UPDATED EKOS: Untied! (34.2/30.8/14.8/10.1/39.8*)

by kadyomalley on Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:42am - 125 Comments

Well, compared to last week’s down-to-the-decimal-point photo finish:

Conservatives: 34.2 (+1.6)
Liberals: 30.8 (-1.8)
NDP: 14.8 (-1.7)
Bloc Quebecois 39.8 (+7.5)
Green: 10.1 (+0.2)
Undecided/Ineligible: 14.9 (-0.3)

MoE: 2.01

Raw data tables — no, not the really good stuff, alas — available here, courtesy of CBC.

So, what’s changed? Unfortunately, the regionals don’t tell us much, although ITQ still has to work out the +/-s for those results; despite the many hints she’s not so much dropped as hurled forcefully in their direction, EKOS still doesn’t include the week-to-week differences. There’s nothing that really jumps out at first glance, though, other than Atlantic Canada turning into what could be a very interesting three-way race — the orange bloom is still on the NDP rose according to these numbers — and both the Liberals and the Conservatives dropping in Quebec.

Meanwhile, the weekly bonus question is back — hurray! — and gets a predictable response when it asks whether respondents believe an election should be held this fall, or at a “later time”: 72.1 percent want to hit the snooze button, and only 27.9 percent  – and just 40 percent of Liberal supporters — are keen to go now, now, now!  (Somewhat awesomely, if inexplicably, 20.4 percent of undecided voters agree with them. Hey, why put off that lack of decision?)

On a related note, is anyone else sick to death of hearing about how Hill reporters Canadians don’t want a fall election, because we’re broke and it’s expensive to cover a campaign and the food is awful and the hours are long and it’s boring and waaaaaaaaahh they just don’t, okay? ITQ has to wonder how much our growing horror at the prospect of being herded back onto campaign buses is driving that particular number, as far as public opinion. Not that certain political parties aren’t above taking advantage of that message track if it suits their pre-writ runup, of course. Oh, democracy. It’s not you; it’s us.

Anyway, I’ll update this post with the full regional breakdowns just as soon as the math part of my brain wakes up, but feel free to start the discussion without it.

UPDATED – As promised, full regional breakdowns — after the jump:

British Columbia (MoE 5.73)
Conservatives: 34.9 (-0.4)
Liberals: 31.3 (+6.4)
NDP: 20.9 (-4.6)
Green: 12.9 (-1.4)

Alberta (MoE 6.39)
Conservatives: 56.8 (+1.4)
Liberals: 18.4 (-7.3)
NDP: 14.8 (+4.0)
Green: 10.0 (+1.9)

Saskatchewan/Manitoba (MoE 8.25)
Conservatives: 49.4 (+3.1)
Liberals: 25.9  (+7.3)
NDP :16.2 (-8.3)
Green: 8.5 (-0.6)

Ontario (MoE 3.24)
Conservatives: 38.4 (+5.3)
Liberals: 36.5 (-3.9)
NDP: 13.7 (-1.9)
Green: 11.4 (+0.5)

Quebec (MoE 3.93)
Bloc Quebecois: 39.8 (+5.5)
Liberals: 27.8 (-3.1)
Conservatives: 15.5 (-3.9)
NDP: 9.8 (-)
Green: 7.0 (-0.6)

Atlantic Canada (MoE 7.39)
Conservatives: 31.0 (+3.5)
Liberals: 32.2 (-1.9)
NDP: 26.5 (-3.5)
Green: 10.4 (+2.0)

AGGGGHHHH! The Liberals have collapsed in Alberta! MISSION GOVERNMENT-BRING-DOWN-NOW CANCELLED! ABORT! ABORT!

On the other hand, it appears that the anti-Ignatieff virus has been contained by the provincial border, since the good people of both British Columbia and Saskitoba are apparently leaping aboard the Liberal love train, although most appear to be deserters from the NDP. (Take heart, Dippers: Albertans love you four percent more than last week.)

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are creeping upwards in Ontario, mostly at the expense of the Liberals — take that, Dalton McGuinty! — and in Atlantic Canada, although as noted above, according to these numbers, reports of the death of the Orange Wave may have been at least slightly exaggerated.

As for Quebec, it’s — well, Quebec. The only party going anywhere but down is the Bloc Quebecois.

Bookmark and Share
  • Mulletaur

    Strange how Nanos has the undecided going up significantly while Ekos has it about the same.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

    Oh my heavens, are you really suggesting that those stories *aren’t* appearing? Have you ever heard of the National Post? You might want to check it out; I believe they’ve run an average of 97 columns/op-eds every day for the last few weeks about how Canadians don’t want an election, as has every other paper, albeit with slightly less manic fervour. Actually, can you point to a single column, editorial or op-ed that argues *in favour* of a fall election? Also, I believe I’ve seen at least two or three polls on Canadians’ desire — or lack thereof — for an election in the last few weeks, including the one in the poll that inspired this post, and there were a couple done before the House rose as well.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

      I'm talking specifically about news reports, not op-eds or columns. I don't care about bias w.r.t. columnists and op-eds, that is where it belongs. FWIW, that is always what I'm talking about w.r.t. media bias.

      No-one in 2005 was reporting the way they are today. In 2005, reporters couldn't mention "election" in a news story without adding the word "unwanted" in the same sentence. That does not happen anymore. Maybe the editors are the ones that used to add this word back then, or remove it today?

      All I know was that an election was portrayed as an ominous thing in 2005 in news reports, and that whoever triggered it would suffer the wrath of the electorate. It was unmistakable and unforgettable, because I did want one, and the reporting absolutely infuriated me. And it doesn't happen today. The reporting today comes off more as groundwork, to cement the idea of an election early in order to minimize backlash.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

        Okay, in that case, can you point to a news report from 2005 — not a column or op-ed, or editorial — that describes the election as "unwanted" that isn't a direct quote from a politician or party talking head? Actually, if it was so prevalent, why not a sampling? Because I honestly do not remember that at all, although that was such a madness-inducing few weeks in Canadian politics that it's very possible I've blocked it out completely.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

          It's certainly not easy to find now, since Google tends to find more recent stories, but I did stumble across this from Susan Delacourt.
          http://25461.vws.magma.ca/admin/articles/TheStar3…

          "There's been a big temptation to see this unwanted holiday election…"

          And the Canadian Press (story reposted by a blogger here, couldn't find a direct link: http://thinkright1.blogspot.com/2005/09/liberals-…

          The Liberals are leaning against introducing
          confidence measures in the House of Commons this fall that could trigger an
          unwanted federal election, sources said today.

          the Tories would be stuck
          with one of two unattractive options: prop up the government on the eve of an
          election call, or topple the Liberals before Gomery has a chance to report on
          the sponsorship scandal.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

          It's certainly not easy to find now, since Google tends to find more recent stories, but I did stumble across this from Susan Delacourt.
          http://25461.vws.magma.ca/admin/articles/TheStar3…

          "There's been a big temptation to see this unwanted holiday election…"

          And the Canadian Press (story reposted by a blogger here, couldn't find a direct link: http://thinkright1.blogspot.com/2005/09/liberals-…

          The Liberals are leaning against introducing
          confidence measures in the House of Commons this fall that could trigger an
          unwanted federal election, sources said today.

          the Tories would be stuck
          with one of two unattractive options: prop up the government on the eve of an
          election call, or topple the Liberals before Gomery has a chance to report on
          the sponsorship scandal.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis

    We: people who read your blog during the events of late 2008/early 2009.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Well, other than the fact that I'm on the side of those who think a coalition is not anti-democratic — a Parliamentarian, to use Colleague Potter's terms, as opposed to a Democrat. That would apply regardless of the composition of that coalition; it could be the Liberals and the NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc, or any combination that can command a majority in the House of Commons. I would have said the same thing had the GG taken the opposition parties up on their 2004 offer.

      Also, I'm sure you don't realize it, but it comes across as, well, a tiny bit creepy when you suggest that puts me on a 'side' that you and unnamed others 'remember' (although really, it's not like you could forget, since I tend to mention it whenever the issue comes up). It sounds like you're trying to create some sort of us vs. them scenario, when really, Parliamentarians and Democrats can disagree without demonizing the other.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Well, other than the fact that I'm on the side of those who think a coalition is not anti-democratic — a Parliamentarian, to use Colleague Potter's terms, as opposed to a Democrat, I'm not sure what that tells you about my 'side'. That would apply regardless of the composition of that coalition; it could be the Liberals and the NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc, or any combination that can command a majority in the House of Commons. I would have said the same thing had the GG taken the opposition parties up on their 2004 offer.

