Initial post-election polling thread

281 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred
Geoff

mark_alfred wrote:

Libs gain, Cons down, NDP in the gutter.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2545/liberals-with-24-point-lead-today/

Until New Democrats choose a new leader, it's not surprising that they're languishing in the polls. Things will likely change with a new leader who hopefully can communicate a new direction for the party, one that will distinguish them from the Liberals.

Right now the party is rudderless in terms of leadership and vision. There's not a lot there to attract the attention, let alone the support of many voters.

It looks ugly but, for now, I'm not going to panic over the polls.

Debater

For Trudeau, this is more than just a honeymoon

Scott Reid

July 15, 2016

Quote:
This is what the Opposition are up against – at least for now. This is the lightning in a bottle that the Liberals have captured – at least for now. And this is why it’s a mistake to call what Trudeau is experiencing just a honeymoon. It’s not. It’s something else. Something different. Something alchemistic. Something not entirely understood.

None of that makes Trudeau unbeatable. There really is no such thing. Those Conservatives who speak wearily about a two-term strategy or selecting some modern-day George Drew to sacrifice in the next election are making a mistake.

But it’s equally foolish to assume that Trudeau’s support will simply evaporate. That his ups will naturally become downs or that the complaints of his haters will spread inevitably to infect majority opinion. To beat Trudeau, you’ve got to ‘get’ Trudeau. And to ‘get’ him, you’ve got to recognize that there’s something unusual going on in the relationship he’s been forging with the public.

This is not a honeymoon.

That’s the mantra that all those who wish to remain in government or replace the government should be repeating to themselves constantly. Once that truth is accepted, all that’s left to be done is to figure out what it is instead and either extend it or imitate it. Sounds simple enough.

Full article:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-for-trudeau-this-is-mor...

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

No it [writing about the Liberals rather than the NDP] wouldn't because I am not like you. I don't dream of perfect parties or care at all about the philosophy of parties or who they claim to represent.

Okay.  To rephrase, the Liberal Party are more likely to become a party that more closely operates from "the premise of uniting the 80% with a heavy focus on the finanical industry and transfer of wealth to [sic -- presumably "from"] the 1%," don't you think?  That is, as you've expressed, what you'd like to see, right?

You obviously don't read what I say. I want a political party that will fight neoliberalism and take money away from the .001%. The Liberals aren't likely to do that. If you think otherwise do let me know what your logic is on that.

I think universality is great. I'm just not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. If universality is not an option then I would prefer that the neediest be helped rather than nobody.

Of the three neoliberal parties I think the NDP is the most likely to produce a Corbyn or a Sanders. I realize that you are on the right side of the NDP that wants to stick with a Mulcair type but in my opinion the NDP can't win as Liberal lite. Either they turn left or they are redundant.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
I think universality is great. I'm just not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. If universality is not an option then I would prefer that the neediest be helped rather than nobody.

How do you determine who is neediest? Do you realize that mean testes progams would hurt Prairie farmers who appear wealthy on paper because of the machinery they own but have serious cash flow issues?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I think universality is great. I'm just not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. If universality is not an option then I would prefer that the neediest be helped rather than nobody.

How do you determine who is neediest? Do you realize that mean testes progams would hurt Prairie farmers who appear wealthy on paper because of the machinery they own but have serious cash flow issues?

There is no "means test" per se. That's just the retoric being used to condemn the child tax credit. Everyone gets it. It is clawed back at tax time depending on yearly income not net worth. They could have made it universal and raised taxes on the wealthy a different way but ultimately it is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Politically it was better this way because the line "take it away from those who don't need it to give more to those who do" has a nice populist ring to it. Before condemning that motivation remember the NDP does it too. All political parties frame things in the way they think will be most advantageous to them.

mark_alfred

Of the three neoliberal parties I think the NDP is the most likely to produce a Corbyn or a Sanders.

