Author
|
Topic: Central Nova Act 2
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 12 October 2008 11:36 AM
Old thread too long starting it with Sharon's response letter. quote: Elizabeth May never had a chance to beat Peter MacKay — and she’s still not going to. The NDP, however, did have a chance but has had to fight, not just the usual opponents who were running but know-it-alls from all over the country who, somehow, seem to think that they have inside knowledge that the people in Central Nova don’t have. I guess it’s pretty late for me to be saying this but to Avaaz, VoteForEnvironment and all the other voting busybodies around the country — lay off. Let the people of Central Nova spend these last hours before the election doing their own thinking — as they’ve always done.
Good letter Sharon, and I have felt the same way several times in this election in respect to BC.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 11:45 AM
Found this on the GP site: quote: The latest poll shows that Ms. May stands to receive the support of 29.3% decided voters in the riding. Her support is within the margin of error of that of Conservative MP Peter MacKay, who was chosen by 36.7% of decided voters in the riding. New Democratic Party candidate, Louise Lorefice polls at 20.7%. 13.3% of voters were undecided.The poll was conducted by Oracle on October 8 & 9. The sample size is 300 and the margin of error +/-5% 19 times out of 20. The question asked was “If a Federal Election were held today in Canada, which Party’s candidate would you vote for in your riding of Central Nova?”
I have never heard of Oracle Polling before. Anybody know if they are credible or not? I won't accept an answer as 'no because the greens used it therefore it must be wrong.'
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skoblin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15569
|
posted 12 October 2008 11:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by Interested Observer: Found this on the GP site: I have never heard of Oracle Polling before. Anybody know if they are credible or not? I won't accept an answer as 'no because the greens used it therefore it must be wrong.'
Another instance of Oracle Polling http://www.radioowensound.com/news.php?id=15170 Green party second in Bruce Grey-Owen Sound....apparently..... Conservatives 39% Green Party 22% Liberals 13% NDP 7% From the tenor of the article, it appears they do polling for the Green party.... [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: skoblin ]
From: Victoria BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:10 PM
Well the greens have had more success in that riding in the past, albeit with a more popular candidate.Another article on the Bruce-Grey Owen sound oracle poll: Poll puts Hibma behind Miller - Noble dismisses survey as 'propaganda' Oracle poll clients I have no doubt that The GPC most likely commissioned the poll, but my question was more related to how accurate a pollster are they if anyone knows.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by Interested Observer: Found this on the GP site: I have never heard of Oracle Polling before. Anybody know if they are credible or not? I won't accept an answer as 'no because the greens used it therefore it must be wrong.'
They have a history of coming out with wonky polls supporting the Green candidate that never materializes on election day. The poll for BGOS, a riding I know intimately (but not in the bibilical sense ) is just impossible. There is simply no way the Liberals with Thom Noble are that low, or that Larry Miller is come to that.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tim: I hope it's the Green Party rather than the polling company that either can't subtract or is providing a misleading summary of those numbers.
We have no idea since it wasn't a public release on the polling company's part. Too bad there was no link to a .pdf on the GP site. It could still be accurate, however.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by JGump: Latest poll conducted on Maple Street in Stellarton. Conservative 37.5% NDP 36.4% Green 1% Polls are good for keeping my laundry up on the clothesline.The Greens are miles behind the NDP in any poll. I don't what part of Central Nova y'all canvassed but I did most of Pictou County and the Greens are not in the race. [LIST]
I'm looking forward to the actual results of votes cast for that area. We'll see how they measure up to your canvass.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:24 PM
FGI'm still waiting for an answer. Care to respond. FG stated: "Jim Harris happened to live in that riding" quote: FG Seriously who do you think you are kidding with that kind of suggested political naiveté? Please tell us how in the world can Green Party members profess to be so against Harper's terrible, terrible, and I agree they are terrible, envronmental policies, when your leader May runs in a riding where there was a very good chance of the NDP defeating MacKay in this election. Now thanks to the Greens the Conservatives will get another seat in the next Parliament. What kind of bullshit, deceitful, sleazy politics is this? And people profess to wonder why there is such hostility directed towards the Greens. Many people are seriously beginning to wonder if the Greens actually do care about protecting the environment, or whether they have another game up their sleeve. You can mark me down as, at least so far, very unimpressed by the Green Party in Canada, and from what I understand, is very different from the rest of the Greens around the planet. Quite frankly I have my suspicions why this is so, and these suspicions tend to get confirmed, when I hear your Green Party Leader May praise the do absolutely nothing on the Environment file, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, when he was Environment Minister, and also when I hear her telling people to vote for the Liberal Party. You Greens are playing way too many political games, and it is for these kind of reasons, more than any other reason, most Canadians, although concerned about protecting the environment, will not consider voting for, or electing one single solitarty Green candidate, in any of the 308 ridings in Tuesday's federal election. How many elections is it now, is it 5, that the Greens has run candidates in federal elections. You may be a great guy yourself, but you will never ever go anywhere politically, if you, and I'm talking about you personally, don't serious address the fucked-up leadership of your party at the top. All the Green Party has managed to do in this election, is allow the two old right-wing parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, both with their respective useless environmental policies, maintain their control over our Canadian government. Thanks a lot!
[ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:34 PM
How about releasing the pictures instead ?![Sorry, this was a reference to the Darryl Sittler 70s hair thing.] [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: ottawaobserver ]
From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian: BGOS last provincial and federal election. I don't have the numbers but they were way off. The Greens release these 'polls' in the hope that they become a self-fulfilling prophesy. What is amazing to me is that the media and people fall for them, when they never release the methodology or details.If I ever run I am going to release a poll showing me tied with Darryl Sittler for best 70s hockey hair and see if it helps.
