Peace, order, and good government has it's advantages.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
Peace, order, and good government has it's advantages.
BladeWorker
Member
That's not the point I was trying to make, and my experience doesn't bear out your conclusion, either.
Once upon a time between 12 and 15% of voters were undecided coming into the debates and that number would diminish in the post-debate period. Those who remained undecided four or five days out from the vote...if they did in fact vote (which was a crapchute to determine), it was distributed similar to how those decided had done. Polling was a cinch, if you sampled properly.
That has changed in the past 5 or so years. Rather than 12-15% undecided, we look at 25% on the low end (depending on where you are in the country, it can get upwards of 35%). And that number doesn't decrease in the post debate period. Increasingly, people are making ballot-box decisions, and those decisions are increasingly out of step with what decided voters are telling pollsters in the run up to election day.
This suggests that there are cadres of voters who make up their minds in the pre-debate period, but a growing number of voters who use the debates to inform their choice (which may or may not be the determining factor.) There is a further cadre of voters who change their vote intent in the post-debate period, signalling that the debates very much do have an impact on vote choice, particularly among soft voters and moderates.
There is an argument to be made that the quality of the debates has fed into public cynicism with politics and elections, but that's as much the fault of the broadcasters as it is the politicians and the parties themselves. There's also an argument that instantaneous communications have changed the way people make decisions on the whole, and that sticking one's finger in the wind is increasingly becoming how we make choices, political and not. There's also the 24-hour news cycle, which has changed the way parties campaign, voters receive information, and candidates speak. All of these are factors which would diminish the importance of a debate. None of them suggest that most people are making up their minds, for sure and for ever, prior to the debates in a writ period.
Yeah tooclosetocall has one too where they ask who has won and they have
Charest 16%
Marois 27.9%
Legault 12.6%
David 39.2%
No one 4%
It seems parties have some of their hardcore fans voting on these polls like crazy.
Chantal Hébert said Françoise David did really well but she didn't see any clear winner or loser. It seems the spin doctors will have fun with this one.
Personally, I didn't like any one of them during that debate. They all dodged questions and use them to attack someone else at the table. At points it was hard to follow as everyone was shouting.
BladeWorker
Member
Puffin poop is rational?
BladeWorker
Member
Wouldn't you love to be a reporter calling each camp for comment in the post-debate period? They all claim victory, even if the only thing coming out of their leader's mouth was horse poop.
That argument was used 10 years ago but normal people stopped using it when they realizes this is just not true.
oh I see.
please refrain from using anecdoctal evidence when talking about politics.
i think a certain % of people watch the debate to decide who they will vote for. especially in this situation with more parties than usual and some sharing the same views. For the first time in my life I didn't know who I would vote for until a week ago.
every vote counts, these debates are a good way to scrape a few more votes.
every vote counts, these debates are a good way to scrape a few more votes.
also, i can't beleive ppl here saying our politic is less interesting than american politics... i think my country's politic is way more interesting cause it concerns ME and US as a people. american politics are interesting to you because you follow it like an holywood movie, you buy into the hype. its like watching reality tv, so fuckin shameful.
I'm not sure I'd totally agree. The game hasn't changed for the most part; momentum is still the number one deciding factor for all political campaigns. Undecideds may be undecideds with respect to party, but they do have their left-right inclinations.
What has changed (and where I do agree with you on the role of media) where that momentum comes from. Debates rarely change momentum (for our generation) and the strongest developments come from the news cycle and on the campaign trail.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I disagree, Françoise David did the best she could do. As much as I didn't trust QS in the past, what I liked tonight is that she has basically solidified QS' stance on sovereignty; they cannot remove it from their platform to fusion with NPD's provincial party when it will be created, which means they might in fact do the opposite and put more emphasis on sovereignty and fusion with ON.
The next few years will be interesting.
I hope the CAQ lost some votes tonight. The problem is it took YEARS for people to realize that ADQ=Conservatives/Privatizers. It will take time before people realize that the CAQ is the same, sadly, and potentially only after they have done a lot of damage, such as privatizing Hydro-Québec, health care, and education.
The media is BOUGHT OUT in Quebec: there is Quebecor and Powercorp. Period.
For the latecomers, http://www.threehundredeight.com/ for all your polling needs.
edit: For the record, I'm expecting a PQ majority.
edit: For the record, I'm expecting a PQ majority.
BladeWorker
Member
Hey, I'm not discounting momentum - the ultimate point I try to make is that most people don't make up their minds before the debates. I guess that means we're sort of on the same side of this debate...
That said, I think it goes without saying at this point that the polling game has changed completely. We witnessed media pollsters get completely gobsmacked in the most recent federal election, and observers saw it coming. Polling methodologies have to change to account for how vote choice processes have changed, lest the entire industry find itself bankrupt. Sidebar: I differentiate here between media pollsters, who are performing whip-up surveys on no budget, and party pollsters, who have to get it right all the time or get fired.
The media also has to become more honest in showing regional and riding breakdowns. National percentages don't mean anything anymore.
Well I found Françoise to be better later on in the debate. I wrote that post quite early on and at this point she was pretty much buying into the other 3 mess. Later on she realized she could exploit this when she said no one was actually answering the questions asked and she started to shine.
I don't think anyone lost votes outsides of the PQ tonight. Not because Marois goofed or did poorly but because David did really well compared to the others. The interesting question will be to see how voters will act when seeing the polls the days before the election. Are they going to vote QS because of the debate or are they going to vote PQ to block Charest.
All 3 got KOed badly at some point.
Charest's worse part of the debate was when he refused to acknowledge Tomassi was corrupted and that Jean Tremblay's speech about Benhabib was racist. At one point he was really losing it saying "Am I not clear enough?" while he wasn't clear at all. His wildcard, the Moisan Report ended up being a dud as Nathalie Normandeau was also blamed in there and Legault was also part of the PQ at that time. As such, all three were splashed anyway. Overall he added nothing worthwhile to the table. He spent the whole debate attacking the 3 other candidates at the table. I also hated how it seemed he was always laughing during the whole debate. It was really creepy.
Marois had issues with the fact that apparently the referendum will be in the hands of the party and that they would take the decision when to hold one. If they get 15% of all Quebecois' signatures they could hold one anytime which is quite amateurish. She dodged that one poorly. She also didn't do well keeping the ambiguity about her independance plan. The fact she has yet to reveal her financial plan didn't help either during some parts.
She kept talking about senior citizen even if the discussion had nothing to do with it. It was really obvious she was pandering. For some reason she had issues answering if 8800 doctors were enough for the province. I mean it's not that hard to give your opinion.
Legault had issues defending his program. Most of his ideas ended up being destroyed or shot down badly. His plan to improve the state's finance ended up being crushed by Charest by a point I had mentionned before the debate in this thread. What would he do with all those 7k-10k specialized employees? No answer there. His plan about how paying doctors more would allow each Quebcois to have a family doctor was probably the worse of the health plans presented (but that's not saying much though). Some of his attacks about how he was against unions while Marois was in cahoot in them backfired quickly in his face when Charest told him his "star" doctor Barette was also in an union. He also easily fell in Marois' trap when she asked him if he say any corruption in the PQ while he was there. He had just said beforehand that he never saw corruption in his political career... He also had weird facial expressions while he was attacked. He seemed like a little kid being reprimanded by his parents.
I don't like them either. They are basically funnelling their ideology and the same "news" across all of their media and they have so many that it gets quite scary.
Sometimes I wonder why there are more federalists than seperatists when I read stuff like these comments...
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Comment/2012/08/01/20053851.php?comments_page=0
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Comment/2012/08/01/20053851.php?comments_page=0
Huh? If it weren't for pollsters we'd have gone into election day still thinking it was a battle between the Liberals and Conservatives. The pollsters pretty much pegged everything about that election, other than a fairly typical 2% underestimation of the CPC.
The Alberta election was a much bigger SNAFU, but there were other problems with that. Like no pollsters doing polls within 3 days of the election.
Anyone else watched the "debate" on TVA? I'm not really sure what I watched...
Summary of the debate
I learned nothing at all from their discussion. All repeated stuff. Jean Charest always interrupting Marois, every single time she was speaking. I didn't find her very good tonight. She didn't get KOed and made a really nice save on Charest's wildcard about the mines thing but overall she had so much material to attack him and simply talked about her stuff instead. He spent the whole night saying his party was perfect and not corrupted at all even if he is knee deep in shady stuff. Police arresting Tomassi? That's slandering! The governement hiring a company owned by a MNA? Slandering. A minister having a breakfast with the mafia? Slandering. He was really aggressive too it was annoying. I guess Marois is at least good to keep her calm because if I were her I would have shouted LIAR.
I wish I could lie that good too >.>
Oh and WTH at "Épée de Démoclès"
Summary of the debate
Charest : Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois, Madame Marois
I learned nothing at all from their discussion. All repeated stuff. Jean Charest always interrupting Marois, every single time she was speaking. I didn't find her very good tonight. She didn't get KOed and made a really nice save on Charest's wildcard about the mines thing but overall she had so much material to attack him and simply talked about her stuff instead. He spent the whole night saying his party was perfect and not corrupted at all even if he is knee deep in shady stuff. Police arresting Tomassi? That's slandering! The governement hiring a company owned by a MNA? Slandering. A minister having a breakfast with the mafia? Slandering. He was really aggressive too it was annoying. I guess Marois is at least good to keep her calm because if I were her I would have shouted LIAR.
I wish I could lie that good too >.>
Oh and WTH at "Épée de Démoclès"
BladeWorker
Member
These results aren't really much to be proud of, considering in the 90s media pollsters regularly hit much closer to the mark.
Won't argue the point about the AB provincial election, though, except to say that I think snafu is being awfully generous.
The Power Of Snap
Member
If Quebec were to ever separate...
(leaving Quebec not going to it)
More jobs for me.
We hear that one since 1975. Stay classy mate.
Another good one is "companies will move to ontario" my response: those who wanted to move are already in china.
I think that in general, polls are always going to be off the mark when there is significant momentum during a short campaign. The 90s didn't really see that, except for 1993. And there the momentum didn't really carry through to the final days, it was mostly complete before the last week.
The 2011 federal election and the 2012 Alberta election both had massive shifts and momentum continuing right up into election day. I think it's myopic to assume that the pollsters were wrong when they accurately showed a trend that continued into election day, when they couldn't poll. And I say this both for the NDP surge across the campaign and the last-minute shift for the CPC in the last few days.
Likewise, for Alberta, the very last poll released showed a continuing collapse of Wildrose support.
I'm not really sure what pollsters could actually do besides literally cook their numbers to improve reporting in a situation like this. I don't really see any basis to believe that the polls weren't showing exactly what they're supposed to: a snapshot of the leanings of people who are likely or intend to vote at a given point in the campaign. At no point can a poll be considered to be "the likely result of the election on election day," and that's always been true.
Oh and before someone trots out this old meme, pollsters do call cell phones.
Marois really ot under Charest's skin tonight, and kept her cool.
If a separation is achieved after a democratic and transparent referendum and that offends you, then you can leave. I have anglo friends and no problem with english people in Québec, but you have to be historically illiterate to not understand the seperatist tendacies that have been present over the last 100 years. There will still be a place for english in a sovereign Québec, because it still is the international language of business and trade.
Whether it happens of not, it is like hearing people complain that they are in the wrong bus and they don't want to be a passenger if we change our itinerary. Just get off the bus and quit bothering us if you aren't happy.
If a separation is achieved after a democratic and transparent referendum and that offends you, then you can leave. I have anglo friends and no problem with english people in Québec, but you have to be historically illiterate to not understand the seperatist tendacies that have been present over the last 100 years. There will still be a place for english in a sovereign Québec, because it still is the international language of business and trade.
Whether it happens of not, it is like hearing people complain that they are in the wrong bus and they don't want to be a passenger if we change our itinerary. Just get off the bus and quit bothering us if you aren't happy.
gutter_trash
Banned
what a mess of a debate, WTF did I just watch?
BladeWorker
Member
If national percentages mean nothing, then regional percentages are worthless. We all know margin of error increases exponentially with decreasing sample size.
Seat projection models are based on past behaviour, amalgams of polling numbers, incumbents, vote distribution in past elections, whether or not the person making the model ate their wheaties that morning...they're really only as good as the information used to feed them, and vary widely in their accuracy and legitimacy. Seat projection models constructed on the basis of media polls are less accurate - almost all of the time - than those constructed on a basis of trend data and internal polls.
Media polls will regularly be off the mark because they're cheap crap. It's like buying a Coach purse off Canal Street. It might look similar, but they tend to fall apart with a thorough examination.
Ekos, for example, uses robocalls. Robocalls that cannot reach rotary phones (and yes, they do still exist, particularly in rural areas.) Robocalls that sound like telemarketers and have a significant pick-up/voice introduction gap, which is a huge turnoff and reduces response rates and makes sample selection nearly impossible.
IIRC, Angus Reid uses a panel constructed from opt-ins and list buys, and historically leaned Conservative. (I mention Angus, but most online panels are constructed from list buys and/or opt-ins only).
Those are just two examples.
All the political parties shifted tactically in the last week of their campaign. You can be sure their internal polling caught early what it took media pollsters another four days to even smell. "You should have given us more time!" is loser talk for "we're not strategically smart enough to pick up what we should have days ago, or we're not willing to spend the money to look that smart."
Good polling can predict outcomes within a margin of error, nineteen times out of twenty. That's the principle behind the statistical analysis that justifies conducting public opinion research in the first place. Pollsters whose results are outside the margin of error did something wrong, and that's all there is to it.
Pollsters could subscribe to methodological standards that involve recruiting their online panels using random-selection methods rather than opt-in stuff. They could sample their online surveys to manage self-selection. They could use random-digit-dialling (REAL RDD, not the "we call it RDD but we're calling from a list" RDD) in their phone surveys. They could de-duplicate their sample so they don't call the same households within a six- or eight-month period. Instead of using robocalling that has to cycle through 100,000 numbers, they could use live callers and re-call at different times of day on different days before they cycle other numbers in. Those are just sample-side things that media pollsters could employ. Rarely does a media poll involve all - or any - of the above. Why? They cost money. Money that media polls do not have, or make.
They can, and many do. But: This is only cost-effective if the pollster has cell sample blocks generated through list buys. True Random Digit Dial is cost prohibitive for media polls, because only about half of numbers it generates are valid (and blocks of those numbers are businesses, or out-of-service, etc...)
Depending on the location(s) in which you're calling (and the subject matter), including cell numbers in sample could be imperative, a good idea, or not something that will make a difference. Remember: cell-only households are predominantly occupied by people under 35, the same people who have a voting rate far below that of those over 65. This isn't a justification to only talk to those in their golden years, rather a notation that if we expect polls to be accurate, we should focus and weight survey data to reflect propensity to vote. Few media polls do so: they report on "decided voters", and don't screen out people who are not likely to vote this time around.
I don't really disagree with most of what you say in the rest of this post, even if I draw slightly different conclusions from it. But I want to be clear on this one point.
A poll is a snapshot, not a prognostication. It can predict the outcome *were the election held on the day the poll was done* within (yadda yadda). This is why final day polling is essential, and why I maintain that a big part of the problem in the Alberta election was the lack of such.
I should hope you don't think that polls taken the day the writ was dropped are likely to be within the margin of error of the election day results. If so then I don't think the 90s were really much better.
Tonight is the last debate but I think I don't care anymore. I'm fed up of all 3 leaders. Marois is starting to go insane and coming up with a 2 tier democracy. Legault's magical restructuration is already getting slammed from doctors, teachers and schoolboards' employees and we will end up with another social crisis. And Charest is totally going cray cray coming up with more lies to cover his 9 year long failures.
Parti Nul au Secours!
Parti Nul au Secours!
Frustrated_me
Member
Heh, are you reading what you're typing? How can Quebec separating be financially positive for Quebec... I'm afraid the condo I just bought will plummet in value if Quebec were to separate, already considering selling and moving out.
If you think I'm the only one amongts a few whose thinking this, well umm, you're just being ignorant. People will leave, thus money and tax revenue leaving too.
Also age old question, what the fuck is up with the quebecois on insisting to separate decade after decade? Dudes just move on and learn to adapt to times...
BladeWorker
Member
I should hope you don't think that polls taken the day the writ was dropped are likely to be within the margin of error of the election day results. If so then I don't think the 90s were really much better.
I agree with this.
Ultimately, my point is that good polling can inform strategy. Bad polling is best used as napkins.
gutter_trash
Banned
awesome and accurate review.
I agree but I will vote Liberal.
Better to go with the Devil (Charest) you know than the Devil you don't (Legault).
SketchTheArtist
Member
:: clap clap clap clap :: Wow.
Why?
Charest is not gonna win this one, and after 9 years of the Devil you know, you want more of that?
I'm voting CAQ myself. No way I'm voting PLQ back up there, and with them down in the polls and with the stupid system we have, CAQ seems to be the way to go. If they can even do a quarter of what they say I'll consider it more meaningful than...whatever PQ is proposing. What are they proposing. Oh right, no financial plan yet...
With any luck we'll have the Provincial NPD to vote for next time...it's kind of sad that every left-ish party in QC wants sovereignty. What about federalists leftists >_
Um... what on earth just happened? http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...ad-over-pq-after-weekend-leaders-debate-poll/
Lots of people (like Jean-Marc Leger) and journalists are saying it's bullshit and that the polling method they used is garbage, though. Wouldn't pay attention to that.
I had this exact conversation so many times. Growing up I was a federalist true and true, my parent came from Europe and pretty much kept me out of french schooling.
I paid the price and had to pick up french later in life. My kids are perfectly bilingual and I am fine to stay in Quebec BUT every fucking time sovereignty comes up it's a bunch of chest pounding and and cries of oppression and protection of culture.
Old farts want their dream of being president of their own county, but there is never an actual economic plan of how this transition would happen and why it would be beneficial outside of us all going in a happy circle of hugs before our economy collapses.
Quebec has the highest taxes, most bloated bureaucracy and highest amount of unionized workers in the free world. All of this would grow exponentially
Show me a fucking plan of how in 5 years this will make the world a better place for me and my family and you can have my vote
Any chance the renewed student protests had an affect?
edit: Unless it is garbage, and it being the National Post, I wouldn't be shocked.
At least the last debate was entertaining if only for the bitching. Tonight we learned that Legault is an accountant that cannot count and that Marois is not in a hurry to present her financial plan (again).
The only things these 4 consecutives debates have showed is that it's just way too much for people to watch and listen too and that all of the ideas proposed are terrible.
With Charest we will be living in corruption land again, stuck with an health system that doesn't work, giving away our mineral ressources for pebbles and electing a power hungry politician controlled by big companies and Desmarais.
With Marois we are not too sure what will happen finance wise since she will only reveal her financial plan "in a few days" (can't wait to see that masterpiece)for some reason. She'll go to the supreme court to fight for things she will probably not win(or maybe she won't go at all, who knows today she retracted herself on her plan anyway) but annoy Harper. Identity crisis and divison again! At least she plans on taxing profits on minerals heavily, will cut that dumb health tax for poor and medium income people and is in the best position to protect our language. Her plan for our health system will probably fail. (super nurses, home caring for senior citizens). Believe she can resolve every problem by "talking".
With Legault we will have someone that will take the state's finance seriously but at the cost of social chaos and jobs. Apparently paying doctors more and forcing them to do more hours and paying pharmacists less will solve every issue. He believes giving 200 millions in tax credits wil create thousands of job with wage of 30-40$ an hour and will revitalize everything (yeah 200 millions will sure give us a that good competitive advantage in a globalized world that will create 40$/hour jobs). He doesn't like unions, government officials/employees, schoolboards, Hydro Québec employees and bureaucracy in the health system and plan on kicking 7k employees out and restructuring everything. We had riot for a 2k increase of tuitions fees so I can't wait to see what will happen with with all of that. Says he would vote no to a referendum but also wouldn't promote federalism (hahaha identity problem on the horizon?). On the bright side his party his the only one that is in a good position to tackle the corruption issue in the province, he will ban asbestos production/exportation and has a valid idea regarding the Plan Nord (funnel all the profits on the debt).
So it's a pick your poison option. Voting for anything else will much or less waste your vote as the other parties don't have a shot at winning.
I really want to vote for the Parti Nul but I feel it helps Charest and I really don't want that ;(.
Renewed? The strikes are over and everyone are back in classes... The thing is that every 22th they have a monthly protest in the streets of Montréal. As for that poll, many analysts aren't giving it credibilty since apparently it uses an automated telephone system that didn't give accurate results in the former elections.
The only things these 4 consecutives debates have showed is that it's just way too much for people to watch and listen too and that all of the ideas proposed are terrible.
With Charest we will be living in corruption land again, stuck with an health system that doesn't work, giving away our mineral ressources for pebbles and electing a power hungry politician controlled by big companies and Desmarais.
With Marois we are not too sure what will happen finance wise since she will only reveal her financial plan "in a few days" (can't wait to see that masterpiece)for some reason. She'll go to the supreme court to fight for things she will probably not win(or maybe she won't go at all, who knows today she retracted herself on her plan anyway) but annoy Harper. Identity crisis and divison again! At least she plans on taxing profits on minerals heavily, will cut that dumb health tax for poor and medium income people and is in the best position to protect our language. Her plan for our health system will probably fail. (super nurses, home caring for senior citizens). Believe she can resolve every problem by "talking".
With Legault we will have someone that will take the state's finance seriously but at the cost of social chaos and jobs. Apparently paying doctors more and forcing them to do more hours and paying pharmacists less will solve every issue. He believes giving 200 millions in tax credits wil create thousands of job with wage of 30-40$ an hour and will revitalize everything (yeah 200 millions will sure give us a that good competitive advantage in a globalized world that will create 40$/hour jobs). He doesn't like unions, government officials/employees, schoolboards, Hydro Québec employees and bureaucracy in the health system and plan on kicking 7k employees out and restructuring everything. We had riot for a 2k increase of tuitions fees so I can't wait to see what will happen with with all of that. Says he would vote no to a referendum but also wouldn't promote federalism (hahaha identity problem on the horizon?). On the bright side his party his the only one that is in a good position to tackle the corruption issue in the province, he will ban asbestos production/exportation and has a valid idea regarding the Plan Nord (funnel all the profits on the debt).
So it's a pick your poison option. Voting for anything else will much or less waste your vote as the other parties don't have a shot at winning.
I really want to vote for the Parti Nul but I feel it helps Charest and I really don't want that ;(.
Renewed? The strikes are over and everyone are back in classes... The thing is that every 22th they have a monthly protest in the streets of Montréal. As for that poll, many analysts aren't giving it credibilty since apparently it uses an automated telephone system that didn't give accurate results in the former elections.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
lo, there are no student protests, they all went back to class, unlike what Charest expected.
Anyway Marois and the PQ as a whole has gained lot of points in the two TVA debates. CAQ is really starting to be seen as what they are.
Today Legault actually SAID, in those words: "I will make cuts in health, in education, and energy (HQ)". She clearly showed the PQ's platform is one of construction, while the CAQ is one of cutting everywhere to make room for the private sector.
It's going well for the PQ.
I'm still wondering if Francoise David will win the seat in Gouin. It could be very tight. Nicolas Girard would be minister of something for sure, and he would make a great minister, so I think they need to press on this to help win his seat: vote for your next X minister (transport, environment, whatever), or another person in the opposition.
FD would be great in the government, but in the opposition she can't do much more than Amir Khadir. If the CAQ won then I'd prefer her to win, but if the PQ wins Girard will be of greater benefit to the people.
The PQ didn't announce its financial plan yet because they want the PLQ and CAQ to solidify their defenses (and be attacked for it by the media). The PQ's plan will be something like "under 1 billion", and this will force the other two parties to just say they are lying instead of actually saying it costs too much. Look at the bottom of the ad released on their FB page tonight:
I really like this one too, you can see the right-wing agenda hidden between the lines of what the CAQ has been saying:
MyAbsolution
Member
So how does Quebec not have an NDP provincially. I thought every province did.
Are any of these parties right-wing socially/fiscally?
Sorry I don't know QC political parties. Just curious.
EDIT: And I dont speak/read any French at all... so learning is hard
Are any of these parties right-wing socially/fiscally?
Sorry I don't know QC political parties. Just curious.
EDIT: And I dont speak/read any French at all... so learning is hard
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
NDP announced they would make a division in QC a few weeks ago. But we have Quebec Solidaire, which is at least as left-wing if not more than NDP, but they are sovereignists. NDP would be federalist, which wouldn't be a very popular option on the left-side of the spectrum. There are rumors both could merge, as QS is unclear on how much they care about sovereignty, but I'm not sure it will happen. QS will have to move further towards independence to avoid seeing their votes split with NPD. PQ also has been moving further left.
The traditionally right-wing party has been Parti Liberal du Québec for a long time now. There was the ADQ (they never won) but when they became the main opposition at the assembly after a sudden wave of popularity (mainly discontent about the other two parties), people realized what they stood for and wiped out the party. The CAQ emerged, made up of a few former PQ right-wingers (and others from outside politics) which had been expelled (indirectly) from the PQ when Bouchard left slamming the door when his attempts to privatize Hydro Quebec through the PQ failed. The CAQ is basically his Trojan Horse (along with Power Corporation's), but he's staying behind the scene. CAQ merged with the remains of the ADQ.
So there has been an attempt since the 90s to infiltrate the PQ and steer it to the right, but Quebecers always turn their backs on right-wingers when they spot them clearly. The problem is in Quebec, the right-wingers always try to hide their agenda under blurry platforms, and Quebecers aren't well versed in world-wide politics, so they fail to recognize the patterns of conservatism.
That's why right-wingers have operated within the PQ before, but now seem to be sick of trying to steer it right and created the CAQ. The PLQ is basically the dead horse of the right-wingers. Still getting a lot of votes, but first and foremost from anglophones. CAQ is the one that has been created to replace them.
On the left there is Quebec Solidaire, Option Nationale, and PQ, and all want independence. If Option Nationale wins a seat in this election, we will now have three pro-sovereignty parties at the assembly.
I've said it before: 10 VS 10 is like 1 VS 1, but 10 VS two groups of 5 is like 1 VS 2. The more pro-independence parties we have in the assembly, the stronger the independence movement becomes, and the left inherently benefits.
I'm not really sure they are doing that well. Marois' idea that she came up with yesterday/today was a slippery slope democracy wise. She will lose votes with that. Moreover, I don't think she did well in the debates. She had to repeat she wasn't ready to show her financial plan again and again. Her main advantage is that she's more on the left than the other two. As such unionized workers, nurses, governement employees, people working in CLSC/hospitals and doctors have to vote for her to block Legault.
It's a Forum poll, not from NP. Threehundredeight has a few articles on it:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-more-support-than-it-appears/article4492780/
http://www.threehundredeight.com/2012/08/rogue-poll-or-turning-of-tide-for-plq.html
edit:
Rumors about the English-only live-polls were unsubstantiated. It was an IVR poll, similar to how Forum conducts their other polls.
Where in my post was I offended about a referendum or complained?
Not taking my job unless you have a masters in chemistry.
Sure, but I hope the parties aren't using these public polls that are effectively ads for the polling firms for their internal strategy decisions. And I'm pretty sure they're not. But the public isn't making strategic decisions (or at least shouldn't be, even with very good polls). While better polls might be better overall, I think the public is still better off with what it gets than it would be with nothing at all.
Dude, the very first line of that comparison chart is absolute bullshit anyways. Legault said time and time again that out of the loi 78, he only wants/support the part that forced classes to be given despite strikes and whatnot. Not the other bullshit part of it.
Well, either way, it's propaganda to the max, all of it. Making Legault look like a fascist dictator or something while trying to make the PQ look oh-so-human ; no, we must listen to the teachers, listen to the doctors, and so on, and so forth...
The very same picture, with a change in vocabulary, could very well work as a CAQ advertisment showing PQ does has its hands tied to syndicates, unions and everything. Which, quite frankly, I tend to agree with.
gutter_trash
Banned
funny when I hear PQ voters talking about democracy when they want to slap a new Quebec Citizenship onto actual Canadian citizens already living in Quebec.
I am proud of the First Nations to have stood up to Marois.
the very idea of making a law limiting who can run for public office because their knowledge of French is poor is ridiculous.
Especially concerning Cris towns or Anglophone municipalities.
Democracy, only when it convenient for the PQ but then strip it down when it is not
I am proud of the First Nations to have stood up to Marois.
the very idea of making a law limiting who can run for public office because their knowledge of French is poor is ridiculous.
Especially concerning Cris towns or Anglophone municipalities.
Democracy, only when it convenient for the PQ but then strip it down when it is not
BladeWorker
Member
Parties can panic/jump for joy/spin/whathaveyou based on public polls, just the same as any organization, but they all have internal numbers that they pay good money for (and they should).
Insofar as polling gets people talking about elections and bla bla bla, they're better than nothing. But focusing on the horse race and not on the policies is rather concerning. I think media polls could benefit from some methodological adjustment and a policy question thrown in. There are ways to do things better that won't cost them a great deal of money (beyond the initial investment of effort) and would do the industry better service than "so and so is up a half a percentage point today, such and such is quaking in his boots." When that half-a-point is based on a robosample among "general population" rolling sample without quotas set and without controls for likelihood to vote or even that it's not a 3-year-old on the phone, I don't buy it.
I also hold the media at least partially responsible for substandard reporting on polling - because polling allows them to make, rather than report stories, and without much effort to find numbers at that, reporters can easily take liberties that go far beyond the data (see: quaking in boots, above.) This sort of snake oil is detrimental to public discourse, because it premises an entire argument on something that isn't supportable by anything.
Heh, we all know what that feels like...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked