Monday, May 11, 2015

April 2015 federal polling averages

Believe it or not, while pollsters were furiously surveying Albertans throughout the month of April, they also managed to conduct some 10 national and two regional federal polls, surveying over 23,000 Canadians in all. The results mark a continuation of a trend we saw last month, namely the Conservatives holding the lead as the Liberals falter.

The Conservatives averaged 32.4% support in the month of April, up a bare 0.1 points since March. Removing rounding errors, this was their first outright lead since March 2013 - the month before Justin Trudeau became Liberal leader.

The Liberals were down one point to 30.5%, their worst since March 2013. It was also their ninth consecutive month of decrease or stagnation, from a high of 39%.

The New Democrats made the biggest jump, picking up 1.8 points to average 23% support, their best since October 2014.

The Greens were down 0.5 points to 7.4%, while the Bloc Québécois was also down 0.5 points, to 4.3%. Another 2.4% of Canadians said they would vote for an independent candidate or another party.

There has not been much change in the range of results the Liberals and Conservatives have managed in the polls (29% to 36% for the Tories, 28% to 35% for the Liberals), but the NDP's range has improved. From 19% to 23% in March, the NDP ranged between 21% and 25% in April.

The Conservatives maintained their lead in British Columbia with 30.8% support, up 0.6 points from last month. The Liberals were down 0.1 point to 28.5%, while the New Democrats were down 0.9 points to 24.7%. The Greens put up their best number since March 2014, with a 0.6-point gain to 13.6%.

The shift in provincial voting intentions in Alberta was echoed somewhat at the federal level, as the Conservatives plummeted 5.4 points to just 43.6%. That is their lowest I have on record since at least January 2009, and likely very long before that. The New Democrats were up 6.3 points to 23.5%, their best on record, even better than in 2012 when the party was leading in national polls. The Liberals, down 1.2 points to 22.9%, fell to third place for the first time since January 2013. The Greens were down 0.7 points to 5.9%.

There was little movement in the Prairies, where the Conservatives were up 0.6 points to 41.8%. The Liberals were up 0.8 points to 30.1%, while the NDP gained 1.1 points to reach 20.3%. The Greens were down 2.2 points to 6.1%.

The Conservatives have been holding steady in Ontario for the last six months, averaging 36.7% in April (an increase of 0.5 points since March). The Liberals were down 2.6 points to 33.5%, their worst since July 2013. The NDP posted its best result in six months, with a gain of 1.8 points to 20.2%. The Greens were down 0.4 points to 7%.

The New Democrats led outright for the first time in Quebec since June 2014, with a gain of 2.4 points to 28.4%. The Liberals were down 0.4 points to 26.2%, their worst since March 2013. The Conservatives were up 0.3 points to 21.1%, and have posted results around 20% to 21% for the last four months. The Bloc was down 1.6 points to 17.8%, while the Greens were down 0.6 points to 4.9%.

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals were down 3.7 points to 45.2%, their worst since the end of 2013. The Conservatives were unchanged at 24.4%, while the NDP was up three points to 20.7%. The Greens were up 0.8 points to 8%, their best since August 2011. Coming just before the Green Party elected its first MLA in Prince Edward Island, this might not be a coincidence.

Based on these support levels, the Conservatives would win about 143 seats, down one seat from March. The Liberals would win 113 seats, a drop of four seats, while the NDP would win 79, a gain of nine. The Greens and Bloc would win two and one seats, respectively.

The Conservatives dropped seats in Alberta, but made them up in Ontario.

The Liberals were down in Ontario and Quebec.

The New Democrats made gains in Alberta and, especially, Quebec.

This was a bad month for the Liberals. Though the Conservatives widened their national lead, it was primarily by default. The Tories dropped significantly in Alberta and only made modest gains in the rest of the country. The Liberals, though, were down by more than a point in Alberta, more than two points in Ontario, and almost four points in Atlantic Canada.

The beneficiary was the NDP, with big gains in Alberta, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, as well as respectable pick-ups in the Prairies and Ontario. A drop in British Columbia is a bit of a problem, as it should be a decent province for the party, but this is the first month since July 2012 that the NDP has averaged at least 20% in every region of the country. The question is whether they can maintain these strong numbers - but the party is certainly positioning itself well for the coming election.


  1. I question the wisdom of Ekos polling federally at the very end of the Alberta campaign (even on election day). Their Alberta numbers are likely badly skewed by Albertan's provincial voting intentions.

    I'm talking about the May 5 poll, of course.

