Tuesday, January 19, 2016

And Trudeau still dominates Nanos 'Best PM' poll

Breaking — the weekly rolling poll from Nanos Research still shows Justin Trudeau well ahead on who Canadians prefer to be prime minister.

Considering the slow movement of this four-week rolling poll, I imagine Trudeau will enjoy a sizable lead over his rivals for quite a long time to come. Here are the latest numbers, comparing it only to previous independent samples from Nanos.

Trudeau led in the poll with 53.5%, no different from where his numbers were the month after the election.

Rona Ambrose was up slightly to 13.7%, while Tom Mulcair was at 10.6%, down from where he was in the previous independent sample.

Elizabeth May and Rhéal Fortin followed with 4.5% and 1%, respectively.

Also, I'm sure this isn't the first time you see this poll, but Mainstreet Research had a national survey out yesterday that included some numbers on the Conservative leadership race. And guess who was nipping at Peter MacKay's heels? Kevin O'Leary! I took a look at the poll here yesterday.


  1. Why is Nanos wasting resources on weekly tracking?

    Wouldn't bi-weekly or even a monthly tracking make more sense when we are 4 years away from the next election?

    1. I imagine they are asking other questions, and just releasing this data to keep in the public eye. I also believe that subscribers get more detailed information.

  2. These weekly updates are becoming tedious.

    The horse race numbers from other firms compared to this would suggest Trudeau is running moderately ahead of the LPC as a whole. While Ambrose runs behind the CPC brand possibly because of name recognition or acceptance that she is gone on May 27th, 2017 anyway.

    The BQ and Greens don't need to worry much about best PM numbers anyway.

    The NDP should be in a bit of a panic. Mulcair seems to be dropping like a stone. Who is waiting in the wings to replace him? Nathan Cullen? Another member of the caucus or possibly a provincial leader with some name value?

    1. Yes, I may skip a week or two.

    2. I don't think Dippers realise how bad the situation is. Most are still euphoric at the termination of Mr. Haper's career. Had Mr. Harper won I think the calls for Mulcair to go would be much stronger. As is many Dippers are "happy" with the election outcome therefore Mulcair may just get a pass come April but, internecine warfare may be the result.

    3. Yes Cap you are right. They are so happy to get that left leaning Govt that Mulcair isn't relevant any more.

  3. Quite bluntly there is nobody out there with anything like Justin's charisma. He shines out of the TV screen as the rest recede from view and Justin hasn't actually done anything. Look at the stuff right now from Davos and he just stands out !

  4. Éric,

    As for the CPC, it was my impression that Brad Wall was perhaps the favourite of the Alliance. I don't see those types lining up to support MacKay or O'Leary.

    As the saying goes, the West Is Best, at least in many quarters.

    1. Brad Wall has said he won't be running. Maybe if he somehow loses the next election, but otherwise, he seems happen where he is.

      Beyond that, Wall isn't bilingual, which would be a major drawback to making inroads in Quebec.

    2. As a progressive conservative, and I would say a real conservative, MacKay seems like the best choice of the leadership hopefuls.

      The party lost in Atlantic Canada huge, as well in Quebec, so the party has no choice but to go moderate after the disaster of Harper and the 10 years of darkness and the control aspect that that regime used as a strategy.

      MacKay was always a red tory, but he sold out to blue tory interests. As a Progressive Canadian party supporter and member, MacKay is a traitor to our party and progressive conservatives everywhere. I feel that he will be forced to accept Alliance policies which dominate the new Alliance party which they should be called.

      He will also have to be forced to accept the one-sided and interventionist foreign policy of this party.

      I think the party should go down the road of supporting Pearsonian and non-interventionism as its main foreign policy. Picking sides and being populist does nothing except cater to special interest groups and does nothing to advance true democratic values and to dampen situations abroad.

      I have said a few years ago that this Conservative party is going down the road of UKIP. Now I truly believe they are there.

      MacKay won't have real power. I do watch to see how he will act. It does appear to me that they could end up being perpetual opposition, as was stated in the early 2000's. People have realized this is not your grandfather's Tory party. I have to agree 100%.

      Anyways, the final point to add is that MacKay will be seen as a progressive conservative, but by understanding his history he has converted to soft blue tory, and a new party could form based on perceptions, when Tories were always about blue liberalism/red toryism and moderate conservatism.

    3. Stanfield, Diefenbaker, Borden and the rest must be rolling in their graves due to the outright arrogance of this Conservative/CON party built out of the Alliance mold.

      Clark was right in 2004 picking Martin over Harper and wanting true Tories again with the label PC. I am glad Stevens of the Progressive Canadian party which I back ran 8 candidates to counter the Conservative machine to defeat Conservative candidates. The PC party is the only solution left to build a multi-party democracy and actually build up parliamentary democracy.

      Don't forget it was Harper that never believed in the label "Tories" until the merger of 2003-04.

      The truth about the merger can be found on David Orchard's site.

      There is yes still room for a Progressive Conservative party in Canada.

      Checking out the 2004 election on Wikipedia will show Ernie Shreiber's Progressive Conservative party got after that election converted into the Progressive Canadian party. A little history does help those that have always believed Red Tories have gotten a fair treatment in the party, when in actual fact the PC faction is non-existent.

    4. John while I do agree with you about the earlier PC party once the Alliance showed up it died. Period !!
      The PC party we knew is now gone and I don't think that that other party has a real chance.

      I would say however that another party has shifted in a direction we can accept. That's the Liberals. Just as an example the Harper party wanted to reduce and restrict personal freedoms. The Liberals want the opposite !!

    5. There are plenty of Red Tories still left in the Conservative Party of Canada. MacKay's presumed front runner status for leader is the clearest indication that Red Toryism is alive and well. Peter and John's scare tactics really say more about the Liberal party. Trudeau is moving very far left on fiscal policy and I think Peter and John's exaggerations are a reflection of growing unease among Blue Liberals that the Justin they voted for is not the Justin who currently inhabits the PMO.

      As an aside I was with a former Canadian Forces Staff Officer the other day and I asked him why Canada was not invited to these policy and strategy meetings on DAESH, Syria and the Middle East more broadly. To paraqphrase: Firstly, it is not really so much a snub as an indication of Canada's role. The bombing mission will easily continue if we pull our CF-18s, the piece of military committment of most importance to the allies is our aerial re-fuelling plane. He suspected that keeping this plane in theatre was the reason Trudeau has been unable or unwilling to end the mission. Second, the lack of invites demonstrates how the allies see Canada at the moment this perception is one of indecisiveness. Our friends really don't know if we are coming or going, this is magnified by recent comments on the National Shipbuilding Strategy and other military procurement(F-35, for example). Thus far the Liberal's policy toward the military and natio9nal security is "confused".

    6. bede should the remaining Red Tory's actually get control they are going to have a real battle to control/eliminate the Harper/Alliance folk. If they can't do this then the party is in fact doomed.

    7. Peter,

      By the time of the next election everyone will be on the same page. It'll be just like the old Reform days-Justin's deficits will be so out of control fiscal prudence will be mutually agreed upon. Fiscal conservatism will be mainstream. Unlike the top-down approach of the Liberal party whereby all must praise Ceaser. Tories enjoy a diversity of opinion and thought. I see no reason to "elimante" the "Harper/Alliance Folk" The Conservative party is democratic and the membership will inform policy in their usual way. The Conservative Party is large enough to accommodate opinions from the membership that diverge from or are new to the Party. Internal conversations on policy are nothing to be afraid of.

    8. bede they may be on the same page but will it be the same party. Having watched its performance since the election it definitely is no longer the Harper/Alliance party!!

      In fact I can see the possibility of TWO Conservative parties and the end of Conservative power for decades !!

    9. I actually as a PC member in the Progresive Canadian party (PC party) believe that you can have a centralist party in Canada to represent that mixture of top down and grassroots. The fact is I believe that Atlantic Canada now realizes that the Conservatives are from that Alliance mold, and we got nothing from the merger. I still remember watching on television Harper versus Clement, and somehow Clement was referred to as a Red Tory. He supported privatization, anti-union measures and was for the same foreign policy and massive tax cuts, when previous Tory governments have wanted a balance in social spending and a moderate tax cut plan. Which does tell me that Alliance dominates the debate.

      It is also time I feel for the disposable income debate to be brought to bear in Canada.

      It is time for a debate on corporate tax cuts and their effectiveness or lack thereof in Canada.

      Which is a debate which can never happen in an Alliance party with the Conservative label.

      To me, you need a moderate conservative party to shift the debate and change minds. Being slightly centre-right is about having some centrist views which has been lost in traditional conservatism which once existed in Canada, and it is part of our history.

      The same goes with foreign policy and debating foreign wars. Such debates cannot occur in the Alliance party with the Conservative label.

  5. You are right Stanfield, Borden and the rest are rolling in their graves shocked and appalled at the capriciousness and willingness with which Justin Trudeau makes and breaks promises. Young Trudeau promised 25,000 Syrian refugees would land in Canada by January First, 2016-lie. He promised to withdraw Canadian aircraft from combat missions in Syria-lie. He promised deficits of only 10 billion dollars per year-lie (we now know the Finance department expects deficits of approximately 2% of GDP or somewhere between 30-40 billion dollars). Do Liberals have difficultly being honest with Canadians? The facts certainly point in that direction.

    What is more shocking is the Republicanesque tactics and attacks with which two supposed and self-declared "Liberals" attack the Conservative party four years before the next election. For Liberals to be this concerned of their future electoral prospects four years out from an election says it all-Already the HMCS Justin is a sinking ship-He's out of his league and Canadians will be left to clean up his mess.

    1. @Capilano,
      You forgot Nanny-gate and underfunding the Missing Women Inquiry on your list of scandalous lies. Each of your statements are reflective of the difference between promises and reality, but there is the intent and progress.

      In 2006, I had high hopes for the Reform promises of Harper that never materialized. Every party will over promise and under deliver, the question is if they throw it all to the wind or at least make whatever progress is possible given the global context into which they are thrust.

    2. But you do not even talk about the countless lies by the Harper regime such as Fake Lakes, gazebogate, F-35, Senate, G20 and the list goes on.

      Even the balanced budget is suspect.

      We in the Progressive Canadian party believe that Harper's one man rule shows that he never wanted an open caucus and the free flow of ideas.

      All Harper wanted was to remain in power and he did silence critics and the media and scientists and engineers.

      Canadians should not return them to power so easily since those Reform MPs back in 1993 were only after power rather than wanting recall, direct democracy and referenda.

      Much of the Conservative movement lowballs scandal to their level and to what they assume scandal is. Much like their JDS and assuming he is a closet Muslim. He got elected by assembling a coalition of people and he opened up the press core. Harper was disingenuous and now will remain in parliament probably as long as Diefenbaker did after he left as PM.

    3. Fake lakes and Gazebogate are the same thing as far as I know but, that was not a broken promise by Harper. Harper did not promise or campaign either to build gazebos or not. Whether such was a waste of money is of course subjective but, it is hard to find too much fault: It was Canada's turn to host the G-20 and surely money spent on landscaping is always part of the budget.

      F-35? I don't see how that is a broken promise the Government is re-tendering the process but, in all likelihood we'll still get the F-35 since, they are the only 5th generation jet on the market and Canadian companies have guaranteed contracts, Bombardier is in dire straights so if they have anything to do with the F-35 Canada will probably buy the planes to keep the Quebec aerospace industry afloat-money well spent as far as I am concerned.

      The Senate? Harper did more to enact Senate reform than any prime minister since Mulroney. He appointed elected senators from Alberta and went to the Supreme Court to see what change he could enact without opening the constitution. Unfortunately, Trudeau amended the constitution and created an unworkable amending formula. Sadly the only way to amend the constitution is through ultra-constitutional methods. Thus, he allows the House of Commons alone change the constitutional covenant of Macdonald without proper constitutional negotiations or a vote by the people as constitutional convention would suggest is the proper course.

      In any case Harper is no longer the leader so there is little point in discussing him further.

  6. Hi Eric,

    I believe a general election is going on in the Yukon. A poll was released by Mainstreet (I think) on Feb. 3, 2016.

    From what I understand it should be an interesting election as the governing Yukon party is in single digits and the Liberals and NDP are fighting it out but, over half the territory is undecided.

    In any case I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you missed it.




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.