Conservatives: 34%
Liberals: 29%
NDP: 14%
Green Party: 12%
Bloc Quebecois: 11%

This election is shaping up to be Ontario in 1999 all over again.

Even this article is unbalanced because there really is an incredible story here:

quote:

---

But respondents seem to have felt otherwise in the poll. Here are the results when voters were asked who was the most charismatic (percentage-point change from a Dec. 3-4 poll in brackets):

* Harper: 35 per cent (+ 18)
* Dion: 20 per cent (- 9 from when Martin was leader)
* Layton: 36 per cent (- 2)
* Duceppe: 10 per cent (- 4)

---

Notice Layton is in first place in the polls. Funny how this "inconvenient truth" got overlooked in CTV's reporting.

Here's another example of them mixing up the order:

quote:

---

But the poll hints that Canadians do not consider his plan much more effective than that offered by the Conservatives:

* Liberals: 23 per cent
* Conservatives: 20 per cent
* NDP: 21 per cent
* Bloc Quebecois: 6 per cent
* Other/don't know/refused: 31 per cent

---

Again the NDP is ahead of the cons who are actually in third place. Would also have been interesting to see how the Greens would have scored on this push poll (I suspect they'd be found in the 31% don't know/refused which would then place the cons in fourth).

Mercy, I remember the Ontario election of 1999. It was the only time I "strategically voted" for the neo-lib. I remember needing his assistance a few years later and finding out he was even more regressive than the neo-cons. That is why I'll never do it again. After McGunity and Martin, I think a lot of others might agree too.

Another difference from 99 is the unknown impact of the Greens who appear to have the softest vote. I suspect the more Harper screams about Kyoto, the more these votes will go to the libs.

The biggest difference I notice from the Harris years is that even with a big push poll like this, Harper is still below his election numbers. I believe Harris was usually higher than 33% at the time. If I was a con, I'd be somewhat nervous which is probably why they're spinning this poll for all its worth.

[ 19 February 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

Tories surge on Harper's leadership

quote:

---

Canadians in overwhelming numbers say Stephen Harper is the most decisive federal leader with the clearest vision of where he wants to lead the country, according to a poll that suggests the Conservatives may now have the winning conditions needed for a spring election.

---

a lonely worker, at least they actually polled and displayed your leader's performance. Whatever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Hey, if this convinces the Cons to prompt an election, all the better. They'll find out what those numbers are worth.

---

The numbers are worth nothing, there is 5% margin of error in Ontario, and I would have also responded Harper to:

"which party leader had the clearest vision of where he wants to take the country"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krago:
... Let's watch Stockholm's head explode.

---

hmmm...maybe not. isn't this the same Strategic Counsel and the same Alan Greg that was just hired by the Conservatives for

$76,000 to continue to sell the war?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The research was done by The Strategic Counsel - Allan Gregg's company. The same company that Conservative bloggers were constantly claiming was biased against the Conservatives etc... so whatever you may say, I don't think this is a case of "rewarding political allies"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krago:
...The Green Party is within two points of the NDP.

---

isn't this the same Green Party that recently elected Elizbeth May, an anti-choice, free-market solution leader who has no chance of winning a seat out east in the riding she's chosen?

isn't this the same Green Party who ran their previous leader not once, but twice as a spoiler in two different ridings in the last two elections, both detrimentally affected by the construction of the Portlands Energy Centre gas power plant in the the two ridings with the worst air quality in toronto, and Jim Harris chose to say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING both times about it. could it be because OPG who are building the p3 plant were a client on his corporate motivational speaking circuit? we'll never know because he wouldn't comment.

quote:

---

The Globe's trying even harder than CTV to spin this

---

Surge? That's less than they got in the last election. The margin is also less than the last election. And wasn't this the poll that predicted 150+ seats for the Cons in the last election?

In addition, the ass-lick media is playing into the Harper "leadership" meme. It has a way of perpetuating itself, and plays into the Cons' strategy of Americanizing the election by turning into a a personality contest. Odd, considering that their candidate has no personality. And it's not unusual for the incumbent to have better leadership numbers than an unproven opponent. But don't expect the ass-lick media to put in that context.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Farnival, do you believe that among the vast majority of Canadians who don't read babble, there is a sizeable number who think Elizabeth May is "anti-choice"?

