2018 Polls

645 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Corruption surrounds us. Here an example of political corruption in the paper today and why the BC NDP will have to have another look at election financing rules

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-govt-ponders-more-changes-to-election-financing-rules

 

Pondering

In between elections polls are just a measure of the mood in the moment. People know the election isn`t tomorrow. If pollster bias is identified it can be taken into account. That doesn`t make polls useless. They indicate trends and general positioning. You can also view the results in the context of current events. 

Without even looking at polls it makes sense that Trudeau still has a strong first place but down some. Scheer has the conservative base. The NDP is in disunity so no surprise that they are down to their base. 

As to pollster bias, they all underestimated Trudeau`s win. No one predicted he would get a majority. With the exception of the Star the papers all endorsed Harper. I`m not sure why. It`s not like Trudeau isn`t neoliberal. All he has done is soften the edges. It`s like good cop bad cop. Trudeau isn`t beating the shit out of us so he seems great in comparison. 

I don`t think anyone here doubts my support for Singh. I still think he has lots of potential if he can pull the party and caucus together. Being realistic, Nanos probably has a pretty good handle on the lay of the land. Maybe the NDP is really at 18%, but they are definitely not at 21 or above. The Liberals could be as low as 37% but they still have a strong lead over the Conservatives. 

Take it all with a salt shaker, it still has some validity as long as you know the biases.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Corruption surrounds us. Here an example of political corruption in the paper today....

 

Why haven't the mainstream media or alternative media exposed the bias of the corrupt Liberal pollsters?

SocialJustice101

I don't see how BC financing rules apply in any way to the topic of 2018 Federal polls. 

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
As to pollster bias, they all underestimated Trudeau`s win. No one predicted he would get a majority.

Popular vote and seat projection are two different things. The latter depends on the seat by seat breakdown of the vote and is much harder to predict. The following from Nanos, who were right on the mark for the popular vote:

Nanos does not do seat projections. Our focus is to estimate the popular support and to understand the dynamic of the campaign. The research points to a Liberal victory. The magnitude of that victory -- whether it be a minority, a strong minority or a majority government --will be de cided by Canadians.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article26866499.ece/BINARY/2015-702+Election+Nightly+Ballot+Tracking+Sept+16+to+18.pdf

NorthReport
NorthReport

Oops

NorthReport

5 of the 6 most recent polls are by Nanos - what lack of science, what a farce!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_feder...

 

SocialJustice101

Look at the "Polling Method" column of the tracking table.   Nanos Research is actually the only conventionally scientific pollster.

WWWTT

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Corruption surrounds us. Here an example of political corruption in the paper today....

 

Why haven't the mainstream media or alternative media exposed the bias of the corrupt Liberal pollsters?

I can see myself asking an almost same question. The difference would be is that I would have added the word "yet" at the end.

To me the pollsters or a bunch of them have displayed they are biased by the wide variety of different questions they ask and choose to publish.

I remember several months ago there was one pollster that had a question about which federal leader would you prefer to drink a beer with. I found this really spun out and bizarre. To me this is evidence that the pollster was making up a wide variety of questions that their darling would pull in stronger numbers, and when their darling failed in other borderline questions, they probably just wouldn't publish them.

josh

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Look at the "Polling Method" column of the tracking table.   Nanos Research is actually the only conventionally scientific pollster.

You don’t understand.  A poll is a quality poll if it has a bad result for the Liberals.  It is not a quality poll if it has a good result for them.

SocialJustice101

WWWTT, the beer question actually makes perfect sense, considering how many average folks vote for someone because they like them personally.    Personality cults are huge in politics.   I keep hearing "I like {insert politician's name here}."  While policies do play a crucial factor, a politician's attitude and personality also matters to voters.

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Look at the "Polling Method" column of the tracking table.   Nanos Research is actually the only conventionally scientific pollster.

You don’t understand.  A poll is a quality poll if it has a bad result for the Liberals.  It is not a quality poll if it has a good result for them.

I find it really odd when an NDPer cheers at a Con lead. 

Cody87

SocialJustice101 wrote:

josh wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Look at the "Polling Method" column of the tracking table.   Nanos Research is actually the only conventionally scientific pollster.

You don’t understand.  A poll is a quality poll if it has a bad result for the Liberals.  It is not a quality poll if it has a good result for them.

I find it really odd when an NDPer cheers at a Con lead. 

