Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Pre-election peaks and doldrums, or, a lesson for Alf (UPDATED)

by Paul Wells on Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:56pm - 0 Comments

I’m mostly going to leave readers to draw their own conclusions about the latest epistle from Liberal Party president Alf Apps. His analyses of the press gallery and of his party’s leader constitute fair comment. But I admit I’m flummoxed that a Liberal official is still poring over polling data from between elections to seek comfort.

Here’s a secret about elections: they don’t happen between elections. Elections are almost always simultaneous with elections. So one thing people who are interested in politics — journalists, presidents of major political parties — should do is pay some attention to the way voter behaviour on election days compares to voters’ predictions of  their own behaviour when elections are distant and hypothetical.

To help, I’ve swiped a chart from the estimable Nanos Research, which shows party-support trends since 2002. (Pause.) Ok, for whatever reason, WordPress doesn’t want to insert the chart in this post, so just click on this link to load your own .pdf: Nanos trend

Now, just about the most reliable trend in the chart is that every time there’s been an election, Conservative support has jumped smartly upward while Liberal support declined as sharply. You see it happen in 2004, when what looked like a Liberal rout of the Conservatives turned into the loss of the Liberal majority. (Memory plays tricks. It was not at all clear, on the day Paul Martin dropped the writ, that his majority was even in danger, and when Jean Lapierre said several days into the campaign that he expected a Liberal minority, it was covered as a big gaffe.) You see it again in 2006, and you see it most spectacularly in 2008. But you also see it in the autumn of 2009, after Michael Ignatieff announced that Stephen Harper’s “time was up” and we seemed to be headed for an election.

As a rule of thumb, the Harper-era Conservative writ-period bounce seems to be about five percentage points or a little more. The Liberal writ-period decline is comparable. Which means if the two parties are tied in voter support on the day a campaign begins, the Liberals should, as a rule of thumb, expect to be 10 points behind when people actually vote. Right now the two parties are not tied.

Of course history isn’t fate. There will be elections where the Conservatives don’t benefit from a 10-point swing during the writ period. But if you’re writing an 18-page memo about polls sometime soon you might want to mention this very robust trend.

UPDATE, Sunday: Many commentators say three data points (2004, 2006, 2008) is a flimsy data set. Quite true. Here are two more. The 13th link from the bottom (“Update on the Federal Political Landscape”) from a list of old Ekos polls shows you an Ekos/Torstar poll from 2002; like Nanos, Ekos gives a longish time series of its party-preference polling. What kind of jumps out is that the two lowest troughs in Liberal support since the late 1990s are the two moments when Canadians actually voted: the 1997 election and the 2000 election. If anything, the combined swing illustrated by Liberal declines and PC/Reform/Alliance gains is more than 10 points.

So that’s five federal elections in a row, 1997 to 2008, where the trend is for the Liberals to bottom out and the (assorted conservative, then Conservative Party) opponent to have better results than recent polls had indicated. Note that this isn’t about “governments” dipping while “oppositions” gain: conservative parties posted writ-period gains against the Liberals without regard to which of them was in power.

I’m told this pattern goes back decades. I’m looking for confirmation.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

    I would like to see if the trend holds back to the 60's and 70's, the alleged hey dey of the Big Red Machine. If it does then you have a structural undercounting of "conservative" voters in opinion polls vs actual election results.

    That would mean the cons running at 35 in before election poll would indicate a 40% (and likely majority) in the election. Be curious if this also shows up in the UK and in Canadian provincial politics as well.

  • Gaunilon

    "So that’s five federal elections in a row, 1997 to 2008, where the trend is for the Liberals to bottom out and the (assorted conservative, then Conservative Party) opponent to have better results than recent polls had indicated. "

    There's an old saying: if you're not a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative in your forties, you have no brain.

    Leaving aside the ambiguity in the terms "liberal" and "conservative", this suggests a theory to explain the phenomenon Wells notes.

    Polls sample the entire population, whereas older voters tend to be more consistent about voting than younger ones. Therefore if the above saying reflects reality to some degree, liberal parties will see a drop at the ballot box relative to polling, while conservative parties can be expected to gain.