I just quickly looked up the difference between the poll the GP released (oracle poll as well) and the actual results: Oracle Poll Actual Results Difference PC 36.7 ......... 46.5% ......... +10 GPO 27.5 ....... 33.52% ........ +6 LPO 21 .......... 14.64% ........ -6.5 NDP 13 .......... 3.75% ......... -9
Oracle Poll Actual Results I'm not sure if that constitutes being 'way off' but the poll likely had an impact on the results as it was released some time before the actual vote. EDIT: I couldn't get the wikipedia link to work because of the brackets in the URL, so I changed it based on the CBC website with 280 of 284 polls reporting. [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: Interested Observer ]
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by NorthReport: FGI'm still waiting for an answer. Care to respond. FG stated: "Jim Harris happened to live in that riding"
If I haven't responded, it's because I haven't seen your question until now.May decided to see whether the previous NDP candidate was running. It wasn't until then that she chose the riding. She had said she didn't want to run against an NDP incumbent. What more do you want? It was a long shot for the NDP to begin with, and it is now. I don't know exactly why she chose Central Nova - it was partly for personal reasons, but it's hypocritical for the NDP to think that she should run where any other party other than the Conservatives have a remote chance of winning, when the NDP subtracts voters from the Liberals all the time. Take the numbers from your favourite poll, say the one where Elizabeth May was a close third (not a distant third as people like to say). Nearly all those people would have to decide to vote for the NDP if May withdrew. And if she hadn't run in the first place, they'd be facing the Liberals anyway. I'm getting bored of this discussion, but there you have it. [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by JGump: Latest poll conducted on Maple Street in Stellarton. Conservative 37.5% NDP 36.4% Green 1% Polls are good for keeping my laundry up on the clothesline.The Greens are miles behind the NDP in any poll. I don't what part of Central Nova y'all canvassed but I did most of Pictou County and the Greens are not in the race. [LIST]
Thanks, it appears the Liberal Green Party want to maintain the illusion right up until the end. One can only hope their shannagins bring Loriface the seat. Moreover, what is notable is the fact that Oracle is run by a relative os CPC MP or MPP. Jan from the Brtuce has posted about it here often, a google search of Oracle babble, CPC relative might bring what threads they were in to the ready.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind:
Thanks, it appears the Liberal Green Party want to maintain the illusion right up until the end. One can only hope their shannagins bring Loriface the seat. Moreover, what is notable is the fact that Oracle is run by a relative os CPC MP or MPP. Jan from the Brtuce has posted about it here often, a google search of Oracle babble, CPC relative might bring what threads they were in to the ready.
Alright, show me something based on numbers to prove that their methodology is flawed, rather than playing 'corrupt by association.'
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611
|
posted 12 October 2008 12:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by Interested Observer:
Alright, show me something based on numbers to prove that their methodology is flawed, rather than playing 'corrupt by association.'
What's interesting it that the poll appears to overstimate NDP support, and uunderestimate Green support, but I haven't heard anyone hear comment about that.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:00 PM
quote: I'm not sure if that constitutes being 'way off' but the poll likely had an impact on the results as it was released some time before the actual vote.
Yes it did the Hicks campaign simply collapsed and a whole whack of Liberal workers, not just supporters went to Shane's campaign. Poor Selwynn Hicks was left with a small handful of workers. I was said to see him reduced such in a way. The same thing happened to the NDP campaign, but it was happening long before the poll came out. That poll just cemented the stampede to Shane, who is very charismatic, convincing and has a long family history in the riding. So yes it had an impact, which is why, as I said they do it, and yes missing the support level by 10% is way off in a poll, and as I said I just can't believe people fall for it. But then again Shane is nothing if not clever. And he used it to his absolute best advantage.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:05 PM
Well, if you think that releasing commissioned riding polls before election day are unethical, then have that discussion. But arguments such as these don't hold water: quote: They have a history of coming out with wonky polls supporting the Green candidate that never materializes on election day.
[ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian: So yes it had an impact, which is why, as I said they do it, and yes missing the support level by 10% is way off in a poll, and as I said I just can't believe people fall for it.
Well, to be fair only some people fall for it as the votes were not there in the end, eh?! Just as they are not in CN with the GP at most likely around 1%. Perhaps EMay will re-evaluate her thoughts on Canadians being stupid?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by ForestGreen: Well, if you think that releasing commissioned riding polls before election day are unethical, then have that discussion. But arguments such as these don't hold water: [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
But it didn't materialize - they were off on Bill's support level by 10% That's a big oops in a poll. In the federal election previous they did the same thing and Shane's support was no where near what the poll claimed it would be. So yes they were less wrong on take two, but that doesn't mean the poll was worth much as an actual poll. As a political tool- that's another story.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by ForestGreen:
If I haven't responded, it's because I haven't seen your question until now.May decided to see whether the previous NDP candidate was running. It wasn't until then that she chose the riding. She had said she didn't want to run against an NDP incumbent. What more do you want? It was a long shot for the NDP to begin with, and it is now. I don't know exactly why she chose Central Nova - it was partly for personal reasons, but it's hypocritical for the NDP to think that she should run where any other party other than the Conservatives have a remote chance of winning, when the NDP subtracts voters from the Liberals all the time. Take the numbers from your favourite poll, say the one where Elizabeth May was a close third (not a distant third as people like to say). Nearly all those people would have to decide to vote for the NDP if May withdrew. And if she hadn't run in the first place, they'd be facing the Liberals anyway. I'm getting bored of this discussion, but there you have it. [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
im Harris likes to flit around and basically acts like a spoiler for when a strong NDPer challenger goes up against a incumbent liberal. So in 2004, he ran against Layton who was challenging Liberal Dennis Mills. He got 2,575 votes and finished 4th. Jack got 22,198, while Mills got 19,803 votes. Although Harris supposed lives in Jack's riding, in 2006, he did't run there but in Beaches-East York. Harris finished fourth against Liberal incumbent Maria Minna. Oh and Marilyn Churley another strong NDP environmentalist was challenging do-nothing Minna and lost by 2,778 votes. Harris got 3,106 - so he was the spoiler. So Harris appears to like to spoil strong NDPers to take lib seats, and particularly if they have "great" environmental records. So much for thinking about the environment. That said, why wouldn't run again in the Danforth since that is where he lives? Usually folks if they are serious candidates try to take a run in the same area, for voter recognition.
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
But it didn't materialize - they were off on Bill's support level by 10% That's a big oops in a poll. In the federal election previous they did the same thing and Shane's support was no where near what the poll claimed it would be. So yes they were less wrong on take two, but that doesn't mean the poll was worth much as an actual poll. As a political tool- that's another story.
