Sunday, January 08, 2006

I Welcome These Poll Numbers

CTV news is reporting that the latest Strategic Counsel poll numbers have the Tories in front 37-29, their largest lead yet.

But, as a true Liberal, I am not deterred. In fact, I welcome this adversity. I believe we are merely in the final leg of a Liberal majority.


  • CG, your full of it... come on, you know you want Harper... your just in denial.

    Admit it, you like Stephan, and your repressing it.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 11:02 p.m.  

  • Ironic, eh.

    Liberals are losing but still saying their majority is inevitable.

    That has an arrogant taste to it.

    Especially when they want to scold the CPC for even suggesting a majority.

    CG - why wouldn't you say "its anyone's game?"

    don't you think declaring a Liberal majority in such adversity will turn off NDPers scared of Harper but grossed out by your presumption of power?

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 11:03 p.m.  

  • All other polls seem steady but for whatever reason this one takes a massive jump in favour of the Conservatives. I thought Strategic Counsel was doing rolling polls or whatever where they just add the newest poll and drop the latest. I'm confused.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 11:04 p.m.  

  • Hold on, you people cannot assume that I now think the same thing that I did a week ago.

    Calgary, I would be more interested in knowing whether you would be happy to see a majority Conservative government. Is that REALLY worth getting Martin?

    By Blogger Jason Cherniak, at 11:19 p.m.  

  • No, I don't want to see a Harper majority government.

    A Harper minority would leave me with mixed feelings, but at the very least he couldn't do too much damage with a minority. I wouldn't say I'm "rooting" for Harper or anything, but I won't shed too many tears if he gets in.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 11:23 p.m.  

  • Can someone explain Strategic Counsel's tracking poll. The CTV link does a pretty lousy job. Like it seems that it must have been a huge win in the last daily poll. Ses's tracking poll had the Cons drop a point yesterday. It makes no sense.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 11:37 p.m.  

  • Hold on, you people cannot assume that I now think the same thing that I did a week ago.


    Don't worry Jason, we know a week is a long time for a Martin Liberal. You've reserved the right to change your mind three or four times in that span!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:39 p.m.  

  • It would be remiss to not mention today's SES poll shows a 34-32 Tory advantage.. or a "statistical dead heat" as they call it, though that still probably would translate into a Tory minority.

    Martin needs to make hay on the Leaders Debate on two questions on the Tories new tax promises

    a) Will they drive up a deficit (some say yes)
    b) Will they punish the poor and middle class (some say yes).

    If he can do that, he might be able to check Harpers momentum (which might be stalled in the next day or 2 after urban Canada hears about his musing about a Tory majority again in the Toronto papers.. dumb move - as Warren K. said)

    By Blogger Oxford County Liberals, at 11:44 p.m.  

  • Harper said nothing in the actual press scrum that justifies the Star's snow job headline

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:54 p.m.  

  • Dan McKenzie: SES is the rolling "one-third per day" sample. Allan Gregg over at Strategic does about 1,000 each poll. SES has lags, Gregg's is more snapshot-ish.

    I think we will see the full details on the Gregg poll in the next day or two at their site ... that's the usual practice. And he regional breakdowns, too.

    I have a lot of confidence in Gregg and his polls.

    Having said that, though, this is an incredulous jump in CPC support, so I'm suspicious of it. Perhaps it's a decent baseline for the effect of the Liberal attack/negative ads?

    CG, I know your prognosis of Liberal recovery was tongue in cheek. But are you sure that you haven't been sipping from the same brew as Jason? Regards, Erik.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:59 p.m.  

  • I did a quick calculation, probably way off. But I think the Cons would have had to win about 44% of Saturday's poll of 500 to achieve 37% overall. Someone care to check for me? Sunday was a good day for the Liberals, the lead should come down on the SES and Strategic Counsel polls Monday. But who the hell am I to make that prognostication.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 12:00 a.m.  

  • Hey Erik, I was pretty sure that their rolling polls were only 500 as their totals are 1500. I'm also not sure what you mean by SES's lag they have polling everday, or at least I thought they did.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 12:07 a.m.  

  • Jason listed very carefully to what Harper said yesterday:

    "It would be crazy for anyone to speculate on any particular outcome. The numbers don't show that" (RedStar)

    Since when does Jason take orders from Harper?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:12 a.m.  

  • "Findings have been rolled up and analyzed over a three-day period. Interviews were conducted between Jan. 3 and Jan. 8.

    The sample size and margin of error (with the margin of error in brackets) for each region from Jan. 5. to Jan. 8 are as follows:"

    I assume Patrick that this is where you saw that the poll took place over 6 days...

    I think CTV just made a typo, and its 3 straight days of 500 people.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 12:36 a.m.  

  • It's so intersting to see people's perceptions of polls based on their partisan affiliations.

    For example, Erik is suspicious of SES but loves SC, largely because one jibes with his choice and one doesn't.

    If you take all he polls together, and bearing in mind both SES and SC are doing similar things, SC has more often than not been out of whack when reporting Liberal vote.

    You usually have to add more than the SC margin of error to get its Liberal number into line with the rest. By my take, it hasn't been flattening other party numbers to the same extent.

    No surprise therefore, that the night before the last English debate, SC's numbers under-report the liberals again, that is compared to other polling.

    By Blogger Edward Hollett, at 12:37 a.m.  

  • I have to admit I burst out laughing at this post CG. An excellent bit of parody. And as a good Conservative I do welcome these numbers, and think Stephen has a heck of a chance to close the sale in the next couple of debates.

    By Blogger Chris, at 12:39 a.m.  

  • It's interesting to watch as the country reacts to daily tracking numbers.

    I have little faith in such measures; but, I think as soon as polls are released they evolve from poll to advertisement.

    Undecided Canadians will look at Conservatives more seriously if they are ahead in the polls, and as a result... they get more support.

    Or I'm just a crazy New Democrat that is too cynical of polling and think it is useless as a measure of voting intention in an FPTP system.

    By Blogger Nick, at 12:41 a.m.  

  • Sorry, I had originally posted this in the wrong column about Options Canada and Lester.

    Heh Calgary Grit;

    You must be a fan of the late Badger Bob Johnson, coach of the Calgary Flames in the 80's when they had that fantastic rivalry going with the Oilers. (Who usually won)

    When the Flames were down a goal or two and the reporters would ask Bob, How are you doin? He would reply, "We got them, right where we want them".

    No, the Libs have reasons to be optimistic. They have the smartest leader. They have the best war room. They have the press on their side. All that plus they have a monopoly on Canadian Values. They registerd a patent on it and trademarked it eons ago. Canadian valu...excuse me, I mean voters understand that.

    How does the optimist poem go?

    As he jumped out the window
    And passed each window bar
    He said, alright so far!

    Its just that darn sudden stop that screws everything up

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:48 a.m.  

  • CG may be kidding, but I think he's right. This poll is an outlier (that 1 in 20 implied in the "19 times out of 20" you always hear about). I believe the oh-so-brave people of Ontario will be spooked a few days prior to the election and will hand the Liberals a provincial sweep and a majority government. And no, I'm not a Liberal hack, I've never voted for those criminals and don't plan to now.

    By Blogger Ed, at 1:10 a.m.  

  • I wouldn't say it's a "1 in 20" poll...although it's probably on the high side. Ekos has it about 36-31, and obviously SES and Ipsos are a bit closer. In reality, the Tories are probably up by 4 points or so.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:14 a.m.  

  • I'm still amazed that conservatives come here looking for a Martinite whose throat they can jump down. Folks? He's not on the team. It's like that TV panel that had Rod Love and Peter Donolo. Donolo made a fairly bored analysis because he profoundly doesn't mind if Martin loses this one, and Rod body-slammed him anyway like WWF Wrestling. All Peter could do was laugh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:21 a.m.  

  • Was anyone else disappointed like I was, that the "I welcome these polling numbers" title didn't lead to a Kent Brockman-ish "I welcome our new insectizoid leaders..." bit?

    Anyone else?



    I'll leave you to your serious political discussion now.

    By Blogger The Hack, at 1:36 a.m.  

  • 1 out of 20 polls is a rogue. This could easily be one.

    The Paul Martin "vampire"-like resurgence plan to seize a new Liberal majority as a natural birthright is coming together like clockwork.

    Wait 'til the next poll comes out showing it 39-28 with 63% Conservative momentum, 11% Liberal Party; it will energize the Liberal ground warriors no end.

    155+ seat Victory awaits!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:52 a.m.  

  • Sarcasm really is a dying art. lmao

    By Blogger WE Speak, at 3:39 a.m.  

  • Dr. Dog,

    yes, that one went over my head.

    CG - apologies for thinking you might be getting wonky.

    Apparently, I'm the wonky one.

    No more jamieson and blogging!

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 9:22 a.m.  

  • paul wells, yep. some sailed right past bart's irony. others came here to pile on cherniak. great post bart.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:45 a.m.  

  • CG,

    Come on now, you would like Harper to get in. It will be easier for you to criticize a Tory than defend a Liberal. A new rat pack will form and voila - it's CBC Liberal media heaven again. It should be worth another decade of Liberal wins.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:04 a.m.  

  • anonymous,

    Paul Wells is doing a bit of a straw man here.

    I'm pretty regular here and I've not come here to "jump down CG's throat" or anything like that.

    It was late. I was confused. And I'm an idiot.

    But, Mr. Wells is being a bit dramatic with his post.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 11:13 a.m.  

  • Dan McKenzie: From SES's site:

    "The CPAC - SES nightly tracking is based on a three day rolling random telephone sample of 1,200 completed interviews among Canadians 18 years of age and older. Each day a new national random sample of 400 Canadians is conducted. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of accuracy for the three day rolling sample of 1,200 individuals is ±2.9%, 19 times out of 20."

    To me this means, if (say) there's a "turnaround" in the must recent day, then only one-third of the effect of that turnaround is reflected in the results of the poll. Thus I describe the SES poll results as having a "lag". I do not dispute that they may be "more up to date", just that there's a built-in lag that does not fully reflect the (exampled) "turnaround" before three polling periods are completed.

    Gregg's/Strategic'spolling is usually on 1,000 respondents. It may be a day out of date, but it is a 100% "snapshot" of responses at a given moment (day or pair of days) in time.

    Choose to believe anyone and everything you like. I do not like Gregg's because he is "more favourable" to the CPC than other pollsters", as another commenter suggested. If this was the case, then why would I have liked him for the first two or three weeks when he was showing lower CPC figures than the rest?

    No, I like his polling because he runs a straight-up poll and, most importantly, really understands Canada, Canadians, elections and whatnot. It's his "added-value" comments that make the difference. He never hypes on TV, and his perspectives and contexts are the salve to understanding what the polls are reflecting.

    Just my two cents worth.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:32 a.m.  

  • I forgot to add something. The "Ed Hollett" that accused me of loving Gregg polls for their pro-CPC bias is, I believe, the same guy that runs the pro-Liberal, rant-and-rave "Sir Robert Bond Papers" blog (

    If so, Ed, perhaps you could implement a commenting capability at your blog to permit people, who disagree with your tripe, to lodge their comments? There is NO commenting capability now at your blog.

    You seem to enjoy the democratic freedom of commenting at other blogs to espouse your views. Why not do the same on your blog?

    Goose and gander, Ed. Or are you ashamed and afraid of how your ill-supported scribbles and rants might be shredded by "ordinary citizens"? You can dish it out, but not take criticism?

    How "Liberal"!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:45 a.m.  

  • It's funny how many people didn't get that Bart was doing an imitation.. oh well.

    Scott Tribe brought up two points. If Martin repeats those points often enough he might convince a few people, but I really don't think the deficit accusation has any traction this time around because:

    1) The Liberals used the same strategy last time.
    2) The Liberals spent more after the election that the Conservatives said they would spend, undermining the deficit claim.
    3) The Conservatives were right when they said the Liberals were sandbagging on their surplus forecast.
    4) The Conservative platform has been proactively costed and validated to a far greater extent this time around.

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 11:50 a.m.  

  • "paul wells, yep. some sailed right past bart's irony. others came here to pile on cherniak. great post bart"

    charles: Note who sailed past and who piled on. I knew you didn't come here to jumped down Bart's throat. I on the other hand came here precisely to jump on Cherniak.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:14 p.m.  

  • Charles, Don't take it personally. Wells is paid to exagerate.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:16 p.m.  

  • yyc,

    I don't take it personally at all. Wells is hilarious - one of three funny liberals.

    But he knows me and knows better.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 12:31 p.m.  

  • You said it all, Mr. Pundit.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:08 p.m.  

  • Clearly if these polls continue the Liberals will be well on their way to getting that 200+ seat majority!

    By Blogger RGM, at 5:13 p.m.  

  • Gosh, there's a great deal of helpful data in this post!

    By Anonymous, at 7:07 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home