Coalition Government

[Keepitsimple]

reporting a non-story?

oh wait... torstar... just for you Simple!

Thank you Waldo - that's a perfect example. You found the only mention of the Graves scandle - buried in the middle of James Travers column......2 weeks after the story actually hit the airwaves. Not one story in the news section.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

like I said, Simple... a non-story! Apparently, you have concerns that the Star didn't play up your non-story. News flash - film at 11!!! Conservative partisans "hate" the Toronto Star... and the CBC

Ignoring his comments for the moment (which will do EKOS a good deal of harm), is there any indication that the polls EKOS carries out are in fact problematic?

If there isn't, then I don't think there's very much to talk about.

none, no indication... now... if one wanted to point fingers at Darryl Bricker and his Ipsos/Canwest polls - and explain those continual outliers that show 10 point leads for the CPC, well.....

it's simply a CPC reach for something - anything - to attempt a deflect from the Rahim/Helena show.

this is the article quote reference that has the CPC and their party faithful so concerned:

Liberals from the old Jean Chrétien school feel Mr. Ignatieff has been pitching the party too close to Conservative country. But his chief of staff, Peter Donolo, an old Chrétien hand, appears to be making his presence felt. There’s a leftward tilt in Iggy’s moves.

This follows a warning by pollster Allan Gregg. His research suggests the Liberals have lost ground because they no longer are seen to represent values that resonate with the broad sweep of Canadians.

Frank Graves of Ekos Research, in agreement with the analysis,

has told the Grits that the wedge politics of the Conservatives provide them with an opportunity to stake out a stark alternative. Stop worrying about the West

, he’s told them. No need to fear polarizing the debate. It’s what worked for Mr. Chrétien against Preston Manning and Stockwell Day.

In his advice, Mr. Graves could hardly have been more blunt. “

I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.

”

ya, clearly... the CPC appears to dislike being categorized as wedge decisive, parochial, moralistic, intolerant, autocratic... or... pro-Palin!

[capricorn]

ya, clearly... the CPC appears to dislike being categorized as wedge decisive, parochial, moralistic, intolerant, autocratic... or... pro-Palin!

Actually, that's a true statement. I don't see that it's anything to laugh about.

[Keepitsimple]

like I said, Simple... a non-story! Apparently, you have concerns that the Star didn't play up your non-story. News flash - film at 11!!! Conservative partisans "hate" the Toronto Star... and the CBC

ya, clearly... the CPC appears to dislike being categorized as wedge decisive, parochial, moralistic, intolerant, autocratic... or... pro-Palin!

[/indent]

It seemed to be a reasonable news story for all the other papers and TV stations - including substantial coverage by CBC! As for Darryl Bricker's 10 point lead for the Conservatives, you'll notice that the latest EKOS poll has them 7 points ahead of the Liberals - even with all the "scandles" going on. Still no movement into the mid to high 30's but a comfortable lead. Bricker's poll probably gives you a good idea for the POTENTIAL of the Conservative Party. Indeed, if the politically-driven "scandles" run their course, there doesn't appear to be anything stopping the Conservatives from regaining that 10 point lead and moving up in total percentage. Nothing except of course, if they stick their foot in their mouth or trip over themselves - as they often do. The Reader's Digest "trust" survey which had Harper at #8 and Ignatieff at #42 (out of 50) bodes even better for the Conservatives come election day.

[waldo]

It seemed to be a reasonable news story for all the other papers and TV stations - including substantial coverage by CBC!

no, you're just ticked they gave the non-story barely token acknowledgement. There's no evidence, none whatsoever, that EKOS polls are biased in any manner. There is no evidence that private citizen Graves' musings are given any notice by... anyone... other than Conservative partisans - those who simply railed against being categorized as, "wedge decisive, parochial, moralistic, intolerant, autocratic... or... pro-Palin!"

As for Darryl Bricker's 10 point lead for the Conservatives, you'll notice that the latest EKOS poll has them 7 points ahead of the Liberals - even with all the "scandles" going on. Still no movement into the mid to high 30's but a comfortable lead. Bricker's poll probably gives you a good idea for the POTENTIAL of the Conservative Party. Indeed, if the politically-driven "scandles" run their course, there doesn't appear to be anything stopping the Conservatives from regaining that 10 point lead and moving up in total percentage. Nothing except of course, if they stick their foot in their mouth or trip over themselves - as they often do.

ahhh, yes... the search for the holy grail - the ever so close, but no cigar, Conservative majority... that keeps butting up against the 60%+ of Canadians that will have nothing to do with Conservatives. In the face of a splintered "center-left" vote, Harper still can't get er done!

The Reader's Digest "trust" survey which had Harper at #8 and Ignatieff at #42 (out of 50) bodes even better for the Conservatives come election day.

almost as desperate as your climate change positions... oh wait... Simple, that unscientific Reader's Digest poll has David Suzuki as #1! David Suzuki is the most trusted Canadian according to Simple's favoured poll!

[ToadBrother]

Thank you Waldo - that's a perfect example. You found the only mention of the Graves scandle - buried in the middle of James Travers column......2 weeks after the story actually hit the airwaves. Not one story in the news section.

I'm still pretty confused myself. What story? No one ever provided any evidence that EKOS polls were slanted because of Graves political leanings.

This is what is best described as a non-story. It sounds very frightening and scary, and yet when you peel off the layers, you find... nothing.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm still pretty confused myself. What story? No one ever provided any evidence that EKOS polls were slanted because of Graves political leanings.

This is what is best described as a non-story. It sounds very frightening and scary, and yet when you peel off the layers, you find... nothing.

It may have ended up to be a non-story in many peoples' minds.....but when it broke - no one knew for sure and it took an apology and some fancy footwork by Graves to "correct" things. Until such time as it played itself out, it was news and readers and viewers were treated to both sides of the debate. The Toronto Star decided that their readers didn't need to be exposed to the debate which was the point of my original post.

As for Graves, I do not believe that his personal views have an effect on the polling data. They MIGHT have an effect on his political analysis but as several posters have said - the same could be said of pollsters who might have a personal Conservative bias. The "story" is that using very poor judgement, Graves came out publicly in the Globe and Mail about the advice he had given the Liberals. That's just not a very smart thing to do....here's his apology - again, not reported in the Toronto Star. If you go to the link, it's informative to read the cooments that were received and posted after the letter....I'm sure EKOS received a lot more but to Mr. Graves' credit, he seems to have provided a reasonable mix.

STATEMENT FROM FRANK GRAVES - April 23, 2010

[Ottawa – April 23, 2010] - In the course of an interview with the Globe and Mail columnist, Lawrence Martin, this week, I made some suggestions for a strategic course that presented itself to the federal Liberal Party.

My intention was to foment debate. However, I used incendiary language that had not been carefully enough considered. I recognize now that my stark language was understandably offensive to some Canadians.

In that light, I wish to retract my remarks and unreservedly apologize for making them.

Unfortunately, my comments have led to some misunderstanding about me and EKOS Research Associates, of which I am founder and president.

First of all, let me make it clear that I have never been a member of any political party. EKOS Research has never conducted polling or other public opinion research for any political party, nor has it ever been retained to give advice of any kind.

Journalists frequently ask pollsters what advice they might offer to a party or politician. This journalistic device does not imply that the pollster is in fact a political “adviser”. In the course of the interview with Lawrence Martin I offered the Liberals some unsolicited strategic “advice”. To the extent that readers may have taken the inference I had previously proffered this advice to the Liberal Party of Canada, it was a mistaken inference.

As to the specific issues raised in relationship to EKOS’ work for media organizations:

•Since we do not do any work for any political party, either paid or pro bono, there is no question of any sharing of resources whatsoever;

•The data collected in our polls for media clients, as for any client, are held in strict confidence. The political parties get the information at exactly the same moment that the public does: when the media organization chooses to release the numbers.

EKOS takes great pride in the history of superior accuracy of its polling, demonstrated in election after election. We consider it an honour to work with some of the most respected names in Canadian journalism, including the CBC, particularly given its rigorous methodological oversight and high journalistic standards.

Frank Graves,

President

Link: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/04/statement-from-frank-graves-april-23-2010/

PS: Don't forget to read the comments from readers after his statement

Edited May 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

ya, clearly... the CPC appears to dislike being categorized as wedge decisive, parochial, moralistic, intolerant, autocratic... or... pro-Palin!

Actually, that's a true statement. I don't see that it's anything to laugh about.

what's true? The dislike... or the categorization?

[ToadBrother]

It may have ended up to be a non-story in many peoples' minds.....but when it broke - no one knew for sure and it took an apology and some fancy footwork by Graves to "correct" things. Until such time as it played itself out, it was news and readers and viewers were treated to both sides of the debate. The Toronto Star decided that their readers didn't need to be exposed to the debate which was the point of my original post.

It was news in the same way that asking whether you still beat your wife or not was news. Since at no point, even when the original "story" broke, was there the least bit of question about the veracity of EKOS's polling methodology or analysis, there was no story to be told. I can understand the Tories, who had for some time been only a few points above the Liberals, looking to call into question a pollster, but that's just spin, which is pretty much the polar opposite of journalism.

[waldo]

Simple... you continue on with your non-story Graves rant... yet... you conveniently stepped over the highlight of your favoured polls result showing Canadians placed David Suzuki in the most trusted #1 position. David Suzuki - the most trusted in Simple's favoured poll!

[Machjo]

true enough I've met many Canadians whose only reason for voting they way they do is because "my dad voted that way"...my kids respect my opinions, I tell them to make up their own minds and not blindly follow my lead...

I still hold that conservative supporters trail the supporters of other parties in education, conservative support is strongly rural and rural regions don't abound in uni grads...there have been polls to back this up, even in the US the average level of education recieved goes up the further to the left the leanings...

Be careful with Uni as a measurement. Tolstoy was a university drop out since he got bored with what he was learning there. Shakespeare never had the chance to go to uni and uni grads of his time who were competing with him in theatre were jelous of him for it. Meanwhile Goebels had a Doctorate degree.

Character is not something you learn i uni. Consider too that some don't go to uni because of family responsibility which may strengthen their character, just as some prostitute their way through univeristy owing to the high cost of tuition.

While uni is certainly valuable for trades and professions, it does not replace moral education for character development in the least.

[Machjo]

You know, something about this has always bothered me, but I could never put my finger on it. Now I think I've figured it out. It assumes voters are complete morons. The only way I could see it working is if you banned all party advertising, otherwise everyone with any interest in voting is going to know who the major party candidates are. It probably would also serve to confuse over smaller parties. What you're gambling on here is that people are too dull-witted or at least too ill-informed to know what party the candidate belongs to.

I'm sure it's a winning gamble too. My hope is that by removing party names from the ballot, it would force voters to become wiser by actually learning something of their candidate. Even just going through the moves of learning the name of the local candidate for Grandpapa's party might bring some otherwise overlooked point about that candidate, causing the voter to reconsider and re-examine his position. Would it not be beneficial to promote more thought among voters?

[Machjo]

The biggest media problem is the Toronto Star. Unfortunately, they are the widest read paper in Canada and they are completely, 100% Liberal - and as far Left Liberal as you can go. They do not just report the news - almost all their articles are "editorialized" and opinionated. At least the G & M and the National Post save their opinions for the Columnist and editorial sections. The Star is simply outrageously over the top - not only in their support for the Liberals but in their clear detesting of the Conservatives. A Liberal announcement or story is simply that - an announcement or story....with maybe a small "critics" comment at the end. Anything to do with the Conservatives is opinionated and laced with "critics" comments. The Star did not even report the Frank Graves story - one that was alive on TV and other papers for 3 or 4 days - not one line from The Star because it put the Liberal party in a bad light. OK, I'm finished. Whew - glad I got that off my chest.

If you don't like the Tor Star, don't read it.

[Machjo]

There's a lot of leftist indoctrination in many universities. It's institutionalized brainwashing.

You're going a little too far with that. Though I did find uni to be a little too superficial and status quo and not critical enough. Just look at what happened when Coulter showed up at Ottawa U. Yes, she is an idiot, yet the students dropped to her level and below in a flash. They could have shown some class at least by just ignoring her. Instead, they started acting like baboons, making even Coulter come across as civilized in comparison.

[Keepitsimple]

Simple... you continue on with your non-story Graves rant... yet... you conveniently stepped over the highlight of your favoured polls result showing Canadians placed David Suzuki in the most trusted #1 position. David Suzuki - the most trusted in Simple's favoured poll!

Hey, if that's the way that most Canadians think - who am I to argue? I don't have to agree with it - but I have to acknowledge it.......something you Waldo, have great difficulty doing on any topic that you post.

[Keepitsimple]

If you don't like the Tor Star, don't read it.

To get a fuller understanding of National opinion, you have to read more than one. I subscribe to the Star (and the Sun - my wife likes the Sudoku) and read the columns and editorials from the National Post and G & M online. If you just read what you think you want to hear, you're on your way to being an ultra-partisan.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[ToadBrother]

Simple... you continue on with your non-story Graves rant... yet... you conveniently stepped over the highlight of your favoured polls result showing Canadians placed David Suzuki in the most trusted #1 position. David Suzuki - the most trusted in Simple's favoured poll!

So what if Canadians trust David Suziki? I could care less about the guy, myself, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

But if you have some specific real evidence that Graves is slanting his polling methodologies to get the result he wants, then provide it. If not, you're just blowing smoke.

[Keepitsimple]

It was news in the same way that asking whether you still beat your wife or not was news. Since at no point, even when the original "story" broke, was there the least bit of question about the veracity of EKOS's polling methodology or analysis, there was no story to be told. I can understand the Tories, who had for some time been only a few points above the Liberals, looking to call into question a pollster, but that's just spin, which is pretty much the polar opposite of journalism.

Maybe you missed what I had to say previously......and if you really think it was a "non-story", why did he retract all his comments and issue the apology? Here's what I said before:

As for Graves, I do not believe that his personal views have an effect on the polling data. They MIGHT have an effect on his political analysis but as several posters have said - the same could be said of pollsters who might have a personal Conservative bias. The "story" is that using very poor judgement, Graves came out publicly in the Globe and Mail about the advice he had given the Liberals. That's just not a very smart thing to do....here's his apology - again, not reported in the Toronto Star. If you go to the link, it's informative to read the cooments that were received and posted after the letter....I'm sure EKOS received a lot more but to Mr. Graves' credit, he seems to have provided a reasonable mix.

Link to Apology: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/04/statement-from-frank-graves-april-23-2010/

Edited May 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Machjo]

To get a fuller understanding of National opinion, you have to read more than one. I subscribe to the Star (and the Sun - my wife likes the Sudoku) and read the columns and editorials from the National Post and G & M online. If you just read what you think you want to hear, you're on your way to being an ultra-partisan.

My meaning was there is no point in complaining about the Tor Star being left leaning. If one doesn't like it, instead of complaining about it, just don't buy it and try to buy something more objective. besides, right-biased papers abound too.

[Keepitsimple]

My meaning was there is no point in complaining about the Tor Star being left leaning. If one doesn't like it, instead of complaining about it, just don't buy it and try to buy something more objective. besides, right-biased papers abound too.

That's why if you really like to follow politics, you need to read more than one paper. There's always three sides to every story - in politics, it's the Left, the Right and the Truth.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe you missed what I had to say previously......and if you really think it was a "non-story", why did he retract all his comments and issue the apology? Here's what I said before:

As for Graves, I do not believe that his personal views have an effect on the polling data. They MIGHT have an effect on his political analysis but as several posters have said - the same could be said of pollsters who might have a personal Conservative bias. The "story" is that using very poor judgement, Graves came out publicly in the Globe and Mail about the advice he had given the Liberals. That's just not a very smart thing to do....here's his apology - again, not reported in the Toronto Star. If you go to the link, it's informative to read the cooments that were received and posted after the letter....I'm sure EKOS received a lot more but to Mr. Graves' credit, he seems to have provided a reasonable mix.

Link to Apology: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/04/statement-from-frank-graves-april-23-2010/

He retracted because his potential for further contracts with major media outlets was at risk. In particular the CBC was feeling the heat from this.

[waldo]

Simple... you continue on with your non-story Graves rant... yet... you conveniently stepped over the highlight of your favoured polls result showing Canadians placed David Suzuki in the most trusted #1 position. David Suzuki - the most trusted in Simple's favoured poll!

Hey, if that's the way that most Canadians think - who am I to argue? I don't have to agree with it - but I have to acknowledge it.......something you Waldo, have great difficulty doing on any topic that you post.

no - as useless and truly irrelevant as most online polls are, this 'Readers Digest' poll you trotted out is possibly one of the worst examples of what's wrong with (most) existing online polling processes. I'm simply needling you over the #1 position... of your favoured poll, particularly since you hold Suzuki in such high esteem - hey? As for your personal difficulty in acknowledging your failed posts... you can't avoid acknowledging this recent MLW thread/post forever!

[Keepitsimple]

He retracted because his potential for further contracts with major media outlets was at risk. In particular the CBC was feeling the heat from this.

And you think that's a non-story?

[wyly]

Be careful with Uni as a measurement. Tolstoy was a university drop out since he got bored with what he was learning there. Shakespeare never had the chance to go to uni and uni grads of his time who were competing with him in theatre were jelous of him for it. Meanwhile Goebels had a Doctorate degree.

Character is not something you learn i uni. Consider too that some don't go to uni because of family responsibility which may strengthen their character, just as some prostitute their way through univeristy owing to the high cost of tuition.

While uni is certainly valuable for trades and professions, it does not replace moral education for character development in the least.

you're right but it still indicates a trend... but the overall average when you include lesser education levels is still above that of the right...and it's not just the education that is important but what goes with, exposure to more sophisticated political and philosophical concepts that you will find in a high school grad...

[Keepitsimple]

you're right but it still indicates a trend... but the overall average when you include lesser education levels is still above that of the right...and it's not just the education that is important but what goes with, exposure to more sophisticated political and philosophical concepts that you will find in a high school grad...

And people wonder why Liberals are referred to as "elitist" . If your educational statistics are correct, then the Liberal Party serves as a perfect example of why elitist intellectualism can often be trumped by Joe Citizen's common sense.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple