Federal Election Polls

[punked]

nicky10013 I agree the Liberals are running the 1993 campaign great promising to cut military spending that if they win they will do anyway, Red book with promises they would never enact, and pretending they wont just use the conservative budgets and platforms if they win. However that really isn't what the country needs, just my opinion.

BTW I think the Liberals two election strategy is shot if Mulcair wins in Outremont. Jack is popular is Quebec but if he leaves and Mulcair is the new leader. The only Federal leader from Quebec, a former Liberal who helped lead the fight against separation. I know NDP break through in Quebec is something that is always talked about, that is not what I am talking about. I don't think the Liberals can't win an election if the NDP are above 15% in Quebec. They just can't.

This is assuming Iggy stays on as leader of course, it could all change if he leaves and a Quebec MP steps into his role then their are other problems.

Edited April 9, 2011 by punked

[Smallc]

I don't know what campaign you're watching, but all the papers, Macleans, even the National Post are backing me up.

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but people are generally the front page type. They read the big stories. The big stories haven't at all been bad for the Conservatives. As I said, it's a boring campaign, nothing more, nothing less.

[nicky10013]

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but people are generally the front page type. They read the big stories. The big stories haven't at all been bad for the Conservatives. As I said, it's a boring campaign, nothing more, nothing less.

Really? You mean these kinds of front pages?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gmqvTiuZn_U/TZZC9APRkRI/AAAAAAAACEk/Dtz3i7t05-Y/s1600/2011April11_macleans.png

[punked]

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but people are generally the front page type. They read the big stories. The big stories haven't at all been bad for the Conservatives. As I said, it's a boring campaign, nothing more, nothing less.

The Biggest problem for the Liberals now is the Cons have a 120 seat base, this is the number they get no matter what they do with in reason. The Liberals is around 70, the NDP 20 and the Bloc 35. That puts 65 seats in play meaning for the Liberals to win they have clean sweep it. Canada has changed from 2000 until now and that is bad news for the Liberals. It will swing back someday to a different set up but for now and the next few years the math is really really hard for them.

[punked]

Really? You mean these kinds of front pages?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gmqvTiuZn_U/TZZC9APRkRI/AAAAAAAACEk/Dtz3i7t05-Y/s1600/2011April11_macleans.png

But he is still 10 points behind. Again the Math doesn't work for the Liberals. The right is a minority in Canada but it is a large minority 30-35% meaning no matter how good the Liberals are they can't win running to the left. They need a game changer they need a sponsorship scandal to realign the country because like it or not the NDP and Bloc aren't going to drop to 0 in the polls. Heck even the greens will take 4% of the vote meaning the Liberals have to find the numbers by taking from the Cons.

PS people keep talking about 20% undecided I call that number 20% not voting. There is a difference and the difference is those people are actually not going to vote.

I would like to say the Liberals are running a good campaign but I still think their numbers are in the 26-31% range and unless something big happens in the debate those numbers aren't changing enough for the Liberals to win. They will take some seats however I think most will come from the NDP not the Cons so we are in the same place we were before. Cons strong majority. In order for the Liberals to win they need to win some Con seats and I can only think of maybe 10 that are in play.

Edited April 9, 2011 by punked

[punked]

BTW Nanos also had a daily tracking poll in 2006 with the same sorts of wonky NDP/Liberal numbers so again I say the tracking poll with a small sample size does not work for the smaller parties. Mainly I think because their support is pocketed so you either hit a ridding with that pocket is get crazy high numbers for that party or you don't and get crazy low numbers. Tracking polls work well for systems like the US were support is spread pretty even and you have 2 options I don't know if they work well in a system like ours.

http://www.sesresearch.com/election/SES%20CPAC%20December%2012%202005E.pdf

[nicky10013]

But he is still 10 points behind. Again the Math doesn't work for the Liberals. The right is a minority in Canada but it is a large minority 30-35% meaning no matter how good the Liberals are they can't win running to the left. They need a game changer they need a sponsorship scandal to realign the country because like it or not the NDP and Bloc aren't going to drop to 0 in the polls. Heck even the greens will take 4% of the vote meaning the Liberals have to find the numbers by taking from the Cons.

PS people keep talking about 20% undecided I call that number 20% not voting. There is a difference and the difference is those people are actually not going to vote.