    1. In the context of their polling every week, I think it makes good sense. They suggested in their commentary that the NDP were already rising before the provincial election, but it will be interesting to see whether or not they can sustain or improve on their May 5th numbers federally. At any rate, that they're polling weekly will actually help us to see whether or not your hypothesis is true!

    2. True.

      I suppose I'm just warning against drawing any premature conclusions, but that should really be a warning that comes with every new poll.

  2. We saw in the Alberta election that PC votes exceeded the polls by 4-5%. If that same effect persists, the CPC are very close to another majority.

    The recent LPC erosion in Ontario has helped the NDP seat projection instead of the CPC. The CPC needs more vote splits in the GTA to repeat 2011.

    But the loss of up to 6 Alberta seats could offset CPC gains in the GTA.

    Duffy, Khadr, the Ontario sex curriculum and who knows what else will all be moving the meter.

    We just saw the debates win for Notely. Who will be the winner between Trudeau, Mulcair and Harper?

    1. The polls also under-reported Conservative support in the UK by 3-4% ahead of the election. Of course it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges but, it will be interesting to see if the "trend" continues. I agree Harper is closing in on a second majority, campaigns are crucial but, neither Trudeau nor Mulcair look like the saviours they were touted to be.

    2. Trudeau never did.

      But I think Mulcair has a chance to capitalise on Liberal weakness.

    3. so the Wildrose plus the PC vote totaled 52 %.

      It would be extremely hard to imagine:

      1) That if you vote Wildrose / PC in this election that you would not vote CPC in the fall.

      2) That there were any NDP/Liberal voters that stayed at home,

      This really calls into question the federal polls that have the CPC at 45 %. The extra 7% that this poll of 1,481,477 very very likely voters gives to the CPC would provide (I guess) another 5-6 seats in 308's seat projection pushing the most likely total to 150+.and the high end total to 170 or so.

    4. Mulcair may have a chance to capitalise on Liberal weakness but, how much will that "success" be overshadowed by losing 20-30 seats in Quebec-even if Mulcair performs well it is hard to see how he can match much less surpass Layton's performance in 2011.

      Regarding GNB's point; polls also under-estimated the BC Liberals in 2013.

      This leads to the question: Do pollsters have a general bias toward conservatives? or Do conservative voters simply have a higher frequency of voting than their contemporaries on the "left" , "centre" and "centre-left"?

    5. I think if Mulcair can show the left-wing voters an attractive alternative to the Liberal's economic plan, then he can definitely capitalize on some gains. I really do not see him attacking Harper as much as Trudeau. Harper will of course focus on the Liberals, attempting to woo the "centre" votes. I do not see the Liberals being left with oxygen. Assuming the Liberals are at around 30% popular support when the writ gets dropped, I can realistically see Harper getting 2-3%, and Mulcair around 7-8% directly from the Liberals. This will likely result in another Conservative majority (vote-splitting), NDP will likely remain as official opposition (Quebec seats are still uncertain with a four-way vote). The Liberals will probably end up picking up 25-35 seats (largely from Atlantic Canada).

    6. @Pete, first of all, the model is only showing a drop of 10-20 NDP Quebec seats, and the result would be the same as the CPC dropping 10-20 seats in Ontario. It doesn't matter so much as where, but the total. I'd think it would do any good to loosen their dependence on the vote preference of any one monolithic province.

    7. BCVoR,

      You're making a big assumption that PC voters and WR voters are interchangeable which plays into the now defunct narrative that Albertans are inherently right-wing voters. there's as much reason to say that these voters would turn to the NDP or (god forbid) the Liberals if they feel change is needed.

      to the point of the OP. That the polls underestimated PC support by 5% isn't evidence of bias only that the data was reflective of the time the poll was conductive. Further more we should be looking a trends not numbers. Numbers are not accurate just look at EKOS; in BC their last 4 polls had the Greens at 15,14,20 and now 12%... not exactly accurate.

      But looking at trends (nationally in this case) we see the Cons are steady neither rising or falling overly much, The Liberals support is very fluid but trending down and the NDP has been gaining support slowly but steadily.

    8. @mapleson,

      Alright the NDP lose 20 seats in Quebec, 20% of their caucus! It is not the same as the Tories losing 20 seats because the Tories can make up those losses in a variety of different theatres, not so the NDP that is heavily dependent on a single province to remain Official Opposition and to have any hope of forming government.

    9. The percent of caucus is inmaterial, but makes for good headlines. If the BQ go from 2 seats to 3 seats they have a 50% increase of their caucus! Between 2008 and 2011 the CPC went from 10 seats in Quebec to 5 seats, 50% decrease in the province!

