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

[taxme]

On 4/22/2025 at 8:06 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Look at that... why you are right 😮

https://338canada.com/polls.htm

Didn't realize that at all.  They ARE rated A- which is a high rating.

I bet that you are terrified of a conservative majority, you being a leftwing supporter, right MH? 😇

[TreeBeard]

40 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

All the choices this election are nothing short of terrible.  I'm hoping for a minority government.

You think the leaders are bad?  The parties are bad?  Local candidates are bad?  
 

Would you vote Conservative if Carney was the leader of the party?  Social liberal, PhD economist sounds like right up the alley of centre-conservatives, no?

Edited Wednesday at 06:50 PM by TreeBeard

[TreeBeard]

17 minutes ago, taxme said:

I bet that you are terrified of a conservative majority, you being a leftwing supporter, right MH? 😇

I don’t think @Michael Hardner is scared of something so far fetched.  

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I don’t think @Michael Hardner is scared of something so far fetched.  

It doesn't matter much to me.  I haven't heard anything from these leaders that tell me they're the Holy Grail I have been waiting on.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, taxme said:

The polls in Alberta show that 30% of Albertans are ready to separate from Canada. If the liberals win, even a minority, it is believed that the number will go up higher. If the liberals become a minority, then the block will surely back them up.

After all, both party's do hate Canada and both are ready to get together to screw the conservatives anyway they can. We must get a majority conservative government or the conservatives will have a tough time trying to get thru some of their agendas. Just saying. 

The block won't be backing the liberals very easily, they are more closely aligned to the conservatives. As close as they align with anyone at any rate, they are still entirely focused on the benefits of Quebec and the rest of the world can go to hell

Harper managed to get through a lot of stuff even into minority. Obviously you're not going to get through everything.

I do believe that a liberal majority will cause a national unity crisis. I think a lot of young people will be very very angry. And I don't think there's any doubt that carney will be exactly the same as Trudeau was and nothing will get any better. Which means they still won't be able to afford food or a house, and they will have given up on the democratic process.

Looking at the polls in the situation I think it's safe to say that once again most of the  liberal success Comes from Ontario Quebec and The Maritime Provinces. People in the west are going to notice that and there is going to be a lot of anger.

All we can do is hope that the conservatives either hold them to a minority or when a minority themselves

[TreeBeard]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It doesn't matter much to me.  I haven't heard anything from these leaders that tell me they're the Holy Grail I have been waiting on.

Has Canada ever had a holy grail of a political leader?   Sounds to me like your expectations might be a tad high.  

If the Cons do pull it off, I don’t think we have much to worry about.  I think Poilievre would be scared to death of governing in a way where he is compared to Trump.  It would make his government a brief minority, or a single term majority.  

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

1. Has Canada ever had a holy grail of a political leader?   Sounds to me like your expectations might be a tad high.  

2. If the Cons do pull it off, I don’t think we have much to worry about.  I think Poilievre would be scared to death of governing in a way where he is compared to Trump.  It would make his government a brief minority, or a single term majority.  

1. My expectations are spot on.  I am waiting on something that I don't expect to see in my lifetime.  Sir John A. was pretty good.  Sir Mackenzie Bowell was pretty bad.

2. Agreed.  I don't think a lifetime as an MP is a good place to start for making wholesale changes.  As for Carney... while I do think he understands economic matters, I wonder if he knows how to govern.

I think we're in for a bad few years, in all likelihood.  My prayers are with you if you work in small business, real estate or anything to do with that business, startups ...

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

while I do think he understands economic matters, I wonder if he knows how to govern.

I’m less confident that Poilievre knows how to govern than Carney.  At least Carney understands economics. 

 

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

real estate

If you couldn’t save some coin from being in a decade long real estate boom for the inevitable downturn, I’m not going to shed any tears for you. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If you couldn’t save some coin from being in a decade long real estate boom for the inevitable downturn, I’m not going to shed any tears for you. 

I do feel sorry for dumb people who make decisions that go against their interests.

This is why I weep for the chuds.  You can find Trump fans online waiting for things to turn around any day now... 

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You think the leaders are bad?  The parties are bad?  Local candidates are bad?  

Yes.

[TreeBeard]

35 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Yes.

Best thing for you would be to forgo voting maybe, until someone perfect comes along. 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's not how it works. Sigh. I posted a detailed explanation of this. 