I would like to say the Liberals are running a good campaign but I still think their numbers are in the 26-31% range and unless something big happens in the debate those numbers aren't changing enough for the Liberals to win. They will take some seats however I think most will come from the NDP not the Cons so we are in the same place we were before. Cons strong majority. In order for the Liberals to win they need to win some Con seats and I can only think of maybe 10 that are in play.

I think a minority will be tough to get, but that's what's great about election campaigns. Anything can happen. I always came into this saying the Liberals win at least 15 seats and I'm still sticking by that.

The funny thing about the "math" being in the Liberals favour is that everyone says the united right is way to strong a base to be taken down as if the united right has yet to lose an election. Martin did win, and he won during the middle of sponsorship.

The votes are there to be won and it's all about winning Canadians over with your message. The Conservative base is the west of course, but there are seats to be won in BC, Ontario and Quebec. The thing about the "math" is that it completely skews the national polls. Alberta, Saskatchewan and to a certain extent, Manitoba, support for the CPC is so high that of course national support goes up. Thing about that is there aren't any more seats to win there.

As for the 20% of undecideds, they ask those questions. About 40% don't vote. These are the 20% of the population who have told pollsters that they actually are going to vote but haven't made up their minds.

[Smallc]

Really? You mean these kinds of front pages?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gmqvTiuZn_U/TZZC9APRkRI/AAAAAAAACEk/Dtz3i7t05-Y/s1600/2011April11_macleans.png

You found one in your favour. Good for you.

[nicky10013]

You found one in your favour. Good for you.

I guess you don't read the press period. I suppose for a Harper supporter since the campaign started, probably for the best. Plausible deniability.

Edited April 9, 2011 by nicky10013

[punked]

I think a minority will be tough to get, but that's what's great about election campaigns. Anything can happen. I always came into this saying the Liberals win at least 15 seats and I'm still sticking by that.

The funny thing about the "math" being in the Liberals favour is that everyone says the united right is way to strong a base to be taken down as if the united right has yet to lose an election. Martin did win, and he won during the middle of sponsorship.

The votes are there to be won and it's all about winning Canadians over with your message. The Conservative base is the west of course, but there are seats to be won in BC, Ontario and Quebec. The thing about the "math" is that it completely skews the national polls. Alberta, Saskatchewan and to a certain extent, Manitoba, support for the CPC is so high that of course national support goes up. Thing about that is there aren't any more seats to win there.

As for the 20% of undecideds, they ask those questions. About 40% don't vote. These are the 20% of the population who have told pollsters that they actually are going to vote but haven't made up their minds.

You are proving my point. Martin was the Most Conservative leader the Liberals ever had starting the corporate tax cuts the Liberals now hate so much. The Liberals can not win running to the left but if they run to the right they will lose the 4-5% they have built up this election with their red book. They are facing the problem Liberal parties all around the world have faced, how as a brokerage party do you win with you are not governing. They are doing a remarkable job all things considered but I don't see the math on this one.

I know the 20% that tell they are undecided quite well I have done plenty of calling over the years. In those 20% you will have half of them who don't vote so we are down to 10%. Half of those are undecided because they are extremists meaning they will vote green, Christian heritage ect. So we are down to 5% and I think of those 5% they will break evenly with polls.

I am not trying to be partisan here, I am saying I don't see it. I agree the Liberals might gain some seats this election but I am looking at maybe 10 seats and I don't see them coming from the Cons. So we are getting the same parliament. There needs to be a game changer for someone.

[punked]

I guess you don't read the press period. I suppose for a Harper supporter since the campaign started, probably for the best. Plausible deniability.

No I agree Nicky the press is totally on the Liberal band wagon but that doesn't help that much when you have 40% of Conservatives who think the Media is bias and don't care what they say. Again the problem is for the Liberals to do well they need to take more from the Conservatives and they aren't running that election. They are running one where they take from the left which will make their election day numbers look good and give them some momentum however it is a losing campaign.

[Smallc]

I guess you don't read the press period. I suppose for a Harper supporter since the campaign started, probably for the best. Plausible deniability.

