Nearly 20% of Canadian small businesses may close from tariffs, CFIB says

[eyeball]

Kory Teneycke, a former Director of Communications to the Prime Minister's Office under Stephen Harper, called the 25 point lead that PP blew campaign malpractice.

https://youtu.be/Pk3IF2b173o?si=Jd7pGRXnKfzoU9Ym

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Oh PP certainly did blow that sort of lead,

The one  you mentioned he never had.  Sure kid  

This "lead", is it in the room with you now?

 

Quote

I just DGAF who or when he had it the way you're obsessing over it.

So it never existed but he blew it anyway and you don't care what the truth is as long as you get to say that he did whether he did or he didn't.

And you feel i'm the one obsessing over it 🤣🤣🤣🤣😆😆😆😋😋

Sure kid  

Quote

Interestingly enough you used up more bandwidth obsessing over his lead when he had it.

More bandwidth than what? The two or three replies here? That's not very much bandwidth is it. 

You kind of sound like you're getting a little hysterical. You sometimes get this way when you have to confront facts that don't support your fake narratives.  Take five, no need to cause any permanent emotional damage over it. 

Edited August 25, 2025 by CdnFox

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ummm.. so your statement is that he never had that kind of a lead, and your follow up question is he blew it anyway didn't he.

 LOL no. No he did not. 

In fact he was about 2 points down on carney, and then he  was 12 points down at one point, and then finished about 2 points down. 

Nanos said if the election had gone another couple weeks chances are PP would have won.  Basically carney managed to build the hype and fear and coast to victory on that. 

I don't know if the libs are going to be able to pull that off again next time. 

You keep talking as if the polling was based on some kind of actual polling or something, and it wasn't. 

Polling "data" is just a tool that the CBC and CTV use to push false narratives. 

• The story about PP's lead was just the preamble to the story of Carney's majestic rise in polling.
• The story about Carney's 12% lead was just a way of saying "All the cool kids LOVE Carney, his platform, and all of the policies that he stole from the conservatives that everyone theoretically hated last last year".
• The sudden, inexplicable close in the gap from -12% to -1.5% in the last 2 days is a carbon copy of the last election here, the one before it, the one before that, the last election in the US, the one before that, and the one before that. Isn't it amazing how conservatives in North America always trail by 7-12% for the last two months before an election, and then always close the gap to less than 2% in the last two days by some major miracle?

Stop citing polling data as if it's real, Cdn. It makes you look mathematically illiterate. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You keep talking as if the polling was based on some kind of actual polling or something, and it wasn't. 

Polling "data" is just a tool that the CBC and CTV use to push false narratives. 

•  

There are companies that do produce polls and some of them are relatively accurate, although they are most useful in tracking trends rather than actually predicting results. The polling companies only get serious one or two days before the election.

And yes, your points about the 12-point lead as well as the sudden miraculous closing in the last week are true, and I was the first appointed out at the time. It was also very reminiscent of trump's polling in that election. It was pretty obvious to me that a number of the posters in this election had their thumb on the scale. It's exceptionally easy to do

But what these guys are doing is taking polling data for months earlier when Justin Trudeau was in power and trying to pretend that somehow that's relevant in an election where the leader of the liberals was mark carney.

You can't take holding involving one leader and then claim that an election held with a completely different leader at a completely different time is somehow the same thing. You have to be going to school on the shortest of the short buses to try and pass that off and they know it

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There are companies that do produce polls and some of them are relatively accurate, although they are most useful in tracking trends rather than actually predicting results. The polling companies only get serious within 4% one or two days before the election.

Every time.

Election after election after election after election after election after election, with metronome consistency.

That's an intentional pattern, it is not the exact same outlier event 6 occurring times in a row.

And it's not like flipping a coin, where you only have a 1-in-32 chance of having heads every time, this is supposed to be reliable data. They're supposed to be within a couple percent, and they're off by 9%. When Kamala is supposed to be up by 7% and she's actually down by 1.6%, that's way outside the margin of error. That could happen less than 10% of the time if polling is a real thing. 

So, if we pretend that there's even a 10% chance that they were that wrong once, but it happened 6x in a row, that's 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10, 6 times. Literally one chance in a million that pollsters are that bad.

The chances that conservatives consistently pulled off such a Rocky-style turnaround on the last weekend of every election, but no one can ever say what they did to suddenly win so may votes, is far less than 1 in 10. 1 in 1,000. There's a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that conservatives turned the election around without anyone knowing why. 

What did Trump do on the last weekend to turn it all around? Nothing. He did the same things as always. 

Election after election in Canada and the US, the leftists are always ahead by roughly 6-10% for the last two months, and every time it miraculously closes to 1.5% on the last weekend. 

"The conservative message isn't resonating with voters, just look at the polls. The Liberal message is so popular, just look at the polls. What are the conservatives doing wrong? They're just a bit too "populist"." Voters are supposed to read 'racist' into that statement. 

Cdn, can you tell me how Scheer, O'Toole and Poilivre were so unpopular for the last two months and then suddenly won the popular vote because of a last-minute surge in popularity? What was responsible for those huge surges? I never heard a reason for it.

Cdn, can you tell me how Trump was so wildly unpopular for the last two months in the last 3 elections and then suddenly won the election or came so close because of a last-minute surge in popularity? What was responsible for those huge surges? I never heard a reason for it.

I know how statistics work, I know how much the CBC lies about everything, and I can put two and two together.

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm pretty sure he didn't but he sure blew that much anyway didn't he?

I missed this as she’s on ignore.  She needs to learn to read, because I never said PP had a 25 point lead on Carney.  I said the Cons had a 25 point lead on the Libs. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Every time.

Election after election after election after election after election after election, with metronome consistency.

That's an intentional pattern, it is not the exact same outlier event 6 occurring times in a row.

And it's not like flipping a coin, where you only have a 1-in-32 chance of having heads every time, this is supposed to be reliable data. They're supposed to be within a couple percent, and they're off by 9%. When Kamala is supposed to be up by 7% and she's actually down by 1.6%, that's way outside the margin of error. That could happen less than 10% of the time if polling is a real thing. 

So, if we pretend that there's even a 10% chance that they were that wrong once, but it happened 6x in a row, that's 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10, 6 times. Literally one chance in a million that pollsters are that bad.

The chances that conservatives consistently pulled off such a Rocky-style turnaround on the last weekend of every election, but no one can ever say what they did to suddenly win so may votes, is far less than 1 in 10. 1 in 1,000. There's a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that conservatives turned the election around without anyone knowing why. 

What did Trump do on the last weekend to turn it all around? Nothing. He did the same things as always. 

Election after election in Canada and the US, the leftists are always ahead by roughly 6-10% for the last two months, and every time it miraculously closes to 1.5% on the last weekend. 

"The conservative message isn't resonating with voters, just look at the polls. The Liberal message is so popular, just look at the polls. What are the conservatives doing wrong? They're just a bit too "populist"." Voters are supposed to read 'racist' into that statement. 

Cdn, can you tell me how Scheer, O'Toole and Poilivre were so unpopular for the last two months and then suddenly won the popular vote because of a last-minute surge in popularity? What was responsible for those huge surges? I never heard a reason for it.

Cdn, can you tell me how Trump was so wildly unpopular for the last two months in the last 3 elections and then suddenly won the election or came so close because of a last-minute surge in popularity? What was responsible for those huge surges? I never heard a reason for it.

I know how statistics work, I know how much the CBC lies about everything, and I can put two and two together.

Sometimes there are legit reasons.  Erin was actually doing very well in the polls, but then he spent 3 days waffling on the gun issue and started to dive in ontario and quebec where it mattered.  Sometimes that happens.  

But there are times when i'm sure the pollsters are thinking a) - everyone else is showing THIS result but my polling shows THAT result, i would rather show what others do so that if we're wrong we're all wrong together and nobody gets the blame,  OR they're thinking that if their polling shows someone's got an advantage it never hurts to win favour with the party who's most likely to be in power. 

And the newspapers buy a fair bit of polling, so pandering to the known bias of various papers isn't the dumbest idea for a business. 

What the polls DO tend to show (almost by accident), is trends.  The polls got trump wrong in the last election but they DID show the trends, and it was exactly as i predicted, with kammy having her best days in August and basically gliding and slowly descending after that because her campaign couldn't get the wind under it's wings to gain lift relative to trump. Trump slowly climbed.  So it wasn't much shock that he did better than the polls suggested. 

You have to know how to read the tea leaves a bit, but the polls can provide useful info to a talented soothsayer, even if they' aren't always being put forward honestly. 

 

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sometimes there are legit reasons.  Erin was actually doing very well in the polls, but then he spent 3 days waffling on the gun issue and started to dive in ontario and quebec where it mattered.  Sometimes that happens.  

