Friday, August 7, 2015

2015 Federal Election Link Round-up, Week 1

The campaign begins! We've all been waiting a long time for this.

During the campaign, I will be using this site as a hub. I'll be posting links to my CBC stories, interviews, and podcasts, as well as any interesting links I stumble upon during the campaign. I'll also have some original content (such as the July polling averages) that I will 'link' to as well. And, of course, the riding projections are still here on ThreeHundredEight.

These weekly posts will be continuously updated throughout the week, so check back every day to see what is new!

Friday, August 7, 2015

- The new episode of the Pollcast is up! This week's guest: Léger's Christian Bourque. We talk about the challenges of a long campaign and, of course, Quebec. Who better to talk about Quebec than Christian? The feed is now up, so you can subscribe. We'll have a new episode every week.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

- Talking about uncommitted voters, second choices, and the relative popularity of the premiers vs. their federal doppelgangers on last night's Power and Politics.
- I was on CBC Halifax radio's Mainstreet yesterday, joined by Duane Bratt of Mount Royal University in Calgary and Elizabeth Thompson of iPolitics. We talked about tonight's debate.
- We're aiming to post the latest episode of the podcast tomorrow. If we're lucky, it might even be out today. And yes, it will have it's own feed!

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

- Wynne has an ad trying to boost the Liberals in Ontario, Harper is talking about Notley to hurt the NDP in Quebec. So, I took a look at how the premiers might hurt or help their federal colleagues.
- I took a look at undecideds and uncommitted voters in my column for the CBC this morning. The upshot? A lot of stuff can still happen. You heard it here first.
- We're recording our next episode of the Pollcast today - it should be a good one!

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

- My analysis of the first official day of polling. The Poll Tracker had three new polls added to it: from Nanos, Innovative, and Forum. The first two suggest a close three-way race. The last one suggests the NDP is on track for a big victory. What will the next one say?
- Here I am on Power and Politics discussing the general state of the race.

Monday, August 3, 2015

A little bit of catch-up today from what was a momentous weekend.

- The riding projections have been updated, and are current with the Aug. 2 update of the Poll Tracker.
- The newest Forum poll that raised some eyebrows. 39% for the NDP and 11-point lead: start of a new trend, or the result of polling on a long weekend Sunday?
- The Poll Tracker was updated today, boosting the NDP's lead slightly.
- Here I am on The House on CBC Radio with Terry Milewski, talking about Battleground Toronto.
- Désautels le matin, pour Radio-Canada.
- What does a long campaign mean to you? I was on Ontario Today on CBC Radio on Thursday, you can find it in the list of past episodes.
- And here is the analysis I wrote for Friday's Poll Tracker update.

58 comments:

  1. It seems like the datas in the poll tracker doesn't load. Am I the only one with that problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was down for a little while, not sure why.

      Delete
  2. Does the poll tracker data include the flawed Mainstreet poll around the time of the "Christmas in July" announcement ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A public poll from a recognised pollster. Of course it does.

      Lots of polls look strange in isolation. That's why Éric aggregates them. That's the whole point of 308.

      Delete
    2. The thing to remember is that all polls have a 1/20 chance of giving you incorrect conclusions. That is the standard (normal) 95% confidence applied to statistical tests. 5 times in 100 values....these are outliers and sometimes its very easy to see one, but even still just because something looks like it might be an outlier it does not automatically make it so.

      Delete
    3. It is more than looking strange, the results are invalid. Their sampling methodology is flawed, they only sampled parents eligible for the UCCB cheques

      Delete
    4. No, the Mainstreet poll sampled all eligible voters. The UCCB question was posed just to parents.

      Delete
  3. No kidding the Forum poll raises some eyebrows.

    As an Dipper I love to see the good numbers but it hard to believe... yet, but come September.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we've got to look at that Forum poll as an outlier. Doesn't seem supported by anything else?

      Delete
    2. strikingly (but not surprisingly) the mainstream media have focussed on the Nanos and Mainstreet polls, and barely acknowledged the most recent poll and the only one conducted since the start of the election. I can't imagine why...

      Peter, you can look at the Forum poll as an outlier, and maybe it is, but the context is different from all the other polls. To me, it's quite reasonable that people who in the past few minths vaguely considered the NDP would, once the writ was dropped, commit to them. That being said, sure, the poll might turn out to be a bit "off", but why has no one considered that possibility for the much more peculiar Mainstreet poll?

