The first night of tracking since the plagiarism issue hit the campaign shows no initial significant impact on Conservative ballot support. The Tories still maintain a ten point margin over the Liberals. It may take a few days to understand the true impact, if any, of the plagiarism story and the effect it will have on the dynamic of this week’s leadership debates.
Of note, Harper’s trust advantage has eroded in the last two nights. For most of the campaign Harper has had a significant advantage over the other federal leaders on trust, competence and vision. Although, Harper has retained his advantage on competence and vision, perceptions related to trust have eroded and there is now a statistical tie between Harper, Layton and Dion on the daily CPAC-Nanos trust measure. Also of note, Layton’s daily leadership score dropped yesterday, likely a result of the focus on the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Tune in to an early edition of Prime Time Politics with Peter Van Dusen tonight at 6 pm (EST) on CPAC for a discussion of our latest polling results. For more detailed information on the methodology and the statistical results visit the Nanos Research website at Nanos Research or chat about our polls on Nik’s blog at Nik on the Numbers.
Methodology and Results
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters is interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking, a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of accuracy is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20 for 1,200 random interviews.
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed on September 29, 2008.
Question: If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences? (First ranked reported)
Committed Voters - Canada (N=1,065, MoE ± 3.0%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 36 (-1)
- Liberal Party 26 (NC)
- NDP 20 (NC)
- BQ 10% (NC)
- Green Party 9% (+1)
- Undecided 11% (-1)
Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] (N=1,202,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper 35% (-1)
- NDP leader Jack Layton 18% (NC)
- Liberal leader Stephane Dion 15% (NC)
- Green Party leader Elizabeth May 5% (NC)
- Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 5% (+1)
- None of them 8% (+1)
- Unsure 15% (-1)
Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
The most trustworthy leader
The most competent leader
The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
[Leadership Index Score - Daily roll-up of all three measures]
- Stephen Harper 92 (+3)
- Stephane Dion 53 (+10)
- Jack Layton 49 (-10)
- Gilles Duceppe 19 (+3)
- Elizabeth May 18 (-2)
What do you think?
Cheers, NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard
RSS feed
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
I'm encouraged by fact Canadians did not fall for the newest Liberal hack,slash ... more
Regina Beach Boy (Saskatchewan) 01 Oct 14:22
I have not been making any comments since the start of the daily polls.,... more
Bernie (Ontario) 01 Oct 14:31
This sounds like a Western Canada love-in on this board. Are you saying Regina ... more
HoldenCaulfield (Ontario) 01 Oct 14:55
The Liberals would be most likely to get us into foreign wars, like they did in ... more
westerner (suspended) (Alberta) 01 Oct 19:18
And Iraq. Remember - we had troops in Iraq before the 2006 election.... more
Lex Llewdor (British Columbia) 01 Oct 19:19
You are right! I had forgotten that. I expect our Liberal friends forgot that as... more
westerner (suspended) (Alberta) 01 Oct 19:29
Comments
Regina Beach Boy
I'm encouraged by fact Canadians did not fall for the newest Liberal hack,slash and Gotchya job by the Bob Rae. I guess Canadians are above these gutter politics and would prefer to talk about the Issues, like the loomong financial nightmare next door, our economy, jobs, and the enviornment.
How novel is that!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:22:37 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 14:22
22 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
psiclone
Hey Nick! What I am fascinated by is how well the NDP are doing this election and if unlike last election where startegic voters went Libera : I have a question is it possible what with all the 3 way races, the strategic voters and if Jack does well during the debates then add a few more undecideds : could the NDP possibly become the official opposition?
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:23:42 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 14:23
7 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
westerner (suspended)
Jack Layton took a hit on the leadership index. Wonder if that is the result of his big spending announcements just when the markets took a dive?
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:26:06 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 14:26
8 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
I have not been making any comments since the start of the daily polls., since I am not interested in them. The Oct. !4 poll is the only real one.
And all I read here is partisan BS. and personal invective. Neither of which holds any interest to me.
I may watch the "debates" as they are called. Normally I don't but I want to see how Ms May conducts herself and the reaction of the other leaders to her.
It won't make any difference whom I vote for. My mind is made up as soon as the writ is dropped. I don't understand why anyone would be undecided.
I keep abreast of politics all along and so campaigns have no influence on my voting.
