babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Nightly CPAC tracking

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Nightly CPAC tracking
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 02 June 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
I see little to rejoice at in today's results.

Cons + 4 over yesterday
Libs + 1
Bloc - 2
NDP - 3

Though probably some sampling noise reflected in yesterday and todays results. Libs gain no doubt all comes from the Bloc. ( Unless, of course, the Cons are pulling soft support from Libs and strategic NDPers are going Lib )

I forgot to take note of any change to the undecided.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 03:33 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't worry about Harper, his platform is shear madness and he'll get slaughtered during the debate, Martin wouldn't do any better, remember, in a political climate this uncertain, it will be the debate that decides things.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 02 June 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Todays numbers:

Lib 37
Con 29
NDP 19
BQ 11
GN 5


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 02 June 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those figures aren't bad, they're only a disappointment after 22%. In the light of 16% in Ipsos they're pretty good.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 02 June 2004 03:40 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just a note that this thread is a continuation of this other thread.

I wouldn't be too overly concerned about this small-sample tracking poll, 200 voters per day with a 3 day rolling average. Each day they drop 200 voters from 3 days before, and add on 200 others. The fluctuations are large. They've had the Libs and Cons tied, and they've had a large Liberal lead. I think that the NDP at 22% was an overestimate anyway.

[ 02 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 03:53 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JamesR:
I see little to rejoice at in today's results.


You're right. To the degree that this reflects the disorganization over the Clarity Act and the inability to contain the damage done by The Three Traitors in BC, it's really disheartening.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 02 June 2004 03:55 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MT VIEW:


You're right. To the degree that this reflects the disorganization over the Clarity Act and the inability to contain the damage done by The Three Traitors in BC, it's really disheartening.


Mt View, you're taking this way too far. It's much more likely the 22% was a blip. As to the 'damage' done in BC, I'm not convinced there is any, equally with the Clarity Act.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:

Mt View, you're taking this way too far. It's much more likely the 22% was a blip. As to the 'damage' done in BC, I'm not convinced there is any, equally with the Clarity Act.


Neither of these incidents could possibly have been helpful. Both of them could have been avoided with minimally sensible levels of preparation. This is avoidable losses no matter how you slice the poll data.

And that is what is discouraging, that we are in what is supposed to be a recovery election, and we are taking totally unnecessary damage by Day 10. Do you suppose I should put a note to that effect in the business reply envelope that comes with the next fundraising pitch hollering that Jack and the team are doing so splendidly that all they need is more cash?


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 02 June 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand SES' nightly tracking.

Yesterday, it published these results:

Liberals - 35%
Conservatives - 25%
NDP - 22%
Bloc - 13%
Green - 5%

Today, it publishes these results:

Liberals -- 37% (-4%)
Conservatives -- 29% (+1)
NDP -- 19% (+1)
Bloc -- 11% (0)
Green -- 5% (+2)

Would it be wrong for me to think that the +/- changes should show:

Liberal: +3
CPC: + 4
NDP: -3
BQ: -2
Green: 0

Regardless their numbers are all over the map and unreliable.

The voting public doesn't change intentions so rapidly and overnight.

I must not be reading these polls correctly...


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 02 June 2004 04:05 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shane,

Those are changes are relative to the first poll done several days ago at the beginning of the nightly tracking.

MT VIEW,

I saw the Liberal ads, they are a joke. We'll probably gain from them. But I do wish Jack left the sleeping dog Clarity Act alone.


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 02 June 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As noted in the previous thread, the SES results also say:
quote:
Decided Voters (Change from May 25th, 1st Nightly Tracking Poll Results)

The results aren't all over the map - the changes you calculated (compared to the previous day's poll) are all within the margin of error.

From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've come to the conclusion that all these polls are a joke, whether SES, Ledger, Ipso, Environics, their all a bunch of qakes.

How many polls now have we seen that come out at the same time, but tell different stories?

I mean difference of 400 people equals an extra point of error, yet a thousand or even three thousand person poll is even going to be in the ball park when compared to millions of voters? If a poll of 1000 is a point more acruate or so, compared to a poll of 600, how does a poll a thousand people compare to the actual beliefs of millions. Do you get what I'm saying?

I don't trust the pollster farther than I can throw them.

The polls in India didn't predict the congress party winning government.


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 04:14 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Privateer:
Shane,

MT VIEW,

I saw the Liberal ads, they are a joke. We'll probably gain from them. But I do wish Jack left the sleeping dog Clarity Act alone.


I hope you are right about the ad. But there's more than just the ad, there's the reality behind it of major members of the party, two former Premiers, going over to the Liberals. Can you please explain to me how amputations of that kind are neither dangerous nor painful?


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 02 June 2004 04:14 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I must not be reading these polls correctly...

Naw, they're just worthless until you take a whole bunch of them and average them together, and even then I have to wonder. I may be cranky from lack of sleep, but it's starting to really irritate me how extremely everyone reacts after each teeny-tiny poll.

Case in point: MT VIEW, you need to take a chill pill. There is no way that the NDP turncoats are turning anyone's head in BC. As for the clarity act business, I'd be surprised if anyone but the most politically partisan even know that it happened. If I am wrong, then it would take another week at least to prove it had done some damage.

I agree with the reverend that the debate will be the deciding factor in this election, moreso than any in recent history, and we all know Jack is going to clean up there.

By the way, just by coincidence, those numbers are very close to my intuition on where the electorate really is right now.

[ 02 June 2004: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 02 June 2004 04:21 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm with Jacob. If people are freaking out like this when we're polling in the upper teens, how did they survive the federal campaigns of the last dozen years? There will be good days and bad days, but remember we're all political junkies. 90% of the stuff we obsess over isn't even noticed by the electorate.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 02 June 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harcourt hasn't crossed to the Liberals anymore than Broadbent and Lewis crossed to the Tories when they accepted appointments.

Ujjal was already a joke who lead us to disaster. As much as I'm pissed with Glen Clark, we would have come out of that election with a few more seats. Instead of amputations think of them as wart removals. If you haven't gone on the doorstep already, go and relish the hatred at the Liberals.


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

Case in point: MT VIEW, you need to take a chill pill. There is no way that the NDP turncoats are turning anyone's head in BC. As for the clarity act business, I'd be surprised if anyone but the most politically partisan even know that it happened. If I am wrong, then it would take another week at least to prove it had done some damage.