People can change their minds in a week. National polls can be off by a few percent. This one had a smaller sample size, and a larger MoE which no one attempted to hide.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
Although Harris supposed lives in Jack's riding, in 2006, he did't run there but in Beaches-East York. Harris finished fourth against Liberal incumbent Maria Minna. Oh and Marilyn Churley another strong NDP environmentalist was challenging do-nothing Minna and lost by 2,778 votes. Harris got 3,106 - so he was the spoiler. .
That's quite an assumption to make - that 90% of Harris' votes would have gone to the NDP otherwise. Especially with Harris being further to the right than most Greens, and with Harris tending to target the Conservative voters over fiscal conservatism. And maybe you could give him credit for not running against Jack the second time around, if that's what you're saying happened.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by ForestGreen:
What's interesting it that the poll appears to overstimate NDP support, and uunderestimate Green support, but I haven't heard anyone hear comment about that.
Well, I call it self-fulfilling proficy. Take a poll, show your candidate "in the running" and other candidates pretty far behind. Release to press and people go, gee we want to knock off the con, so everybody gets behind the candidate with the "fake" lead. On election day, guess what people switched their votes. I know cause I also live near that riding, so I saw on the ground what was happening. Heard it many times, NDP doesn't have a chance but looks like the Green sure does, so I'm voting green. Won't happen in Central Nova cause they are making sure the votes are holding. I can't wait till the next election cycle, where we all can ogling onlookers as May does, "oh where or where should I run." How about here, No. Well maybe here, No. This will go on for a couple of weeks. I'm a social worker by profession. May reminds me of what we call, drama princess.
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
But it didn't materialize - they were off on Bill's support level by 10% That's a big oops in a poll. In the federal election previous they did the same thing and Shane's support was no where near what the poll claimed it would be. So yes they were less wrong on take two, but that doesn't mean the poll was worth much as an actual poll. As a political tool- that's another story.
The poll wasn't taken on voting day, rather at least a week before, so it can hardly be compared to the actual results in claiming it's supposed inaccuracy. It may well have been quite accurate the day that it was taken.
quote: Originally posted by remind:
Well, to be fair only some people fall for it as the votes were not there in the end, eh?! Just as they are not in CN with the GP at most likely around 1%. Perhaps EMay will re-evaluate her thoughts on Canadians being stupid?
That's still not debating the issue at hand, whether or not the polling is accurate regardless of where the polling came from and who is associated with it.
The results of an individuals canvassing efforts can hardly be called accurate either as there many factors at play in the results: -People might not want to admit who they vote for. -People might not have been home. -The canvasser in question might not have checked all the houses and possible suites. etc..
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Yes it did the Hicks campaign simply collapsed and a whole whack of Liberal workers, not just supporters went to Shane's campaign. Poor Selwynn Hicks was left with a small handful of workers. I was said to see him reduced such in a way. The same thing happened to the NDP campaign, but it was happening long before the poll came out. That poll just cemented the stampede to Shane, who is very charismatic, convincing and has a long family history in the riding. So yes it had an impact, which is why, as I said they do it, and yes missing the support level by 10% is way off in a poll, and as I said I just can't believe people fall for it. But then again Shane is nothing if not clever. And he used it to his absolute best advantage.
Well not that smart. Mr. bicycle avenger lied to the press about peering in windows and on people's private property, and well his "smarts" got him in trouble. Shane will have a problem with this kind of "star" recognition. Public trust well... you get my drift.
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimmyRiddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13084
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:22 PM
Would Elizabeth May please make up her mind?Cos I'm getting about as confused as her candidates on where she stands on stragetic voting. With Iggy and Rae sharpening their knives for a round post-election bloodletting, and Elizabeth May heading for defeat in Central Nova, there is clearly only one party that is united and capable of taking on Harper: the NDP. [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: JimmyRiddle ]
From: Soap box | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by Interested Observer:
The poll wasn't taken on voting day, rather at least a week before, so it can hardly be compared to the actual results in claiming it's supposed inaccuracy. It may well have been quite accurate the day that it was taken.
So just so we're clear. You're lecturing me on what happened in a riding where I know many of the principles on a first name basis and can find their email addresses in my address book. Whereas you could likely not find it on a map without a bit of work. Just so were clear that is where we are is it? Want to tell me the exact temp outside my door and what colour of underwear I am wearing today too?
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:27 PM
Precisely.That is why the stuff FG continues spews out is utter nonsense. Look at Cental Nova results in 2006: Peter G. MacKay CON 17134 40.66% X Alexis MacDonald NDP 13861 32.89% Dan Walsh LIB 10349 24.56% David Orton GRN 671 1.59% Allan H. Bezanson ML 124 0.29% So May who hasn't go a prayer of winning decides she will run in Cental Nova effectively re-electing Peter MacKay, and thereby giving Harper another Conservatice seat. May helps Harper while professing to be against the Cons. Of all the dumb-headed moves this takes the cake. No wonder May's credibility is quickly becoming destroyed and she is coming across as a baffoon. We now know May is a total ass, but what about the the rest of the Green Party membership. How much more of this stupidity are you going to tolerate before your own credibility is going to end up in the dumpster with hers. What is they say: "Birds of a feather....... quote: Originally posted by janfromthebruce: [QB]im Harris likes to flit around and basically acts like a spoiler for when a strong NDPer challenger goes up against a incumbent liberal. So in 2004, he ran against Layton who was challenging Liberal Dennis Mills. He got 2,575 votes and finished 4th. Jack got 22,198, while Mills got 19,803 votes. Although Harris supposed lives in Jack's riding, in 2006, he did't run there but in Beaches-East York. Harris finished fourth against Liberal incumbent Maria Minna. Oh and Marilyn Churley another strong NDP environmentalist was challenging do-nothing Minna and lost by 2,778 votes. Harris got 3,106 - so he was the spoiler. So Harris appears to like to spoil strong NDPers to take lib seats, and particularly if they have "great" environmental records. So much for thinking about the environment. That said, why wouldn't run again in the Danforth since that is where he lives? Usually folks if they are serious candidates try to take a run in the same area, for voter recognition.[/Q]
[ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
So just so we're clear. You're lecturing me on what happened in a riding where I know many of the principles on a first name basis and can find their email addresses in my address book. Whereas you could likely not find it on a map without a bit of work. Just so were clear that is where we are is it? Want to tell me the exact temp outside my door and what colour of underwear I am wearing today too?
