i've seen footage of those training camps in michigan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1dygHcUM4g
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
i would like to see somebody show up at a citizenship ceremony in a spiderman costume, and report back what happens, please.
i suspect that nothing will happen at all.
and, if they insist on it, i would love to see anti-spiderman legislation. that would be great.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2105-full-text-of-rosemary-barton-interview-with-stephen-harper-1.3259045
i suspect that nothing will happen at all.
and, if they insist on it, i would love to see anti-spiderman legislation. that would be great.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2105-full-text-of-rosemary-barton-interview-with-stephen-harper-1.3259045
i think the mainstreet poll shed a little light into this, if you check the full results. this is the mainstreet poll:
conservative: 32
liberal: 24
ndp: 20
undecided: 15
that puts the conservatives in the range that nanos is putting them in (i have no faith in the internet polls), but the liberals and ndp lower. now, if you take into consideration that there is broad consistency that the conservatives are getting almost none of the undecideds, what it really seems to suggest is that that "promiscuous progressive" vote is coming up split in the ivr polls.
i've worked as a telephone interviewer, and i can tell you that it is common to get somebody on the phone, have them say they're undecided, and then have them say "well, i'll probably vote for ...", in which case you have to record that. you can't do that on the ivr. and, yeah, the internet polls may be splitting the difference due to something like this, too.
it may be that the split the ivr is picking up is more accurate in determining how many people are literally undecided, but less accurate in picking up where they're leaning. and, so, the better option may be to take them both seriously.
if you take 10 of that decided and give it to the liberals, and take 5 and give it to the ndp, it's pretty close to the nanos poll. and, you can justify that by pointing out that the mainstreet poll has a much larger sample size.
i wish nanos called more people. but, i do prefer his methodology because that discussion is far better in getting an accurate response. at least ivr is still random, so i'll take it over internet. but, the key may be in interpreting the results literally. and, it may be saying that, in this election, the conservative vote is decided and the ndp/liberal vote isn't.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct6-1.3258683
Mint-Berry Crunch
I guess you forgot that Nanos was most accurate last election.
jessica murray
no, i agree that nanos is the benchmark - not just from last election, but over the last several elections. but, that doesn't mean one can discard the other polling. what you want to do is find a way to make them consistent with each other.
what i'm saying is that nanos may be picking up people that are *leaning* liberal right now, but that are in fact still undecided.
that would mean that the ivr polls are overweighting the conservatives *because* they are properly measuring the undecideds. if you're merely leaning liberal right now, there's no contradiction in telling nanos that you'll probably vote liberal and telling mainstreet that you're undecided.
there's also still two weeks to go. that's half the length of a normal election campaign.
Conned No More
Those 30% are die-hard radical populists. http://www.4data.ca/ottawa/archive/harper/harper-noble-lie.html
jessica murray
i'm not going to read that right now. i've probably read it before. but, yeah. the conservatives don't go under 30% very often. and they've never received less than 27.
Mint-Berry Crunch
Harper thanks you for this predominantly Conservative attitude.
jessica murray
oh, get real. i'm a libertarian socialist.
rather, i might suggest that ignoring the evidence you don't like is rather conservative, in nature.
it's not hard to make the data consistent. live interviewers can get a better handle on where people are leaning, whereas ivr gets a better handle on absolute categories.
so, you can read it consistently by looking at the ivr data as core support and the live phone data as leaning support.
that would mean that nanos is probably the most accurate as to who people would vote for today. but, what the ivr polling is really suggesting is that liberal-leaning voters haven't completely written off the ndp, as of yet
or if you want to give it a liberal spin, think of it like this: it suggests the liberal ceiling right now is somewhere around 40.
conservative: 32
liberal: 24
ndp: 20
undecided: 15
that puts the conservatives in the range that nanos is putting them in (i have no faith in the internet polls), but the liberals and ndp lower. now, if you take into consideration that there is broad consistency that the conservatives are getting almost none of the undecideds, what it really seems to suggest is that that "promiscuous progressive" vote is coming up split in the ivr polls.
i've worked as a telephone interviewer, and i can tell you that it is common to get somebody on the phone, have them say they're undecided, and then have them say "well, i'll probably vote for ...", in which case you have to record that. you can't do that on the ivr. and, yeah, the internet polls may be splitting the difference due to something like this, too.
it may be that the split the ivr is picking up is more accurate in determining how many people are literally undecided, but less accurate in picking up where they're leaning. and, so, the better option may be to take them both seriously.
if you take 10 of that decided and give it to the liberals, and take 5 and give it to the ndp, it's pretty close to the nanos poll. and, you can justify that by pointing out that the mainstreet poll has a much larger sample size.
i wish nanos called more people. but, i do prefer his methodology because that discussion is far better in getting an accurate response. at least ivr is still random, so i'll take it over internet. but, the key may be in interpreting the results literally. and, it may be saying that, in this election, the conservative vote is decided and the ndp/liberal vote isn't.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct6-1.3258683
Mint-Berry Crunch
I guess you forgot that Nanos was most accurate last election.
jessica murray
no, i agree that nanos is the benchmark - not just from last election, but over the last several elections. but, that doesn't mean one can discard the other polling. what you want to do is find a way to make them consistent with each other.
what i'm saying is that nanos may be picking up people that are *leaning* liberal right now, but that are in fact still undecided.
that would mean that the ivr polls are overweighting the conservatives *because* they are properly measuring the undecideds. if you're merely leaning liberal right now, there's no contradiction in telling nanos that you'll probably vote liberal and telling mainstreet that you're undecided.
there's also still two weeks to go. that's half the length of a normal election campaign.
Conned No More
Those 30% are die-hard radical populists. http://www.4data.ca/ottawa/archive/harper/harper-noble-lie.html
jessica murray
i'm not going to read that right now. i've probably read it before. but, yeah. the conservatives don't go under 30% very often. and they've never received less than 27.
Mint-Berry Crunch
Harper thanks you for this predominantly Conservative attitude.
jessica murray
oh, get real. i'm a libertarian socialist.
rather, i might suggest that ignoring the evidence you don't like is rather conservative, in nature.
it's not hard to make the data consistent. live interviewers can get a better handle on where people are leaning, whereas ivr gets a better handle on absolute categories.
so, you can read it consistently by looking at the ivr data as core support and the live phone data as leaning support.
that would mean that nanos is probably the most accurate as to who people would vote for today. but, what the ivr polling is really suggesting is that liberal-leaning voters haven't completely written off the ndp, as of yet
or if you want to give it a liberal spin, think of it like this: it suggests the liberal ceiling right now is somewhere around 40.
a substantial amount of this - green infrastructure, lower pharmaceuticals, agriculture subsidies, and more - may be in contradiction to the tpp. they're taking the logically correct position in pointing out that they need to read it first before they can make a decision, but everybody expects them to sign on to it. so, what takes priority, here? their campaign promises or the trade agreement?
in some cases, this document provides a good groundwork for why these sorts of trade agreements are a breach of sovereignty, in that it articulates a number of points that could be challenged or reversed by foreign investors.
i've said this about the ndp: give me more specifics. give me clear red lines. if the liberals are going to throw out a platform like this on the eve of the signing of an agreement like the tpp, they kind of need to do this, as well.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberal-trudeau-1.3256800
in some cases, this document provides a good groundwork for why these sorts of trade agreements are a breach of sovereignty, in that it articulates a number of points that could be challenged or reversed by foreign investors.
