Tuesday, February 16, 2010

New AR Poll: 4-pt Conservative Lead

Angus-Reid has a new poll out, showing a little Conservative strength.However, it must be pointed out that compared to Angus-Reid's January 25-26 poll, not much has changed. Both the Conservatives and Liberals have gained one point, pushing each up to 34% and 30%, respectively. The NDP is down one point o 18%, and the Greens are up one point to 8%.

The regional results don't show much movement either. The Conservatives gain one point in Ontario and are at 37%. The Liberals remain stable at 35%, and the NDP drops two to 17%.

In Quebec, the Bloc drops seven points to 35%, but everyone else is within the MOE. The Conservatives gain three points and are at 14%, while the Liberals and NDP remain stable at 28% and 14%, respectively.

There is bigger movement in the smaller regions, but a lot of that can be chalked up to the small sample size. For example, the Conservatives are up eight points in Alberta and down 11 in the Prairies. The Liberals are up 10 points in the Prairies and 13 in Atlantic Canada. And the NDP is down 14 points in Atlantic Canada.

What those smaller regionals do show is that in Alberta, the Conservatives are (of course) safe but the Liberals are surprisingly strong. In the Prairies, the Conservatives are also well ahead but the Liberals and NDP have been fighting it out for second, with a slight edge to the NDP. And in Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have moved back in front by a wide margin.

This poll would result in the following seat totals:

Conservatives - 127
Liberals - 100
Bloc Quebecois - 49
New Democrats - 32

Conservative strength comes, as usual, out west, where they win 66 seats. But they also take 49 in Ontario. However, they are reduced to only five in Quebec.

The Liberals take 43 seats in Ontario, 23 in Atlantic Canada, and 19 in Quebec. Fifteen seats come in the west and north.

The NDP takes most of its seats in British Columbia (11) and Ontario (14).

The Bloc remains well ahead in Quebec, with 49 seats. They took full advantage of the Conservative drop.

This poll also asked people what kind of government they preferred. Putting the majority and minority results together, we get 38% of Canadians preferring a Liberal government and 35% of Canadians preferring a Conservative government. The Liberal result is split down the middle (19-19) between minority and majority, while 26% of Canadians want a Conservative majority to 9% who want a minority.

What this says is that Conservative supporters want their party to win a majority, while the Liberals have room to grow among non-supporters.

66 comments:

  1. The majority/minority preference numbers only confirm what I've thought - that Conservative supporters want a majority, and if Harper doesn't get that, he will probably be in a bit of trouble.

    But, this was otherwise a dull poll. No major changes anywhere. Total snoozefest. Though, I'm glad to see the Alberta numbers aren't a completely anomaly at least.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This poll is a 'bad' one. The GPC numbers are out to lunch both East,(Much too strong), and West, (much too weak). Might not seem a big deal, but somebody else's results are inflated as a result in BC, AB, and the Praries, while the converse is true in the maritimes. Might even be by a bigger margin than the error terms. That dratted TypeII error!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really don't see how the question about "what kind of government do you want?" says anything about "growth potential". First of all 26% of people say neither or refuse to answer. Second of all, I think i speak for a lot of people out there who are 100% unswerving supporters of the NDP or the BQ or the Greens (for that matter) when I say that if the question allowed me to choose "NDP majority government" that would be my preferred outcome - but if you limit my choices to majority or minority Liberal or Conservative government - what else am I going to choose but Liberal minority - its clearly the lesser of the four evils and its also clear that it is the scenario which would probably give the NDP the most influence. But the fact that I choose that doesn't negate the fact that there is ZERO chance that i would vote Liberal in my riding.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A little bounce-back for the conservatives was inevitable. People have short-term memories - always have, always will.

    I found the following interesting though;

    38% of Canadians preferring a Liberal government and 35% of Canadians preferring a Conservative government

    Who are the 8% of people (38% vs 30% support)who would prefer a liberal government that wouldn't vote for them?

    Either way - the Liberals are still in it, and the conservatives have made no head-way what-so-ever since 2006. And this includes two golden opportunities when destiny basically offered a majority to the conservatives but they just couldn't close the deal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Who are the 8% of people (38% vs 30% support)who would prefer a liberal government that wouldn't vote for them?"