Can you argue my point, rather than saying that you live in the riding therefore you automatically know better?
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by NorthReport: [b]Precisely.That is why the stuff FG continues spews out is utter nonsense. Look at Cental Nova results in 2006: Peter G. MacKay CON 17134 40.66% X Alexis MacDonald NDP 13861 32.89% Dan Walsh LIB 10349 24.56% David Orton GRN 671 1.59% Allan H. Bezanson ML 124 0.29% So May who hasn't go a prayer of winning decides she will run in Cental Nova effectively re-electing Peter MacKay, and giving thereby giving Harper another Conservatice seat. May helps Harper while professing to be against the Cons. Of all the dumb-headed moves this takes the cake. No wonder May's credibility is quickly becoming destroyed and she is coming across as a baffoon.
If my memory serves me, the previous green result in London-North Centre was not that much better than those numbers. You cannot look at those numbers and assume that those voters will not budge even under different circumstances and with different candidates running.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Interested Observer:
Can you argue my point, rather than saying that you live in the riding therefore you automatically know better?
I have repeatedly, but your resposne has been that you somehow know better. Black by the way, but I guess you already know that too.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:42 PM
ioWhat are the results going to be this election in Central Nova? My hunch is that Peter MacKay will come first and win the riding. My hunch is the NDP candidate will come second. And my hunch is May will come after that, probably with enough votes to deprive the NDP candidate of winning the seat. And you condone May's behavior which effectively gives Harper another seat. As I have already said May's credibility is being destroyed, like what happened to Jim Harris before her, No wonder that Green leadership candidate quit the Greens. If this Green strategy keeps up Harper could get his majority. It doesn't get much dumber than that
quote: Originally posted by Interested Observer: [QB]If my memory serves me, the previous green result in London-North Centre was not that much better than those numbers. You cannot look at those numbers and assume that those voters will not budge even under different circumstances and with different candidates running.[/Q]
[ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:46 PM
quote: Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
I have repeatedly, but your resposne has been that you somehow know better. Black by the way, but I guess you already know that too.
In order to make the case that a poll is inaccurate compared to one taken on election day, would it not be best to compare it to one taken very very close to that day? I generally agree with pundits on US television that polling done during an election period is like a 'snapshot.' It may have been inaccurate on the day it was taken, but it might not. There is no way to tell for sure. However, I think that the election day poll being a week later could compensate for that shift in numbers, so it could be fair to say that it was generally accurate for the date that it was taken.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 01:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by NorthReport: ioWhat are the results going to be this election in Central Nova? My hunch is that Peter MacKay will come first and win the riding. My hunch is the NDP candidate will come second. And my hunch is May will come after that, probably with enough votes to deprive the NDP candidate of winning the seat. And you condone May's behavior which effectively gives Harper another seat.
I don't know. I don't have enough exposure to the riding to make a decent prediction. I won't automatically dismiss the oracle poll though. It could well prove to be close to the results on tuesday. I generally agree with May's perspective, and hope she wins, but I can't be held accountable for everything she says or does.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 02:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by NorthReport: Yes, an unbiased track record like Nik Nanos.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. My guesses would be either: 1. Nanos is completely biased and oracle is like them. OR 2. Nanos is better than these polling results and I will show you an example why...
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 12 October 2008 02:47 PM
You know thorn_bane has a valid position, it is extortion of the voters, as polls are used only as a propaganda tool, and not as a measure of where people's opinions lay. They are actively being used to sway people's opinions and switch people's voting.It does not matter whether or not the latest tactic is "save the environment" or "save us from Harper", or "if you want a voice" (which is basically a threat of cutting funding off to the region) it is still attempted cohersion of the voting public. And when polls are false it is even worse. quote: People should make up thier mind on what they believe, not out of fear, or "if you don't vote for us you won't have a seat at the table" boy we don't believe in pork barrel politics, but if you don't vote for us you won't get any goodies. Ummm SO extortion a policy platform is OK. Thanks for telling me.
Valid point, as I had not really thought of how big an extortion racket it was!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 02:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by JGump: E May is turning into the best thing that has happened to macKay in a long time. His support was waining until this circus came to town.We coulda been contenders.
I highly doubt that, but if you posted some numbers I might be more likely to believe you.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981
|
posted 12 October 2008 03:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by janfromthebruce: And I agree. Look how CBC is pushing this poll to push voters in a certain way.
Problem there is that this is the polling firm they hired, in conjunction with the Canadian Press, for the election. Nanos was hired by CPAC and the Sun chain. So, they're dancing with the one they brung.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 12 October 2008 03:36 PM
Who knows if Oracle is credible or not.Here's what I do know. 1. The numbers from Oracle are vastly different from the only poll I've seen from a company I do know. 2. Oracle is said to have produced polls in the past which were vastly different from the final results - with the example of Bruce - Grey - Owen Sound from the last Ontario election offered as a concrete example. 3. The release from the Green Party says that the margin of error on a sample of 300 is +/-5%. In fact, the margin of error on a sample of 300 is closer to 6% (5.77%). (Margin of error can be calculated as the inverse of the square root of the sample size. Thus: - a sample of 100 - square root of 100 = 10 - 1/10 = 0.1 = 10/100 = 10% or, in this case: - a sample of 300 - square root of 300 = 17.32 - 1/17.32 = 0.0577 = 5.77/100 = 5.77%)
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 12 October 2008 03:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by ottawaobserver:
Problem there is that this is the polling firm they hired, in conjunction with the Canadian Press, for the election. Nanos was hired by CPAC and the Sun chain. So, they're dancing with the one they brung.
Yet this theory too is full of hot air as they have been quite prepared to use other polling data from other firms when it suited them.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 12 October 2008 03:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by Malcolm: Who knows if Oracle is credible or not.Here's what I do know. 1. The numbers from Oracle are vastly different from the only poll I've seen from a company I do know.