I agree with you there, particularly regarding Sanders.  In fact, much of what Sanders was advocating was (relative to the differences in the respective nations) similar to what Mulcair's NDP was advocating.  Sanders advocated universal single payer health care for the States.  The NDP advocated strengthening our universal health care via committing to a minimum increase of 6% in a new health care accord (Libs didn't).  Each advocated concrete significant electoral reform, with Sanders promising to pull out big money from campaigns (here corps and unions already can't be donating) whereas the NDP promised MMP (Libs promised to meet and study, which, I guess, is something).  Each promised tax reform for social spending, with the NDP promising increases to corporate taxes (Sanders did not promise this, since corporate taxes are higher there than they are here, though he like the NDP did promise a crackdown on offshore tax havens) whereas Sanders promised to increase personal taxes, citing news articles stating that the high forties for combined state/federal taxes was a workable level (combined personal taxes here already are in the high forties).  Both promised universal childcare (not means tested payouts like the Libs).  Both promised to increase the minimum wage $15 per hour (granted, this is federal and not State or provincial, and granted, a Sanders' commitment was proportionally a bit higher than the NDP's -- still, within what was possible, the commitment was made by the NDP and not the Libs).  Both committed to the environmental target of 80% reduction in greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2050, with a commitment to price carbon (cap and trade for the NDP, carbon tax for Sanders, and no real commitment to a national target or pricing strategy from the Libs).  Both committed to reducing military excursions overseas (the NDP went further than Sanders on this, promising to bring the troops home).  Both expressed reservations about the TPP (though each had less antipathy toward trade with Europe).  The one area the NDP fell short of Sanders was post-secondary education, but otherwise what Sanders and the NDP offered (relative to the different situations of each nation) was very similar.  Whereas what the Liberals offered was less so.  So it does beg the question of why you'd support the Liberals in the last election if in fact your interest is actually in a Sanders-like government.  But whatever, if you're now moving away from the Liberals and toward the NDP, then good.

wage zombie

mark_alfred wrote:

Of the three neoliberal parties I think the NDP is the most likely to produce a Corbyn or a Sanders.

I agree with you there, particularly regarding Sanders.  In fact, much of what Sanders was advocating was (relative to the differences in the respective nations) similar to what Mulcair's NDP was advocating.  Sanders advocated universal single payer health care for the States.  The NDP advocated strengthening our universal health care via committing to a minimum increase of 6% in a new health care accord (Libs didn't).  Each advocated concrete significant electoral reform, with Sanders promising to pull out big money from campaigns (here corps and unions already can't be donating) whereas the NDP promised MMP (Libs promised to meet and study, which, I guess, is something).  Each promised tax reform for social spending, with the NDP promising increases to corporate taxes (Sanders did not promise this, since corporate taxes are higher there than they are here, though he like the NDP did promise a crackdown on offshore tax havens) whereas Sanders promised to increase personal taxes, citing news articles stating that the high forties for combined state/federal taxes was a workable level (combined personal taxes here already are in the high forties).  Both promised universal childcare (not means tested payouts like the Libs).  Both promised to increase the minimum wage $15 per hour (granted, this is federal and not State or provincial, and granted, a Sanders' commitment was proportionally a bit higher than the NDP's -- still, within what was possible, the commitment was made by the NDP and not the Libs).  Both committed to the environmental target of 80% reduction in greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2050, with a commitment to price carbon (cap and trade for the NDP, carbon tax for Sanders, and no real commitment to a national target or pricing strategy from the Libs).  Both committed to reducing military excursions overseas (the NDP went further than Sanders on this, promising to bring the troops home).  Both expressed reservations about the TPP (though each had less antipathy toward trade with Europe).  The one area the NDP fell short of Sanders was post-secondary education, but otherwise what Sanders and the NDP offered (relative to the different situations of each nation) was very similar.  Whereas what the Liberals offered was less so.  So it does beg the question of why you'd support the Liberals in the last election if in fact your interest is actually in a Sanders-like government.  But whatever, if you're now moving away from the Liberals and toward the NDP, then good.

I disagree with this comparison.  Sanders offered something new, and Mulcair did not.  Sanders presented himself as outside the establishment, to his advantage.  Mulcair tried to present himself as a safe choice, and subsequently lost appeal. 

mark_alfred

Whatever.  There's now a leadership race for a new leader. ETA:  It's too bad for the US and Canada respectively that Sanders didn't (presumptively) win the Democrat nomination & get a chance to run and the NDP didn't win last time.  Things would have been better.  Hopefully next time.

wage zombie

Yes, it would have been great to have both Sanders and Mulcair in power at the same time.

I only responded because I found your comment quite confusing.

