Federal Election Polls

[punked]

Interesting that Nanos is FINALLY showing what other polls have been showing. It's like his polls are delayed by a week.

Well they kinda are because they are on a three day spread so what you see out of one poll will take Nanos three days to show.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Well they kinda are because they are on a three day spread so what you see out of one poll will take Nanos three days to show.

Eh, other polls are on a spread too, though. His polls in general have been the most out to lunch compared with the other orgs.

[nittanylionstorm07]

I want to add something about threehundredeight.com btw...

This is a seemingly great site with great ideas, but I can't get over how much weight he places on Nanos compared to the other polls, and his seat estimates suffer for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

You do know Angus Reid was the BEST pollster in the last election right?

OK...so let's see how AR tracks against the others:

2011 polls

Is there a composite index for these polls?

Edited April 20, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Dave_ON]

What we do know is that if the NDP places 2nd, then a giant cluster is going to happen.

First, Ignatieff would be shown the door quite fast.

Second, the Liberals would then have a choice: go into government with the NDP and try to save face, or vote the Conservatives into government. If the latter, they'd be taking a gamble: if the NDP does well as the Opposition, then you can say goodbye to the Liberals being the main left-of-centre party for quite some time. If the NDP falls flat like the ADQ, then they could triumphantly return to power.... but that's one hell of a gamble.

I don't think we should ever underestimate the power of political brand names in Canadian Politics. The Liberals, have been the LPC since confederation, a name like that doesn't just go away. Even the CPC realized this which is why the re-branded from Reform, to the CC and finally to the Conservative Party of Canada, which is a throw back to the old Progressive Conservatives. With this simple name change Canadians began to warm up to what was until that time perceived as essentially a Western BLOC party. Conservative and Liberal are very familiar names in the Canadian Political realm and I believe it is the brand alone that has kept the Liberals from suffering the same fate as the PC's back in the 90's. The names Liberal and Conservative are familiar and comfortable terms for Canadians, especially those who do not follow politics nearly as closely as those of us on this board.

Having said that, this will not continue, and they are in serious need of leadership, renewal, direction and frankly young blood. However, that's not terribly likely to happen for many years to come. We'll have to see what happens after this election, if the LPC manages to make some gains, Ignatieff will likely stay, if not, he'll suffer the same fate as Dion. The only thing is, who would replace him? There's really no one waiting in the wings that could handle the job as far as I'm aware. The same goes for the CPC, many talk of how Harper has to go, but love him or hate him, who could do a better, or at least as good as he has done? No one immediately leaps to mind. I think that even though it is likely the CPC will lose seats this election, that Mr. Harper is quite safe.

[Harry]

Jim Prentice, Stockwell Day

Edited April 20, 2011 by Harry

[punked]

I don't think we should ever underestimate the power of political brand names in Canadian Politics. The Liberals, have been the LPC since confederation, a name like that doesn't just go away. Even the CPC realized this which is why the re-branded from Reform, to the CC and finally to the Conservative Party of Canada, which is a throw back to the old Progressive Conservatives. With this simple name change Canadians began to warm up to what was until that time perceived as essentially a Western BLOC party. Conservative and Liberal are very familiar names in the Canadian Political realm and I believe it is the brand alone that has kept the Liberals from suffering the same fate as the PC's back in the 90's. The names Liberal and Conservative are familiar and comfortable terms for Canadians, especially those who do not follow politics nearly as closely as those of us on this board.

You are going to have to tell that to the UK and Australia who also had Liberal parties forever but Labour ate them up 50 years ago and never looked back.

[ToadBrother]

Because we should trust scientists with PhDs, we should also trust Ignatieff because he has a PhD? Is that your logic?

Obama has a Nobel Prize. Should I be impressed? Should I blindly defer to him?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying you should trust Iggy any more than anyone else, but the fact that he was an academic should not count against him.

[Pliny]

We may very well be looking at Jack Layton as the 23rd Prime Minister of Canada, not the least thanks to Quebec.

Well, I believe the split between left and right in the country is growing. The liberals cannot move right at all. They have to define the Conservatives as right wing and differentiate themselves entirely which means defining themselves as everything left of the Conservatives. This is taking them closer to the concept of the NDP and perhaps explains why the NDP are up in the polls.

The liberals are positioning themselves as better guardians of the social safety net than the Conservatives which interestingly makes the conservatives more of a "progressive" party in that it is more willing to make changes and the liberals more concerned with the status quo or more "conservative" in nature. Liberals will be progressive until they get what they want and then they will be conservative.

Anyway, the Liberals are not offering any positive change unless one considers just a change in political parties as positive. The Liberal party would, of course, prefer that, and it seems that is their concern. In my view, it's what this election is primarily about. Not a good reason for an election and if that perception exists at all it won't be endearing to them.

[punked]

Well, I believe the split between left and right in the country is growing. The liberals cannot move right at all. They have to define the Conservatives as right wing and differentiate themselves entirely which means defining themselves as everything left of the Conservatives. This is taking them closer to the concept of the NDP and perhaps explains why the NDP are up in the polls.

The liberals are positioning themselves as better guardians of the social safety net than the Conservatives which interestingly makes the conservatives more of a "progressive" party in that it is more willing to make changes and the liberals more concerned with the status quo or more "conservative" in nature. Liberals will be progressive until they get what they want and then they will be conservative.

Anyway, the Liberals are not offering any positive change unless one considers just a change in political parties as positive. The Liberal party would, of course, prefer that, and it seems that is their concern. In my view, it's what this election is primarily about. Not a good reason for an election and if that perception exists at all it won't be endearing to them.

The biggest problem the Liberals have which we see the same of in UK and Australia where those parties were given the heave ho 50 years ago is they are a brokerage party. They are neither left or right and bounce wildly between the two. This means they have no real base of voters who have a belief in what they stand for like the Cons and NDP.

They win and keep seats based on promises of jobs, or a new ice rink or something like that. However when they are out of power they can make these promises and keep them, they also can not fight for a political belief in the house of commons. This is shown clearly by Iggy promising to over haul EI then voting against the same over haul a year later when it might of actually worked. So if they can't deliver the goodies the bottom falls out of the basket and the voters move to parties which stand on ideas.

The questions is not if the Liberals will stop being a party but when. We have seen this all around the word for Liberal parties and political system adapt. Including many Western provinces. That is just political theory.

[ToadBrother]

The biggest problem the Liberals have which we see the same of in UK and Australia where those parties were given the heave ho 50 years ago is they are a brokerage party. They are neither left or right and bounce wildly between the two. This means they have no real base of voters who have a belief in what they stand for like the Cons and NDP.

And the Tories aren't a brokerage party? I think we saw very clearly during the 1990s that the Tories were just that.

I would hardly count the Liberals out yet.

[Dave_ON]

Oh, I dunno, Molly. I would have freaked out!

The question then would be, how many other voters would have felt the same way? One old curmudgeon like me is no worry to a campaign manager but thousands or hundreds of thousands of like-minded voters, particularly if they are concentrated in critical areas, like Metro Toronto, would be quite another "fish kettle".!

You're not most Canadians, and it seems it would have had little if any impact on the numbers. Let's be frank shall we? You have on several occasions out and out stated you "don't care what the constitution says" which is of course a rather ludicrous statement. You can't pick and choose what you want in the constitutional buffet as it were, however I digress. The reality is, many Canadians surveyed at that time couldn't name the Queen as Canada's head of state, some were close and named the GG. But a disturbingly large number named the PM as head of state. Many other Canadians also could not name the type of democracy we are, many stated we were a republic! The lack of political knowledge in Canada is staggering.

As I've said before, a "coalition of the losers" is quite different from an ordinary minority government, where the party with the most votes still rules.

This statement further illustrates my point, political ignorance abounds, and utterly untrue CPC rhetorical statements such as "coalition of losers" proves you're happy to remain ignorant of reality. This statement is a sad attempt to make illegitimate a perfectly legitimate governmental make up. Whether we like it or not, or if 99.9% of Canadians hate the idea of a coalition the reality is, our system allows it as it currently stands. Now if 99.9% of Canadians don't like it and feel so very strongly about it, they need to vote in politicians who will open up the constitution and change it so that Coalitions are utterly and expressly disallowed. Then those politicians must also convince all the provinces to agree to this change, which of course would bring up a slew of other constitutional changes.