I certainly hope you are right. But as I said above, can someone tell me how the defections of two former Premiers, Dosanjh and Miller, isn't a blow? That blow, whatever it's worth on it's own, is magnified several times when the party is unable to put forward a persuasive response. Remember, the Liberals aren't stupid enough to think these people come with thousands of votes attached. What they are doing is driving down NDP organizational morale, and come election day there is thousands of votes in that.

If we had a fully perpared Dosanjh Retaliation Shot ready to go the moment his announcement came thru (and had actually used it instead of letting it sit in the warehouse) then my guess is Miller wouldn't have double-crossed the party by endorsing Haggard, and Haggard himself might never have come thru. But we sat there and did nothing, nothing at all, just the usual NDP ignore and hope it will go away stuff. We pay for that non-strategy every time we use it.

I am not going to take a chill pill. I was right about the public's outrage at the Liberal's decision to call this election and I am right about the damage being done to us. Either the party gets a grip on its circumstances, or else.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Privateer:
Harcourt hasn't crossed to the Liberals

Ujjal was already a joke who lead us to disaster. As much as I'm pissed with Glen Clark, we would have come out of that election with a few more seats. Instead of amputations think of them as wart removals. If you haven't gone on the doorstep already, go and relish the hatred at the Liberals.



Harcourt hasn't crossed to the Liberals, ... yet. And that is a pleasant surprise, ... so far. Miller has crossed and that is a terrible disappointment and a real serious shock. Believe me, ... I first heard about if from a senior labour official who said "We are REALLY pissed off that Dan Miller has endorsed Dave Haggard."

I should relish the public anger at the Liberals? How much of that do you think will go NDP and how much to the Conservatives? If the NDP were playing well we could get our share of that anger. If we are playing poorly, we get mowed under by it. Look at Ontario provincially, where the Lib/Con role in facing public anger was reversed, and where the disunity in the NDP camp, Buzz Hargrove forever telling people to vote Liberal, has kept the Ontario party down to record low levels for three provincial elections.

And just on that point, has anyone heard from Buzz in this election? I wonder what kind of helpful contribution he is planning to make?


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you need farther evidence of the inability of the pollsters look at their seat projections, crazy.

I can tell how the defection of Dos isn't a major blow. Dos took a majority gov down to two seats, that failure clings to him like the Bog of eternal stench. This just helps dissacciosate the NDP from unpopular gov, and acciosate that same gov with the liberals.

That traitor will scare more voters away from the liberals, than he would attract.

MT if you're going to freak out over the clarity bill and a has been, then this going to be very long and painful compaign for you I'm afraid. All the parties will have more tricks in their bags and with the media bias, so this just a sample of what's to come.


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 02 June 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Haggard is losing badly, and Miller will come to regret his error.

I'm actually happy with Buzz right now. He is very much on side with Jack, and gave Jack a glowing endorsement recently on a TV panel. If Buzz was going to give us grief, we'd have heard it by now. I'll try to let bygone be bygones.

Finally, all the Liberal BS has not kept our numbers down in BC. Most polls are showing us in a three-way race federally, and kicking ass provincially.


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 02 June 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Buzz Hargrove forever telling people to vote Liberal
Which is why the CAW gave the NDP more money than any other union? Not everything should be reduced to a distorted sound bite.
quote:
I'll try to let bygone be bygones.
How very un-NDPish of you! Maybe some others will follow your lead.

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 05:20 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Privateer:
Haggard is losing badly, and Miller will come to regret his error.

I'm actually happy with Buzz right now. He is very much on side with Jack, and gave Jack a glowing endorsement recently on a TV panel. If Buzz was going to give us grief, we'd have heard it by now. I'll try to let bygone be bygones.

Finally, all the Liberal BS has not kept our numbers down in BC. Most polls are showing us in a three-way race federally, and kicking ass provincially.



Is Haggard losing badly? I hope so, but there's no basis for saying that. Are we in a tight three way race in BC. I hope so, ... I had been hoping it would now be down to two, ourselves and the Conservatives, but at this point I'll settle for one of three.

The Ipsos Reid numbers are very worrisome, both the 20% figure and the 14%. Even if you add a wide margin of error because of small sample size, say 10 percentage points, we are still in poor shape according to their last sounding at 24% max.

I still maintain that in the case of The Three Traitors we are going down a well-trodden path to well-deserved defeat. I hope it gets fixed fast. There is a weakness there that the NDP is unable to respond to because of "internal difficulties", "painful reminders", "don't want to get into a testosterone-style confrontation", "don't want to do anything on our part that would remind more people of the defections", etc., etc., all kinds of silly, irresponsible [expletives deleted] drivel. It shows and it hurts. Our complete non-strategy of "ignore it and hope it will go away" has been tried all kinds of times, and it always leads to major setbacks.

If Hargrove has endorsed Layton, ... well, there's one bit of good news!

I am very angry about how things are going in BC because this can screw it up for Carol James in next year's provincial election. A weak finish in this federal vote, after all the promises of a major comeback, will play heavily to Adrienne Carr's Green Party hand next May. That's why I am saying, either deal effectively, forcefully and visibly with The Three Traitors or face the consequences. Gordon Campbell must be laughing his head off at all this.

[ 02 June 2004: Message edited by: MT VIEW ]


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 05:27 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jack most like has something planned to deal with it, do you really think Jack already out of tricks?
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 02 June 2004 05:30 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1.Heh, I still get worked up over each incremental change in the opinion polls too even though, given the margin of error, I really know that the incremental changes are pretty meaningless.

Each poll is actually pretty similar to each other and well within each's margin of error.

2.Blaming Ujjal Dosanjh for the defeat of the NDP government in 2001 is ridiculous. When Glen Clark finally resigned, the NDP was at something like 12% in the polls. I have no idea how anybody thinks the NDP would have won more seats with him as leader.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 02 June 2004 05:32 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Ipsos Reid numbers are very worrisome, both the 20% figure and the 14%. Even if you add a wide margin of error because of small sample size, say 10 percentage points, we are still in poor shape according to their last sounding at 24% max.


For the last time!!! The Ipsos-Reid BC numbers are totally wrong and at odds with all other polls done at the same time that have much larger sample sizes.

EKOS - NDP 30% (sample size about 170)
SES - NDP 29% (sample size 120)
Leger - NDP 28% (sample size over 300!)

plus Environics had the NDP at 36% in BC last week.

Who do you think is closer to the truth these four companies or Ipsos-Reid?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
scottndp
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4829

posted 02 June 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for scottndp     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
May I please remind some of you who seem to view polls as fact that they are not! Here are a few reminders for you.

(1) Polling companies get paid!

