Con. 33% (34%)
Lib. 32% (30%)
NDP 19% (18%)
Greens 7% (9%)
AR is similar to EKOS, in that it gives the Liberals an edge in Ontario, although smaller:
Libs 40%
Cons 37%
NDP 14%
Greens 8%
There's that 40% number again, which confirms a return to previous form for the Liberals. Also noteworthy, the number looks even better when one considers a relatively weak NDP number. The Conservatives benefit from vote splitting in Ontario, and the Liberals can capture NDP seats if they are weakened. Still, a tight race, but encouraging.
In Quebec, again similar numbers to EKOS:
Bloc 35%
Libs 31%
Cons 18%
NDP 10%
Greens 9%
A good result for the Liberals, furthering the view that our bottom looks to be 30%, with potential.
What is particularly fascinating about this poll, Canadians are decidedly against an election:
32% support the opposition parties
toppling the Conservative government;
57% are opposed
One would think, a poll that shows decided resistance to an election would translate to diminishing fortunes for the party that is the impetus. Not in this case, which makes the Liberal numbers all the more fascinating.
I don't want to overstate these numbers, they translate to no certainty for the Liberals in the least. That said, two polls now that show improved fortunes for the Liberals just as we ramp up our pre-writ presentation. I'm good with the narrative that we have some small momentum, coming off the summer lull. It's ideal in terms of optics, and it dampens all the hysteria.
32 comments:
"What is particularly fascinating about this poll, Canadians are decidedly against an election:"
I know we're still in Summer mode, so that might make the numbers what they are. However; I would be interested in where this sentiment was in the last three elections. What I seem to remember about 2005/2006 was a similar mood of not wanting an election.
I'm still betting we don't go to the polls until the spring.
I may be wrong here - but wasn't it 70% against an election last fall when Harper called one because he couldn't play in the sandbox?
Steve - it certainly is not up to me what you allow on your blog, but Sense is pretty harmless.
Gayle
I turfed that nonsense, because he ignored the facts in the other post, and reposted that crap here. The EKOS poll did capture part of the Liberal caucus, the fact he can't acknowledge that- I see no reason to give that a forum. Done with the dumb.
I hear you :)
Interesting defense.
This is your blog and you are free to delete any post if it does not agree with your version of history.
Cheers
Steve different Polls, Different Design, different time frames.
Compare EKOS to EKOS
ANGUS to ANGUS etc.
EKOS had the ended Sept 1, 2009.
What time of day?
When time did the Liberals make the announcement and how many sampled on the LAST day are paying attention to the Liberals in Sudbury?
Calling people stupid because they don't share your opinion?
It is your blog.
Cheers.
That means they polled until the evening of Sept 1. This is what kills me with you, you have no idea what you're talking about, yet you make these assertions- and you don't even respond in the other thread, you bring this crap here like it's fact. The Lib con started Aug 31, the WHOLE day it was election talk. Then Sept 1 he announced, and the coverage was everywhere as you're well aware. SO, like I said initially, PART of this poll captured the caucus. And, here's the kicker, you're bringing this up again in a thread about a poll that ONLY sampled after Ignatieff announced, and it shows a positive Liberal result, relative (comparing AR to AR).
I'm calling your stupid because you're playing stupid. I haven't found anything you've every said the least bit enticing and that's my opinion. Cheers to you, if you feel the same in reverse.
Steve,
They're just practicing tactics they've witnessed in town halls down south. It's a milder Canadian version of sticking your fingers in your ear, shaking your head and yelling, "I can't hear you" before repeating some (erroneous) point.
Your posts on the polls have been perfectly clear to anyone who actually reads and attempts to understand. I for one support your decision to remove any comment that persists in trying to negatively frame your rather objective musings.
It's as if someone's become obsessed - or tasked? - with throwing crap in the air whenever you post about federal polling.
And, lastly, it is your blog ;). By all means, do as you wish.
"They're just practicing tactics they've witnessed in town halls down south."
That's what I thought when I saw those crackpots Liberal staffers waving posters if Layton in bed with Harper. I was surprised they didn't have Kenyan birth certificates and tinfoil hats with them.
Yeah, DL, that's not even close to an analogy. But keep working on it.
DL
But the sad part, there's a grain of truth.
Joseph
Thanks. I think people confuse an absolute freedom of speech with my right to entertain in my house. People are free to say whatever they choose, I'm free to not have the time :) Perfect symmetry in my mind.
I think a follow-up response to the 'election' query is who is most likely to stop the 'constipated minority situation, even if its as a minority govt'... I'm betting there is a growing feeling among many miffed voters that Harper is the one blocking progress, Harper is the one playing games. Of course, CONbots may disagree...
I think you're right. He's the common denominator in all this instability and constant hangling, nobody working together. We do have the argument, and I almost hope we don't use it until we're into the campaign that if you're fatigued with the status quo, we need to get rid of the impetus, try something else to make parliament work. Pardon the cheese, but there is a undercurrent of change sentiment that can be tapped into on this score. Make Harper the poster child for dsyfunctional parliament, it's his watch, we can pin him. Ignatieff looks credibility as an alternative, late breakers come our way thinking it can be any worse, maybe he means it with the predictable "I can bring people together, I can reach across the aisle in a respectful manner, I can return decorum to Parliamen" blah, blah, that type of angle. And, nobody has focused yet, but please do mention you're not a career politician, stop being afraid of history, it's coming up anyways. Ignatieff doesn't think like a strategist, he's not a lifelong partisan like Harper, Layton and Duceppe for that matter. He's the only anomaly of the bunch, so he's a natural to position himself as "outside Ottawa think".
Layton is not a "lifelong partisan" either. He was a Quebec Liberal in his youth, his father was a cabinet minister under Mulroney, he worked with people of all political persuasions in municipal politics, he was willing to make a deal with Paul Martin that gave him a six month lease on life in 2005 and last year he was willing to put lots of water in his wine in order to help make Dion or Ignatieff PM and save Canada from another year of Harper. You can criticize him all you want - but of all the leaders he's been the most willing to work cooperatively. Ignatieff better start developing a rapport with Layton since he may need to work a lot more closely with him after the next election.
Steve,
As someone who often disagrees with you, I would like to support both your polling posts and the way you report on them as fair, and interesting.
The polls will start coming weekly now. When will Nano's start their rolling nightly poll?
It will be an interesting two months. I think that the Liberal's will immediately see a 5% swing away from them once the campaign begins. That is what happened last year, and I see the same factors at play. In fact I see more reason for a swing away from the LPC. But that is just my speculation and nothing else.
Based on what?
Joseph,
1. last year. Days after Harper got the GG to call the election, the polls went from dead even to a 5% lead for the Tories.
2. NOBODY wants an election. Most people won't use this view to punish anybody. But if they do, they will punish the obvious culprit... the Liberals.
3. There is no burning reason for an election. It is a "vision" thing according to Ignatieff. How does this draw someone off their couch to vote for the Grits or against the Tories?
4. The economy is still in the toilet, big deficit, federal stimilus, etc. etc. This hasn't stopped worrying the electorate. They will see the existing government as a safer choice to get us out since the present trajectory is already upward.
1. Harper ran negative ads with no response. Ain't gonna happen again.
2. Like they punished Harper last year? With that astute rationale, I guess we can assume a bit of a Liberal jump.
Plus, I'd suggest being a bit careful about the usage of caps when you say NOBODY wants an election. NOBODY in Stephen Harper's government wants an election. That much is crystal clear. But they don't constitute the entire nation, contrary to the hall of mirrors you may operate in.
3. I suspect the "vision" thing is but one of many things the election will be about, as is always the case. I suspect it will also be about something called "governing competence," an issue sorely left out of the campaign last year (and that is a knock against the liberals inept campaign last year).
This election will be more about Harper than any he's ever participated in. You may have noticed his government ran out of surplus money since the last election, after pledging everything would be just peachy with his "steady hand." I can just see the ads now, showing the falsity of his many "read my lips" moments over the past 12 months.
4. Adding to point 3, it is quite a leap of faith to assume the masses will rally around a government who blew their EVERY reading on the economy in the past year, even as they squandering the surplus and undermining the supports that created Canada's stable financial situation (under a liberal government) in the first place.
_____
So the real situation is you "assume" the polls will move "just like last year" because you really, really want them to.
Got it now. Thanks for the clarification.
Ya, DL, Layton was really a wonder boy on Toronto City Council...not.
That Martin deal- an "amendment" to the budget is not balancing the budget AND it never happened because Harper manipulated say anything Jack to bring Martin down.
Hey, Harper was a Liberal, then a Conservative, then a Reformer/Alliance - back to right wing Republican type Conservative - so DL, what the hell is your point?
Actually, Layton has been on the public purse all his life.
Joseph,
Thanks for the unsolicited attack.
I always enjoy the blind side.
You asked what made me think that there will be a 5% swing toward the Tories when the writ is dropped and I told you. I was giving you the reasons, not goading you.
We disagree, that's fine. Just telling you what I think is going to happen. And quite frankly your views are just as valid.
So what do you think the polls will say 3 days after the writ is dropped? I already told you I think the Conservative's will be showing a 5% lead and I gave you soem of my reasons. Tell me what you think.
Are you guys sure nobody in Harper's government wants an election?
I think they're just fine with an election -- they just want Ignatieff to wear it.
No, Tomm, I was just finished with you after reading your ramblings a week or so ago when you peddled out your meme about comparison of different polls to each other, manipulation of results by pollsters (which you later kinda sorta backtracked on), all to advance some nebulous - but tiresomely persistent - vague complain about how Steve discussed polling results on his blog.
I know a lot of people who state their opinions. I have friends with whom I discuss our sometimes opposing positions. But I have zero patience for the person whose seemingly innocuous first statements become a tugging, yanking vortex from which you can't escape. No logic penetrates. No validation of facts will do. And the discussion can't end until they get the validation they need.
So, here's the deal, Tom. You won't be getting it from me.
You said what you thought. I responded.
Conversation over. I'm still convinced you just show up to toss crap in the air, as I expressed earlier. Nothing I've seen you write convinces me otherwise. You might couch it a bit more pleasantly, but the result is the same.
Move along now.
"I think they're just fine with an election"
Sure looks like it. Man, they're good eh?
As for this 5% swing, the "flat footed" dynamic doesn't exist, if anything we look like we have a pre-writ strategy. The Cons hammered us, caught us off guard, this situation bears absolutely no resemblance. PLUS, we will have a parliamentary session, unlike Harper avoiding any accountability last year. Apples and oranges.
Joseph,
Don't ask me questions if you don't wish to have a discussion.
Good lukc with your myopia. I would go see a doctor about that.
Steve,
If you don't think there will be a SPC bounce after the fall of Parliament, are you projecting a flat line for the first couple of days? or an LPC spike?
I would predict not much movement at all. I think the Libs will hold this time because we clearly are ready for a campaign.
Could be.
There is a lot of pre-writ dropping hype so Canadian's will have had a chance to prepare. Also we don't yet know what the LPC and CPC pre-writ advertisements are going to look like.
One set might be better than the other.
I'm expecting ads right over the top. Willie Horton kind of ads.
"I'm expecting ads right over the top. Willie Horton kind of ads."
Our ads are mostly positive, the Cons are apparently quite negative.
What's telling, this Con buy is a quick response to the Lib one. Interesting that they only seem to have negative ads in the "can" so to speak, because ideally I'm not sure you want that contrast in the best case.
Steve,
So the Liberal ads are positive and the Conservative ads are negative?
This wouldn't be a partisan talking, would it?
Are the Liberal ads making innuendo and comment about the Conservative's? Personal attacks? Are they showing white hat, black hat comparisons?
Just asking. I guess we will all find out shortly.
The two catchiest in the last 3 years were Harper's face in the Martin ads and Dion's shrug. I wonder if we see more of that? Ignatieff's eyebrows? Harper's stare?
I agree that the CPC ads will most likely be negative.
I think the CPC will attack the words, history, and inconsistencies in Ignatieff's recent rhetoric. The Tories will try and put a lid on MI's credibility.
I also think they will do it using truthful and accurate quotations but probably taken slightly out of context. That seems to be the pattern of these things. Just like the Dion ads, and Martin's Harper ads.
Igantieff talks so much that his recorded word is ripe with stuff to use.
"So the Liberal ads are positive and the Conservative ads are negative?
This wouldn't be a partisan talking, would it?"
No, that's just someone who reads the newspaper ;)
ha,ha,ha
I can guess which paper...
Post a Comment