CPC have three point lead in latest Decima poll.

[Catchme]

And as I said, it could equally mean that the Liberals have a lead over the CPC, why you guys seem to think the margin of error only works one way in favour of the CPC I do not know.

And as I said my statement of how margin of error works is correct.

But hey, if you want to be right and national poll pundits and news media are wrong saying they are tied in the decima poll feel free to think that way.

We all know differently.

[geoffrey]

And as I said, it could equally mean that the Liberals have a lead over the CPC, why you guys seem to think the margin of error only works one way in favour of the CPC I do not know.

Actually it doesn't equally mean that. It's extremely unlikely. Just as it's extremely unlikely the CPC has a 6.1% lead.

Wasn't decima the one that was spot on at election time last year?

[Catchme]

As I said, they have an equal chance of being the lead and yes it is quite unlikely for either, seeing as how they are in essence tied!

[geoffrey]

As I said, they have an equal chance of being the lead and yes it is quite unlikely for either, seeing as how they are in essence tied!

Your really missing the light at the bottom of that hole aren't you?

I recommend: http://www.athabascau.ca/html/syllabi/math/math215.htm

You can even take it online apparently. Not really sure how that works... a workbook?

[Ricki Bobbi]

As I said, they have an equal chance of being the lead and yes it is quite unlikely for either, seeing as how they are in essence tied!

I think you are just pulling our chains.

You can't really be that innumerate...

[Catchme]

No, I am not but apparently you are, why do you not post a differing view of margin of error that supports your premise?

You can't, or you would've instead of accusing me of just putting links up that support my definition. Margin of error is just what it is. As the news papers and the poll analysists said they are basically tied in the polls.

Then we could also use this one for about the same time frame:

Liberals Hold Three-Point Edge in Canada

December 17, 2006

35 per cent of respondents would support the Liberals in the next House of Commons ballot.

The governing Conservative party is second with 32 per cent, followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 12 per cent, the Bloc Québécois with 11 per cent, and the Green party with seven per cent.

angus reid

Anyway I am done when all you can resot to is slurrs against a poster RB, instead of putting up evidence to support your position, its time for posters to ignore.

[Ricki Bobbi]

No, I am not but apparently you are, why do you not post a differing view of margin of error that supports your premise?

Because the definition of margin of error you posted supports my premise perfectly.

Then we could also use this one for about the same time frame:

Liberals Hold Three-Point Edge in Canada

December 17, 2006.

The poll in the OP is dated January 3rd. How is that *about* the same timeframe?

Anyway I am done when all you can resot to is slurrs against a poster RB, instead of putting up evidence to support your position, its time for posters to ignore.

[Catchme]

It supports mine, I guess your figuring must be wrong eh?

The date of January 3 is the date it was released the poll took place in Decenber too.

[Canadian Blue]

Catchme, do you just like to get angry over nothing on every thread you post in.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Catchme, do you just like to get angry over nothing on every thread you post in.

Thank you...

[Topaz]

IF Layton thinks the NDP could lose against the Green Party, which I think he could because of Canadians ready to vote for the Green Party, I say it would be in his interest to join the two parties together and become the leader because May can not become PM for she was born in the US.

[Catchme]

IF Layton thinks the NDP could lose against the Green Party, which I think he could because of Canadians ready to vote for the Green Party, I say it would be in his interest to join the two parties together and become the leader because May can not become PM for she was born in the US.

Respectfully Topaz, why do you think that? The Greens are dropping in the polls, the NDP have a greener policy than the Greens, and in fact the Greens and NDP actually share a very small mutal base.

It is an assumption that has no base in fact, and even less now that May has shown she is a social conservative trying to draw from the CPC base.

[Canadian Blue]

I believe May can become PM despite the fact she was born in the USA.

I believe the NDP was considering merging with the Canadian Action Party, however I doubt that'll ever happen since the CAP believes in the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I believe May can become PM despite the fact she was born in the USA.

There is no legal restriction on her becoming PM.

I don't think a merger between the NDP and Greens is practical.

Look at everything on the party platforms aside from the environment. There is very little that the two agree upon in those areas.

[Canadian Blue]

I find the green party is more moderate than the NDP, in all honesty I might even vote for the Green's depending on what happen's in the next few month's.

[August1991]

I don't think a merger between the NDP and Greens is practical.

Look at everything on the party platforms aside from the environment. There is very little that the two agree upon in those areas.

Impractical is not the word.

I think there is going to be a fight of catlike proportions between these two parties. The NDP has sought the radical environment protest vote and the Greens, under May, are scratching around the same territory.

The NDP-types are already engaging in character assassination of May. The official Green policy on abortion is pro-choic but May herself is nuanced on the question and while visiting a convent recently, she made this plain. Needless to say, any nuance is anathema to the radical feminists who inhabit the NDP.

This dispute has largely gone unnoticed in the MSM. I'll leave it to Colby Cosh to finish that thought:

This is understandable, since the Greens -- despite Ms. May's second-place finish in the by-election -- are far from becoming a player in national politics. The closer they get, the more scrutiny she is likely to receive for incendiary quotes like "I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose."

Ms. May explained that she supports her party's formal position on abortion despite her Christian beliefs. "I respect people," she said, "who say, 'I'm against abortion because there is a right to life, and the fetus is sacred.' ?So where do I come to thinking we should be able to have, and must have, access to therapeutic abortions in Canada? It's the other side of the moral dilemma: If we make them illegal, women will die. We know this. It happened for hundreds and hundreds of years, that women would seek out whatever butcher they could find to cause an abortion to happen, and they would die horrible deaths, and the baby would die too."

Ms. May thus expresses an admirable respect for the life of a pregnant woman -- but that respect only goes so far. "Nobody in their right mind," she told the nuns, "is for abortions. I've talked women out of having abortions. I would never have an abortion myself, not in a million years. I can't imagine the circumstances that would have ever induced me to it."

The Greens represent a real threat to the NDP and there's nothing like a fight between utopian idealistic marginals for viciousness.

[madmax]

I find the green party is more moderate than the NDP, in all honesty I might even vote for the Green's depending on what happen's in the next few month's.

Yes it is a great party, unless you are people.

I really think it is stupid that the so called conservatives on this forum are calling everything environment as left. And Everything CHG as left. As if Scientists don't vote conservative, and CHG which has been monitored since the 50s is something for others to concern themselves about. I read some really dumb comments about other environment problems that didn't come to pass. Yet these happened during conservative governments and were resolved during these governments. Some issues were global in nature, others were North American.

Yet this new "brand" of conservatives seem to be "out to lunch" and far from moderate or realist with regard to the Environment.

Then there are the Liberals, well, everything taken care of the Liberal way, Enough Said.

The NDP, possibly the only party with working class roots, history of environmental problems within the plants the workers participate. Chemicals, Brownsfields, Nuclear Power, and all that other crap and stuff. Yet, just like the rest of us, knows that companies, businesses and governments need to address environmental issues so that we can profit and benefit from these changes. That the environmental problems of the past were real, and the ones of the present are also real. That the goals can be set to be achievable and not bankrupt us, and give us an environment to enjoy.

The green party, is pretty much anti people. Protect everything, say everything and be judged by no one.

It is actually a nice place to be when not under scrutiny.

But the reality is that the Progressive Conservatives of the past have tackled these issues, the NDP has fought for these issues and been successful, the Liberals have talked alot about these issues. And the Greens just want you to give them a hug, shortly after you get that bumper sticker on your Hummer removed.

But Guys (and feminists) edit after the fact

These poll numbers are lame, and pretty much unchanged except to show that in the recent months the Greens Surged and Fell, the Liberals Surged and Fell, and the Conservatives and the NDP are about where they were.

Which really means status Quo.