(2) Who owns the media that orchestrates these polls?

(3) Corporate media is self-serving construction. For example, am I supposed to believe that all of a sudden (because the National Post says so) that Canadians embrace private heath care? All the Canadians I know say the exact opposite.

Please remain grounded in social reality!

Critical observation tells me that the CBC, Toronto Star, National Post and the Globe and Mail actually FEAR the NDP. They are aware of something that are afraid will get out. Unfortunately for them, they can't control who we talk to or information spread via the internet. Those media outlets fear the fact that they don't have control! Take it away from them. As I have said before - become the media! You don't need them...they need you. Get it!

Make it so


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
scottndp
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4829

posted 02 June 2004 06:18 PM      Profile for scottndp     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
pardon my typo

"that they are afraid will get out" i meant to say


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 06:24 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look at the over all media coverage and tell me you can trust polls commissioned by them. I'd love to see the NDP's own numbers. Jack doesn't seem worried at all, so I think we're doing pretty good.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 02 June 2004 06:33 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
[Crossposts. This was to follow scottndp's second-to-last post]


Nope. You're going to have to perform a convincing statistical demonstration that these people systematically underestimate NDP support before I'll buy that.

There's lots of data out there: polls and subsequent election results. Go to it.

[ 02 June 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 06:34 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The fact that Jack's book is on the best sellers list says more about the success of his campaign, than any stupid poll. How many books must someone sell to get on the best seller list?
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 06:42 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For me at least, it comes down to a question of trust. I've seen the coverage of the mainstream media, which is biased and I can't help, but question what's coming from them including polls. I can't prove guilt when it comes to the polls though, still I don't trust, gut reaction.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
scottndp
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4829

posted 02 June 2004 06:51 PM      Profile for scottndp     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who owns the media!

May I suggest postmodern essays on cultural construction. Michel Foucault would be a good place to start. Maybe Chomsky would be another and Naomi Klein. Know your theory!


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 02 June 2004 06:54 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
No, I'm not going down that road. Your claim was that the numbers are being manipulated. If they are, it should be easy to show.

Unless Elections Canada is part of the conspiracy.

[ 02 June 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 02 June 2004 07:08 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rev. Phoenix:
The fact that Jack's book is on the best sellers list says more about the success of his campaign, than any stupid poll. How many books must someone sell to get on the best seller list?

A few thousand.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 07:14 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

For the last time!!! The Ipsos-Reid BC numbers are totally wrong and at odds with all other polls done at the same time that have much larger sample sizes.

EKOS - NDP 30% (sample size about 170)
SES - NDP 29% (sample size 120)
Leger - NDP 28% (sample size over 300!)

plus Environics had the NDP at 36% in BC last week.

Who do you think is closer to the truth these four companies or Ipsos-Reid?



We'll find out when it's too late, ... just like everyone else does.

Two of these, EKOS and SES don't seem to have sample sizes much larger than Ipsos-Reid, which IIRC you stated was about 130.

Also, when were each of these done? If there's a structural problem with the IR sample, you mentioned Abbotsford in jest I think, what could that problem really be? Does it have to do with selecting only certain phone exchanges or calling at the wrong time of day or what? Have IR been known to make big errors?

I hope their measurement is a complete mistake, and there is some glimmer of hope in their tables. There is no regional table for the main vote intention question. That curious omission implies that they too don't take their regional numbers too seriously. But for what it's worth, we still have a poll by a reputable organization that says 14%, perhaps 24% at a maximum. Not really inspiring, to put it mildly.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 02 June 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A few thousand.

Yeah I believe it's five thousand to be exact.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 02 June 2004 07:30 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Two of these, EKOS and SES don't seem to have sample sizes much larger than Ipsos-Reid, which IIRC you stated was about 130.

Also, when were each of these done?


Environics was May 12-18
EKOS was May 25-27
Ipsos-Reid was May 28-30
SES was May 26-30
Leger was May 27-31

If you average them all out BC is more or less a three way dead heat.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 02 June 2004 07:37 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mt View ,you are the biggest nervous nellie I have ever seen!
I think Scott is right , the media is sensing something in the electorate , a left wing surge and they are trying to turn it around. Here in BC it is so obvious the newspapers and TV should be embarrassed ,particularly Global.
I don't think poll numbers have to be manipulated to obtain a result ,just the questions asked, and the area of a province or riding that you ask them in.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 02 June 2004 07:49 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mt. View - you know that 19 times out of 20 you see. You ever wonder when that 1 out of 20 comes along. That's what your seeing with the IR Poll numbers in BC.
From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 02 June 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by faith:
I don't think poll numbers have to be manipulated to obtain a result ,just the questions asked, and the area of a province or riding that you ask them in.

Again, that should be easy to demonstrate using publicly-available data.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 07:55 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
only a few thousand? I was expecting at least 100,000.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 02 June 2004 07:56 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The poll numbers are just that ... numbers.

The issue as I see it is the way the media spins the varous polls. Right now they're quoting the Ipsos-Reid poll extensively to show the NDP has dropped in support.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 02 June 2004 08:19 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scottndp:
All the Canadians I know say the exact opposite.

I'm sure that is a representative sample of the Canadian electorate.


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 08:24 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by candle:
Mt. View - you know that 19 times out of 20 you see. You ever wonder when that 1 out of 20 comes along. That's what your seeing with the IR Poll numbers in BC.

I certainly hope so.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 02 June 2004 08:31 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:
The poll numbers are just that ... numbers.

The issue as I see it is the way the media spins the varous polls. Right now they're quoting the Ipsos-Reid poll extensively to show the NDP has dropped in support.



If you have people who have been conditioned to do "strategic voting", or to do what some talking head tells them is "strategic voting", then that would mean that publishing polls can be used to drive voters like cattle, would it not?

In that case, if people are not intrinsically satisfied and are instead shopping around for the most promising arithmetic, polls really could influence the outcome.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 02 June 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MT VIEW:


If you have people who have been conditioned to do "strategic voting", or to do what some talking head tells them is "strategic voting", then that would mean that publishing polls can be used to drive voters like cattle, would it not?


Ugh. I have a visceral aversion to these sorts of arguments. It sounds too much like "I'm smart enough to recognise that you're being manipulated. If you were truly free, then you'd think as I do. And if you disagree with me, then you're simply demonstrating that you're a hapless pawn."

