Thursday, June 3, 2010

New EKOS Poll: 5.5-pt Conservative Lead

Like the cleaning of a house, it never ends: EKOS has its new poll out for this week. The biggest change is a drop for the Conservatives.Compared to last week, the Conservatives are down 2.2 points to 31.7%. The Liberals were not the biggest beneficiary, though they did gain 0.5 points to 26.2%. It was the New Democrats who saw the biggest gain, 0.9 points to 17.4% - a high result for them with EKOS.

The Greens are down 0.4 points to 11.5% and the Bloc Québécois is up 0.9 to 10.3%.

In Ontario, the Tories dropped five points to 34.3%. The Liberals gained three points to 34.2%, while the NDP gained one point to reach 16.8%. Ontario seems to be the major source of the Liberal and Conservative shifts. The Liberals lead in Toronto with 35.6% while the Conservatives are ahead in Ottawa with 39.1%.

In Quebec, the Bloc has gained four points and leads with 40.7%. The Liberals are way behind with 19.6%, down one point. The Conservatives follow with 15.3%, also down one, and the NDP is at 11%, down two. The Bloc leads in Montreal with 42.6%.

In British Columbia, the Tories are up three to 33.6%. The NDP has also gained three points and has 26.9%. The Liberals are down three to 19.8%, while the Greens are stable at 16.8%. The Conservatives lead in Vancouver with 33.9%.

The Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada with 33.6%, down five. The NDP is up seven to 23.4%. The Conservatives lead in Alberta with 54.6% and in the Prairies with 39.4%.

The Conservatives win 62 seats in the West, 44 in Ontario, 5 in Quebec, and 10 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 121 - a big drop from the 137 seats the Tories were projected to win in EKOS's poll last week.

The Liberals win 16 seats in the West and North, 46 in Ontario, 14 in Quebec, and 18 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 94, a gain of seven seats from last week.

The Bloc wins 54 seats in Quebec, thanks to the very low support for the Liberals and Conservatives in the province.

The NDP wins 17 seats in the West and North, 16 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 4 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 39, a gain of seven.

With a combined 133 seats, it is possible the Liberals and NDP would be able to form a government. While some might question the legitimacy of two smaller parties forming government, the legitimacy of a government with only 31.7% support is just as questionable, especially considering this would be a drop of six points from 2008.

47 comments:

  1. Is that where they dropped below 20% in Quebec peter? whoops, that is the other party that support is slipping for.

    Hey Eric, how does Ekos use weighted averages in their daily data tables.

    The tories:
    32.3,33.1,31.6,31.4,33.5
    but a total of only 31.7... right at the bottom edge of that polling.

    The liberals:
    23.8,23.8,26.1,25.8,26.5.....
    26.2 is right at the top, only 1 out of 5 days did they exceed that, and nowhere near the amount they were below the other 4 days.

    The rest of the numbers for the parties in the daily look like they could end up averaging to the number they got.

    Do they weight each day based on the number of people polled? When I do that I still get over 32 for the tories and under 26 for the liberals??

    I's don't understand :(

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also don't understand why they split the direction movement into 2 categories: Government and Country direction.

    Isn't one determining the direction of the other?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eric?

    Is it possible that the coalition idea is catching on with Canadians as an alternative to the Tory dominance ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Barcs,

    As always, you can't look into the detailed breakdowns for your answers. EKOS gives us the raw numbers, but their national and provincial numbers are those done after all of their calculations.

    So, assume they polled 400 people on each day. You'd think each would be given equal weight, right?

    No, because they might have polled too many men on Day 1 and too few on Day 2, or too many people from Alberta but not enough from Ontario, or too many old people and not enough young people, or too many women from Toronto but not enough men from Calgary, etc. etc.

    ---Isn't one determining the direction of the other?

    Yeah, I don't get that either. I don't think the "country" result is very important.

    Peter,

    ---Is it possible that the coalition idea is catching on with Canadians as an alternative to the Tory dominance ?

    It could be, hard to tell though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ---Isn't one determining the direction of the other?

    Yeah, I don't get that either. I don't think the "country" result is very important.


    There is a certain amount of connection between the two agreed, but they are also independent to a certain amount.