      Delete
    3. Uh, I think everyone has called into question the Mainstreet poll.

      Delete
    4. chimurenga - What we need are more polls after the Forum poll to provide us more context.

      The Mainstreet poll looked similarly odd (arguably more so), but subsequent polls made it look less so by splitting the difference between Mainstreet and the pre-Mainstreet consensus.

      Now, we don't have any subsequent polls to help explain the Forum poll, so we continue to question the Forum poll. It makes perfect sense.

      Especially if we take the Forum house effect into account. They typically inflate Liberal numbers, not NDP numbers.

      Delete
    5. Éric, But I continue to see commentators talk about a 'Conservative lead in the polls', and barely a mention of the Forum poll.

      Delete
    6. Ira, agreed, more new polls needed!

      Delete
    7. That's right Ira. Since the Forum poll was done the day the election was called and we don't know what time of day (?) it has become "suspicious" !! By now there should be several polls out to compare with the Form one. Eric ??

      Delete
    8. The Forum poll was conducted between 10 am and 4 pm on Sunday.

      Delete
    9. I suspect pollsters were waiting for the debate. They probably started polling today.

      Delete
    10. And Chim the election was called at what time ??

      Delete
    11. Peter, Well CBC posted it's story that the writ had dropped at 6am on Sunday morning...

      Delete
    12. Gee Chim and you the one who claims the CBC is inaccurate !! Nope wasn't official till it was announced sometime after 1 PM by Harper. Thus the Forum poll is redolent !!

      Delete
    13. Harper had already visited the Governor General and an official statement made by ten. Harper's speech at 1pm was more ceremonial than official.

      Delete
    14. I live right near Ottawa Chim. There was no mention, even on local radio. So the writ wasn't dropped till Harper's announcement. What was done by the bureaucracy was irrelevant. Until the formal announcement it wasn't actuality. Plus the poll hammered your party !! You are weird !!

      Delete
  4. I really miss that seat projections over time by region was not migrated to Poll Tracker.

    So far too lazy to look at the riding projections to dig it out myself.

    The CPC has got Ontario exactly where they need it with a near exact split between the LPC and NDP.

    Attack ads against Mulcair may prove counterproductive in Ontario as that may turn CPC seats LPC.

    Hoist by one's own Petard?!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tuesday the Globe's Campbell Clark wrote up Nanos' second choice polling results.

    Interestingly the NDP is the second choice for a large portion of Green supporters. The NDP needs to convince Ontario Greens that dumping Harper by voting NDP will be the best available outcome for climate change and environmental concerns.

    Electoral margins bode to be very thin in Ontario as many seats will be decided by a couple hundred votes or less; so Green voters could tilt several seats.

    The Greens most likely have no chance outside of Thunder Bay to take any Ontario seats; so the NDP needs to persuade them they have a serious opportunity to make a real change by using their vote to elect a sympathetic government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Greens are proposing the single largest personal income tax cut in Canadian history. They're the most fiscally conservative party in this election.

      If I thought it would make a difference in my riding, I'd probably vote for them.

      Delete
    2. As a Green I can tell you the NDP is doing everything possible to kill us off. They are a royal pain sometimes. Here in Thunder Bay we have a sitting MP who is Green but since he was NDP the Dippers are going to blow a wad of cash to try to knock him out. Meanwhile just a couple ridings away a sitting Conservative MP is at risk if the NDP puts all their Northern Ontario focus on beating him that would make sense. By attacking Greens here they might help create the killer split and put a Conservative in with under 30%.

      Delete
    3. Green parties often use environmentalism as a front for wealth redistribution (the BC Greens used to do this - I would argue that the IPCC does as well). But the federal Green Party today seems to recognize that markets work, and market-based environmental policy is the best way forward. I really like them.

      I would hope that any disaffected Tories who can't bring themselves to vote for Harper again would vote Green rather than stay home.

      Delete
    4. A vote under FPTP may either count for something or be wasted.

      Where the opposition is split against a particular candidate, a vote for an opposition candidate with no hope of winning is as good as a vote for that particular candidate: ergo Ontario Green votes in this election will be effectively Harper votes.