This is a misunderstanding of parliamentary reality. The party with the most votes does not "rule" they by convention form the government, and as such can direct legislation as they see fit. Now in a minority situation, it's wise not to piss off the opposition as on your own you lack the majority vote to pass your agenda on a whim. It is Parliament, not the government and by proxy the caucus and the PM, that "rules". If they don't like you, the government that is, they may dispense with you at their pleasure. That is the mandate that parliament is given by their constituents, I don't know why you and those like you are insisting that somehow the government receives a direct mandate from the people. This is an utterly untrue statement, parliament who represent the people gives the government their mandate, and they can take it away just as easily.

At least to the common man, who couldn't care less about the niceties of constitutional law. I'm not at all convinced that the average Canadian would be tolerant of such a situation. I think he would strongly resent being over-ruled in his choice and would likely become hardened against those Opposition parties forever, or at least until he or she died!

The common man also as I've already stated cannot name the Queen as head of state or name the type of democracy we are or the specific type of parliamentary democracy that we are. Are we now ruled by "common knowledge"? God help us if we are as it is sincerely lacking. Yes let's just dispense with the constitution, what has it done for us lately anyway? Let's simply run things as people perceive them to be at any given moment in time and let the rules be damned! I suggest we become a dynamic democracy, subject to the whim of the majority. You are the type of person that likes the constitution only when it supports your world view, fortunately for the rest of us, it's an all inclusive package.

Here's the Ipsos Reid survey that demonstrates much of what I'm saying.

http://www.dominion.ca/DominionInstituteDecember15Factum.pdf

{quote]

I could be wrong, of course. That's why I've come to the point where I'd actually love to see such a coalition happen! If the people love it then fine and dandy!

If the people get pissed off it would be great fun watching the Opposition parties squirm!

I sincerely doubt you'd find that fine and dandy and I sincerely doubt most people would even be aware of what happened. This is really just a very vocal minority, of which you are a part of, that would be upset.

[punked]

And the Tories aren't a brokerage party? I think we saw very clearly during the 1990s that the Tories were just that.

I would hardly count the Liberals out yet.

After they merge with the Reform they ate up the right wing base. So no they aren't a brokerage party they are the "right wing" party in Canada.

I am not counting the Liberals I am saying that the Liberals have nothing to run on because they bounce wildly back and fourth so the wedge issues hurt them. I mean look at last week Layton said Iggy is wrong for the left in Canada because 10 of his people voted on limiting abortion while at the same Harper will hammer because the other 60 voted against it. The wedges drive people away from the party so when they aren't in power it is hard for them to make any sort of traction in todays society where you can't hand out rum or have hidden slush funds you win you votes.

This is the core problem for Liberal parties around the world. Progressives don't want to vote for a party that will do one progressive thing and on the next vote so something so regressive it makes their blood boil. That is what the Liberals do as a brokerage party.

[Dave_ON]

You are going to have to tell that to the UK and Australia who also had Liberal parties forever but Labour ate them up 50 years ago and never looked back.

Didn't realize I said in the Commonwealth... oh wait I didn't.

Do you honestly believe the CPC didn't affect the name change as it was more palatable and familiar to Canadians then Canadian Reform Alliance party? Do you further believe, that much of the residual popularity of the LPC isn't a result of their long standing history in the country? Further as an NDP why is it that they chose not to change the name to just the Democrat Party? Brand recognition is a reality in Canada. Why is it we still refer to the CPC as the "Tories" and the LPC as the "Grits" even though neither party is even remotely close to what those terms once represented?

[wyly]

And you take that pledge seriously why? And how binding is it on a future LPC leader if/when Ignatieff is dumped?

about as binding as when Harper said he would not change income trusts...situations change...

[punked]

Didn't realize I said in the Commonwealth... oh wait I didn't.

Do you honestly believe the CPC didn't affect the name change as it was more palatable and familiar to Canadians then Canadian Reform Alliance party? Do you further believe, that much of the residual popularity of the LPC isn't a result of their long standing history in the country? Further as an NDP why is it that they chose not to change the name to just the Democrat Party? Brand recognition is a reality in Canada. Why is it we still refer to the CPC as the "Tories" and the LPC as the "Grits" even though neither party is even remotely close to what those terms once represented?