Which polling firm and in what situation? [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: Interested Observer ]
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 12 October 2008 04:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by Interested Observer:
In order to make the case that a poll is inaccurate compared to one taken on election day, would it not be best to compare it to one taken very very close to that day? It may have been inaccurate on the day it was taken, but it might not. There is no way to tell for sure.
True enough. But one would normally expect an incremental variance from the poll, not the sort of wide ranging variance we saw with the BGOS poll.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Donald MacDonald-Ross
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 168
|
posted 12 October 2008 04:34 PM
ForestGreen wrote: quote: it's hypocritical for the NDP to think that she should run where any other party other than the Conservatives have a remote chance of winning, when the NDP subtracts voters from the Liberals all the time.Take the numbers from your favourite poll, say the one where Elizabeth May was a close third (not a distant third as people like to say). Nearly all those people would have to decide to vote for the NDP if May withdrew. And if she hadn't run in the first place, they'd be facing the Liberals anyway.
Absolutely agree. Consider the alternate universe where May and Dion did not agree to not run candidates in each others ridings. In CN Peter MacKay would likely win, the Liberal candidate perhaps take second, and Elizabeth May who has proved herself a powerful politician through that byelection and battle for inclusion in the debate fighting for second, at least gaining third. Ironically, with the Liberals in the race in CN I think May would have a better chance than now to win. The N.D.P. replacing their more popular earlier candidate taking fourth, or fighting for third. NorthReport boldly wrote: quote: Look at Cental Nova results in 2006:
As I noted in a previous post, The GP candidate in 2006 was a minnow, in 2008 a shark. Extrapolating from one election to the next without accounting for different candidates is *wrong*. quote: We now know May is a total ass, but what about the the rest of the Green Party membership. How much more of this stupidity are you going to tolerate before your own credibility is going to end up in the dumpster with hers. What is they say: "Birds of a feather.......
Sigh... perhaps NorthReport someday we might meet for a beer and find we like each other, and laugh about the mistake of casually insulting and denegriating others by email and webpostings. Malcolm wrote: quote: 3. The release from the Green Party says that the margin of error on a sample of 300 is +/-5%. In fact, the margin of error on a sample of 300 is closer to 6% (5.77%).(Margin of error can be calculated as the inverse of the square root of the sample size. Thus: - a sample of 100 - square root of 100 = 10 - 1/10 = 0.1 = 10/100 = 10% or, in this case: - a sample of 300 - square root of 300 = 17.32 - 1/17.32 = 0.0577 = 5.77/100 = 5.77%)
Thanks for the explanation! Math was never my highest subject, but I wonder if your formula errs in not taking into account the size of the population being sampled, that is you allow for say 100 people being sampled, but if that is from a pop, such as a local club, of 150 members, then the margin of error must surely be greater if only 100 are sampled of a pop of 30,000,000. remind wrote: quote: And my prediction is we will not see any of the new babblers who joined in Sept 08, coming back to celebrate their current stances.
A pity if so, it would be no fun if Rabble continued as simply an N.D.P. cheering section, with only the occasional mouldy green "total ass... birds of a feather" Green such as myself contributing. Donald MacDonald-Ross, Babbler # 168, Registered: Apr 2001 [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: Donald MacDonald-Ross ]
From: Thorold Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193
|
posted 12 October 2008 05:43 PM
[thread drift] EMay thinks the Greens have a chance in 7 seats[/thread drift]Guelph Bruce Grey-Owen Sound Vancouver Centre West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast Nanaimo-Port Alberni Okanagan Shuswap Central Nova Of the above, only the first three seem even remotely possible. In three of the six seats the NDP finished second. In four of the six seats, the NDP is in the hunt.
From: - | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
kylebailey260
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11330
|
posted 12 October 2008 06:07 PM
Re: Margin of Error and sample size. I found a Margin or error calculator on google.Plugged in 42000 votes (I got from elections prediction project, cause I'm lazy) - I totalled the partisan numbers, and rounded, and note that it doesn't include spoiled ballots. A sample size of 300 gives a 5.64% margin of error. Not sure how accurate it is, given that 300 people on telephone lists were sampled, not 300 people who actually vote (given ~60% turnout). Anyway, I would say lessons from London-North are important here, and that there is definately a very good chance that May is a strong second. Of course, I'm a big G-green most of the time, so I'm biased.
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 12 October 2008 06:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by Boom Boom: May is delusional. I watched the interview with her on CTV's Question Period today (Harper, Layton, and Dion were interviewed as well) and she claims she is pulling even with Mackay and that she has the momentum.
Boom Boom, she's gone from polling 3rd and barely above 10% at the start of the campaign to polling 28% and running a clear 2nd. That's momentum. While I don't have much info on other ridings, I do have some intel on my home riding in Okanagan-Shuswap. The Greens there rapidly built a formidible EDA within the span of two years and nominated a strong energizer-bunny-like candidate in Hugette Allen. She's emerged as the strongest opposition voice in the riding and according to internal polling, collected a shocking amount of momentum. Its why its suddenly on the party's radar. The pessimist in me tells me she won't win this time around, but will come a shock second to the unpopular Conservative incumbent Colin Mayes, win a few polls, and earn the momementum to really contend next time around. This scenario will be repeated in several ridings across the country. And I'm still not writing off the Greens' chances of winning a seat outright on Tuesday. [/plug] [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090
|
posted 12 October 2008 06:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Donald MacDonald-Ross: ForestGreen wrote: A pity if so, it would be no fun if Rabble continued as simply an N.D.P. cheering section, with only the occasional mouldy green "total ass... birds of a feather" Green such as myself contributing. Donald MacDonald-Ross, Babbler # 168, Registered: Apr 2001 [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: Donald MacDonald-Ross ]
Ah MacDonald-Ross you just come in. Ah, the liberals were never contenders in this riding and were way back in third place. Ditto in 2004. NDP came within 2000 votes last time. Sorry but the total vote of lib and greens were alot less than the total vote for the NDP. Nice try!
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090
|
posted 12 October 2008 06:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by V. Jara: [thread drift] EMay thinks the Greens have a chance in 7 seats[/thread drift]Guelph Bruce Grey-Owen Sound Vancouver Centre West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast Nanaimo-Port Alberni Okanagan Shuswap Central Nova Of the above, only the first three seem even remotely possible. In three of the six seats the NDP finished second. In four of the six seats, the NDP is in the hunt.
