With the release of polling data that shows an abrupt return of support for the Liberals, people are taking a look at the "new pollster on the block".
Conservative Life has damning information on previous work. Canuckistan Chronicles (who should remember that etiquette requires that you not ping sites you've not actually mentioned in your post) writes that the pollster has "provided stats for the botched gun registry and is loaded with " former premiers, cabinet ministers, senior bureaucrats and political advisors.".
Now perhaps these polls are legit, and Paul Martin's simpering really did turn hearts and minds. And maybe the Liberals and Liberal-friendly media outlets who commissioned them are borrowing from the US Democrats playbook, and using deliberately skewed polls to throw cold water on the election fires burning.
It isn't hard to skew a poll without deliberately falsifying the results - by polling during certain times of day, or first asking a series of questions designed to influence the respondant in one direction or the other. The early exit polls in the 2004 US presidential elections are an example - with initial "leaked" results showing a blowout for John Kerry, it's suspected that both the polling and the leaking were deliberate attempts by the Democratic Party to dissuade Bush supporters from voting at all - a repeat of events in 2000, when CNN actually declared Al Gore elected a few minutes after Florida closed.
update - Occam's Carbuncle has been running the Liberal donation numbers on these pollsters....
By the way - If you are interested in some fascinating discussion on polling, and examples of how data can be skewed, through deliberate efforts or simple sloppiness, bookmark Mystery Pollster.
Sorry Kate. Still learning the etiquette. Fixed problem. You're referenced now.
No problem, Richard -- it was intended as much for the others who've done it, as it was for you. There's lots of newbies out there, just making sure you get off on the right track.
I doubt the early release of the US results would have benefited either side - democrats could have just decided that their guy was going to win so why bother voting.
Ultimately, if pollsters are trying to come up with desired results, I guess they will, but don't some news organisations really want to know what the public is thinking?
And to think, I got the impession the Librano's attitude towards the polls was always F@@K em, we don't need em..... or maybe that was the proles?
D.
In respect to bias in US media reports, the question is why would the media falsely report a Democratic coup before polling results were solid? It certainly wasn't to encourage Bush supporters to get out to vote. It may simply have been to try to scoop the competition, but I rather doubt it. Considering the overwhelming liberal aspirations of the MSM, there is plenty of room to suspect intention behind the misreporting.
I heard something about liberals in the movies that might apply to the news. Show business types constantly shout that they make movies with leftist trends because the bottom line is green power. The box office demands what they produce.
Michael Medved said that actually a lot of movie makers will forego a big box office if they can get peer recognition from big shots in the movie industry. The idea of producing "a significant film," or even "an important film" in the eyes of their herd leaders can send shivers up their spines and trump the dollar motive.
Maybe there are those in the MSM who have similar motives.
May the polls are right and sadly Canadians are very gullible people.
There is a very good reason that Democratic pollsters would want to weight early returns - in a country with as many time zones as the US, and a very tight election race in some of the western zones (like Arizona, Minnesota) the phsycological effect of having a presidential candidate "declared elected" can be the disillusionment of those who would have voted for the opponant. There was little question that this is the very reason the skewed polls showing Kerry ahead by 5 points were leaked to Wonkette - who then blared them across the left of the blogosphere. Furthermore, the networks then took those exit polls and blended them into the early returns, skewing the actual projections they were making for several hours into the night.
Don't EVER make the mistake of believing that it doesn't matter who does polling, or that it isn't important to know what the sequence of questions asked were. That can have a profound effect on the results, as can the reporting of those results in molding public perceptions.
We are sheep. Make no mistake about it. And a well-timed favourable poll can do a lot to convince the populace that a politician is reflecting the will of the people, when in fact, the political party is manipulating perception.
I agree with Art Williams... Canadians are very gullible people, and easily bought.
Just so you know, I've done a lot of traveling, last year I was in Toronto, Ajax, Kitchener, London, Sarnia, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver, Red Deer, and I live in Calgary. I talk to Canadians online almost daily from all over the country.
The patently transparent liberal strategy of divide-and-conquer works, and works very well. The attitudes I see Canada-wide show a frightening trend. Just the elementary damage control and repeating meme of "Canadians don't want an election" are working incredibly well for the liberals.
They've had a lot of their work done for them, and gleefully use the negative press that the Bush Administration is receiving to scare-monger people away from conservatives.
For the record: conservatives are NOT going to start a war (we couldn't possibly, obviously). We're not going to ban abortions tomorrow. We want to fix the health-care system, not dismantle it. Church attendance will not become mandatory.
And even though I don't give a whit if quebec separates, I don't see any advantage to allowing them to continue to hold Canada hostage to that threat.
Just anecdotal but ... here in Ottawa the local am squawk radio, which likes to bill itself as right of centre, was pushing those poll results hard today. And not once (that i heard) did they mention what the freaking question was that was asked! Or the methodology. To paraphrase: "Liberals are pumped today because polls show that Martin's address to the nation has saved the day and Harper is considered to scary and no one wants an election". Nor did they question the results in any way, give error bars, or consider any other caveates. I'm thinking we have a serious shortage of grey matter in the media. It is to despair.
Globe & Mail: Poll puts Liberals in front
CTV: Liberals and Conservatives tied in latest poll
Same poll. Different headlines. Do I detect a bias on the part of the Globe & Mail?
The polls are reported in the press also makes a great difference. Sometimes contextual statements and phrases are omitted, and sometimes follow-up or preceding questions and results are omitted as well. I recall a poll out of Iraq about a year into the overthrow. AP and BBC et al trumpetted the fact that a majority of Iraqis did not trust the USA and wanted them to leave. What they didn't report, was the follow-up questions:
- Have you heard of US attacks on civilians; most said yes
- Have you seen US attacks on civilians: most sais no
- Have you experienced US attacks on civilians: virtually all said no
- When do you want the US to leave; virtually all said when stability has been achieved
BBC, CNN, AP, and "Rooters" only published that Iraqis did not trust Americans and wanted them to leave.
By the way, the poll released today was issued by a company that has ties to Desmarais. If you smell rot; look for the Power Corp. footprint.
Why does PowerCorp keep popping up?
Kate, re the comments you left on my trackback post, for some reason they only show up to me in Haloscan and they don't appear on my blog. Something seems to be messed up.
So please don't think I'm crass enough to delete them.
Unless you object, I will copy and post them later.
Oh. Wasn't aware of that, as I hadn't been back around. Go ahead and repost if you wish.
I looked at that Mystery Pollster site. Definitely not "Polling for Dummies". Now my brain hurts.
Might be tough to find but an easier approach might be the book "Lying With Statistics". At least to start with.
Or, one could just assume as a general rule that pollsters have an agenda and the reults aren;t to be trusted.
For angryinthegreatwhitenorth's latest "poll" results :
Revealing ties to Otto Lang, mentor of Ralph Goodale, Finance Minister, from Saskatchewan.
And more: The skewing of polls by the Liberals & their fellow-travellers. MSM is complicit in the propaganda.
Oh yeah,
The Strategic Counsel has no ties whatsoever to the Chretien regime.
http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_people/p_donolo.asp
Polls are statistics with all that that entails.
If you want to find out if people want an election, you can ask a neutral question. If you want to generate an answer, ask a biased question.
Examples of leading questions are easy.
If you want to have people say that they do want an election ask this question:
Given that the Gomery Enquiry has uncovered evidence of severe corruption in the governing Liberal party, do you believe that Canadians should be able to pass judgement on the Government through and immediate election?
If you want to have people reject an election, ask this question:
The Conservative party has stated that they want to force another election less than a year after Canadians went to the polls. Do you agree that Canadians should be forced to go to the polls so soon?
Polling companies are tied to the governing party and the media who pay their fees. The governing party and the media are both Liberal. They are two wings of the same group.
The polls will be biased in favour of the Liberals until well into the campaign because the media will then chose how blatently they will shill for their team. The media want their side to win but want things interesting. During the actual campaign, the media will want accurate information and you will be able to put more stock in the polling results.
If the Conservatives are way behind, you will even see the media attacking the liberals. When the Conservatives catch up (making it a closer race and better for media ratings,) they will revert to attacking Conservatives. If the Conservatives are out front, the media will be shameless (as they are now.)