      What theatres are there for the Tories to make up seats lost in Ontario? They currently have 58% seats in BC, 96% in AB, 93% in SK, 79% in MB, 69% in ON, 7% in QC, 80% in NB, 36% in NS, 25% in PEI, 14% in NL and 67% in the north. The model currently only shows an improvement in Quebec from the status quo and a 10% lose of caucus size overall.

      It's not this election that the NDP should be hoping to win, but the next one. If they can be a large party in a minority framework, then Official Opposition status is less important.

  3. With these numbers, my model gives:

    145 CPC
    100 LPC
    86 NDP
    5 BQ
    2 GPC

    By region, it is:

    21 LPC
    7 CPC
    4 NDP

    39 NDP
    20 LPC
    14 CPC
    5 BQ

    59 CPC
    41 LPC
    21 NDP

    17 CPC
    6 LPC
    5 NDP

    27 CPC
    4 NDP
    3 LPC

    British Columbia
    20 CPC
    12 NDP
    8 LPC
    2 GPC

    1 CPC
    1 LPC
    1 NDP

    Compared to the previous month, the CPC is up 5, the LPC down 10, the NDP up 10, the BQ down 5 and the GPC is stable. In the Atlantic, the LPC lost 2 seats, on to the CPC and NDP each. In Québec, the NDP gained 5 seats and the CPC 1, whereas the LPC lost 1 and the BQ 5. In Ontario, the CPC is up 4 and the NDP up 2, while the LPC lost 6. In Alberta, the CPC and LPC both lost 1 seat, the 2 going to the NDP. In the Prairies, British Columbia and the Territories, all parties are stable.

    1. And nobody gets a majority. Sheesh !!

  4. Sorry but there is no possible way that the Conservatives will win 58 seats in Ontario. It's not 2011 and people are not going to vote for the Cons in order to keep out the NDP. And Harper is far less popular than even Hudak was, so the seat total makes no sense. The Anybody But Conservative movement is so incredibly strong in Ontarioland, that you might as well add 50% to Liberal or NDP canditdate leading in an urban area. Yes, the Conservatives will win the rural vote in southern Ontario, but that's about it. Unless people accidentally voted for Wynne instead of Hudak in the last election, the PC's are not going to win any more than 25 seats in Ontario unless something fundamentally changes.

    1. He's not saying they will. He's saying they would, at these levels of support.

      Campaigns matter. If the Liberals and NDP effectively campaign on a Stop Harper platform, and they can eliminate the vote-splitting that will elect Conservatives across Ontario, then they can keep the Tory seat total down.

      But the levels of support shown in these polls show that the vote-splitting is alive and well.

      Campaigns matter.

    2. Oh boy are you ever wrong! If you vote Trudeau you'll pay more in taxes! It's as simple as that. Don't forget Ontario has 121 seats next time so 58 seats represents less than half. Maybe Harper isn't very popular in downtown Toronto but, among the middle class he still retains popularity. Ontarians are known for embracing change, hence their decision to re-elect a tired, corrupt and disorganised Provincial government last year. The Tories won 24 seats with 31% of the vote in 2004 and polling 5% higher today, so, your statement really borders on the nonsensical.

    3. From 70+ seats to 25? What are you smoking? The CPC is competitive everywhere except the very down town core of Toronto. And they also have strng candidates in almost every region.
      Mid town Toronto: Oliver, possibly Doug Ford
      GTA: O'Toole, Alexander, Parm Gill, Fantino, Perkins etc.
      Ottawa: Polievre, Galipeau, etc.
      Rest of Ontario: Leitch, Van Loan, Nicholson, etc.

      Less than 50 would be a bad result

    4. Perhaps the low taxes of the conservatives are neither responsible or sustainable. It's always easy to be the good guy and lower the taxes, and harder to get people to agree that they are necessary.

    5. @ 11matt11
      Perhaps you live in an urban riding. The Conservative support, although diminished since May 2011 is still quite strong in Ontario. The Conservatives are leading (or are at least competitive) in all suburban and rural ridings of the province. They won 73 of 106 (69%) of all seats in 2011 with 44.4% popular vote. Statistically, the Conservatives are well positioned to come close to the 2011 result even with today's level of support (new seats, vote splitting and good candidates). Even if they win 55-60 seats in October, it is possible they will scrape a slim majority (extra seats in Quebec). If Harper gets a couple of points (3-4%) from Liberals and the NDP splits the support more or less equally with the Liberals, then Conservatives can win north of 77-80 seats.