    One way to test this hypothesis would be to check whether older voters were indeed more likely to vote for the Conservatives than younger voters in all the electoral contests cited above. Does anyone have data on this?

    An alternative (but similar) hypothesis is that citizens who take more seriously the responsibility of voting tend to vote Conservative – this also would lead to a Conservative bounce at the ballot box relative to prior polls which sample everyone indiscriminately.

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

      In the US, the Rasmussen polls always show Obama approval to be lower than other polls. This is because Rasmussen measures likely voters (probably according to various factors including age), while the others measure either registered voters or all Americans. So that is proof right there.

    • jdude

      First of all Churchill's quote relates to the "old" or "original version" of liberalism and conservatism so you miss the mark right off the bat.

      Second, I find it amazing that few, if any, in the journalism world mentioned the fact that the CPC is not ideologically conservative (either traditional or "newer" conservatism). What they govern with is debatable to say the least, but their record is "conservatively weak". The Liberals and CPC really don't differ in practical terms, they both defend much of the social institutions that exist in Canada and this won't change if they wish to attract Quebec/Ontario voters.

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

    One further point: if the first hypothesis above is true, then polls could be made to more accurately reflect the electoral outcome if they weight the responses by age.

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

    Perhaps one reason for the bias towards the conservative parties in elections is that conservative parties have been more successful in GOTV (get out the vote) efforts. This may be especially true since younger voters tend to support parties at the more liberal end of the spectrum.

    • matt

      In circumstances where we're looking at either Reform/CA/PC performance, or a very new CPC, I'm not sure there was enough local organisation to establish a GOTV edge.

      • TwoYen

        I acknlowledge your point that the CPC had to make extra efforts to get out the vote in the past few years while it was consolidating the various factions into one party. On the other hand this may have been offset by the enthusiasm of their supporters vs. the distinct lack of enthusiasm in the Liberal camps in the 2004/2006/2008 elections. If Ignatieff fails to inspire his troops, the Liberals will once again have problems in getting out the Liberal vote. What really hurt the Liberals in the last election was Liberals staying home. In other words, supporters who sit at home don't help much, no matter what they tell the pollster.

        Leaders like Trudeau, Diefenbaker, and Obama were so successful because their charisma helped to get workers on the streets getting out the vote.

        With due respect, Ignatieff is not in the same league.

        Perhaps Harper isn't either, but his supporters are committed to seeing the CPC win against the alternative.

  • Pulsetaker

    In the last two Ontario elections, the Tories have lost ground during the campaign and the Liberals (and to some extent the NDP) have gained ground.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

      I'd chalk that up to Ernie Eves and John Tory, two of the worst sons of guns who've ever led the Ontario PCs.

      And McGuinty was given a second shot at it, after 1999. A thought for the federal Grits: give your people time to learn on the job…

  • Phil King

    What's that saying again? There are lies, damned lies and statistics?

    Believe it or not, Paul Wells can be correct here and still his point doesn't have any real meaning, because he's merely picking a point on the timeline and referencing everything to that.

    For example, using the polling averages instead of the peak for say 2006 shows that the Liberals performed best on voting day, with 110% of their polling average. The Conservatives had 98% of their polling average, the NDP 95%, the Bloc 93%, and the Greens 82%. You might be noticing a trend.
    http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

    So what to make of that then?

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

      That's very good. I think Apps is even worse in his memo, since he picks historic lows from the past rather than looking at trends (and doesn't correct for the inclusion of DKs in past polls). If you look at the trends for the Liberals in the past and since Martin assumed the leadership, you get a good sense of the trouble they're in – it's not just how low they are today, it's how long they've been this low.

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

      All points are arbitrary….but some arbitrary points have meaning. So looking at what the polls are when or just before the writ drops would be a useful comparison point since that is a description of "the ground" that the parties would have leading into that decision. The polls in the immeadiate lead up showing this persistent pattern are interesting. They should in theory show error on both sides when compared to the real result (which is what they are trying to estimate) over time. That they appear to show a consistent pattern…..one should really check amongst different pollsters…..should indicate that "something" is going on. It isnt an arbitrary point, in that any other point would do…..

    • Bob Smith

      Phil,

      Of course, based on the threehundredeight.blogspot data you'll also recognize that in 2008, the Tories overperformed and the Liberals underperformed.

      In any event, Paul's point is still a good one. We're not looking at polls taken a week before an election date (because an election isn't a week away), which is what Eric at 308 did (see his July 15th post). So if we want to know the implications of today's polls for a future election, you should look at other pre-election polling, which is what Paul did.

  • Phil King

    Obviously when considering the potential outcomes of elections, there is a matrix of factors that play off one another to produce the result.

    Trends are all well and good, but no one ever seems to predict when they change, and change they do.

    When you look at the past few decades, there have been a number of PMs that looked good going in but came out asking WTF? LOL

  • Orson Bean

    I almost winced when I was reading some of the stuff that Apps wrote, especially when he was trying to argue that Iggy is just a regular, beer-swilling hoser, etc. Yeah, Alf, whatever. Yet I don't disagree with Apps on 2 key things: (1) campaigns matter the most, and I could see the Liberals coming out of a good campaign with a plurality of seats; and (2) I don't think most Canadians are all that negative about Iggy, it's more like he just hasn't made a huge impression one way or the other.

    I guess Apps' letter is really meant as a rally-the-troops thing, so it's no surprise that its "analysis" of the Liberals' current situation ranges from the prosaic to the flimsy. The main thing missing is that he completely fails to address their crippling weakness in vast stretches of rural and Western Canada. That is a huge problem in 2010, when the Liberals can no longer count on Quebec to deliver 60+ seats as they could in the good ole Trudeau days.

  • Phil King

    My own personal feeling is that Harper will be fighting his own reputation far more than the opposition leaders in the next election.

    Meanwhile people obvious expect Ignatieff to face plant, so it wouldn't take much to defy expectations, which does seem to be an important factor for opposition leaders becoming PM.

    Mulroney did it, Chretien did it and yes, Harper did it too.

    The CPC has never recovered its losses from the winter prorogation. I'm actually surprised by this, and suspect it doesn't bode well for their ability to gain a majority.

    Harper has to hope that Ignatieff lives up to expectations. LOL

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

    So bigger implication. If there is a structural undercount, I said if, between a poll and a real result then what other issues are masked in a 10% swing if put to a referendum (an actual vote).

    Can anyone think of an issue that lines up realy closely with party preference? Then imagine the perception of that issue, how it is covered, whether people feel they ar ein the majority or minority position etc, if that issue were changed 5% to the "conservative" position and 5% off the "non-conservative" position……

    Oh Wells, what a tangled web you weave.

  • Observant

    BTW … did you know that Ignatieff has a British passport thus making him a British citizen ..???

    After living in Britain for 3 decades and no plans to ever return to Canada, it would only make sense to convert to British citizenship … after all he was paying taxes to Britain and he certainly must have used the British Health Services .. as a British citizen. Besides the rest of his family and second wife are British citizens.

    So on his return to Canada, Iggy became a born-again Canadian … so obvious.

  • hosertohoosier

    As I mentioned, my hypothesis regarding the Tory poll bounce is one involving "battlers". ie. male, less educated, working class voters are both, not likely to be highly politically active, and hold a number of small "c" conservative values. I posit that these people tend not to show up in pre-election polls, but tune and express preferences in only when there is an election on.

    One alternate case that might shed some light in this regard is Australia. "Battlers" were a core part of John Howard's electoral coalition from 1996-2007. Hence we should see an Australian poll bounce for the National-Liberal coalition as election fever heats up.

    Lets compare Liberal-National support in pre-election polls versus election polls (defined as a period of about a month and a half before elections). All polls are from AC Neilsen. I report the number of polls in brackets, followed by the range, and the average.

    2007
    Pre-election polls (7): 35-41, 38%
    Election polls (6): 39-44, 41.2%
    Bounce: +3.2%

    2004
    Pre-election polls (7): 39-44, 41.43%
    Election polls (5): 46-50, 48.2%
    Bounce: +6.77%

    2001
    Pre-election polls (7): 31-40, 34.86%
    Election polls (5): 45-49, 47%
    Bounce: +12.14%

    1998
    Pre-election polls (8): 34-40, 37.5%
    Election polls (6): 42.17%
    Bounce: +4.67%

    So, whatever is happening in Canada appears to be happening in Australia as well.

