- Sometimes horse races are races between horses

Posted: 10:38 AM on March 1, 2011 Globe and Mail
Crunching Numbers, From pre-writ polls to election day, history is not on Ignatieff’s side, Éric Grenier, Globe and Mail, Feb. 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/from-pre-writ-polls-to-election-day-history-is-not-on-ignatieffs-side/article1922972/

9:30am, PST, 1 Mar.'11, submitted to:
http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2011/02/from-pre-writ-polls-to-election-day.html

I don't agree with this analysis.

You can* simply look at the numbers in past elections and pre-elections to say the odds of a dramatic change are such-and-such.

Polls, and elections results, are an expression of the underlying general circumstance impacted by significant events and leadership (sometimes a particular 'policy' has a significant impact, like the Ontario PC's in their last election, but I would attribute that to personalities and leadership)

Polls, and their fluctuations, before an election are a good illustration of this.

If you look at the elections cited, '84, 93,'06,'08 one need only look at the 'Turner effect' which was accentuated by the 'Mulroney effect', the 'Kim Campbell effect', the sponsorship scandal and the 'Dion effect', which was moderated by the chilling 'Harper effect' (in other words, if the Con's had had a better leader - i.e., not a right-wing extremist ideologue, they may have obtained that majority).

One need look at what is happening to the numbers in absolute terms as well.

E.g., is the swing due to more voters going towards a party or going away from a party. In the last election there were 800,000 - 900,000 less people voting Liberal, this fits in with 'leadership effect'. The same thing occurred in the recent by-election in Vaughan, Liberals had 10,000 less people voting for them whereas the Con's had approx the same number, hence Liberals lost and Con's won. Voter turn-out was key in the Vaughan by-election and that is the real indicator as far as I am concerned.

So, for one thing, if a party's number are down in the pre-election polls, there are significant fluctuations in the polls and a large undecided. Then, if it is due to leadership, perhaps during an election people, getting to know that leader better, decide that they are so bad after all. This is, of course, what the Con's hoped for Harper in previous elections (and the upcoming as well) and what the Liberals are hoping for Ignatieff.

Sometimes horse races are races between horses.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

___

* Posted: 10:46 AM on March 1, 2011 Globe and Mail

In my post: 10:38 AM on March 1, 2011

I wrote:

"You can simply look at the numbers in past elections and pre-elections to say the odds of a dramatic change are such-and-such."

It shoud read "You can ^not simply look at the numbers . . . "

(now that's a real 'Oda'-rian slip)