The Shotgun Blog
« Should we panic now? | Main | NORMAN'S SPECTATOR »
Thursday, February 10, 2005
The Mike Duffy tell
There is some interesting video on the CTV.ca website regarding the latest SES poll which has shown the gap between the Liberals and Conservatives is decreasing in Canada. Furthermore the Liberals lost 10 percent in Ontario.
Mike Duffy: 10 points. And where has that Liberal vote gone?
Nik Nanos: Well that, a lot of the Liberal vote has gone to the Conservatives with a little bit to the NDP. But the other thing that we noticed is that our polling on SSM shows that Ontarions are not as likely to support legally recognizing same-sex unions as compared to other Canadians.
MD: Really? You'd think with the big urban area of Toronto and all these downtown sophisticates - it's often in the past been portrayed as a kind of old vs. young, rural vs. urban, is that what your poll is showing?
NN: I wouldn't confuse Bay Street with Main Street. Once we get outside the GTA and the high-density urban areas SSM isn't resonating as well. Ontraions are 10% more likely than the national average to support a traditional version of marriage compared to recognizing same-sex rights (I would like to check this but their pdf is down, besides, I have already posted that this analysis is oversimplified)
MD: But is this type of question that people change their vote on? They may not like it but at the end of the day when they go in to cast their ballot will they vote against Liberal MPs because of this?
NN: Well we know from the same poll that we did that about 42% of Canadians consider this a ballot question but the problem comes out with how this actually pans out because it's one of those things were the impact may not be the actual ballot, it may be the impressions that they leave on the different parties. As to the one party being tolerant and another party being intolerant.
MD: Well that is always the game of managing your public perception. How does Paul Martin get out of this, do you think?
How is that even a relevant question Mr. Duffy? How biased is that! Does he ask other equally irrelevant questions like how can Stephen Harper continue to capitalize on this momentum? Or how can Jack Layton finally break through? How about a relevant and unbiased question like what impact will this trend have on the minority parliament and the likelihood of an early election?
This and more analysis of Nik Nanos' ridiculous position on tolerance at PoliticalStaples
Posted by Greg Staples on February 10, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8347097b969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Mike Duffy tell:
Comments
What this does for the Conservatives is open the door to a new constituency.
Back in the days of Manning’s Reform Party growth, few people who saw him speak ever left with a negative opinion. Many joined the party. The key to Liberal support was to ensure that a minimum of voters ever read the policies or heard the presentation.
If the Conservatives can generate a policy book as exciting as the old Blue Book, dissatisfaction over this one issue may have long-term consequences.
Posted by: Pete E | 2005-02-10 8:51:04 PM
Greg
You're barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-10 9:00:59 PM
Robert
I'm waiting impatiently for the answer to my question about spray paint.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-10 9:41:46 PM
Greg -
I've read your post a few times and I'm not yet clear on what, exactly, Duffy did wrong here. It isn't obvious that he was being biased. It's considered established opinion that there exists a party that enough people have labeled 'intolerant' for it to be a relevant question.
The question about how Paul Martin might get out of this is perfectly legitimate. How *does* he get out of this?
Anyways, I don't see it. Help me out.
Posted by: P. M. Jaworski | 2005-02-11 4:09:36 AM
Maybe I'm wrong but I just found it bizarre. First off I don't buy that the whole jump is due to the Conservative position on SSM, there is much more to it than that. If you do buy it, then the SES shows how well that has played for the Conservatives. But after an explanation of how well they immendiately spin it as a negative.
As Mr. Duffy,maybe, as Mr. Spector says, I am barking up the wrong tree. You have to admit it is strange question. It sounded like wishful thinking or cheerleading to me but maybe I am being paranoid.
Posted by: Greg Staples | 2005-02-11 6:09:51 AM
I know what Greg is getting at. The media does tend to view everything from the point of view of the liberal party. This sends the message that the liberals are "the good guys" or "the heroes" of the story However, my suspicion is that this is acceptable practice for the media - that when they cover any party that is in government this is the language they adopt(although the liberals have been there so long its hard to tell.)
Posted by: Pat. C | 2005-02-11 7:30:36 AM
Most CBC reports centre around Stephen Harper f-cking goats or molesting kids or presiding over a divided party.
Duffy's report is about Paul Martin's growing problems. Rejoice when you see that kind of report.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-11 7:40:12 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.