    6. First of all, it is not unreasonable for Harper to win 50-60 seats in Ontario. The provincial level and federal level rarely line up and people are more willing to vote by results, not party lines.

      Second, with median Canadian individual income under $35K and family income under $75K, you probably need to reassess your definition of "middle class". If you use 20% chunks of the population with the labels lower, lower middle, middle, upper middle, and upper (with a subgroup of superrich), then the cut off points for individuals are approximately $13K, $23K, $40K, and $66K. Harper helps the "middle class" only if you define it as those between top 15% to top 1% and only earn twice to 8 times as much as the median, and upper class are the otherwise superrich.

    7. Yannick - They're not necessary. As Stephen Harper himself said, when he was President of the National Citizens' Coalition, "There is no public policy problem to which the proper response is higher taxes."

    8. Mapleson - Those numbers don't look right. Our GDP per capita is over $50K - how are you seeing a median wage is the low 30s?

      Furthermore, I personally derive tremendous benefit from Harper's tax policies, even though my household income does fall right around your stated median.

    9. Mapleson,

      You can divide the population into quintiles all you want but, there is no doubt Harper has helped middle class and even lower class Canadians save on tax. At 66K that leaves 18,5K for potential income splitting-as you point out these people are not rich yet, would save roughly $1,400 in income tax per year thanks to the Conservatives! it really is as simple as that to explain why the Liberals are in deep trouble.

      I also question your numbers they seem awfully low to me. A person earning 10$ per hour would almost fall into your "lower middle" quintile.

    10. Pete, et al…

      Was there not an election that ended just last week that precisely demonstrated Conservative commitment to lower taxes?! For those folks who missed reality when it slipped by, former Alberta Premier Jim Prentice proposed a budget with 50+ tax increases – all of which were configured to disproportionately impact the poor and middle class, while leaving the wealthy comparatively unscathed and not touching corporations at all. And PCAA policies have overwhelmingly been in lockstep with federal Conservative policies. It just goes to show that when it suits them, they will tax, and tax heavily. On the other hand, in days of tax reductions, how do you suppose the services we all need get paid for? Conservative tax reductions may win votes, but they simply shift the cost of services onto the individual, with very negative impacts for most people. Higher taxes (when applied equitably) allow the burden of education, health care, transportation, and other services to be shared, so no one is impoverished when making use of them. A low tax regime, however, means that the burden is squarely on your shoulders. You may have heard of the United States health care 'system' - the most expensive, least efficient health care with the worst outcomes in the First World (Cuba! has a lower infant mortality rate than the US) - it's the product (in part) of a low tax environment. Examples of people filing for bankruptcy to pay for medical bills are ubiquitous. If you love toll roads, then keep on supporting tax reduction, because really – only people who use roads should have to pay for them, right? You want a decent education for your kid, open up your wallet, bud, because a flat tax system or a low tax system isn’t going to pay for it. And when your oil sector job goes Poof! you’ll just home school, right?

    11. It's easy to pull down the median income if you count children (their income is typically $0).

      It's always important to examine the details f any calculation.

    12. Sorry to my Right-wing friends but the Prime Minister and his government have done little to help anyone outside of the top 15% of income earners.

      At best you trying to support your partisan opinions based on no evidence. And Ira using Harper's words while leading a right-wing lobby group isn't proof of policy. Many of our problems are a direct result of short falls in tax revenue thanks to successive Neo-Con/Neo-Lib governments since 1993. For the average citizen (not to mention the poor and disadvantaged) the last 9 years of Tory rule has been a unmitigated disaster.

      Now getting back to the topic, I don't think the Tories will take 60+ seats in Ontario this time around, but if the polls are correct they'll do much better then 25. They have an impressive ground game in much of the 905 and in eastern Ontario but the Liberals have been making a lot of noise and the NDP is very active in places like Brampton, Mississauga and Scarborough and have potential in smaller cities like London, Waterloo, and Barrie. So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that we see a 50/40/30 C/L/N split in seats.

      But there is always the possibility that vote splits will work in the Tory favor and push them over 60 seats. However on the face of it I see a lot of discontentment in Ontario with the Conservatives and most of the the voters who pushed them over the edge in 2011 don't seem to be willing to repeat.

      We will see though, campaigns do matter especial after Alberta.

    13. Ira,

      It's the StatsCan figure:
      GDP per capita is an average, while my figure was median. Basically, this issue is our income gap.