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Did you see on CTV news the look of utter glee in that neo-con ass licker Bob Fife's eyes as he was reporting this?

---

Not only that, but he proceeded to "report" the Conservative spin on global warming as fact. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but he said something like this: "Harper could also trip up the opposition parties on Kyoto, since they all just voted to force the government to meet the Kyoto targets... something that is impossible without ruining the economy. So, he could come up with his own plan that would actually work and force the opposition parties to vote non-confidence."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Okay. CBC has a Liberal bias, and CTV has a Conservative bias. Which network favours the NDP? Any?

---

1. I simply ignore any poll that has the so-called Green party with anything above about 5%. We already saw the truth about so-called green party support in the three Ontario byelections the week before last. Just a week after SES put out a poll on Ontario provincial politics that had the Ontario Greens at an absurd 11%, they went on to get an average of 3% in the three byelections - including 3% for their grand poobah - Frank Dejong (who?). When people say that the environment is a top issue, if you juxtapose and pseudo-party like the Greens with the other REAL parties, then it just invites a lot of disengaged, apolitical, undecided people say say they would vote Green because it sounds better than volunteering "I dunno". It would interesting to do an experiment and ask people "Who would you vote for, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP or the Health Care Party?" and see if we get a surprising number of disengaged, apolitical, undecided people saying they would support the fictitious "health care party"!

2. These numbers on leadership are totally irrelevant. Harper is PM of Canada. Dion is still very unknown. You cannot compare the % of Canadians who think that Dion is "decisive" and "competent" to Martin in January 2006 - three years after Martin became PM and after 13 years of adulation for being canada greatest Finance Minister (sic.). In 2004 and 2006, the Liberals were always crowing about how Martin was so far ahead of Harper and the others on all these leadership dimensions - but in the end what good did it do Martin.

3. If this is what Allan Gregg calls a "surge", I wanna know what he calls being stuck in irons. The CPC is still a few points below their level in the last election when they got a weak minority. Its worth noting that as far as i can tell there has NEVER (repeat NEVER) been an election in Canadian political history where the governing party gained any significant support during the course of an election campaign. if you are the government, usually, the best thing you can hope for is to minimize your losses during the campaign.

4. Some people have talked about how it will be 1999 all over again with progressive all voting Liberal to stop the Conservatives. So far the Liberals, despite their shiny new leader, are right back at the 29% they had in the 2006 election - hardly any evidence that they are scooping up any itinerant anti-CPC votes. In any case, you cannot compare feelings about Harper now with feelings about Harris in 1999. A few ideologues on the far left who hated Harper before, still hate him, but if you actually look at his record in office, there has been very little of the extreme rightwing red meat that Harris and his Cmmon Sense Revolution brought. (remember, 25% cuts in welfare, constant teachers strikes, massives cuts in health and education, rolling back of environmental regulation, forced amalgamation of Toronto etc...etc...etc...). Sure you can talk about what Harper MIGHT do if he had a majority, but to 95% of the population, its all about what they have seen with their own eyes, and so far nothing very "scary" (by Harris standards) has happened since Harper got in.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

3. If this is what Allan Gregg calls a "surge", I wanna know what he calls being stuck in irons. The CPC is still a few points below their level in the last election when they got a weak minority. Its worth noting that as far as i can tell there has NEVER (repeat NEVER) been an election in Canadian political history where the governing party gained any significant support during the course of an election campaign. if you are the government, usually, the best thing you can hope for is to minimize your losses during the campaign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krago:
Latest poll shows Dion, Liberals losing support

Conservatives: 34%
Liberals: 29%
NDP: 14%
Green Party: 12%
Bloc Quebecois: 11%

The Green Party is within two points of the NDP.

---

perhaps the Green Party's natural constituancy has finally settled on their new home, if the numbers are to be believed. in the
2000 Federal Election, the PC's got, that's right, 12% of the popular vote! Hey! there May be hope greenies!

