Latest polling thread Feb. 25th, 2015

416 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Tom Mulcair's NDP may be turning a corner, polls suggest

With recent uptick, the New Democrats seem to be back in the game

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-s-ndp-may-be-turning-a-corne...

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Tom Mulcair's NDP may be turning a corner, polls suggest

With recent uptick, the New Democrats seem to be back in the game

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-s-ndp-may-be-turning-a-corne...

Huh?  What?  Now you're quoting Mr. 308?

welder welder's picture

josh wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Tom Mulcair's NDP may be turning a corner, polls suggest

With recent uptick, the New Democrats seem to be back in the game

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-s-ndp-may-be-turning-a-corne...

Huh?  What?  Now you're quoting Mr. 308?

Baghdad Bob to the rescue!!!

wage zombie

Forum tried to poll PC party members. What happened next was strange

Quote:

There are two ways to go about polling a party's membership. One way is to obtain a list of party members and call them, which has happened in the past. The less common route is to do a standard poll and ask people if they are party members.

That's what Forum did in its latest poll concerning the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership race. Good for them for trying, but logistically it should be a nightmare. According to the PCs, they have over 80,000 members, representing 0.6% of Ontario's adult population. You'd have to do a poll of 50,000 people to get a decent sample size of 300 party members, if the poll is done properly. With the response rates that IVR gets, you'd have to call about 2.5 million households.

Instead, Forum polled 881 Ontarians and found 65 paid-up party members. This is revealing, for several reasons.

Those 65 paid-up party members represent 7.4% of the sample, quite a bit more than what it should have been if the poll was completely random. Forum found 12 times as many PC party members in its poll than it should have.

Quote:

The third question is, perhaps, the most interesting one. What if active political partisans are just so much more likely to participate in a poll than the rest of the population, that being over-represented by a factor of 12 is actually not a sign of a problem with the poll, but a problem with the people who take part in a poll in the first place?

Rokossovsky

Excellent and interesting.

NorthReport

Mulcair's approval ratings go up but NDP still in third place behind Conservatives and Liberals: poll

 

Public approval ratings for NDP Leader Tom Mulcair spiked over the past two months as he led the Commons charge against the government’s contentious anti-terrorism legislation and its decision to join a U.S.-led bombing mission against Islamic State militants in Iraq and now Syria, a Forum Research survey found.

But despite Mr. Mulcair’s (Outremont, Que.) personal rating, the poll found the Liberal Party and the Conservatives virtually tied when it came to voting intentions for an election, with the NDP in third place.

Mr. Mulcair’s approval rating leapt to 47 per cent from 40 per cent last Jan. 28, well ahead of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), whose approval rating trailed both Mr. Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.), the Forum survey on Tuesday found.

Only one-third of voters approved of Mr. Harper’s performance, while Mr. Trudeau’s approval rating dropped to 40 per cent from 43 per cent in January.

 

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2015/04/01/mulcairs-approval-rati...

NorthReport

+

NorthReport

Looking forward now to the next Angus Reid and Ipsos Reid polls  Smile

ajaykumar

Funny to see ndpers ignore the abacus poll that came on the same day as ekos. Look at nanos poll from today as well. Many polls showed ontario ndp FIRST during and before Ontario campaign. Leaders who are least known have the highest approval rating. Ajay could become an NDP leader and have an approval rating of 80. Approval rating don't equate to electoral wins.but if you want, pick the poll that shows you doing well.mulcair cant win as much as jack Layton and that too increased NDP seats by 8 outside of Quebec.

NorthReport

Here are the latest polls minus the latest Forum Poll released today which once again showing the NDP with support in the mid-twenties. Not too shabby!  Smile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_feder...

ajaykumar

NDP was always around 23-24.even during Trudeau honeymoon.

knownothing knownothing's picture

We have been down in the teens for the last few months. Nice to see we are climbing back up on our way to forming the next government. The Liberals have actually been at 19% since the last election. It is only the polling companies lying to Canadians to make them believe an NDP government is an impossibility.

 

Oh it is more than a possibility. It is going to happen folks! Rachel Notley for Premier!

NorthReport

How many polls in a row has it been now showing the NDP in the mid-twenties?

Frank Graves clearly stated that we are now in a three way race. 

