A Side for the Soup
I figured Ekos and Angus Reid would be reporting soon...so I held off right until the end of May for my polling update, but it looks like I should have waited another day.
Two new polls are out today, both showing the Liberals with a slight lead:
Ekos (n = 10,986, demon dialed)
Lib 33.5%
CPC 32.3%
NDP 15.1%
Green 10.4%
BQ 8.7%
Angus Reid (n = 1,002, online)
Lib 33%
CPC 31%
NDP 17%
BQ 9%
Green 7%
So, what does it all mean vis-a-vis the infamous attack ads?
Well, off the bat, there hasn't been much movement in the polls. The Tories are down 2 in Angus Reid, while the Liberal lead has shrunk in Ekos - both polls are consistent with what most pollsters have been saying of late.
Angus Reid did some funky split samples, with 1/3 of respondents being shown the attack ads, 1/3 being shown the ads and Iggy's YouTube response, and 1/3 serving as the control group. Here's what they found:
The momentum score for Harper among respondents who saw the ad is -40 (10% improved, 50% worsened), and the prime minister posts similar numbers among those who saw the ad and the video (9% improved, 52% worsened) and those who were not exposed directly to either the ad or the video (7% improved, 49% worsened).
The momentum score for Ignatieff among respondents who saw the ad is -18 (24% improved, 42% worsened). However, the opposition leader bridges the gap with those who also saw his YouTube video (29% improved, 31% worsened) and is even among those who did not see the ad or the video (28% improved, 28% worsened).
For the purposes of the comparison, it should be pointed out that a month ago,
they had Ignatieff's momentum at +11 and Harper's at -20. So both men took a beating, even in the control groups. That's not to say the ads are necessarily the cause - over the past month we've seen Ruby Dhalla controversy, a 50 billion dollar deficit, Archie choose Veronica over Betty...who knows what could be responsible?
But back to the experiment. It doesn't seem like direct exposure to the ads changed impressions of Harper significantly (from -42 to -40), but they certainly had an impact of what people thought of Ignatieff (from 0 to -18).
However, most of this damage seems to have been neutralized by seeing the response video. The logical conclusion is therefore that the Liberals cannot afford to stay quiet. The only problem is, even with improving fundraising numbers, can they afford to respond?
And, you know, anyone who wants to help them do just that, might want to mosey on over here.
Two new polls are out today, both showing the Liberals with a slight lead:
Ekos (n = 10,986, demon dialed)
Lib 33.5%
CPC 32.3%
NDP 15.1%
Green 10.4%
BQ 8.7%
Angus Reid (n = 1,002, online)
Lib 33%
CPC 31%
NDP 17%
BQ 9%
Green 7%
So, what does it all mean vis-a-vis the infamous attack ads?
Well, off the bat, there hasn't been much movement in the polls. The Tories are down 2 in Angus Reid, while the Liberal lead has shrunk in Ekos - both polls are consistent with what most pollsters have been saying of late.
Angus Reid did some funky split samples, with 1/3 of respondents being shown the attack ads, 1/3 being shown the ads and Iggy's YouTube response, and 1/3 serving as the control group. Here's what they found:
The momentum score for Harper among respondents who saw the ad is -40 (10% improved, 50% worsened), and the prime minister posts similar numbers among those who saw the ad and the video (9% improved, 52% worsened) and those who were not exposed directly to either the ad or the video (7% improved, 49% worsened).
The momentum score for Ignatieff among respondents who saw the ad is -18 (24% improved, 42% worsened). However, the opposition leader bridges the gap with those who also saw his YouTube video (29% improved, 31% worsened) and is even among those who did not see the ad or the video (28% improved, 28% worsened).
For the purposes of the comparison, it should be pointed out that a month ago,
they had Ignatieff's momentum at +11 and Harper's at -20. So both men took a beating, even in the control groups. That's not to say the ads are necessarily the cause - over the past month we've seen Ruby Dhalla controversy, a 50 billion dollar deficit, Archie choose Veronica over Betty...who knows what could be responsible?
But back to the experiment. It doesn't seem like direct exposure to the ads changed impressions of Harper significantly (from -42 to -40), but they certainly had an impact of what people thought of Ignatieff (from 0 to -18).
However, most of this damage seems to have been neutralized by seeing the response video. The logical conclusion is therefore that the Liberals cannot afford to stay quiet. The only problem is, even with improving fundraising numbers, can they afford to respond?
And, you know, anyone who wants to help them do just that, might want to mosey on over here.
posted by calgarygrit at
8:43 p.m.
8 Comments:
I see the bigger story being the 44% who feel neither Harper (30%) or Ignatieff (26%) would make the best PM.
That's not even the undecided vote ... it's clearly a choice for none of the above.
What do the 44% actually want, who will step up to meet that challenge, and will voters actually respond with their ballot?
By
Anonymous, at 11:27 p.m.
Whoever wins I hope for the best for our fellow citizens who are financially in crisis nowadays. Thanks for sharing. This site might also help.
By
Lanie, at 4:33 a.m.
Nice article. Thank you
Depths Of Death
By
Anonymous, at 4:40 a.m.
Seems to be a statistical tie--about how I'd measure relative support for the parties. This probably means no one will be sending us to the polls any time soon.
By
cycroft, at 8:17 a.m.
"Seems to be a statistical tie--about how I'd measure relative support for the parties. This probably means no one will be sending us to the polls any time soon."
I disagree. Consider the following:
1. The economy will recover at some point. When it does, things will cleave decisively in Harper's direction, if he is still in power. The Liberals need an election before a recovery is apparent.
2. Leaders that win additional seats rarely get turfed by their party, particularly in a minority parliament where the next election could be imminent. A tie would net the Liberals at least 30 seats. Even if they didn't win the government, they would be in a better position.
3. The NDP and Bloc may not have much stomach for an election, but both ran strongly anti-Harper campaigns. They may be rhetorically over-committed to vote against Harper on a confidence vote.
I see the following factors as driving the timing of the next election:
1. When is the recession likely to end?
2. At what point can Harper start taking credit for an economic recovery? For instance, Reagan surged in the polls with a robust 1984. Clinton tanked in 1994, and only became credited with a recovery in subsequent years.
3. What are the polls like in Quebec? If the Bloc stands to lose many seats (and a pivotal role in a minority parliament) they may keep parliament going.
4. How far is Harper willing to go in order to keep his government alive?
5. How dramatic will the recovery be?
I believe the recession will end (in Canada) later this year, with the beginning of a recovery sometime in the Fall. However, it will be Fall 2010 before a recovery is apparent. The Liberals will have every reason to take down Harper between now and Fall 2010. I think they would gain a lot of seats in a summer EI election, for instance.
Of course Harper will be willing to do just about anything to stay alive. I think he has eliminated the Bloc as a dance partner. To survive he will have to cooperate with the NDP. I think he is flexible (desperate?) enough to do so. Actually I once spoke with a senior minister from the Harris/Eves years who had insisted that Eves would have governed in a coalition with the NDP.
By
french wedding cat, at 2:17 p.m.
Where's Iggy's platform? A good platform is the best antidote to harper's poison.
By
JimTan, at 2:41 a.m.
Weed tax, Carbon tax and a Luxury Tax (about two percent rise of GST) are good (from species quality-of-living viewpoint) platform ideas to kill deficit. What you are really looking for is a way to lie to Canadians to take money from rich people to fund programmes for the poorer and young in a way that stimulates the latter's future earnings; lies that are psychologically more brainwashing than are Harper's lies to make rich people in Canada even richer while quality-of-living for majority stagnates and will eventually turn negative ala post-Reagan USA.
Because of wealthy Conservatives I can't buy weed from 7-11. There are tens of thousands imprisoned and many more whose employment record is ruined (mostly Natives I assume) because of bogus drug charges. It would be just as just if these were swapped with oil sands employees.
Instead of subsidizing $20/hr+ autoworkers and MP raises go to Labor Ready like I was told to. I'm getting a mental illness psyching myself up to forgive big oil.
If Swine Flu mututes in the next 5 weeks or so until I get weed, I'm not offering my pandemic advice.
An MP Salary is a social safety net. Get it? So is a wheelchair and ramps in Ottawa. So is $60B in federal oilsands funding (Zenn isn't even asking for funding just a motorcycle standard of approval).
Conservative MPs don't even stand on their own two feet and go to Labor Ready when they need a bigger safety net: they legislate pay raises.
By
Phillip Huggan, at 11:02 p.m.
I've been in a casual labour office at the tail end of BC's last recession. A dozen prospective labourers and no one had bus fair to take the offered jobs. You have $20/hr+ Chrysler wages subsidized and no free cars to drive $8/hr- unsubsidized casual labourers to their job site. Two days of their taxpayer salary would've subsidize Phil's welfare for a month and one week would've been long enough for 2005 Phil to plan a small business.
2009 Phil without THC is pissed. You need to pay $1300 to take an oil fields course with no guarantee of a job and you need to pay your expenses along the way. Instead of lowering the Cgy homeless rate by subsidizing this for those that came to Cgy without job+home+money you are subsidizing a company that has employed $20/hr+ workers for decades and trails Japan badly. When Chrysler fails as it inevitiably will (gonna tarriff the India and China cars too?), is this bailout going to be a perpetual thing or gonna finally retool to wind turbines??
I don't like that there are people without welfare and people making less than $10/hr with no prospect of a way out, and Harper is subsidizing $20/hr+ wages in an industry that Tata and China will make as competitive next decade as telecom was for Nortel (whose technologies reduce GHGs as opposed to a two decade long Chrysler cycylical USA consumer big car misstep).
A Cgy company makes novel low-footprint concrete forms. A UofM professor invented flexible concrete low-footprint architecture moulds. The latter has no way of training architects right now. In ten years I expect us to be driving Tatas not Chryslers. Fiat will come cap-n-hand again as soon as federal debt depreciates USD (there is a global glut of capacity and Chrysler is among the weakest players though Fiat probably okay).
Subsidizing Zenn would've been a peace offering too; their battery supplier is an American company.
Alberta could be 8 months into building a sustainable economy right now as they will inevitably have to until CCS proven (2040?).
The first year of Dion's wayyyy-too-small carbon tax would've costed $4B and every single Chysler worker could've been retrained as a home retrofit carpenter (as Americans will be and citizens in every stimulus package country I'm aware of except Canada thx to AB/SK/NB fossil industries).
By
Phillip Huggan, at 8:03 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home