      Delete
    5. That's nonsense. The only thing that is a vite for Harper is a vote for Harper. A vote for a frunge candidate is materially similar to not voting at all, but it's not a vote for Harper.

      And it's not identical to a non-vote, because it has PR value. People will see the vote totals and perceive them as an indication of the relatove levels of support for that candidate or party. Someone could well vote for a fringe candidate in order to make a statement.

      For example, in this year's Alberta election, I wanted the PCs to lose both the election and my riding. But the Tory candidate tried to use fear to persuade voters that he was the only candidate who could stop the NDP. At that point, voting for either the PCs or the NDP feeds that narrative, and I didn't want to do that, so I voted WR (even though I knew they hadnno chance to win the riding).

      The marginal impact of one vote is effectively zero. It really doesn't matter for whom you personally vote. The margin of error in vote counting is bigger than one vote. One vote literally makes no measurable difference.

      Vote for the candidate you want to vote for (for whatever reason), and don't let anyone tell you you're wrong.

      Delete
    6. So you cast your vite for a frunge candidate. Good for you for recognizing that the marginal impact of one vote is effectively zero. Quite right! So why bother at all? Because while my one lonely vote makes no difference either way, when I join my fellow Canadians in voting for change, it makes all the difference!

      Delete
    7. I couldn't get the desktop version of the site to work that morning, so I wrote that comment on my phone. Sorry about the spelling.

      Why bother at all? That's up to each voter. I vote because I enjoy doing it.

      You're right that when Canadians taken as a group vote, it makes a difference, but no individual is a significant portion of that group. Whether or not you join with your fellow Canadians demonstrably doesn't matter.

      Delete
    8. There is a problem though where a relatively small number override the national interest. I live in a riding that has been Tory since Confederation. Member is a farce but it doesn't matter. They keep getting elected and doing nothing !!

      Delete
    9. I think that is the biggest issue for Canadian democracy - people who would vote for a dead rat if it ran for the right party. We all know ridings where that dead rat would win as a Liberal, ones where it would win as a Conservative, and others where it would win as an NDP. Heck, Quebec was a great example of that last time (no dead rats but plenty of non-Quebecers who couldn't find the riding they won on a map).

      Delete
    10. George Not Bush,

      A vote under FPTP always counts for something; one vote! As Elizabeth May correctly pointed out last night-"vote splitting" is an illusionary problem create by and for NDP purposes because on their own they can not accrue enough votes to win: People should vote for who they think best.

      Delete
    11. I'm right with you there. We could use more swing voters.

      Partisans vote their party, and that hands all of the power to decide the election to the small minority of swing voters. You see this all the time in the US, where the Presidential election is decided every time by perhaps 10% of the voters in 4 or 5 states. States that always vote one way (California, Texas, New York) grant their voters no power at all over the election. But if you're a swing voter in Colorado or Ohio or Florida, you get to decide the election pretty much all by yourself.

      Delete
    12. George Not Bush,

      I think Elizabeth May correctly pointed out last night that vote splitting is an imaginary issue. People should vote for who they think best.

      Delete
    13. As has been the case for awhile, the non-voters will be a larger group than whoever 'wins' so if you can draw those people out and get them to vote you can gain far more than any vote splitting. The key is to get people excited and feeling like their vote actually means something positive. From what I've seen people don't go vote to keep someone out, they vote to get someone in. With luck Elizabeth May's performance and how the media portrayed it after (as the vast majority of Canadians will not have watched that debate) will help get younger Canadians engaged again.

      That is part of why I detest Mr. Harper - he has consistently done anything he could to discourage voting - his 'unfair elections act' is just the latest, mix with the robocalls scandal and his consistent breaking of promises and you can see why people get disengaged. Mix with the disaster that is Ontario with the Liberals breaking promises so often you have to figure whatever they promise is what they won't do and the Conservatives putting in place horrid leader after horrid leader and you see why we get fewer and fewer voting.

      Delete
    14. Plus John if you have to debate then get it done in such a way that the minimum number of voters can see or hear it. Thus the consortium debates are out as they can deliver to far to many people. Keep them as restricted as possible and then pull strings so your major opponent falls in line !!

      Typical Harper, eh?