I could never vote for the destructive policies of the Harper government. I know how bad he is.
I don't see the policies on any of the other parties having any negative effect on us.
It's just that they don't do enough positive things to make this country what it could be.
Ms. May's voice needs to be heard in parliament so I will vote for her.
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:31:52 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 14:31
21 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
HoldenCaulfield
This sounds like a Western Canada love-in on this board. Are you saying Regina Beach Boy that you find it acceptable for Stephen Harper to stand in the House of Commons and argue that the Nation ought to go to war in Iraq, using someone else's words? As Rae rightly pointed out when a leader is making such an argument it is incumbent upon him to find his own words or the words of his own Nation, not those of the Bush coalition.
Bob Rae and the Liberals were correct to point this out.
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:55:58 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 14:55
64 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
fortescue
I must have missed an interesting night on the blog!!
MBAGS=Banned
Rsharp=Banned
TPQ=Banned
Do they still get to vote!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:28:26 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 15:28
11 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
HoldenCaulfield
Although I am not a polling expert please allow me to add my very unscientific musings to this thread. I would not give up on the Liberal brand in this election and this is why.
Although the Liberals are hovering around 26 percent, the Conservatives seem to be stuck in the high 30’s. I predict that the Conservatives National numbers are artificially inflated because of their adoring fans in the oil patch. Their dumber than dumb comments last week about culture, combined with their get tough on Youth Crime tripe works well out in oil country but it has cost them dearly in Quebec, where they had hoped to make gains.
The conservatives ongoing gaffes will cost them in Quebec and the Bloc will benefit.
If they cannot contain their members or if anyone cares to use their memory and remember who makes up the new Conservative Party, then they may lose some votes in urban Ontario on issues of intolerance towards minorities.
In Eastern Canada, the Liberals are doing better, I’m sure helped by Premier Danny Williams and his Progressive Conservative Cabinet who have declared war on the Federal (Reform) Conservatives.
My guess is that the Conservatives will not win a Majority. I think they will win another Minority but no Majority. I also predict that as we get closer to October 14th and it becomes clearer that they will not win a Majority that Harper will have more and more trouble containing the vocal and large redneck fringe in this party that has gotten him into hot water in the past.
Before this election is over, someone just may remember that Stephen Harper was the guy who said that Alberta ought to build firewalls around itself to protect it from the rest of Canada, which he described as content to be a “second tier socialistic-country”
Holden
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:30:55 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 15:30
48 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp1
Listen to this. It's a hoot.
http://www.236.com/blog/w/lee_camp/mccains_voice_mail_to_palin_le_8644.php
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:17:18 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 17:17
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp1
And this.
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:19:02 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 17:19
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Van Centre
"he first night of tracking since the plagiarism issue hit the campaign shows no initial significant impact on Conservative ballot support."
I'm curious why, every day, you attempt to causally relate some minor campaign issue with movements in the tracking poll. How many Canadians actually follow the campaign that closely? Very few, I expect.
Polls aren't going up and down because Stephane Dion went to Prince George and not Prince Rupert; because Jack wore a green tie instead of an orange one. In fact, the polls are barely moving at all.
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:22:44 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 17:22
12 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp1
Far as I can tell I was suspended for this:
Informed1, good advice. I confess to periodic lapses but I keep trying to stay civil. Criticize what is said, not the person saying it. And, when it comes to name-calling, there is a big difference between our fellow bloggers and public figures.
Mr. Harper is mean, vindictive, untrustworthy, small-minded, ideologically crazed, snide, uncaring, obnoxious, arbitrary, all-controlling, incompetent, managerially-challenged, pro-American (no matter), anti-Muslim, pro-business, anti-government, anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-labour, anti-women......
"But I have no doubt he's a good father. There, I just crossed the line. His private life is his business but, when it comes to Harper's public record, including his record as head of the extreme RW National Citizens Coalition and plaigarized speeches he made years ago supporting Bush's insane Iraq war, all bets are off. I will express my opinions and that includes categorizing/labelling, aka name-calling."
This is called sarcasm. What is disagreeable about that? Even if it is, what is not true? Even if it's not true, in light of my posts (go see), does it warrant a suspension? The humiliation is too much.
k. I can take that. What offends me is the censorship.