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]

But hey, even my counterexample shows an arguable flat trend, to your claim of concistent decline.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Otherwise, all of the above numbers seem to add up another Con minority with hopefully the NDP having enough seats to influence the Cons.

Also the Libs really really need a few more years in opposition to get their act together.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
I saw the CTV coverage and it clearly was a push poll (especially on questions like "who's most decisive").

---

Do you even know what a "push poll" IS? Words actually have specific meanings and you shouldn't go throwing them around if you don't know what they mean. What you wrote is actually libel.

Full disclosure: I am a pollster, myself. I work for a rival of the Strategic Counsel so I have no vested interest in talking them up and while I don't think their methodology and record have been as strong as some other firms out there, they are a credible and reputable firm and the fact that you don't like what the poll says is not a reason to discount it's accuracy. Ipsos-Reid, Leger, Angus Reid and SES are all showing similar numbers and, more importantly, a similar trend.

Remember that a poll is not a prediction of the election. It's just a snapshot in time to give you a sense of where opinion is at at that particular moment. Taken over a longer period of time, it demosntrates the trends that are occuring among the electorate.

This poll and others show a number of interesting trends:

1. While Dion got a nice post-convention bump, he has failed to make a positive impression with Canadians. The Tory attack ads are working and defining Dion negatively before Dion has a chance to define himself. This is a classic incumbent strategy. Mike Harris did it very well to McGuinty in '99. Chretien did it very well to Stockwell Day in 2000. First impressions are very hard to change.

2. Voters are getting more comfortable with Harper. I did polling and focus groups right after Harper was elected and there was still a strong sense among many (even those who voted for him - or, more acurately, voted AGAINST the Liberals) that Harper was 'scary'. They no feel this way. The Liberals actually have themselves to blame for this. They were so over the top on their attacks on Harper during the campaign (if you vote Harper, he'll privatize healthcare, ban abortion and there will be soldiers in the street), that they set the bar so low for him where all he had to do was not go around acting like a maniac and people would say "Hey, this guy isn't so bad." He's contrasted himself very well with the Liberals' time in office. There are no major scandals and he's perceived as keeping his promises (ie. Accountability Act, GST cut) and whether voters agree with policies or not, they respond VERY well to promises kept. On the head-to-head questions between Dion and Harper on who is the best leader, who is more trustowrthy, etc. Harper has been kicking his ass. These questions are actually more predictive than "Who will you vote for?" straight-up voting intention questions because leadership and trustworthiness questions are what we call 'leading variables' and voting intent is a 'trailing variable'. This means that there is a positive correlation between positive attitudes towards party and leader and an intention to vote for that party, but that the voting intention swings up slower and later. If 50% think Harper is the best leader and 36% intend to vote for him, you can be sure that it will be higher than 36% next time, assuming his favourables do not shift down.

3. The Greens are the big wild card. The poll shows them at 12%. That's a poll. They WILL NOT get 12% in the actual election because the dynamic is so different, but we're not sure just how they will be high. The higher they are, the better for the Tories. The Greens tend to take votes away from every party in almost equal numbers (though highest from the NDP). However, they tend to take a lot more away from parties when they are in opposition. People who are favourable towards the Greens but happy with the Tory government aren't gonna shift. People trying to decide between Greens and other opposition parties very well may. If, when the Green vote gets pealed away, it goes disproportionately Liberal, the Liberals still stand a good fighting chance. If it goes big towards the NDP, stick a fork in Dion.

4. Jean Charest is the other wild card. I did focus groups in Quebec after the last election and there was an interesting attitude among a lot of respondents. Many were (and continue to be) weary of Harper as a defender of national unity. But in the last election, many felt that it was okay to 'take a risk' on Harper because, after all, they had Jean Charest as Premier and he certainly IS seen as a strong defender of national unity. Even when the federal Liberals were not popular in Quebec, they did well electorally because there was a PQ government and federalists wanted the federal Liberals to 'protect' them against the separatist threat. With Boisclair in free-fall and Charest poised to win, his premiership essentially gives Quebecers 'permission' to vote for Harper.

Most charismatic leader - Layton 36%
Most decisive leader - Layton 20%
Clearest vision - Layton 20%
Leader Canadians identify with the most - Layton 17%
Best PM - Layton 16%

I certainly have a higher level of confidence in either Ipsos Reid or SES.

That said, it appears that the Con attack ads seem to be somewhat resonating based upon the shifts in support from the Jan. SC poll:

Lib: 29% (-6)
CPC: 34% (+3)
NDP: 14% (-1)
Grn: 12% (+4)
BQ: 11% (0)

[BTW, CTV reported the shifts incorrectly]

It seems that some soft Lib/CPC switchers have moved back to the CPC based upon a negative leadership impression of Dion in those ads.

Furthermore, it appears that some Lib supporters have parked their vote with the Greens based upon a negative impression of Dion on the environment in those ads.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
but this idea that you could be the government and be at 34% the day the writ is dropped and then surge up to 40% during the course of the campaign is something that has never ever happened in Canada. If you are the ruling party, the most you can hope for in an election campaign is damage control - unless of course the opposition leader is caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy!

---

I don't know off the top of my head, but didn't the Ontario PC's go up between '95 and '99? I seem to recall that they did but could be wrong. I think that campaign offers some good parallels to what's going on now (not flawless parallels, mind you, but good).

Harris was really successful at branding McGuinty as weak, ineffective and indecisive - not a leader - before the writ was ever dropped. The impression stuck and McGuinty couldn't break out of for the entire campaign.

Harris' big claim during that campaign was that he kept his promises. This worked very well for him. Even people who hated his policies had a grudging respect for him because he kept his word. This also provided a sense of certainty to voters - they knew what they were getting into, there wouldn't be any big unexpected surprises. Harper scores a lot of points for being seen as a promise-keeper. He followed through on the accountability act, he did cut the GST, he did send out the child-care credits, and introduced the crime package. So far, he hasn't been successful in his health care wait times reductions, but 4 outta 5 ain't bad and he can contrast that 1 year to the 13 that the Liberals had to get things done and didn't.

Where Harper differs from Harris is that he's less polarizing. This makes his numbers more open to shifts in opinion. With Harris, nobody was lukewarm. They either LOVED him or they HATED him. Because enough people loved him, he won. Only a handful of Tory partisans really love Harper, but only a small number on the far left really hate him, either. As long as he doesn't have a major screw-up, he should be able to keep his supporters on board and as long as he doesn't have a major screw-up he retains the possibility of picking up voters who didn't support him last time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Whom:
Do you even know what a "push poll" IS? Words actually have specific meanings and you shouldn't go throwing them around if you don't know what they mean. What you wrote is actually libel.

---

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

Dr Whom, you certainly write interesting stuff even if I don't always agree.

But I don't understand the libel comment - what comment(s) are you referring to "is actually libel"?

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]

Here, from what we seem, SC asked people who they were going to vote for, and then asked them about random other questions.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

1. I simply ignore any poll that has the so-called Green party with anything above about 5%.

---

Perhaps for your riding in your location. Green is becoming a heavier block vote in the rest as a 'displeased with conservative environmentalism' vote. If an election hit right now, we would likely see green hitting 15-20% in a few Albertan ridings.

For example, Kevin_Laddle, if I were to characterize your post as "silly", that's ok - I'm expressing an opinion. If I were to characterize your post as "child pornography", well, that's something altogether different - that's a specific accusation of wrongdoing and I'd imagine that you'd be rightly pissed at me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
A push poll is when you pretend to be a legitimite polling company, and poll people and ask them specific questions with the intention of changing their mind. The most famous case I can think is from the south carolina primary in 2000, when the Bush campaign purportedly ran push polls against John McCain.If you do it to thousands of people in a key constituency - you have a victory.

Here, from what we seem, SC asked people who they were going to vote for, and then asked them about random other questions.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

---

I do remember, back in the 2006 campaign, that the SC made the ridiculous methodological mistake by *first* asking the voter which party they thought had momentum, and *then* asking for voter who they were going to vote for. Since the conservative had the momentum towards the end of the campaign, the voter preference results were biased in favour of the conservatives (they pegged their support at 36-40%)

A "push poll" is a poll which deliberately attempts to bias results by phasing questions a certain way, or asking questions in a certain order. ie

Question 1) Do you support the Conservative Party's plan to clean up government by passing the Accountability Act.

Question 2) If the election were held today, which party would you vote for.

It's very serious buisiness to accuse a polling company of push polling. I highly doubt the SC is doing that. At the same time, I don't think the SC is nearly the most reliable polling company out there.

A "push poll" is not a poll at all. It is a dirty illegal campaign tactic. An example of a push poll would be if the Liberals had their own phone room call every single voter in Jack Layton's riding and used a phony name of a make believe polling company and asked everyone a pseudo-polling question like "How likely would you be to vote for Jack Layton if you knew that he had been convicted of child molestation?"

Typically, no data is even collected, its just a dirty trick to spread vicious rumours under the guise of a poll.

THAT is what is called "push-polling".

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
The most famous case I can think is from the south carolina primary in 2000, when the Bush campaign purportedly ran push polls against John McCain.If you do it to thousands of people in a key constituency - you have a victory.

---

Yes, and in places like Nicaragua and El Salvador, elections are influenced in other ways Like threatening dirty war and loss of trade in newspapers if leftist candidates win elections.

quote:

---

Dr. Whom, I greatly appreciate your commentary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:I can't say I'm impressed with it. It kinda reminds me of a pimp speaking of the care he provides his ladies and the service provided to the community.

Polling is an ugly and sleezy business - and I've seen it from the inside. Seldom are polling questions intended to be unbiased, despite Dr. Whom's claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
You are confusing a "biased" poll with a "push poll". They are NOT the same thing.

A "push poll" is not a poll at all. It is a dirty illegal campaign tactic. An example of a push poll would be if the Liberals had their own phone room call every single voter in Jack Layton's riding and used a phony name of a make believe polling company and asked everyone a pseudo-polling question like "How likely would you be to vote for Jack Layton if you knew that he had been convicted of child molestation?"

Typically, no data is even collected, its just a dirty trick to spread vicious rumours under the guise of a poll.

THAT is what is called "push-polling".

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
I can't say I'm impressed with it. It kinda reminds me of a pimp speaking of the care he provides his ladies and the service provided to the community.

Polling is an ugly and sleezy business - and I've seen it from the inside. Seldom are polling questions intended to be unbiased, despite Dr. Whom's claims.

---

brand names

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
I can't say I'm impressed with it. It kinda reminds me of a pimp speaking of the care he provides his ladies and the service provided to the community.

Polling is an ugly and sleezy business - and I've seen it from the inside. Seldom are polling questions intended to be unbiased, despite Dr. Whom's claims.

---

How the fuck do you know? How much study have you given to public opinion research? How much knowledge do you have of political behaviour?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Whom:
...not trying to intimidate anyone...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Whom:
How the fuck do you know? How much study have you given to public opinion research? How much knowledge do you have of political behaviour?

---

Anyway, I think that the current federal poll results that led off this thread are plausible, although the Bell Globe Media spin about it is pathetic.

But the Strategic Counsel does occasionally come up with incredible polls that seem wildly out of line. One example was the BC poll just before the last election that showed a 13-point Campbell Liberal lead when most other pollsters were within 8 and the actual results were within about 4. That was briefly discussed here and here, with the claim that some very leading questions were asked before the ballot question. Then there was the absurd Strategic Counsel poll in the last federal vote that showed a Conservative lead of 16 points (or was it 18?), when every other pollster showed a much closer race -- which it actually was. Even the Conservative arse-lickers on CTV National news were playing it down right away, since it was so clearly out of whack. I believe in that case they were also asking some other questions before the ballot question that influenced the results.