    People like me who are not allowed to say that we prefer an NDP government so we are given a false choice and forced to choose between a Liberal government or a Conservative government. So given those choices what do you expect. What surprises me that is such a huge proportion of people (26%) refuse to be railroaded by the question into making a false choice and insist on say "neither".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also, you might prefer a Liberal government but realise that voting Liberal in your region would be counter-productive. If the best way to bring about a Liberal government is to vote NDP in your region, you do that.

    Not to mention all the Bloc supporters. They may well have a preference between CPC and LPC, but they still vote for the Bloc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, and I really like these NDP numbers. Bigger NDP numbers make me happy; I don't like it when progressives unite anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Josh - this isn't a bounce. The Conservatives have been flat for weeks. They bottomed out in the low 30s at the beginning of January. They haven't shown any signs of decline in weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ira,

    You're implying that Liberals are "progressive" in the first place. In any case, from a Tory point of view - when it comes to the NDP - be careful about wishing for something - it might happen. The last few polls have shown NDP support down a bit in Ontario to the benefit of the Liberals (bad for the Tories), but they also NDP support up in BC and to some extent in Man/Sask (this is also bad for the Tories). I suppose that from a Tory POV it would be nice if NDP support was only rising in ridings that are Liberal/Tory catfights where they are taking votes from the Liberals - but we have no reason to believe that is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just to point out, in the West, I'd cheer the NDP on wherever they may be. The Liberals have very few ridings where they can break through in the rural areas, while the NDP has a fair shot at it. So... go Dippers! Yay!

    However, they can shoo east of Manitoba. The Liberals are stronger in rural ridings out here by tradition, just as the NDP are stronger out west in rural ridings by tradition. That's especially true for where I think the Liberals need to make a breakthrough in Ontario in order to have a shot at forming the government - those nice southwest rural ridings. The Liberals have been historically strong there, and the Ontario Liberals have quite a few seats there as it is.

    So... go Grits! Boo Dippers!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, and poor Elizabeth May - she certainly isn't getting elected in SGI with those results in BC.

    I've read some talk among the Green bloggers about how some of the polling right now is showing how badly the Greens are doing, and that they don't expect a lot of growth. This might lend some credence to the anti-May movements, which means that come the leadership election in August, unless May avoids it somehow, someone like Frank De Jong might get in. And boy - if you like right-wing, near-libertarian, anti-immigrant environmentalists, you'll love Frank De Jong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can't tell you how much I dislike May! Would be very pleased to see the end of her!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ha Earl - I don't like any of the Green leadership. Jim Harris was alright, but he's cut from the same cloth as De Jong, and while they all seem like competent leaders in their own way, I'd never vote for the GPC so long as they have their current roster. The only Green leader I like is the Quebec Green (Parti Vert, to be accurate) leader, Guy Rainville.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Harris- Decima out: CPC 32, LPC 30,NDP 16.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iqm-pwTdeowaH4ayxhLoxylnpNZA

    ReplyDelete
  15. Volkov all I want is centre right government. I suspect that you'd like a centre left government.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Earl, indeed. :D

    Mind you, I want centre-left to centre. Not social democratic, lets-nationalize-and-subsidize-the-entire-country Dipper government. I'm a liberal, not a socialist.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Volkov: We're not far apart then. Maybe the centre should amalgamate and leave the libertarians on the right on the NDP on the left. Interesting thought.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It would be an interesting field to be sure. I remember when either Stockwell Day or Preston Manning said the Progressive Conservatives were just another Liberal Party. Thinking back now - what would have happened if, instead of having the Alliance and the Tories merge, if the Tories and Liberals merged? You'd get the two main centrist parties lumped together, and the more far out ideologues in their respective parties.

    However - that would be monopolozing the centrist vote, which we probably shouldn't. The reason why its important to have two moderate, more-or-less centrist parties is to make sure the population has two choices of moderation to choose from. So, say, if the Liberals embroil themselves in scandal, the population doesn't all start running to a far-left or far-right party. They'll instead usually run to the other moderate party. Sort of spreads out the vote, so the extremists can't slay Goliath and bring down all the moderates at once.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Volkov, right you are. As long as there isn't a drift to extremes as in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I doubt there will ever be a huge drift to the extreme as in the US. Canada already went through something similar with Reform, and while maybe it wasn't as extreme as the Tea Party is, its clear that these views will only get you so far. Conservatives realize this, as do left-leaning individuals, who went through it with CCF and etc. as well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is only one extreme in the US - extreme right. The rightwing of the GOP, the religious right and the Tea Baggers verge of being neo-fascist. There is no extreme left to speak of - what passes for being far, far, far "left" in the context of US politics are a few Democrats who would be red Tories by Canadian standards all of whom are utterly dependent on money from drug companies, lawyers and lobbyists.