    In this case I suspect, with employment and business gaining, they think the country is on the right path. The Govt however is still carrying the abortion issue, for example, and that's viewed as a wrong direction. Social conservatism doesn't sell well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sanity-checking the Green numbers of greatest interest, the national figure of 11.5% looks consistent with recent EKOS polls. It might be low by 0.1-0.2%; it's certainly not high.

    By contrast, the BC 16.8% is probably still slightly optimistic even though it's down from last week's 17.3%. It's not wildly off, though; perhaps a point high? In any case, for the Green Party the individual ridings are far more important than the province as a whole. Or as Frank Graves observed, In British Columbia, however, the Greens are poised to make it a four-way race. In multi-party contests like that, it takes fewer votes to win, and predicting the outcome of particular seats can be difficult. If trends continue, Elizabeth May could be in a happy place come the fall election.

    The reported 12% Green support in Ontario is in line with recent weeks. It's hard to say whether it's high or low and it's neither by much.

    Overall, Green support in Green battlegrounds is fairly realistic in this poll. As usual, that's in the context of EKOS only. Apply personal pollster prejudice pixie dust as desired.

    In the other party national sanity check, the Tories aren't as low as the 31.7% reported this week, but they could have dropped a bit from last week's 33.9%. I'll give them a wet-finger 33%, but it's hard to call with that much of a difference. The Grits may well have found their base; 26.2% is believable. The Dippers at 17.4% are a notch high; let's call it 17%, which is still a respectable number. And the Bloc have been on a gentle climb for a few months so their 10.3% looks very realistic.

    In the long-term picture all three smaller parties have been very slowly trending up while the Government Two have been dancing a declining tango. A majority will require the alignment of Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn and Barnard's Star. Hint to MPs: Share the Sandbox.

    ReplyDelete
  7. By contrast, the BC 16.8% is probably still slightly optimistic even though it's down from last week's 17.3%. It's not wildly off, though; perhaps a point high?

    John, don't you think your predictions are a bit optimistic as well? The provincial Greens might poll well at 15% as well, but they never reach it, or even come close. I'd put Green support in BC more in line with provincial support - anywhere between 8-12%. It'll be a healthy number, to be sure, but 15%? Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's right for years the BC Green party has polled 15-16% in provincial vote surveys. But then in the election last year they crashed down to 8% - even less than they got in 2005 and that was in a two-party race as opposed to the federal three-party race. We were led to believe that the 2009 election this golden opportunity for the BC Greens because supposedly all these environmentalist NDP supporters were upset at their party for opposing the carbon tax and would cast a protest Green vote. Didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I really doubt the Greens are going anywhere in the next election.

    Their support plummits in non-prompted polls, to what I think are reasonable percentages for them, and Elizabeth May won't get half as much attention in the next election as she did in 2008.

    I think there will be more people focusing on getting the Conservatives out in the next election then voting for a fringe party.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eric

    I totally agree that if these results were to actually occur in an election that the Liberal and NDP have every right to form a government with 133 seats to 121 seats and 43.6% of the vote to 31.7%.

    This would be an awful place for Canada to end up, much worse than a Coalition or Liberal majority or even the current large CPC minority.

    There is a real problem as they would have to rely on CPC support (or BLOC) to pass budgets.

    Any plans to shut down the Oil Sands, raise corporate taxes and make the BIG Banks into credit unions would have to be opposed by the CPC. Then the BLOC hold the balance of power in the HoC.

    The only realistic way that the deficit is controlled is by a majority government or a government that acts like it has a majority.

    The Martin/Chretien Liberals would have never gotten the federal deficit under control if they had to make appeasements to the NDP, never mind appeasing both the NDP and either the BLOC or CPC.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John good news for you Greens:

    http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T423.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who can stand to read the comments on most newssites? Bigots, blowhards and morons, the lot of them. And the CBC website is worst than most.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bigots, blowhards and morons,

    Ahh? You mean the Canadian public??

    Then why are you on here with your version of the above ??

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, he's right. Comments on news sites are horrible, for the most part. There is a level of ignorance and stupidity rarely seen in creation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is a level of ignorance and stupidity rarely seen in creation.

    Possibly but that doesNOT mean they haven't the RIGHT to post.

    Further who are you or I to say that what they think is irrelevant or inconsequential??

    Just because we are a little more politically savvy does NOT give us the RIGHT to say what they post is CRAP !!