Slow but sure works for moi. Smile

adma

wage zombie wrote:
Quote:

The third question is, perhaps, the most interesting one. What if active political partisans are just so much more likely to participate in a poll than the rest of the population, that being over-represented by a factor of 12 is actually not a sign of a problem with the poll, but a problem with the people who take part in a poll in the first place?

Might explain the Greens' overperformance in such polls.

Sean in Ottawa

wage zombie wrote:

The third question is, perhaps, the most interesting one. What if active political partisans are just so much more likely to participate in a poll than the rest of the population, that being over-represented by a factor of 12 is actually not a sign of a problem with the poll, but a problem with the people who take part in a poll in the first place?

This is exactly what I have been saying about polls for years!

The proportion of respondents willing to be polled is far lower than the number who vote. Of course hard core partisans would be over represented.

Pondering

So why are NDP supporters so depressed and angry?

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:

Because they are sad to see you degenerate from a half decent advocate for the Liberal Party, to playground 'passive agressiveness' now that you can't crow about a dominant poll position. As I have been saying for some time, without policy you are going to fcked for content once Justin is widely seen as no match for Harper, which he isn't.

Liberals are now well into plan "B", holding onto vote share in order to come second now that the NDP have sandbagged their position around Bill C-51, hoping to convert Official Opposition status in 2015 into a win in 2019 after Harper steps down from being the logest serving Pirme Minister in Canadian history.

Then you should be happy as you are convinced the NDP will win the election in 2015. You have no reason to be hostile towards me just because I disagree with you. You should be cortling in glee at how surprised I will be when Mulcair becomes Prime Minister. 

You know that Liberal policy is waiting in the wings for the writ to be dropped. You claim that Justin is widely seen as no match for Harper, and yet he is running neck and neck with him without having released a platform and while maintaining a relatively low profile. 

It is illogical to suggest that Trudeau is running for second. Why would he do that when he is so close to winning? 

You seem to think that Bill C-51 will be a deciding factor in the election. I wish it would be but I highly doubt it. The economy will likely be the deciding factor. 

 

Rokossovsky

Because they are sad to see you degenerate from a half decent advocate for the Liberal Party, to playground 'passive aggressiveness' now that you can't crow about a dominant poll position. As I have been saying for some time, without policy you are going to fcked for content once Justin is widely seen as no match for Harper, which he isn't.

Liberals are now well into plan "B", holding onto vote share in order to come second now that the NDP have sandbagged their position around Bill C-51, hoping to convert Official Opposition status in 2015 into a win in 2019 after Harper steps down from being the longest serving Prime Minister in Canadian history.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
You claim that Justin is widely seen as no match for Harper, and yet he is running neck and neck with him without having released a platform and while maintaining a relatively low profile.

Political inertia. People are tired of the Conservatives, and when that happens, throughout most of the country's history the party they use to replace the Conservatives has been the Liberals. People get asked a question, they want Harper gone, and reflexively the default to "Liberal."

Pondering wrote:
It is illogical to suggest that Trudeau is running for second. Why would he do that when he is so close to winning?

The math and the geography are very huge barriers to Trudeau winning in 2015. The math because he has to increase his seat count by well over 100 seats and leap-frog way past the second-place NDP. Jack Layton was the only leader who came close to winning an election out of fourth place, and even as popular as he was, he couldn't do it. The geography breaks down as simple:

Atlantic provinces: few enough seats that they can be safely disregarded even in the event of a Liberal sweep

Quebec: structural disadvantage for the Liberals, in that their vote is concentrated in Montreal and the Ottawa valley, and even coming first in the popular vote can still leave a different party with first place in the seat count, for example happened provincially in 1998 or federally in 2000. And being first in the popular vote in Quebec is the best-case scenario, something that certainly cannot be relied upon.

Ontario: only during the Reform-PC split did the Conservatives fall below taking 20% of the seats in that province. There are also seats that the NDP has made strong inroads into, and barring a 1993-style meltdown, the NDP will still be represented in Ontario after the next election. The main reason the Liberals held government from 1993-2004 was their massively sweeping of Ontario, but that was due to unique political circumstances that are not likely to repeat themselves.

Western Canada: the word "Liberal" is a curse word in these parts, and the Trudeau name is not well-liked. Outside of Winnipeg, Metro Vancouver, and maybe a couple of Edmonton and Calgary seats in the best-case scenario, the Liberals are simply not a factor in the vast majority of seats in Western Canada. The Liberals are further disadvantaged by redistribution that adds more seats here.