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:34:50 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 17:34
11 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp1
Debating points:
Mr. Harper will you get us into war against faraway countries with the Americans whenever they decide it's time?
Or will you return Canada to its 50-year tradition of peacekeeping.?
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:59:05 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 17:59
30 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hardripples
I'm watching the french debate and find harper's French to be every bit as bad as Dion's english.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:17:41 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 21:17
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp 2 (suspended again)
Sorry to interrupt the debate. But Nik needs to learn about freedom of speech, methinks. Here is my reply to him on why I got busted:
Well, I feel like I've shamed myself. Apparently because I stated that people who pray to idols are freaks. Sorry. Let me repeat it. People who pray to idols who don't talk back are freaks. Ban me again Nik.
Religious freaks in the States have just about ruined this world. There are centuries of ruination before Bush and his evangelical nuts. What do you need, Nik? A road map?
I admire your polling acumen big-time. But don''t tell me what to say.
My goodness, these same people have no qualms about killing people (when making unjust/immoral wars, the death penalty, etc.), I have no problems with Quakers and their like. These people are rteal Christians.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:24:36 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 21:24
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
fortescue
This is a private site, Nik or his moderator rules. There is no free speech. If you want free speech walk out your front door. A blogger has the right to alllow or dissallow any comments he or she chooses. Its call free enterprise and ownership rights.
Bye BYe rsharp2
see you tomorrow rsharp3
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:29:41 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 21:29
HoldenCaulfield
Perhaps that is true, but come on, it is a private site for political debate.
I do have to agree that in a world where hundreds of thousands are killed in an illegal invasion (Iraq) by Bush, in a war that our Prime Minister (Harper) wanted a piece of, quibbling about whether the word "freak" is to harsh is a bit rich.
I think that the Religious Right and their involvement in politics has undermined Democracy in the United States and their growing Influence in Canada mainly through Harper's Conservatives should worry us also.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:48:22 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 21:48
fortescue
I will pray for you all
God bless
[updated Wed Oct 01 22:18:31 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 22:18
HoldenCaulfield
Please don't pray for me, I actually find that very condescending, I have never asked nor will I ever ask for a fundamentalist to pray for me. I assume you are one, because the only people who have ever offered up their piety to me have been fundamentalists.
[updated Wed Oct 01 22:59:29 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 22:59
Foxer
Owner gets to make the rules.
If someone invited you to use their property, you'd still be expected to treat it with respect. You wouldn't borrow someone's home then poop in their living room.
It's wrong to abuse something that belongs to someone else.
He was asked to leave for breaking the rules - and then again. Accept it and move on. This isn't a public site.
[updated Wed Oct 01 23:35:44 -0400 2008]
01 Oct 23:35
MRM
Show some dignity man! Why stay when the owner does not want you here? Sneaking on like this is just, well what's the word I am looking for? Oh yeah it's undignified.
[updated Thu Oct 02 00:51:41 -0400 2008]
02 Oct 00:51
I would say the greater threat to a society is exactly what fanactics or extremists do.
Spread misinformation to support a political idealogy.
When facts get in the way of truth like most fanatics, they attack groups of people for the religious or political beliefs.
A lot of people from the United States and Canada did not support the war from all walks of life including religious and idealogy.
The fact is the Liberal Government has a track record since confederation of sending us to war. To suggest anything else is not the truth.
The fact while in power for the last 2.5 years the CPC have not sent us in any war (fact).
The CPC has spent billions to restore military underfunding under the previous Liberal Government. They provided the men and women with equipment to keep them safer and support to fulfill the UN motion passed by the HOC under the Liberal Majority.
Along with the Liberal Party in the HOC they agreed to end Combat in 2011. Those are the facts.
At any time the Liberals under Dion with the other 2 parties who support immediate withdrawal could have forced a vote to withdraw troops sooner and chose to extend the mission.
Darn these facts keep getting in the way!
I understand why some people can't accept world history as it unfolds, but fortunately they make up a very small part of every society.
[updated Thu Oct 02 10:55:56 -0400 2008]
02 Oct 10:55
Bernie
I disapprove of intemperate language but here I partly agree. The moderator has the option to allow what he/she chooses. But also has the responsibility to treat everyone the same. I have seen the same behaviour from westerner, MRM, foxer (and their aliases)
as well as from yourself, dpq, darryl and others.