I read the news every day, though I get it mostly from CTV. There simply hasn't been any big stories to the negative or positive for anyone. If you think otherwise, you're completely delusional. The Conservatives have had a couple of bad moments, yes, but so have the Liberals. The NDP has been nonexistent in the campaign. You can't say that anyone has had a good or bad campaign in relation to anyone else.....of course, as a Liberal supporter since day one, I suppose it's best to pretend the Tories are having a terrible time.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Smallc

[punked]

I read the news every day, though I get it mostly from CTV. There simply hasn't been any big stories to the negative or positive for anyone. If you think otherwise, you're completely delusional.

This is true to. There hasn't been one real game changer.

[Bryan]

I guess you don't read the press period. I suppose for a Harper supporter since the campaign started, probably for the best. Plausible deniability.

There's no doubt that the press is cheerleading for the Liberals, Their bias is obvious, but that's nothing new.

[Smallc]

This is true to. There hasn't been one real game changer.

And that's really my point. This has been a ho hum campaign that hasn't really been good for anyone. As a result, it really hasn't been bad for anyone either. The last week is what will really decide whether the Conservatives win big, or barely win at all. The probability of the Liberals winning is next to nothing.

[Smallc]

There's no doubt that the press is cheerleading for the Liberals, Their bias is obvious, but that's nothing new.

I haven't seen any evidence of that at all. Neither CBC or CTV has really been targeting the Liberals, and I don't very often read the print media, so I wouldn't know.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Smallc

[Shakeyhands]

I haven't seen any evidence of that at all. Neither CBC or CTV has really been targeting the Liberals, and I don't very often read the print media, so I wouldn't know.

What will be interesting is how the newspapers will justify their endorsements.

[punked]

What will be interesting is how the newspapers will justify their endorsements.

It will be "We say vote Liberal because they give us access and then we can sell more papers." Transparency is important but not what runs Canada.

[bloodyminded]

There's no doubt that the press is cheerleading for the Liberals, Their bias is obvious, but that's nothing new.

I haven't seen any evidence of this.

[Shakeyhands]

It will be "We say vote Liberal because they give us access and then we can sell more papers." Transparency is important but not what runs Canada.

Is someone angry already that their party of choice will finish a distant fourth?

just teasing you Punked. If we could afford it, I wouldn't mind an NDP Gov't.

[wyly]

If we could afford it, I wouldn't mind an NDP Gov't.

that myth again, just what do you base that on...where is it established the NDP are worse financial managers than the conservatives, the two all time worst financial (and corrupt) governments in Canada IMO were the conservative Mulroney and sask conservative Devine regimes...many NDP/CCF governments saskatchewan were sound financial managers it was the conservatives that nearly bankrupt the province...the difference between a socialist, liberal and conservative government is how the money spent is allocated...a socialist governments put the welfare of the people ahead of purchasing useless military war toys and tax benefits for the foreign owners of corporations...I much prefer great heathcare over star wars toys we'll never need for the arctic...a billion $ spent on jet fighters employs few and returns little to the economy, a billion spent on healthcare has numerous benefits to the economy.... Edited April 9, 2011 by wyly

[Smallc]

Except that the NDP promises to maintain current defence spending levels. Only the Liberals want to cut defence spending.

[Bryan]

Wyly, NDP provincial government's did not campaign on promises to tax and spend to anywhere near the degrees that they do federally.

We do know, however, that the provincial NDP here in Manitoba have a proven track record of spending far more than their predecessors with little to nothing to show for it. Fiscally, the difference between the NDP and the PC's here in Manitoba is staggering. It's probably going to take 10 years to recover from the damage Seligner did.

[Smallc]

We do know, however, that the provincial NDP here in Manitoba have a proven track record of spending far more than their predecessors with little to nothing to show for it. Fiscally, the difference between the NDP and the PC's here in Manitoba is staggering. It's probably going to take 10 years to recover from the damage Seligner did.

What in the world are you talking about? 40% of the provincial budget goes to health care, and another 40% goes to family services, education, and infrastructure. What exactly do you expect that the Conservatives will do different? The answer is, well, pretty much nothing....unless they're going to gut the health system. Under the provincial NDP, Manitoba has grown faster both economically and in terms of population than any time in decades.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Smallc

[wyly]

Except that the NDP promises to maintain current defence spending levels. Only the Liberals want to cut defence spending.

which validates the point I was making, claiming the NDP would be irresposible spenders...there is no basis to that claim there is no evidence to support that claim...