Apolitical Staples

At last, numbers that matter. Thanks Greg. I think the numbers in Ontario are tied more to McGuinty, but you never know.

You just can’t accept that people in Ontario could support Harper can you ;) Actually it does not matter what it is tied to. Have you read Chantal Hebert today? She opines that the Liberals were to eager to get Garth Turner because they are worried about 905.

You just can’t accept that people in Ontario could support Harper can you ;)

You know how stubborn I can get. ;)

I haven’t read her yet. I am a bit doubtful about her premise though. I think it comes down to a “who’s got the biggest” contest, between Conservatives and Liberals. “You stole Khan, well two can play that game!”

Well then Greg.. I guess that means people in the Atlantic Provinces hate the negative ads.. since the Tory #’s have tanked there :) They arent doing as well out West either.

So, I think we have a variety of factors out there at play.. meaning we’re still going to be in a deadlock when all is said and done, unless something dramatic happens during the election campaign.

What’s the sample size for the regional breakouts? These have to be taken with a grain of salt, especially Atlantic Canada and Manitoba/Saskatchewan, as they never seem to get a decent-sized sample in these areas. But polling costs money.

The Conservatives would appear to be down nationally and up in Ontario. Interesting. Where did they lose support, then? In Quebec? If so, this might not be a big loss for the Conservatives, because of how much support they have to gain in Quebec to get on the radar in terms of seats. A low support in Quebec with a moderate average nationally means a higher level of support elsewhere in the country and — in Ontario’s case — more opportunities for seats.

Where did they lose support, then? In Quebec?

They are down in the west (probably mostly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where the Wheat Board is a big issue) and Atlantic Canada.

“What’s the sample size for the regional breakouts? These have to be taken with a grain of salt, especially Atlantic Canada and Manitoba/Saskatchewan, as they never seem to get a decent-sized sample in these areas.”

James Bow is right.

James Bow is right.

Sample sizes for those regions make the regional results unreliable - sample size in Atlantic Canada was ridiculously low - 95, with a +/- of 10.2

Greg (the sinister one): Believe me or not, the CWB is not going to be a negative issue for the CPC’s in Saskatchewan.

Cheers, lance

Greg (the sinister one): Believe me or not, the CWB is not going to be a negative issue for the CPC’s in Saskatchewan.

We will see. ;)

The Leger and SES polls ask two entirely different questions:

SES: http://tinyurl.com/2lsj9p

“For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed Voters Only)”

The SES result is that both the CPC and the LPC are either the first or second choice of 33% of the respondents. The poll doesn’t seem to differentiate between first and second choice. Also, the SES has 9% undecided, which it doesn’t reallocate.

The Leger poll http://tinyurl.com/2uhtz8 asks:

“If federal elections were held today for which of results the following political parties would you be most likely to vote for? Would it be for…? (If the respondent did not have an opinion the following question was asked): Even if you have not yet made up your mind, which political party would you be most likely to vote for?”

The results before distribution of the undecided/spoiled/refused (15% total) was 33% CPC and 27% LPC.

Leger then takes the 15% and distributes that proportionately amongst the parties, which is how they arrive at CPC 38% and LPC 31%.

I have doubts about the scientific validity of proportional allocation of the 15% who didn’t know or refused to respond.

17% for the NDP, eh?

The dippers are not as wounded as we were led to believe…