Pondering agrees with us that the likeliest vehicle of choice for a Sanders/Corbyn figure is the NDP.  You respond by making a policy checklist comparison between Sanders and Mulcair.  I'm scratching my head as to the connection.

I know that you think it was a poor decision to vote for a new leader (and that it was done rudely, too boot).  So maybe you're still feeling like Mulcair deserves more praise for his campaign and so that's motivating you to talk postively about him when the opportunity is there.  I can understand that, although I suspect putting Mulcair next to Sanders rhetorically does not increase Tom's appeal for most people.

Maybe you, too, understand that we could really benefit from such a figure in Canada, and that we haven't gotten one.  Maybe you're encouraging us to take heart that the last NDP leader, unsatisfying though he was, was very comparable to Sanders on policy, and so maybe we're even closer than we might have realized?

Or maybe you think Tom really was that Sanders/Corbyn figure, or very close to it, and unforunately the voters didn't notice?  I hope it's not that one.

Anyway, the thing that seems bizarre to me is the policy checklist as the default context of the comparison.  Sanders' appeal was largely not about his policy checklist.  I'd imagine that at a large Sanders rally, many there would not be able to give you hard details about, say, his child care plan.  They would not be able to tell you much useful information about how Sanders would go about breaking up the banks.

Sanders appeal was about trust.  His supporters could look at his record to justify that trust.  They trusted him to not sell their interests out.

Unfortunately for our team, the voters who decided our recent election trusted Justin more than they trusted Tom.  That's a lot more important than comparing the policy checklists between Sanders and Mulcair.  And let's be clear when we're talking about Sanders/Corbyn figure(s) we're talking about trust.  We're not talking about the policy scorecards.

Here's a good article which also takes a critical view of the policy checklist as argument:

The BCNDP Needs To Find Itself

Quote:

The group followed along with the presentation well enough, till it came to the “close” of the persuasion discussion: where the canvasser must contrast the status quo (under the BC Liberals in this case) and the proposed policies of the BCNDP, in a way which makes tangible the difference between the two in a way which affects the voter’s everyday life. Easy enough, right? Apparently not.

As Luis took suggestions from the crowd, it became increasingly clear nobody could manage the task. Everyone raised droning policy comparisons; generalized pledges to re-fund education, healthcare, etc.; attacks on the credibility and ethics of the current provincial government and the premier in particular. Mr. Avila just kept asking the same question: “But what does that mean?” What does that mean to the person at the door, who in this case was worried about accessing healthcare when their kids needed it? The BCNDP knew why they (believed they were) a superior choice at the *macro* level, but they couldn’t connect it to the man at the door. They kept offering historical explanations, instead of connecting with the voter.

...

It’s that easy. The voter will explain to *you* why they want a new provincial government. You don’t have to tell them a thing. But the dedicated canvassers at BCNDP forward did an awful lot of telling, and not much listening. And they told, at length, why Christy Clark had to go, but when it came to answering the obvious questions: what would the BCNDP do differently? And above all, *why* would they do things differently and *how* would that matter to me? …when faced with these questions, the obvious questions, most people were stumped.

...

So here I am, after the weekend, and the question of “why” still lingers. I know who John Horgan is; I know who the BCNDP are; but the question remains. Why does John Horgan want to be the next Premier of British Columbia? And following from that question, what will he do if he is elected? What will change for me?

I don’t know. I mean, I know a couple of their planned piecemeal reforms, but I don’t know the guiding principles from which those reforms follow. And I don’t know if he knows, either.

I'm not looking to talk about the BC NDP here, necessarily, but it seems like a related discussion.  I see a lot of similarities between Horgan and Mulcair.

wage zombie

You think I'm undermining the NDP?

mark_alfred

No.

mark_alfred

She's also said the NDP should throw out its policies and history, which is silly.  It serves no purpose to put a progressive like Sanders on a pedestal with the intent of undermining the NDP.  And why constantly strive to undermine the NDP if one likes Sanders?  Again, very similar policy positions on a wide range of issues.  It makes no sense, except as a divisive tactic meant to undermine.  Mindlessly undermine.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
She's also said the NDP should throw out its policies and history, which is silly.  It serves no purpose to put a progressive like Sanders on a pedestal with the intent of undermining the NDP.  And why constantly strive to undermine the NDP if one likes Sanders?  Again, very similar policy positions on a wide range of issues.  It makes no sense, except as a divisive tactic meant to undermine.  Mindlessly undermine.