    Incidentally, I happen to think that its a good thing for parties to DIFFER. Listening to some pundits in the US who go and about "bi-partisanship" you'd think that they just can't stand the idea that the Democrats and Republicans might occasionally disagree with one another - as if somehow it would be hunky dory if we just had a red team and a blue team and they both agreed on everything of any substance.

    To govern is to choose!

    ReplyDelete
  22. DL - what are you talking about, there being no "extreme left" in the US?

    It certainly isn't as large or as loud as the far-right, but it certainly exists. Senator Bernie Sanders, the ALL, the Greens have quite a few leftist members, the Socialist Worker's Party, etc. etc. These aren't organizations that are moderate liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the populist movements in Canada have generally had a positive impact on the political culture whether it be Reform or the CCF.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kevin,

    Oh, no doubt about that. The CCF, Reform, the Bloc, even the Socreds all had some positive impact on Canadian history and policy. It doesn't mean it was *always* a positive contribution, but even negative contributions, like the question of Quebec's independence, is an important one to address.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Volkov, the difference is that the extreme right in the US is about 30% of the population and is taken seriously. A third of Americans think Sarah Palin would make a good President! The extreme left in the US is infinitesimally small and marginalized that its hardly worth talking about.

    If you watch any cable news show in the US where they try to have some sort of a "Crossfire"-style debate - its invaiably a debate between some fanatical rightwing extremist and a very wishy-washy DLC-type Democrat who stands for nothing - and we are supposed to think that those are the two poles.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sure, I didn't deny that. The far-left in the US is weak. Always has been. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though.

    And if you're taking your cues of the American political spectrum from shows like Crossfire, then you deserve whomever you end up with.

    ReplyDelete
  27. All the details from the new Harris-Decima poll of 4,000 people are here

    http://www.harrisdecima.com/sites/default/files/releases/2010/02/16/hd-2010-02-16-en474.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  28. OT: I was away from Friday until today, and so I missed all the silliness in some earlier threads. I was not online during that period.

    I would have been displeased to see Shadow state he is not coming back, except for the fact that he claims to have "proven" that I use sock puppets. This he based on the words of the real "neoconservative" on his blog where neo accuses me of same. It appears that Shadow mistook high placement on "bloggintories.ca" as proof it must be true.

    I did enjoy jousting with Shadow, but now that I know how willing he is to lie, or at least repeat others' lies as factual, he has lost all of the credibility that I normally accord anyone.

    It seems to me that this tactic, of trying to minimize and marginalize your opposition by claiming everyone is one person, is not isolated. It is yet another tactic in the arsenal of someone who cannot win arguments on their merits.

    Shadow may claim I am targeting him, when the reality is that his targeting of me really kicked into high gear after I destroyed every one of his arguments in the abortion discussion a few threads back. It would seem he held a grudge, and did not like spouting his lies knowing I might call him out again.

    He cited a post at "neoconservative's" place, and I have just posted a comment there to set the record straight. I do not expect said comment to be there for long before it is deleted and possibly lied about.

    Here it is:
    ======== neo Feb 16
    So the question remains: Why does neoconservative claim that everyone who is not a far right extremist like himself, is in fact me?

    If I was a far right wingnut, I would now make psychiatric diagnoses as to why this is, but I'm not a far right wingnut.

    My guess is that I regularly demolish neo's arguments and fly rings around him with my rebuttals, and he just can't stand ibeing regularly bested. Unfortunately for the casual reader of this blog, you will not see most of my comments here, because neo deletes them, and then lies about what was said. You have to wonder what could be so horrifying in my words that he would not only delete them, but lie about their content. Unlike most blog operators, who either ignore those they consider trolls, or simply ridicule them, neo feels a need to both delete and then ridicule words I never said.