I find it really odd when people twist the statements of others so badly that they bear no resemblance to what was originally said.

EDIT: Also, it's unclear if your shot was at josh or NR, but I hope you can tell that josh was agreeing with you by satirizing NR's position.

SocialJustice101

I was concurring with Josh.   For some posters here a Con lead is unexplicably a cause for celebration.   If you want progressive politics to succeed, you'd want to see a  Lib vs NDP battle for government, with Cons in third place.

WWWTT

A cause for celebration is an exaggeration. However, when the conservatives are in the lead and the NDP are polling in official opposition numbers, such as the current Ontario provincial polls, liberal supporters suddenly get amnesia about the evil conservatives 

SocialJustice101

Would anyone want to see a repeat of the 2011 federal election?  NDP got over 100 seats and 0 power.

gadar

I believe there is a demographic in Canada who are not represented by a political party.

The Socially conservative fiscal progressives.

The federal Liberals are a no go zone for them as they do not meet a single criteria for them.

The NDP is fiscally progressive therefore they are half happy with them.

The Cons are socially conservative so they are half happy with them.

They can live with either one of them but the Liberals are exact opposite of their political beliefs.

After years of witnessing this sort of visceral hatred for Liberals and a soft side for both NDP and the Cons, I have come to this conclusion. This combination of political beliefs is very common in the Union memberships.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

I was concurring with Josh.   For some posters here a Con lead is unexplicably a cause for celebration.   If you want progressive politics to succeed, you'd want to see a  Lib vs NDP battle for government, with Cons in third place.

OK...but it's impossible for that to happen unless there's a large decline in Liberal support.  It's not possible, for example, that there would ever be polls that came out(among "decided voters") 40% Liberal, 35% NDP, 20% Con, 5% Greens/Bloc combined.  That kind of polling result simply can't happen.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Would anyone want to see a repeat of the 2011 federal election?  NDP got over 100 seats and 0 power.

 

Strawman.  There was never a possibility in that election that fewer NDP seats would have led to Harper being stopped-there was no chance the Liberals under Ignatieff were ever going to stay in second, let alone finish first, and their refusal to back the "coalition" proposal that could have removed Harper two years earlier proved they would never have worked with any other opposition parties to bring in progressive governance.

SocialJustice101

My point was that the 2011 election may have looked good for the NDP, on paper, but was actually disastrous for anyone remotely progressive.   Nothing at all to cheer about.

gadar

SocialJustice101 wrote:

My point was that the 2011 election may have looked good for the NDP, on paper, but was actually disastrous for anyone remotely progressive.   Nothing at all to cheer about.

For you maybe not.

SoCons did win. The socons winning also has a silver lining to it. The social order that gives privileges to a WASP at least get presrved if not strenghthened.  Some people have nothing to lose if the SoCons win while others have a lot at stake. Therefore a Con win doesnt bother them as musch as it does others.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I said it once and I'll say it again. New Democrats who vote Conservative ,especially the  current hyper SoCons under Scheer are rank morons.

This hate for the Liberals is pathological. Have you been paying attention? They are WAY more progressive than the Conservatives. Why woould a progressive vote Conservative when another option already exists that is trying to pass NDP policy? It's stupid,moronic and imbecilic.

So I think YOU should speak for yourself.

gadar

alan smithee wrote:

I said it once and I'll say it again. New Democrats who vote Conservative ,especially the  current hyper SoCons under Scheer are rank morons.

This hate for the Liberals is pathological. Have you been paying attention? They are WAY more progressive than the Conservatives. Why woould a progressive vote Conservative when another option already exists that is trying to pass NDP policy? It's stupid,moronic and imbecilic.

So I think YOU should speak for yourself.

alan alan alan....... I am with you my friend. I think it is moronic for progressives to vote Con.

But we agree that it does happen, so I am just trying to figure out why.

The conclusion that I have come to is that for the vast majority of Con/NDP switchers, their SoCon thinking pervails when its between Cons and Libs and their Fiscal progressivism pervails when it comes to NDP and Libs (since both of them dont appeal to their bigotry). So the Liberals end up losing their support in both scenarios.

There is a tradeoff between losing the social privileges and gaining through progressive fiscal policy when the NDP wins. With Liberals winning there exists no such tradeoff. Its a lose lose for this demographic.

An then there are pretenders who just try to fools others and maybe get a kick out of it. A Con's wet dream is NDP and Libs both tied in support in the twenties. And as soon as there is even a little movement towards that, a Con will automatically be gleeful.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

gadar wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I said it once and I'll say it again. New Democrats who vote Conservative ,especially the  current hyper SoCons under Scheer are rank morons.

This hate for the Liberals is pathological. Have you been paying attention? They are WAY more progressive than the Conservatives. Why woould a progressive vote Conservative when another option already exists that is trying to pass NDP policy? It's stupid,moronic and imbecilic.

So I think YOU should speak for yourself.

alan alan alan....... I am with you my friend. I think it is moronic for progressives to vote Con.

But we agree that it does happen, so I am just trying to figure out why.

The conclusion that I have come to is that for the vast majority of Con/NDP switchers, their SoCon thinking pervails when its between Cons and Libs and their Fiscal progressivism pervails when it comes to NDP and Libs (since both of them dont appeal to their bigotry). So the Liberals end up losing their support in both scenarios.

There is a tradeoff between losing the social privileges and gaining through progressive fiscal policy when the NDP wins. With Liberals winning there exists no such tradeoff. Its a lose lose for this demographic.

An then there are pretenders who just try to fools others and maybe get a kick out of it. A Con's wet dream is NDP and Libs both tied in support in the twenties. And as soon as there is even a little movement towards that, a Con will automatically be gleeful.

Sorry if I misconstrued your comment. But in a case where the Libs and NDP are polling in the 20's,a coalition makes sense to me. The Cons will always have their solid 30% support. A Lib/NDP coalition would have a solid 60% suppport and we'd probably wouldn't see a Conservative government again for at least 25 years or more. A coalition is the Cons worst nightmare.

gadar

alan smithee wrote:

Sorry if I misconstrued your comment. But in a case where the Libs and NDP are polling in the 20's,a coalition makes sense to me. The Cons will always have their solid 30% support. A Lib/NDP coalition would have a solid 60% suppport and we'd probably wouldn't see a Conservative government again for at least 25 years or more. A coalition is the Cons worst nightmare.

With Libs and NDP both in mid or low twenties the Cons win a big majority. Coalition does not even come into the picture.

Hence a Con's wet dream.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

gadar wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Sorry if I misconstrued your comment. But in a case where the Libs and NDP are polling in the 20's,a coalition makes sense to me. The Cons will always have their solid 30% support. A Lib/NDP coalition would have a solid 60% suppport and we'd probably wouldn't see a Conservative government again for at least 25 years or more. A coalition is the Cons worst nightmare.

With Libs and NDP both in mid or low twenties the Cons win a big majority. Coalition does not even come into the picture.

Hence a Con's wet dream.

If we're talking about what's going on in Ontario right now,yes,unfortunately,you're right.

JKR

alan smithee wrote:

But in a case where the Libs and NDP are polling in the 20's,a coalition makes sense to me. The Cons will always have their solid 30% support. A Lib/NDP coalition would have a solid 60% suppport and we'd probably wouldn't see a Conservative government again for at least 25 years or more. A coalition is the Cons worst nightmare.

I think if there was a Lib/NDP coalition the Cons would move closer to the center to remain competitive.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

My point was that the 2011 election may have looked good for the NDP, on paper, but was actually disastrous for anyone remotely progressive.   Nothing at all to cheer about.

There was no way t0 predict that there would be an Orange Crush AND a Harper majority.  Nor was their any way to be absolutely certain of blocking the election of a Harper majority.  In the last weekend, the polls were a virtual dead heat between the NDP and the Cons...it simply wasn't possible that a swing from the NDP back to the Liberals in the last weekend would have kept Harper out of power.  The Liberals were totally discredited in all regions of the country...there was nowhere, anywhere in Canada where it was even going to be possible to stop Harper by arguing that progressives should vote Liberal on "strategic" grounds...Everyone knew there was no region a vote break of that nature could have been arranged and could have made any difference...especially since the Liberals weren't willing to do what THEY would have needed to do to make that a worthwhile idea, and call on THEIR supporters to vote NDP in regions where the Liberal candidate had no chance of winning.  

It's a waste of time trying to shame people for swinging to the NDP from the Liberals seven freaking years ago.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

[quote=

I think if there was a Lib/NDP coalition the Cons would move closer to the center to remain competitive.

I don't think that would be a bad thing. Eliminating the far right from our political landscape would be a god send.