I didn't say throw out it's history. I said start fresh, as in with an open mind, about how to represent the interests of the 99% or the 80% as a more realistic goal. Layton understood how to use the language of ordinary people, about kitchen tables vs boardroom tables rather than socialism vs capitalism.

There is no need to undermine the NDP. They are already in ruins to the point where if an election were held today they could lose party status.

It doesn't matter whether I am friend or enemy to the NDP. All that matters is the validity of my argument which boils down to this. Strategizing on the basis that Trudeau will eventually screw up and Canadians will turn to the NDP as their replacement is a fool's game. In 2011 the Liberals were given a gift. They didn't even manage to hold onto official opposition. That discredited the executive which lost all credibility. There was a move afoot to rescind the agreement that Rae wouldn't run which was made when he became interim leader but when Trudeau stepped forward Rae stepped out because he knew he was beat. 

I find it really strange that some posters here remain convinced that Trudeau is such a weak easy to beat opponent that a dry policy list is what you need to beat him. You say *I* undermine the NDP? Policy does matter, but not as a bullet list that you check off to prove the NDP is different from/better than the Liberals. The NDP toyed with condemnation of the Investor State clauses in trade deals but then dropped it. The NDP spent time arguing about the democratic reform committee which ended up giving Trudeau and the Liberals another PR win. Then there was the whole REB thing that backfired. At some point you have to admit that NDP strategy is failing.

mark_alfred

Cullen's idea was a complete success with the democratic reform committee.  That committee now has more legitimacy because of it.  Also, the Libs backed down on motion-6 due to NDP actions, so I don't know what you're talking about re: "the whole REB thing that backfired".  The NDP have been consistent on the international trade committee opposing investor state dispute settlement provisions that threaten local sovereignty -- Tracy Ramsey sits on this committee and has been doing very good work there (she's also been reaching out to activist groups too).  [later edit]

mark_alfred

I find it really strange that some posters here remain convinced that Trudeau is such a weak easy to beat opponent that a dry policy list is what you need to beat him.

 

I'm unaware of anyone saying that.  If we look first at polling within the pre-campaign period, we see that the Liberals were third until Trudeau was chosen leader of the Libs in 2013, when suddenly they catapulted to first, with the NDP dropping to third.  He was very popular.  No one denies that.  The idea to focus more on the Cons and their failures in the economy, rights, and services, rather than focus on Trudeau and the Libs, in hindsight, may not have been the best strategy.  Hindsight is 20/20, though.  At the time, the NDP focussing on the Cons and portraying them as weak with the economy while swinging the campaign focus from the economy to health care, child care (introduced early and repeatedly), and the environment, seemed good, and did begin to work.  Trudeau's Libs came across as non-serious with a corporate puppet as their leader (the latter view of JT as a puppet being strengthened by the kowtowing to the Conservative's Bill C-51 -- and we see now this is still the case).  And polling showed this was working as the NDP rose from third and tied for first at the beginning of the campaign.   This remained the case for the first half of the campaign until Trudeau's Libs returned to first with the NDP returning to third, the NDP slide beginning with both the Cons and Libs together attacking the NDP on its spending plans, and Trudeau doing okay in the debates allaying public concern, aided also by the Cons' idiotic niqab gambit. 

Debater

le 18 août 2016

CROP

Liberals - 60%

NDP - 17%

BQ - 11%

Cons - 8%

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-quebecoise/201608/...

swallow swallow's picture

If only those were Canada-wide rather than Quebec numbers! 

Debater

Yes, it would be nice to see the Conservatives in single digits!

mark_alfred

If they were Canada wide numbers it would indicate a real strength for the BQ.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

If they were Canada wide numbers it would indicate a real strength for the BQ.

Yes

Debater

ABACUS

August 29, 2016

LPC 46

CPC 28

NDP 16

http://abacusdata.ca/grit-support-broadening-with-time/

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

ABACUS

August 29, 2016

LPC 46

CPC 28

NDP 16

http://abacusdata.ca/grit-support-broadening-with-time/

So far as polls go there are some interesting observations possible when it comes to age groups.