I would like to see the same rules applied to all.
[updated Thu Oct 02 09:56:03 -0400 2008]
02 Oct 09:56
MRM
Well Bernie, don't forget to include yourself in that group. Your method of blogging is to only talk to those that agree with you which, as boring as that may be, is of course your choice. That said, in the course of being boring you have the nasty little habit of insulting others through subtle innuendo. Not to mention the constant falsehoods that you keep perpetuating even though you know them not to be true. I also note that you only name those on the right but do not mention any of those on the left who make inappropriate comments. It’s that subtle bias again.
BTW I don't have any aliases (one of your nasty little subtle innuendos). That is your friend parnel’s game, not mine. MRM is all I go by on all the blogs I participate in.
[updated Fri Oct 03 18:44:25 -0400 2008]
03 Oct 18:44
Reg
I have been lurking and reading the various comments since Nik started this board. I guess it is time to add the odd comment.
Just so you know, I am a CPC supporter.
In addition to the other boards that various people have pointed to you might also want to check out the election stock market run by the the Sauder School of Business at UBC (esm.ubc.ca). UBC has run this market on a number of elections now and it is quite accurate. Investors are putting up real money (although a maximum of $1,000 so nobody is buying the market and twisting the results) and it has been quite accurate over the years.
[updated Thu Oct 02 11:29:08 -0400 2008]
02 Oct 11:29
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
Well, the consensus out there seems to be that Harper won the debate, but mostly by default. I doubt the debate shifted a lot of people one way or another, but we'll see. Unfortunately with the debate taking place in the evening we probably will have to wait till tomorrow's polling to see if it had much effect one way or another (and another to see about tonite's debate) but overall i think it's probably going to have minimal effect.
[updated Thu Oct 02 11:40:01 -0400 2008]
02 Oct 11:40
6 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
English Debate Will the Liberal Media air the pre-recorded Dion winning debate newsclips before debate ends?
(Okay just kidding we all know the media is controlled by George Bush and the Hidden Right Wing Agenda.)
Food for thought about the Food Safety in Canada.
Liberal cuts and shift to industry -source (http://www.notaleader.ca/realitycheck/?p=77)
“Ottawa wants to cut the fat from Canada’s food inspection system, Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale said... Agriculture Canada is looking at ways to shift responsibilities to the industry which could in turn lead to privatization of certain inspection procedures, he said… Millions of dollars could be saved under a self-regulatory system, said Goodale.” (“Grits want to pare food-inspection costs,” Times Colonist, Jul 14, 1994)
Budget 1995 “Program Review” resulted in a 21.5 per cent or $445 million baseline cut to the Agriculture budget, which included the Food Production and Inspection Branch. (Budget 1995, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget95/fact/FACT_6e.html)
Dr. Art Olson, Assistant Deputy Minister: “The Food Production and Inspection Branch’s operating budget will be reduced by approximately $70 million over the next three years…This means an overall funding reduction of 1,283 full-time equivalent positions.” (Testimony, Standing Committee on Agriculture, May 16, 1995) http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/Archives/committees351/agfo/evidence/59_95-05-16/agfo59_blk101.html
Budget 1995 also undertook “opportunities for privatization” and states: “The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food will share responsibilities and streamline arrangements with industry for inspection and regulation activities.” (Budget 1995, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget95/fact/FACT_9e.html)
Budget 1996 deepened “Program Review” cuts to a 30.1 per cent or $625 million baseline cut to the Agriculture budget, which included food safety. (Budget 1996, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget96/bp/bp96e.pdf)
Finance Minister Paul Martin: “Surely we can all agree that it is simply silly for a food processing plant to have a federal meat inspector, a federal health inspector, a federal fish inspector, not to mention a provincial health inspector and a provincial food inspector tripping over themselves on the same day, in the same plant, doing essentially the same thing.” (Budget Speech, Mar 6, 1996, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget96/speech/speeche.txt)
Budget 2005 “Expenditure Review” further cut $180 million from the Agriculture Department and cut $69 million from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (Budget 2005, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/booklets/bkexpe.htm)
Anyone care to refute those articles or comments from Goodale,Olson,Martin?
[updated Thu Oct 02 12:29:32 -0400 2008]
02 Oct 12:29
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.