Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Come Now

I understand that the pollster doesn't write the headline. It's also true that a pollster will look for a narrative from every single finding. Another objective truth, this headline and subsequent analysis is pure BUNK:
Voters split UN blame between Harper and Ignatieff in poll

31% of Canadians, less than 1/3, just below the Conservative support score in the same poll, blame Ignatieff. On the other hand 50% blame the government, or put another way 66% more than blame Ignatieff. How that becomes a "close second" is frankly absurd. You know, you just want the numbers, nothing partisan. However, these tortured arguments just make a mockery of the finding, the numbers suggest no such thing, there is no split. If anything the finding is closer to a overwhelming 2 to 1 rejection of the government and the analysis should go from there:

Fifty per cent of those polled blamed “the government's recent record on international diplomacy” for the loss, but Mr. Ignatieff came in a close second.

In the Tory stronghold of Alberta, the blame was split evenly, 39 per cent to 39 per cent, between the government and Mr. Ignatieff.

“I'd say it's a significant number. Certainly more people put the blame at the feet of the government, but that 31 per cent cite Mr. Ignatieff's comments does show there's a sense that the comments were probably ill advised,” pollster William Murray said.

I'd say it really isn't a significant number, particularly when you factor in the regional distortions. As a matter of fact, from the Liberal perspective, anytime we can halve a result in Alberta, it represents big trouble for the government arguments.

Bottomline, and this speaks volumes about this whole issue. If there really was any significance for the Liberals here, why did the Conservative drop the Ignatieff argument after day one? Why did the Conservatives shelve the Ignatieff ads they had in the CAN, if their talking point was getting any traction whatsoever? I'm sorry, but the storyline is a failed excuse, and if anything this poll SUPPORTS that argument.

15 comments:

Dan F said...

Interesting that the "blame Ignatieff" camp matches up very closely with the Con base. Looks like they have a base that hugs closely to their messaging, and the other 70% of Canadians either don't buy their crap or don't care.

Steve V said...

Exactly!

Fred from BC said...

Steve V said...

Bottomline, and this speaks volumes about this whole issue. If there really was any significance for the Liberals here, why did the Conservative drop the Ignatieff argument after day one?


Because it was a stupid argument to begin with, and I have no idea which Conservative strategist thought it would resonate with the public. They didn't need to try and blame the loss (if you can actually call it a 'loss', that is)on Michael Ignatieff, because Ignatieff has no international profile outside of the arts community in Canada, the US and Britain; he's not going to influence any other nations one way or the other.

No, the proper tactic here would have been simply to run those video clips of him claiming that Canada "doesn't deserve" a Security Council seat, and leave it at that.

Fire the guy who proposed such an inane and ineffective media campaign, and also get rid of whoever thought Julian Fantino would be a good Conservative candidate (he's not)...

Dana said...

The G&M is now now overtly a pro-Harper paper. No more shilly-shallying, no more ambiguity. They don't even attempt to mask their position behind weasel words or false balance. Straight out pro-Harper. Even more blatantly than the NaPo. Hardly worth paying attention to on national politics any more.

Mad Loon said...

I just fired off an email to the Globe complaining about this piece of garbage. I hope others do as well.

It isn't until the sixth paragraph that we find out that this so called split is 50-31 and even then it ends with this "but Mr. Ignatieff came in a close second."

This crap is usually the sole domain of the Sun, unfortunately lately the Globe has been doing a fine job of giving the Sun a run for their money

Kirk said...

On more positive news:

Nationally, over the last two weeks, the Conservatives and Liberals are in a dead heat. The Conservatives stand at 32%, to 30% for the Liberals, 14% for the NDP, 10% for the BQ and 10% for the Greens.

Harris/Decima. The most recent data were gathered between October 7 and October 17, 2010 for 2,020 completes. A sample of the same size has a margin of error of 2.2%, 19 times out of 20.

ottlib said...

The Globe Editorial Board has been bending over backwards trying to downplay the significance of the lost SC seat at the UN.

Now they come out with this gem.

Kind of makes me wonder why. Perhaps it is because most reasonable people see the loss of the seat as the international relations set back that it is. They see it as a snub of Canada brought about by the incompetence of this government.

So, when you are losing an argument it is customary within the political realm to attempt to change the channel. It is too bad that a newspaper like the Globe is doing so. It used to be the only newspaper in this country that had any sense of journalistic integrity. I wonder where it went?

On a related note, when the Liberals eventually win an election I really hope that they find a way to kneecap our MSM.

Jerry Prager said...

Corporatist spin, the endless denial of reality in order to manufacture a conned majority.

Jerry Prager said...

Fred, Except Iggy didn't say Canada doesn't deserve a security seat, he said 'this government" doesn't deserve it, but keep spinning...

Fred from BC said...

Jerry Prager said...

Fred, Except Iggy didn't say Canada doesn't deserve a security seat, he said 'this government" doesn't deserve it, but keep spinning...


This Government of Canada, yes. What's your point?

(and it seems I could learn a thing or two about 'spin' from you, couldn't I?...)

Fred from BC said...

ottlib said...


Kind of makes me wonder why. Perhaps it is because most reasonable people see the loss of the seat as the international relations set back that it is. They see it as a snub of Canada brought about by the incompetence of this government.


SOME people do see it that way, yes. Others are proud that Canada took a principled stand and refused to change our foreign policy to curry the favor of a voting bloc comprised of the worst thugs, tyrants and dictators on the planet.

(you knew that the Europeans were all going to vote for a European country anyway, right?)

Some of those brutal dictators also sit on the so-called UN Human Rights Council (or whatever they call it these days). We should kiss their ass for the sake of a vanity position that gets us nothing in return?

(you also know about the Permanent Members and their veto powers, right?)

Never been so proud to be Canadian. Sorry you don't feel the same.

Gene Rayburn said...

"Never been so proud to be Canadian. Sorry you don't feel the same."

Ah, it must be Canadian caveman day.

Jerry Prager said...

Fred: This government of Canada doesn't deserve to have a seat on the security, I think they took one look at the overkill, badly conceived security for th4e G20 and thought, "Nope." Those people in Europe has fascist parties when the Conservative Party of Canada lost the government to Liberals and Labour in 1935, they've been there and done Harper, and they ain't going back.
They took a look at the prorogue of a minority parliament by a scheming enemy of liberal democracy and said no thanks.

Kirk said...

Ignatieff said the Emperor had no clothes and the courtiers are still disparate to claim that Emperor Steve is impeccability dressed.

The impulse to defend Harper and attack Ignatieff is strong throughout the Canadian media, not just in the G&M.

Fred from BC said...

Jerry Prager said...

Fred: This government of Canada doesn't deserve to have a seat on the security, I think they took one look at the overkill, badly conceived security for th4e G20 and thought, "Nope." Those people in Europe has fascist parties when the Conservative Party of Canada lost the government to Liberals and Labour in 1935, they've been there and done Harper, and they ain't going back.
They took a look at the prorogue of a minority parliament by a scheming enemy of liberal democracy and said no thanks.



An interesting theory, but I don't think Canadians are that much different than Europeans, and neither of the incidents you mentioned seemed to hurt Conservative support at home, did they?