No, I don't have a Doctorate in polling like the genteel Dr. Whom, but my subjective impression is that the Strategic Counsel is the least reliable of the major Canadian pollsters.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]

They ask which party leaders "cares the most about ordinary Canadians":

Layton - 44%
Harper - 29%
Dion - 17%
Duceppe - 10%

Looking at all these numbers its clear to me that Harper's big advantage is on being seen as decisive and having a clear vision. Layton's big advantage is in caring about ordinary Canadians, having good values and being charismatic.

Dion doesn't stand out on any dimension at all and i'm not sure if he ever will.

Even when people are asked which party has the best policies on the environment and global warming, its basically a three-way split:

Liberals - 23%
NDP - 21%
CPC - 20%

quote:

---

You'd think that if they are biased, each firm would have their own bias, yet pretty much every firm is showing the same thing. You'd also think that they wouldn't accurately predict elections, yet time and time again, they come pretty damn close.

---

quote:

---

How the fuck do you know?

---

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

So you think the numbers being put out right now are biased? How?

---

quote:

---

Its worth noting that as far as i can tell there has NEVER (repeat NEVER) been an election in Canadian political history where the governing party gained any significant support during the course of an election campaign.

---

1958 - it is possible that the Tories started out way ahead and then moved even further ahead during the campaign, but there were so few polls in those days they tended to be so inaccurate that its hard to really know.

1968 - Once Trudeau won the Liberal leadership, the Liberals surged way, way ahead of the Conservatives in the polls and so Trudeau called an election. I don't think the Liberals gained any ground during the campaign itself - if anything they won by less of landslide in the end than the polls at the dropping of the writ suggested. (I never said that governing parties could never gain support - just not during the actual formal campaign)

1974 - The Liberals had a clear lead over the Tories - enough to get a majority - and that is why Trudeau engineered his defeat. Again, the polls when the government fell had the Liberals up by about 7 or 8 points and that is where they stayed on E-day - no growth during the campaign.

Which Party has the right approach to deal with Canada’s mission to Afghanistan?

Canada (overall)
Cons - 31%
Lib - 20%
NDP - 11%
BQ - 5%
Other/Don't know/Refused - 33%

Quebec
Cons - 26%
Lib - 20%
BQ - 20%
NDP - 6%
Other/Don't know/Refused - 29%

Joe Clark in 1980 went from being 18 points (in an Allan Gregg poll too) behind the Liberals to being 12 points back. In 1988 Mulroney recovered from weak poll results, by galvanizing the right behind free trade. Diefenbaker in all of his elections as an incumbent improved his parties standing over the polls - he was the best campaigner this country has ever seen. Provincially, Harris in 1999 comes to mind.

However, all of these cases had an explanation: events in foreign affairs (1980), free trade, Diefenbaker being a good campaigner, and Harris/Chretien capitalizing on the weakness of their respective opponents in 1999/2000.

That the negative ads were successful suggests that the Conservatives may have more traction against Dion in a drawn out campaign. There is something about Dion that the electorate doesn't like. Further, Dion doesn't seem to have any real positives (people even prefer Harper to Dion on the environment).

Others had to look at source data to find polls that were unreflective of this "surge" and were conveniently ignored (such as caring).

Other issues:

- The Greens were included in the overall numbers but conveniently dropped from the environment question (which would have dropped the cons into fourth place thus ending the spin of it being an equal issue). In this poll, the only party that appears to "surge" is the Greens yet the silence on this is palpable (even though the majority appear to agree their numbers appear to be unusually high).

- No matter how things are spun, Harper is still below where he was last year on the party preference question (clearly one third of Canadians like big daddy).

- I believe the Liberal numbers were artificially high in the last SC poll which was immediately after the lib convention. This new poll is being compared to that potentially artificially high one. It would be very surprising to maintain such a huge jump without anywhere near the same media coverage. Anything less than the previous highest maximum could be spun as weakness.

- The emphasis on "decisivness" and "vision" as being the top two qualities worth discussing. We all agree Harper is decisive and has a plan. Obviously the vast majority of Canadians still disagree with them.

One thing I can never understand is why pollsters even bother with the "best pm", "satisfied with pm" or "decisiviness" type questions because the results seldom match the voting intentions. There obviously exists a name recognition factor for the pm that only equals out once the writ is dropped.

It is my PERCEPTION that it is in the business interests of some pollsters when emphasis is placed on questions over others (such as "decisviness" over "caring"). The corporate media who can obviously be partisan (as evidenced by their electoral endorsements)are in the business of choosing which angle sells. A two way race sells; no matter how created.

Kowtowing to big daddy Harper can be very profitable considering how beneficial it could be for the corporate media's interests if this thug gets a majority and guts the CRTC and public broadcasting. Of course the polling company will benefit too because the more exposure the better.

But again what do I know, I could be perceiving the whole thing wrong and these polling companies are really upset over the selective data and spin the media do over their numbers.

Now back to the libel threat. I don't know you and I can only take you at your word. If my original uninformed comments were perceived as being libelous, I withdraw them through this posting. However I will not withdraw my perception that there is potential for manipulation through polls that ask very misleading questions to get results that are desirable for all concerned (except the Canadian public). I hope I'm wrong in this perception. Am I?

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

In 1988 Mulroney recovered from weak poll results, by galvanizing the right behind free trade. Diefenbaker in all of his elections as an incumbent improved his parties standing over the polls - he was the best campaigner this country has ever seen. Provincially, Harris in 1999 comes to mind.

---

In 1988, Mulroney had a huge lead when he called the 1988 and the Liberals were running third. Then the Tories dipped mid-campaign after the debate, but they regained the lead in the end. But they did no better on E-day than where they were when the writ was dropped in 1988.

As I mentioned, there was so little polling in the late 50s that it's hard to tell and of course Diefenbaker's second election as an incumbent in 1962 was when he dropped from 208 seats to 116.

It is notable that in both 1963 and 1965, the initial polls looked like a big Liberal majority and in each case Pearson lost ground during the campaign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
In Ontario in 1999, Harris and the Tories had already moved into a double digit lead when they called the election, but by Election day the Ontario Liberals had whittled it down to a 5-point lead.

---

Everything old is new again! Back in May 2003, Stockholm wrote this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
In 1999, the Tories were 10 points AHEAD of the Liberals when the election was called and their lead narrowed during the campaign.

---

and I replied:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krago:
I don't quite remember it that way. I recall that Angus Reid came out with a poll just before the election that showed the Ontario Liberals with a big lead. The Grits tried like mad to deny it, and even leaked their own internal figures.

I did some googling and discovered these web sites:

http://www.electionprediction.org/1999_ontario/reference/poll.htm - fixed URL

http://cbc.ca/elections/ontario99/polls.shtml - URL broken

It turns out the poll numbers going into the 1999 provincial election were all over the map.

I also came across this site. It's got some interesting stats for those so inclined:

http://www.environmentvoters.org/Final_Report_Ont_99.html

---

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: Krago ]

It is my opinion that the only political poll that should be legal is the one conducted on Election Day. The potential to damage voters free choice is too great if private polling companies are allowed to conduct "research" for news organizations. Moreover, in many instances News organizations give explicit instructions to these polling companies to exclude certain parties from direct mention.

When all parties are not included in a poll, being left only to the "other" category, the effect is in every way that of "Push Polling". This type of damage when conducted by unscrupulous companies willing to take money from News Organizations to conduct any poll these News entities seek, robs voters of information and choice.

I cannot stress strongly enough that anyone conducting such political polling should be fined severely and jailed if they engage in such activities. This type of negative sanction would require new legislative definitions to ensure the outcome.

The rationale for this legislation is the absolute need to prevent News Organizations and Polling/Statistical Research companies from interfering in the democratic process. Far from being part of the democratic process, polling that projects winners or samples opinion on elections can damage the best interests of a citizenry in a region by solidifying changing opinion.

This "Changing Opinion" leading up to an election is not only crucial to any democracy, but without it, the process is dead and creates an uninformed electorate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Wow, I come back after a long day and find I'm being threatened with libel by a pollster.

---