      Also, I'm sure you don't realize it, but it comes across as, well, a tiny bit creepy when you suggest that puts me on a 'side' that you and unnamed others 'remember' (although really, it's not like you could forget, since I tend to mention it whenever the issue comes up). It sounds like you're trying to create some sort of us vs. them scenario, when really, Parliamentarians and Democrats can disagree without demonizing the other.

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis

        You're certainly more than welcome to find it "creepy" if you like. Although I will point out that you seem to read a lot more into my posts than what I've intended, yet you accuse me of the same, too.

        I made an initial small remark, one which you even seemed to be amused at by using the word "zing".

        You have admitted that you're very eager for an election. And I simply remarked humourously that it looks like you want Harper out, which is what Coalition supporters a year ago wanted, too.

        Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with having these viewpoints. You're more than welcome to disagree with my characterization, which is what you've already done.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

          I'm sorry, but no, I haven't said that I'm "very eager" for an election, I've said that I prefer the prospect of an election to talking about whether or not we're going to have an election. Lesser of two evils and all that. If you meant your comment that I was "eager" to "have another crack at Harper" in a humorous way, and were not, in fact, suggesting that I'm biased, I apologize for misinterpreting you; I'm sure you can understand why, for a journalist, that's about as funny as being jokingly accused of plagiarism.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

    Does anyone else get the feeling that Iggy has seriously misjudged the mood of the canadian voter, by coming out with both guns blazing at this time. Between you and me any party actively promoting an election at this time, is in dire need of a new advisory staff as well as and whose jusdgement should be serioulsy questioned. Although the reality is that what choice did Iggy have as he would have a revolt on his hands had he tried whipping his MP's into voting in support of the conservatives next confidence motion however this is turning into having a serious problem whipping them into voting at all!

    • Vince Clortho

      No worries, if it is determined to be a suicide mission he will back off…..to no ill effect I would say…..this of course assumes the Liberal braintrust is thinking clearly and not engaging in magical scenarios like last time.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    When Harper called his illegal election last fall because he couldn't play well in the sandbox – 70% of Canadians didn't want an election. They never do.

    It's takes what, about 10 minutes to go to your local school and vote? What a burden eh?

    Ask the folks in Afghanistan about democracy and voting – they are the ones who should be upset – not us

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

      Can you prove the election was illegal?

      Just like how Liberals did not care about Omar captured at 15 in 2002 for four years. They sent RCMP/CSIS to assist in the interrogation.

      or how the Liberals allowed 18,000 litres to leak from Chalk River facility in 1991, the Liberal boondoggle Maple Reactors that were to be commissioned in 2000?

      Need links?

  • PoliticrackJunkie

    *telling the parents

    *to get the kid to do so?

  • Bonnie N

    Kady about all these polls…

    Do we know in the last ten years if Canadians were actually ever demanding an election? Maybe 2006?

    The other thing that bothers me about polls is the qualifier. I mean if a strong percentage of people have no intention of voting whenever an election is called are these polls really accurate?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

    Kady…or perhaps Jonathan…

    Not that I'm complaining about this analysis at all, but why does this poster get to write this giant essay, when I have posts much shorter than this that are rejected for being too long?

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

    Kady…or perhaps Jonathan…

    Not that I'm complaining about this analysis at all, but why does this poster get to write this giant essay, when I have posts much shorter than this that are rejected for being too long, on this very same thread?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

      Actually it is a series of links including 1-2 paragraphs from the links as a teaser.

      This is my first long post and last. I hope the links helps improves the discourse to the facts vs smaller issues.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      It took me a while to figure out a way. First, type out the post you want, then click 'submit'. The message will come up saying 'too long'. Cut enough paragraphs out to make it an acceptable size, then submit that. Hit 'edit', paste in what you just cut out, and then 'save'. I feel Intense shame when I do it, though.

From Macleans