    In the particular case here the virtually universal rejection of any Afghan extension certainly fits very well with the Canadian public thinking. 'Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  16. We have as much right to say what they post is crap as they do to post their crap.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We have as much right to say what they post is crap as they do to post their crap.

    Actually if you believe in Free Speech we don't! Because as soon as we say that stuff is CRAP we intentionally bias others against what is posted. This goes against Freedom Of Thought IMO

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's not how freedom of speech works.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That's not how freedom of speech works.

    Then what's your definition ?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wikipedia's definition (i.e., the definition) will do fine: Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation.

    Saying someone's opinion is stupid is part of that.

    Don't step on my freedom of speech!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Saying someone's opinion is stupid is part of that.

    Yes it is. BUT you classed and entire group of people as stupid, moronic and posting crap even though you have read none of their work. Thus using a potted blast.

    That borders on slander or libel.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh my, well I hope babalou, Libtarded, and Slackbladder don't sue.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, and I apologize to Mad Mom, geek2009, and The Salami if they were offended.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Peter,

    Who said they don't have the right to make bigoted, blowhard or moronic comments? I didn't. I just exercised my right to freedom of expression to characterize such comments (accurately) as being bigoted, blowhard and moronic.

    Of course, you're free to disagree with me (and to characterize my posts, inaccurately, as being bigoted, blowhard and moronic), though I'm not sure I'd want to be defending the integrity of much of the crap on the CBC website. Of course, if you feel that my criticism of CBC posters prevents you from thinking clearly, well, what does that say about your abilities to think critically?

    And Peter, you might want to do some reading on what constitutes libel (not slander, that refers to defemation that is transitory, such as speach, rather than published) and some of the defenses thereto (such as fair comment if not truth), before you start accusing people of libel or slander. If nothing else you'll avoid embarassing yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  25. " I just exercised my right to freedom of expression to characterize such comments (accurately) as being bigoted, blowhard and moronic. "

    No you just showed your own " bigoted, blowhard and moronic " viewpoint.

    The instant you describe anybody else's opinion as you have you describe yourself as the same.

    Just to get back to the point. if you had bothered to read even one or two pages of the comments you would have discovered that they exactly matched the last poll I saw, posted on here, where 80-90% of the Canadian public wanted the troops out of Afghanistan.

    But of course they are " bigoted, blowhard and moronic. " !!

    ReplyDelete
  26. "No Elected Senators, Tory Senator"

    In other words.... he doesn't think he can get elected back to the cushy job... or doesn't want to risk it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Peter, the mission hasn't been extended yet.

    Members from the tories, the liberals, and the NDP ALL spoke to leaving the door open. Not just the government (who do not hold a majority of the committee seats 5 conservative,..less a chair, 2 lib, 2 bloc, and a NDP. The government gets voted out every time unless someone agrees with them).

    Further to the mission. Combat is not the Canadians problem. Accidents account for more deaths than actual combat deaths, and they are just as likely to happen back here in Canada. Our troops are among the best, and they have acquitted themselves well showing great skill on the battlefield.

    The our troops face is mainly in IED's and suicide bombers. They would face the same problem whatever they do anywhere in Afghanistan. Reconstruction, training, walking around talking to people..... Anything outside the compound.

    I am proud that our troops have the courage and willingness to help others in need, even at risk to their lives. And if protecting civilians and areas under reconstruction to make peoples lives better... livable.... Then I am in favor of extending that mission as long as things have a good chance of improving for people.

    ReplyDelete
  28. No Elected Senators, Tory Senator

    Pierre Claude Nolin....

    a Tory senator appointed (patronage... he was a organizer from back in the leadership campaign) by Mulroney 17 years ago... mandatory retirement age 15 years still away.

    32 years of job security @ $130,000 yr (2009 base salary)

    ReplyDelete
  29. With a combined 133 seats, it is possible the Liberals and NDP would be able to form a government.

    Sounds as if the Tories polls are showing the same thing as Harper is out there pushing his "losers don't govern" mantra even in the UK when he met Cameron.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Members from the tories, the liberals, and the NDP ALL spoke to leaving the door open.

    Yes they did on Power Play last night but not one of them said anything about a "combat" mission. It was all about training and support.