Oh my bad then I will use Sask, Manitoba, Alberta as examples in Canada where the Liberals went the way of the do-doo because they are a brokerage party. Alberta is a bit different because it almost always a one party state for years and years but fact remains. Also in BC and Quebec the Liberals are only still existent because they moved themselves into occupying a piece of the political spectrum (the right). Like it or not Brokerage parties win on promises that exclude other riddings who do not vote for that party, favors, and patronage those have no place in 20th century let along 21st century politics.

More examples for you to read up on for the death of the brokerage party would be the death of the Tammy Hall wing of the Democratic party in the US 50 years ago. Sorry History is not the Liberals side. It might another 50 years but if the Liberals keep the idea that they can win in the center they are dooming their party forever.

Edited April 20, 2011 by punked

[Evening Star]

Punked, do you feel this way about the Liberal Party throughout its history or only the current version of the Liberal Party? (I don't really agree either way but I'm interested in hearing your answer before I explain.)

The biggest problem the Liberals have which we see the same of in UK and Australia where those parties were given the heave ho 50 years ago is they are a brokerage party. They are neither left or right and bounce wildly between the two. This means they have no real base of voters who have a belief in what they stand for like the Cons and NDP.

They win and keep seats based on promises of jobs, or a new ice rink or something like that. However when they are out of power they can make these promises and keep them, they also can not fight for a political belief in the house of commons. This is shown clearly by Iggy promising to over haul EI then voting against the same over haul a year later when it might of actually worked. So if they can't deliver the goodies the bottom falls out of the basket and the voters move to parties which stand on ideas.

The questions is not if the Liberals will stop being a party but when. We have seen this all around the word for Liberal parties and political system adapt. Including many Western provinces. That is just political theory.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Evening Star

[Wild Bill]

You're not most Canadians, and it seems it would have had little if any impact on the numbers. Let's be frank shall we? You have on several occasions out and out stated you "don't care what the constitution says" which is of course a rather ludicrous statement. You can't pick and choose what you want in the constitutional buffet as it were, however I digress. The reality is, many Canadians surveyed at that time couldn't name the Queen as Canada's head of state, some were close and named the GG. But a disturbingly large number named the PM as head of state. Many other Canadians also could not name the type of democracy we are, many stated we were a republic! The lack of political knowledge in Canada is staggering.

This statement further illustrates my point, political ignorance abounds, and utterly untrue CPC rhetorical statements such as "coalition of losers" proves you're happy to remain ignorant of reality. This statement is a sad attempt to make illegitimate a perfectly legitimate governmental make up. Whether we like it or not, or if 99.9% of Canadians hate the idea of a coalition the reality is, our system allows it as it currently stands. Now if 99.9% of Canadians don't like it and feel so very strongly about it, they need to vote in politicians who will open up the constitution and change it so that Coalitions are utterly and expressly disallowed. Then those politicians must also convince all the provinces to agree to this change, which of course would bring up a slew of other constitutional changes.

Dave, you must have been in a hurry when you read my post. I don't think I've ever had someone so completely miss my point!

I have absolutely no argument with you about the legality of a coalition! The same is true about popular ignorance!

I'm saying that it doesn't matter! The common man doesn't care or understand such things but he still votes! He still has opinions about such things but only when he sees them happen. We would never really know how he would react unless and until a coalition actually happened. At that time, the legalities would be irrelevant. If Joe Voter didn't mind, nothing would happen. If he got upset because he didn't like it, then he would be pissed and would hold a grudge against the parties that forced the coalition.

More plainly, if at that time someone like you scolded Joe and waved a book of constitutional law in front of him he would likely just laugh at you and move on! You wouldn't change his feelings and the way he would vote next election in the slightest.

In politics, legalities are a lot less important than whether or not something passes the "sniff test". In fact, if you have to use a legal argument as an excuse you've already failed! It only reminds the public that most politicians are lawyers and lawyers' tricks are not well respected.

So keep waving your constitutional law book, Dave. I hope it makes you feel better. All I know is, if I were a politician I wouldn't want to stake my political future on it!

You can't pass a law to MAKE someone vote a certain way!