    For those who would pretend to believe neo's claims, let me again state that I have never commented here (or on any other political blog) under another name, and I have not commented here as anon since August 2008.

    I also believe creating fake lookalike accounts is silly, and do not condone or participate in such activity.

    =========

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wait - Shadow isn't coming back? Wtf?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anyone else catch the recent headline in the Globe and Mail regarding this poll;

    Tories take early gold in polls

    I opened the article thinking it was going to show the conservatives leading the pack with 80% or something... Goes to show how bias the Globe and Mail really is. Wasn't supporting Harper in their editorials for the elections enough for them?

    Perhaps the author was hoping Harper was going to appoint her to the senate. Harper has a track record of putting friendly journalists in the senate (Duffy, Wallen, etc.).

    Had the article been honest, it would have read "Conservatives stop hemmorging in the polls".

    Oh well, the right-wing bias in the media is alive and well!

    Any thoughts?

    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  31. Josh,

    I don't know if there is necessarily any bias, so much as there is just plain ignorance on the Globe's part.

    This poll shows the Conservatives at 34% and 4 points over the Liberals. That is certainly a lot better than other polls have them, including the more well known Ekos, Nanos, and Harris Decima polls. And given that HD is the Globe's chosen pollster, the difference is pretty stark.

    So, the heading isn't necessarily biased, just ignorant of the history of AR polls.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Volkov

    Read the last blog regarding shadow.

    People got tired of his crap and started to call him out on. He then insisted he was the victim of a massive conspiracy in which because we disagree with him, it proved without a doubt that he was right, and than anyone who dared challenge him was essentially the 'same guy'. You, me, Earl, DL, etc. - we were all trolls out to get him.

    He can post his nonsense on a grade 4 blog.

    No need for that crap around here.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wow... net drama. That's not good for the soul.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What a laugh! So neo has not logged in to delete my comment yet, but Shadow commented 18 minutes after I did.
    He must not have read my comment, because I said i would not give psychiatric diagnoses because I am not a far right extremist. Of course he then proceeded with his own psychiatric diagnosis of me!

    Hahahahahahahahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hey liberal supporter, do you have a link I could follow? I don't know who it is exactly you're talking about so...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Neoconservative.

    I mostly like to tease neo, however if it wasn't for him I would never have found this place. Éric commented there and did not stay long due to neo's dislike of actual debate. So I followed him here and found a) a blog with very interesting information b) commenters that mostly discuss the polls and why they are as they are.

    In other places, I could see someone like Shadow defending the undefensible, but here, someone simply has to say "I think proroguing is the reason the polls are soft for the CPC" and we get the talking points? How are the talking points going to change what the poll has already said? I enjoy some of the broader policy questions here though, I wish I'd been here to discuss the tax system for example, but I was off all weekend. Family Day in Ontario and all that.

    But really it should be mostly about the polls here with occasional digression into some of the bigger issues. That's my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agree liberal supporter. It usually sticks to the polls, however, with discussion over polls, inevitably comes the larger questions. :P

    I'm gonna pay "neoconservative" a visit. 'Twill be fun.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks for point me to the HD poll, will post about it tomorrow morning.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Volkov I left you a note over there tipping you off to the fake profiles here.

    Its typical for him to come in with another identity and say things like "oh i've been away, look what's happened when i've been gone!". (Who says that if they have nothing to prove?)

    Or you'll see someone saying they are a first time reader.

    The funniest thing was that when I called out Liberal Supporter it was actually the Josh profile he responded with !


    If they weren't one and the same how did he know I was talking about him? Why would he respond?

    Priceless.

    Anyawys, Liberal Supporter has been exposed and unfortunately has gotten his way.

    I'm taking a break for awhile and then when I do comment here i'm going to try and get in and out before the troll (not plural, just one sad lonely fellow) descends!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well, to be fair to the Josh-response, I respond to people all the time, even if they're not talking to me. Could be just that.

    Anyways, I'll continue this on Neo Con's blog, so long as he doesn't chase me out or something.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Liberal Supporter - of course neo-conservative (which is actually Shadow posting under a different name) deleted the dissenting post as soon as he saw it.