Clearly the foundation beneath the Liberal party is not strong enough to vault them into government this time around.

Rokossovsky

I have no illusions that C-51 will be the key to NDP victory, far from it. It is the deciding factor in what will lose the Liberals the election because it solidifies the NDP base vote share, around things that they care about, enough to vote on principle. I have said that before.

Losing "heir apparent" status throws the entire "vote for me, I am the only man who can beat Harper" campaign theme that has dominated Liberal talking points for the last six months into the toilet and changes the election dynamics entirely. I have said that before.

Not having a platform has given the NDP plenty of time to define their own, and make it impossible for the Liberals to brand themselves with NDP policies through "policy theft". Error. I have said that before.

Only the NDP can beat Harper, if anyone. Certainly not Trudeau.

What I can not explain is why anyone would really want him to given his crappy performance, and feckless pandering on issues like C-51 -- now that is truly makes me sad.

Rokossovsky

Why they are playing it safe in a nutshell -- in order to win they would be taking risks. But second place might be achievable.

And that begs the question: "why would anyone vote Liberal to get rid of Harper, when they are only committed to beating the NDP?"

NorthReport

The latest polling scene as we close out the week:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_feder...

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:
Losing "heir apparent" status throws the entire "vote for me, I am the only man who can beat Harper" campaign theme that has dominated Liberal talking points for the last six months into the toilet and changes the election dynamics entirely. I have said that before.  

Got any quotes because Trudeau explicitly ruled out that approach. 

Rokossovsky wrote:
Not having a platform has given the NDP plenty of time to define their own, and make it impossible for the Liberals to brand themselves with NDP policies through "policy theft". Error. I have said that before.  

The Liberals don't want NDP policy. They have their own. 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Why they are playing it safe in a nutshell -- in order to win they would be taking risks. But second place might be achievable.

And that begs the question: "why would anyone vote Liberal to get rid of Harper, when they are only committed to beating the NDP?"

They are playing it safe because they are in the lead. That is the norm politically. There is nothing out of the ordinary in politicians waiting until an election to present their platform. That too is a norm. The Liberals will keep their powder dry until the election because they can. Trudeau doesn't need to up his profile. 

Your logic is tortured. Neither front-runnner is aiming for second. 

Brachina

 Ruled out that approach? Are you kidding me? It and surrendering to Harper far too often appear to be his entire approach.

 

 Bowing down before Harper isn't a policy platform.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

You claim that Justin is widely seen as no match for Harper, and yet he is running neck and neck with him without having released a platform and while maintaining a relatively low profile. 

It seems to me like Trudeau is running neck and neck with Harper for no good reason, and somehow this is cause for Liberals to celebrate.

Dion and Ignatieff were running neck and neck with Harper as well.  Then came the elections.

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You claim that Justin is widely seen as no match for Harper, and yet he is running neck and neck with him without having released a platform and while maintaining a relatively low profile. 

It seems to me like Trudeau is running neck and neck with Harper for no good reason, and somehow this is cause for Liberals to celebrate.

Dion and Ignatieff were running neck and neck with Harper as well.  Then came the elections.

I don't think it's for no reason. I think it is because Trudeau is plausible and a Liberal. Dion was a fluke, he came up the middle between Ignatieff and Rae then was stabbed in the back by his own party at which point Ignatieff was given the crown. Trudeau won his place as leader of the party. He has since surrounded himself with professionals and amassed a war chest. That posters here don't find him credible doesn't mean other people agree. 

When he starts spending that war chest we shall see who is right. I think his star will rise when he rolls out a credible platform. Some of you think it will fade further once voters get to know him better. 

The NDP is in third place because it has failed to sell itself.  

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

I don't think it's for no reason. I think it is because Trudeau is plausible and a Liberal.

Wow.  That's the best you can come up with?

Rokossovsky

Yes, Trudeau is plausible. Even possible. In fact probable. I will give you that.

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You claim that Justin is widely seen as no match for Harper, and yet he is running neck and neck with him without having released a platform and while maintaining a relatively low profile. 

It seems to me like Trudeau is running neck and neck with Harper for no good reason, and somehow this is cause for Liberals to celebrate.