But there are times when i'm sure the pollsters are thinking a) - everyone else is showing THIS result but my polling shows THAT result, i would rather show what others do so that if we're wrong we're all wrong together and nobody gets the blame,  OR they're thinking that if their polling shows someone's got an advantage it never hurts to win favour with the party who's most likely to be in power. 

And the newspapers buy a fair bit of polling, so pandering to the known bias of various papers isn't the dumbest idea for a business. 

What the polls DO tend to show (almost by accident), is trends.  The polls got trump wrong in the last election but they DID show the trends, and it was exactly as i predicted, with kammy having her best days in August and basically gliding and slowly descending after that because her campaign couldn't get the wind under it's wings to gain lift relative to trump. Trump slowly climbed.  So it wasn't much shock that he did better than the polls suggested. 

You have to know how to read the tea leaves a bit, but the polls can provide useful info to a talented soothsayer, even if they' aren't always being put forward honestly. 

 

You know how unlikely it is to get the exact same unlikely vote trajectory 6x in a row. 

"Liberals/Dems up by 6-12% for every day of the last two months and then suddenly, inexplicably, there's a mass shift in the entire electorate and in the end the pollsters just underestimate the conservative vote by 3%."

That happened to Trump 3x in a row and it happened to Scheer, O'Toole and PP. 

Why did Trump suddenly gain 8% in the last weekend of 2016?

Why did Trump suddenly gain 8% in the last weekend of 2020?

Why did Trump suddenly gain 8% in the last weekend of 2024?

Why did Scheer suddenly gain 8% in the last weekend of 2019?

Why did O'Toole suddenly gain 8% in the last weekend of 2021?

Why did PP suddenly gain 8% in the last weekend of 2025?

 

You can't name a single reason why even one of those 6 candidates suddenly gained so much popularity after being so firmly and so far behind for the last two full months.  

You need to ask yourself what's more likely:

1. Did they all really just have miraculous gains for no apparent reason, or
2. did the same people at CBC and CNN who lied about everything else find some BS polls to cite?

What's more likely than the liars at CBC and CNN hiring other liars? Did you ever expect to get the truth from them?

Would herbie, Boges, eyeball, exflyer, Arstedes, MH, etc hire legitimate pollsters or would they hire people to manufacture polling results to fit their narratives? C'mon Cdn, quit playing around.

+7% in the polls for the last two months to +1.5% in the polls on the last weekend for no apparent reason to -1.5% on election day, 6x in a row, did not happen.

I'm not talking about whether or not it's "possible", I'm flat out telling you that it did not happen, period. We were just lied to. 

What part of you expects the truth from CBC and CNN, Cdn? What would make you think that you were about to hear the truth when you tuned your TV in to one of those stations? "Today is my lucky day: I'm gonna get the truth here!!!" 

[eyeball]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The one  you mentioned he never had. 

The 25 point lead you waved around in every other post around here not so long ago.

It was so great Liberals might even lose party status you used to say.

LMAO!

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Every time.

Election after election after election after election after election after election, with metronome consistency.

That's an intentional pattern, it is not the exact same outlier event 6 occurring times in a row.

And it's not like flipping a coin, where you only have a 1-in-32 chance of having heads every time, this is supposed to be reliable data. They're supposed to be within a couple percent, and they're off by 9%. When Kamala is supposed to be up by 7% and she's actually down by 1.6%, that's way outside the margin of error. That could happen less than 10% of the time if polling is a real thing. 

So, if we pretend that there's even a 10% chance that they were that wrong once, but it happened 6x in a row, that's 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10, 6 times. Literally one chance in a million that pollsters are that bad.

The chances that conservatives consistently pulled off such a Rocky-style turnaround on the last weekend of every election, but no one can ever say what they did to suddenly win so may votes, is far less than 1 in 10. 1 in 1,000. There's a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that conservatives turned the election around without anyone knowing why. 

What did Trump do on the last weekend to turn it all around? Nothing. He did the same things as always. 

Election after election in Canada and the US, the leftists are always ahead by roughly 6-10% for the last two months, and every time it miraculously closes to 1.5% on the last weekend. 

"The conservative message isn't resonating with voters, just look at the polls. The Liberal message is so popular, just look at the polls. What are the conservatives doing wrong? They're just a bit too "populist"." Voters are supposed to read 'racist' into that statement. 

Cdn, can you tell me how Scheer, O'Toole and Poilivre were so unpopular for the last two months and then suddenly won the popular vote because of a last-minute surge in popularity? What was responsible for those huge surges? I never heard a reason for it.