Yes, people respond to polls. But we should do them the courtesy of assuming that they are as intelligent as we are.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 03 June 2004 12:19 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sidestepping the manipulation question for a second, one point that should be noted about these overnight polls is the totals do not represent just one nights calls. 200 calls are made each night and 600 calls are used for the poll total. Basically it is the last 3 days. So if you are looking for an immediate bump, remember that it will take 3 days for a change in opinion to be full reflected in the numbers.

I have seen a few people try and pin yesterday's news on today's poll, which already is asking too much. Add the day for data collection and you have a full four days before a change in opinion is fully reflected.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 03 June 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the original thread I mentioned I would back into the daily polls of 200 - not that these samples mean anything but just to see what is being added and what is falling off the table in each 3 day rolling poll. I have factored out the undecided as the amount has dropped conistently As SES never issued a news release on May 29th for the three days ending May 28th so I don't have the undecided for that 3 day period (the support I have picked up off the graphs). The undecided on the previous and next days 3 day polls were 20% so I have assumed that is true

A couple of points: (a) to avoid rouding issues I have adjusted each 3 day poll to add up to exactly 100 by plugging the difference to the Green party and (b) These are all very rough estimates


The following are by day:

Before distributing undecided:

Libs Cons NDP BQ Green
May-25 32 22 14 9 2
May-26 34 24 12 7 2
May-27 30 29 13 8 2
May-28 17 28 17 12 5
May-29 34 18 15 10 2
May-30 36 17 16 11 5
May-31 20 28 23 12 2
Jun-01 40 24 9 4 11

After distributing undecided

Libs Cons NDP BQ Green
May-25 41 28 18 11 2
May-26 43 30 15 9 3
May-27 37 35 16 10 2
May-28 22 35 22 15 6
May-29 43 23 19 13 2
May-30 42 20 19 13 6
May-31 24 33 27 14 2
Jun-01 45 27 10 5 13

The May 28th is the one with the Cons & Libs tied for the 3 day and is definately a blip. May 31st is the day NDP went up to 22% (we gained a 27% and lost a 10% so it wasn't as dramatic as would be thought)

On the May31-June 2 poll to be released tomorrow the May 30th polls will be dropped off.

Edited to correct May 30th-June 2 to May 31-JUne 2 and May 29th polls to be dropped to May 30th polls to be dropped

[ 03 June 2004: Message edited by: candle ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 03 June 2004 01:12 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:

Yeah I believe it's five thousand to be exact.


Actually that is not how the best seller list works.
It is a race: this means in December when more books are sold you have to sell more to get in the top ten. It also makes a difference what the field is that week. If you have one book selling madly and 9 others not so well it would be very hard to get the number one spot but easy to make the list but if there are ten books all selling well then making the list may be harder.

It is a bit like asking how fast you must go to win a race: answer: faster than the other guys.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 03 June 2004 06:03 AM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stop worrying about the polls and go out and volunteer for your local candidate.

And go call your mother and tell her to vote NDP!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 03 June 2004 07:12 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
It is a bit like asking how fast you must go to win a race: answer: faster than the other guys.

Yes that's all true, Sean, but it's still true that you can get on the bestseller list by selling a few thousand books. What Jesse's referring to (I don't know if the number is correct) would be how many total books would need to be sold overall for a book to be considered "a bestseller."

It's like the difference between a gold record and the Billboard list. One's weekly, the other's cumulative. When it comes to books, we don't have a different term for long-term success.

It's a safe bet that Canadians aren't buying Jack's book in the same numbers they'd be buying "Harry Potter and the Green Economy," but I doubt that was ever the expectation. Books like Jack's are meant to be read by opinion makers (reporters, media people, academics) and to inspire the faithful, and I'm sure it's a great success in those terms.

[ 03 June 2004: Message edited by: Newbie ]


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 03 June 2004 12:01 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by candle:
After distributing undecided...
Candle, that breakdown is really interesting, and quite revealing about how flaky and unreliable a sample like 200 voters per day could be. Look, for example at May 30, 31 and Jun 1:

The Liberals go from 42 to 24 to 45 over the 3 days.
The Conservatives go from 20 to 33 to 27.
The NDP goes from 19 to 27 to 10.
The BQ goes from 13 to 14 to 5.
The Greens go from 6 to 2 to 13.

The fact that they publish results from 600 voters over 3 days helps somewhat, but not a lot: Watch for the NDP to plummet tomorrow when the 27 gets dropped off, and for the Liberals to jump up when their 24 gets dropped off. And so on.

A tracking poll that is this volatile is of very limited use.

[ 03 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 June 2004 12:11 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tracking polls are, by their very nature, volatile. The only way to temper that volatility is to increase the sample size. One tracking poll in the U.S., the Zogby poll, increases its sample size the closer it gets to election day. Usually the last week to ten days. One would hope that this will happen in this instance as well.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 03 June 2004 12:23 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:

Ugh. I have a visceral aversion to these sorts of arguments.


I don't like it any better than you do. But people DO get manipulated, ... otherwise, why would parties campaign, why would companies advertise? Any piece of information, or misinformation, can be part of that manipulative process.

What I get angry about is when the left refuses to effectively counter manipulative strategies of the other parties, trusting the voters to "heal themselves" with no counter treatment from us. It's a losing strategy, and we do it a lot.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 03 June 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
June 3rd results:

35% Lib
32% Con
19% NDP
09% BQ
04% Grn

Tomorrow, watch for the Liberals to go up and the NDP to go down, as anomylous results from 3 days before are dropped.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jberger
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3548

posted 03 June 2004 03:39 PM      Profile for jberger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
June 3rd results


Interesting that Jack's "Best Prime Minister" numbers seem to be rising over the campaign. The regional numbers, also released today, are interesting.

If the regional numbers held until June 28th we'd hold our seats in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and make huge gains (relatively speaking) in Ontario and BC.

25% in Ontario -- wonder what the percentage would be in Toronto?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 03 June 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At least staying at 19% indicates that the 9% showing yesterday on the heels of 28% the day before probably cancels each other out. If we can stay on track at 19% that is great.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 03 June 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
I would have to think that much of today's jump for the Con and drop of the Libs is a notural reaction to the numbers from May 29 being dropped from the "three-day roll".

Tomorrows result should be interesting. And, there should be some larger polls coming out Fri. nite / Sat. morning. Shall be interesting.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 04 June 2004 02:54 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK from my calcuations backing into the June 2nd polling released on June 3rd the support in the sample of 200 is:

Libs 34, Cons 36, NDP 21, BQ 9, Green 0.