i've said this about the ndp: give me more specifics. give me clear red lines. if the liberals are going to throw out a platform like this on the eve of the signing of an agreement like the tpp, they kind of need to do this, as well.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberal-trudeau-1.3256800
there may be a valid point in here somewhere, except that it's not 1999, it's 2015. i know: the media tends to get confused about this fairly often. except it usually thinks it's 1989, rather than 1999. you know, 1989 was the year the contemporary pop queen was *born* in, right? she even named her recent record after it.
because 1989 is the distant past, shrouded in mystique and mystery. it's back in the olden days, when they didn't even have the internet. how did they catch a taxi?
the polls in ontario are indeed lining up with the last provincial election. but, the liberals have been in power in ontario for the better part of a generation, now. and, stasis in ontario means the liberals have the incumbency advantage, not the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/2015-election-has-parallels-to-1999-ontario-vote-1.3258068
because 1989 is the distant past, shrouded in mystique and mystery. it's back in the olden days, when they didn't even have the internet. how did they catch a taxi?
the polls in ontario are indeed lining up with the last provincial election. but, the liberals have been in power in ontario for the better part of a generation, now. and, stasis in ontario means the liberals have the incumbency advantage, not the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/2015-election-has-parallels-to-1999-ontario-vote-1.3258068
just for clarity: dawkins would never endorse restricting somebody's right to choose to wear or not wear a veil. he might suggest debate. but, he's an oldskool, very literal liberal that would cite mills and something like the harm principle.
as an atheist dawkins reader, i think the caricature is badly misinformed.
the caricature is perhaps accurate if you replace dawkins with sam harris, who, unlike the very reasonable dawkins, very much deserves your wrath.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/10/islamophobia-niqab-and-dog-whistle-racism-canadian-election
Gn
Sam Harris is not even a true atheist, but speaks for non-deist spirituality. No one who thinks and discusses "deserves" anybody's wrath.
deathtokoalas
well.
when these debates come up, a lot of lofty accusations get thrown around. dawkins is not a racist, he just has no patience for nonsense. harris has, i think, crossed some lines repeatedly.
in the sense that i think that it is fair game to call sam harris a racist, and purely libellous to suggest it of dawkins, i'm comfortable with suggesting he deserves some wrath.
as an atheist dawkins reader, i think the caricature is badly misinformed.
the caricature is perhaps accurate if you replace dawkins with sam harris, who, unlike the very reasonable dawkins, very much deserves your wrath.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/10/islamophobia-niqab-and-dog-whistle-racism-canadian-election
Gn
Sam Harris is not even a true atheist, but speaks for non-deist spirituality. No one who thinks and discusses "deserves" anybody's wrath.
deathtokoalas
well.
when these debates come up, a lot of lofty accusations get thrown around. dawkins is not a racist, he just has no patience for nonsense. harris has, i think, crossed some lines repeatedly.
in the sense that i think that it is fair game to call sam harris a racist, and purely libellous to suggest it of dawkins, i'm comfortable with suggesting he deserves some wrath.
you have to understand the canadian spectrum a little, first. the conservatives are somewhere between rinos and right-wing democrats; they're to the left of the democrats on a lot of issues. the liberals are somewhere closer to the green party. and, there's a "new democratic party" that has historically been further to the left but, in this election, has tried to plonk itself somewhere in between the liberals and the conservatives. so, they support decriminalization first, and then a panel to study the issue [which sounds like legalization, but, then, why not just say that?].
what that means is that the liberals command what you could call the canadian equivalent of the tipper gore vote, and that they have to present the issue in a certain way.
of course, they're right, though. the status quo in canada is de facto decriminalization. regulation will certainly make it harder for kids under 18 in most places - this is ultimately a province-by-province issue once the federal law is abolished - to get access, and who argues that this isn't positive? i mean, you can work in a grey area down to 16, but who is in favour of 14 year-olds smoking pot? yet, is that not the average age of first toke?
the media is downplaying the issue. but, i suspect it's a bigger vote driver than is being reported, even if people don't want to actually admit it.