In the 1st two, they are not close. Sorry!
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 12 October 2008 06:49 PM
quote: Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
Yap, keep saying bullshit, in politics it's called push polling. Must have been what she learned from her time working for Lie'n Brian! (couldn't resist)
Wrong. You don't even know what the definition of push polling is. Push polling is the crap that Bush supporters used in the 2000 primaries against John McCain in South Carolina. Like spamming thousands of voters with this message. "Would you be less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he fathered an illegitmate black child?" Oracle polled in the Bruce last election, and acutally UNDERESTIMATED the Green candidate's support by 6%. They are a legitimate (if small) polling firm. And BTW, although the Green candidate doesn't have much chance of winning in the Bruce, he does stand a chance of following his provincial counterpart and running second. In Guelph too, polling shows Green candidate Mike Nagy running a strong 4th, if there was ever such a thing, 8 points back of Gloria Kovich. He was endorsed by the local newspaper, and should dominate the campus polls. Central Nova we've been waxing on about for a while, obviously. Nanimo-Alberni I don't know much about, and I'm actually not convinced the Greens are competitive there. I've already talked about Okanagan-Shuswap. I maintain that Vancouver Centre and Adrienne Carr are the Greens' best hope of winning a seat in this election. She completely blew Mayencourt and Bayers (two candidates who aren't as strong as everyone thinks they are) out of the water on that CBC show X-factor. All she has standing in her way is the Liberal base in the riding (which had to have eroded somewhat since the start of the campaign) and the get-out-the-vote factor.
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 12 October 2008 06:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: LMAO, if the Green Party thinks their fake poll from Oracle is going to sway CN voters, they and EMay are more than a little out in the nether regions boom boom, and not EMay and Dion just looking like one.EMay is no more in second place, than I am. In the last Nanos, the GP was showing 1% in Atlantic Canada. Just was reading an article from Owen Sound dated yesterday and Mills is leading with 41%.
The Globe and Mail poll of polls has the Greens at 8% in the region, and we all know that is not coming from Newfoundland. [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 12 October 2008 07:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by West Coast Greeny: Nanimo-Alberni I don't know much about, and I'm actually not convinced the Greens are competitive there.
You know funny, out of all of them listed I thought that this might actually be the most plausible BC. There is a shit load of tories with back yard composters, who are ultra religious about re-cycling and health food, and then of course there is Greenies out in Combs and Nanoose. quote: The Globe and Mail poll of polls has the Greens at 8% in the region, and we all know that is not coming from Newfoundland.
Even if that whole 8% was, indeed factaul, and was concentrated in CN, it would give EMay less than 2000 votes, and up 1200.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Donald MacDonald-Ross
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 168
|
posted 12 October 2008 07:56 PM
janfromthebruce wrote: quote: Ah MacDonald-Ross you just come in.
Hiya Jan, Har har, though my full name is Donald MacDonald-Ross, my preferred personal address is “Donald”. Family and long or close acquaintances know me as “Donny”, to difference myself from my father, also a Donald MacDonald-Ross. I am sure there was no disrespect in your salutation to me as “MacDonald-Ross”, similar to how we all refer to prominent people by their surnames, such as “Trudeau”, “Mulroney”, “Layton” or “May”. Sorry to have “just come in” this late in discussion, I am self employed and besides that distraction mostly gave up politics a decade ago; I am not good at it, and have found study of the last seven generations more fun than worrying about the next seven. Ironically, the focus of my genealogy/history website is the district of Coigach in the Scottish Highlands (Parish of Lochbroom), from where the ship Hector sailed to Pictou in what is now Central Nova, so though late into discussion of the area on this board, I have a long interest in the culture of the area. quote: Ah, the liberals were never contenders in this riding and were way back in third place. Ditto in 2004. NDP came within 2000 votes last time. Sorry but the total vote of lib and greens were a lot less than the total vote for the NDP. Nice try!
Yes, ... but,... you are repeating the error I pointed out in my earlier post, in CN the N.D.P. moved down from a powerful candidate, the Greens moved up to a powerful candidate. Previous results, other than Canadian’s inherit prejudice to vote for an incumbent, are out the window. Donald.
From: Thorold Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 12 October 2008 08:10 PM
quote: Oracle polled in the Bruce last election, and acutally UNDERESTIMATED the Green candidate's support by 6%. They are a legitimate (if small) polling firm.And BTW, although the Green candidate doesn't have much chance of winning in the Bruce, he does stand a chance of following his provincial counterpart and running second
And was off by 10% for Bognor Bill I've said it before and I will say it again. Oracle is not a polling company to base results on. And I've said this before. There is no way Thom Noble is in a distant third place. Just not happening. The Nobles are a hugely important clan in BGOS. Larry Miller has spent all of his time focussing on Noble, that should tell us something. It is possible the Greens might take third as the BGOS NDP is in disaray due to some behind the scenes stuff. But challenging Miller and Noble, not even a snowball's chance in H E double hockey sticks.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 12 October 2008 08:17 PM
quote: Yes, ... but,... you are repeating the error I pointed out in my earlier post, in CN the N.D.P. moved down from a powerful candidate, the Greens moved up to a powerful candidate. Previous results, other than Canadian’s inherit prejudice to vote for an incumbent, are out the window.
That’s just ridiculous prejudice looking down the nose at someone who has been a part of the community for a long time. I know it might be hard for big city slickers to understand but a teacher like Louise Lorefice will be a well known and popular figure in the community and seen as a leader. The fact that May, a party leader, is not running a strong first says all you need to know about what the people of Central Nova really think of her. And it t’ain’t very much, I can tell you, from that evidence alone!!!