However, for tomorrow the following will be rolling off:

Libs 24 Cons 33 NDP 27 BQ 14, Green 2

so I suspect we may see an uptick for the Liberals on the 3 day rolling and the NDP will probably be down to about 17 on the 3 day rolling, the BQ should be down also.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 04 June 2004 03:04 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Newbie, I am curious. where do you get your facts from regarding bestseller lists? I published books for 14 years. All the best seller lists were limited top ten or 20 lists and based on a specific period. Thus the way you sold the books had everything to do with it. If you sold a good number quickly you make a list but if you sold the same number over a long period you won't make any list.

So please tell me, what list keeps cumulative totals? The Times, Southham, MacLeans, Globe & Mail lists and others I was aware of were all snapshots of a week and some a month.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 04 June 2004 03:39 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:

So please tell me, what list keeps cumulative totals? The Times, Southham, MacLeans, Globe & Mail lists and others I was aware of were all snapshots of a week and some a month.

No list does -- I was not trying to imply that.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 04 June 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The June 4th numbers (polled June 1-3) have:

37% Lib
34% Con
17% NDP
09% BQ
03% Grn

That drop in NDP support from 19% to 17% is completely expected, due to the artificially high 27% being dropped off from 3 days before. Watch for the NDP to go back up tomorrow as the artificially low 10% gets dropped.

Candle, it would be really appreciated if you can keep doing those daily breakdowns, showing them all together in a single table.

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 June 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Phew! I was afraid of worse since the NDP was losing the day with 28%. Tomorrow will be better since we get to drop the following day earlier this week where NDP support was only 10%. I suspect we are settling in at the 18/19 range - whihc is fine by me.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 04 June 2004 02:59 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[Note: I was editing my post while Stockholm posted, with each of us making the identical point.] Candle's daily breakdowns certainly take some of the mystery out of these numbers.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 June 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW, where do these numbers come from? I see nothing new on the SES website.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 04 June 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The CPAC Vote 2004 page sometimes has it before the numbers go up on the SES site. See near the bottom of the page.

Edited to add that the daily pdf file is now up at the SES site.

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 04 June 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
Candle, many thanks for taking the time to back out the daily numbers.

Just out of curiosity, would you mind calculating what we would have seen if SES were using a 5-day rolling window? There's a tradeoff to be made, of course: using older data to generate a bigger sample may create more problems than it solves. But it might make the trends more easy to see.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 04 June 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
YIKES! from 22% to 17% in one week
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 04 June 2004 11:23 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Estimated daily numbers as of June 3rd polling relased June 4th:

Without undecided distributed:

Libs Cons NDP BQ Green Undecided
May-25 32 22 14 9 2 21
May-26 34 24 12 7 2 21
May-27 30 29 13 8 2 18
May-28 17 28 17 12 5 21
May-29 34 18 15 10 2 21
May-30 36 17 16 11 5 15
May-31 20 28 23 12 2 15
Jun-01 40 24 9 4 11 12
Jun-02 30 32 19 8 0 11
Jun-03 23 28 14 9 0 26


With undecided distributed:

Libs Cons NDP BQ Green
May-25 41 28 18 11 2
May-26 43 30 15 9 3
May-27 37 35 16 10 2
May-28 22 35 22 15 6
May-29 43 23 19 13 2
May-30 42 20 19 13 6
May-31 24 33 27 14 2
Jun-01 45 27 10 5 13
Jun-02 34 36 21 9 0
Jun-03 31 38 19 12 0


I wouldn't be too worried about the slide from 22 to 17 as the 22 was probably too high due to the May 31st polling and the 17 is too low due to the June 1st polling - I would expect to see us settle in at about 19%.

Yesterday had a large upswing in undecided so I would be wary about the numbers a little bit for the 3rd as the undecided had been steadily declining.

Also, I am a little wary about my Green numbers as my methodology is rough and I'm plugging any rounding differences through them.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 04 June 2004 11:29 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oliver :

Here are my 5 day estimates since the start of the campaign:

Libs Cons NDP BQ Green
May25-May29 37 30 18 12 3
May26-May30 37 29 18 12 4
May27-May31 33 29 20 13 4
May28-Jun01 35 28 19 12 6
May29-Jun02 38 28 19 11 5
May30-Jun03 35 31 19 10 4

These numbers are a lot more stable than the others.

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: candle ]

[ 04 June 2004: Message edited by: candle ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 04 June 2004 11:38 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looking at the numbers for Jun 2 and Jun 3, there is a very good chance that the Conservatives will be ahead of the Liberals on the numbers that SES releases tomorrow. The only reason the Libes were up on the 3 day today versus yesterday is that they dropped the horrible 24%, but only replaced it with 31%
From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 04 June 2004 11:40 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
Indeed they are! In fact, it's hard to see much of a trend in any of those numbers.

Thanks!


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 04 June 2004 11:46 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the problem with the ses polls is that they take 4 to five days to really see the effects of the an event.

i think the conservatives have plateaued. now that their hidden social agenda is finding some light of day (despite what the globe and the post have been trying to prevent), the conservatives will again dip to back the 28% area.


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 04 June 2004 11:47 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
and the conservative party is still polling bellow that combined CA - PC vote in 2000
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 04 June 2004 11:47 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by candle:

****** Lib Con NDP BQ GN
Jun-01 45 27 10 5 13
Jun-02 34 36 21 9 0
Jun-03 31 38 19 12 0


Okay, these numbers don't look good for the Libs. The Cons might surpass them once the 45 figure is dropped.

From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422

posted 05 June 2004 12:05 AM      Profile for Centrist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by candle:
Estimated daily numbers as of June 3rd polling released June 4th:
With undecided distributed:

Libs Cons NDP BQ Green
May-25 41 28 18 11 2
May-26 43 30 15 9 3
May-27 37 35 16 10 2
May-28 22 35 22 15 6
May-29 43 23 19 13 2
May-30 42 20 19 13 6
May-31 24 33 27 14 2
Jun-01 45 27 10 5 13
Jun-02 34 36 21 9 0
Jun-03 31 38 19 12 0


Thanks for the hard work!

My expectation for tomorrow in order of finish:

Cons up - (36 + 38 + ? )
Libs down - (34 + 31 + ? )
NDP up - (21 + 19 + ? )
Bloc up - (9 + 12 + ? )

Bizarro!


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 05 June 2004 12:37 AM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ipsos Reid was formerly known as Angus Reid after it's founder and U of M graduate. Before the French company took it over and changed its name it was known as a Liberal friendly polling firm.

A couple things that you should know about polls:

1) polls that differ from 1 or 2 percentage points are within the margin of error.