It is, and your "detailed explanations" are nothing more than your typical useless ranting and bloviating - telling us how you need things to be so as not to look like an assclown, rather than how it actually is.  

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not really relevant is it.

Why's that?  Because it doesn't work with the reality you're manifesting for yourself?  Do we not have more than two parties, and are those additional parties not eating up a sizeable chunk of the vote?  

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The number given to either party is the center of a range of likely probabilities based on the data.  It is just as likely that the actual number is in the upper portion of that range, or the lower.  

That's the thing.  It's not about "either party".  It's about all the parties.  You can't just slap +/- 2.7% on to the polled numbers, which should be pretty clear just by trying to do so with the PPC.  

Quick! Give me the range of likely probabilities for the PPC's 0.9%, + or minus a 2.7% margin of error.  Are they in a "statistical tie" with the Greens and the Bloc?

I'll wait for your answer...🙄

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Best thing for you would be to forgo voting maybe, until someone perfect comes along. 

Or not hot garbage?

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It is, and your "detailed explanations" are nothing more than your typical useless ranting and bloviating - telling us how you need things to be so as not to look like an assclown, rather than how it actually is.  

I posted proof. I posted literally the definition and that's a definition that appears again and again and again and again if you do a search of your own

So we're back to your usual trick of just simply out and out lying in order to try and salvage what's left of your teeny tiny ego having been proven wrong yet again for the what 20th 30th time now?

What I said was absolutely true, and I have provided sources that show that it's true.

And no it's not about all the parties for god's sake!!!!! I have posted clear evidence that it is absolutely nothing to do with the other ones. I know this is hard for you to understand because you think that what you're looking at with a pole is a number and you think if that number changes the other numbers have to change as well.

And that is not accurate as has been explained to you, the number only represents the middle of a range of probable outcomes. And each range is independent of the others.  And if they overlap then we say that the difference is statistically insignificant and therefore it's a statistical tie!!!

Think of it more like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applied to numbers  -  the statistical waveform remains until measured by an election. 

Sigh. It's like arguing with a toddler.  I've posted the proofs, i've posted the explanations, i'm making none of this up, you're just too dumb to get it. 

100 -50 is 50,  i suppose if you couldn't understand that back in the day then this is WAY over your head. 

 

[Moonbox]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I posted proof. I posted literally the definition and that's a definition that appears again and again and again and again if you do a search of your own

You posted how it works on a binary poll with only two options, which this election isn't.  Good job, donkey!  🙃

Answer the question:

Give me the range of likely probabilities for the PPC's 0.9%, + or minus a 2.7% margin of error.  Are they in a "statistical tie" with the Greens and the Bloc?

According to your "definition", they are! 🤣

Except they're not, because we aren't a two-horse race with only two candidates, we have numerous other parties pulling significant portions of the vote, and thus cannot just slap the margin of error uniformly across every party.  

Often pollsters, journalists and political scientists calculate this as twice the reported margin of error of the poll.

...

While this is the correct conclusion when there are only two possible survey responses, it is not correct when there are more than two possible responses, which is in fact virtually always the case. How much difference this makes depends on how many responses are outside the two categories of interest.

...

Whenever we compare proportions of candidate support within a single survey, this is the formula we should use. For low amounts of undecided or third party support the results will be close to the “twice the margin of error” formula, but the correct margin of error will be less than this as the proportion of “other” responses increases.

Edited Wednesday at 11:41 PM by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You posted how it works on a binary poll with only two options, which this election isn't.  Good job, donkey!  🙃

No, if you actually read it you would note that it also addresses multiple results as well. Which tells me you didn't read it which explains why you didn't understand it.

 

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

According to your "definition", they are!

It's not my definition, it was pew researches definition and actually applied to multiple cases as well had you read the actual link.

And I'm sorry but your ABC news article does not beat pew research.

I appreciate how desperate you are to try and salvage your ego. And I understand how difficult this is for you and I can practically hear you crying.

But what I said was accurate and you are an Imbecile. And that is not going to change

[SpankyMcFarland]

Yahoo, Major Carney, the cavalry are a-comin’

 

Quote

Days before the federal election and after more than a week without commenting on Canada, U.S. President Donald Trump resurfaced his 51st state rhetoric Wednesday afternoon and suggested he could further raise auto tariffs.

The president was speaking to reporters from the Oval Office, when he repeated his false claim that the United States "subsidizes" Canada to the tune of $200 billion US a year.

