Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Liberals extend gap to two points

The Telegraph-Journal and its daily tracking poll from the Corporate Research Associates now has the Liberals up two points over the Progressive Conservatives, who have yet to show any life since the beginning of the campaign.At 43%, the Liberals have been steady for several days now. But the Progressive Conservatives are down one point to 41%. While the margin of error is still 3.7 points, this means the parties are tied. But the trends aren't in David Alward's favour.

The New Democrats pick up the extra point, and now stand at 11%. The Greens and People's Alliance are unchanged at 4% and 1%, respectively, while undecideds still number 28% of the electorate. There is still a lot of campaigning to be done.

While Shawn Graham's Premier number is down one to 26% (and down three from the start of the campaign), Alward is also down one, to 24% (down two since September 3). Again, it is the NDP's Roger Duguay who makes a gain, but only of one point. He stands at 7%, while Jack MacDougall of the Greens and Kris Austin of the PANB are at 5% and 2%, respectively.

The Liberals would win 29 seats with this poll, up one from yesterday. The Progressive Conservatives are down to 25, while the NDP remains at one seat.

The projection, as I've said, will not change until Thursday at the latest. That is because Thursday's CRA poll will include seven new days of polling that do not overlap with the current CRA poll in the projection. Of course, if another pollster comes forward with some polling numbers for the New Brunswick election, I will update the projection.

From the chart below, you can see that the Liberals are on a slow upswing at the expense of the Progressive Conservatives. If the numbers continue to move in this direction, Graham will cruise to his second term as Premier.


  1. Sorry in advance Eric. This is way OT.

    A great article on the "tough/dumb on crime" agenda, which will doubtlessly be criminally under-read.

  2. Wow that Ken MacQueen article didn't take long to fall apart. I'm on the first page and came across this gem:

    "if locking up more people for longer periods is the answer, the United States—with one-quarter of the world’s prisoners in its jails—should be the safest place on Earth."

    These kinds of comparisons always make me laugh because they don't take into account America's demographics.

    Comparing America's safety to somewhere like nearly all white, all middle class Norway is always good for a laugh.

    If America has more crime to begin with because of racial tensions and poverty then its response to crime should be measured against ITSELF and other factors should be accounted for.

    The fact that America needs better education and more opportunities for the poor doesn't mean its response to crime has failed.

    How do we know what America would look like if they had NOT taken this route ? That's impossible to answer because its a counter-factual scenario.

  3. Hmm second page arguments seem to be founded on statistical illiteracy.

    Crime rates are going down marginally, even though they are still up over 300% from when stats started being taken, so crime isn't really a problem is the argument being made.

    The problem with this argument is that we could always use LESS crime regardless of where the rate is.

    Similar argument being made for soft on crime judges. Since there aren't a lot of them we shouldn't worry.

    Ok but why not have ZERO of them ? Why settle ?

    Oh and to top it off some more American factoids! New York cut incarceration and crime fell? Could we get some context ? What other factors that impact crime rates also occurred at the same time ?

    The decade in which the states mentioned were cutting incarceration rates also was a decade of increasing growth and prosperity. Less crime when the economy is good. Perhaps that's relevant ??

    This article seems like a random jumble of poor logical thinking. It has too many holes in it to be even worth considering.

  4. AJR a very good article. Thanks for posting it.

    I have no problem with longer sentences for violent crime. I include sexual offences in that category. I'm in favour of some of the initiatives introduced such as the first degree murder offence for any homicide linked to organized crime as well as increased penalties for drive by shootings and home invasions.

    Property crimes need to be treated differently IMO. For property crimes, restitution and community service as well as serious fines might be more appropriate for all but but the most determined offenders.

    As we've already discussed drug offences could be reduced greatly by removing marijuana from criminal status. Some other drugs might also be legalized after careful review.


    Bookmaking is currently being offered in some form legally in most provinces. Why not legalize, regulate and tax it, as they do in Britain?

    By taking these measures not only does the system save money in terms of police work and jail time, it raises revenues through taxation. Further by legalizing these activities criminal enterprises are deprived of illicit profits. Seems to me like a winner all around.

    Instead of building prisons put the money into solving poverty. Shadow in his example of contrasting Norway and the US provided us with a great example of the causes of crime. Unlike him I'd venture that real difference between Norway and the US isn't racial problems but income inequality.

    Solving Canada's growing income inequality would go a long way to reducing crime.

  5. Earl historically a big part of income inequality has been based on barriers to success that minorities face because of prejudice or poor education. So its hard to disentangle the two factors.

    It just needs to be pointed out that a country like America, with a 12% of its citizens descended from slaves, with 30 million mexican immigrants, and on top of that immigrants from all over the world there are going to be unique social challenges.

    People who directly compare American stats to European stats and then say America has failed and Europe is great just don't get it.

    Lets see how the Scandinavian model holds up to mass immigration ?

    They're already freaking out about Polish people in Denmark. The Dutch and Swiss can't stand the Muslims (long history of not liking "turks" and "jews" in much of Europe). France is about to deport masses of roma.

    These lily white European countries (including us to a slightly lesser degree) shouldn't be so critical of the land of opportunity.


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.