Thursday, December 13, 2012

Abacus puts gap between Conservatives and NDP at two points

The latest poll by Abacus Data for Sun Media shows that the New Democrats are keeping it close in the race with the Conservatives, as the Liberals remain mired in third place.

With a particular focus on the personal numbers of Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair, I analyzed the poll for The Huffington Post Canada in today's article. Here, I'll focus on the voting intentions numbers in the poll.
Abacus was last in the field Nov. 9-11, and since then the Conservatives dropped two points to 34% support, while the New Democrats were up three points to 32%. In addition to the gap between the two parties, neither of these shifts in support appear statistically significant.

The Liberals were unchanged at 22%, as were the Greens at 6%.

A few notes on methodology and reporting. Kudos to Abacus Data for including their unweighted regional sample sizes in their poll report, which puts them in rare company (Ipsos-Reid is the only other pollster who does so, though they go the extra mile by including the unweighted samples for other demographic breakdowns). Abacus uses an online panel for their polling, but it isn't mentioned in their report whose panel it is. We can safely assume it is Angus-Reid's, however, though Abacus designs its own survey and weighs the data according to their own parameters.

It also needs to be pointed out that Abacus over-sampled Ontario (821 in all, rather than the 320 or so that would have normally been polled) and gave the province an appropriate weighting in the national percentages. This gives the Ontario numbers a much smaller margin of error than they usually would have in a poll of 1,505 Canadians, but the other regions' results have the sort of margin of error that would normally apply in a national poll of 1,000 - assuming a random sample, of course.

The Conservatives led in this poll in Ontario with 38%, and were trailed by the NDP at 29% and the Liberals at 27%. The Conservatives also led in Alberta with 63% to the NDP's 19% and the Liberals' 12%. In the Prairies, the Tories were narrowly in front with 43% to 37% for the NDP and 15% for the Liberals.

The New Democrats led in Quebec with 39%, one of their higher recent results. They were up nine points since Abacus's last survey. The Bloc Québécois trailed with 25%, with the Conservatives at 17% and the Liberals at 16%. That is a low result for them, compared to other recent polls. Are the Liberals faltering in Quebec? This is the second consecutive poll to put them at below 20% support, after the eight previous polls put them over 20%. Something to keep an eye on.

The New Democrats were also ahead in British Columbia with 43%, their highest result in any poll in the province since June. The Conservatives trailed with 31% while the Liberals were at 14% and the Greens at 11%.

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals were in front with 45%, a gain of 14 points since Abacus's last poll. This is actually an extraordinary, and likely outlier, result for the Liberals as we have to go back 137 polls to find a better number (in early April 2011). The Conservatives were second with 30% while the NDP had 24%, their lowest result in the last 45 surveys of the region. The results in Atlantic Canada, then, may not be worth very much, as is usually the case considering the small sample size.
With these numbers, and using the proposed boundaries of the 338-seat map, the Conservatives would win 141 seats. The New Democrats would fall just short with 128, while the Liberals would win 62, the Bloc six, and the Greens one.

This is one of the better results for the NDP we've seen, and demonstrates a much higher vote-efficiency than is usually the case. This is in large part because of two provinces: British Columbia and Quebec. Keeping close to 60 of Quebec's seats is essential for the NDP, while a strong showing in British Columbia and, to a lesser extent, the Prairies is also very important. If the NDP could do a little better in Ontario and with more plausible results in Atlantic Canada, a plurality of seats is clearly possible with little movement in the numbers.

That should be of great concern to the Conservatives, who normally have a bit of insulation in the numbers due to their dominance out west. Losing this many seats in B.C. and the Prairies, and taking less than 70 in Ontario, puts them in grave danger. A few shifts in the numbers due to polling error and a few variations in the seat projection due to its own inherent error, and you have the Tories winning fewer seats than the New Democrats (or a few more, of course).

But it has to be recognized that this poll, and the poll by Léger Marketing released over the weekend, is a little out of step with the consensus. Or, at least, the consensus from November when the Liberals were in a close fight for second. Have the Liberals really taken a hit over the last month or are methodological issues to blame for the discrepancy? We'll need more data to find out.

