And Just Like That..... All the Polls Say it's a TIE! Whodathunkit?

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I just did dumdum.  Show us where all of the polls say it's a tie, or we can safely conclude that you've clowned yourself...again.  

 

I've literally posted four. If you need more than that go look it up yourself.

And you only have the balls when you got called out on it. I guess your shame over rode your cowardice in this case

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

As for the rest, make up your mind over which fantasy you're going to subscribe to.  Am I the coward too afraid to engage you, or am I the sad puppy following you and engaging you everywhere?  

Oh you can be both. You're too afraid to ask me a legitimate question but you're happy to Yap like a over caffeinated Chihuahua  

Whenever you engage me in actual debate it usually starts off halfway decent and then you lose your shit when you realize something you've said is not accurate. Which is what's happening right now in another thread. And that seems to lead you for a while to be absolutely petrified of actually engaging because you know that you're going to say something stupid and when I correct you even nicely it sends you into a tizzy

So instead you just follow me around making childish and pedantic attacks until someone changes your diaper  

[PIK]

Pollsters and the CBC know a con majority is a good possibility, and are now softening their tone .

[Moonbox]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

I've literally posted four. If you need more than that go look it up yourself.

Where's that?  Not here.  Is this going to be another example of you refusing to provide any cites or evidence, while insisting you totally already did?   

Michael already posted the proof on how wrong you were, so at this point it's just a matter of how much energy you'll spend petulantly ranting at us over how retarded you made yourself look...again.  🤡

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's looking a lot better for the minority government I'd much rather see.

Yes, in fairness you did say that in the past that you would like to see a minority government of any stripe rather than a majority of any stripe

Quote

 

  Which way matters less really.  A little humble pie for Conservatives from having to negotiate what it wants to do instead of just ramrodding everything through would suit me just fine too.

Remember when you were crowing about a three term Conservative/Poilievre future? Maybe Canada's greatest PM you said.  That cookies sure crumbled hasn't it?

 

Cookie hasn't crumbled at all. As the election goes on more and more people are turning towards Poilievre and his approval numbers are going up and up. Worst case scenario the liberals get a small minority and when carney proves out to be exactly the same as Trudeau was, and he will, and there's no NDP to keep him propped up anymore then in 18 months or so we bring the government down and then he'll get his majority.

If he gets a minority then he'll pull the same route that harper did. It's likely to be a very strong minority keeps the block happy he should stay in power. People will actually see change and then at a moment of weakness with the other parties he can simply pull the plug when they are the most vulnerable and walk into a majority.

I have a pretty good feeling that if carney doesn't win the election he's going to bail despite having promised over and over that he wouldn't. Which means the liberals go into another leadership race. That sounds like about a perfect time to pull the plug and call another election   It's exactly what the liberals would do

[Boges]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's worth noting that harper won his majority without needing a single seat in Quebec. If he hadn't gotten a single Quebec seat he still would have had a majority.

At the end of the day no system is perfect But in this day and age you still need decent support in the west unless you're going to have a weak minority

Yes, but Harper did fairly well in Ontario. He also won two minorities before finally breaking through with a majority. 

DoFo has not been supportive of the PP campaign. 

A close race like you suggest, indicates a minority government. Which either means PP has to play nice to get anything done ORRR we're right in the same place we were before with a new Liberal leader. 

What's telling about how this race is shaping up is the cratering of the NDP. You'd have to think that support is going towards the Liberals. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Where's that?  Not here.  Is this going to be another example of you refusing to provide any cites or evidence, while insisting you totally already did?   

Michael already posted the proof on how wrong you were, so at this point it's just a matter of how much energy you'll spend petulantly ranting at us over how retarded you made yourself look...again.  🤡

FFS it's ONE PAGE AGO.

 

So now you're a liar as well as everything else. I mean why not.

Last week most of the posters had a huge spread between the two parties. Well commenting on it I said at the beginning of the week they will all magically condense to be pretty much tied. They have all magically condensed to be pretty much tied. Most are within their margin of errors and the rest are right on the edge of it

 

This happens every time. You lose a debate to me in another thread and you run around so desperate to try and look like you know what you're talking about that you make stupid statements without actually looking into it and you wind up looking like a complete tard

hey tard - what's 100 - 50?  

[CdnFox]

Just now, Boges said:

Yes, but Harper did fairly well in Ontario. He also won two minorities before finally breaking through with a majority. 

sure. You can't lose Quebec and Ontario and win. That is an absolute truth. Ontario has a third of our population and a third of the seats and there is simply no getting around that.

Having said that back in the day quebec was a lot more important. Quebec had more seats than all of the western provinces combined. However population growth has changed that and now the west has far more seats than Quebec. The west is now actually more important than Quebec when it comes to winning an election.

Ontario is going to be the linchpin for quite a while, but as long as you at least tie in Ontario if you can carry the west or Quebec you can still win, and of the two the west is more important, 

 

Quote

A close race like you suggest, indicates a minority government. Which either means PP has to play nice to get anything done ORRR we're right in the same place we were before with a new Liberal leader. 

Well nice is a very relative term.

If these polling numbers are correct, and I am not saying they are correct at all, but if they are then basically if it's a PC minority they should be able to stay in power without too much trouble. The bloc will be enough to keep them there and remember that the ndp is going to be going through a leadership race and so will the libs and that takes time. Neither will pull the plug before that happens. 

And the only reason swapping leaders worked in this case at all is because of Donald Trump. It was the perfect timing and the perfect situation with a perfect set of circumstances to give the liberals a boost. They are unlikely to get those kinds of circumstances again, a new liberal leader will have no time to prepare before they go to an election and we will probably get a majority.

So what will have delayed our plans for 18 months a little. That's really not the end of the world considering

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

FFS it's ONE PAGE AGO.

Those aren't ties, donkey.  

Assigning the negative margin or error to the Liberals and the positive to the Conservatives is wishful thinking, not actual logic. 

If done in reverse, then the Conservatives are 10 points behind.  Nobody is starting a thread about that though, because they're not completely retarded.  

 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, PIK said:

Pollsters and the CBC know a con majority is a good possibility, and are now softening their tone .

Well I think that's basically exactly what's happening across the board. In some cases I think some of the posters had their thumb on the scale for various reasons, there is absolutely no doubt even amongst other posters that ekos Rigged their poles to produce a result that favored the liberals

Now they're worried they're going to look like Liars if they don't at least come close to predicting the truth. And others are worried that the numbers that their polls are producing aren't matching up with other elements that suggest the outcome will be different than their predicting.

So they are all moving to a more neutral stance and eliminating the double digit divides between the parties and suggesting that they are practically touching.

Now they can refine that a tiny bit as necessary just before the election day and at that point they will be putting out their very best polling efforts to get as accurate a number as they can and that's what they will go with

And then they will try and sell people on the idea that everyone just changed their minds and that's why we have elections and it was a complete surprise. Some of these posters have had the parties very close all the way through by the ones that had these huge gaps probably were doing so for reasons other than accurate polling

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Those aren't ties, donkey.  

Assigning the negative margin or error to the Liberals and the positive to the Conservatives is wishful thinking, not actual logic.

Oh my god, that is what literally every poster talks about. Yes they are in a statistical tie if they were within the margin. Go look it up. That is the most commonly used phrase out there when it comes to polling.

That is literally what it means.

I have to say do you have a team of people that works on nothing but how to make you look more stupid? I'm not sure how you're achieving this level i've retardedness on your own

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

If the ndp keeps status it's questionable if the libs will get a minority, or if they do it will be so small that the cpc and any other party will knock them out.  THe ndp won't have the balance of power based on the polls right now

We really needed a better performance by Jagmeet. 

Then again, he's preaching to the dumbest 10%, so he probably could have told poop jokes and not lost any votes. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

We really needed a better performance by Jagmeet. 

Then again, he's preaching to the dumbest 10%, so he probably could have told poop jokes and not lost any votes. 

When they sign the alliance I said that this has never ever worked out well for the junior partner at the next election, and even on this board i have said many many times if he goes into 2025 supporting the liberals he's toast.  He HAD to pull the liberals down before that or suffer the same fate  EVERY party that's tried this in canada and even in other Westminster system. 

So he was doomed when he hung on for his pension.  If the ndp wanted to get away unscathed they needed to pull the plug in 2024. And honestly earlier in 2024 would have been great but by the end of 2024 that was their golden opportunity. 

And on top of that trump happened and made it worse for them. 

There was no way for jagmeet to undo 3 years of bad decisions and being the liberals but boy in one campaign. Now they need to find a Jack Layton to revive the party or wander in obscurity for the next three elections

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh my god, that is what literally every poster talks about. Yes they are in a statistical tie if they were within the margin. Go look it up. That is the most commonly used phrase out there when it comes to polling.

When you're within the margin of error one way, you can call that a statistical tie.  Mainstreet definitely, and maybe EKOS could say that.  

These predictions are made on distributions, however, so the further from the polled number, the less likely they predict it will be.  For most of the other polls to be "ties", you need the unlikely scenario that their margins of error are both fully realized, and that they both go in the direction required for the Conservatives.  That's wishful thinking. 

It's not impossible, and momentum could swing, but if the election were held today they're still predicting a Liberal majority, and by 1 point higher than they did yesterday.  

 

[WestCanMan]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If the ndp wanted to get away unscathed they needed to pull the plug in 2024. And honestly earlier in 2024 would have been great but by the end of 2024 that was their golden opportunity. 

Jagmeet could have been a man, and a hero to millions of Canadians.

Instead he chose to be a servile 'she-dog' (b...), and reviled, humiliated. 

[myata]

In their maga dreamworld... the pigs are sure flying

[TreeBeard]

Suddenly polls are a great indicator of voting intention after Con supporters have been setting their hair on fire about how unreliable and biased polls are.  

Partisan hacks with no capacity for shame?  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

When you're within the margin of error one way, you can call that a statistical tie.  Mainstreet definitely, and maybe EKOS could say that.  

These predictions are made on distributions, however, so the further from the polled number, the less likely they predict it will be.  For most of the other polls to be "ties", you need the unlikely scenario that their margins of error are both fully realized, and that they both go in the direction required for the Conservatives.  That's wishful thinking. 

It's not impossible, and momentum could swing, but if the election were held today they're still predicting a Liberal majority, and by 1 point higher than they did yesterday.  

 

Oh look who just suddenly discovered that margin of error is a real thing, 🙄

Everything I said is accurate and I love that you're now going back and forth Trying desperately to wiggle around in that having made an ass of yourself previously.  "highly unlikely" ... yeah, but still a tie.  Sorry.  Certainly for the purposes of the point i made it is. 

 

And you're using 338's data, which is 2 days behind.   which makes sense considering that's how much your brain lags  

 

[Moonbox]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Everything I said is accurate

Except for the part about all of the polls being tied, which is categorically not true.  🤡🤡🤡

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Except for the part about all of the polls being tied, which is categorically not true.  🤡🤡🤡

Sure it is. Their statistically tied. Of course considering you used out of date information I can understand why you didn't immediately get that.

The point was that the posters went from double-digit division to pretty much side by side almost overnight. And they did it for an explicit reason which I had predicted in detail.

Hey kid... what's 100 minus 50?   LOLOL

[herbie]

13 hours ago, West said:

The nazis are trying to suppress the vote and intimidate people into compliance 

We know you are. For dredging the depths of the Internet for obscure polls that differ from all the legit ones.

[Moonbox]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure it is. Their statistically tied.

Not when you have to double the margin of error to get yourself there! 

Let's see now...

Difference between 42.6 - 37.1 = 5.5

Margin of Error = 2.7

QUICK!  What's 5.5 - 2.7?  

🤡🤡🤡

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Not when you have to double the margin of error to get yourself there! 

Let's see now...

Difference between 42.6 - 37.1 = 5.5

 

Considering where they had them last week, it's basically tied  

Sorry kiddo.  The polls went from wide apart to basically tied. 

 

 

Quote

 

Margin of Error = 2.7

QUICK!  What's 5.5 - 2.7?  

 

LOLOL Ok, lets break down all the stupid here   

the margin of error applies to both numbers, as well as the confidence level of the poll over all. 

So it's 2.7 for the 42.6 and for the 37. 1

Here you go   This explains clearly why you effed up.  You go the math wrong   

Understanding the margin of error in election polls

It is not enough for one candidate to be ahead by more than the margin of error that is reported for individual candidates (i.e., ahead by more than 3 points, in our example). To determine whether or not the race is too close to call, we need to calculate a new margin of error for the difference between the two candidates’ levels of support. The size of this margin is generally about twice that of the margin for an individual candidate. 

So the margin for both those number is combined .....  now, what's 2.7 x 2?  Yep it's 5.4. What's the spread? 5.5.  Given rounding errors, they're tied. Just barely tied but yes, tied.

Sooooo -  you couldn't figure out what 2.7 times 2 was    

You LITERALLY JUST TOOK THE TIME TO POST THAT YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT! HAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Holy shit kid, i have never seen anyone eff up as much as you do   

Well at least you didn't actually post the link that proved you wrong THIS time!!!!!

Hey - wants 100 minus 50?

Edited April 22 by CdnFox

[West]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Not when you have to double the margin of error to get yourself there! 

Let's see now...

Difference between 42.6 - 37.1 = 5.5

Margin of Error = 2.7

QUICK!  What's 5.5 - 2.7?  

🤡🤡🤡

We will see. Last i checked there was an enthusiasm gap with the Liberal Party. 

Nanos tends to be spot on but we will see how it goes.

Edited April 22 by West

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, West said:

We will see. Last i checked there was an enthusiasm gap with the Liberal Party. 

Nanos tends to be spot on but we will see how it goes.

Nanos is usually great and often my go-to, but they have definitely been a little bit off this election. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they are deliberately doing it, but for whatever reason their methodology may not reflect real world results.

It's something that every poster wrestles with, and because they all use different methodologies this explains why we saw about a 15-point spread at some points with polling that had roughly three percent margins of error. It was fairly all over the map compared to normal

For example, it has often been saidThat it is extremely difficult to accurately pull trump because he has an unusually and disproportionately large percentage of those voters who are unlikely to answer surveys. That is very difficult to build into the model so a lot of posters have been wrong about him as a result without intent

But when posters get nervous towards the end of a campaign they always tighten everything up. And they may be nervous for lots of reasons, most commonly that they feel that there is a problem with their polling and that their numbers might not be accurate.

So it's kind of a hint when in the last week you see a bunch of posters kind of tightening their numbers moving towards a tie or at least a very close horse race.

 

We will see, over half of Canadians likely to vote have already voted, The people remaining are the lazy and those who haven't quite made up their minds yet and that can be a huge swing

[West]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nanos is usually great and often my go-to, but they have definitely been a little bit off this election. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they are deliberately doing it, but for whatever reason their methodology may not reflect real world results.

It's something that every poster wrestles with, and because they all use different methodologies this explains why we saw about a 15-point spread at some points with polling that had roughly three percent margins of error. It was fairly all over the map compared to normal

For example, it has often been saidThat it is extremely difficult to accurately pull trump because he has an unusually and disproportionately large percentage of those voters who are unlikely to answer surveys. That is very difficult to build into the model so a lot of posters have been wrong about him as a result without intent

But when posters get nervous towards the end of a campaign they always tighten everything up. And they may be nervous for lots of reasons, most commonly that they feel that there is a problem with their polling and that their numbers might not be accurate.

So it's kind of a hint when in the last week you see a bunch of posters kind of tightening their numbers moving towards a tie or at least a very close horse race.

 

We will see, over half of Canadians likely to vote have already voted, The people remaining are the lazy and those who haven't quite made up their minds yet and that can be a huge swing

The pollsters, in my estimation, have not really caught up to the times. They rely too much on traditional polling methods. It's why they've been off in the US. They don't account for social media.

 

Edited April 23 by West

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, West said:

The pollsters, in my estimation, have not really caught up to the times. They rely too much on traditional polling methods. It's why they've been off in the US 

 

Is something that they have been wrestling with like crazy.

Just an example, in the traditional model if they call a thousand people and they get 40 people under the age of 30 that respond to their poll but they know that people under 30 represent 20 percent of the population, then they just multiply 40 by 5 to get the right number for their sample.  But that sample winds up being unreasonably small and can skew the odds. 

You can see the problems,   and no matter which model they use there's issues nowadays. In years gone by everyone was home for dinner, there were only 1 or 2 phones in the house, everyone had a landline,  and there was enough 'commonality' that they could do that kind of thing and get good results, 

Now they can't. It's much harder. 

And worse they've never been able to guess who's actually going to be getting out and voting with any accuracy at all. And that's lead to some SEVERE upsets, such as the oft quoted bc 2013 election where the polls overwhelmingly predicted a strong ndp majority and it was a solid liberal majority instead. Turns out the ndp voters all stayed home. 

It's a tough time for the industry right now and we'll have to see how they adapt.