before and could do so again, if they decided to act like real Liberals. Frankly, you seem blindly partisan to me.

Whatever, takes all kinds to make a world.

At this moment, yeah, that's what everything indicates. Could it turn around? Sure, I never said it wouldn't. The point is, what I'm basing those predictions on, are indeed observable fact based on statistical trends and current political fortunes, both of which are fluid but over a period of time we can chart trends and make predicitions assuming a series of events.

Joe Lunchbucket and his thoughts, which, certain enough are your thoughts, is not a poll. Joe Lunchbucket aren't newspaper editorials. Joe Lunchbox isn't political performance. Joe Lunchbox is nothing tangible.

[Wild Bill]

At this moment, yeah, that's what everything indicates. Could it turn around? Sure, I never said it wouldn't. The point is, what I'm basing those predictions on, are indeed observable fact based on statistical trends and current political fortunes, both of which are fluid but over a period of time we can chart trends and make predicitions assuming a series of events.

Joe Lunchbucket and his thoughts, which, certain enough are your thoughts, is not a poll. Joe Lunchbucket aren't newspaper editorials. Joe Lunchbox isn't political performance. Joe Lunchbox is nothing tangible.

And I base my opinions on a long lifetime of personal observation and experience. I guess by your lights I wasted my time. All I had to do was to take my wishes and the results of some polls at a given point in time and presto! I would have all my answers!

Successful parties have long had people who can walk through a riding, talk to a few people in stores, coffee shops and parks and come up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of their level of voter support. I cannot give you a cite for their names but I can tell you that they exist. I have talked to some face to face. Although you no doubt will dismiss them as anecdotal (which seems to some folks to be a synonym for imaginary) if you take the trouble to ask party riding workers they will confirm that such people DO exist and their "opinions" are considered valuable!

Joe Lunchbucket exists! In large numbers! He is an allegory for the mainstream electorate. It is his votes that add up and determine a party's fortunes at the polls.

If you dismiss him so easily I sincerely hope that you be given a powerful position as a campaign advisor to any of the opposition parties.

[eyeball]

Our electorate is like a huge ocean liner with a 2 square foot rudder! It can take forever to get the ship to change course.

It's not that hard to steer a ship without a rudder, especially with a mass of humanity at your beck and call, I've done it myself. I had the steering gear malfunction on a boat I was driving once with 45 passengers on board. I just put the boat in gear and then ordered everybody to move from one side of the boat to the other.

To steer a government though you need a different approach...technocrats maybe...councils of elders...whatever...who could more or less follow what the crowd want's but take control if the crowd doesn't have a clue what's happening. Say everyone's on the starboard side thinking that's where the whale is going to surface but it suddenly surfaces on the port side. In rough seas I have to be ready to either speed up/slow down, tell everyone to just stay put or any combination of the above.

It probably helps that there's no democracy on a boat, but between the skipper counting on a little faith in people's common sense not to mention their reciprocal feelings towards the skipper...it works.

[nicky10013]

And I base my opinions on a long lifetime of personal observation and experience. I guess by your lights I wasted my time. All I had to do was to take my wishes and the results of some polls at a given point in time and presto! I would have all my answers!

Successful parties have long had people who can walk through a riding, talk to a few people in stores, coffee shops and parks and come up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of their level of voter support. I cannot give you a cite for their names but I can tell you that they exist. I have talked to some face to face. Although you no doubt will dismiss them as anecdotal (which seems to some folks to be a synonym for imaginary) if you take the trouble to ask party riding workers they will confirm that such people DO exist and their "opinions" are considered valuable!

Joe Lunchbucket exists! In large numbers! He is an allegory for the mainstream electorate. It is his votes that add up and determine a party's fortunes at the polls.

If you dismiss him so easily I sincerely hope that you be given a powerful position as a campaign advisor to any of the opposition parties.

Oh, Joe Lunchbox exists, however, he's only about 30% of the electorate if not a few percentage points less (hardly the mainstream electorate); The 30% of the electorate that Harper already has and will never lose because they fall into the same rhetoric of lower taxes and less government spending despite historical Conservative trends that show the exact opposite of what they promise. Majority governments are won and lost on the middle of the road electorate that are usually educated and who actually make decisions based on policy during the election period.