24 comments:

  1. I noticed a few provinces have had their final new boundaries released. Has your model been updated yet from the first revision of the boundaries?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not yet. I don't suspect the outcomes would be extraordinarily different, though.

      Delete
  2. I am not overly surprised that the Liberal bump has subsided. The Trudeau shine is tarnished a little and may dip further. Things are likely to return to the (relatively new) normal with the NDP and Conservatives in a virtual tie and the Libs in the low 20s.

    JKennethY

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is an online panel, correct? Then it can not have a statistical margin or error

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct, at least as is usually applied to telephone surveys. Though, the assumptions made to assign a margin of error to telephone surveys are quite the stretch as well.

      I'm reading Nate Silver's newest book and he makes a good argument for downplaying the importance of the MOE entirely and that a focus on a more Bayesian approach makes more sense. Ipsos-Reid seems to be moving in that direction.

      I think getting a rough idea of the statistical significance of movements between online polls by assuming a random sample is more useful than not doing so. Telephone surveys assume a random sample as well, though that is not exactly the case in reality.

      Delete
    2. What would a Bayesian approach look like when reporting the data?

      Delete
    3. It would just be a different way of calculating the margin of error. The current method is rather inflexible.

      Delete
  4. It would be helpful to know how the questions and context were presented. Given that there is a significant question about the favourability of party leaders, I wonder whether the lack of an actual leader results in somewhat lower Liberal results than you might see in a poll that stuck to the main question of who to vote for. Of course, one would have to wonder if the lack of an identifiable leader also is responsible for the high scores in Atlantic Canada. Maybe they're signifying a preference for a party without any of the existing leaders?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The voting intentions question would have been asked first, as is almost always the case in political polls. That is Polling 101.

      The questions themselves are there to see in Abacus's report, which is available via the first link in my post.

      Delete
  5. Although I am slightly inclined to the NDP and therefore pleased, I am surprised that the Grits have slipped back down in 2 polls now.

    How much do unpopular provincial Liberal governments wash over to federal intentions?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Charles Harrison13 December, 2012 14:02

    Which seats are Bloc?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eric given these results would you speculate on the seats, at least in a 308 house ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The seat projection for a 338 seat House is in the post... (for 308 seats, seems irrelevant)

      Delete
    2. Yep, my error.

      So that gives us NDP+Lib @ 190
      Cons @ 141

      I can live with that.

      Delete
  8. Hopefully we will get more pollsters weighing in before Christmas. It would be good to see if these two polls are outliers or if there has been a real change since November.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The polls will bounce around all over the place signifying not very much until all of the parties have a permanent leader for a few months.

    Also, it's the holidays and people don't have their minds focused on politics so their answers, so polls results at the moment are less meaningful.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anybody have any ideas on how the Greens can improve results. Certainly their one House member, voted Parliamentarian of the Year, has done really well ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Greens cannot improve unless people FEEL an environmental crisis at hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which will be never. Canada's environment is pristine and beautiful.

      Delete
    2. Neither of you get it !! The Greens have a solid record in the House, not just on the environment but on all areas. The need to capitalize on the award to Ms. Gray !!

      Delete
  12. First past the post kills the Greens. They will never rise above 5 seats unless FPTP is eliminated and PR installed. In the mean time, they are a spoiler helping to elect Harper.

    You mean Ms May?

    George Orwell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah meant May. Sorry

      Now as to electing Harper the current one seat means squat and in the next election will mean even less.

      Where they may take seats though, aside from the FPTP thing, is the Liberals. They are the most vulnerable as are Quebec Socialists !

      Delete
  13. The one seat is neither here nor there but removing 7% from the progressive vote across the country means a huge number of NDP and Libs lose close elections to Tories thanks to Ms May.

    George Orwell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No party is a spoiler. People vote for whoever they think best. It's a personal decision.

      There is no guarantee that Green voters will vote for the NDP or Liberals or any other party, they may decide to not vote.

      In BC the provincial NDP opposed the carbon tax for purely partisan reasons-so it makes little sense for a Green voter to vote for a party that clearly is not willing to implement moderate environmental reforms. Is that progressive?

      SMB

      Delete

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.