but, will it actually happen? it's a first step. the provinces have to step up and implement it. that's going to happen unevenly. but, it's also a populist issue that will likely threaten right-wing provincial governments, and that in itself is a positive.
expect it to happen fairly quickly in british columbia and ontario. the quebec liberals are strange animals, so that's a little less clear, but it's a matter of time. out east, eventually. the prairie provinces may lag a little. the ndp government in alberta may even use it as an excuse to prove they're not really left-wing. but, you get the point: it's a lot of haggling at the provincial level, after the federal law comes down. which, i guess, is the opposite of the way it's being done in the united states.
www.theweedblog.com/would-a-liberal-party-election-victory-lead-to-marijuana-legalization-in-canada/
what that means is that the liberals command what you could call the canadian equivalent of the tipper gore vote, and that they have to present the issue in a certain way.
of course, they're right, though. the status quo in canada is de facto decriminalization. regulation will certainly make it harder for kids under 18 in most places - this is ultimately a province-by-province issue once the federal law is abolished - to get access, and who argues that this isn't positive? i mean, you can work in a grey area down to 16, but who is in favour of 14 year-olds smoking pot? yet, is that not the average age of first toke?
the media is downplaying the issue. but, i suspect it's a bigger vote driver than is being reported, even if people don't want to actually admit it.
but, will it actually happen? it's a first step. the provinces have to step up and implement it. that's going to happen unevenly. but, it's also a populist issue that will likely threaten right-wing provincial governments, and that in itself is a positive.
expect it to happen fairly quickly in british columbia and ontario. the quebec liberals are strange animals, so that's a little less clear, but it's a matter of time. out east, eventually. the prairie provinces may lag a little. the ndp government in alberta may even use it as an excuse to prove they're not really left-wing. but, you get the point: it's a lot of haggling at the provincial level, after the federal law comes down. which, i guess, is the opposite of the way it's being done in the united states.
www.theweedblog.com/would-a-liberal-party-election-victory-lead-to-marijuana-legalization-in-canada/
just another note on the polls...
nanos has the liberals at 35%, and the conservatives at 31% on his three-day rolling averages. a mainstreet poll was released today with the conservatives at 38% and the liberals at 29%. they both have the ndp in distant third. these differences are well outside of the margins of error. how is this possible?
if you were naive, you might point to mainstreet having the larger sample size, but that's what margins of error are for. the larger sample size means there's a smaller margin. it's not enough to explain drastically different results that are outside the margins.
the first thing i noticed was that nanos is not undersampling young people. this is a change that some of the polling firms are doing to compensate for not getting the bc election right a few years ago; they've concluded that weighting young people relative to the census is flawed because young people are less likely to vote. the polls that you see with the conservatives above 32-33 are, without exception, overweighting older people on purpose under the assumption that they're more likely to vote. the consensus seems to be to weight 65+ at 40%, 50-65 at 30%, 35-50 at 20% and 18-35 at 10%, +/- a bit. that's obviously not "relative to the census" as claimed, but rather relative to a guess as to how likely they are to vote. it's blatant data manipulation. but, it's hard for me to get on them too hard about it, because i fully realize that it might actually be right.
at the least, this should be understood.
but, i noticed that the mainstreet polling also had the conservatives ahead almost 2:1 with people under 35, which is pretty weird. reweighting would not create consistency. it's not just that, there's something else.
if you look carefully, you see that something else: the mainstreet poll also had undecideds at around 20%, whereas nanos has them around 10%. if you look at the actual numbers, they have the conservatives at 32%, which is more consistent. but, that also takes the liberals down to 24% and the ndp down to 20%. consistency is then possible to create by disproportionately distributing the undecideds to the liberals, and giving the rest to the ndp. multiple polls have suggested that the conservatives are getting almost none of the undecided vote, so that does seem consistent, if somewhat creative.
but, why is mainstreet picking up this huge number of undecideds and nanos picking up huge numbers of liberal voters, and lesser numbers of ndp voters?
it may come down to the question. mainstreet may be deciding to file weak support under undecided, while nanos is deciding to file it as leaning.
it's impossible to say which is more accurate. but, it may suggest that the ndp is still under consideration by a large number of people that are claiming they'll vote liberal.
at least, they can both be right that way. and, these are both reliable firms, so it's hard to come to the conclusion that one or the other is so drastically wrong.
if that analysis is correct, it would mean that the greater sample size is useful at zeroing in on conservative support locally (so, they had them at 36% in ontario, whereas nanos has them at 32, and that is in the nanos margin), but not as useful in determining liberal or ndp support locally, due to the larger number of undecideds - with the caveat that the nanos data seems to suggest that this undecided is currently leaning disproportionately liberal.
or, you could look at it the other way - that it's useful in determining core liberal and ndp support, and useful in measuring the size of the swing that exists between them, which is quite large across the board.
that would have the effect of skewing conservative support upwards, and it would give the ndp a little hope that they're not totally out of it.
hopefully, that undecided comes down a little in their next set of polls. because a larger sample size really ought to be more useful, not less useful. but, factoring in such a large level of undecideds may very well be a more accurate reading, for the moment, too.
nanos has the liberals at 35%, and the conservatives at 31% on his three-day rolling averages. a mainstreet poll was released today with the conservatives at 38% and the liberals at 29%. they both have the ndp in distant third. these differences are well outside of the margins of error. how is this possible?
if you were naive, you might point to mainstreet having the larger sample size, but that's what margins of error are for. the larger sample size means there's a smaller margin. it's not enough to explain drastically different results that are outside the margins.
the first thing i noticed was that nanos is not undersampling young people. this is a change that some of the polling firms are doing to compensate for not getting the bc election right a few years ago; they've concluded that weighting young people relative to the census is flawed because young people are less likely to vote. the polls that you see with the conservatives above 32-33 are, without exception, overweighting older people on purpose under the assumption that they're more likely to vote. the consensus seems to be to weight 65+ at 40%, 50-65 at 30%, 35-50 at 20% and 18-35 at 10%, +/- a bit. that's obviously not "relative to the census" as claimed, but rather relative to a guess as to how likely they are to vote. it's blatant data manipulation. but, it's hard for me to get on them too hard about it, because i fully realize that it might actually be right.
at the least, this should be understood.
but, i noticed that the mainstreet polling also had the conservatives ahead almost 2:1 with people under 35, which is pretty weird. reweighting would not create consistency. it's not just that, there's something else.
if you look carefully, you see that something else: the mainstreet poll also had undecideds at around 20%, whereas nanos has them around 10%. if you look at the actual numbers, they have the conservatives at 32%, which is more consistent. but, that also takes the liberals down to 24% and the ndp down to 20%. consistency is then possible to create by disproportionately distributing the undecideds to the liberals, and giving the rest to the ndp. multiple polls have suggested that the conservatives are getting almost none of the undecided vote, so that does seem consistent, if somewhat creative.
but, why is mainstreet picking up this huge number of undecideds and nanos picking up huge numbers of liberal voters, and lesser numbers of ndp voters?
it may come down to the question. mainstreet may be deciding to file weak support under undecided, while nanos is deciding to file it as leaning.
it's impossible to say which is more accurate. but, it may suggest that the ndp is still under consideration by a large number of people that are claiming they'll vote liberal.
at least, they can both be right that way. and, these are both reliable firms, so it's hard to come to the conclusion that one or the other is so drastically wrong.
if that analysis is correct, it would mean that the greater sample size is useful at zeroing in on conservative support locally (so, they had them at 36% in ontario, whereas nanos has them at 32, and that is in the nanos margin), but not as useful in determining liberal or ndp support locally, due to the larger number of undecideds - with the caveat that the nanos data seems to suggest that this undecided is currently leaning disproportionately liberal.
or, you could look at it the other way - that it's useful in determining core liberal and ndp support, and useful in measuring the size of the swing that exists between them, which is quite large across the board.
that would have the effect of skewing conservative support upwards, and it would give the ndp a little hope that they're not totally out of it.
hopefully, that undecided comes down a little in their next set of polls. because a larger sample size really ought to be more useful, not less useful. but, factoring in such a large level of undecideds may very well be a more accurate reading, for the moment, too.
that's quebec this morning. but it's misleading.
first, the hijab narrative is nonsense. as you can see, the conservatives seem to wavered up a little at about the same time as that was happening. remember, kids: correlation does not imply causation. it seems to have been a little randomness in the data, nothing more. but, hey, when you have an election like this, the media will jump on anything it possibly can.
so, the hijab thing in quebec is bollocks. there's no trace of it in the polling. if it does show up eventually, it's going to be because the media created it. but for all the problems the country has, we're better than that. more than most of us. almost all of us. so, ignore that. and, fuck the media.
what you don't see there is undecideds. nanos decided not to publish that this morning. but, he published it yesterday and it was roughly twice the national average, around 16%.
what that means is that the place ndp support is going is to "i don't know". nobody is directly benefiting. there's been no swing. rather, what we're seeing is a large pool of apathetic voters that are disenchanted by the ndp's move to the right and now don't like any of the options.
here's the thing: if they choose not to vote at all, if we have record low turnout in quebec, then it's the liberals that benefit because, in quebec, they have the strongest base. for now, anyways. a lot of it is getting older.
but, here's another twist: the media narrative is only likely to worsen voter turnout and increase apathy. and, honestly? i agree. it's depressing. as a ballot question, it's enough to make you want to spoil your ballot.
now, you've got the tpp thrown in - and the fact that everybody except the bloc and greens are in favour of it.
...and a long election...
what this is is a toxic stew leading to voter apathy and increasing disengagement, and that's what the numbers here are really saying: as previous ndp voters tune out altogether, the liberals are closing in.
so, i'd be leaning towards the bloc being the most likely to pick up the voters that have been knocked loose.
but, i think the larger trends signal a drive towards record low voter turnout.
first, the hijab narrative is nonsense. as you can see, the conservatives seem to wavered up a little at about the same time as that was happening. remember, kids: correlation does not imply causation. it seems to have been a little randomness in the data, nothing more. but, hey, when you have an election like this, the media will jump on anything it possibly can.
so, the hijab thing in quebec is bollocks. there's no trace of it in the polling. if it does show up eventually, it's going to be because the media created it. but for all the problems the country has, we're better than that. more than most of us. almost all of us. so, ignore that. and, fuck the media.
what you don't see there is undecideds. nanos decided not to publish that this morning. but, he published it yesterday and it was roughly twice the national average, around 16%.
what that means is that the place ndp support is going is to "i don't know". nobody is directly benefiting. there's been no swing. rather, what we're seeing is a large pool of apathetic voters that are disenchanted by the ndp's move to the right and now don't like any of the options.
here's the thing: if they choose not to vote at all, if we have record low turnout in quebec, then it's the liberals that benefit because, in quebec, they have the strongest base. for now, anyways. a lot of it is getting older.
but, here's another twist: the media narrative is only likely to worsen voter turnout and increase apathy. and, honestly? i agree. it's depressing. as a ballot question, it's enough to make you want to spoil your ballot.
now, you've got the tpp thrown in - and the fact that everybody except the bloc and greens are in favour of it.
...and a long election...
what this is is a toxic stew leading to voter apathy and increasing disengagement, and that's what the numbers here are really saying: as previous ndp voters tune out altogether, the liberals are closing in.
so, i'd be leaning towards the bloc being the most likely to pick up the voters that have been knocked loose.
but, i think the larger trends signal a drive towards record low voter turnout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)