Cdn, can you tell me how Trump was so wildly unpopular for the last two months in the last 3 elections and then suddenly won the election or came so close because of a last-minute surge in popularity? What was responsible for those huge surges? I never heard a reason for it.

I know how statistics work, I know how much the CBC lies about everything, and I can put two and two together.

Well.... the thing is they're probably not "off" by 9 percent, the problem is they're not reflecting what you think they are, 

Here's how that game is played.  Lets say a few polling companies call 1000 people to find out how Canadians will vote. 

50 percent say they'll vote conservative, 50 percent say liberal.  So - they report 50/50 right?

But wait.... they want it to be a REPRESENTATIVE sample.  So.... they need to 'balance it' to represent canada's population.

Nearly half of the people who responded were over 60.  That's more than the average percent of the population, and it turns out the older you are the more you're likely to vote liberal this election. So polling company a likes liberals and says "well about 30 percent of the population is older so we'll discard the rest and keep those replies",  company be doesn't like liberals so they say "well according to our stats more like 20 percent are older so we'll discard all the rest". 

They got the same results on the phone but already their polls are going to show very different results 

it goes the other way too, they'll say "we only got 12 people under 30 answer, and they make up 20 percent of the population so we'll INCREASE their share and pretend we got 200 replies and base it off the low sample of 12 and just scale it up"

THEN you add in the magic "decided" and "likely to vote" modifiers. You can basically make the poll say whatever you want by fiddling with those. You can report "Decided" or "leaning" or even other things. And then you can alter the numbers based on 'likely to vote' which is about as made up a number as you can get. 

So the pollsters are accurate.....  PROVIDED you understand what PRECISELY they've got their settings set to. 

And nobody wants to be the outlier, so they all tend to wind up with similar settings even tho they may not be the most accurate ones. But at the end of the day it's a matter of opinion so.... 

In bc a few years back we had an election and the pollsters got it HORRIBLY wrong. I mean way off, all of them. 

turned out they were all trying new models to guess who would vote.  They did research on who actually voted and when you took the percentages into account the pollsters were dead on, they just BADLY screwed up who was going to come out to vote. They thought a lot more young people, the young people didn't show up etc. 

Now the good thing is they don't tend to change that too much in the short term, so during a campaign or over shorter periods they do show trends fairly decently. 

 

So long story short,  it's a combination of factors. Bad modelling, bias, not wanting to be the outlier, and wanting to be in good with the winning party etc.  Some places like ekos don't try to hide their bias, they've said flat out they hate PP and will do all they can to keep him from winning.  But even the 'honest' ones are still prone to this crap. 

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The 25 point lead you waved around in every other post around here not so long ago.

 

You mean the one he had against justin trudeau in the year prior to Carney? 

Did he run an election against justin trudeau? How do you "blow" a "Lead" in an election that never happened?    Hey, i hear carney was polling 100 percent to hilter .. how could he blow that big a lead and just get a minority'!?!?!?! LOLOL

 Your lies are so transparent it's ridiculous   How sad and desperate do you have to be to pretend a poll about another person entirely is the same? 

Against carney he was 2 points behind.  He finished about 2 points behind.

And last year he was polling about 42 percent. He got about 42 percent.  The only thing he 'blew' is carney's majority.

That's why you guys are so panicked  

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well.... the thing is they're probably not "off" by 9 percent, the problem is they're not reflecting what you think they are, 

Here's how that game is played.  Lets say a few polling companies call 1000 people to find out how Canadians will vote. 

50 percent say they'll vote conservative, 50 percent say liberal.  So - they report 50/50 right?

But wait.... they want it to be a REPRESENTATIVE sample.  So.... they need to 'balance it' to represent canada's population.

Nearly half of the people who responded were over 60.  That's more than the average percent of the population, and it turns out the older you are the more you're likely to vote liberal this election. So polling company a likes liberals and says "well about 30 percent of the population is older so we'll discard the rest and keep those replies",  company be doesn't like liberals so they say "well according to our stats more like 20 percent are older so we'll discard all the rest". 

They got the same results on the phone but already their polls are going to show very different results 

it goes the other way too, they'll say "we only got 12 people under 30 answer, and they make up 20 percent of the population so we'll INCREASE their share and pretend we got 200 replies and base it off the low sample of 12 and just scale it up"

THEN you add in the magic "decided" and "likely to vote" modifiers. You can basically make the poll say whatever you want by fiddling with those. You can report "Decided" or "leaning" or even other things. And then you can alter the numbers based on 'likely to vote' which is about as made up a number as you can get. 

So the pollsters are accurate.....  PROVIDED you understand what PRECISELY they've got their settings set to. 

And nobody wants to be the outlier, so they all tend to wind up with similar settings even tho they may not be the most accurate ones. But at the end of the day it's a matter of opinion so.... 

In bc a few years back we had an election and the pollsters got it HORRIBLY wrong. I mean way off, all of them. 

turned out they were all trying new models to guess who would vote.  They did research on who actually voted and when you took the percentages into account the pollsters were dead on, they just BADLY screwed up who was going to come out to vote. They thought a lot more young people, the young people didn't show up etc. 

Now the good thing is they don't tend to change that too much in the short term, so during a campaign or over shorter periods they do show trends fairly decently. 

 

So long story short,  it's a combination of factors. Bad modelling, bias, not wanting to be the outlier, and wanting to be in good with the winning party etc.  Some places like ekos don't try to hide their bias, they've said flat out they hate PP and will do all they can to keep him from winning.  But even the 'honest' ones are still prone to this crap. 

 

Buddy: if they're even bothering to dial the phone at this point, they're calling numbers where they know what answer they're gonna get. 

How does their accuracy always suddenly increase by 7% on the last 2 days before the election? You still can't answer that. Do you have Stockholm Syndrome?

Maybe these "pollsters" should start calling the same types of people 60 days earlier, hey? 😂

We both know that accurate polling is NEVER coming, and we know that it will always tilt the same way. They could have figured this out by now if they really wanted to, right?

 

Who am I kidding though? I know they're f'ing liars because I know what types of people liars hire and I know that the point f statistics isn't to be wrong by the exact same amount and slanted to the same side every time.  

[WestCanMan]

We're at the point now where we are fully acknowledging inexplicable and predictable polling results that are so unlikely that they're impossible, yet they happen 100% of the time.

Let's just call a f'ing spade a spade. 

 

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The only thing he 'blew' is carney's majority.

That's why you guys are so panicked

Sure kid.

I voted in hopes of seeing Carney only secured a minority.

You're welcome.

[Shady]

On 8/22/2025 at 9:40 PM, Chrissy1979 said:

You’re denying reality again. Polievre lost the election. He blew a 25 point lead.

You should care more about how Canada is being governed.  I don't know what your fascination is with polling data that's 8+months old.  It's irrelevant to how Canada is doing.  Stop treating politics like a team sport.

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

How does their accuracy always suddenly increase by 7% on the last 2 days before the election? You still can't answer that. Do you have Stockholm Syndrome?

 

Calm down there big guy    I have answered that and i answered it during the last election as well. 

In the last few days they toss out there crap criteria and focus on ones that will get the best results, they make sure to call enough to get honest sample sizes, they basically get focused on being as accurate as possible and USUALLY (but not always) it pays off.  As i said before that  they choose modelling and 'weights' based on things OTHER than just accuracy. And that's the problem

Because the criteria doesn't usually change much it's still useful for picking up trends, but it's not accurate because they cut corners and make assumptions for various reasons that aren't as accurate as they could be. In the last couple days they get serious so they can post that they were "really accurate in the last election" when what they mean was 'really accurate on the last day of the election'.

57 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Maybe these "pollsters" should start calling the same types of people 60 days earlier, hey?

Well like i say it's not the people they call, it's how they "weight" them.  They will literaly take a couple dozen young people and then just scale their answers up to 200 people if they didn't get enough young people, as if you can take an inadequate sample size and just scale it up. Or decide 30 year olds don't' vote as much. etc etc 

THe questions matter as well.  "Many people believe Poilievre will work with trump to destroy Canada if elected, do you agree? Mark carney saved Canada during the last crisis and saved England during the brexit crisis, do you feel he can save Canada too? Will you be voting for Poilievre or Carney?"

In the last election that was shockingly close to how a few pollsters actually worded their quesitons  

There is absolutely accurate polling out there but it's usually not the free stuff we get.  that stuff can be used to detect trends and get you in the ballpark if you know how to read it though. 

Here's an oldie but a goodie when it comes to polling  :

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Calm down there big guy    I have answered that and i answered it during the last election as well. 