2) Cross Canada polls tend to be more accurate for larger provinces than smaller provinces. For example, if there is a poll of 1,000 Canadians, I doubt that there would be even 20 people polled from Manitoba. So for the smaller provinces the margin of error would be larger.

3) Slight changes in the wording of the question will influence how people answer it.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 12:37 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The good news in all of this is how ever since SES got started the broad trend has consistently had the NDP at 19%. This is EXCELLENT! It frustrates me to no end that the media and some of us on babble take the attitude "gee, the NDP is stalled". Well considering that our popular vote in the last three elections has been 7%, 11% and 8.5%, I am thrilled that all the gains we have made in the last year and a half are being consolidated nicely. If the Liberal and Conservatives are close AND the NDP gets 18-20% of the popular vote, we are looking at huge gains in seats.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 05 June 2004 01:20 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Word, Stock.

I think the NDP is still climbing. The thing is that, coming from total irrelevency as we are, there is an exponential increase of difficulty in each gained percentage point (going from 15% to 20% is many times easier than going from 20% to 25%). The fact that so many Canadians identify the party as their second choice is a clear indication of solid gains in public perception. Over the campaign, some of that will turn into real votes. We are still "on the move", just up an icy hill.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 05 June 2004 01:26 AM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can remember elections back when there were only the three main parties... The NDP had 18% of the vote and the other two had 35%-45%. We would win 30 seats. Here we have a situation where we are at 17% and the other two parties are just over 30%... I'm not ready to make a prediction of 50 seats yet but it looks to me like 30-40 is quite in range... Here's keeping my fingers crossed.
From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 01:31 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If present trends continue, I see the following potential totals for the NDP

Atlantic - 6 seats
Quebec - 0 seats
Ontario - 13 seats
Manitoba - 5 seats
Sask. - 5 seats
BC - 10 seats

TOTAL = 39


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 05 June 2004 01:56 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If present trends continue, I see the following potential totals for the NDP

Atlantic - 6 seats
Quebec - 0 seats
Ontario - 13 seats
Manitoba - 5 seats
Sask. - 5 seats
BC - 10 seats

TOTAL = 39


Let's add the Yukon and make it an even 40 :-)


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 05 June 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Atlantic - 6 seats
Quebec - 0 seats
Ontario - 13 seats
Manitoba - 5 seats
Sask. - 5 seats
BC - 10 seats

TOTAL = 39


This sounds about right to me - I'm hoping we'll do OK in Saskatchewan and that the Calvert gov't unpopularity won't hurt us too badly.

We might even get 12-15 seats in BC if more of the Liberal vote starts to bleed over to us. There's a real sense of momentum for the NDP on the ground. You cannot overstate the visceral anger against Campbell out here - most folks already hate the Liberals both federally and provincially, and as long as we can get across the Harper=Campbell equation, we should be in great shape in BC come June 28th.

In 1988, the BC voting trend was very distinct from the rest of the country and that might be true as well in 2004. The "Harper surge" doesn't mean much here because the CPC holds almost all the ridings in the province already, they can only go down from where they are now.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 05 June 2004 03:51 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about this scenario.

40 NDP, 60 Bloc and 60 lefter wing liberals unite to form a government in the event of a minority.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 05 June 2004 05:45 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmm. no results yet. Usually there out by 3:15 Eastern Time. Last Saturday there was no results at all. Is it possible that last Saturday there was no published results, not as we speculated because they were so out of wack, but because Nikita Nanos takes the day off and any release requires his sign off? Or there something weird about today's results that it is taking longer to interpret them.
From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 06:08 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Nanos simply takes the day off. Last Friday there was even a note saying that the daily tracking would NOT be updated over the weekend. I was surprised when there was an update on Sunday.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 07 June 2004 12:41 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
HARPER HAS PEAKED
MARTIN COLLAPSE CONTINUES
LAYTON/NDP RISE CONTINUES

CHANGES SINCE FRIDAY

LIBS -4%
CONS +/- 0
NDP +2%


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 12:46 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JamesR:
HARPER HAS PEAKED
MARTIN COLLAPSE CONTINUES
LAYTON/NDP RISE CONTINUES

CHANGES SINCE FRIDAY

LIBS -4%
CONS +/- 0
NDP +2%


Holy shit. That cat's just dancing among those pigeons.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 07 June 2004 01:02 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The last bankable asset the Liberal still have is devaluing quickly. Martin's popularity is on a constant downward slide.

I'm just amazed our vote is holding so strong under these conditions.


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 07 June 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's going to turn into a Conservative-NDP race!

Jack could be Prime Minister by 2006.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 June 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As appears the wont of Canadians pollsters, the 34-32-20-11 numbers reflect only decided voters. According to the poll, 22% are undecided. So the above numbers only reflect 78% of the possible voters. It can be expected that many of the "undecided" will not vote. But it's safe to assume that many are truly undecided and will vote. It would be nice if one of the pollsters would seek to push these undecideds to state how they lean, or at least work up some sort of profile of them.

http://www.sesresearch.com/election/SES%20CPAC%20June%207E.pdf


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
JFD2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5835

posted 07 June 2004 01:42 PM      Profile for JFD2        Edit/Delete Post
It's fair to assume that half of the undecideds will not vote; undecided's traditionally tend towards opposition parties. That is common knowledge.

So of that 22%, 11% do not vote, and perhaps 2 go Liberal, and 4.5 go CPC and 4.5 go NDP. I'm being a nice CPC Partisan to my NDP friends today

I'd love to see the Liberals be demoted to third or fourth place party in the House of Commons. Sweet revenge.


From: Mississauga | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
JeffWells
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4761

posted 07 June 2004 02:00 PM      Profile for JeffWells     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this could become the first true three-way national contest.

The electorate is not polarized between the Grits and the Conservatives. NDP support is more than holding its own, and also enjoys strong, regional pockets of support which are not very well represented by small sample sizes. (For instance, I believe the NDP is far more popular in Nova Scotia than we would know from reading only the national polls.) NDP seat counts typically outperform popular vote, because of the efficient distribution of support.

We need to leapfrog the Liberals if we're to ever form a national government, and become the natural alternative to the Conservatives. It would astonish me if it were to happen this election, and I hadn't considered it possible, but I'm beginning to see indication of a very, very outside chance.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 07 June 2004 02:12 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

... There's a real sense of momentum for the NDP on the ground. You cannot overstate the visceral anger against Campbell out here - most folks already hate the Liberals both federally and provincially, ...