    Which literally means a very few people. Training the Army and police and trying to sort out the Govt system. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well Peter, here's a sample of some of the comments that I would characterize as being "bigoted, blowhard, and moronic". Feel free to defend them:

    Donvanvliet: "The World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives. This has been proven in a number of ways: nano-thermite found in the dust, the fact that two 110 story buildings disintegrated in a matter of seconds, molten metal found in the basements, and that WTC7 even collapsed at all."

    brazeau boy: "Then it was the C.R.A.P. that changed the role of our soldiers and put them in the middle of the war's theatre."

    danellecpl: "This all because of this unconstitutional build of Euro-Americano Empire. What this empire want from Afghanistan? Why must make us standing there waiting to be sacrificed.
    This theory of Euro-Americano Empire may not be true, but the fact is, these MPs of Canada speak for Nato declaring that we can possibly change the military mission from ground combat to security training in charge."

    Adscam: "Is Ignatieff still Liberal leader? Never hear anything from him only Ray and Layton. Have they already formed the Red coalition?"

    William Wallace: "Hey RAE go away far away maybe to the USA enlist if you want to be in Afghanistan, it's not our country, twit. never was never will be"

    Doggone: "What a crock of shit, not one of the parties gives a damn about our soldiers. They need a break, this mission has taken it,s tole on our young men. All politians are scum!"

    Measwell: "all in all though it does make sense. The CPP has alot invested in weaponry and you guys want benefits right?"

    And I think it's fair to say that's a fairly representative sample of some of the cretins who post on the CBC comment pages. Maybe you think that's what passes for intelligent thoughtful discourse? I don't.


    (Eric, my apologies for polluting your blog with this nonsense)

    ReplyDelete
  32. It certainly is nonsense. And I think this discussion is exhausted, hopefully we can move on.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Éric, in the spirit of moving on to more relevant discussions, have you considered posting EKOS city trend graphs?

    The city numbers have been so noisy that it's hard to see meaningful signals, even from a few polls in succession. However, the series are now long enough that real trends might be visible.

    So do think about doing this in the 25th and 26th hours of your day...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sure, I could do something like that eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Calgary Grit" supports CPC - Lpoc merger!

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/04/dan-arnold-liberal-tory-merger-is-quickest-route-to-power/

    ReplyDelete
  36. Election:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/opposition-parties-threaten-tories-over-afghan-detainee-documents/article1591663/

    ReplyDelete
  37. Earl:

    More like putting the pressure on the Tories to get the agreement.

    Can't see much happening before the House shuts down even if their new deadline isn't met.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Barcs

    In other words.... he doesn't think he can get elected back to the cushy job.

    You obviously don't understand the proposal. There is no worry about him having to stand for election.

    The elections only apply to replacement Senators, not incumbents.

    In other words when a Senator retires or dies a replacement has to be found. Instead of appointment as now an election is held. The resulting electee is then appointed by the PM.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Earl, you're about a day behind in the news.

    Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc: "I think we saw again considerable progress today. I mean we’re now down to looking at details of wording. The government is showing a considerable willingness to adjust the language when we make a compelling case as to why a certain phrase or a certain paragraph should be altered."

    (http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/04/the-new-new-deadline-on-afghan-detainee-documents/#more-130965)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Compared the recent polls, this is a shift purely from the Conservatives to the Greens. Since I don't think that's ever a likely event, aren't we just seeing another example of Greens as none-of-the-above on an Ekos poll?

    This might suggest that CPC support is softer than the other parties, but this drop looks odd.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi Carl:

    Hadn't read that. I was out of date. Thanks for posting it.

    Regards,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ira: Compared the recent polls, this is a shift purely from the Conservatives to the Greens. Since I don't think that's ever a likely event...

    I have trouble seeing a straight Tory-to-Green movement in the graph on page 2 of the latest EKOS survey, but even if it was there, it wouldn't be a head-scratcher.

    It could be simple poll variability. It could be a combination of Tory-to-Grit and Grit-to-Green movement. It could combine Tory-to-dunno and dunno-to-Green. Or, shock and amazement, it could actually show a Tory-to-Green shift.

    Greens stress sustainable policies both financially and environmentally, grassroots politics and individual rights. This sounds like a natural home for Tories who are gradually souring on their old party.

    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.