  • Observant

    Iggy is going down with his bus … to Quebec … because his handlers discovered he couldn't "communicate" with the "little people" in the RoC … his "english" was too highfalutin …!!!

    Bon Chance … IggyHomme
    http://vincentarsenault.files.wordpress.com/2007/…

  • http://twitter.com/JamesDBowie @JamesDBowie

    What about the 1993 election, when Kim Campbell was dominating national polls before the writ drop – only to be reduced to two seats!

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

    What about the current lack of an upstart party on the right to make the Conservative vote cave in?

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

    That's becasue we were initially very happy Mulroney was gone, but later we decided it wasn't good enough for him to leave on his own, and we had to slam the door on his back.

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

    When you say something akin to "issues don't matter in elections" you can't be surprised when people react negatively.

  • hosertohoosier

    My hypothesis for why this trend occurs is that Conservatives are more likely to decide who to vote for a month in advance, rather than a year in advance. This is due to Conservative strength among working class, low information voters that consider themselves to be "not too political" but hold small "c" conservative values on issues like crime and taxes. During the Tory-Reform split, those voters were much more likely to be in the Reform camp. Indeed, a large part of the Tory decline had to do with these voters defecting. Secondly, to some degree, Campbell had enjoyed a honeymoon effect that was doomed to fail (remember that prior to her winning the leadership the Tories were at something like 14% in the polls).

  • Emily

    Cleverly taking out our first female PM, and a third PC term in the process.

  • Emily

    They don't really. Sound bites, catchy slogans, 5 point plans, BBQs…that's what matters.

  • Mr. Irrelevant

    Fair enough. "This is not the time to discuss this very important thing" is a really bad sound bite.

  • Bob Smith

    Paul,

    The Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opion Policy at WLU has the following chart comparing pre-election polls and election results back to 1962. With two exceptions, 1974 and 1993, the Liberals have done worse than pre-election polls would indicate (often materially worse). It's more of a mixed bag for the conservatives, but they generally either do better than polls indicate or about the same.
    http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/fedblog/?page_id=8

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

    We have a winner. This is really excellent. Two minor caveats:

    - as I've said higher up in the comment chain, the effect I describe is even more stark if you look at polls from shortly (say, a few weeks) before the writ drop, because there's usually a lot of pre-writ tub-thumping and the effects of a campaign have already started to operate before the campaign officially begins.

    - 1993 looks like the really big outlier, but again I think that's due largely to a big pre-writ phenomenon: the Campbellmania of early 1993. My boss once wrote a piece that pointed out that the PCs won the same share of the popular vote — 16% — as their score on the last poll while Mulroney was leader. The Chrétien Liberals benefited from the collapse of the Kim bubble, but so did Reform.

    As for 1974, just a really good campaign, chronicled well by John English in his otherwise uneven new Trudeau bio. So yes, campaigns do matter. Trudeau ran one of the really great campaigns of his life, and picked up all of three points.

  • hosertohoosier

    If you consider the Reform party to be the "conservatives" from 1993-2000, then the Tories gained (or at least lost no support) in every election save 1962 and 1979.

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

    So when do we move to the potential explainations for the persistent undercount of the conservative vote in polls vs the persistent overcount of the Liberal party….and do those conditions hold always and forever…..and if it is such a long term pattern why havent the parties incorporated it into their analysis, or have they?

    BTW great find Bob.

  • Charles

    A much better explanation is that in 1993, the Tories were the incumbents, while from 1993 until 2006, Liberals were the incumbent party. While there is certainly power in incumbency, it also has it's negatives, including (a) everything bad that happens is blamed on you, meaning your poll numbers are going to go down unless you also do some amazing stuff, and (b) the opposition tends to be more energized after a few years, as your supporters become complaisant. (FWIW, I think we should exclude 2008 from the data set for a variety of reasons).

    Anyway, we'll know soon enough whether I'm right or whether there really is a Liberal bias in the polls – if the Libs do better at the next election than polls say going in, then this is a result of incumbency; if they do worse, there is a Liberal bias in the polls.

From Macleans