    VolKov - why are you wasting your time pitying shadow? That's exactly what he craves. He's a victim, and victims crave attention. Shadow just loves getting attention and wants people to pity him for the victim that he is. If I didn't know better I would have to state that he is actually an NDP troll just trying to show us what a typical conservative is really like. Sheer victimization.

    In all seriousness though, it's not like he ever brought anything to the table. Just talking points, filibustering techniques, excessively weak arguements, and victimization. Why are you trying to recruit him back exactly? He has done nothing but ruin this blog ever since he showed up.

    Earl and other right of centres provide honest opinion with the right-wing-moonbat-fox-news-garbage that shadow (aka neo-conservative) does.

    Please let this blog return to a normal place of honest discussion like it was before that troll came around.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Oops - that should read 'without' and not 'with'.

    And Shadow, I responded to your pathetic accusation yesterday because it was pathetic, and you are pathetic, and you needed to be put in your place like the child that you are.

    But if you believing that everyone in the world who disagrees with you is 'liberal supporter', so be it.

    Now isn't there a blog on Fox News that you should be trolling?

    Leave 308 to people who care about honest discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Josh,

    While I might find Shadow's arguments at times a little talking-point-ish, from the time I've been posting here, he's always been engaged and he's always offered an opinion on something, opinions that were, most of the time, very apt. Even if they weren't, participation is better than nothing.

    So I'm getting to the bottom of this and figure it out for myself. I didn't necessarily say "come back Shadow," I just want to know why he wanted to leave, or take a break, or whatever.

    If you don't like it, then start up a campaign against him if you choose. I don't know, its your decision.

    ReplyDelete
  44. New post up over there Volkov.

    Ever wonder why we don't hear from Fake/False/Ishmael anymore ?

    Why would such a compulsive poster just leave all of a sudden?

    From what I can tell "Liberal supporter" is the tag he uses to attempt to have a serious arguement.

    However, if you give him an intellectual beating he throws a bit of a tantrum and the alter egos descend!

    Watch out. Lol, seriously what is with this guy ?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Volkov - A campaign against him? A little dramatic no?

    As for his being 'balanced' I think we can agree to disagree on that one. His debating techniques are downright abrasive. I'm far from the only person who had issues with him.

    Congrats to yourself though, you do seem to have taken a liking to him and are probably the only person at 308 capable of tolerating him.

    As for 'getting to the bottom of it' there officer, I suggest you read the blogs of the last couple of weeks to see the trail of annoyance Shadow created for himself and the love shown to him by numerous posters.

    Either way I really don't care for a response from you on this topic or further discussion - it's wasted enough of numerous peoples time. Your welcome to continue your pro-shadow campaign elsewhere. The 308 blog was going along fine before that troll appeared and degraded the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Josh,

    Not I never said anything about Shadow being "balanced." He's a partisan. So am I. So are you. We're (probably) all adults here, get over it.

    And neither do I have a pro-Shadow campaign going. That implies that I want to influence you or anyone else's opinion on him. I don't. I frankly don't care what you or others think. Which means I won't take it "elsewhere." I'm happy right here. If you don't like it, don't read my posts, as you seem happy to do. Not here to argue with you over something this stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  47. However, if you give him an intellectual beating he throws a bit of a tantrum and the alter egos descend!
    Project much?

    ReplyDelete
  48. liberal supporter, I'm happy to hear your version as well.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Volkov now it seems like he's trying to run you off this blog !

    Anyways i'll be back for the big stuff, just taking a break until this guy realizes there are more important things in life then harasing people on blogs !

    Meanwhile I had an interesting discussion over at www.punditsguide.ca

    There's a new tool available in the database for comparing changes in real votes, as opposeed to the normal % of total votes. Gives a better idea about how turnout works into all of this.

    ReplyDelete
  50. My version is that I provide reasonably intelligent comment, joke around at times, and rebuke those who start trying to boss everyone around, especially when it is not their blog. My words stand on their own. I usually try to draw out whoever I am talking with to get a better understanding of their position. If I criticize someone else's words and they choose to attack me, instead of rebutting my words, that is their problem. I find it laughable that neo must resort to deleting my words to "win". Then we see Shadow demanding Éric do the same here.

    I still maintain it is the "intellectual beating" as Shadow puts it, which he received in the abortion discussion that has triggered his current campaign. He wishes to be allowed to hold court unchallenged, just as neoconservative does.