Dion and Ignatieff were running neck and neck with Harper as well.  Then came the elections.

I don't think it's for no reason. I think it is because Trudeau is plausible and a Liberal. Dion was a fluke, he came up the middle between Ignatieff and Rae then was stabbed in the back by his own party at which point Ignatieff was given the crown. Trudeau won his place as leader of the party. He has since surrounded himself with professionals and amassed a war chest. That posters here don't find him credible doesn't mean other people agree.

You make the Liberals just sound like wonderful people.

ajaykumar

liberals are the most wonderful people in canadian politics. 

Sean in Ottawa

ajaykumar wrote:

liberals are the most wonderful people in canadian politics. 

May I assume this is sarcasm?

It should be.

Rokossovsky

Annoinments, appointments, backstabbings and more.

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't think it's for no reason. I think it is because Trudeau is plausible and a Liberal.

Wow.  That's the best you can come up with?

We are discussing politics. The political parties are trying to sell themselves. They are not social activists. Trudeau has named himself a retail politician. Politicians routinely change parties without declaring any change in personal philosophy. Mulcair is a career politician. It's his job. When he left the right wing Quebec Liberals he didn't renounce them or have a "come to Jesus" moment. 

If we want to overthrow the oligarchy we have to get the public on board first. If we aren't going to overthrow the oligarchy then we are arguing over who can best administrate the status quo. 

Nibbling at the edges of the market driven economy isn't going to work. Liberals will argue the economic benefits of national daycare but I predict whatever they put in place will be means tested. Trudeau will use himself and his family as an examples of who doesn't need income splitting or subsidized daycare. Trudeau will argue the economic benefits of providing mental health care and everything else he proposes including pot legalization. In my view Trudeau and the Liberals are better placed to make successful changes within the framework of our current system. 

Other people think that the NDP can or will make more progressive changes that the liberals if they are in government but I don't think that is possible under the current climate. I think it is far more likely they would have a painful run that would be deeply disappointing and demoralizing to NDP supporters and activists in general. 

Obviously NDP supporters disagree which is fine. I don't expect people to agree with me. 

Sean in Ottawa

Comments about Mulcair coming from the "right-wing" Liberal party are bullshit.

You know this very well but I can spell it out anyway.

When Mulcair was in the Liberal party in Quebec there were only two parties of any significance: One federal and one separatist. Both parties ran the gambit from left to right. This is how we saw Parizeau, Bouchard, Duceppe, and Levesque in the same party. The Liberal party included a range from left to right as well on the federalist side.

So to fix your post perhaps you could rephrase more accurately to say that Mulcair came from the federalist party in Quebec to the federal NDP.

***

I do not believe that you really think you are convincing anyone that Mulcair was a right winger. I don't even think that you are so absolutely clueless of the Quebec political scene that you could believe it yourself. I don't think that you are unaware of the steady drift the Quebec Liberal party has taken to the right since Mulcair went federal and a left party came into being there. Therefore I consider your smear is intended, not to convince or make a point, but to provoke and annoy. This sort of thing is why I have called you out for trolling. I would have made the same comment to anyone.

At the very least do not look so mournful and wounded when the responses you provoke so deliberately and insistently actually come back to you.

Brachina
NorthReport

Most recent poll from each pollster excluding CROP which polls Quebec

 

Pollster / Date / Cons / NDP / Libs

Forum Research / Mar 31 / 31%, Down 1% / 23%, Up 2% / 34%, Down 2%

EKOS Politics / Mar 31 / 32%, NC / 23%, NC / 28%, Down 1% 

Abacus Data / Mar 22 / 32%, Down 3% / 23%, Up 2% / 33%, Down 1%

Leger Marketing / Mar 18 / 34%, Up 2% / 20%, NC / 35%, NC

Nanos Research / Feb 27 / 33%, Up 4% / 23%, NC / 34%, NC

Ipsos Reid / Feb 23 / 33%, Down 2% / 23%, Down 1% / 34%, Up 3%

Angus Reid / Dec 13 / 34%, Up 4% / 22%, NC / 34%, Down 2%


 

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

If we want to overthrow the oligarchy we have to get the public on board first. If we aren't going to overthrow the oligarchy then we are arguing over who can best administrate the status quo. 

Nibbling at the edges of the market driven economy isn't going to work. 

I disagree.  Given that we can't yet overthrow the oligarchy we need to nibble as much as we can.  The more we can nibble, the further left we can move the Overton window.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Going with the person who can best administrate the status quo just keeps moving the Overton window right, which is the current status quo.  It moved right throughout the Chretien-Martin years and I don't see any indication that Trudeau would be any different.

Rokossovsky

Interesting comparison between polling going in 6 months in the 2010 election, and the latest EKOS polling going in 6 months to the 2015 election:

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I do not believe that you really think you are convincing anyone that Mulcair was a right winger. I don't even think that you are so absolutely clueless of the Quebec political scene that you could believe it yourself. I don't think that you are unaware of the steady drift the Quebec Liberal party has taken to the right since Mulcair went federal and a left party came into being there. Therefore I consider your smear is intended, not to convince or make a point, but to provoke and annoy. This sort of thing is why I have called you out for trolling. I would have made the same comment to anyone.

The Charest Liberals were firmly to the right and the Liberal party as a whole has been decidedly right for a long time. The PQ used to be the left of Quebec but also moved right. There is no need to put "right" in quotes when speaking of the Quebec Liberals.

Mulcair is neither left nor right. He is a career politician. He would have been just as happy to lead the Liberal party either provincially or federally. That's not an insult. Politics is a profession in Canada and the three parties are not that far apart in policy even though Harper himself is far right.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  This sort of thing is why I have called you out for trolling. I would have made the same comment to anyone.

You call me out because I have exposed your partisanship. You portray yourself as so intellectual that your opinions are unbiased therefore your judgements carry more weight or are more accurate. Just because you damn Trudeau or the Liberals with faint praise now and again doesn't make you unbiased or non-partisan.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
At the very least do not look so mournful and wounded when the responses you provoke so deliberately and insistently actually come back to you.

Don't mistake my objection to your attacks as being either mournful or wounded because I am neither. Bullying should be called out because it's wrong regardless of whether or not the target is wounded by it. It also reflects poorly on babble and discourages lurkers from joining the board and participating.

Brachina

 If Mulcair had wanted to lead the Liberal Party, at either level, he could have. He has far too much taste and far too many principles for the job.

Rokossovsky

Mulcair did get the "Climate Change Accountability Act, 2006" put into place, based on the Sustainable Developement Report, he put together based on the consultations he ran as Minister of the Environment.

Far superior results than anything the Federal Liberals did prior to Martin scratching on the 8 ball in 2006.

Thomas Mulcair -- making even Liberal government work for people.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering -- your so called bullies are united only in irritation with you only becuase of what you say. Those of us who have been here a while have gotten along well-enough with previous Liberals and even Conservatives. Some disagreements are ideological rifts, yet the irritation with you alone is off the charts. You say things intended to incite and you post comments that show how much you dislike most of us and see yourself as better than the rest of us.

There is no majority party here. We have had people who hate all parties, favour the BQ, Liberals, NDP, communists etc. If there is any prejudice against your party, it is recognition that this place has a mandate to be an alternative to the normal ubiquitous acceptance of Liberal or Conservative positions. In that sense, there is a reasonable expectation that Liberals and Conservatives not sign up here to dominate all discussion with the same material we all get from every other media source. Maybe you missed what this place is for. If you pause a moment and consider this paragraph you may get a clue as to why your particular aggression here is so badly received by very many here.

You are not the only one posting biased material but you are the only one here who constantly calls anyone who disagrees with you a bully – even though you are the first to go personal. You are the only one who will go for a whole thread fighting a point that has absolutely no logical content other than your loyalty to the big “L.” The temptation to not let you away with this inspires some of us to argue with you when it would be better to ignore you completely.

Your writing is predictable – uniformly partisan and almost always without any additional insight. Yours, unlike others I may disagree with, are the posts that I wish I had never read because they are like being sucked into a sewer, if you respond, or like crap on the floor that you have to step around if you don’t. It is your unrelenting aggressiveness and unfairness that I am tempted to not want to see unanswered even though it sickens me when I am caught in the stink. This site is torn apart between those who want someone to stand up to you and those who want everyone to ignore you as they would a toxic no-go zone. This is your contribution here.

Then having sewn ill-will so indiscriminately you come back and call everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you bullies. You never consider what you do or the words you use against others-- yet you are so, so sensitive to anything you don't like.

This post, pondering is not bullying. This is feedback of the sort you have earned. You have been running around this place calling everyone bullies for months. A thread was closed yesterday where you did this -- and I was not in that exchange at all.

Calling a person who disagrees with you, just becuase they do, a bully is a disgusting debating tactic. It is name calling that ought to inspire a trip to the nearest mirror if you have one.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering you calling me out for partisanship is an absolute joke.

I have not ever pretended to not have a preference. I have not claimed to be an intellectual. I have shown a preference for facts and logic if that is what you mean. This does not set me apart from many others here even if it provides a stark contrast to the way you present yourself.

I owe no praise to Trudeau or the Liberals. I will speak what I see is the truth. And once in a while that may lead me to defend them. I have no obligation nor desire to be seen to be praising them and when I want to damn them I do so very directly.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Pondering -- your so called bullies are united only in irritation with you only becuase of what you say. Those of us who have been here a while have gotten along well-enough with previous Liberals and even Conservatives. Some disagreements are ideological rifts, yet the irritation with you alone is off the charts.

I argue back more than most. Debater is always being challenged to explain why he supports the Trudeau Liberals and he gets accused of "running" rather than defending the Liberals when they are down. None are as actively critical of the NDP and of Mulcair as I am.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You say things intended to incite and you post comments that show how much you dislike most of us and see yourself as better than the rest of us.

I don't consider myself better than but I do consider myself as good as. You consider support of Trudeau and condemnation of Mulcair "incitement".  There is far worse said of Trudeau all the time.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
There is no majority party here. We have had people who hate all parties, favour the BQ, Liberals, NDP, communists etc. If there is any prejudice against your party, it is recognition that this place has a mandate to be an alternative to the normal ubiquitous acceptance of Liberal or Conservative positions. In that sense, there is a reasonable expectation that Liberals and Conservatives not sign up here to dominate all discussion with the same material we all get from every other media source. Maybe you missed what this place is for.

Maybe you missed what this place is for. The NDP is a mainstream party too. This place is swimming with links to mainstream media. The mods have said people who vote Liberal are as welcome here as anyone else.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You are not the only one posting biased material but you are the only one here who constantly calls anyone who disagrees with you a bully – even though you are the first to go personal.

I don't call people bullies for disagreeing with me. I call them bullies for attacking me personally.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This site is torn apart between those who want someone to stand up to you and those who want everyone to ignore you as they would a toxic no-go zone. This is your contribution here.

I'm not tearing this site apart. I'm just one person. The attitude reflected by your comment is what damages this site. You described two alternatives that apparently members have been discussing with regards to how a group of you should treat me. I vote for shunning me but I am pretty sure I am doomed to disappointment in that regard.

We all have our crosses to bear.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering I opened a thread in reactions about this. Anything I would want to say has been said there. And yes I know what this place is for. Why don't you try to say what you think this place is for -- in the reactions thread not here.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

I don't call people bullies for disagreeing with me. I call them bullies for attacking me personally.

Well personal attacks are not the same as bullying. However, if it was you would be a bully by your own definition as you have been recently called out for a personal attack by the moderator.

Rokossovsky

Maybe we can get back to a discussion of the thread topic as opposed to the people on the thread. I posted the above linked comparisons of polling 6 months out from the last election and the most recent EKOS polling:

Interesting comparison between polling going in 6 months in the 2010 election, and the latest EKOS polling going in 6 months to the 2015 election:

 

Rokossovsky

This was also interesting:

NorthReport

After Several Fails, Should We Trust Election Polls?

It's a key question, given the swarm of public opinion reports on the horizon.

 

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/04/07/Should-We-Trust-Election-Polls/

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Tom Mulcair's NDP may be turning a corner, polls suggest

With recent uptick, the New Democrats seem to be back in the game

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-s-ndp-may-be-turning-a-corne...

It's good news, but a bit worrying given where the uptick in support is (IE, Alberta -- that may lead to an additional seat, and BC, which may lead to a few).  Meanwhile, they've lost some support in Quebec and are still not doing great in Ontario and the Maritimes.  So, good that their overall support is up, but worrying given where that support increase is centred.  Hopefully it will be the start of a trend not only in the west but also in the east.

Pages

Topic locked