      If you prefer the median household income is $74K.

      I used quintiles as the most acceptable definition of "middle class" since everyone seems to think they are part of it. I'm not sure where you're getting your savings from or the number of people affected, but if you read the PBO report income splitting helps 15% of Canadians, with the strong bias towards higher income families.

    14. chirumenga,

      You are quite ridiculous and incorrect; Income tax for example wqas only to be raised in the two highest brackets for Prentice's now stillborn budget! hence your thought: "all of which (Prentice's tax increases)were configured to disproportionately impact the poor and middle class" is completely and utterly wrong as is the following phrase! It just goes to show that socialism while a disprove political and economic theory still has the best spin at least for the unlearned or semi-literate since, every major newspaper in Alberta noted which tax brackets would be subject to higher tax.

      The American healthcare system is great-if you have insurance and or money. However your conclusion is utter nonsesne that: (Cuba! has a lower infant mortality rate than the US) - it's the product (in part) of a low tax environment. Obviously those high infant mortality numbers are far more likely to be caused as a result of a mostly private healthcare system not high or low taxes! Or it could be the result of fetal alcohol syndrome or a thousand other different maladies; making general unsubstantiated observations makes little sense.

    15. Mapleson,

      66k -11K (personal exemption) =55K(taxable income). From 0-$37,500 tax rate is 15%, 37,501-74K tax rate is 23%. So, 55K-37,500=17,500 that can be redistributed to the lower income. 8%(the tax savings)(17,5000)=$1,400

      If more Canadian families were a little more tax savvy and numerate many more would benefit. The idea that only the "rich" benefit from income splitting is just that; an idea which when posed against rational thought becomes impermanent. Any couple where the individuals reside in different tax brackets can benefit if even just a little.

    16. FCP,

      So in your scenario, it's one partner earning $66K and one partner earning under $28.5K (less than full time at minimum wage)? It can only be redistributed if there is a large income gap between the partners and you happen to fall on the wrong side of the gap.

      The number of potential families who can benefit as calculated by the PBO report is independant of the number that actually optimize their returns. Only if you have an earner in the top 30% of Canadians would can you make a saving. Yes, any family that reside in different brackets can benefit a pitance, but it is the rich that take home the lion's share of the benefits. If you wanted to help everyone equally, then raise the pesonal exemption.

  5. Thank God 11mattt11 that Someone else who sees the light that so clearly is there for the reading for those who are reading with a small candle in Ontario. My riding donations (according to someone in the know in that riding) to the Liberal party are about 1500% higher then they were pre-election last time (and they are the highest for my riding according to CBC site published today on party donations) plus I even donated which is something I have never done before. The get rid of our useless Con MP and of course Harper is quite high in this urban Eastern Ontario Riding.

    1. Antidotal reports don't have any statistical validity. By their very nature they are self selecting to report favourable numbers. For example, if the LPC in your riding had $100 in donations in 2011 and now have $1600, that's a 1500% increase, but would still be outraised by the CPC at $5000.

    2. Fund raising numbers are nothing more then moral boosts for local activists, and not a predictor of electoral success.

    3. Brad,

      Of course donations in your riding are far higher than pre-2011. Iggy was a disaster, there was no enthusiasm for Iggy of his brand of liberalism. However, I bet you hard working Tory M.P. is still probably out-fundraising the local Liberal party!

      I really don't think fundraising can demonstrate much except how committed or enthusiastic partisans are to an upcoming vote.

  6. Does anyone know where I could find a national map with the new federal ridings included? Similar to this

    1. Try these two links: You may have to search around the second one a bit.

    2. Or you can get it straight from the horse's mouth:

      If you want an overlay:

    3. Elections Canada has got you covered.

      Unfortunately they're PDFs, so they're kinda unweildy.

  7. It's funny how you all say the Cons will win seats/election by vote splitting between the NDP and Libs (we already know that as a fact and it won't change for now), but I see it as the Voters voting against them forming Government but they win simply by that fact. I don't mind seeing them in First place in the polls as this may galvanize anti-con voters to all lean towards the same candidate/party simply to avoid electing them by default!!

    1. Yes, a number of people have cited the so-called progressive* party vote-splitting phenomenon like it's a fact of nature, not subject to change. But obviously, votes can move in a number of directions when three large parties are in play. As the disapproval for Harper and his government increases, support will shift to either or both of the two other parties - this is exactly what just happened in Alberta. Prentice was the Annointed One when he became leader/Premier, and now look at him. The traditional support for the Conservatives could have gone just to Wildrose, or to WR + the Liberals + the NDP, or a number of other scenarios. We know what actually happened.

      * Just a note. The lazy description of the LPC and NDP (sometimes including the Greens and even the Bloc) as "the progressive parties" is pretty contemptible. There's actually very little common ground between the LPC and NDP in terms of policy, and the Liberals have never made a pretense of being progressive in any meaningful sense. Notable, they've only recently been distinguishable from the Conservatives on social issues, with both parties diverging as the Liberals try to claim some NDP territory in that regard, while the Conservatives push more vigorously for various fundamentalist Christian preferences, etc.

    2. Well Brad,

      The solution is simple. Mulcair or Trudeau must resign and the other run for the leadership of his party. I doubt it will change the outcome of the election but, if either of these men had intestinal fortitude to be prime minister and truly believed what they say and infer about Mr. Harper they would do the honourable thing and resign!

  8. Looks like the debates are critical and that Harper will get to debate Trudeau one on one.

    The consortium's heavy handed play to include Ms. May took a fatal blow this weekend.

  9. Good morning Éric.

    Have you given any thought to incorporating Glen McGregor's (Ottawa Citizen) money ball analysis in your seat predictions?

    In the 2011 election where the CPC clearly won the money ball analysis I am pretty sure that it would given you a much closer seat prediction.

    "The Citizen analysis is based on campaign filings that list the postal codes of donors who gave more than $200. Donations of less than $200 whose locations were not disclosed were projected onto ridings based on the same proportion as larger donations.

    Although it is unclear how closely related donations and vote intentions are, this “Moneyball” analysis of the geographic pattern uses a far larger sample size – more than 22,000 donations received by the parties in January, February and March – than a typical poll."

    The number donations of $200 seems to me to be indicative of solid grass root support that is so critical in GOTV .

    The analysis came as a surprise to me because from the tone of what I was reading in the press Trudeau, while not being a brilliant leader, was supposed to be a brilliant fundraiser.

    A real shocker is that In Central Nova, Peter Mackay's riding, There are more Liberals donating $200 than Conservatives.

    1. I'd be more interested in the number of donors than the totals. Having, say, 50 people donating $1000 is not nearly as good as 250 people donating $200.

    2. Again, look at the Alberta election - no question the PCs won the overall fundraising game, but their fundraising was overwhelmingly corporate, while the NDP had myriad small donations from individuals. Another recent example, Chicago mayoral candidate Chuy Garcia raised (mainly from individual donations) only one sixth the money raised (mainly corporate) by Rahm Emmanuel, yet forced a run-off vote, coming surprisingly close to winning office.

    3. From my experience in politics (I worked for the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance from 1998-2000), the total number of donors significantly outnumbers the number of donors over $200.

      Also, I spend several years (2008-2014) harvesting data from Elections Canada for other purposes, and the pattern held there, too - most donors gave the smaller amounts.

      If the Liberal curve above $200 matches that trend (vastly more $200 donors than $1000 donors), we can probably extrapolate that backward to find smaller donors, as well. If not, that would suggest that the Liberal support is top-heavy: lots of money coming from fewer people.

      When I was collecting data from Elections Canada (rather than providing it), I found that there were typically 20-25K CPC donors $200+ in any non-election year, and that rose to 30-35K in election years.

    4. I don't think looking at how much is being donated or even how many are donating is productive. It's doesn't work as a predictor of election outcome, at bast it boosts moral for committed voters like you and me BCVoR.

      The reality is that the parties can funnel that money anywhere and it wouldn't prove anything.

  10. I realize there is all sorts of expertise and opinion on here but in the end voters vote on their own personal thinking. So why all the emphasis on funding, and "parties" and other ideas.

    In the end a voter votes on what he thinks, for whatever reason, is the best choice. That's if they bother to vote at all ??

  11. Eric,

    Would you please elaborate on the "Other" seats that appear on the high end of the projection?

    I'm assuming that the Quebec seat is F&D, but what is the Alberta possibility?

  12. New BC federal poll showing the NDP leading with 35%.

    1. Even though the NDP gets 10% more than in Eric's aggregate and the CPC 2% less, the NDP doesn't take such a great lead:

      19 NDP
      15 CPC
      7 LPC
      1 GPC

      You can look in previous posts to see what I projected with the aggregate.

  13. It is a question: From what has happened in the last 6 months, is there a tendency that can be an indication of the evolution in the next 5 months? In other words, from what we know, can the NDP make it up to the top?


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.