Over age 45, the Conservatives sit at roughly 1/3 of the voter preferences. Under age 45 they fall to less than a 1/4 (26% men and only 18% for women. For under 45 women the NDP is above the Conservatives at 20%.

For the NDP the numbers are not great to be sure. Among men under 45 they have the support of only 1 in 6 and for younger women only 1 in 5. In the older cohorts things run downhill from there. But in theory at least time is on the NDP's side but not the Conservatives. Across all the demographics the Liberals range from 44 to 50% so not a great bias in any age group.

The other interesting statistic relates to approval of the government. Approval more than doubles disapproval everywhere but the Prairies. Only in Alberta does disaproval come higher than approval. Approvals of the government triples disaproval among 2015 NDP voters -- this is no surpirse since a substantial number of them report having switched since the election.

The income level who gets the tax cut is only slightly ahead of the ranges that got the bait and switch (the middle class who did not get the cut). We do know that a number of them are families with kids so a number of them did get a benefit. But you do see the Liberals with the highest approvals in the $75,000 to $100,000 income range.

The last interesting observation is a warning: how people felt about the economy was directly related to their apporval fo the government. This is interesting as it is not entirely logical as the government has no had much time to influence the economy. The point here is that it is not about fair. Should the economy worsen then we can presume so too will the approval numbers for the government.

I would say that the Liberals know they came to power on a lot of pocket book issues. Their management of the overall economy will be tied to their fortunes. Therefore popular or not the Liberals will decide on issues like trade to go for the policies they think will help the most.

If you don't like a trade agreement and you want to lobby the government you will need to make the case that it will harm the economy overall as otherwise they will not be listening.

Anyway, I figure it is worth drilling down from time to time when the stats are there...

Debater

The NDP numbers aren't *too* bad considering the terrible year they've had.

And the NDP seems to have recovered in Quebec a little bit and is now in 2nd place again (although still way behind the Liberals).

What's interesting is the huge Liberal numbers in B.C.  Some of that is probably due to Trudeau's B.C. connections.  I think he's definitely benefitting from the "native grandson" effect.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

The NDP numbers aren't *too* bad considering the terrible year they've had.

And the NDP seems to have recovered in Quebec a little bit and is now in 2nd place again (although still way behind the Liberals).

What's interesting is the huge Liberal numbers in B.C.  Some of that is probably due to Trudeau's B.C. connections.  I think he's definitely benefitting from the "native grandson" effect.

There may well be some of that. I think some of the promises made with respect to the environment are also behind this. I think the Liebrals do see the environment as a keystone they ahve to address in order to keep their support.

Centrist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Debater wrote:

The NDP numbers aren't *too* bad considering the terrible year they've had.

And the NDP seems to have recovered in Quebec a little bit and is now in 2nd place again (although still way behind the Liberals).

What's interesting is the huge Liberal numbers in B.C.  Some of that is probably due to Trudeau's B.C. connections.  I think he's definitely benefitting from the "native grandson" effect.

There may well be some of that. I think some of the promises made with respect to the environment are also behind this. I think the Liebrals do see the environment as a keystone they ahve to address in order to keep their support.

I dunno. A CATI poll released here in BC a couple of weeks ago included the question... "What is the most important issue facing people like you in BC?" Environment/Climate change was at 8%. I suspect that here in BC it's more a combination of the JT bandwagon "rah, rah" effect with both the Cons and NDP noticably absent from the fed scene. My 2 cents.

Debater

New Léger poll:

Le 3 septembre 2016

Canada

53% LPC

25% CPC

12% NDP

5% GPC

4% BQ

-

Québec

51% LPC

17% BQ

16% NDP

12% CPC

3% GPC

-

http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/pol_qccan_sond_030916.pdf

Debater

ABACUS

One year after the 2015 Election:

October 19, 2016

LIBERAL - 45%

CONSERVATIVE - 28%

NDP - 14%

http://abacusdata.ca/trudeaus-liberals-one-year-later-canada-would-do-it...

josh
mark_alfred

Majority say Justin Trudeau government is more style than substance: Ipsos poll

 

Quote:
Despite the prime minister’s popularity, nearly half of all poll respondents were at a loss when asked to name an accomplishment the government has achieved in the past year, the Ipsos poll conducted for Global News suggests. And, one year after the election, six in 10 Canadians either strongly or somewhat agree the Trudeau government is more “style” than “substance.”

Pages