    As far as Shadow's posting here is concerned, I have no issue, since I will call him out when I believe it is needed. I do not need to cast aspersions on him, claim that he sock puppets, question his mental health, question his personal life, question his relationships or employ any other of the techniques he demonstrates daily when he tries to belittle others and make them stop challenging his views. I don't need to do those things because I can usually find the flaws in his arguments. He probably could too if he worked at it, but he prefers the methods he demonstrates not to have his views questioned. Notice that he is trying to move this discussion to neo's blog (and I suspect Éric would be pleased if we did). However, as we have seen just today, neo will simply delete my words, then lie about them. Here, my words are not deleted and can be judged on their merits against those of Shadow.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Volkov now it seems like he's trying to run you off this blog !
    And the other shoe drops. It's always about "running someone off this blog", isn't it? Why is that, and why are you always the one to raise that idea? I have no desire to run anyone off any blog, unlike you. If you go away, you'll deprive me of more opportunities to mock your extreme views. You are the one who demanded Éric censor this blog, remember?

    Anyways i'll be back for the big stuff, just taking a break until this guy realizes there are more important things in life then harasing people on blogs !
    When you say "this", you are referring to yourself, right? Hope you come to the realization soon.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Liberal supporter,

    It was actually my idea that Shadow talk on Neo's blog, for the reason that I doubt Eric wants the drama.

    Anyways, I think you're telling the truth, though it isn't as if Shadow is making this stuff up, either. Someone is making puppet tags and attacking him, there is no denying that. I think it would be great if you said you'd help stop that. Maybe Shadow would be willing to work then. I doubt anyone that talks about intelligence and honesty, as you have, would condone such actions.

    ReplyDelete
  53. It was actually my idea that Shadow talk on Neo's blog, for the reason that I doubt Eric wants the drama.
    I didn't see that. I saw some of the thread from Monday and then saw him commenting at neo's. It sounded like he declared he would stalk me wherever I go, to tell his "truth".

    Anyways, I think you're telling the truth, though it isn't as if Shadow is making this stuff up, either. Someone is making puppet tags and attacking him, there is no denying that.
    Hard to be certain, actually. I see similar phrasings from different people, there is an ebb and flow to popular expressions. Everyone has heard someone claim someone else is typing "from their mother's basement". "Cheetos stained fingers" is optional in that meme.

    I think it would be great if you said you'd help stop that.
    I did say I do not condone or participate in sock puppeting. not sure how I could help "stop" it. I have rebuked the fake neoconservative before, but of course neo thinks that is me.

    Maybe Shadow would be willing to work then.
    Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Volkov writes:

    Not here to argue with you over something this stupid.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Volkov writes;

    Someone is making puppet tags and attacking him, there is no denying that.

    Alright - I didn't want to wade into this again... but... That's pure crap. I read his 'proof' over at that neo-conservative blog. He claims that because several people have called him a victim, and anyone who has read his posts can't deny that he positions himself as victim, that because they use similar words it's a sure deal.

    People who disagree with him write in English as well, does this mean it's a sure deal that multiple tags are being created. We don't all have time to waste with childish games like he does.

    So please, before going around and actually spousing that people are indeed creating multiple identities, come up with some real proof. Calling him a victim, which at least 4-5 others have done, isn't exactly a smoking gun... If that's the burden of proof you need, God help you outside of this blog in the real-world!

    P.S. Liberal Supporter also uses italics like I do (based on the html tags that are just below the comment box) - oh my that's surely as valid as DNA to prove it's all a massive conspriacy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shadow Writes:

    Anyways i'll be back for the big stuff, just taking a break until this guy realizes there are more important things in life then harasing people on blogs.

    Right... this coming from the guy that has outposted everyone else in the last month by a large margin.

    As well, I said it before and I'll say it again - you're on probation with me until you can learn to evolve into a normal human being. Leave the victimization and filibustering behind, then perhaps you'll earn some respect from people.

    Until then, I'll be out on troll-watch waiting for you and calling you out. Just like Liberal Supporter.

    P.S. - Gotta love how being called out on your crap is viewed by you as 'being ran off the blog'. That's victimization 101. You poor victim.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Liberal Supporter - Keep up the good work buddy. Oh no, am I talking to myself again? LOL!! At least both of us know what a load of crap this, as well as Shadow (aka neo-conservative) is.

    So back to the real stuff.

    I think we can both agree that the polls obviously show that conservatives are out ahead - which is to be expected from a government that has free publicity on a daily basis - but that they simply have no room to grow. The mid 30's are a ceiling for them.

    They just can't break away from being known as a one-man political party with a mean-streak. The facts speak from themselves.

    Take Care - and keep up the good fight.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Four posts Josh/Liberal Supporter?

    You protest too much. I thought you weren't going to argue over something so stupid.

    And if you're not Liberal then why would any of this concern you so greatly ?

    Ah but its been established Josh = Noah = Fake/False/Ishmael = Liberal Supporter.

    Playing with sock puppets, I guess its a hobby for some people.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It mystifies me why AR is always out of step with other pollsters. Almost as if they were being paid to present a specific view isn't it ?

    ReplyDelete
  60. I'm not sure what you mean by AR being "out of step". I find that the overall trend they show is very consistent with everyone else. OK, so they show a 4-point Tory lead while some others say it is a two point lead - big deal - they still showed the big Tory head of steam in October and the big collapse in January like everyone else.

    In any case, given that AR came closest to the actual results in the last federal election and was the only company that wasn't way off in the last BC election - I don't mind if they are a bit out of step with other pollsters as long as they are "in step" with the voters!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Not one more comment about who is who. No more comments about comments and commenters.

    ReplyDelete
  62. DL has it nailed. The shapes of the curves are far more important than their absolute values.

    The difference between each pollster's numbers for a party and the election day returns is a combination of two things: demographics (youth don't vote) and party GOTV machinery. Both these favour the Tories today and penalize the Greens, with the other parties being somewhere between. And lest there be any confusion, it's the responsibility of each party to get to the Tories' position of votes exceeding pollster numbers.

    Again, polls report voter wishes. They don't predict actual election returns. And this is good because it gives us purer data. We have to extract the information ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Volkov: Oh, and poor Elizabeth May - she certainly isn't getting elected in SGI with those results in BC.

    Let's look at three almost simultaneous polls. Environics had the BC Green number at 18%. That was too high. Harris-Decima has it at 15%. That might be a little high. Angus-Reid's 6% is way too low.

    Don't Believe Any Single Poll.

    Or have I made that observation before?

    ReplyDelete
  64. The Greens got 6% in BC in '06 and 8% in '08 and they got 8% in the last BC election (despite being one of three parties instead of being one of four) and let's not forget that whopping 4% showing in the NWC byelection - I don't see any reason for them to do as comparatively well in the next federal election what with environmental issues having vanished and May having become an object of ridicule.

    ReplyDelete
  65. DL: I don't see any reason for [the Green Party] to do as comparatively well in the next federal election what with environmental issues having vanished...

    There's an interesting potential counter-trend here. When the environment is issue #1, all parties at least give it lip service and the Green Party primacy in the area is diluted. When another issue come to the fore of public attention, the other parties go there and the Green Party is left owning the environment. At that point green voters are more likely to be Green voters.

    What is the magnitude of this effect? I have no idea. But Dion was more appealing to green voters than Ignatieff is today.

    ...and May having become an object of ridicule.

    All party leaders are ridiculed to greater or lesser degrees at different times; it comes with the territory. I haven't noticed Elizabeth May catching more media rotten tomatoes than other leaders now, or than she's received at times in past. I'd pay attention to a statistical analysis but not specific articles. Any claim of this sort can be "proved" with anecdotes.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I view the GPC doing maybe as good, or worse, than 2008, but I do not see them doing better.

    I base this on three reasons. One; environmental issues might still be among the top five, but they're far from the number one issue, especially with some of the current controversies around global warming/climate change these days.

    Two; the Greens seem organizationally screwed, and screwed hard. Financial problems, executive mistrust, and according to at least one Green blogger, 307 ridings are not getting enough support. Guess which is the only one that is.

    And three; May has no media exposure, it seems. I follow a lot of news sources whenever I can, and I find zero reference to her, her party, or anything close in the news. In 2007-08 there was a lot of exposure for her - come 09-10, she's nowhere to be found. Even Green.ca is lacking in any sort of useful information.

    How do the Greens expect to win with these factors in play?

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.