In the last few days they toss out there crap criteria and focus on ones that will get the best results, they make sure to call enough to get honest sample sizes, they basically get focused on being as accurate as possible and USUALLY (but not always) it pays off.  As i said before that  they choose modelling and 'weights' based on things OTHER than just accuracy. And that's the problem

Because the criteria doesn't usually change much it's still useful for picking up trends, but it's not accurate because they cut corners and make assumptions for various reasons that aren't as accurate as they could be. In the last couple days they get serious so they can post that they were "really accurate in the last election" when what they mean was 'really accurate on the last day of the election'.

Well like i say it's not the people they call, it's how they "weight" them.  They will literaly take a couple dozen young people and then just scale their answers up to 200 people if they didn't get enough young people, as if you can take an inadequate sample size and just scale it up. Or decide 30 year olds don't' vote as much. etc etc 

THe questions matter as well.  "Many people believe Poilievre will work with trump to destroy Canada if elected, do you agree? Mark carney saved Canada during the last crisis and saved England during the brexit crisis, do you feel he can save Canada too? Will you be voting for Poilievre or Carney?"

In the last election that was shockingly close to how a few pollsters actually worded their quesitons  

There is absolutely accurate polling out there but it's usually not the free stuff we get.  that stuff can be used to detect trends and get you in the ballpark if you know how to read it though. 

Here's an oldie but a goodie when it comes to polling  :

 

 

 

I honestly can't for the life of me understand why you would try so hard to legitimize polling data that is consistently off by a margin that is so egregiously wrong and always slanted to make liberal candidates look popular.  

The most accurate answer that you could possibly give without raising alarm is: "Polling in North America over the last 10 years is such an inexact science that the numbers are useless at best, but they do show a disturbing pattern of favouring liberal candidates during the crucial last two months of the campaign."

That's it. The numbers ARE wrong by a ridiculous margin, and at the end of the day the have ALWAYS favoured liberal candidates. 100% of the time.  

I don't need excuses. They were wrong 100% of the time, and there is no excuse for that. If they were giving you financial or gambling advice, would you be doing the exact opposite of what they say 30 days before each election?

The answer is "yes", and that's a wrap. 

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I honestly can't for the life of me understand why you would try so hard to legitimize polling data that is consistently off by a margin that is so egregiously wrong and always slanted to make liberal candidates look popular.  

The most accurate answer that you could possibly give without raising alarm is: "Polling in North America over the last 10 years is such an inexact science that the numbers are useless at best, but they do show a disturbing pattern of favouring liberal candidates during the crucial last two months of the campaign."

That's it. The numbers ARE wrong by a ridiculous margin, and at the end of the day the have ALWAYS favoured liberal candidates. 100% of the time.  

I don't need excuses. They were wrong 100% of the time, and there is no excuse for that. If they were giving you financial or gambling advice, would you be doing the exact opposite of what they say 30 days before each election?

The answer is "yes", and that's a wrap. 

I'm not legitimizing it at all, i out and out said it's inaccurate and why.  But if you know what to look for they have SOME value. 

I think you're slightly exaggerating their errors but for sure you can't trust a public poll. 

[WestCanMan]

On 8/25/2025 at 12:08 PM, CdnFox said:

I'm not legitimizing it at all, i out and out said it's inaccurate and why.  But if you know what to look for they have SOME value. 

I think you're slightly exaggerating their errors but for sure you can't trust a public poll. 

When was the last time that polls had a conservative in Canada or the US down by less than 5% in the last two months of an election campaign season? 

Never.

The avg is Libs +7% for the last two months, never less than 5% up.

The avg is Libs +1.5% for the last weekend. Never more than +2%

On election day Trump has 2 wins and 1 loss, and the CPC won the popular vote in 2 of the last 3 elections. 

But the polls are legit 😂

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

When was the last time that polls had a conservative in Canada or the US down by less than 5% in the last two months of an election campaign season? 

Never.

The avg is Libs +7% for the last two months, never less than 5% up.

The avg is Libs +1.5% for the last weekend. Never more than +2%

On election day Trump has 2 wins and 1 loss, and the CPC won the popular vote in 2 of the last 3 elections. 

But the polls are legit 😂

No, they had o'toole up over his opponents till the last 2 weeks. (three weeks?)  He was strongly leading in the eleciton until he spent 3 days waffling on the gun thing somehow and then he nose dived.  but for a short while there people were starting to talk about a cpc majority with o'toole during the campaign. 

The polls are inaccurate for several reasons. They can show trends and they can give indications but there's no doubt that you're correct and they are not accurate, with the exception of the ones that come out the day of the election because they put real money and effort into those.  

But they're still useful if you know how to read the tea leaves, they do speak towards trends.