Apolitical Staples

“internal polling numbers are much better than the Decima numbers.”

But of course they would say that, wouldn’t they? I am still waiting for SES. ;)

“A Conservative source also tells me that their internal polling numbers are much better than Decima … which asked leading questions and had a very small sample size.” (emp. added)

True, but the opposition will frame the debate using those “leading” questions. Decima used a standard n=1000 sample which is used for all national polls, including the now almost gospel-like SES.

Decima was started by Alan Gregg, and is now run by Rick Anderson’s brother. They may not be Harper fans, but appearing to accuse them of being Liberal tools would seem to be a bit far-fetched.

Perhaps Greg Staples should ask his Conservative source to release their numbers before the Liberals and the Bloc start strategizing on JoeClarking Stephen Harper.

No one accused them of being Liberal “tools”…

And for anyone that might accuse them of that, its not “far-fetched”

Rick Anderson not being a Harper fan is an understatement.

Decima numbers cannot be trusted.

If you want to believe that internal numbers aren’t any better just remember that the media is the business of selling advertising, political parties are in the business of winning elections. I would hope that political parties do not develop strategy based on numbers that make them feel good. It is imperative that they get the best info that they can get. Newspapers, not so much.

The Conservative Party of Canada is handily beating its political rivals when it comes to fundraising, according to the latest data released by Elections Canada.

Not surprising considering most of the rightwing infrastructure is geared toward winning elections while most of the leftwing infrastructure is geared toward issues that deal with the problems of the world. And while the right gives their money to the Conservative Party and astroturf organizations like the Fraser Institute, the left gives their’s to charities like UNICEF and the Canadian Cancer Society.

Robert, I’m sure you can give solid evidence for statements like “the left gives their’s to charities like UNICEF and the Canadian Cancer Society”. Because I was always under the impression that the exact opposite is the case: charitable donations come by and large from people on the right of the political spectrum.

unless robert considers the liberals a right wing organization, then please explain the copious corporate donations they’ve recieved over then years….well above and beyond the tories.

For Robert to make those claims is a big insult. It should be obvious that lots of people of all political striples want to, for example, help fight cancer, fight poverty and etc, etc. We all may have different ideas on how to achieve these things but the objective is the same.

Shame on you Robert.

From our old leftie Robert - “Not surprising considering most of the rightwing infrastructure is geared toward winning elections while most of the leftwing infrastructure is geared toward issues that deal with the problems of the world”

Considering the liberals don’t make any decision without first commissioning a poll to see if they should or shouldn’t do something, he seems to have his left hand and his right hand mixed up.

Am I the only right of centre voter who has given more to charity than to political parties for, um, let’s see, my whole life (well since I have had my own money anyway).

Attention all socialist commenters here:

Your left leaning friends in the media/polling firms will keep you warm and comfy in that liberal coccoon for as long as they can.

And then the next election will come.

The next election in which the Conservatives GAIN seats.

I’m counting the days.

Yes Robert,

Socialism (see Cuba, North Korea) is so very “caring”. If only Canada could take further steps to be like those utopias.

Sure we’d be starving, but we’d all be equally starving.

Because I was always under the impression that the exact opposite is the case: charitable donations come by and large from people on the right of the political spectrum.

Then you’ve been mislead. All you need to do is look at the large number of rightwing astroturf organizations, who don’t do a thing to make the world a better place but still have charitable tax status, to see that what I’m saying is true. Somebody is funding these things and it’s certainly not the left. And since the left obviously isn’t funding the parties either, their charity clearly goes to organizations that, you know, actually deliver charity to people or work on worthy causes.

To clarify what I’m saying, lets take this hypothetical example. Note: I don’t have exact figures so this is just for clarification purposes.

Compare where the money goes from the average person on the right and left.

Right

Party: 30% RW Astroturf: 15% Real Charities: 55%

Left:

Party: 15% LW Astroturf: 5% Real Charities: 80%

See what I’m saying. It’s not that the left gives more than the right, it’s where that money is going that makes the difference. More of the right’s charitable dollars are simply going to the party and astroturf organizations. And the proof is in Greg’s post as well as the undisputable fact that there are more rightwing astroturf organizations with far more cash than leftwing ones.

Robert, you can pull numbers out of the air all day if you like but that does not make them factual.

But I sense that does not matter to you.

Nice try Robert. My donations? 99%+ to real charities, less than 1% to the Conservative party.

We’re talking $15,000+ over 6 years… $60 (yes, that’s a whopping sixty bucks) of that going to the CPC.

Care to try your pigeon-hole theroy again?

I am stunned and insulted that such a false allegation can be made about about a whole group of people with no evidence to back it up.

Not only have we been generous until it hurts in time and money to charities but as far as dollars go it would rank somewhere about $1 to political for every $20 to charity. When I say “we” I mean my husband and I, it has always been that way.

I have always found that right leaning people have been extremely generous with all things and there is no basis to think otherwise.

It appears that Canadians do cut and run… back to the Liberals. We, as a nation, have always been a leftist, cowardly bunch of hypocrites whose jealousy and hatred of America causes us to lose all our good senses.

UNICEF as a charity? give me a break!

The group has been involved in the food-for-sex scandals, and the amount of money that ACTUALLY makes it to those in need is horrendous.

Speaking as someone on the right of center… I’ve never donated to political parties, but I’ve donated my time and money to charities I believe are worthwhile and well organized.

Robert, you can pull numbers out of the air all day if you like but that does not make them factual.

What part of “my numbers are just for illustrative purposes” didn’t you get?

Look at it this way. Charitable donations are all lumped together on your income tax return. So when StatsCan calculates the average donation made by Canadians using tax return data it doesn’t distinguish whether it was to a political party, an astroturf organization or a real charity.

Now start off with the realistic premise that leftwing and rightwing Canadians donate equal amounts every year.

Now consider where that money is ending up. The Conservative Party and rightwing astroturf organizations are taking a larger share of the rightwing donations than leftwing parties and astroturf orgtanizations are. My proof is in your post, Greg.

Therefore my conclusions are accurate. The right is directing more of it’s donations toward the purpose of getting the Conservative Party elected than the left is toward getting their parties elected. And this therefore means that the left is directing more of its donations toward real charities.

Robert, saying something does not make it “proof”. Even if you say it. But if I were you, I would stay away from actual facts because they are not going to support your conjecture.

I would love to see an actual study on this, but here is what I found with about 10 minutes digging.

UNICEF’s 2005 revenue: $2.762 billion, over half of which comes from governments. Only 38% (about 1 billion worldwide) comes from what they call “the private sector.” I’m not sure how much of that gets to hungry kids, but that’s another story.

Just for comparison, I looked up World Vision, a Christian charity that I have contributed to regularly. Its 2005 revenue was $1.97 billion. I don’t have stats about the ratio of private to public, but my conservative guess is about 60% private. I know a lot of donors to this particular charity, all right-leaning, middle-class Canadians, the kind that might also contribute small amounts to the CPC (as I have).

Just one right-of-centre charity distributes more of private donors’ cash than UNICEF.

Consider that World Vision is just one of hundreds of Christian organizations providing relief. Others come to mind, like Samaritan’s Purse, and Salvation Army. Any guesses as to their donors’ probable political leanings?

If you did any research on this topic, you would see why so many of us are laughing (laughing I say!) at your wild guesses on donations.

sources:

http://www.wvi.org/wvi/pdf/WVI2005AnnualReport.pdf http://www.unicef.org/about/annualreport/2005/pdf/Unicef2005ar.pdf

From the same reports, I’ve broken down the contributions from private sector Canadians in 2005:

UNICEF: $35 million World Vision: $60 million

Just one piddly Christian relief organization gets twice as much money from private Canadians as UNICEF. And Robert thinks the left donates more?

I would love to see all polls tell us what the results are without Quebec. This would reflect what non-Quebecers think.

Quebec always skews results since they look at the world differently. They watch and read more European news while the rest of us watch and read more North American news.

Compare apples to apples.

“Look at it this way. Charitable donations are all lumped together on your income tax return. So when StatsCan calculates the average donation made by Canadians using tax return data it doesn’t distinguish whether it was to a political party, an astroturf organization or a real charity.”

Of course your taxes distinguish between political donations and charitable donations. I doubt that anybody thinks of giving to a political party as a charitable donation. If you can’t get his basic fact right than all the pulling numbers out the air in the world won’t make your arguments correct. If you are trying to make an argument use facts, otherwise it is slander.

Wow this thread has gone wild.

Greg you wrote: If you want to believe that internal numbers aren’t any better just remember that the media is the business of selling advertising, political parties are in the business of winning elections. I would hope that political parties do not develop strategy based on numbers that make them feel good.

Political parties are in the business of selling themselves and in creating the political narrative. To suggest they wouldn’t try to spin an alternate story to counter bad publicity doesn’t seem like the politics I know. All parties want to project an image of confidence. Any story that shows them faltering cannot be tolerated and must be countered or downplayed.

OK, I’ll give you that point. But this internal poll was not spun to the media, wasn’t even spun to me. I asked a source, they answered.

I asked a source, they answered

I don’t mean to sound jaded, but could it be your source knew you would tell us the news “unfiltered”? I think I will still wait for SES. ;)

Back to Robert’s goofball numbers. Case in point, last year I forked over about $1800 to charities (including almost $1,000 to World Vision) and $150 to the CPC. What’s that, about 10% political (first time in my life I’ve donated politically), 90% charitable?

Robert, give your frigging head a shake. When was the last time you completed your own tax return? Charitable donations are treated differently than political ones, and are separate line items.