      Delete
    15. Showing proof that one is a Canadian citizen and a resident of a riding before casting a ballot is a logical and smart reform. Why it wsn't put in place from the very beginning is beyond me but, it is hardly an insurmountable barrier that can not be overcome. When I stay in a hotel I have to show I.D., when I drive I have to carry I.D., if I go on a plane I must show identification. I do not think non-citizen voting is a problem but, why worry? Make people show I.D. and the problem-if there was one-is solved.

      For someone who accuses the Conservatives of limiting voter turnout through discouragement John and Peter are you not doing the exact same thing through your slagging of the Conservative party and its leader through the use of select negative terminology toward the Conservative party?

      Delete
    16. All. I sometimes wonder about mandatory voting. You MUST vote. Don't know if it would make a difference but ???

      Delete
    17. Pete: "For someone who accuses the Conservatives of limiting voter turnout through discouragement John and Peter are you not doing the exact same thing through your slagging of the Conservative party and its leader through the use of select negative terminology toward the Conservative party? ."

      It's called political discussion. Something you apparently don't believe in !!

      Delete
    18. Well it certainly makes a difference in Australia where turnout hovers around 90%.

      Delete
    19. The most creative vote suppression tool in the Fair Elections Act is the prohibition on Elections Canada's promotion of voting.

      I expect we all remember from past elections the Elections Canada ads telling us how to vote and encouraging us to do so. They're not allowed to do that now.

      Combined with the voter fatigue likely from the long campaign, I expect 2015 will have the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history.

      It's remarkably clever. Underhanded, but clever.

      Delete
    20. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea, because it would introduce noise into the signal.

      Democracy requires that we get the government the people want, yes? People who don't vote largely don't have a preference (if they did, they'd vote), so if they vote they're only one side of the equation, and they throw it out of balance.

      The government should be selected by the people who are sufficiently engaged to bother voting. Those people are likely to be better informed on the issues, and be able to see through the lies they're being told (and all politicians will lie and mislead if they think it will help them win).

      Delete
    21. The problem with the ID issue is people in rural communities and reserves don't have a street address on their ID thus are hitting issues when ID requirements are increased. The ID thing seems like a solution looking for a problem. The biggest issue is people not voting, not people voting too much.

      Delete
    22. The Tories are clearly trying to reduce voter turnout overall. They want to place a greater burden on the other parties' GOTV activities, because that shifts some of their campaign funds away from things like advertising and travel.

      Delete
  6. May I suggest that you make your CBC Poll Tracker main graph a little bit more "stretched" on the y axis? With higher resolutions, it's difficult to read.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anybody know where I can see a map of the Eastern Ontario ridings ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/map/pwt/pwt.html

      Try that. It's linked from the Elections Canada site.

      Delete
  8. In the 2011 general election, the polls got it really wrong--importantly because of the phenomenon in the 18-35 age group in which they typically said that they would vote NDP or Liberal but, in the end, generally didn't vote at all. How is this methodological problem being addressed by current polling?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't say the polls got it really wrong - but there certainly was a turnout bonus for the CPC that made the difference. Some pollsters do weight for expected turnout rates, others don't.

      Delete
    2. I'd be interested to see you write about this issue in the future--as we move closer to e-day, people will be interested to know whether the polling numbers accurately capture the probable
      turnout for 18-35s. V.

      Delete
  9. My things must be really bad ??? Harper has played the "terror" card already !! Defeat on the way apparently !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He'll keep doing that until it starts to hurt him.

      Harper knows that he wins on that issue. He also knows that Canadians do care about it right now. If he can make them care about it, that dramatically improves his chances. So he'll keep trying.

      Delete
    2. Harper will do any dirty trick he can to retain power Ira. And no the public has no care about security despite all the Tory screaming. Stop somebody on the street and ask them and you will find out. Further why stop the idiots from going? Better to stop them fromcoming back !!

      Delete
    3. A shame more voters can't figure out that more Canadians die slipping in their bathtubs than from terrorism.

      Delete
    4. The Tories would argue that this is the case because terrorism is largely confined to non-Canadian parts of the world, and they're working to keep it that way.

      Which is overly simplistic. The Americans are doing the bulk of the work there. Other countries participate in these things in token ways in order to curry favour with the Americans. Remember how we got the auto-pact.

      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.