Edited April 20, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Dave_ON]

Oh my bad then I will use Sask, Manitoba, Alberta as examples in Canada where the Liberals went the way of the do-doo because they are a brokerage party. Alberta is a bit different because it almost always a one party state for years and years but fact remains. Also in BC and Quebec the Liberals are only still existent because they moved themselves into occupying a piece of the political spectrum (the right). Like it or not Brokerage parties win on promises that exclude other riddings who do not vote for that party, favors, and patronage those have no place in 20th century let along 21st century politics.

More examples for you to read up on for the death of the brokerage party would be the death of the Tammy Hall wing of the Democratic party in the US 50 years ago. Sorry History is not the Liberals side. It might another 50 years but if the Liberals keep the idea that they can win in the center they are dooming their party forever.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The CPC are a prime example of this, even though the PC's were in fact a brokerage party and were wiped out, when the right united why did they eventually change the name to Conservative Party of Canada? why not keep the old one? I'm not specifically referring to the ideological view point of the party, merely the name. That is why the NDP remained the NDP, the CRAP changed to the PC and whatever composition the LPC's eventually end up in, they will still have Liberal somewhere in their name.

You are making fine points all around, but if you think that there are not a lot of people who vote LPC based on the familiarity of the name I'd have to say you're mistaken. Not everyone is a involved in politics as you or others on this board, and it's not about where a given party stands on the issues, it's about brand recognition. Just like any other form of marketing.

[punked]

Punked, do you feel this way about the Liberal Party throughout its history or only the current version of the Liberal Party? (I don't really agree either way but I'm interested in hearing your answer before I explain.)

This has just been the History of the Liberal party through out Canada. I mean lets take one of their MPs Geoff Reagan for example. His father Gerald Regan was the Premier of NS in 70s. While Premier he set up a 5 cent "fee" on every bottle of Liquor sold in NS. This went into a hidden fund NOT FOR THE PEOPLE OF NS, but for the Liberal party of NS itself this went on for a number of years. This was found out but it wasn't until the NDP came to power last year that this fund which still exists and has millions in it was outlawed. They actually have been spending money for years out of an illegal fund to win elections. Not that the son should pay for the sins of the father but what Gerald did was dead wrong the Liberals should have given up their multi million dollar slush fund a while ago.

That is just one example of how the Liberal party as a brokerage party has been winning elections. Problem is with wide scale media the people of Canada wont accept this type of behavior anymore. Which means the Liberal party needs to change if they want to win and they just aren't.

Edited April 20, 2011 by punked

[jbg]

The only leader showing any integrity at all over the issue is Gilles Duceppe. The rest, Layton, Harper and Ignatieff are all madly shovelling horse pucks.

Duceppes was the last speaker on that audio. He said what he said, in plain Canadian. Did you understand him?

[punked]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The CPC are a prime example of this, even though the PC's were in fact a brokerage party and were wiped out, when the right united why did they eventually change the name to Conservative Party of Canada? why not keep the old one? I'm not specifically referring to the ideological view point of the party, merely the name. That is why the NDP remained the NDP, the CRAP changed to the PC and whatever composition the LPC's eventually end up in, they will still have Liberal somewhere in their name.

You are making fine points all around, but if you think that there are not a lot of people who vote LPC based on the familiarity of the name I'd have to say you're mistaken. Not everyone is a involved in politics as you or others on this board, and it's not about where a given party stands on the issues, it's about brand recognition. Just like any other form of marketing.

I am sorry I misunderstood. Of course you are right their is 10-15% of the public who will vote "Liberal" no matter who is running or where the party is on the spectrum.

[icman]

Dave, you must have been in a hurry when you read my post. I don't think I've ever had someone so completely miss my point!

I have absolutely no argument with you about the legality of a coalition! The same is true about popular ignorance!

I'm saying that it doesn't matter! The common man doesn't care or understand such things but he still votes! He still has opinions about such things but only when he sees them happen. We would never really know how he would react unless and until a coalition actually happened. At that time, the legalities would be irrelevant. If Joe Voter didn't mind, nothing would happen. If he got upset because he didn't like it, then he would be pissed and would hold a grudge against the parties that forced the coalition.

More plainly, if at that time someone like you scolded Joe and waved a book of constitutional law in front of him he would likely just laugh at you and move on! You wouldn't change his feelings and the way he would vote next election in the slightest.

In politics, legalities are a lot less important than whether or not something passes the "sniff test". In fact, if you have to use a legal argument as an excuse you've already failed! It only reminds the public that most politicians are lawyers and lawyers' tricks are not well respected.

So keep waving your constitutional law book, Dave. I hope it makes you feel better. All I know is, if I were a politician I wouldn't want to stake my political future on it!

You can't pass a law to MAKE someone vote a certain way!

My problem, and perhaps Dave_On's as well, is that our leadership is content with the lack of civic knowledge within our electorate, and make no effort to educate them. Worse, the Conservatives are deliberately fanning the flames of ignorance on this particular issue in an attempt to garner votes. That is utterly dispicable. Make the population even MORE ignorant in order to hold onto power, a power whose source wanes at the same rate of advancing ignorance of the population being ruled.

You may be right, and people will use their "sniff test" even though their test lacks any insight or critical thought. Their "sniff test" needs to be informed by a dose of understanding of the workings of our Parliament.

And the person who laughs at the rule book and walks away from the discussion loses MY respect for deliberately abdicating their obligation to at least attempt to understand something thoroughly before becoming contemptuous of it.

And make no mistake - the attitude is one of arrogance and contempt.

[Dave_ON]

My problem, and perhaps Dave_On's as well, is that our leadership is content with the lack of civic knowledge within our electorate, and make no effort to educate them. Worse, the Conservatives are deliberately fanning the flames of ignorance on this particular issue in an attempt to garner votes. That is utterly dispicable. Make the population even MORE ignorant in order to hold onto power, a power whose source wanes at the same rate of advancing ignorance of the population being ruled.

Absolutely, this is the core of the issue for me. It's all well and good that joe voter is content to wallow in ignorance, but what I cannot abide is the CPC's wanton exploitation, and encouragement of that ignorance. I'm still floored at Mr. Harper's Presidential Address during the whole constitutional crisis. As if he had some right to address the nation directly or had any level of authority whatsoever to defy the will of Parliament. It was then that such phrases of "coalition of losers" or "coup d'etat" started floating around. All disingenuous and inaccurate statements aimed directly at exploiting the ignorance of the Canadians at large. I found the whole affair insulting and infuriating, I think I actually shouted back at the TV.

[icman]

My problem, and perhaps Dave_On's as well, is that our leadership is content with the lack of civic knowledge within our electorate, and make no effort to educate them. Worse, the Conservatives are deliberately fanning the flames of ignorance on this particular issue in an attempt to garner votes. That is utterly dispicable. Make the population even MORE ignorant in order to hold onto power, a power whose source wanes at the same rate of advancing ignorance of the population being ruled.

You may be right, and people will use their "sniff test" even though their test lacks any insight or critical thought. Their "sniff test" needs to be informed by a dose of understanding of the workings of our Parliament.

And the person who laughs at the rule book and walks away from the discussion loses MY respect for deliberately abdicating their obligation to at least attempt to understand something thoroughly before becoming contemptuous of it.

And make no mistake - the attitude is one of arrogance and contempt.

Further to the above...

There are legitimate reasons to oppose a Coalition betweent the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc

1) Don't include the Bloc in government because they are separatists on paper, and in government would be in a position to increase the probability of the separation of Quebec. I don't know if I agree, but it is a legitimate fear. This is not an objection to coalitions, though, just an objection to including separatists in government.

2) Coalitions in general don't accomplish much because they talk but can't act. I understand this objection, even though I disagree that it makes coalitions bad. I think that, in fact, it makes coalitions good, because it means all forward progress will have to pass the "sniff tests" of more unlike-minded people. But some people think that wrong action is better than no action - it can be reversed later. (Again, I disagree, there are some actions that can't easily be undone)

Well, that's really it. There really are no other objections to coalitions that I can think of that wouldn't land in one or the other of the above categories.

Coalitions are NOT illegal.

Coalitions are NOT treasonous.

Coalitions are NOT subversions of the will of the voters.

I tell you now. If you disagree with any of the above 3 statements about what coalitions are NOT, then don't waste your time arguing with me... go find some good literature (ie, not from the CPC website) on Parliamentary democracy, cause you have some self-educating to do.