Agreed. Just to broaden the overall target, I have tried to persuade voters that its a choice between Premier Campbell, President Bush, and Jack Layton. I don't even mention Martin or Harper.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 07 June 2004 02:19 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It would be nice if one of the pollsters would seek to push these undecideds to state how they lean, or at least work up some sort of profile of them.
I think most pollsters do include the "leaners". This is made explicit in the Ipsos-Reid detailed tables, for example.

So factoring out the undecideds isn't a feature of American polling?


From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
JFD2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5835

posted 07 June 2004 02:36 PM      Profile for JFD2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JFD2:
It's fair to assume that half of the undecideds will not vote; undecided's traditionally tend towards opposition parties. That is common knowledge.

So of that 22%, 11% do not vote, and perhaps 2 go Liberal, and 4.5 go CPC and 4.5 go NDP. I'm being a nice CPC Partisan to my NDP friends today

I'd love to see the Liberals be demoted to third or fourth place party in the House of Commons. Sweet revenge.



35 CPC
30 Lib
21.5 NDP
10 BQ
3.5 GP

After undecids factored in


From: Mississauga | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 June 2004 02:47 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

So factoring out the undecideds isn't a feature of American polling?


No, they're always included. What they also do is try to screen based on how likely someone is to vote.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 07 June 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JFD2:


35 CPC
30 Lib
21.5 NDP
10 BQ
3.5 GP

After undecids factored in


Quoting yourself is the first sign of . . . something.

While based on the poll in question you're breakdown is correct, it would still like leave the Cons in minority territory. In general, though, while it's correct to say that undecideds tend to go more against the party in power, with three or four other parties to choose from, it's dicey to predict which way they would go. And in places like Quebec, the undecided may actually break more for the Liberals. So, the Liberals may suffer less loss among the undecided than normally could be expected.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 03:09 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JeffWells:
NDP seat counts typically outperform popular vote, because of the efficient distribution of support.

As far as I know this has NEVER happened.

When we had 20% in a 282 seat house our pop vote would have suggested 56 seats. At 18% 51 seats. In the last house our 8.5% should have netted 25 seats.

Our votes are often more efficient than other opposition parties but always less than pop vote as the government always gets way more than the popular vote. That is the FPTP system we are trying to reform.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
JeffWells
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4761

posted 07 June 2004 03:34 PM      Profile for JeffWells     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for correcting me, Sean. You said what I meant to say.

I was thinking specifically of how our popular vote, though lower than the PCs in recent elections, still won us more seats, because their support was more dissipated rather than concentrated. Especially in '93.

Still a way to go, but I think the Liberals may be trending in the same direction as the old PCs. And during a campaign in which people are hungry for change, trends can overtake the received wisdom in a hurry.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 07 June 2004 05:48 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Somebody asked about the accuracy of this poll. You can use the calculator here
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 07 June 2004 06:01 PM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
Why does nobody seem concerned that todays SES numbers put the Conservatives in front?
From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noelle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5479

posted 07 June 2004 06:29 PM      Profile for Noelle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
candle wrote;
quote:
Jun-03 31 38 19 12 0

Today's poll covered June 4th-6th. I'll admit that I'm very bad at understanding these polls, but if candle's calculation was correct haven't the Cons dropped 4 points, since June 3rd?
If true, the Cons may not being doing as well as today's results indicate. And exposing their social agenda may be working at last.
Of course, I may be totally wrong here.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Noelle ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 07 June 2004 06:34 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MonkeyIslanderPolical23:
Why does nobody seem concerned that todays SES numbers put the Conservatives in front?

Are we supposed to jump up and down and panic? Would that make you feel better?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 07:15 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MonkeyIslanderPolical23:
Why does nobody seem concerned that todays SES numbers put the Conservatives in front?

Sorry, I didn't get the memo from Liberal HQ until late today. AARGGH! PANIC! PANIC! THE NAZIS ARE COMING!

The SES numbers are pretty volatile, and the CPC is exhibiting some momentum. However, they may be peaking early.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 07 June 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SES also released an Ontario Provincial poll which may give us an idea of federal numbers:

41% Con
34% Lib
22% NDP
3% Green


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 07 June 2004 07:38 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are my daily estimates up to June 6th plus my 5 day rolling estimates. Note that SES did not release data on June 4th and June 5th (and they haven't put it on their website after the fact) so I had to pick up the support numbers for the 3 days in those periods from the graph. The problem, as with last Saturday, is that the undecided isn't available so I had to guestimate for the 2 days . As we go along, I think my estimates are getting less and less accurate but here goes nothing:

Individual Day Support:

Libs Cons NDP BQ Green
May-25 41 28 18 11 2
May-26 43 30 15 9 3
May-27 37 35 16 10 2
May-28 22 35 22 15 6
May-29 43 23 19 13 2
May-30 42 20 19 13 6
May-31 24 33 27 14 2
Jun-01 45 27 10 5 13
Jun-02 34 36 21 9 0
Jun-03 31 38 19 12 0
Jun-04 39 30 15 5 11
Jun-05 38 29 20 14 0
Jun-06 18 44 26 12 0


5 day rolling support:


Libs Cons NDP BQ Green
May25-May29 37 30 18 12 3
May26-May30 37 29 18 12 4
May27-May31 33 29 20 13 4
May28-Jun01 35 28 19 12 6
May29-Jun02 38 28 19 11 5
May30-Jun03 35 31 19 10 4
May31-June4 35 33 19 9 5
June1-June5 37 32 17 9 5
June2-June6 32 35 20 10 2


If my numbers are right the NDP drops a 15% tomorrow so hopefully we will be up.

The June 3rd numbers might be slightly different than originally posted because I found a minor formula error in one of my calculations. Post edit note: Nevermind they are the same.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: candle ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 07 June 2004 08:03 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Jun-05 38 29 20 14 0
Jun-06 18 44 26 12 0

That's a hell of a change in 24 hours!


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gargamel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4854

posted 07 June 2004 08:31 PM      Profile for Gargamel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Candle, I think the problem is you assume the
earliest poll is valid for May 23, 24, and 25,
but actually it is only an AVERAGE of May
23,24,25. I believe it is not actually possible
to deduce daily results from what SES gives out.
Your method is not without merit, though, since
it gives us an intuitive idea of how these
tracking polls bounce the numbers around from
day to day, and that short-term "trends" really
should be regarded only as noise. (unless it's
good news. Then it's a trend of course...)

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 June 2004 09:02 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One thing for sure in looking at these SES numbers is results is that strategic voting is NOT happening. It is has been at least week since the headlines started screaming that the Liberals could get fewer seats than the Conservatives and yet if anything NDP support has continued to edge upwards.