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 12 October 2008 08:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Donald MacDonald-Ross: I wonder if your formula errs in not taking into account the size of the population being sampled, that is you allow for say 100 people being sampled, but if that is from a pop, such as a local club, of 150 members, then the margin of error must surely be greater if only 100 are sampled of a pop of 30,000,000. [/QB]
Notionally, yes. But except with extremely small populations (ie, your example of a club with 150 members), the effect of population size is negligible compared to thje effect of sample size. Thus a poll of 300 respondents has a margin of error of 5.77% regardless of whether it's a poll of Central Nova, Nova Scotia, all of Canada or the town of Antigonish. If you really want to get into the weeds on this, the precise application of margins of error are also affected by all sorts of other things, and the standard calculation is based on an assumption of a two choice race. But similarly, the effect is infinitessimal. For the purposes of all but the most dedicated statisticians, the calculation I described (the inverse of the square root of the sample size) is more than accurate enough.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 12 October 2008 08:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by ForestGreen:
That wasn't Harris Decima, check again. Actually there have been three that I have seen. No reason to accept one and discredit the others.
You're quite right. It would have been Strategic Council because that's the company CTV's been using. I must have been tired.
My point is simple. If I see polls from companies I know and know to be credible and then I see a poll that varies widely, conducted by a company I've never heard of, I'll pick the pollsters I know to be credible 10 times out of ten.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 12 October 2008 08:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by kylebailey260: Re: Margin of Error and sample size. I found a Margin or error calculator on google.Plugged in 42000 votes (I got from elections prediction project, cause I'm lazy) - I totalled the partisan numbers, and rounded, and note that it doesn't include spoiled ballots. A sample size of 300 gives a 5.64% margin of error. Not sure how accurate it is, given that 300 people on telephone lists were sampled, not 300 people who actually vote (given ~60% turnout).
1. It's entirely possible that Elizabeth May is leading in Central Nova. It is equally possible that she's running a distant third. The credible evidence I've seen suggests she's third, though not distantly.
2. As to the accuracy of margins of error - the margin of error is about sampling error, not about any of the other variables that can occur - some, but not all of which, can be corrected for. If we knew, say, that exactly 50% of the people in Central Nova were women and 50% men, then a randomly selected sample should fall within the appropriate margin of error of a 50-50 split. Thus a sample of 100 would have between 40 and 60 women, while a sample of 300 would have between 132 and 168 women. A sample of 1,000 (moe 3.16%) would have between 1468 and 1532 women. A sample of 50 (moe 14.14%) would have between 17 and 33 women. A sample of 10 (moe 31.62%) would have between 6 and 14 women. (I've rounded up on the variance to avoid having parts of people.) Other variables, of themselves, aren't that relevant usually. The opinions of those who don't vote would normally have a relatively small effect. They may be more likely to be undecided, but of those who choose a party, but of those who do choose, there is usually no reason to presume that they will break down significantly differently than everyone else.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090
|
posted 12 October 2008 09:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by Donald MacDonald-Ross: janfromthebruce wrote: Yes, ... but,... you are repeating the error I pointed out in my earlier post, in CN the N.D.P. moved down from a powerful candidate, the Greens moved up to a powerful candidate. Previous results, other than Canadian’s inherit prejudice to vote for an incumbent, are out the window. Donald.
Hi Donny, wasn't meaning anything by using your last name. I actually disagree with you that Lorifice is a weaker candidate than Alexa. Having lived in Sydney and all, she is a perfect candidate for the area and a long time member who has done lots of local activism, and all. Considering that the local NDP riding association has lots of good solid roots built up over time with lots of local people involved and not parachuted into the area or having to get outsiders to do the dialing, makes her attractive to the locals. Oh, I'm Scottish too.
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090
|
posted 12 October 2008 09:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Wrong. You don't even know what the definition of push polling is. Push polling is the crap that Bush supporters used in the 2000 primaries against John McCain in South Carolina. Like spamming thousands of voters with this message. "Would you be less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he fathered an illegitmate black child?" Oracle polled in the Bruce last election, and acutally UNDERESTIMATED the Green candidate's support by 6%. They are a legitimate (if small) polling firm. And BTW, although the Green candidate doesn't have much chance of winning in the Bruce, he does stand a chance of following his provincial counterpart and running second. In Guelph too, polling shows Green candidate Mike Nagy running a strong 4th, if there was ever such a thing, 8 points back of Gloria Kovich. He was endorsed by the local newspaper, and should dominate the campus polls. Central Nova we've been waxing on about for a while, obviously. Nanimo-Alberni I don't know much about, and I'm actually not convinced the Greens are competitive there. I've already talked about Okanagan-Shuswap. I maintain that Vancouver Centre and Adrienne Carr are the Greens' best hope of winning a seat in this election. She completely blew Mayencourt and Bayers (two candidates who aren't as strong as everyone thinks they are) out of the water on that CBC show X-factor. All she has standing in her way is the Liberal base in the riding (which had to have eroded somewhat since the start of the campaign) and the get-out-the-vote factor.
Actually, I do. I'm using it in a way that we have seen Greens do before. Put out a favourable poll (done by relative of Green party member) and not reveal any info about the poll, like legitimate pollers have to. The idea is to pull the vote. Similarly the torStar keeps on pushing a certain poll that shows libs gaining and don't mention there other polls that show support for other parties picking up or going down. So one is left with certain impressions of where parties are at. I see voteforenvironment as a form of "push polling" to ensure a "certain" wanted outcome.
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
janfromthebruce
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14090
|
posted 12 October 2008 09:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Wrong. You don't even know what the definition of push polling is. Push polling is the crap that Bush supporters used in the 2000 primaries against John McCain in South Carolina. Like spamming thousands of voters with this message. "Would you be less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he fathered an illegitmate black child?" Oracle polled in the Bruce last election, and acutally UNDERESTIMATED the Green candidate's support by 6%. They are a legitimate (if small) polling firm. And BTW, although the Green candidate doesn't have much chance of winning in the Bruce, he does stand a chance of following his provincial counterpart and running second. In Guelph too, polling shows Green candidate Mike Nagy running a strong 4th, if there was ever such a thing, 8 points back of Gloria Kovich. He was endorsed by the local newspaper, and should dominate the campus polls. Central Nova we've been waxing on about for a while, obviously. Nanimo-Alberni I don't know much about, and I'm actually not convinced the Greens are competitive there. I've already talked about Okanagan-Shuswap. I maintain that Vancouver Centre and Adrienne Carr are the Greens' best hope of winning a seat in this election. She completely blew Mayencourt and Bayers (two candidates who aren't as strong as everyone thinks they are) out of the water on that CBC show X-factor. All she has standing in her way is the Liberal base in the riding (which had to have eroded somewhat since the start of the campaign) and the get-out-the-vote factor.
You know, I don't want to break this to you, but doing well in a debate helps but it depends on who bothered to watch it, read what press said, and well be engaged. The biggest end game, IS GETTING OUT YOUR VOTE. So do you know who your voters are? Do you have the "marks" and can you change those 3 into 2's and 2's into 1's. Once you know that you have to get your vote out on Eday. I believe that is where the race will be won and not based on the debate - if that was true Layton would be sailing to government when he "owned Dion" in the English debate.
From: cow country | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337
|
posted 12 October 2008 10:16 PM
This kind of silliness has the look of Jim Harris written all over it. And we all know how accurate his predictions are. quote: Originally posted by West Coast Greeny: [QB]Boom Boom, she's gone from polling 3rd and barely above 10% at the start of the campaign to polling 28% and running a clear 2nd. That's momentum. While I don't have much info on other ridings, I do have some intel on my home riding in Okanagan-Shuswap. The Greens there rapidly built a formidible EDA within the span of two years and nominated a strong energizer-bunny-like candidate in Hugette Allen. She's emerged as the strongest opposition voice in the riding and according to internal polling, collected a shocking amount of momentum. Its why its suddenly on the party's radar. The pessimist in me tells me she won't win this time around, but will come a shock second to the unpopular Conservative incumbent Colin Mayes, win a few polls, and earn the momementum to really contend next time around. This scenario will be repeated in several ridings across the country. And I'm still not writing off the Greens' chances of winning a seat outright on Tuesday. [/plug] [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ][/Q]
[ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 13 October 2008 05:09 AM
I would not go so far as to say that her being in second is a "fabrication".I would say that the numbers are likely to have been massaged to serve a purpose. It is not unlikely that she will indeed turn out to be in second place. For one thing, if the Greens have managed to scour for resources and are organizing people reasonably well... that is a lot to throw into an Eday effort. If they have people on the phones from all over the country and have any ability to organize... that is a lot of resources to concentrate, and far more than the NDP campaign can manage. The NDP isn't canibalizing campaigns elsewhere in a go for broke effort. But at best that is going to get May second place- WAY behind MacKay. I'm sure thats the real strategy for the campaign: an all out effort to get SECOND. Because anything less would be too humiliating.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 13 October 2008 05:28 AM
May being in the race made it more difficult for anyone to beat MacKay.But this isn't some kind of one for one transferrable voting dynamics. If there was no one else in the race but May and MacKay she would still have been a longshot. Because many people who would vote for Lorefice and the NDP would not vote for May. Just like LOTS of Liberals will not vote for May. ETA: I realize this is an old point. But I thought the question was coming up again. [ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981
|
posted 13 October 2008 09:21 AM
A couple of things that have been said here and in comments on the Election Prediction website that make me believe that after the election, we should be keeping a very close eye on Elizabeth May's candidate/election expense report and the Green Party's reported spending.One commenter on the Election Prediction page, E. L. Smerl (142.177.12.26), who was spinning in favour of a Green Party call said: quote: "Never mind that the Green Party of Canada is spending more money on this riding than any other party is spending on it, if you count the national expenditures that have been bent into local ones for this election."
This appears to be an admission that the Green Party has not followed the Elections Act in its quest to elect Elizabeth May in Central Nova, something that should be followed up on after the election. [ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: ottawaobserver ]
From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337
|
posted 13 October 2008 09:26 AM
Says who, Jim Harris! Tell us Don, is your Green Oracle related to the Oracle of Omaha Whatever happens, good luck to you tomorrow nite. quote: Originally posted by Donald MacDonald-Ross: [QB]janfromthebruce wrote: Yes, ... but,... you are repeating the error I pointed out in my earlier post, in CN the N.D.P. moved down from a powerful candidate, the Greens moved up to a powerful candidate. Previous results, other than Canadian’s inherit prejudice to vote for an incumbent, are out the window. Donald.[/Q]
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 13 October 2008 09:46 AM
quote: "Never mind that the Green Party of Canada is spending more money on this riding than any other party is spending on it, if you count the national expenditures that have been bent into local ones for this election."
An amazingly frank admission. That was his/her choice of words: "bent into being local expenses." Even if it turns out that they skated clear of breaking Elections Act rules, there is no question they far outspent the other parties... probably any party in any single riding campaign ever. They have been pouring huge resources into Central Nova for over a year- when there are no spending limits in force. So there is clearly an amount being spent that is MUCH larger than since the writ was dropped. And I expect that a great deal of those pre-writ expenditures when there are no spending limits will have actually been put to use during the writ period when the spending limits are in force. I doubt anyone in Canada has ever TRIED to get away with doing that on a large scale for a single riding campaign, but I don't think it would be difficult to do a great deal of pre-writ spending that gets used during the campaign. [ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 13 October 2008 10:06 AM
quote: Originally posted by Malcolm:
True enough. But one would normally expect an incremental variance from the poll, not the sort of wide ranging variance we saw with the BGOS poll.
Yes, but the results were far from normal. This probably caused people to shift their vote somewhat. Some being anti-Jolley and some pro-Jolley.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 13 October 2008 10:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by remind: LMAO, if the Green Party thinks their fake poll from Oracle is going to sway CN voters, they and EMay are more than a little out in the nether regions boom boom, and not EMay and Dion just looking like one.EMay is no more in second place, than I am. In the last Nanos, the GP was showing 1% in Atlantic Canada. Just was reading an article from Owen Sound dated yesterday and Mills is leading with 41%.
Regional polling in this country stink! They are far from accurate. I especially love when they dump the prairies, alberta, and bc all into the 'West.'
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Interested Observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15559
|
posted 13 October 2008 10:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by alisea:
A third party, who is really a fourth party, doesn't have the right to demand that the three other parties step aside and crown its leader, even if its leader claims to be a really, really special snowflake.
I was referring to avaaz.org and other groups promoting strategic voting. Who's said anything about crowning? As far as I can tell there is no forcing of votes involved. If people like a particular candidate over another that is their personal choice. That used to happen back in the day in Canada though.
From: BC | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|