"I have to be honest, as a state it works great," Trump said. "Ninety-five per cent of what they do is they buy from us and they sell to us."

Yep, he has to be honest…

 

Quote

The comments come as the Canadian federal election had become less focused on U.S. economic and sovereignty threats and as the Liberal lead over the Conservative Party has tightened in the past week.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-canada-politics-1.7516951

 

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Yahoo, Major Carney, the cavalry are a-comin’

 

Yep, he has to be honest…

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-canada-politics-1.7516951

 

Yeah.  Imagine that. Trump randomly making those comments and the cbc rushing to report on it just at the end of the election when people are making decisions. 

That guy is so deep into donalds pockets it isn't funny, and that's the guy you want to "fight" trump?

[SpankyMcFarland]

9 hours ago, taxme said:

I bet that you are terrified of a conservative majority, you being a leftwing supporter, right MH? 😇

It wouldn’t make much difference to my life. I doubt a PM Poilievre would launch trade wars across the globe or start fighting the deep state. If anything, my taxes would probably go down. 

[myata]

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

All the choices this election are nothing short of terrible.

No no. At least one is good, some are OK and some, really terrible. Make your choice.

[Moonlight Graham]

9 minutes ago, myata said:

No no. At least one is good, some are OK and some, really terrible. Make your choice.

There's no good parties, sorry.

[myata]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

There's no good parties, sorry.

Between "good" whatever interpretation and stupidly brainless lying can be enormous, astronomical distance. In this frame, just normal would do any time. You can always talk to an intelligent, educated and smart individual, with a real and factual track record of achievements. You can disagree much and still keep your dignity and respect for each other.

What one cannot do is to talk, with any meaning or point to a maga-conservative rock (in fairness, some rocks seem to be smarter). It just has no point, zero informative value. "F@ck", "look at her child", "let's measure the color of her skin" - how and why would anyone want to talk to that?

Sure there's a difference.

Edited yesterday at 07:48 AM by myata

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, myata said:

Between "good" whatever interpretation and stupidly brainless lying can be enormous, astronomical difference. In this frame, just normal would do any time. You can always talk to an intelligent, educated and smart individual, with a real and factual track record of achivements. You can disagree much and still retain your dignity and respect for each other.

What one cannot do is to talk, with any meaning or point to a maga-conservative rock (in fairness, some rocks seem to be smarter). It just has no point, zero informative values. "F@ck", "look at her child", "let's measure the color of her skin" - how and why would anyone want to talk to that?

Sure there's difference.

well that post certainly does prove there's a lot of stupid brainless lying on the part of myata and the left  

for heaven's sake, vote CPC.  Do you want a party that is supported by people who wrote THAT mess to be running the country?

[Moonbox]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And I'm sorry but your ABC news article does not beat pew research.

I quoted a university professor's paper on how margins of error works on polls with more than two parties. 

You quoted PEW research talking about a two-party poll. 

Which sort of election does Canada have?  

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I appreciate how desperate you are to try and salvage your ego.

I appreciate how reliably you project your fragility onto others - like clockwork!  😆👌

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I quoted a university professor's paper on how margins of error works on polls with more than two parties. 

I posted a pew research paper on the same thing and it says you're wrong. Pew, one of the most respected polling firms in the known universe. 

But hey, lets settle it :  seeing as you feel you know the calculations, what ARE the proper calculations for the margin of error in that specific case? Hmmmm?

Don't know? Cant' figure it out? Havne't got a clue about what you're talking about?

Yeah. Thought so. 

Lets recap. 

You claimed that i had never posted any of the polling data, despite me telling you i had you kept insisting.  I posted a snip of the post probing you wrong.  FAIL ON YOUR PART #1

you then claimed that you can't apply the margin to both numbers and call it a tie because theoretically it could go the other way. I posted proof that you were wrong from pew research and others showing that if the margin overlaps AT ALL then it's a statistical tie.  FAIL ON YOUR PART #2

You then claimed the other numbers must be adjusted and i referred you to the pew research paper that noted even with multiple entries that is not necessarily true.  FAIL #3

 

Now you're desperately trying to recover from all that by relying on a small article from a newspaper that doesn't address the issue nearly as well as what i'd already posted. 

Sorry kid,  that's FOUR strikes.  Yer out   LOLOLOL

honestly it's getting to the point we're making you look stupid is just getting boring. You make it too easy  

See you next time!