The untold story of this election is that the main shift is Liberal to NDP. The Conservatives still haven't reached the 38% combined PC/CA vote from 2000. I don't know why anyhone is complaining about how the NDP is doing. If you had told me a year ago that we would go from 8.5% to 20% in one election you could have knocked me over with a feather.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 07 June 2004 09:12 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's look at what has happened over the past weekend, and since May 25 when SES started releasing these daily public opinion polls :

SES CPAC
Dates: May 25, June 4, June 7
Cons: 28%, 34%, up 6%, 34%, flatlined
Libs: 41%, 37%, down 4%, 32%, down 5%
New Dem: 18%, 17%, down 1%, 20%, up 3%
Bloc: 11%, 9% down 2%, 11%, up 2%


This is quite amazin'

The winners over the weekend are the New Democrats and the Bloc.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 07 June 2004 09:16 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SES CPAC poll released June 7, 2004:

Best Prime Minister
Date: May 25, June 4, June 7
Martin: 41%, 30%, down 11%, 27%, down 3%
Harper: 17%, 23%, up 6%, 23%, flatlined
Layton: 09%, 10%, up 1%, 13%, up 3%
Duceppe: 03%, 04%, up 1%, 4%, flatlined
Undecided:
Unsure:

So, in addition to the New Democrats having the most increase in party support over the weekend, Jack Layton has increased his support the most, for choice of best prime minister, during the weekend as well.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 07 June 2004 09:20 PM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you Rasmus Raven for that excellent site for figuring out confidence intervals and error margins. I have used it for some of IPSOS past results for BC/Man/Sask and found that they disagree so radically with other larger polls at the same time [that the confidence intervals barely or did not overlap] that both polls could not have been correct [that is, one of them had to be one of the 5% of the time when they were not correct]. I am hopeful that it was the IPSOS surveys that were wrong because our numbers are a lot better on the other ones. I guess we will see whether we get near 10%-13% in either BC or Sask/Man.
From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 07 June 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This shouldn't affect the daily estimates too much, but from the SES releases I think the May 25 poll was stand-alone, and not part of the rolling totals.
quote:
M25 on the charts reflect the findings of a national SES poll completed on May 25, 2004.

From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
dapopster
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4711

posted 07 June 2004 10:05 PM      Profile for dapopster        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why does nobody seem concerned that todays SES numbers put the Conservatives in front?

The Conservatives are talking like they're to the left of the Liberals. As long as they only have a minority they will act like that as well, because they need the centre vote to get a majority. Its only when they win a majority that we need to worry.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 07 June 2004 10:23 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gargamel:
Candle, I think the problem is you assume the
earliest poll is valid for May 23, 24, and 25,
but actually it is only an AVERAGE of May
23,24,25. I believe it is not actually possible
to deduce daily results from what SES gives out.
Your method is not without merit, though, since
it gives us an intuitive idea of how these
tracking polls bounce the numbers around from
day to day, and that short-term "trends" really
should be regarded only as noise. (unless it's
good news. Then it's a trend of course...)

Actually I became concerned about the May 25th and 26th numbers today. When I started out I was assuming the May 25th and May 26th were samples of 200 and 400 respectively and the first 600 was May 27th. Looking more carefully now I think the May 25th results were probably May 23rd to May 25th. I'm not sure if over time my methodology would have evened out or if it is getting farther away. Although, intuitevely looking at the "Estimated" daily results for the previous 2 days I usually have made a good estimate of what that days 3 day rolling is going to be. The numbers are being skewed anyways as I don't have the undecided the two Saturdays and the second Sunday and have had to estimate. Finally, not having the results to one or two decimal places is causing all kinds of rounding issues.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 07 June 2004 10:31 PM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Hutchinson:
This shouldn't affect the daily estimates too much, but from the SES releases I think the May 25 poll was stand-alone, and not part of the rolling totals.

Actually that means my original methodology was right then. The first sample of 600 was the May 27th results for May25-27. Regardless, as I have said my estimates are very rough for reasons stated above and plus I don't have any insight if SES is weighting some replies more than others to make sure the demographics on age and gender are correct.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 07 June 2004 11:05 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
SES should be releasing 5 or perhaps 7 day regional breakdown rolls tomorrow, though probably ending June 3.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 June 2004 01:36 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Last Tuesday SES released regional numbers based on the 5-day average May 26-30. I suspect that tomorrow thney will release regional breaks based on June 2-6.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 08 June 2004 04:16 AM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indeed, Nanos said regional breakdowns are coming today (Tuesday).
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 08 June 2004 04:45 AM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

35 CPC
30 Lib
21.5 NDP
10 BQ
3.5 GP

After undecids factored in



That is wishful thinking. Undecideds do not lean disproportionately towards opposition parties. You just made that up, dumbass. You need to evenly distribute the undecided vote according to each party's proportion of the decided vote i.e if the Liberals are first among decided voters they will remain in first place when you factor in the undecided vote.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 08 June 2004 07:39 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Undecideds do not lean disproportionately towards opposition parties.


I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. surveys have shown that undecided tend to break against the incumbent. A two to one break is thought not be unusual. The thinking being that an undecided voter is not happy with the party in power. Of course this does not hold true in all elections.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 08 June 2004 11:16 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. surveys have shown that undecided tend to break against the incumbent. A two to one break is thought not be unusual. The thinking being that an undecided voter is not happy with the party in power.

I realize that this is the case in the US, but it has never been the case in Canada. Here, undecideds (if they vote at all in the end) tend to divide themselves up much the same way as the decided voters do.

What can i tell you Canada is a different country from the US!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
JFD2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5835

posted 08 June 2004 02:38 PM      Profile for JFD2        Edit/Delete Post
Hoo-YAH! June 8

Conservatives Lead; Harper as PM Up

Based on last nights tracking polls, Conservatives continue to hold on to a lead over the incumbent Liberals: Conservatives 35%, Liberals 31%, NDP 16%, BQ 11%, Green 6%. Harper's personal numbers continue to be on the move. According to the CPAC-SES tracking Harper is now statistically tied with Paul Martin as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minister: Martin 27%, Harper 26%, Unsure 22%, None of the Above 13%, Layton 10%, Duceppe 4%.


From: Mississauga | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 08 June 2004 05:08 PM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sample size 200.

Are you going to jump out of a window if the Cons are down to 22% in the June 9 sample?

What is it about Conservatives from FD... why don't they have a statistician there to shake some sense into these dorks?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca