Saturday, February 10, 2007

Have To Love This Headline: "Tory Attack Ads Have No Effect in Canada"

Unless of course you're Jason Kenney. The first time we get a sense of negatives:
The television spots released by the Conservative party to question the traits of Liberal leader St├ęphane Dion had a negligible impact on the perceptions of Canadians, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies.

The survey allowed respondents to watch three advertisements in their computers through an embedded video link. Before viewing the ads, 40 per cent of respondents said Dion would make the best prime minister, while 36 per cent selected current head of government and Conservative leader Stephen Harper. After viewing the spots, the percentages remained almost identical, with Dion at 39 per cent and Harper at 36 per cent.

Of the following two federal party leaders, which one do you think would be the best prime minister of Canada?

(After watching the ads)

Now, of the following two federal party leaders, which one do you think would be the best prime minister of Canada?


Before
After

St├ęphane Dion (Lib.)
40%
39%

Stephen Harper (Con.)
36%
36%

Don’t know
24%
26%

Some seeds don't take, especially when the climate is wrong and the ground of poor quality.

H/T to Scott Tribe

8 comments:

Erik said...

Donated moneys have to be put to "good use"; paying PR firms is one of them.

Consider these ads the Conservative's legal version of Adscam. If the ads sways the publics opinion, fine. If it doesn't, fine.

Anonymous said...

Adscam is just so over. It was 11 almost 12 years ago.

If we keep in this mode, let's resurrect the Mulroney years shall we? A cabinet minister in jail nearly every year of his tenure,plus some.

Grow up - it's over, done, fini.

OK, let's clean it all up and go back to 1867 and clean up from the beginning of time.

Erik said...

Having problems with analogies, anonymous?

In both cases (adscam and negative CPOC ads) moneys are paid back to advertising firms.

OK, let's clean it all up and go back to 1867 and clean up from the beginning of time.

It's not about cleaning up, it's showing the similarities in spending patterns of moneys available. If you know of an example from 1867 that everyone can remember, then be my guest.

Otherwise, anonymous, go troll somewhere else.

Darren McEwen said...

They always come full circle to the ol' adscam argument, eh?

Frankly, it's amusing to see them spin it back to that every single time.

Anonymous said...

interesting...

finally found the actuall report...it seems the press release forgot to report on a few things

http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collateral/pdfs/polls/AngusReidPoll_02-08-07.pdf

Anonymous said...

This is the CPC's adscam? That's a stretch.

By your reasoning, no political parties should be allowed to advertise, because the money will go back to an advertising company.

See the difference though? The Liberals stole money and paid advertising companies to do no work, in exchange for getting kickbacks to the party from the ad company. The CPC, on the other hand, got donations from their supporters, which they then used to buy ads that the advertising company actually produced and ran advertisements with.

You are pretty dense to try to make a comparison here...

Anonymous said...

By your reasoning, no political parties should be allowed to advertise, because the money will go back to an advertising company.

No, my reasoning would be that no donating business/person should also be able to be at the receiving end of a political party.
Of course, Adscam is a far more grave criminal act; using public funds as kickbacks.

But some public money also flows back to the CPOC advertisers; their donations are tax deductable.

Indeed a mini-adscam, but never the less, a scam that should be illegal; there is no benefit for democracy, only a democratic defacit.

Torian said...

hey steve,

I was surprised after reading the full report of the poll, too.

Initially I wanted to read it because it just didn't make any sense- no professional polling place would to a pre-post on the efficacy of an ad and only look at decided voters. I mean, of course, there would be no change-they've already decided.

Ads such as those are not targeted to decied voters, but UD and DK voters.

I still question the sampling- but like I said, what do I know?

I just hate it when the press release does not mention all the details-whether it is for or against my party of choice.